Saturday, April 19, 2014

In Defense Of An Ordination


   To be quite honest, I don't enjoy getting involved with needless controversy within Traditionalist Catholicism. Remember well the words of Galatians 6:10, "As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith." I especially abhor those with an ax to grind against good clerics. However, times will arise when we must make our Catholic way the best we can with no Magisterium in place during this time of near universal apostasy.

     After putting to rest the unsubstantiated accusations and fallacious reasoning of the boors at the blog Pistrina Liturgica regarding the ordination of Bp.Daniel Dolan, I never thought I would revisit the case of an ordination called into question again. A reader of this blog has recently moved to Cincinnati and wants to attend Immaculate Conception Church run by the Society of St. Pius V (SSPV).  The Church is run by Frs. William Jenkins and Joseph Greenwell. This person does not feel comfortable receiving the sacraments from Fr. Greenwell due to an article written circa 2006 by Fr. Anthony Cekada (for whom I have the greatest respect and admiration). The article, "Bishop Mendez and the 1990 SSPV Ordinations," takes the very serious step of calling into question the validity of the ordination of SSPV Frs. Paul Baumberger and Joseph Greenwell by Bishop Alfred Mendez. I had remarked on another site that I did not believe this to be the case, and the reader of my blog asked if I would write a post explaining my reasons.

   Some preliminary remarks are in order:

  1. I am not a theologian, nor have I ever claimed to be such
  2. I am not beholden to any Traditionalist order or priest, especially those with a "follow me or die" mentality
  3. I'm expressing an opinion which is my own on a matter that is not of Faith, and I would never expect anyone else to hold it because of any authority on my part. I have no authority, and if you agree with me fine, if not, that's OK too.   
  4. I hold no animosity against any of the clerics mentioned herein.
  5. Some remarks which are aimed at Traditionalist priests are not done with malice; we cannot fall into the trap of treating them as those endowed with Magisterial authority--and worse, treat them as above any/all reproach. Many did just that in the 1950s and it enabled the heretics and perverts to take over at the parish level easily with nary a whimper of protest    
  With all that in mind, I do consider the ordinations of Frs. Greenwell and Baumberger to have been valid. I recommend to all reading this to first read Fr.Cekada's article referenced above at www.traditionalmass.org. In this way I need not rehash any background information, but may proceed directly to the crux of the issue.

The arguments of Fr. Cekada boil down to these:
  • There was a change to one of the words of the essential form ("quaesumus") by Bp. Mendez, thereby substantially altering and invalidating the rite
  • There were conflicting reports as to mode of pronunciation, number of times the form was pronounced, the grammatical number, and which ritual book was used.
   The SSPV holds to two opinions which I do not share: the invalidity of the Thuc consecrations, and the necessity of using two hands as the matter of the sacrament in the ordination of priests and consecration of bishops (no, Deo gratias, they have nothing to do with the boors at Pistrina Liturgica). Traditionalist priests and bishops can be quite intransigent when it comes to changing an opinion, admitting an error in judgement, and bickering among themselves. Bp. Kelly, a good and holy bishop, is overly zealous when it comes to the sacraments. He has a misguided notion as to what constitutes a "qualified witness" and the SSPV actually cast doubt on the episcopal consecration of Richard Williamson because they couldn't clearly see on the video if Archbishop Lefebvre placed BOTH hands on his head. (When I asked an SSPV priest, "Even if it was one hand, what about the co-consecrator, Bp. Antonio Castro Mayer? He's not to be found on the tape, and he's supposed to use two hands, right?" He quickly changed the subject).  I mention this because scrupulosity will play a role in the instant case. 

 As to the first argument of Fr. Cekada, the word "quaesumus" (part of the form defined by Pope Pius XII) was pronounced as "quae" "sumus" due to a hypenation that occured because the word began on one line and continued on the next. If the word was made into two words, it changes the meaning of form substantially, thereby invalidating it. Bp. Kelly admits to hearing a separation of syllables in his book The Sacred and the Profane (pgs.210-212, hereinafter SP)

Assuming, ad arguendo, that a separation of syllables was made, does that ipso facto render the sacrament null and void? According to theologians McHugh and Callan, Moral Theology Vol.2, #2655: 


"Rules on the Invalid Use of the matter Form of the Sacraments. (b) Since the matter and form are parts of a single composite sign, it is sacrilegious to invalidate a Sacrament by substantial separations, which destroy
the continuity or unity of signification.There is a substantial separation within the form when such long
intervals occur between the pronunciation of its syllables or words that it is not in common estimation
a united sentence or proposition; for example, if the celebrant says, "Hoc est cor -," then sneezes two or
three times, and (instead of repeating the words) concludes "-pus meum," or says "Hoc est. corpus" and
after an interruption of several minutes (instead of repeating) finishes with: "meum." "

   "Long intervals," it says. The separation of syllables startled Bp.Kelly because by his own admission in  SP, he was "being too careful." Fr. Jenkins, and Bp. Mendez said everything was pronounced correctly. Fr. Zapp had no problem with the ordination for over two years! Apparently, he thought everything was said correctly as well. It reminds me of several clerics who brought up a "problem" with Bp. Dolan's priestly ordination fourteen (yes, that's 14) YEARS after working with him and the "problem" was allegedly apparent from the start! If there was a separation, it appears to have been only slight and therefore not a substantial change. 

 Moreover, according to theologian Jone, Moral Theology, # 446: 

"b) Separations of individual words and syllables  constitutes a substantial change if the interval is
long enough to alter the meaning of the sentence. Thus, the form remains valid if one says" Ego te
baptizo," coughs and then completes the form. Similarly, if one interrupts the form by some
incidental remark, as" Turn the page," "Keep quiet,""This water is too cold." The formula of absolution is
likewise valid if the confessor, after saying: " Ego te absolvo," notices the penitent leaving the
confessional and says: "Come back! Always wait till the priest finishes! -a peccatis tuis." 
The form is invalid if interrupted for several minutes, e.g., after saying: " Hoc est enim corpus,"
one has a coughing spell, after which he should add "meum." If individual syllables are separated a shorter
interruption makes the form at least doubtfully valid; thus, if after saying" Hocest enim cor- " one 
should sneeze several times and then conclude "pus meum." In such cases the word begun should be
repeated. c) In judging whether a form has been altered substantially or only accidentally one must consider
whether the minister acted inadvertently, ie., mispronounced the form by mistake or whether he
intended to give the form a different meaning." (Emphasis mine). 

