Introibo Ad Altare Dei

Aborting Excommunication--and the Faith

2011-04-26T11:32:00.000-07:00

According to Spero News:
"The Archdiocese of Barcelona has announced that it has no plans to excommunicate Rev. Manuel Pousa i Engroñat, having found that the Catholic priest had not had any “primary complicity” in an abortion performed on a young woman. This was despite the Spanish priest’s autobiography in which he recounts that he had actually paid for the procedure.

Known as ‘Pare Manel’ (Father Manuel, in his native Catalonian), the priest was called to book by the diocese following the publication of a book entitled Padre Manel: Closer to earth than heaven, which consists of the results of interviews with the journalist, Francesc Bouxeda. He has served more than 30 years among the poor of the Nou Barris district of Barcelona. In the book, he recalls that he paid for a young woman’s abortion, allegedly so as to avoid putting her life at risk.

Archbishop Lluis Martinez Sistach, upon learning of the revelations, directed that a canonical law inquiry be made into the matter by diocesan judicial vicars, Rev. Xavier Bastida and Rev. Juan Benito, as well as a member of the ecclesiastical tribunal, Rev. Ramon Batlle.

On April 18, released a communiqué that noted the tribunal’s finding that “Rev. Manuel Pousa i Engroñat does not appear to have incurred a canonical punishment,” as established by Canon 1398 of the Canon Law of the Catholic Church. The article in question establishes that anyone who procures an abortion incurs an automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication. The statement from the diocese also reiterated that the well-known priest “always exercises his work of service to the poorest and most marginalized in accordance with the teachings of the Church and its social doctrine and with respect for all human life.”

The diocesan statement also alluded to the priest’s revelations that he lives with woman with whom he alleges not to have sexual relations. Rev. Pousa said in the book that he decided to pay for the abovementioned abortion after learning that another girl had bled to death following a clandestine abortion."

There you have it folks. Excommunication for killing unborn babies is de facto abolished in the Vatican II sect, as long as you "care for the poor." Didn't Christ tell us "the poor thou shalt always have among you"? Didn't He also say it would be better to have a millstone tied around your neck and be thrown into a lake than to cause scandal to a child? Interestingly, this sorry excuse for a so-called priest subtitles his book "closer to earth than to Heaven"...to which should be added "but closest to Hell"

Novus Ordo Not Just Bad for Your Soul, But Your Body Too!

2011-01-17T16:04:00.000-08:00

From the Wall Street Journal :
MASSAPEQUA PARK, N.Y. — Health officials say more people may have been exposed to hepatitis A while receiving communion at a Long Island church.

The Nassau County Health Department earlier this week said anyone who received communion at either the 10:30 a.m. or noon Masses at Our Lady of Lourdes Church in Massapequa Park on Christmas Day may have been exposed.

On Thursday they said parishioners at the 1:30 p.m. Mass that day, as well as five Masses the following day also may have been exposed. A person distributing communion is suspected of having the disease, although officials have declined to ID anyone, citing privacy concerns.

Health officials will return to the church on Friday, offering vaccines to anyone who may have been exposed.

The disease is rarely fatal and most people recover in a few weeks without any complications. "

Another reason that drinking the "cup" and shaking hands in the Vatican II sect are just plain bad for you sans doctrinal reasons! But, just to prove we Traditionalists have a sense of humor, here are:

THE TOP TEN SIGNS YOU WERE INFECTED BY HEPATITIS AT THE NOVUS ORDO SERVICE

10. At 'communion' priest says "Angel of Death, er, I mean Body of Christ!!"

9. Guy doing the "readings" is from the CDC

8. You wonder why the "eucharistic minister" has a hood and scythe

7.Usher asks you "Do you like hospital food?"

6. You over heard the pastor saying, "Ok, but everybody going to the ER is a lot better press than when we all went to jail last spring"!

5. The crucifix has been replaced by the Red Cross

4. As you go up to drink from the cup, you notice the skull and crossbones on the side

3. During "homily" priest says, "Even though we gave up believing in miracles, I think we better pray for one now!"

2. Entrance hymn is the old, venerable "Another One Bites the Dust" by Queen

And the #1 sign you were infected by hepatitis at the Novus Ordo service......

At the announcements pastor says, "OK, you might get sick and die, but at least we didn't sodomize any of you this time!"

John Paul II: "Beatified" Apostate

2011-01-14T11:47:00.000-08:00

Now Ratzinger is preparing to beatify Karol Wotyla aka "Pope" John Paul II on May 1st. How can you beatify someone who would:

kiss the Koran, the Mohammedan “Bible.”

· say that all men are united to Christ solely by virtue of the Incarnation.

· say that all men are saved.

· say that the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the Creed is present, in all its essential elements, in non-Catholic sects.

· say that the Catholic Church is in communion with non-Catholic sects.

· say that the Catholic Church is incapable of giving credibility to the Gospel, unless there is a “reunion of Christians.”

· say that the Catholic Church shares a common apostolic faith with the non-Catholic sects.

· say that non-Catholic sects have an apostolic mission.

· say that the Holy Ghost uses non-Catholic sects as a means of salvation.

