Monday, July 27, 2015

The Demise Of Extreme Unction


 One of the greatest tragedies of the Great Apostasy is the destruction of the Sacraments. With the exceptions of Baptism and Matrimony (which are valid in most cases), the other five Sacraments have been invalidated. Since Holy Orders was rendered null and void by the Pauline Rite (introduced by Montini [Antipope Paul VI] in 1968), the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as well as the Eucharist it produces were invalidated. So were the other Sacraments that depend on a valid Apostolic Succession, to wit: Penance, Confirmation, and Extreme Unction. Much has been written about the changes to the Mass, but even with a valid priesthood, the changes made by the Modernists render the other sacraments dubious at best and certainly invalid at worst. In either case, Traditionalists must avoid dubious and/or invalid Sacraments in all circumstances.

 Luckily, for Traditionalists who are no where near a priest,  Baptism and Matrimony can be conducted by laymen, when necessary,in the absence of such a True Priest. You can sanctify Sunday by a DVD Mass and spiritual communion. You can have your sins forgiven by an Act of Perfect Contrition.  You can travel far once a year to a real Church  for the True Sacraments.  Sadly, Confirmation and Extreme Unction are not readily available, even to those of us near a Church, due to Traditionalist bishops/priests needing to go all over to make the Mass and Sacraments available to as many of the Faithful as possible. One of the supreme crimes of the Modernists was making Extreme Unction, a glorious Sacrament to prepare us to meet Christ when the end comes, into a sentimental "Get Well Soon Card" delivered in person.

 To better understand what was done, you must realize the Modernists invert the primary and secondary effects of the Sacraments. Baptism, whose principle purpose is the remission of Original Sin (and all personal sins as well as the temporal punishments due to them in the case of adults), is now about "initiation into the community." As a matter of fact, the Vatican II sect refers to Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist as the "Sacraments of Initiation"--as if being in the "People of God" for an "assembly" is why Christ instituted these Sacraments. Holy Orders and Holy Matrimony are called the "Sacraments of Service"---ignoring the primary purpose of each; the offering of Sacrifice to God and the procreation of children, respectively. Finally, Penance (renamed "Reconciliation"), and Extreme Unction (renamed "Anointing of the Sick") are called "Sacraments of Healing." Keeping this in mind,let's examine how a Sacrament instituted by Christ was invalidated by the apostates of Vatican II.

Extreme Unction v. Anointing of the Sick

Purpose
Now let us see how they have changed the very purpose of Extreme Unction . According to the Catechism of St.Pius X,  "Extreme Unction is a sacrament instituted for the spiritual as well as for the temporal comfort of the sick in danger of death." (Emphasis mine)

The heretical Catechism of the Catholic Church writes, "By the sacred anointing of the sick and the prayer of the priests the whole Church commends those who are ill to the suffering and glorified Lord, that he may raise them up and save them. And indeed she exhorts them to contribute to the good of the People of God by freely uniting themselves to the Passion and death of Christ." Notice that any mention of the individual's possible death and dying have been purged.

Effects of the Sacrament
  "The effect is the grace of the Holy Ghost, whose anointing takes away sins, if there are any still to be expiated, and removes the trace of sin; and it comforts and strengthens the soul of the sick person. It gives him great confidence in the divine mercy. Encouraged by this, the sick man more easily bears the inconvenience and trial of his illness and more easily resists the temptations of the devil who lies in wait for his heel. This anointing occasionally restores health to the body, if health would be of advantage to the salvation of the soul. " (Council of Trent. 14 session on Extreme Unction).

From the Vatican II "Blessing of the Oil" (for the Anointing of the Sick): "Send, O Lord, the Holy Ghost on this and oil (...) to restore the body (...) in order that those who will receive this unction will have a help for the body.."

It is clear that the new doctrine insists on the bodily effect of the sacrament. It is an inversion of the traditional doctrine of the Church once more as demonstrated above.

Recipient of the Sacrament
According to theologian Kilker, for the valid reception of Extreme Unction, three requisites MUST be present: "1. He must be a "fidelis" (i.e. Catholic--Introibo) 2, He must have acquired the use of reason 3. He must be in danger of death from sickness or old age" (See Fr. Adrian J. Kilker, Extreme Unction: A Dissertation, Catholic University Press,Washington D.C. [1926], pg. 123). 

From the "Introduction to the rite of anointing sick and to the pastoral care of the sick" Dec. 7, 1972:
"Elderly people may be anointed if they are weak, though not dangerously ill." I have personally known of Vatican II sect parishes giving "group anointing of the sick" to any adult who is sick for any reason,including the common cold!! Furthermore, Kilker states that the sickness must proceed from an internal cause (Ibid, pg. 165) which excludes from validity the conferral (rampant in the V2 sect) of anointing those about to have an operation, go into military battle, or be executed, as these are all external causes of death. 

Minister of the Sacrament

The Council of Trent says: "If anyone says that the presbyter of the Church, who St. James says should be called in to anoint the person who is sick, are not priests ordained by the bishop, but the older men of any community, and that consequently the proper minister of Extreme Unction is not the priest alone: let him be anathema. " (4th Canon on Extreme Unction).

It is officially the same in the Vatican II sect, but there have been instances of anointings performed by "permanent deacons" and even "nuns." Most Vatican II sect "priests" are invalidly ordained in the new rite of Paul VI.

Matter of the Sacrament
"Olive oil alone[blessed by a bishop]" (Catechism of the Council of Trent). The Holy Office declared (September 14,1842), that "it is rash and close to error, to assert that this sacrament could be valid with another oil."

The Vatican II sect has virtually no more valid bishops to bless anything. In addition to this problem,
according to Antipope Paul VI's "Apostolic Constitution" Sacram unctionem infirmorum, November 30, 1972, "The sick are to be anointed with blessed olive oil or, as circumstances suggest, with another oil extracted from plants." (Emphasis mine)

Form of the Sacrament

Extreme Unction: "By this holy unction and His pious mercy, may God forgive thee whatever sins thou hast committed by the evil use of sight (hearing, smell, taste and speech, touch)." (Traditional Roman Ritual) "The anointing should be done on these parts: on the eyes because of sight, on the ears because of  hearing, on the nose because of smelling, on the mouth because of taste or speech, on the hands because of touch, on the feet because of walking. " (Council of Florence)

Anointing of the Sick:"By this holy unction and His pious mercy, may God help you by the grace of the Holy Spirit, in order that, delivered from your sins, God save you and restore you in his goodness.""The sick are to be anointed on the forehead and hands. " (Paul VI Apostolic constitution Sacram unctionem infirmorum). This makes sense as traditionally, the sacrament was meant to cure/forgive the sins committed by the five senses. Since the Anointing of the Sick is primarily concerned with the body (things of this world is a must in Modernist theology) two anointings suffice.

In the new form, the principal effect of the sacrament (curing the sickness of the sins) is de-emphasized, and the secondary effect-a possible cure of the body-is added in the words, "restore you."

Intention of the Sacrament
It is clear that the intention of Extreme Unction and Anointing of the Sick is not the same. Even a validly ordained priest who forms an intention, positively excluding the primary effect of the Sacrament, based on the Modernist ideas inherent in the Anointing of the Sick most probably has a defective intention as well. 

Summary and Conclusion
The "Anointing of the Sick" is not a new name for the Sacrament of Extreme Unction instituted by Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. It is creation of the Modernist theology of Vatican II and devoid of grace. It is a pseudo-sacrament.It is defective as to:
  • The remote matter. There are no more bishops left to bless the oil, and in many cases olive oil is not used.
  • The proximate matter. Five anointings are reduced to two and the form does not clearly and unambiguously express the principle effect of remission of sin.
  • The minister is, in most cases, an invalidly ordained priest, or in some cases so-called deacons or nuns who don't even pretend to be ordained priests
  • The stated purposes and effects are different.
  • The recipients are sometimes not able to receive it validly.
  • The intention can very well be defective in addition to everything else!