   Please notice that it is shown, in both of these references, that to render a sacrament invalid or
doubtful the "pause" or "interruption" must be more than just a brief one and according to Jone: "one must
consider whether the minister acted inadvertently,ie., mispronounced the form by mistake or whether he
intended to give the form a different meaning." Is there a doubt that Bishop Mendez didn't have the
intention to ordain? Even Fr. Cekada's own citation to theologian Halligan clearly says, "Substantial alteration may also be risked by faulty articulation or by clipping words through haste. In practice, where a complete word is de facto interrupted through a pause between syllables, it is advisable to repeat the word, unless the interruption is extremely slight." (The Administration of the Sacraments pg. 16; Emphasis mine). The interruption was slight enough that Fr. Zapp had no worries, Fr. Jenkins had no worries, nor the Bishop himself. Bp (then Fr) Kelly did, but this comes from someone who looks though video tapes looking for two handed consecrations. In other words, it disturbed him because he was guilty of scrupulosity. 

    What about the second argument of Fr.Cekada, the various conflicting reports? Since I see no merit to the mispronunciation in the first place, and personally spoke with one of the priests who was there, I'm satisfied that I don't need to reach the merits of the attempts (in my opinion) to save face by the SSPV due to an ordination that was done in private and a mistake (albeit non-invalidating) on the part of those who like to admit none. Maybe there was a third recitation of the form, but I'm satisfied with the first two anyway. This much is known:
  1. The ordination by Bp. Mendez took place; he would know best if the form was singular or plural, and if the form was pronounced correctly
  2. The separation of syllables was slight enough not to worry even a later detractor (Fr. Zapp)
  3. Bp. Kelly is know to be overly zealous, so even the briefest pause would give him concern
  4. Bp. Mendez had the intention to ordain, and this coupled with a brief pause does not constitute a substantial change 
 For the foregoing reasons, I'm satisfied with the validity of the ordinations of Frs. Baumberger and Greenwell. On a personal note, I believe (with no external evidence) that if any of the SSPV clergy had doubts, they would have performed a conditional ordination in secret with Bp. Kelly or Bp. Santay to avoid the scandal of disturbing the peace of mind of the faithful. Also on a personal note, I'm glad Fr. Greenwell is no longer on Long Island. Validity aside, the joke was that if your arrived  five minutes late when he was offering Mass, he'd be at the Last Gospel. One of the bishops should speak to him about the slovenly and rushed way he offers Mass. He also is the ONLY SSPV priest who refused to answer if he used the name of the Antipope in the Canon. "It's MY Mass" was his response. No, Father, the Mass belongs to the Church, in whose name you offer it--in persona Christi ("in the person of Christ" for validity) and in persona Ecclesiae ("in the person of the Church" for efficacy). We faithful have a RIGHT to know if the name of an Antipope is inserted in a Mass we attend. The Mass is not your personal possession. Contrast this with the devotion and love with which Fr. Baumberger offers the Holy Sacrifice and edifies the faithful. 

   To my inquisitive reader,  I suggest you go to Mass without fear of invalidity, but attend with Fr. Jenkins whenever possible. To all Traditionalist priests and faithful out there, let's be more discreet and charitable with each other whenever possible. The real enemy is Bergoglio and his ecumenical Vatican II sect monstrosity. Let's save our energy, whenever possible, so we can better fight him. 

Thursday, April 10, 2014

The Real Walking Dead



 The number one show on television is the drama The Walking Dead. The program is about the "zombie apocalypse." For reasons unknown to the viewer, a disease has broken out infecting the world's inhabitants. Once someone dies, the disease controls the brain, and moves the body in a quest to feed on flesh, living or dead. The show centers on the actions of one group of survivors trying to make their way in the post-apocalyptic world--and make sense as to what has happened. They are lead by former small town sheriff Rick Grimes. Unlike most shows, main characters are routinely killed off, so you never know what to expect. The plot and dialogue, as well as character development, are superior to most of what's out there. I'm a fan myself; it's the only show I watch.

  I bring this up because of an incident that happened this week. Another lawyer I know went on a tirade against belief in God and anything supernatural. His vitriol was such that our exchange started to get heated, and another had to intervene for us to calmly walk away.  Luckily, I don't need to work with Ken, but he is your typical "victim of Vatican II." For a trained lawyer, his research was poor and his argumentation was either weak (at best) and fallacious (at worst).  The Vatican II sect no longer trains the minds of their followers in the things of God. "Draw a picture of what God's love means to you" is the typical Vatican II sect's religious assignment given at one of their schools (now devoid of vocations who teach) and their so-called "CCD" classes. The greatest intellects defending the existence of God today are Protestants (e.g. Dr. William Lane Craig) or even Eastern Orthodox (e.g. Prof. Richard Swinburne).

 Those who believe in the existence of the soul were singled out for ridicule by Ken for not wanting to face the fact that after death we just become "worm food." Until recently, the Novus Bogus service which replaced the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, had eliminated all references to the soul. "The Lord be with you" was met with "And also with you" in place of "your spirit.  Likewise, "Lord, I am not worthy to receive Thee, but only say the word and my soul will be healed" became "Lord, I am not worthy to receive you (sic) but only say the word and I shall be healed." These are but two examples of how Modernists downplay the supernatural. Their "saints" are not more than secular role models, miracles are downgraded or derided as superstitious along with statues, scapulars, holy water, and indulgences. As a matter of fact, Purgatory along with Hell have almost disappeared as "negative theology." Everyone goes to Heaven (just ask Antipope Francis).

 It's become popular in some circles to deny the soul. God will simply sustain your existence somehow in happiness. A few bad characters, like Hitler, will simply be annihilated. Eternal punishment is replaced by a sort of eternal punishing. Many Protestant denominations, breeding grounds for Modernist ideas a long time before Vatican II, have adopted this heretical notion of no soul and no Hell. How many people are aware of the serious practical consequences resulting from a denial of the soul?