· say that it is divinely revealed that men have a right to religious freedom and freedom of conscience.

· say that a properly ordered society is one in which all religions are given free rein to practice, proselytize and propagate.

· say that Our Lord’s descent into hell simply means that He was buried.

· participate in all forms of non-Catholic worship, including that of the Lutherans, the Jews, the Hindus, the American Indians, the Polynesians, to mention only some;

· praise the voodoo religion;

· permit the abomination of Assisi, in which a golden statue of Buddha was placed upon an altar an incensed by a Buddhist priest;

· permit the ecumenical abominations contained in the Ecumenical Directory.

· approve of sacrilege to the Blessed Sacrament by permitting non-Catholics to receive It.

· hold and teach the blasphemous and heretical notion of the Church, that the Church of Christ is not exactly the same thing as the Catholic Church, but merely subsists in it. This heretical doctrine was taught by Vatican II in Lumen Gentium, and its heretical meaning has been upheld by John Paul many times, particularly in the Ecumenical Directory.

· say that Moslems and Catholics worship the same God.

· Give public approval to the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, which contains many explicit heresies, and utterly contradicts the solemn teaching of the Council of Trent concerning justification

ANSWER: You CAN'T Beatify such a person. Anyone who can do ANY of the above does NOT possess the Catholic Faith. Wotyla, like Ratzinger is a heretic...indeed John Paul the Great Apostate. Thank God the beatification is an invalid farce. Wotyla is responsible for the overthrow of the Catholic Faith and the damnation of millions of souls. This is a "hero" and candidate for "sainthood"? Kyrie Eleison!!

New Year, New Moral Teaching On Condoms?

2011-01-07T09:18:00.000-08:00

From TIA at www.traditioninaction.org
by Atila Sinke Guimarães
BENEDICT’S CONDOMS: A FORGOTTEN PARAGRAPH - Having received my copy of the Pope’s book Light of the World, I could verify that amid the press hullabaloo on his declaration on condoms, a decisive paragraph was omitted by the Vatican press-release, source of that media information already commented. The question and answer that immediately followed his controversial affirmation that a male prostitute may use prophylactics as “a first step in the direction of moralization” are these:

Peter Seewald: “Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?

Benedict XVI: “She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way of living sexuality” (Light of the World, San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2010, p. 119).

Vatican Cardinals Cottier, top, Barragan and Turkson had approved condoms before Benedict XVI
These words, much more lenient than those reported by the press, can be analyzed from two different perspectives:

1. Regarding the extension of the use of condoms

This paragraph extends condoms far beyond the mentioned use by male prostitutes, later broadened by the Pope, according to Fr. Federico Lombardi, to include female and transsexual prostitutes. Indeed, here Benedict XVI generically admits other cases where condoms are allowed. Such statement invites speculation.

A. To extra-marital sex

Actually, if condoms are permitted to avoid spreading AIDS, why could they not be used to prevent venereal diseases as well? It seems that these cases would also fall under the Pope’s “exceptions” for “reducing the risk of infection.” If one adds the permission given for prostitutes and their clients to this implicit authorization for venereal diseases, then it follows that almost all extra-matrimonial sexual activity - condemned by the 6th and 9th Commandments - are now “pastorally” protected by the Pope .

Based on such words, it is not hard to imagine that Novus Ordo confessors en masse will advise those of their penitents who still do not practice contraception that they may do so in order to achieve “a more human way of living sexuality.”

B. To marital sex

But if the use of prophylactics is allowed to prevent the spread of disease in extra-marital sex, why not also inside marriage when one of the spouses has some contagious disease? It is difficult to avoid this obvious consequence of the papal permission. Thus, we have the virtual approval of the use of condoms in conjugal life to prevent AIDs or other infections.

A further development of Benedict’s permission – which seems inevitable to me – was made by The Tablet: “How, for example, does one explain to a woman in poor health in a shanty town that what the prostitute next door may do to avoid infecting, or being infected by a client, is not permitted to her to avoid more child-bearing, even though she can scarcely feed the children she already has? (‘New kind of conversation,’ The Tablet, November 27, 2010, p. 2, editorial)

One sees that the progressivist mind – of which The Tablet is a good example – will take Benedict’s “exceptions” and apply them to “social diseases.” This poor mother may be a more creditable exception than the male prostitute mentioned by the Pope. Indeed, why could she not use prophylactics as “a first step in the direction of moralization, a first assumption of responsibility”? (Light of the World, p. 119).

If this is so, why are condoms not permissible as well to an unfortunate man who became handicapped in a work accident? He can no longer work to maintain his children… And what about the case of the spouse who became addicted to drugs? Would he or she not also be included among those who can use condoms as “a more human way of living sexuality”?

Following this path of preventing contamination and sympathizing over abnormal social situations, one sees that the use of prophylactics can be extended to countless cases either inside or outside of marriage. This seems to be the practical and inevitable consequence of that papal statement.

2. Regarding its supposed pastoral criterion

A word is needed to clarify the “pastoral” character of those words, to explain to what degree they change Church doctrine.