Please my dear readers, it is now more imperative than ever to give ample time to a Traditionalist priest for the administration of Extreme Unction. Do not let a loved one miss out on so great a Sacrament when the time of judgement draws near. Weep not only due to the pain of loss that comes with the death of a loved one, weep for those dying faithful who will be robbed of so much grace as Extreme Unction falls as yet another "victim of Vatican II."

Monday, July 20, 2015

Death By Redefinition


 It is the ploy of Modernists in the Church (now emulated by secularists in the social order) to destroy the Truth by redefining it. Rather than deny a truth in the natural or supernatural order, it gets redefined out of existence. In this way, the unwary will think that the same thing is being taught, but it is something quite false and evil under the old terminology. I will elaborate on two examples. In the supernatural order, the Vatican II sect claims on paper to believe in Transubstantiation.

 This is the doctrine that, at the Consecration of the Mass, the whole substance of the bread and the whole substance of the wine is changed into the substance of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity--with only the accidents or outward appearances-- of bread and wine remaining. In the immediate aftermath of Vatican II, Modernist theologians Frs. Karl Rahner (d. 1984) and Edward Schillebeeckx (d. 2009) taught something drastically different, and most all bishops hopped on the heretical bandwagon. Schillebeeckx agreed with Rahner that the physical bread and wine were only a "sign" of Christ. In fact, for Schillebeeckx, the "Real Presence" of Christ in the Eucharist was not the consecrated species (former bread and wine), but the presence of Christ in the "assembled community." This is why Schillebeeckx says that "I kneel, not before a Christ who is, as it were, condensed in the host (sic), but before the Lord himself who is offering his (sic) reality, his (sic) body, to me through the host (sic)." (See Edward Schillcbeeckx, O. P. The Eucharist, [New York: Sheed and Ward, 1968] p. 120.)

 This novelty is called Transignification. Having jettisoned belief in the Thomistic concept of substance, what changes is not the physical reality, but the significance it has for the people. You won't hear the local Vatican II "priest" mention transignification, but doesn't it all make sense of the practices in the Novus Bogus bread and wine service ("mass")? Consider:


  • The minister ("priest" is a meaningless term in the V2 sect) turns towards the people with either his back to the tabernacle, or the tabernacle relegated to somewhere no one can see, because what really matters is what the "assembly" does--they somehow--are the "Body of Christ."
  • All the genuflections  before the host and chalice at the consecration are reduced from six to two. Anybody can touch "communion"--- both to dole it out and eat it. You chew it like cud instead of letting it dissolve in your mouth. No more sacred hands of the priest specially consecrated for the task of touching Christ's Own Body will be found.
  • If the host falls, you just pick it up and pop it in your mouth. The particles that fall are no worry, so why even bother with a paten?
  • People stand for the wafer instead of kneeling when they take it in their hand. 
  • The priest, in the Real Mass, makes the sign of the cross over the kneeling communicant with the Host as he states the effect of the Sacrament worthily received, saying (in Latin), "May the Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ preserve your soul unto life everlasting." The communicant says nothing. In the Novus Bogus, the "eucharistic minister" (e.g., the local female janitor who shacks up with her boyfriend and took a 'class' on so-called theology) says "The Body of Christ" as he/she holds it up.The communicant says "Amen" before it's placed into his unconsecrated hands and he pops it in his mouth to be chewed.
 Does it seem that the Vatican II sect clergy and laity really believe that they receive Christ Himself in Holy Communion, i.e. that Transubstantiation takes place? (It's a rhetorical question, I know). Ironically, it DOES NOT take place (Deo gratias), but they claim it does--at least officially. A 1992 Gallop poll stated that only 30% of the Vatican II sect laity still believe in the Real Presence. I can only wonder how much lower its gone in the last 23 years. 

 In the natural order, the Supreme Court has now redefined marriage as, well, basically anything that involves "love and intimacy." Taking it even one step further, to eliminate the contradiction between the basic tenets of Christianity and homosexuality, I came across an incredibly ignorant propaganda piece written by one Whitney Kay Bacon at the Huffington Post (no surprise there). Entitled, "So Gay Marriage Biblically Offends You? Then You Should Read This..." I will reprint her anti-intellectual drivel and respond below it in red. 

I want to start by saying that I am a Christian. I always have been and always will be... and I'm also a gay woman who is happily married to a beautiful British Woman named Megan. 

She's a Christian? By whose definition? Obviously her own. Married to another woman? By whose definition? Not that of Christ! To have same sex attraction and live celibate is one thing, but to claim you can proudly practice one of the Four Sins That Scream To Heaven For Vengeance and still be "Christian" is another. "Gay Christian" is analogous to "Meat-Eating Vegetarian." 

Since the recent Supreme Court ruling of legalizing same-sex marriages in the United States, I have seen the ugly and the uglier come out in people I never expected. Having moved to live with my wife in the UK, I find myself in awe at the complete and utter ignorance that has been clogging up my news feed and other social medial outlets in the past few days from my so-called American friends back in the South. It's important to state that I'm not generalizing all, as I've also seen a positive response from those Christian in the South; even including support from an amazing pastor. However, it saddens me that amongst the many rainbow-colored pictures on my feed, there is also a great deal of hatred.

Ah, yes, "hatred." To disagree with sodomite "marriage" even on religious grounds will be deemed "hate" and "bigotry." I know an Orthodox Jew who thinks it's wrong for me to eat the flesh of a pig, and I'm not one of God's "chosen people." Does he hate me? No. He disagrees with my religious convictions. Do I think he's a bigot? No. I know he wrong, go to Mass on Sunday, and happily eat a ham sandwich for lunch.

 What I don't understand is quite simply, this: why does gay marriage bother people so much? If you are making an unnecessary palava because you're offended by gay marriage then you seriously need to look at your own life and educate yourselves a bit. 

There are many reasons to be bothered by it. (See my post "The Supreme Perversion.") I recommend that Ms. Bacon stop using slang if she wants to be taken seriously as an intellectual. "Palava" is slang for "hassle." 

 If the sole reason you feel that gay marriage is wrong because it's a sin, and the Bible tells you this is wrong, then I sure as hell hope you don't have bacon with your eggs or indulge in shrimp. Oh, or better yet, do you have any tattoos? Ever been drunk, told a white lie or been divorced? Yep, whoops. Those are all sins, too. And all sins are equal, right? 
    
Wrong. All sins are not equal, there are venial and mortal sins which people commit. Common sense tells us that just as all civil crimes are not punished equally, the same would hold true for God's Law. We don't give the death penalty to someone jaywalking and we don't give community service to a serial killer. Even under the Protestant heresy of justification by Faith alone,the sane pastors realize not all sins are equal. Being divorced is not a sin if you can't live in peace with your spouse (he beats you, etc) and you remain celibate. As for the canard of Old Testament prescriptions against things like eating shellfish and the like, Ms. Bacon (you have to love the name in this context!) should do her research. 



 There are requirements in Leviticus only for the Israelites (e.g., Lev. 7:23, don't eat fat from ox, sheep, or goat, Lev. 7:29, procedures for peace offering to the Lord, Lev. 11:2, list of animals the Israelites may eat, etc.) There are lists of abominations spoken of that were for the non-Israelites as well.  It is in the latter group that homosexuality is listed (e.g., Lev. 18:20, don't have intercourse with your neighbor's wife, Lev. 18:21, don't offer children to Molech, Lev. 18:22, don't lie with a male as with a female, Lev. 18:23 don't have intercourse with animals, etc.). It is a mistake for people to mix topics intended only for Israel with topics that included the non-Israelites.  Furthermore, when we see that the New Testament condemns the idea of homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27, we could see the continuity between Old Testament moral law and New Testament moral law.

I don't see anyone going off the handle because of any of these 'sins' and I most certainly don't see protests or hurtful propaganda against those. Just because you disagree with something -- and we all have the right to do so -- it is an absolute disgrace to treat the LGBT community the way you do. What if we treated all sins in this way? Bacon eaters would be doomed.