 In philosophy of mind, there are two basic positions on how the brain relates to the mind. Physicalism  says that the mind and brain are one and the same. You are your brain. Substance dualism teaches that the mind is distinct from the brain. The brain is the instrumental cause through which the mind (soul) operates, and it survives death. In the first season of The Walking Dead, the final episode has a scientist explaining to Rick's group a video of the inside workings of a live human brain. There are complex webs of what appear as wires and lights flashing around. He then declares that the electrical activity is the real you. When those lights go out, you cease to exist. There is no soul. You are your brain.  

 If physicalism is true, there are some practical consequences, apart from doctrinal ones, that my acquaintance Ken never bothered to consider.

1. Personal Identity. If I were to take a wooden table and replace it, bit by bit, with metal parts, is the final metal table which results the same as the wooden table with which I began my project? The answer would clearly be "no." Humans have all of their cells completely replaced approximately every seven years. Do I maintain a literal, absolute identity throughout the changes? Are my baby pictures of me, or of some "ancestor" of mine? For the substance dualist, the soul is what remains constant throughout our physical changes. For the physicalist, a person is no more than an ancestral chain of successive "selves" which are connected to each other in some way. At each moment a new "self" exists since the body is always losing and gaining cells, and each self resembles the one before it, held together by the passing on of memories. In the 1960s show Star Trek, the transporter would break down the molecules of the persons to "beam down" to a planet. Since there is no soul, the characters were no more than the collection of their cells and memories. Take Mr. Spock apart and put him back together again. If a person suffers from amnesia, they are not really the same person but someone different. Further, why should "I" fear the future? It won't really be me when it arrives. Moral responsibility goes out the window. Why should "I" be held responsible for what another organism did in the past before handing on his memories?

2. Free Will. Simply put, no soul= no free will. If I am matter then my actions are not the result of free choice. They are determined by the laws of chemistry and physics plus boundary conditions. Despite common sense notions of the ability to choose, it is simply an illusion. You had no choice. What does this do to our legal system constructed on the very basis of the notion of free acts? How can anyone praise St. Francis of Assisi or condemn Adolph Hitler? Neither had a choice in what they did.

3. Abortion and Euthanasia. These are a couple of those "small minded rules" Bergoglio says we should not obsess over. Under the idea of no soul it makes sense. We are made in the image and likeness of God. In His image by virtue of an immaterial soul. In His likeness by sanctifying grace. We cannot kill a person who has a soul which makes him special, nor even a body that COULD have a soul (as there were debates as to when the soul is within the unborn baby). With the notion of a soul gone "quality of life" supersedes "sanctity of life." This also ties in with the aforementioned view of some Protestants that there is no soul and the wicked are annihilated. God annihilates the person because his quality of life in a place like Hell  would be horrible. However, God would not annihilate something in His image, so the free will of that person makes eternal quarantine (Hell) and its attendant pains the only (and logical) alternative.

I believe my acquaintance Ken was raised a Vatican II sect member. Not only is he typical of the loss of the True Faith, his lack of knowledge about the things of God results in dire consequences he never even considers. I pray for him and pity him. Like a zombie, the loss of Faith has millions going about with no theological knowledge in their minds and no grace in their souls. They may never (God forbid) come to the life-giving grace of Christ. Bodies with souls devoid of sanctifying grace. The fruit of Vatican II. They are the real "Walking Dead."

 

Wednesday, April 2, 2014

Will "Ecclesiological Dynamite" Blow The Lid Off The SSPX?


 The Society of St Pius X (SSPX) is once more trying to justify their absurd position of recognizing Francis as "pope" and the Vatican II sect as "the Roman Catholic Church" while refusing to submit to them. There was a theological conference at the formerly Catholic Georgetown University on the first year of Antipope Francis' "papacy." The conclusion was reported by The National Catholic (sic) Reporter. (The conclusion of) more than a dozen academics evaluating Francis, one theme was constant: Francis, the experts said, is a complete break from his predecessors, especially Benedict and John Paul II. The report will be in black and my comments in red. 

 How so, you ask? "In the words of Gerard Mannion, a theologian who helped organized (sic) the one-day event centered on Francis' apostolic exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium ("The Joy of the Gospel"): "There is no sugar-coating [it.]"

Calling the exhortation "ecclesiological dynamite," Mannion said "it is difficult for anyone working in fields such as ecclesiology to reach any conclusion other than the simple fact that on so many of the most important issues, there is very, very little substantive continuity with the ecclesial agenda of Pope Francis' predecessors."

This is Modernism at its worst. Wotyla and Ratzinger were heretics. Bergoglio is a complete apostate. He goes so far as to deny an objective moral order.  Pope St. Pius X condemned the proposition of the Modernists: 58. Truth is no more immutable than man himself, since it evolved with him, in him, and through him. Read on. 

The first session, focused on the apostolic exhortation's ecclesiology, or vision of the shape and structure of the global church, brought the most agreement among the experts present.

While they all did not put it in as sharp relief as Mannion, who at one point said Francis "wants to radically change how the church goes about its practice and business," they all agreed the shift in emphasis is real.

"This shift is new and substantial," said Dennis Doyle, a professor of religious studies at the Marianist-run University of Dayton in Ohio, who said Francis is bringing about a new "synthesis" between theological ideas and pastoral practices in the Catholic church.

Doyle said a small but key change you can see in Francis' exhortation is his repeated references to the church as the "People of God" -- the phrase used most frequently during the Second Vatican Council -- rather than the "Mystical Body of Christ," the phrase often preferred by Benedict or John Paul II.


Francis' focus on the "People of God," Doyle said, evinces "a church on a journey ... a church as yet unfinished." It is a church "that includes everyone, not just the clergy and the vowed religious," he said.

There are two important points to note: (1) The Church as "unfinished" and (2) the phrase "the People of God." As to the first, the idea of an unfinished Church should be as alien to the logical Catholic mind as a "married bachelor." According to Pope Leo XIII in Immortale Dei: "This society is made up of men, just as civil society is, and yet is supernatural and spiritual, on account of the end for which it was founded, and of the means by which it aims at attaining that end. Hence, it is distinguished and differs from civil society, and, what is of highest moment, it is a society chartered as of right divine, perfect in its nature and in its title, to possess in itself and by itself, through the will and loving kindness of its Founder, all needful provision for its maintenance and action." (Emphasis mine). 