A. Traditional concept of pastoral

1903 - Fr. Filippo Perlo in Tuthu, central Kenya. Shortly after the start of the mission the natives abandoned nudism
The old Propaganda Fidei, the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, made use of some prudent pastoral norms regarding transitory evils that were tolerated by missionaries in their work of expanding the Faith and converting peoples. I give a characteristic example: Missionaries were sent to Africa to convert tribes that practiced total or partial nudism, which meant that the missionary had to tolerate such nudity even when it presented a close occasion of sin. What was the pastoral approach of the Church in those cases?

•Regarding the spiritual life of her missionaries, she would send men who were of an age where purity problems were less intense or had already given proof of the strict practice of virtue in this matter. They were called viri probati - proven men.

•Regarding the nudism of the natives, the Church would live with that bad situation for a limited time while she was fighting to abolish it. If the natives refused to accept the Catholic Faith and Morals, the missionaries would leave that area.

•This policy of temporarily admitting a moral evil was done as discreetly as possible in order not to give the impression that any doctrinal concession had been made.
So, to convert those poor souls to the Catholic Church, some valiant missionaries would risk their own salvation. They would live amid bad customs for a very limited time while trying to eliminate them. Other religious congregations, instead of working to convert barbarians, would try to convert prostitutes. Toward this end, they would also temporarily admit some of their bad behaviors. This was the pastoral approach of the Catholic Church when she worked to convert persons from paganism, false religions or vicious states of life.

B. Sophistic concept of pastoral

A change occurred in the general orientation of the Church, however, when John XXIII founded the Secretariat for the Unity of Christians. Afterwards Paul VI established two other secretariats - one for dialogue with non-Christians and another with non-believers. These three secretariats represented a turn-around in the missionary character of the Church. She no longer sought to spread the Faith and convert others, but rather to unite with them, accepting their respective errors. Ecumenism and dialogue were fostered, and conversions put aside.

Consequently, the Propaganda Fidei, which before the Council was the most powerful Congregation, second only to the Holy Office in doctrinal matters, saw its name changed to Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples and lost its importance.

1996 - After 30 years in India Fr. Pedro Julia did not convert one single person...
As for the actual missionary work, the Council further added the directive for “inculturation,” which is to adapt Catholic liturgy and piety to the customs of the pagan peoples. Again, conversions were no longer the goal. Along these lines, I remember the case of a Spanish Jesuit Pedro Julia who, after 30 years in India, proudly boasted he never converted one single person to the Catholic Faith… (The Week, October 20, 1996, p. 8 - Kerala, India).

This toleration of evil, removed from its main goal of conversion to the Catholic Faith and Morals, became simply concessions to the moral errors practiced by those peoples. We saw scandalous examples of these criteria being applied by John Paul II on his visit to Oceania, admitting topless women in his presence, even in his Masses (here, here, here, here and here). Thus, “pastoral” now means accepting the moral errors practiced by a group of people.

Benedict’s norms on condoms were supposedly “pastoral.” He knows that in practice they contradict Catholic moral doctrine. He admits them as a lesser evil in order to foster a vague and non-religious morality, and his defenders pretend they do not change Catholic Morals. However, this vague morality establishes no specific parameters – acceptance of the Catholic Faith and a change of moral conduct in a short period of time – to allow the provisory admission of any lesser evil. Without a clear purpose to change lives, as the Church used to have before the Council, this “pastoral” admission of a lesser evil actually becomes the effective approval of that evil.

Hence, since the Conciliar Church no longer wants to convert anyone to the Catholic Faith and Morals, its “pastoral” is nothing but a ruse to permit living with something forbidden. The same kind of pastoral-doctrinal contradiction has been dishonestly employed to allow “Catholic divorce” and homosexuality in seminaries and parishes. Now it is being alleged to permit condoms. This is not pastoral; it is the relativization of Catholic Morals.

An editorial in the progressivist National Catholic Reporter confirms this contradiction in Benedict’s words and tries to explain them as a necessary maneuver their public must understand and support. “The institution,” it says, referring to the Church, “must first do what it thinks necessary to make it appear that nothing new has been said [on condoms] or realized, even when it has. But this much is clear: Benedict’s statements take the discussion out of the absolute and ideal and into the relative and messy word in which most of us live. … What we are likely to see now is the power that comes from understanding pastoral direction” (NCR, "Pope’s Condom remarks: A step into the real world," December 10, 2010, p. 28).

"Deliver Us From Evil; The False Vatican II Sect"

2010-12-20T07:31:00.000-08:00

As I've stated many times, I do not attack the Vatican II sect BECAUSE of their immorality. Rather, I claim that the immorality is a direct result of the heresy they profess. Having lost their Faith and the supernatural help of the True Sacramants, they threw away their morality as well. Allowing men with "same sex attraction" into the seminaries, rejecting sodomy as one of the four sins which scream to Heaven for Vengence, denying and downplaying the gravity of sin, and rejection (de facto) of the Dogma of Hell, leads inevitably to the sad story which follows.

Oliver O'Grady, an invalidly ordained "priest" of the Vatican II sect, was the subject of an award winning 2006 documentary entitled "Deliver Us From Evil."
Here is what O'Grady is up to according to the news report in the Lodi News Sentinel:

By Ross Farrow
News-Sentinel Staff Writer Lodi News-Sentinel

Convicted pedophile priest Oliver O'Grady, who served at St. Anne's Catholic Church in the 1970s, was arrested on Friday on charges of possessing thousands of pictures of child pornography, according to the Dublin Times newspaper in Ireland and Catholic canon lawyer Patrick Wall.