To think eating shrimp or even divorce and remarriage is on the same level as protesting the redefinition of marriage is so ridiculous as to defy description. The only "doomed Bacon eaters" would be cannibals wanting you as their main course, Ms. Bacon.

Therefore, if gay marriage or 'homosexuality' doesn't affect you personally in the way you live your life in any way, why do you feel the need to even get involved? Why worry about something that is, frankly, none of your business? For instance, I'm not divorced, but many people I know are, and I'm not going to judge them. We shouldn't judge anyone for the way they live their life. If you don't agree with gay marriage, then don't have a gay wedding. Simple.

Yes! And if you lived in the U.S. during the pre-Civil War days this paragraph would read: "Therefore, if  slavery doesn't affect you personally in the way you live your life in any way, why do you feel the need to even get involved? Why worry about something that is, frankly, none of your business? For instance, I'm not divorced, but many people I know are, and I'm not going to judge them. We shouldn't judge anyone for the way they live their life, or what they own. If you don't agree with slavery, then don't have a slave. Simple."

I know what you must be thinking. If the LGBT community can protest and stand up for their rights, then why can't Christians? They have every right to stand up for what they believe in also... To a degree, yes.

"To a degree"?!? I hope you see where we're heading in society. Didn't she also state that SHE was "Christian"? It seems the truth comes out as she squarely places herself in the sodomite camp exclusive of Christianity. 

Christianity and gay rights will always butt-heads. Luckily, we have the Equality Act 2010 in the UK, where we've seen it in the favor of gay rights; e.g. where a gay couple were wrongly turned away from a B&B due to the owners Christian views, to in favor of Christianity; e.g. the nurse who was wrongly fired for telling her lesbian colleague she's committing a sin. I don't expect the battles to ever fully cease, but choose your battles wisely. Is this really worth your time? 

Given her initial premise, why will Christianity and "gay rights" butt heads? In answer to her last question, yes, saving traditional marriage is worth my time--and every one committed to Truth.

 Could your time not be better spent with showing kindness and acceptance -- isn't that what being a Christian is truly about, rather than showing hatred? It is not your duty to judge and tell others how to live theirs to ensure your angelic conscious is clear. 



Again, the tired "hate and bigotry" card,because they have no real arguments. "Not your duty to judge..." Hmm...is Whitney Kay Bacon the nom de plume of "Pope" Francis?

However, it does change the lives of the LGBT community and gives us freedom and the same rights as anyone else. This means that now my wife and I, if we ever decide to move back to the U.S., can do this freely and can move to any state. Your hatred towards this is unjust and unfair and don't even try to the quote the Bible at me; you may want to actually read it first.

It should be pretty obvious to all that Ms. Bacon is the one who needs to read the Good Book.

To all of the haters, how would you feel if your rights were completely stripped from you because you had a divorce or because you had a baby out of wedlock, for instance? How would you like someone judging and telling you that you're going to hell because of this?

"Haters." Nothing else to say."Your rights are completely stripped away" if the government doesn't support a new definition of "marriage"? I never realized that polygamists and NAMBLA ("North American Man-Boy Love Association") are having all their rights stripped away because there's no "group marriage" and the 40 year old pervert can't marry a 10 year old! As far as going to Hell is concerned, it's an act of charity if someone thinks you're going there to tell you to amend your life. Some Protestants think I'm going to Hell, and they care about me.I tell them the same thing--they will go to Hell if they don't convert. I'm not worried because I know they're wrong. Apparently, Ms. Bacon doesn't have the same clear conscience and convictions--she must feel something is amiss in her life! (There is, and I hope she converts to live in celibacy).

As a Christian, I wholeheartedly believe that God does not make mistakes and he would not have accidentally made millions of people (and animals) gay by chance. We are all who we are for a reason and no one should ever make you feel bad for that. 

Here she assumes homosexuality is predestined genetically. There is no scientific proof of this, and even if so, that doesn't make it morally acceptable behavior. Suppose there's a gene that predisposes one to alcoholism. Go drink and drive, and let abstinence be damned? What about a gene for pedophilia? Go be a Vatican II sect "priest" ? Animals have no immortal soul and their acts are not moral or immoral,so bringing them into a theological discussion is beside the point. 

  If anything, my relationship with God is better than ever, and I know that I am definitely not going to hell or that my lifestyle is wrong. It's important for people to know that you can be a Christian and gay. 

She knows this...how?  Unfortunately, her understanding of her relationship with God is like her understanding of the Bible. Can you be "Christian and an adulterer" with no intention to repent and amend your life?


You do not have to choose one or the other. We need more people like Christian singer Vicky Beeching, who came out as a lesbian last year, to look up to as role models.

So, my dear fellow Christians, from one Christian to another, please mind your own business and PLEASE make sure that your hands are clean before you point your finger at me and my community. Amen.

I see, "clean hands" means we must have no sin to condemn another,so since we all sin we must not condemn anyone else. I wonder how she (and Frankie) feel about Adolph Hitler? Remember, "clean hands," "don't judge," and "all sins are equal!" 

Be afraid. Be very afraid. The time will soon come when the only place you'll find sanity is in the dictionary. 


Monday, July 13, 2015

Opus Diaboli


 Mention Opus  Dei ("The Work of God") and you will receive a wide variety of responses to "The Work" founded by "St" Josemaria Escriva. To the secular world (as well as most in the Vatican II sect), it's seen as a very "conservative,"and "traditional" organization which is devoted to the "papacy." As people have inquired as to this organization, I will seek to answer three questions: (1) Who was Josemaria Escriva?, (2) What is Opus Dei?,(3) Is Opus Dei, in any sense, Traditional Catholic?



  1. Who was "Saint" Josemaria Escriva?
            According to an excellent summary in 30 Days magazine (June-July 1995):


"Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer was born in Barbastro, Spain, on January 9,1902, son of a cloth merchant and a pious housewife. He was ordained to the priesthood in Zaragoza on March 28, 1925.

On October 2, 1928, in Madrid, Father Escriva founded the first Opus Dei institute, inaugurating a women’s branch on February 14, 1930, also in Madrid.

In 1939 the first edition of Camino (The Way) was published, setting forth Escriva’s 999 maxims to serve as a guide for Opus Dei members. On May 24, 1941, the Archbishop of Madrid, Leopoldo Eijo y Garay, publicly defended Opus Dei against accusations of secrecy from some sectors in the Spanish Church.

The Priestly Society of the Holy Cross, the association for lay affiliates of Opus Dei who aspired to the Opus Dei priesthood, was founded on February 14, 1943. On June 25, 1944, the first ordinations of Opus Dei priests took place.

Escriva came to Rome on June 23, 1946, returning to Madrid in August with Holy See encouragement for his initiatives. Pope Pius Xll’s promulgation Provida Mater Ecclesia (February 2, 1947) gave juridical status to secular institutes such as Opus Dei. Finally on June 16, 1950, Opus Dei received its definitive approval from the Holy See. The organization became the first secular institute approved directly by the pope and took on the title "Priestly Society of the Holy Cross and Opus Dei." In 1962, Fr. Escriva pleaded in vain with Pope John XXIII to grant Opus Dei a different status from other secular institutes, which were answerable to the Congregation for Religious and Secular Institutes. A few years later, Pope Paul Vl also set aside the request, saying the time to grant it had not yet come.

Escriva passed away on June 26, 1975, and on May 12, 1981, the process for his beatification was initiated.

In spite of the opposition of a large part of the Catholic clergy and a majority of the Spanish bishops (55 of 56), the Vatican announced on August 23,1982 that Pope John Paul had decided to grant the status of Personal Prelature to Opus Dei." 