 As to "People of God" replacing the term "Mystical Body of Christ", theologian Van Noort teaches: "The Roman Catholic Church is not merely the embodiment of the religion of Christ; it is, in a very real sense, the Body of Christ Himself.....This doctrine has been a treasured part of the deposit of faith right from the beginning. It came from the lips of the Master Himself during His earthly ministry." (Dogmatic Theology, II:216). "Feminist theologian" Rosemary Radford Ruether has written about the significance of this change from the "Mystical Body of Christ to the People of God; "Thus the shared baptism of all Christians (including members of non-Catholic churches) became the foundational ground of the church (sic). The ordained hierarchy were situated within the whole People of God as servants of a common mission and call to holiness, [that] they all share, rather than outside and above them as their source." (Emphasis mine). 
Once again from a real theologian (Van Noort): "Members of the Church are all and only those who have received the sacrament of Baptism, and are not separated from unity of the profession of the Faith, or from hierarchical unity." In order to be a member of the Mystical Body of Christ which is identical to the Roman Catholic Church you must be (a) validly baptized, (b) not heretics, (c) not schismatics, and (d) not excommunicated.  The People of God is "Frankenchurch." They "subsist" in the "Church of Christ" according to how many "elements" they possess. The Vatican II sect claims to have all the elements, but to have just some is ok too, and leads to salvation. (See Vatican II's Lumen Gentium). According to Pope Leo XIII, "To hold, therefore, that there is no difference in matters of religion between forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may differ from it in name. Men who really believe in the existence of God must, in order to be consistent with themselves and to avoid absurd conclusions, understand that differing modes of divine worship involving dissimilarity and conflict even on most important points cannot all be equally probable, equally good, and equally acceptable to God." (op. cit. Paragraph #31). 

 Who but the willfully blind cannot see that the Roman Catholic Church is NOT the Vatican II sect, and Bergoglio cannot be pope? Well, the SSPX, "Fr" Z, and the other Vatican II apologists fall into that category. Antipope Francis gives an "encyclical" which his own theologians admit ruptures with the past--not merely pre-Vatican II--but even with notorious heretics Ratzinger and soon to be "saint" Wotyla. The SSPX has just put out an article entitled "Avoiding a False Spirit of Resistance" in which it is written

That being said, can we really consider this authority ("pope" and his so-called bishops) as working for the destruction of the Faith? It would seem more accurate to call it an authority that does not profess the Faith, or does not confess it in its integrity, and that professes truths that are dangerous or even against the Faith. For there is a distinction to be made between an intention to destroy the Faith and a effect that was not directly wished for. It is clear that this loss of the Faith is a consequence of the conciliar doctrine that has been professed for the past 50 years, but can we say that this was and still is the intention of its promoters? If such were the case, these authorities would no longer have the Faith and would no longer be formally Catholic, and to believe this would be implicitly sedevacantist. Absit. (Latin, loosely translated as "God forbid"). 

 Are they for real? They didn't intend all this destruction? They now seem to want to use a weird "Principle of the Double Effect" to exonerate Bergoglio and the Modernists. Yes, they INTEND to preserve their delusion because they won't face the facts. Bergoglio is pushing for a One World Church and is getting there faster than anyone before. If his "ecclesiological dynamite" doesn't knock some Catholic sense in them, the next explosion they hear will be the last remnants of what was once Catholicism collapsing around them as they negotiate with the devil. Absit. 

Wednesday, March 26, 2014

A Flood Of Lies: Hollywood's "Noah"


 On Friday, March 28, 2014, the movie Noah starring Russell Crowe will open in theaters nationwide. I already critiqued the politically correct "Christ" in the movie Son of God (see my post of 3/13/14). However, this movie spews blasphemy after blasphemy under the guise of "artistic license." The movie cost Paramount Pictures $160 million dollars to produce, and will insult God without a word of protest from the Vatican II sect's hierarchy. How many of them will go to see this trash, unaware of what's in store?

 The movie's producer, one Darren Aronofsky, holds to fashionable New Age beliefs. He had this to say about the Biblical Noah:
“I don’t think it’s a very religious story...I think it’s a great fable that’s part of so many different religions and spiritual practices.” –Darren Aronofsky, Variety 2012.
Aronofsky makes good on his claim by taking the religion out and filling it with his occultic and politically left-wing propaganda.

 The movie Noah will use its "artistic licence" to inform us of the following:

  • God didn't destroy the ancient world because of sin, it was overpopulation and a lack of environmentalism that caused the great flood
  • Noah was a dark, evil, drunken ax-wielding murderer
  • Noah threatened to kill his eldest son's wife and her daughter to prevent the re-population of Earth
  • Noah's friend Methuselah was a witch doctor
  • Noah enlisted the aid of demons to help build the Ark.     
 In Aronofsky's own words,    “It’s about environmental apocalypse which is the biggest theme, for me, right now for what’s going on this planet. So I think it’s got these big, big themes that connect with us. Noah was the first environmentalist.” (see http://www.slashfilm.com/interview-darren-aronofsky-part-3/)
Thus, according to the Noah movie, the way to be saved is not though the grace of God when a person has repentant faith, but by doing enough to "save" planet earth and by becoming a good little environmentalist. Indeed, later in the movie, Noah says, “We must change. We must treat the world with mercy so that the Creator will show us mercy…We must respect the ground, respect the rivers and seas. Respect the other beasts of the Earth.” Too bad the truth of the Bible isn't shown any respect. And, of course, the violence and sexual perversion of the day (not unlike the 21st century) which made men so evil and caused God to flood the Earth, is never mentioned once.

Hollywood screenwriter Brian Godawa condemned the Noah script under a post entitled "Darren Aronofsky's Noah: Environmentalist Wacko." Godawa wrote, "If you were expecting a Biblically faithful retelling of the story of the greatest mariner in history and a tale of redemption and obedience to God you'll be sorely disappointed.” (see http://godawa.com/movieblog/darren-aronofskys-noah-environmentalist-wacko/) Consider what actor Russell Crowe who portrayed the movie Noah said about the real Noah:
“The funny thing with people, they consider Noah to be a benevolent figure because he looked after the animals: 'Awww, Noah. Noah and the animals.' It's like, are you kidding me? This is the dude that stood by and watched the entire population of the planet perish. He's not benevolent. He's not even nice. You know what I mean? At one point in the story his son says, 'I thought you were chosen because you were good?' And he goes, 'I was chosen because I can get the job done, mate.' So I think people are gonna be...judging from where their questions come from, I think they're gonna be quite surprised what Noah actually means, what it means to be in that position." (see http://www.etonline.com/movies/134773_Russell_Crowe_Talks_Noah/)
Mr. Crowe should read what God says of Noah: “But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord…. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his time; Noah walked with God” (Genesis 6:8-9). The movie claims it was "God's Will" that Noah's granddaughters should be killed to stop overpopulation from happening again.