O'Grady was arrested at his Dublin hostel just after 7 a.m. Ireland time, the Times reported. Authorities found child pornography photos on O'Grady's laptop and a hard drive, the newspaper reported.

O'Grady, 65, was released from custody on bail that amounts to 500 euro, the equivalent of about $750, Wall said on Sunday. He is next due in court on Friday.

Oliver O'Grady previously served seven years at Mule Creek State Prison in Ione after pleading guilty to four counts of sexual abuse with children under 14 in Calaveras County while he a priest in San Andreas.

He served at St. Anne's in Lodi from 1971-78 and at parishes in Stockton, Turlock, Hughson and San Andreas from 1979 until his arrest in 1993.

O'Grady was paroled from Mule Creek in 2000 and deported to his native Ireland.

A documentary about O'Grady's life, called "Deliver Us From Evil," was released in 2006. Much of the movie involved interviews with Bob and Maria Jyono of Lodi, whose daughter was sexually abused by O'Grady. The film is available on DVD.

Since being deported to Ireland, O'Grady moved to Holland, where he volunteered at a parish and organized birthday parties at a McDonald's restaurant there, Wall said. He grew a beard and went by Brother Francis (Francis is his middle name), Wall added.

"We don't blame Oliver," Wall said. "He can't control himself. It was the people who were supposed to supervise him (we blame).

"The only reason it came out is that, like all criminals, Oliver made a mistake," Wall said. "He was coming back (to Ireland) from Holland and left his laptop on the plane."

Authorities found videos and still photos of child pornography on his computer, with victims as young as the age of 2, Wall said.

O'Grady had applied for Dutch citizenship, but he returned to Ireland after someone saw him in "Deliver Us From Evil" in Holland and reported him to police, Wall said.

When, o when will people wake up and reject the Vatican II sect en mass?

Our ...Father...Mother....Whatever....Who Art in Heaven?

2010-12-13T08:30:00.000-08:00

In an interview before U.S. Thanksgiving Day, November 25, 2010, Timothy Dolan, Concilliar "archbishop" of New York, who is the new head of the U.S. "Catholic" bishops, had this to say about Thanksgiving and Christ:

"Thanksgiving is a time of the year when people are open to the Lord, and we don't think about ourselves. We're grateful to God. We're conscious that somebody -- some call him or her, whatever you want -- somebody beyond us is in charge, and we are immensely grateful." Him/her/whatever you want? Ecumenism and religious indifferentism rule the Vatican II sect! The True Church, established by Christ (not by Angelo Roncalli aka John XXIII and Giovanni Montini aka Paul VI) teaches differently! We are called to bring all men into the True Church remembering Our Lord's Words:
"But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven" (Matthew 10:33/DRV).
More disturbing was Dolan's response to a reporter concerning his upset election as new president of the US "Catholic" Bishops. He was asked about his win over a "liberal" bishop, presumably making Dolan "conservative." He said, "All of us agree on the essentials. It's more a matter of style" They all agree on praying to "whatever" (the 'substance') and how far away they fall from Catholic Orthodoxy must be demed 'style'? Kyrie Eleison!!

First Sodomy, and Now Attempted Murder

2010-12-01T06:34:00.000-08:00

The depravity of the Vatican II sect grows. They threw out the True Faith, and the authentic Catholic morality went with it. I do not argue against the Vatican II establishment because of bad clergy; rather I argue that the bad clergy is a result of the rejection of the Catholic Faith and the adoption of the Modernist heresy condemned by Pope St. Pius X. When God's grace is withdrawn because the Sacraments were replaced with empty Protestant services, people lack the strength to be moral. The new "feel good" catechisms do not teach Traditional Catholic Morals. Add to this the acceptance of "Same Sex Attraction" (which no longer disqualifies a man from entering a Vatican II seminary), and the following story from the AP Newswire makes sense:

Former priest accused of trying to hire hit man
(AP) – Nov 22, 2010

SAN ANTONIO (AP) — In a murder-for-hire case worthy of a Dan Brown novel, a Roman Catholic priest has been arrested on charges that he solicited a hit man to kill a teenager who had accused him of sexual abuse.

Authorities said John Fiala first offered the job to a neighbor, who blew the whistle and helped police arrange a sting. They said Fiala got as far as negotiating a $5,000 price for the slaying before investigators moved in.

The 52-year-old clergyman was arrested Nov. 18 at his suburban Dallas home and jailed on $700,000 bond. In April, he was named in a lawsuit filed by the boy's family, who accused Fiala of molesting the youth, including twice forcing him to have sex at gunpoint.

The abuse allegedly took place in 2007 and 2008, when Fiala was a priest at the Sacred Heart of Mary Parish in the West Texas community of Rocksprings, a rural enclave known for sheep and goat herding.

The family's lawsuit also named the Archdiocese of San Antonio and Archbishop Jose Gomez, alleging that church leadership should have known Fiala was abusive.