 Escriva had the idea of a way (deemed "The Way") for sanctity concerning laity remaining in the world, but it was very different from that of traditional spirituality such as St. Francis De Sales. According to one writer: 

"The basic difference between the two[traditional spirituality and The Way of Opus Dei] can be expressed as movements in opposite directions. One answers [the call to vocation] from outside the world and moves toward it, bringing its presence toward it. This is the evolution of the religious state. The other is a "being in the world"; it starts from being of the world. Such is the Opus Dei’s secular spirituality....This is what made Card. Luciani, the future Pope John Paul I, say that while St. Francis de Sales proposed a spirituality for lay people, Msgr. Escriva proposes a new lay spirituality."(See D. LeTourneau, L'Opus Dei, pg. 26; Emphasis mine)

Interestingly, he debased the priesthood, and paved the way for Vatican II's Modernism. One report states:  Escriva was happy when his first three priests were ordained, but he was also very sad that they did not remain laymen(!)

He was devoted to the Modernism of Vatican II. This explains Wotyla's ("Pope" John Paul II) hurry to "canonize" him in 2002. One need only look at the "miracles" attributed to him to see they were as phony as his teachings:

  • A Carmelite nun is allegedly cured of lung cancer, yet there is no evidence she actually had cancer in the first place
  • A child with hypertension was cured after taking medications--this too was classified as a "miracle"
  • A doctor with cancerous lesions on his hands caused by taking X-rays without gloves was cured after he stopped doing so - another so-called miracle.
  2) What is Opus Dei?

 Opus Dei is organized like a religious order, comprised overall of priests and laity. Entering "the Opus" is considered to be a vocation and there are a rule and vows, although married members take different ones. It is a personal prelature, meaning that, there is a prelate, clergy and laity under the direction of the Congregation of Bishops. As opposed to a diocese, people are bound to the prelature by membership as opposed to geographical area. 

They have four classes of membership:
  • Numeraries: The elite, who take vows, or promises - of poverty, chastity and obedience. Some live in communities and turn over their financial revenues to "The Work" which then takes care of their needs. Numeraries are both priests and laity.
  • Associates: They make the same promises. They are not from the same class nor of the same intellectual rank as the numeraries.
  • Supernumeraries: These are the most numerous, many are married. Their promises are less constraining.
  • Cooperators: These take no "vows," but participate in "corporate apostolic works." It is possible they may be non-Christians.
The idea is sanctification in the world. There have been reports of abuse of authority,Freemasonic-like secrecy, a certain feeling of superiority through a gnostic-like knowledge given to members, and harsh penances. It has been likened by some authors to a cult.

 3) Is Opus Dei, in any sense, Traditional Catholic?

 In a word:NO. 

  • It was the first institution to take in non-Catholics and even non-Christians, 
  • For Escriva and his organization, freedom of conscience comes before Truth. Hence he said, "[Religious] Pluralism is not to be feared but loved as a legitimate consequence of personal freedom."
  • Escriva had Protestant, schismatic, Jewish, Moslem and even pagan benefactors who were very good financial brokers for Opus Dei; it was already an active force for "political ecumenism." In Spain, the group refused to take a stand against abortion, not wanting to violate the "conscience" of the non-Catholics.
  • Montini (Antipope Paul VI) used the work of Escriva for his personal meditations
  • The Opus Dei member ultimately learns not only to respect, but to love, religious pluralism
  • In an interview publish 12/18/13,the prelate of Opus Dei, Bishop Javier EchevarrĂ­a replies to a question about women in the Church as follows:  "Q:In an interview published in this newspaper, the president of the Focolare Movement, Maria Voce, has asked that a greater role be given to women in the Church. Do you agree? A: Certainly. For, as the Holy Father has reminded us, the Church is a woman: one only needs to remember the role of our Lady. The topic of the role of women isn’t new, and in fact women have played an important role in the development of the Church. Moreover, Opus Dei has always viewed women as playing a central role in the life of the Church." With a Modernist like Frankie, we know that he would love deaconesses and priestesses, and Opus Dei would be supporting it.  (See http://opusdei.or.ke/en-ke/article/people-have-recognized-in-pope-francis-an-authentic-priest/)
In summation, don't be fooled by the seeming piety displayed by many members of Opus Dei. They are a front promoting the same Modernism as the sect to which they belong. In that same interview above, the leader of Opus Dei praises Antipope Francis and states, "In countries with a Christian tradition, Opus Dei (through its activities for spiritual formation) offers a path for rediscovering the faith in the midst of one’s daily occupations. This is what the New Evangelization means: to re-enkindle in Christians (who sometimes see themselves as such only because of their cultural context) the flame of a living and personal relationship with God." A "relationship" as each individual sees fit, divorced from the True Church.

Monday, July 6, 2015

It's Not Easy Being Green


 Antipope Francis has issued his 40,574 word "encyclical" on the environment. It took me this long to get around to reading it. As far as I can tell, it has two main uses: a cure for insomnia, and lining for a bird cage. If you want to find Catholic theology, look any place except here. There are NO citations to the True Magisterium pre-Vatican II. Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is mentioned for the first time in paragraph # 82, and only appears 23 times in total.

 We are told that "our common home" is the Earth. Catholicism, on the other hand, teaches that our true home is Heaven, and while we must be good stewards of this planet, we must strive to get to humankind's ultimate purpose--the Beatific Vision.The only way to do this is by being good members of the One True Church, and making as many converts as possible so they can hopefully join us there. Not so, saith Francis. "Outside the Catholic Church, other Churches and Christian communities – and other religions as well – have expressed deep concern and offered valuable reflections on issues which all of us find disturbing."(para #7). What I find disturbing is calling a collection of heretics and/or schismatics "Churches." Even more disturbing is the "issues" of which he speaks do not pertain to Faith and Morals or the conversion of said heretics. Another proof (as if any were necessary) that Frankie cannot be pope. 

 We are warned that “to commit a crime against the natural world is a sin against ourselves and a sin against God.” Was he talking about the legalization of sodomite "marriages" in Ireland and the U.S. ? No! It's a quote from a schismatic bishop telling us about polluting the environment!  In paragraph #175, the false pope tells us: "The twenty-first century, while maintaining systems of governance inherited from the past, is witnessing a weakening of the power of nation states, chiefly because the economic and financial sectors, being transnational, tends to prevail over the political. Given this situation, it is essential to devise stronger and more efficiently organized international institutions, with functionaries who are appointed fairly by agreement among national governments, and empowered to impose sanctions"In other words, a One World Environmental "Police Force" putting us another step closer to a One World government.

At the end of the encyclical Laudato si, Frankie proposes two different prayers: one for those who believe in the One Triune God, and the other for those who do not believe in Him (infidels, pagans, your local Wiccan priestess, etc.). This shows his desire to have all religions, all beliefs, all opinions unite against his perceived "ecological threat" because this world is what matters--salvation be damned (literally)! Francis has  done away with the First Commandment, the worship due to the true God. It started with Paul VI's heretical ecclesiology, embodied in Vatican II. It continued with "Saint" John Paul the Great Apostate and his ecumenical abomination at Assisi, visiting Lutheran churches, praying in synagogues, and kissing the Koran. It continued with "retired pope" Ratzinger's statement that the papacy (which he never held anyway) was the greatest hindrance to "ecumenical progress." It continues with Francis wanting all false sects to unite as one ecumenical denomination behind a one-world police state enforcing global ecological sanctions. Remember: Saving the environment, not your soul, is what really matters. It sort of makes sense when you consider  Francis believes the souls of the damned are annihilated. 

 "Going green" in the early ecological movement was easy. Now, it entails a One-World Ecumenical Religion in the service of a One-World Government to "save the planet." This is the Modernism of Vatican II and Francis as displayed in the latest piece of anti-Catholic literature he wrote. One can only hope the Vatican II sect itself is biodegradable.