Godwa's blog notes:“Most of the last half of the script is a family killer thriller like Sleeping With the Enemy, that asks the dark dramatic movie question ‘will Noah kill the child if it is a girl or not?' Ancient sex-selection infanticide. The woman gives birth to twin girls, and Noah gets all the way up to killing not one but two female infants…. But in the end, he fails. He says to himself, to the Creator, ‘I can’t. I can’t do it. I am sorry. I am so sorry.’ He is just too compassionate to carry out God’s cruel plan. Noah is more loving than God.”  ( see op. cit.)

All this falls right into the hands of the New Atheists who claim that if God did exist He must be evil. Second, it condones the murder of the innocent to "save" mother earth. There are millions of innocent babies who are murdered each year by abortion, yet we hear more about the "unethical treatment of animals." To be certain God does not condone cruelty to animals, but humans are created in His image and likeness; we are not merely evolved primates on the same level with lab rats.

 The million dollar question: "Why aren't the Vatican II clergy protesting?" (At least the ones not in prison).
I guess they're too busy promoting "Sister" Cristina, the 25 year old "singing nun" who claims that performing a suggestive song on a TV show is Bergoglio's idea of "evangelization." Or maybe finding ways of getting adulterers to receive the Novus Bogus cracker (what they refer to as "communion") is consuming all their time. In any case, they are not at all worried that thousands of their followers will be handing over money to a New Age guru who paints God as evil, Noah as a madman, and exhorts us to save the environment by lowering the human population.  I wonder if Aronofsky missed the opportunity to inform the audience that the rainbow was God's approval of sodomite "marriage?" Truly, the days we live in are as dark as those of the Biblical Noah. Pray hard.

Thursday, March 20, 2014

Why Johnny Can't Be Moral


  In 2011, a sexually explicit book, entitled Fifty Shades of Grey, started what has been called "mommy porn." Young women/mothers started reading this trash deemed a "romance" novel which explores the hedonistic escapades of the fictitious character "Christian Grey."  There were two sequels and the series has generated millions of dollars. I couldn't help but notice the alleged protagonist's name---Christian Grey. His first name signifies traditional Catholic Christian morals based on the natural law and God's revelation through His One True Church. There are absolute standards of right and wrong, black and white. When black and white get mixed you have gray also spelled grey.  He's a nominal "Christian" who sees no right and wrong but only shades of gray.

  The "graying of True Christianity" began at Vatican II. With the take-over of Modernism and the Great Apostasy, the Magisterium is gone. In it's place is the Vatican II sect, rife with relativism. They espouse both religious and moral relativism. Religious relativism holds that no one religion or set of beliefs is true. We see this in ecumenism, with Bergoglio telling us "there is no Catholic God," and even atheists can go to Heaven.
Moral relativism, teaches that there exists no one set of absolute, unchanging moral standards. This is what we now see happening with "communion" for the divorced and remarried (i.e. adulterers).

 In the True Church, we know that marriage is indissoluble. If  a spouse leaves you, you must remain celibate as long as he/she lives. Now "Cardinal" Walter Kasper, along with Francis, are trying to figure out imaginative ways to justify "communion" for adulterers while still paying lip service to the indissolubility of marriage. For them, Sts. John Fisher and Thomas Moore gave up their lives needlessly. It began with the false exaltation of "conscience" at Vatican II in the heretical document Gaudium et Spes. In paragraph 16 we read, "In a wonderful manner conscience reveals that law which is fulfilled by love of God and neighbor. In fidelity to conscience, Christians are joined with the rest of men in the search for truth, and for the genuine solution to the numerous problems which arise in the life of individuals from social relationships. Hence the more that a correct conscience holds sway, the more persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and strive to be guided by the objective norms of morality."

  Really? We as Catholics, are "joined to the rest of men" in the "search for truth?" What truth is this? In all likelihood, truth concerning religion and morals. Yet, wouldn't truth have to come from the infallible teaching of the Church? For the sure possession of the truth of Faith and Morals, established over the course of the centuries by the Magisterium, the Council substitutes "inquiry"as a general criterion of some nebulous truth, something indeterminate. However, we know that this conforms to the Zeitgeist, the spirit of the times, which loves "inquiry," experience, novelty, and perpetual motion.

  Pope St. Pius X warned us that Modernism, which begins in agnosticism, and exalts "experience" over the intellect in seeking truth, would destroy the Faith. As a matter of fact, it is leading us to the ultimate rejection of God--atheism. Secular Humanism is the final stop for Modernism. If you break it down, it doesn't seem far-fetched, it actually seems quite close to home.

  Secular Humanism espouses the following tenets:
 1. On Nature: Materialism
(a) Physicalism. The only substance that exists is matter (God, angels, and souls do not exist)
(b) Determinism. Every event has a natural cause. (There are no miracles).
(c) Mechanism. Humanity, including life and mind, is a type of "machine." (People are not unique in any way. Life is here by pure chance).

 Vatican II is completely man-centered. The assembly of people is what matters most; if not exclusively. "Finding 'god' within" is a common theme among Vatican II clergy. When they changed the Mass into an invalid bread and wine service, they removed most references to miracles and the supernatural.

2. On Values: Conventionalism
(a) Subjectivism: Qualities and values are subjective human standards (there is no external, eternal objective morality.
(b) Hedonism: The only ethical standards are pleasure (good) and pain (evil).
(c) Relativism: Standards of conduct vary according to time, place, and individual.

 This is where Bergoglio is headed. "Who am I to judge?" If having your third trophy "wife" feels good, do it, and we'll find the mental gymnastics necessary to make it seem right and objective when it is neither.Remember not to concentrate on "small-minded rules" about abortion, birth control, and sodomy.