The suit was filed just a month before Gomez was introduced as the new incoming leader of the Los Angeles Archdiocese. He is currently serving as an assistant to Cardinal Roger Mahony, who will retire next year. Gomez then automatically becomes archbishop.

The allegations against Fiala seemed like they could have formed a plotline for Brown, who wrote "The Da Vinci Code" and other religiously themed thrillers. But the accuser's attorney said they hit too close to home.

When he learned of the murder-for-hire investigation, the boy "was terrified and rightly so," attorney Tom Rhodes said. As far back as 2008, Fiala threatened the teen, and repeatedly brandished a pistol, Rhodes said.

Fiala "began saying, 'If you tell anyone, I'll hurt you, I'll hurt your family, your girlfriend,'" Rhodes said. "It was more than once he threatened him with a gun."

Fiala only recently rented a place to live in suburban Garland, where police say he initiated the attempted contract killing — even though his new home is more than 300 miles northeast of Rocksprings.

Rhodes said an anonymous informant who initially identified himself as a neighbor of Fiala contacted his office and said the priest had approached him about killing the accuser, who was 16 at the time and is now in his late teens. Rhodes urged the informant to contact the police, who then sent an undercover agent to meet with Fiala.

Rhodes said he had been told Fiala offered $5,000 to carry out the slaying. A spokesman for the Texas Department of Public Safety said he could not confirm the amount of money involved.

It was unclear how close Fiala came to actually putting his plan in motion or how he wanted the boy killed. A call to the Edwards County Sheriff's Office, which headed up the investigation, was not immediately returned.

Jail records list Fiala's attorney as Rex Gunter in Dallas, but he was in court Tuesday and did not return a call from The Associated Press. Fiala is charged with one count of solicitation to commit capital murder and two counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child.

San Antonio Archdiocese spokesman Pat Rodgers said Fiala has been removed from the public ministry, meaning he cannot present himself as a priest.

Authorities removed him in October 2008, before the accusations of sexual assault emerged, because of his interference with the custodial relationship between the teen in Rocksprings and his grandmother — a case the sheriff's office investigated. Authorities have not disclosed the nature of Fiala's interference.

"We were shocked by the allegations and saddened by the story," Rodgers said. Since Fiala was removed from the public ministry, "we haven't contacted him, and haven't had any reason to contact him."

Rhodes said Fiala originally met the accuser in 2007 and was a frequent visitor at his grandparents' house, where the teen was living. He often came bearing gifts, including new a cell phone and MP3 player, and eventually gave the boy cash to help buy a car.

Fiala used the pretext of private catechism lessons to be alone with the boy, Rhodes said, and in 2008 took the teen to a youth event in the town of San Angelo, Texas, during which he raped him in a motel room at gunpoint.

"He's a dangerous predator and has been since at least 1988," Rhodes said. "The church has known how dangerous this guy is for many, many years. They had full knowledge, we believe, and the documents seem to bear that out — that they knew what a bad person he was and what a danger he was to children."

Crossing The Threshold of Apostacy

2010-11-18T08:23:00.000-08:00

A new book released by a SSPX sypathizer excoriates John Paul II as a destroyer of the Church, yet recognizes him as a true "pope." In Crossing the Threshold of Confusion Andrew McAuley tells us Wotyla was anything BUT "Great", specifically he notes that his "papacy" was a disaster for the following reasons:

1.his failure to enforce discipline in the Concilliar sect, especially against widespread sex crimes against children by his "bishops" and "priests"
2.his statements implying the heresy universal salvation
3.the destabilization of marriage caused by his novel "Theology of the Body"
4.his confusion of the Church's traditional position on the morality of capital punishment
5.his erroneous statements about the nature of the Church (i.e. "FrankenChurch")fabricated by the Modernist Council Vatican II
6.his appointment of many known homosexuals as bishops, as well as immoral bishops who undermined Catholic moral teachings and the doctrines of the Faith, allowing seminaries to become homosexual havens and allowing heresy and depravity to flourish in Newchurch
How could a man do this in his official capacity and still be "pope"?