Monday, June 29, 2015

The "Vatican II Feeneyites" Attempt To Defend The Indefensible



In my last post of June 22, 2015, I took to task those Feeneyites who not only deny Baptism of Desire (BOD) and Baptism of Blood (BOB), but also affirm the validity of Vatican II and its "popes." I mentioned the blog of one such person, Mr. Lionel Andrades, who operates Eucharist and Mission (EAM). Mr. Andrades contacted me via Twitter, objecting to what I wrote. I challenged him to a debate which he graciously accepted. On June 25th, he put up several posts, all aimed at refuting my arguments. I will now reproduce what he wrote and provide answers. His writing, in my opinion, is hard to follow (as is his line of reasoning at many points). To make it easier for my readers, EAM reproduced what I wrote and then responded. To prevent you from bouncing back and forth between websites, I will reproduce anything which I originally wrote in blue. What he wrote will be normal color, and my counter-responses will be in red. I have answered all his major contentions. 

I apologize for the rather long post. However, exposing and refuting the attacks against the One True Faith is something we must do to the best of our ability in this age of near universal apostasy. At the bottom of the Feeneyite heresy stands a rejection to accept Church teaching unless it is dogmatically defined by the Extraordinary Magisterium. This contention was itself explicitly condemned by the Church as part of the great Syllabus of Errors in 1864. You will also see the poor reasoning, strange premises, and lack of understanding of the doctrines of BOD and BOB on the part of the Feenyites; especially those who also accept Vatican II and Mr. "Atheists Can Go To Heaven" Bergoglio. N.B. "EENS" refers to the dogma "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" ("Outside the Church There is No Salvation") Let's begin:

The blog's owner, one Lionel Andrades, is representative of a peculiar ideological opinion: he adheres to the Vatican II sect 

Yes to the mainline Catholic Church which accepts Pope Francis.

Herein lies the biggest problem, even bigger than Feeneyism, the acceptance of Vatican II and the post-Vatican II "popes."


Here are just two theologians:
St. Robert Bellarmine (1610) “A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.” De Romano Pontifice. II.30.
St. Alphonsus Liguori (†1787) “If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate.” Oeuvres Complètes. 9:232
 For a complete list of pre-Vatican II theologians (as well as canon law citations) on loss of papal office, please see Traditionalists, Infallibility, and The Pope by Fr. Cekada at traditionalmass.org.
Are the post-Vatican II "popes" guilty of heresy? Let's examine just two points on a list that seemingly expands daily.

  •  Justification: The October 31, 1999 Joint Declaration on Justification , approved by Ratzinger (later Benedict XVI) and Wotyla (John Paul II).

This overthrows the solemn dogmatic definitions of the Council of Trent concerning justification.

  • The Church: The Declaration on Communion, the Ecumenical Directory and the Declaration Dominus Jesus, written by Ratzinger (later Benedict) and approved by John Paul II.

These documents promote the “Subsistent Superchurch” heresy, which, among other things, denies an article of the Creed (“I believe in one Church”), as well as the proposition “outside the Church there is no salvation.” ("EENS" as explained above).

The former is “an article of the divine and Catholic faith,” the latter a “dogma of the faith.” (Salaverri 1:1095, 1153)--Thanks again to Fr. Cekada for resources available to all.

According to the communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney they do not deny the baptism of desire or blood. They simply say that it will be followed with the baptism of water in the Catholic Church in a manner known only to God.

As for me, Lionel Andrades, I simply say that we do not know any case of BOD or BOB in the present times and so they are not exceptions to the dogma. Introibo Ad Altare Dei (IAAD) agrees with me on this point on Twitter.He has said BOB and BOD are not exceptions to EENS.
Wrong. The Feeneyites deny that BOD or BOB alone will suffice in extraordinary cases. They deny the teaching of the unanimous consent of the theologians as well as the 1917 Code of Canon Law on the subject making them heretics. There is no support for any novel claim that God will always supply water and an administer for the sacrament of Baptism. The next point is tricky. BOD and BOB are NOT exceptions to EENS. He is correct, and that is what the Church teaches. However, the whole point of "we do not know any case of BOD.." is confusing. Is he trying to insinuate that you can state a heresy, and if there's no proof of it happening, it's not a heresy?? For example, If I say "Christ COULD commit sin" that's not heresy because we know of no examples of Our Lord committing sin?
Just the assertion that the All-Perfect God-Man could hypothetically commit sin, is a grievous heresy as it is absolutely impossible for Christ to sin. God is All Good and cannot act against His Divine Nature. Likewise, to state that BOD and BOB are not exceptions-- because we don't know of anyone saved by them is both illogical and heretical. Should God tell us the name of someone in 2015 who died saved by BOD or BOB, we still would not have an "exception" to EENS because he died AS A CATHOLIC just prior to the moment of death!

Feeneyism (there are no known exceptions to the dogma, so there are no exceptions for us human beings) is compatible with Vatican Council II ( when it is not assumed that there are known exceptions to the dogma).Sedevacantists accept VC2 assuming there are known exceptions to EENs mentioned in VC 2.Then VC2 becomes incompatible.


Wrong again. Here are his repeated ramblings about known exceptions. (His emphasis). Well, would he like to know an "exception"? The Roman Breviary states: "Emerantiana, a Roman virgin, step-sister of the blessed Agnes, while she was still a catechumen, burning with faith and charity, when she vehemently rebuked idol-worshippers who were stealing from Christians, was stoned and struck down by the crowd which she had angered. Praying in her agony at the tomb of holy Agnes, baptized by her own blood which she poured forth unflinchingly for Christ, she gave up her soul to God."


SAINT Emerantiana was baptized in her own blood (BOB). To say BOB is heretical is to say the Church teaches error since the liturgy proclaims it. However, we know that the Church is infallible in such matters. It would mean the Church proclaimed as a saint someone who, according to the Feeneyites, shouldn't be there because she did not receive the Sacrament of Baptism. I really don't know why else he would harp on "we don't know anyone" in Heaven as a result of BOD and BOB, unless trying to claim that BOD and BOB are "exceptions" to EENS if we know of someone who has gone to Heaven as a result of either extraordinary way. Since BOD and BOB are NOT exceptions to the dogma EENS, it doesn't matter if we know someone who is in Heaven as a result of this miracle of Grace.

The new and heretical ecclesiology of Vatican II found in Lumen Gentium teaches that the Church of Christ "subsists in" (not "is") the Roman Catholic Church


It does not for me. Pope Benedict XVI clarified this.So it is IAAD' personal view here.
For me Ad Gentes 7 is clear. It supports EENS.

Wrong yet again! (Do you notice a certain pattern beginning to appear?).
As to Ratzinger's Dominus Iesus of 2000, which allegedly "clarified" Lumen Gentium (What Ecumenical Council Document ever needed "clarification" over 30 years after the fact? Modernists speak in ambiguities!!) Bp. Sanborn writes:

"Dominus Iesus:"Therefore there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him. The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united with her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches." (no. 17)
Qualification: HERETICAL.
This statement is the logical conclusion of the previous statement. It merely says that the schismatics and heretics who have broken off from the Roman Catholic Church form parts of the Church of Christ. They are other branches. It is heretical for the same reason that the "subsistit in" is heretical. It completely alters the nature of the Church of Christ, and places a distinction between the Church of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church.
 It should also be pointed out here that the schismatics and heretics who have left the true Church of Christ, the Roman Catholic Church, are not "Churches" at all. As "Churches." they do not even exist. For who gave them existence? God? Of course not. Human beings? Yes, schismatics and/or heretics. But human beings cannot beget "Churches" any more than they can make gold out of iron. All that they can come up with are phony substitutes for the real Church.
 The true term for these so-called "Churches" would be bands of heretics or groupings of schismatics, for that is all they are. They do not have any legitimate ecclesiastical life, charter, or structure. They are nothing. They are cadavers.


Dominus Iesus:"Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church." (no. 17)

Qualification:HERETICAL.

 This text more explicitly draws the conclusion of the original error of Lumen Gentium. It extends the Church of Christ beyond the borders of the Roman Catholic Church, and gives legitimacy to non-Catholic sects. It also makes submission to the Roman Pontiff, as well as belief in the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, accidental to being a part of the Church of Christ.