3. On Society: Contractualism
(a) Individualism: The atomic individual is the basic political unit.
(b) Social Contract: Government is nothing more than a contract between people based on fear and mistrust of others.
(c) Positive Law: All "rights" and "laws" are man-made rules ever subject to being abolished, embellished, or changed.

 Rights do not come from God, since He does not exist. Society is not here to help us achieve salvation. Worry exclusively on the needs of the poor in the "here and now" because there is no "hereafter."

4.On Cosmology and Meaning: Absurdity
(a) Contingency: All events are pure chance (no ultimate explanations).
(b) Pessimism: The universe is doomed to extinction
(c) Humanism: Man, the center of all things, can face the universe heroically and responsibly with dignity and idealism. (You make your own meaning out of life, in spite of the fact that you know there is no objective meaning and all is doomed to death).

Approximately 40% of Vatican II sect members do not believe in a personal God!! This was published in a book entitled Forming Intentional Disciples: The Path To Knowing and Following Jesus by Sherry Weddell in 2012. People go to church to "find their own way" in a "faith community" that seeks to make everyone feel good.

In 1933, the Humanist Manifesto was signed, outlining these basic tenets. With the Church to fight it, it didn't go very far. In 1973, Humanist Manifesto II was signed, bigger and bolder than before. It stated:

"As in 1933, humanists still believe that traditional theism, especially faith in the prayer-hearing God, assumed to live and care for persons, to hear and understand their prayers, and to be able to do something about them, is an unproved and outmoded faith. Salvationism, based on mere affirmation, still appears as harmful, diverting people with false hopes of heaven hereafter. Reasonable minds look to other means for survival."
And moreover,
"Promises of immortal salvation or fear of eternal damnation are both illusory and harmful. They distract humans from present concerns, from self-actualization, and from rectifying social injustices. Modern science discredits such historic concepts as the "ghost in the machine" and the "separable soul." Rather, science affirms that the human species is an emergence from natural evolutionary forces. As far as we know, the total personality is a function of the biological organism transacting in a social and cultural context. There is no credible evidence that life survives the death of the body. We continue to exist in our progeny and in the way that our lives have influenced others in our culture."

"In the area of sexuality, we believe that intolerant attitudes, often cultivated by orthodox religions and puritanical cultures, unduly repress sexual conduct. The right to birth control, abortion, and divorce should be recognized. While we do not approve of exploitative, denigrating forms of sexual expression, neither do we wish to prohibit, by law or social sanction, sexual behavior between consenting adults. The many varieties of sexual exploration should not in themselves be considered 'evil.' "

With the Church sent underground in 1964, Modernism is moving right along to secular humanism. There was a scathing critique written in 1992 by William Kilpatrick, entitled, Why Johnny Can't Tell Right From Wrong. In it he blames the schools for not giving a firm moral foundation to our youth. Mr. Kilpatrick himself got it wrong. It's not that Johnny can't tell right from wrong, Johnny can't be moral. He's a member of the Vatican II sect that sees nothing wrong with doing what feels good as long as you use your "conscience." He has no grace from the True sacraments and the Holy Sacrifice. He is told to conform to the world and not get tied down with small-minded rules. Worry about people in the here and now. Be "good" and go to Heaven with atheists because it really doesn't matter what, if anything, you believe. 

So now, a majority approve of sodomite "marriages," a woman's "right" to kill her baby, and the list goes on and on. Johnny is "Catholic" in name only, and sees no clear right or wrong in anything religiously or morally. Johnny is Christian Grey. 




Thursday, March 13, 2014

A Politically Correct Christ And Sanitized Satanism


In 2004, Traditionalist actor/director/producer Mel Gibson released his blockbuster hit The Passion of the Christ. On the movie set, a Traditionalist priest offered the Holy Sacrifice every day, making Christ Himself present at the filming. I saw it on opening day with my best friend Ralph, and we sat in front of two men in their twenties, one of whom was an atheist and had been dragged there to see it by his friend. We heard the one man say to the other, "Do you think this will change your mind about religion?" To which the atheist replied, "Not a chance. It'll just p*ss me off even more." When this moving epic was over, everyone in the theater gave a standing ovation--including the atheist sitting behind us! Ralph was watching the reactions of the people as they left. "A truly life changing experience," he said.

 The problem is not all life changing experiences are good ones. Mel Gibson portrayed the Traditionalist Catholic Faith, and caught nothing but derision from the world for doing it. He was charged with Antisemitism because he left in the line recorded in the Bible, "Let His Blood be upon us and our descendants." The world hates Christ because it's under Satan's dominion. If you follow Christ, you'll be hated even as He was hated before you. Mel made a movie a good life changing experience for many. But how many of us are aware that most of what comes out of the entertainment industry is rife with evil and can have a negative influence on us; sometimes subtle and sometimes profound. Any person with even half a brain will realize the trash movies, TV shows, and music that readily glorify sex perversion, drugs, and blaspheme God. Some come as wolves in sheep's clothing.

The movie, Son of God , released just recently is about a politically correct Christ. That's why the Vatican II sect is gushing over it, unlike their attacks on The Passion of the Christ. That should be your first clue something is amiss. Satan will give you 99.9% of the truth as long as he can get you to swallow the 0.1% falsehood. He is, after all, the "father of lies." In this movie you will be subtlety indoctrinated by the following:

1. THE NOT-SO-GREAT COMMISSION 

 In one scene, re-enacting when Christ and Peter put out in the water and Jesus asks Peter to drop his net, an interesting scenario unfolds. Peter tells Him that they came up empty all night, but at His command he will do as He asks. They catch a multitude of fish. An astonished Peter asks Jesus, "What are we going to do?" Christ replies, "Change the world."  Christ came to found His Church and save souls. He told the Apostles they would become "fishers of men" and to "Go ye therefore to all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." This PC "Christ" wants to "change the world' like some super-social worker. No mention of converting people to save souls. Proselytism is nonsense after all, and we wouldn't want to offend the Jews, Moslems, and other non-Catholics.

2. THE THIRTEEN DISCIPLES

In the film, there are 13 disciples, and the thirteenth disciple is a woman named Mary (not the Blessed Mother either). Not only is she always with them, but she’s with them in the boat during the storm when Jesus walks on water; she’s with them when they travel privately, though in the Bible, Jesus pulled aside and taught only The Twelve male Apostles. Mary is also very outspoken and often reproves the Apostles to have more faith as it is very apparent her faith is stronger.