For anyone who truly has the Catholic Faith could not:
· kiss the Koran, the Mohammedan “Bible.”
· say that all men are united to Christ solely by virtue of the Incarnation.(1)
· say that all men are saved.[2)
· say that the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the Creed is present, in all its essential elements, in non-Catholic sects.[3]
· say that the Catholic Church is in communion with non-Catholic sects.[4]
· say that the Catholic Church is incapable of giving credibility to the Gospel, unless there is a “reunion of Christians.”[5]
· say that the Catholic Church shares a common apostolic faith with the non-Catholic sects.[6]
· say that non-Catholic sects have an apostolic mission.[7]
· say that the Holy Ghost uses non-Catholic sects as a means of salvation.[8]
· say that it is divinely revealed that men have a right to religious freedom and freedom of conscience.[9]
· say that a properly ordered society is one in which all religions are given free rein to practice, proselytize and propagate.[10]
· say that Our Lord’s descent into hell simply means that He was buried.[11]
· participate in all forms of non-Catholic worship, including that of the Lutherans, the Jews, the Hindus, the American Indians, the Polynesians, to mention only some;
· praise the voodoo religion;
· permit the abomination of Assisi, in which a golden statue of Buddha was placed upon an altar an incensed by a Buddhist priest;
· permit the ecumenical abominations contained in the Ecumenical Directory.
· approve of sacrilege to the Blessed Sacrament by permitting non-Catholics to receive It.
· hold and teach the blasphemous and heretical notion of the Church, that the Church of Christ is not exactly the same thing as the Catholic Church, but merely subsists in it. This heretical doctrine was taught by Vatican II in Lumen Gentium, and its heretical meaning has been upheld by John Paul many times, particularly in the Ecumenical Directory.
· say that Moslems and Catholics worship the same God.[12]
· Give public approval to the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, which contains many explicit heresies, and utterly contradicts the solemn teaching of the Council of Trent concerning justification.
These are merely some of the heresies of John Paul II. We must never forget that someone can manifest an adherence to heresy not only by word, but also by deed. Thus his many ecumenical acts which are an affront to the one, true God are manifestations of an interior adherence to heresy.
All of these errors and heresies are held and taught by John Paul II in the name of ecumenism. It is this ecumenism which is John Paul II’s apostasy. Ecumenism is apostasy, because it reduces all of the dogmas of the Catholic Faith to relativity. In the ecumenical system, all religions are seen to have a certain part of the truth, and all religions are seen to therefore have a certain value. For this reason, John Paul II has frequently repeated the heresy of Vatican II: that the Holy Ghost has not hesitated to use non-Catholic religions as means of salvation.
Therefore, the conclusion is inescapable, Karol Wotyla was an Anti-pope, John Paul "The Great Apostate."

Endnotes
Redemptor Hominis, 13.3
[2] Homily in Santa Maria in Trastevere, April 27, 1980
[3] Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on Some Aspects of the Church Understood as Communion., (1992)
[4] ibid.
[5] Osservatore Romano, May 20, 1980
[6] ibid.
[7] Osservatore Romano, June 10, 1980
[8] Catechesi Tradendæ, October 16, 1979
[9] Redemptor Hominis, 12.2 and Dives in Misericordia, and his speech to the United Nations on October 2, 1979 and in many other places.
[10] Vatican II, Dignitatis Humanæ, a document which John Paul II says has a particular binding force.
[11] General Audience, January 11, 1989
[12] May 31, 1980 in a speech to the Moslems in Paris.

All The Right Premises, But A False Conclusion

2010-11-05T06:54:00.001-07:00

It never ceases to amaze me how members of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) and other pseudo-Traditionalists will get the problem in the Church correct, but get the answer wrong by continuing to affirm Ratzinger and the post-concilliar "popes" as true Vicars of Christ. One John Vennari starts out an article concerning the 100th anniversary of St. Pius X's Anti-Modernist Oath this way:

"Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, the eminent American theologian, called the Oath Against Modernism 'the most important and most influential document issued by the Holy See during the course of the 20th Century. It is a magnificent statement of Catholic truth in the face of errors which were being disseminated within the Church by the cleverest enemies the Mystical Body of Christ has encountered in the course of its history.'

The Oath Against Modernism was abolished two years after the close of the Second Vatican Council, yet the men who took the Oath at ordination are still bound by it. Those who swore this sacred Oath and then promoted the modern program of Vatican II, including the Council’s new ecumenism and religious liberty, have shown themselves unfaithful to the Oath they swore solemnly before God.

Stressing the seriousness of the matter, Msgr. Fenton noted in 1960 that a man who took the Oath Against Modernism, and who then promoted Modernism himself, or allowed it to be promoted, 'would mark himself not only as a sinner against the Catholic Faith but also as a common perjurer.'

He who takes the Oath Against Modernism swears solemnly: 'I sincerely hold that the doctrine of Faith was handed down to us from the Apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same explanation (eodem sensu eodemque sententia). Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another, different from the one which the Church held previously.'

At the end of the Oath, he makes this solemn Promise before God Himself: 'I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God, and these holy Gospels of God which I touch with my hand.'

It is hard to see how a person who holds to the countersyllabus of Vatican II can claim to have kept the Faith 'in exactly the same meaning and always in the same explanation' as the Church always held. It is hard to see how someone who accepts the Council’s new program of ecumenism and religious liberty can claim to have “guarded inviolate”, and 'in no way deviated' from the clear teachings of the pre-Vatican II Popes regarding true Christian Unity and the Social Kingship of Christ.

Both Cardinal Ratzinger and Yves Congar stated openly, as if it’s something to be proud of, that Vatican II is a countersyllabus – that it says the opposite of key teachings from pre-Vatican II Popes.

The spirit of infidelity to traditional Catholic doctrine, the lust towards change and novelty that Pius X’s anti-Modernist measures condemned, and the violation of a Sacred Oath against God by highly-placed Churchmen, is the true legacy of the Second Vatican Council and its consequence reforms." (Internal Citations omitted).