 This is explicit heresy. The Church of Christ is present and operative in these "Churches" even though they reject the authority of the Roman Pontiff. But this is contrary to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. The Church teaches that Christ and the Pope constitute a single hierarchical authority. Pope Pius XII states in Mystici Corporis (no. 40):

"That Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head is the solemn teaching of Our predecessor of immortal memory Boniface VIII in the Apostolic Letter Unam Sanctam; and his successors have never ceased to repeat the same."

It follows, then, that those who are cut off from the Pope are also cut off from Christ. For this reason Pope Pius XII, also in Mystici Corporis (no. 22) said:
"As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body."
Ratzinger's new document Dominus Iesus is merely a dull rehash of previous documents. There is no condemnation of religious indifferentism, but rather there are explicit declarations of principles which themselves constitute religious indifferentism. For if the Church of Christ is present with all of its essential elements in heretical and schismatic sects, and if they are used by the Spirit of Christ as a means of salvation, then what else do you need? The only thing left is degree or perfection of being the Church of Christ and a means of salvation. This is precisely what Wojtyla and Ratzinger assert: that the Catholic Church has the fullness of truth and of the means of salvation, whereas the others have only a partial serving of these things. Their lack does not prevent them, however, from being members of the Church of Christ.
So with demonic cunning, Wojtyla and Ratzinger are able to say, "All religions are not equal," because the Catholic Church has the fullness, and the others only have parts. No, not all are equal, but they are all more or less good, and beyond that, in the schismatic sects one finds the Church of Christ, and a means of salvation. Furthermore the Protestants are members of the Church of Christ. This is asserted about these sects, even though they all adhere to schism and heresy.
But that all religions are more or less good is the very error condemned by Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos:
"Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgement of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little, turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion." [Emphasis added].
St. Pius X condemned the same doctrine in his encyclical Pascendi,  which condemned the Modernists:
"In the conflict between different religions, the most that Modernists can maintain is that the Catholic has more truth because it is more vivid, and that it deserves with more reason the name of Christian because it corresponds more fully with the origins of Christianity. No one will find it unreasonable that these consequences flow from the premises."
Thus the two old deceivers have done it again. Wojtyla and Ratzinger have published bold-faced heresy under the headlines of "conservatism" and "defending the Faith." The Novus Ordo conservatives eat it up. It is just one more spoonful of the spoon-fed heresy and apostasy which we have been receiving since the 1960's.
Ratzinger's doctrine is novelty. It is heresy. It leads to apostasy. It is given to us as a preparation for a World Church. By this document Wojtyla and Ratzinger have dispensed with the necessity both to assent to all Catholic dogmas and to be submitted to the Pope as essential conditions for being members of the Church of Christ."
I couldn't have said it any better! Thank you Bp. Sanborn!!

                SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
1. BOD and BOB are nothing more than the extraordinary application of the dogma EENS in extraordinary circumstances. They are not exceptions to EENS, and it matters not one iota whether we know of anyone today who was saved by such miraculous means. 
2. The Catholic Faith and Sacramental Baptism are the normal way to enter the Church, Outside of Which There is No Salvation 
3. In extraordinary circumstances BOD and BOB are used by God to save souls apart from baptism by water.
4. BOD is a miracle performed by God on adults who live open to God's grace, follow their consciences, have perfect contrition, and are infused with the True Faith and Sanctifying Grace just prior to death.
5. BOB is the doctrine that someone who sheds his blood for Christ wanting to be united to the Roman Catholic Church will likewise be saved.
6. There are known Catholic saints who were saved by BOB.
7. BOD and BOB are taught by the universal and Ordinary Magisterium of the Church and must be believed. If you reject them, you are a heretic!
8. Vatican II taught heresy regarding the nature of the Church (ecclesiology). It teaches that groups of heretics can be "churches" that may be used by Christ as a "means of salvation." The fact that the Vatican II sect doesn't claim to know a specific individual who was saved in this manner is theologically irrelevant. They will never know a case because it is false! However, the mere assertion that it can happen is heresy because it is untrue and teaches error about the very nature of the Church.
9. The post-Vatican II popes lost their office by heresy, as the Church teaches. As a matter of fact, Jorge Bergoglio never even attained to the papacy. Not only is he an invalidly ordained priest and invalidly consecrated bishop (i.e. a layman who cannot be Bishop of Rome), he was a professed heretic which is a DIVINE impediment to being pope.
10. Vatican II will allow for the heresy of Feeney and for universal salvation. The only thing they won't tolerate is the Integral Catholic Faith.







Monday, June 22, 2015

Strange Bedfellows: Vatican II And Fr. Feeney


One of my readers has a blog of his own entitled "Eucharist and Mission" (See http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com) and sent me tweets to some of his posts. The blog's owner, one Lionel Andrades, is representative of a peculiar ideological opinion: he adheres to the Vatican II sect and claims that Feeneyism (denial of Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood) and the documents of Vatican II are compatible. Fr. Feeney was a Jesuit from Boston excommunicated by Pope Pius XII for his denial of Baptism of Desire (BOD) and Baptism of Blood (BOB), hence the heresy's name.  Actually, there are most probably more Feenyites in the Vatican II sect than there are sedevacantists, which seems counter-intuitive. After all, doesn't "Pope" Francis tell us "proselytism is nonsense" and "atheists can get to Heaven"?  Before I delve into it any further, some initial principles and definitions need to be considered first.


I) The Absolute Necessity of Church Membership For Salvation

Pope Eugene IV infallibly proclaimed in Cantate Domino (1441):


[The Catholic Church]"...firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

Pope Boniface VIII infallibly proclaimed in Unam Sanctam (1302):

"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

II) The Church Teaches That The Sacrament of Baptism Is Absolutely Necessary for Salvation Under Ordinary and Usual Conditions

 The Gospel of St. John 3:5--"Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

The Council of Trent infallibly teaches:
 "CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for Baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema."

III) The Church Recognizes Two Extraordinary Means Of Attaining Church Membership and Salvation: Baptism of Desire (BOD) and Baptism of Blood (BOB)

In the case where someone has (a) explicit Catholic Faith and Desire for the sacrament but no opportunity for Baptism, or (b) implicit Catholic Faith where explicit Faith is impossible, or (c) if someone sheds his Blood for Christ's One True Church yet has been prevented from getting baptized, God can  perform a miracle of Grace whereby He infuses Faith and Sanctifying Grace into the soul immediately prior to death. The person dies Catholic and in God's friendship, thereby being saved apart from the sacrament of Baptism in extraordinary conditions.

The proof is in the very sources cited by the heretical followers of the late Fr. Leonard Feeney. Many of the popes, saints, catechisms, and Biblical verses refer to the absolute necessity of sacramental Baptism (by water) and they also include exceptions in extraordinary cases. BOD and BOB are therefore taught by the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium of Christ's One True Church.

IV) Vatican II Teaches Salvation Outside The Church

The new and heretical ecclesiology of Vatican II found in Lumen Gentium teaches that the Church of Christ "subsists in" (not "is") the Roman Catholic Church. This means there is an entity known as the Church of Christ which is distinct from the Roman Catholic Church and it subsists in its fullness in the Catholic Church, but it subsists in other sects according to how many "elements" they possess. To have all the elements is best, but to have just some is equally good and leads to salvation.

The Vatican II document Unitatis Redintegratio states in paragraph #3:
"It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church." (Emphasis mine)

BOD and BOB means that individuals are brought into the Church and die as Catholics. It does not deny the dogma of "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" (EENS) or "Outside The Church There Is No Salvation." See principle I above. Vatican II states that people in sects can be saved as members of those sects.  That's a world of difference.


 Now let's get back to the blog "Eucharist and Mission" (hereinafter EAM). According to Mr. Andrades (his writing in red), "When a Catholic says not every one needs to enter the Church he is expressing theology. How does an average Catholic know theology? He has probably heard it.He repeats it. For him this is the teaching of the Church.Usually the theology he repeats without knowing what it is- is Cushingism. He condemns Feeneyism.He is told it is condemned.He can only choose between Feeneyism and Cushingism and generally he does not know the difference.