During the crucifixion scene when Jesus is being jeered at by the crowd, Mary defends Jesus and shouts“Leave him be!”  The Apostles are depicted as being timid and unfaithful. At the Resurrection, this Mary is the first (and only woman) to enter the empty tomb. She also accompanies Peter and John who later come to the empty tomb to see for themselves. In the Bible, three women go to the tomb early in the morning and are greeted by angels who remind them that Jesus said He would rise on the third day. In the movie, then she and the disciples remember all this on their own. Why not woman priestesses and give women a "greater role in the Church" despite the clear teachings of Christ?

3.THE "RAISING" OF LAZARUS
 Christ brought His friend back from the dead. He wept. He stood outside the tomb of Lazarus and commanded that he come forth. Lazarus comes out of the tomb still wrapped in burial cloth. In the movie, Christ enters the tomb with Martha (Lazarus' sister) and Jesus seems surprised at his friend's death. He then cradles his head and cries as he quotes Scripture and suggests that he come back to life. Lazarus, Jesus, and Martha come out of the tomb together to cheers. A strong woman with an uncertain "Jesus."


4. PHARISEES ARE GOOD GUYS
The Pharisees did not condemn Christ out of jealousy and hatred, but rather out of concern for the Jews receiving harsh treatment from the Romans. "Woe to them that call evil good, and good evil." (Isaiah 5:20)

5. JUDAS WASN'T UNFAITHFUL
 During the Last Supper, Christ has a vision of being betrayed by Judas.Christ then turns to Judas and asks him to betray Him!! Judas refuses but Christ insists! Peter tries to stop Judas, but Jesus says to let him go. If true, what a mockery of the words of Our Lord about the traitor, " It would be better for him had he never been born." (St. Matthew 26:24). But if Judas had no choice he couldn't be held responsible. I guess Judas goes to Heaven with the atheists, too. Any wonder why the Vatican II sect lauds this movie?

So we have a politically correct version of "Christ" who doesn't really want to save anyone from sin (never mentioned in the movie), so conversion--and even His death--are unnecessary. Ironically, in January a movie about the Antichrist entitled Devil's Due, openly proselytizes for Satanism.

From the official movie website:
 Those who change their religious affiliation on Facebook to "Satanism" will get an exclusive offering. What was it for promoting Devil worship? A 16 second "teaser-clip" of the movie.Can you imagine them offering something if you change your affiliation to "Catholicism" or "Christianity"? Why THAT'S Antisemitic

And a final note..the devil was completely dropped from the Son of God movie, allegedly to focus on "Christ." Interestingly, Hollywood eschews the idea of Satan, unless it's made into some perverse "positive spin." The real reason many think Satan was dropped is because the actor who played him, one Mohamen Mehdi Ouazanni, looks like the Chief Communist-Baby Killer-Sodomite Supporter of the US--Barack Obama! (See pictures at top of post) Further proof they will edit out anything that resembles the Truth!

 At one time, the movies were a nice place to get away from it all and be entertained. Now, if you're not careful, you may be the one entertaining demons unaware.

Saturday, March 8, 2014

Praying To The Damned


The Vatican II sect is about to "canonize" Karol Wotyla (aka "Pope" John Paul II). Given the fact that the pre-Vatican II theologians held canonizations to be infallible, and Wotyla was a manifest heretic (John Paul the Great Apostate), we must conclude that (a) the Church is not infallible, and our Faith is false or (b) the Vatican II sect is not the Catholic Church, but a group of heretics who defected from the Faith and lost their authority as Catholic theologians taught could happen. Lose your Faith in the Church, or find the Church of your Faith in the Traditionalist movement. Simple logic. Unfortunately, the pseudo-Traditionalists of the "recognize and resist" the "pope" crowd (principally the Society of St. Pius X, or SSPX), have a hard time with logic. They have a psychological need to cling to a false "pope"  to the point where they will ignore or twist theological principles to serve that need and avoid facing the painful reality of sedevacantism.

A Fr. Gleize,  professor of ecclesiology at the SSPX seminary in Econe,  has written an article "Santo Subito: Is There a Problem?" in which he attempts to prove that we can decide which canonizations to accept and which to reject. This is perfectly in keeping with the SSPX's grand scheme of picking and choosing what teachings to accept in the name of "Tradition." In answer to Fr. Gleise's query, yes, there's a problem-- and it's the false premises and conclusion of your article. Father's article will be in black and my responses in red. 

I) Admitting Certain Basic Principles

 Fr. Gleize readily admits that canonizations are held to be infallible:
"Canonization is the act by which the Vicar of Christ, judging in ultimate instance and emitting a definitive sentence, inscribes in the catalogue of the saints a servant of God previously beatified. Canonization has a triple finality and does not refer only to the worship. In first instance, the pope declares that the faithful deceased is in the celestial glory; secondly, he expresses that the faithful deceased deserved to reach this glory for having practiced heroic virtues, which set an example for the whole Church; thirdly, so as to offer more easily these virtues as an example and to thank God for having cause it, he prescribes that the faithful deceased should receive a public cult. On these three scores the canonization is a precept and obliges the entire Church, and it constitutes a definitive and irreformable act."

Further, "The common and certain doctrine of the majority of theologians considers canonizations to be infallible. All the treatises published after Vatican Council I (and prior to Vatican II), from Billot to Salaverri, teach it as a common theological doctrine." 

So far, so good.

II) Creating False Premises To Get Past The Basic Principles To Which You Stipulated

Now Father comes up with three premises to get out of facing up to the basic truth that canonizations are infallible declarations declaring the soul of a faithful departed to be in glory, and his virtues worthy of imitation. 

#1--Insufficiency of the procedure

Here, Father claims..."it is clear that, by itself, the procedure does not have the rigor of the older one. It is much less exigent in matters of guarantees from Churchmen, so that the divine assistance may insure the infallibility of the canonization, and, with greater reason, the absence of error of fact in the beatification. Besides, Pope John Paul II decided not to follow the present procedure (which disposes that the beginning of the beatification process not take place before five years after the death of the candidate), by authorizing the introduction of the cause of Mother Teresa of Calcutta three years after her passing away. Benedict XVI did the same regarding the beatification of his predecessor. The doubt becomes much more legitimate when one considers the reasons the Church has to act cautiously in these matters."