If Ratzinger allows and promotes the heresy of Modernism to be promoted and is guilty of perjury, he is a heretic. The Church teaches that a heretic can NOT be pope! We can not "recognize and resist" a true pope; we must obey.Theologian Vitoria puts an end to the myth that a Catholic can "recognize and resist" when he writes in De Potestate 22, Obras, 485: “Non videtur permittendum cuicumque privato sua auctoritate resistere et non parere mandatis Pontificis… Probatur. Quia esset magna irreverentia et quasi contemptus, si cuilibet hoc concederetur respectu Pontificis… non licet propria auctoritate discedere.” Translation:

“Proposition 23: ‘It would not seem permitted for any private person on his own authority to resist and not obey the Pope’s directives, however much these would contradict a Council’s decision.’ This is correct. For it would be a great act of irreverence and near-contempt for supreme authority if anyone were allowed to act towards a Pope in a way that would not be permitted towards a bishop, whose directive (however unjust) one may not disobey on private authority.”

Since the 16th century nearly all canonists and theologians who have addressed the issue teach that a pope who becomes a manifest (public) heretic “would, by divine law, fall from office without any sentence.” M. Conte a Coronata, Institutiones Juris Canonici (Rome: Marietti 1950) 1:316

To paraphrase Fr. Cekada:Ratzinger openly denies the rule of faith. He commits the sin of heresy.

We Traditionalists need not hesitate to call a heretic a heretic — even though no Council has convicted him — any more than we hesitate to call an abortionist a murderer.

Nor should Traditionalists hesitate to point out the consequences: A public heretic cannot be a true pope. He deposes himself.

The Mistake is Vatican II

2010-10-25T09:08:00.001-07:00

According to the Washington Post:
"A Catholic church in the central Swiss city of Lucerne has sparked controversy among believers with an AIDS awareness campaign that involves distributing to teenagers condoms bearing the slogan 'protect thy neighbor as thyself.'

The church plans to hand out 3,000 condoms as part of an effort to engage young people turned off by the Vatican's long-standing opposition to the use of condoms.

Spokesman Florian Flohr says the campaign has drawn mostly positive reactions but some Catholics have expressed concern.

Officials at the diocese of Basel didn't immediately respond Monday to requests for comment. A spokesman in the neighboring diocese of Chur was quoted by Swiss television SF1 describing the condom campaign as 'a mistake.'

How does a blasphemy like this pose as a "mistake?" If you can plot out such nonsense and claim it as error, could you do the same with all of the heresy of Vatican II---and jettison it once and for all?

Vatican II: Less Orthodox Than Anglican Heretics

2010-10-04T10:00:00.000-07:00

According to several news sources including the Sydney Morning Herald:

"An Australian Anglican tribunal has found one of its bishops guilty of eight counts of “disgraceful conduct and wilful violation of church ordinances.”

Bishop Ross Davies of Murray, who resigned on September 24, was accused by two fellow Anglican bishops of engaging in verbal abuse, covering up sexual abuse, promoting the Catholic faith instead of his own, and worshiping at a Catholic parish in Adelaide. Before his resignation, Bishop Davies was on sick leave for a year and was living outside his diocese."

This proves that the Anglcans have their own problems with vice, yet isn't it interesting that one of the charges was "worshiping at a Catholic (sic)parish"? Ecumenism is less rampant among heretics of old than Ratzinger's sect. Had one of his "Bishops" done what this Anglican had done, he would have been promoted to Cardinal! Forget the vices--he's appropriately ECU-MANIACAL!!!

The Darkness of Islamism Embraced

2010-09-20T09:41:00.000-07:00

'Cardinal" Theodore McCarrick, "Archbishop" Emeritus of Washington D.C. recently told CNSNews that: “If a person sees the Quran as proof of God’s presence in the world, then I cannot say, ‘Don’t embrace the Quran.’ So that I think we are, we should always be willing to talk to people and we should always be willing to love them and we should always be willing to allow them that freedom of conscience which comes from God.”

"Comes from GOD"??? If someone sees the Satanic Bible as proof of God's presence in the world would he tell him it's OK to embrace it? What does the True Roman Catholic Church teach?

The following propositions are CONDEMNED as error by Pope Pius IX in his famous 1864 "Syllabus of Errors":

15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862; Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.

16. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation. -- Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846.

17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. -- Encyclical "Quanto conficiamur," Aug. 10, 1863, etc.

Also Pope Gregory XVI: "And so from this rotten source of indifferentism flows that absurd an erroneous opinion, or rather insanity, that liberty of conscience must be claimed and defended for anyone." — Pope Gregory XVI

Has McCarrick been condemned as a heretic and excommunicated by the Vatican II establishment? That's a rhetorical question folks! Just another proof of the heresy embraced by the Concilliar "church."

"Women Priestesses" Welcome Ratzinger with a "Mass"

2010-09-18T13:42:00.000-07:00

This video shows women "priestesses" who claim sarcedotal power, offering the Novus Ordo in union with "Benedict our Pope." Were these women excommunicated by Ratzinger? No! For that you need to go to a Traditionalist Church and attend the Real Mass offered by a Real Priest! Another reason Ratzinger will never be and CAN NOT BE "our Pope"!