Cushingism is a popular theology.It is accepted by the Magisterium. So the average Catholic repeats it.He  assumes it is de fide. Instead it is something foreign to the Faith.It is heresy.It has come into the  Church in the 1940's.It is not part of the Deposit of the Faith. It is an irrational theology, a compromised theology.It denies the basic teachings of the Church on salvation and the proclamation of the Good News.

Feeneyism says every one needs to be a formal member of the Church, with faith and baptism, for salvation and there are no exceptions.

Cushingism says everyone needs to enter the Church with faith and baptism for salvation but there are exceptions; there are known exceptions, so really every one does not need to enter the Church.

Cushingism is irrational.It says all need to enter the Church but those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire do not need to enter the Church.It assumes that we can know these cases in real life.So all do not need to be Catholic in the present times for salvation, since there are exceptions.People in Heaven are exceptions on earth!" (post of 4/8/15)

 Wow. So the dogma of EENS has two "theologies": that of Feeney and that of "Cushingism" --so named by the blog's author after Richard Cardinal Cushing of Boston who condemned Feeney and upheld BOD and BOB. The idea of BOD and BOB go way back to times Apostolic, not to the 1940s. The other errors are manifest. If the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium teaches "Cushingism" then it must be accepted. The Church rejects the idea that only de fide pronouncements must be believed. Feeneyism is the heresy. BOD and BOB (or "Cushingism" according to EAM--as if the Cardinal invented the Catholic teaching!) does NOT teach "all need to enter the Church but those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire do not need to enter the Church." As explained above, those who receive BOD are infused with both Faith and Sanctifying Grace, this precludes ignorance at that point and they are members of the Church! There are no people in Heaven who were "exceptions" (i.e. non-Catholic) on Earth. He either completely misrepresents or doesn't understand the principles involved.

It may strike many as strange, that a sect which proclaims universal (or near universal) salvation outside itself, would be home to those who hold the heretical views of Fr. Feeney where almost no one gets to Heaven. The Vatican II sect will tolerate anything except the Truth! The false popes and their teachings are a bundle of contradictions. Many who follow Francis and Vatican II refer to the Feeneyite heresy as "the restrictive interpretation" as opposed to the "liberal interpretation" (universal salvation where everyone becomes an "anonymous Christian" as per the heretic Fr. Karl Rahner). Notice the CORRECT interpretation is jettisoned. One of the biggest apologists for the Vatican II sect, Pete Vere, employed by them as a "canon lawyer,"  has defended the Feeneyite position as acceptable to be held by "Catholics"(!)

According to Vere (his writing will be in red):

"What of those, like the spiritual descendants of Fr. Feeney, who hold to a more restrictive understanding on these issues? Are they Catholics in good standing with the Church? The answer is yes for a number of reasons:

1) There is no question Fr. Feeney died in full communion with the Catholic Church. Pope Paul VI lifted Father’s excommunication while Father was still alive, and there is no evidence that Father recanted his understanding of EENS, BOB, or BOD. The actual lifting of Father’s excommunication was executed by Fr. Richard Shmaruk, a priest of the Boston Archdiocese, on behalf of Bishop Bernard Flanagan of Worcester. While visiting Boston about ten years ago, I spoke with Fr. Shmaruk and he personally corroborated the events that led to him reconciling Fr. Feeney with the Church.On pages 259 to 262 of his book They Fought the Good Fight, Brother Thomas Mary Sennott diligently chronicles the reconciliation of Fr. Feeney, as well as the subsequent reconciliation of several of Father’s spiritual descendants. Brother Sennott quotes from two respectable Catholic news sources (The Advocate and the Catholic Free Press). I have independently confirmed the quotations and context of the primary sources.


Brother Sennottt also notes that Father’s memorial mass was celebrated by Bishop Bernard Flanagan in the Cathedral of St. Paul, Worcester. This would have given rise to scandal had Father not been fully reconciled with the Church. Br. Sennott’s book received an imprimi potest from Bishop Timothy Harrington of the Diocese of Worcester, meaning the book is free from doctrinal or moral error. Thus unless one is willing to declare oneself sedevacantist or sedeprivationist, the evidence is overwhelming that Fr. Feeney died in full communion with the Church without recanting his position. (Emphasis mine)

2) Most of Fr. Feeney’s spiritual descendants have been reconciled with the Church without having to renounce or recant their interpretation of BOB, BOD, or EENS. This was the case with those who reconciled in 1974 and would go on to found St. Benedict Abbey in Still River, as well as the sisters of St. Anne’s House in Still River who reconciled in 1988, and most recently with St. Benedict Centre in Still River who reconciled under Br. Thomas Augustine, MICM. Regarding the last group, I should note they had achieved a sacramental reconciliation long before their juridical reconciliation. This was the subject of the first paper I ever wrote as a young licentiate student in canon law. While researching this paper in 1997, I visited the various communities descended from Fr. Feeney and the Harvard student movement, noting with interest how despite no formal reconciliation at the time, Br. Thomas’s community had an in-residence chaplain appointed by the Bishop of Worcester. I also noted with interest that the Bishop visited the community regularly, and that he also confirmed the community’s children. In reading canon 844, sacraments should only be shared with non-Catholics under the most strict and extenuating of circumstances. It is clear, that in keeping with canon 213, the Diocese of Worcester was ensuring for the pastoral and sacramental care of Brother Thomas’s community as if they were Catholics.

It was similarly clear from talking to Br. Thomas Augustine, as it was from talking to Mother Theresa next door at St. Anne’s House, that each of these communities still held the same interpretation of BOB, BOD and EENS as Fr. Feeney. With regards to the 1988 reconciliation of Mother Theresa, MICM and the sisters of St. Anne’s House in Still River, Fr. Lawrence A. Deery, JCL, at the time the Diocese of Worcester’s Judicial Vicar and Vicar for Canonical Affairs and acting in his official capacity, wrote the following: “1) The Sisters were asked to ‘understand’ the letter of the then Holy Office dated 8 August 1949. They were not asked to ‘accept’ its contents. 2) The Sisters were asked to make to make a Profession of Faith. Nothing else was required [...] In our discussions with the Congregation [for the Doctrine of the Faith] it seemed rather clear that proponents of a strict interpretation of the doctrine should be given the same latitude for teaching and discussion as those who would hold more liberal views. Summarily, Mother Theresa and her community in no manner abandoned Father Feeney’s teachings.” Need I remind you that the man who was Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith at the time of this consultation is now Pope Benedict XVI, the Church’s Supreme Pontiff? (Emphasis mine)

3) In 1988, Mr. John Loughnan, a layman from Australia who happens to be a friend of mine, wrote the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (PCED) requesting clarification on several controversies surrounding the SSPX. Mr. Loughnan also inquired as to the status within the Church of Fr. Feeney’s followers.

Concerning this last question, Msgr. Camille Perl, secretary of the PCED, replied to Mr. Loughnan as follows in N. 343/98 dated 27 October 1998: “The question of the doctrine held by the late Father Leonard Feeney is a complex one. He died in full communion with the Church and many of his former disciples are also now in full communion while some are not. We do not judge it opportune to enter into this question.”

While not wishing to engage in this controversy, Msgr. Perl clearly confirms that Fr. Feeney died in full communion with the Church, and that several of his spiritual descendants who hold his same doctrinal interpretations are in full communion with the Church. Such a statement is clearly within the mission of the PCED as this commission was established by Pope John Paul II to oversee the reconciliation and well-being of Traditionalists within the Church. [N.B. Vere seems to equate Feeney's heresy with Traditionalists when the major Traditionalist groups--SSPV, SSPX, SSPX-SO, CMRI--as well as most independent Traditionalist Bishops and Priests REJECT the heresy of Feney.---Introibo] On that note, the evidence is clear: while the position held by Fr. Feeney and his spiritual descendants may be controversial, holding these positions does not, in itself, place one outside of the Catholic Church. In short, it is clear from the Church’s current pastoral and canonical practice that the Church considers this an internal controversy, and that she acknowledges the good standing of most of those who uphold a restrictive interpretation of EENS, BOB and BOD. (Emphasis mine)
Pax Christi,
Pete Vere"

(This was a letter dated 5/29/07 having been mailed to the Feeneyite "St Benedict Center" in New Hampshire and addressed to Brother Andre Marie. Vere wrote, "...given that I do not hold office with a tribunal or ecclesiastical entity that has been asked to investigate this question -what follows is my professional opinion as a canon lawyer.