He asserts that we are justified to doubt canonizations if a certain procedure is not carried out. However, the Divine assistance of infallibility has never been held by the Church to be dependent upon following a certain preliminary set of actions. He gives no citation for this novel idea. The process of canonization has taken different forms through the centuries, but all that is needed for the declaration to be infallible (according to the First Vatican Council and the teaching of the theologians) is that the pope intends to define a matter of Faith and/or morals as Supreme Teacher of the Church, and he intends to bind the faithful. Decrees of canonization meet this requirement. 


#2---Collegiality 

This is one that leaves you thinking that old adage, "Say what?"


"Until now, we knew the act personally infallible and definitory of the locution ex cathedra, and the decrees of the ecumenical Councils. In the future, we shall have also an act which would be neither personally infallible nor definitory in itself, but the act of the ordinary magisterium of the pope: this act will aim at discerning a doctrine as infallibly taught by the ordinary universal magisterium of the Episcopal college. According to this third mode, the pope acts as a simple interpreter of the collegial magisterium.
Yet, if we look at the new norms promulgated in 1983 by the Apostolic Constitution Divinus Perfectionis Magister of John Paul II, it is clear that, in the precise case of canonization, the pope—according to the needs of collegiality—will exercise his magisterium according to this third mode. If one takes into account both the Apostolic Constitution Divinus Perfectionis Magister of 1983 and the motu proprioAd Tuendam Fidem of 1998, when the pope exercises his personal magisterium to proceed to a canonization, it seems as if his will consists in intervening as an organ of the collegial magisterium. This would suggest that the canonizations are not guaranteed by the personal infallibility of the solemn magisterium of the Sovereign Pontiff.
Will it be guaranteed by the ordinary universal magisterium of the episcopal college? Until now, the entire theological tradition has never said that this was the case; it has always considered the infallibility of canonizations as the fruit of a divine assistance granted strictly to the personal magisterium of the pope, assimilated to the locution ex cathedra.


With this, we hold a second motive which authorizes us to doubt seriously of the infallibility of the canonizations realized in concordance with these postconciliar reforms."

Collegiality is a heresy of Vatican II. That aside, Father claims that (a) the pope is allegedly acting as an "organ of the collegial magisterium" but (b) a canonization can only be held as certainly infallible if the pope acts personally. 

As to (a), see if this decree of canonization for "St" Josemaria Escriva sounds like a definitive definition from the pope on a matter of Faith intended to bind the Faithful:


In honor of the Blessed and Undivided Trinity, for the uplifting of Catholic faith and the increase of Christian life, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and that of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul and our own, after careful deliberation, having called frequently upon God's help, and with the advice of many of our brother Bishops, We declare and define Blessed Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer to be a Saint, and We inscribe his name in the catalogue of the Saints, ordaining that, throughout the universal Church, he be devoutly honored among the Saints. In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

And what We have declared, We desire to be in force both now and in the future, anything to the contrary notwithstanding.

Given at Rome, at Saint Peter's, the sixth day of October, in the two thousand and second year of our Lord, of our Pontificate the twenty-fourth.

I, John Paul
Bishop of the Catholic Church

Certainly sounds that way, doesn't it? But what about objection (b)? "Further, all those things are to be believed with divine and catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment, or by her ordinary and universal Magisterium, proposes for belief as having been Divinely-revealed. " (Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, 1870). It must be definitively held as true if the "college of bishops" decree it as such in union with the pope. That canonizations are not specifically mentioned as subjects of such is entirely irrelevant. 

#3---Change in the Meaning of "Heroic Virtue"

"The change of the object implies a change of the act. This change of perspective is present in the new theology and the postconciliar magisterium. It omits to distinguish between a common and a heroic sanctity, which is what sanctity consists of: even the term “heroic virtue” appears nowhere in the texts of Vatican II.

After the Council, when the theologians speak of heroic virtue, they have more or less the tendency of defining it by opposition to the simply natural act of virtue, instead of opposing it to the ordinary act of supernatural virtue.

This change of optic is corroborated also when we consider the ecumenical orientation of the sanctity which appeared after Vatican II."

Here, Father declares we can doubt the canonization because "the judgment which guided the procedure was guided by a modernist conception of sanctity and heroic virtue." (Emphasis mine) However, the Church teaches:
"In establishing disciplinary laws for the universal Church, the Church is likewise infallible, in such a way She would never legislate something which would contradict true faith or good morals." (See Zubizaretta,  Theologia Dogmatico-Scholastica 1:486,  1948) How then could a true pope legislate that someone is in Heaven and worthy of emulation by the Faithful if their virtue is of a Modernist (heretical) conception, and therefore something that would contradict good morals? 

III) Summary and Conclusion

 Fr.Gleize's article brings forth three false premises to cast doubt on the infallibility of canonizations and thereby hope to save the "papacy" of Francis because he didn't really proclaim Wotyla a saint. He falsely assumes that a certain procedure must be used for the pope to exercise his infallibility. Second, he claims that the pope can act as part of the collegial body of bishops, without exercising his personal infallibility. This is false as (1) the decree of canonization has all the requirements of an ex cathedra papal pronouncement and (2) the Ordinary Magisterium would guarantee their truth anyway as taught by the First Vatican Council and the pre-Vatican II theologians. Third, the Church cannot give that which is evil. A Modernist conception of heroic virtue would never be held up by a true pope as worthy of emulation by the faithful as it is contrary to good morals.

Karol Wotyla is the embodiment of the evils teachings of Vatican II. If Wotyla is a saint, then my patron saint, King St. Louis IX of France was wrong to prohibit false worship in public as it contradicts the teaching of Vatican II on religious liberty. If Wotyla is a saint, then St. Thomas Moore was wrong to condemn King Henry VIII's new religion since it contradicts the teaching of Vatican II on ecumenism; that the Protestant sects can be used as a "means of salvation." I could go on, but I think you get the picture. 

The SSPX would have us accept Antipope Francis as a true pope, and then decide which canonizations they will accept or reject. They like Padre Pio, so his canonization must be accepted. They dislike Wotyla, so they invent reasons to reject his "sainthood." This is not how Catholics act. Reject Francis and all his works. It's absurd and blasphemous to think, God help us, that we must try and make sure that the next "saint" to whom we pray, isn't really burning in Hell.