To recap our last exchange, you wrote: 'I'm wondering if you are able to put in writing something testifying to the lawfulness of holding Father Feeney's position as a Catholic in good standing with the Church. Back in January, you agreed to do this. Again, I'm not asking you to vouch for our canonical situation here in the Manchester Diocese; I'm simply asking for the expert opinion of a canon lawyer on the larger question.'" See http://catholicism.org/downloads/Peter_Vere_SBC.pdf)

Let's get one thing straight: the goal of Vatican II is, and always has been, the creation of an ecumenical One World "Church" where everything is accepted but the Truth. They will have a "Gay mass" with practicing sodomites in one place and they'll give you a "Latin Motu Mass" condemning unnatural practices in another. "Sister Mary Marxist" will tell you everyone goes to Heaven regardless of belief, and "Brother Feeney" will tell you almost no one gets there unless the person is enrolled on a parish register, and probably not even then. You can have any view you wish and do anything you like, as long as you submit to Francis and the ecumenical heresies of Vatican II.  The Feeneyites are constrained to hold communion with a man who is a total apostate preaching salvation for atheists while giving their own warped view on EENS. To spin an old aphorism: The bedfellows heretics make are never strange. It just seems that way to those who have not watched and understood the courtship. 



Monday, June 15, 2015

Mutilating The Body


 Former Olympic athlete Bruce Jenner has been all over the media, having declared himself a "woman inside a man's body." After breast implants and hormone treatments, he has not undergone "genital reassignment surgery" (read: total bodily mutilation), but has not ruled it out either. He said during an interview in April with Diane Sawyer that life as a woman is primarily "a matter of mental state and lifestyle." Jenner claims he's never been attracted to men and had exclusively been attracted to women before his transition, but now identifies as "asexual" while using female pronouns to refer to himself. The sixty-five year old is now known as "Caitlyn." There are plans for him to get his own "reality show" or TV talk show that could make him hundreds of millions. 

 You might be thinking,"What do I care about what some messed up, aging former athlete does with his body?" The unfortunate reality is that Jenner will affect the "body politic" (government/society) in more negative ways than you could imagine. In 2007, the TV news show 20/20 aired an episode entitled Born With the Wrong Body. It begins as follows:

  "This past Christmas, Riley Grant received a present that can be described as bittersweet -- a video game that allowed her to morph a digital body into anything she wanted. Almost immediately, Riley, a 10-year-old transgender girl who is biologically a boy, adopted a virtual female persona. If only life were so easy, that she could punch a button and turn into a girl.

'She has a birth defect, and we call it that. I can't think of a worse birth defect, as a woman to have, than to have a penis,' Riley's mother, Stephanie, told Barbara Walters. 'She talks about the day she'll have a baby. That's not in her future. But she sees herself as growing up to be a woman.'" (See http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3072518; Emphasis mine)

 So having a penis is a "birth defect of the worst kind?"  You can be a female with a male organ? To refer to being born male as a "birth defect" when there is no congenital intersex condition is morally reprehensible. The effect of the mother's statements (and the show's slant) are very clear: become sympathetic to poor Riley (born Richard) and his "loving mom." The show continues:

"He said, 'Mom, I'm so mad at God, because God made a mistake. He made me a boy, and I'm not a boy, I'm a girl, Mom. Every night I pray that God gives me a girl body but when I wake up I'm still a boy. God won't take back his mistake, he won't make it right,' Stephanie recalled." The child was diagnosed with Gender Identity Disorder. "So Richard, only seven years old, began to transition from a boy to a girl. He -- now she -- pierced her ears, grew her hair out, wore girls' clothing and took the name "Reggie." Her father, Neil, who once rejected her, took her shopping for dresses. He finally understood after seeing the look on his daughter's face. Reggie eventually changed her name legally to Riley."

So let me get this straight, you have a child with a disorder, but rather than treat the disorder, you indulge in it and the public should be sympathetic? There are many cases of children who outgrew Gender Identity Disorder and live normal lives. However, the purpose of the show is to eventually remove the stigma of "disorder" and make the abnormal OK.

 The effect of  Richard/Riley and Jenner on the public will be a lesser respect for the body and an encouragement of self-mutilation.  According to theologian Zalba, mutilation of the body is defined as: "the destruction of some member or the suppression of some function of the body." (See Regatillo-Zalba, Theologiae moralis summa 2 [Madrid: Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos, 1953] n. 251). Fr. Zalba goes on to explain that this definition includes the amputation of a hand, the removal of an eye, vasectomy, etc.—in a word, anything that would destroy the radical integrity of the body. He excludes from the definition such things as blood transfusions and skin grafts because these do not permanently affect bodily integrity. Who wouldn't  think that a male getting breast implants and hormone treatments to look and act feminine is "the destruction of some function of the body" i.e., the ability of the body to be in accord with the shape and function God intended for those with an X and Y chromosome? Contrary to young Richard/Riley, God doesn't make mistakes.

 Now, it has been discovered that a prominent civil rights activist in Spokane, Washington, has been lying for years by portraying herself as black when she's really a white woman, according to her parents. Rachel Dolezal, 37, president of the Spokane chapter of the NAACP is really white, but in "Jenner-esque" fashion claims she's black. (I immediately thought of the 1979 movie The Jerk wherein Steve Martin claims to have been "born a poor black child" and doesn't know he's white until his adopted black parents tell him on his 18th birthday. That was meant to be comedy, now it's real).  Race and gender are no longer objective but subjective. If someone "feels" black, then she is black even if her parents are white. If a male "feels" female, then he is female even when he has XY chromosomes and a penis. If you disagree, then there is something wrong with YOU. You're insensitive, bigoted, and (horrors!) religious!

 Bruce Jenner's private acts will have very public effects--and none of them good. Likewise, we have a man in the Vatican who claims to be Catholic--and the pope. He's a total apostate who "feels" Catholic even though he does not believe and profess the Catholic Faith. Even one Vatican II sect blogger wrote:


  • From his very first day as Roman Pontiff,  Francis demonstrated that he is at great pains to avoid in any way offending the practitioners of the world’s many false religions, as if their version of “truth” is as of much dignity before the Lord as that which He entrusted to His Church.
  • In addressing Muslims, who worship a false god, plainly rejecting Our Lord Jesus Christ,  Francis encouraged them to persist in their erroneous practices, and even went so far as to suggest that such would be blessed by the Lord whom he represents as Vicar.
  •  Francis has made clear his belief that there is no need to call others to convert to the one true faith as it can be found in the Holy Catholic Church alone.
  •  Francis maintains that religious diversity, with all of its contradictory and irreconcilable doctrines, is a gift to be celebrated. Though he stopped short of explicitly proclaiming from whence such “gifts” are bestowed, one can only presume that he imagines that these false religions spring from God Himself! (See Harvesting The Fruit of Vatican II, 9/25/13; I removed the appellation "Pope" from before the name of Francis found in the original)
 Yes, Mr. Bergoglio  pretends to be Catholic (and pope) even as Bruce Jenner pretends to be female and Rachel Dolezal pretends to be black. And, in each case, if you don't accept them, then there's something wrong with you.

 Beware of Jorge Bergoglio's taking the Faith away from billions and leading them to Hell. He's attempting the ultimate mutilation; to remove and destroy members of the Mystical Body of Christ.