Was Pope Alexander VI a Heretic? Hardly! Let Ratzinger Supply the Beer and Pretzels as We Explain

2010-09-17T09:20:00.000-07:00

There are some defenders of the Vatican II sect who use the pontificate of Alexander VI to "prove" that a heretic CAN be pope!! He was accused of heresy, yet is acknowledged as a true pope throughout the rest of Church history. Does this case refute sedevacantism? Not in the least! I will reprint an article written by Traditionalist apologist Mr. John Lane of Australia that explains this clearly:

"The fact that public heresy is absolutely incompatible with holding office in the Catholic Church has been argued elsewhere by this author. In fact, it is the constant tradition of Holy Church, taught explicitly by numerous popes, Doctors, theologians, saints, and accepted by General Councils. It is also expressly legislated in the Code of Canon Law, in the section on resignations. Canon 188, section 4 states that he who publicly defects from the faith resigns his office by the very fact, and this resignation is accepted by operation of law without the need for any declaration.

We should, therefore, expect to find evidence in history of its application to concrete cases. In fact, we find a number. The case of Savonarola and others versus Alexander VI is one such precedent. Fra Girolamo Savonarola was a Fifteenth-Century Dominican, famous for his zeal for the salvation of souls, and for his opposition to the gross immorality of many of the members of both the clergy and laity of his time. He was also a very competent theologian and philosopher, referred to by many as brilliant. Unfortunately for him, his preaching against vice was too effective for the comfort of many in positions of authority in Holy Church, and he came into open conflict not only with members of the Roman Curia, but with Pope Alexander VI. Alexander VI, a Borgia, generally competes with one or two others for the title of "Most Immoral Pope" in Church Histories. Eventually the friar was convicted of heresy in rather confused circumstances, hanged and then burnt. There seems to be no dispute that his death was contrived for political purposes, and that the charges of heresy were unjust. Even the historian Kirsch, whose account in The Catholic Encyclopedia is thoroughly hostile to Savonarola, affirms that he was not a heretic, and notes that the notary falsified the records of the trial.

Savonarola went further than simply accusing the Pope of vice - he accused the Pope of heresy. While it was a commonplace among knowledgeable Catholics that Alexander had purchased the papacy, it was not said so openly that he was actually a heretic in his personal theology. Savonarola not only made this claim in private correspondence with Cardinal della Rovere, but was agitating to have a council called at which he could prove his claim, and have Alexander deposed.

The following is from a life of the Dominican: "Many good and experienced Catholics maintained the opinion that Alexander's election was null and void, having been obtained, as all knew, by simony, and that the only way to put an end to the numerous scandals of which he was the cause, would be to summon a council to depose him. The leader of this party was the pugnacious Cardinal of St. Piero in Vincoli, afterwards Pope Julius II. (Footnote 2 ref. - The footnote reads, in part, as follows : 'Padre Marchese, "Storia di San Marco," p. 225 and fol. : [Latin quotation from Marchese omitted]. The said Cardinal, on being made Pope, issued a Bull (14th of January, 1505) in confirmation of the Lateran Council, declaring Alexander's election null, and incapable of convalidation, even by the subsequent homage of the Cardinals…") [Contrary to Villari's impression, this Bull seems not to have been in confirmation of the Lateran Council, which did not open until 1512, but rather in confirmation of the promise he had made before his election to call a General Council for the reform of the Church. The Lateran Council, when it finally came, was the fulfilment of this promise - hence the wording of the footnote, I presume. Unfortunately, I do not have access to this Bull. It sounds very similar in principle to Cum Ex Apostolatus, which was also issued in the Sixteenth Century, but with the purpose of ensuring a suspected heretic Cardinal was not elected pope at a subsequent conclave. Cum Ex Apostolatus also taught that if a heretic was elected pope the election would be absolutely impossible to convalidate by the subsequent homage of even the entire Church.]

"He [Della Rovere] styled the Borgia [Alexander VI] an infidel and a heretic, and was constantly in waiting on King Charles [of France], doing his utmost to induce him to assemble a council, and achieve the reform of the Church. … The first time the French passed through Rome, no less than eighteen cardinals joined Della Rovere in pressing the King to procure the desired reform." Life and Times of Girolamo Savonarola by Professor Pasquale Villari, trans. by Linda Villari - T. Fisher Unwin, London, circa 1910 (my copy is inscribed by hand "1910" on inside cover), pp. 392,393.

The Catholic Encyclopedia article on Alexander VI mentions Villari as a source, and appears to grant him considerable credibility. The author of the article is Mgr. James Loughlin of Philadelphia. The article on Savonarola, by Mgr. J.P. Kirsch of the University of Fribourg, the celebrated historian, also gives Villari as a source in the bibliography at the end of that article. However it should be noted that Villari reads as a partisan of liberalism, and this is confirmed by his dedication of the work to "Gladstone, Champion of Italian Freedom." Given that this book was written not long after the uniting of Italy under Freemasonic hegemony, one can hardly be sympathetic with this reference! Additionally, it is clear that our hero is loved by Villari chiefly because of his supposed promotion of "democracy" against the "tyranny" of the Medici. A more obvious theme for a Freemason could hardly be devised.

At any rate, Villari doesn't hesitate to mention that della Rovere "styled the Borgia an infidel and a heretic", which of course is the only ground upon which a Catholic could expect to see a properly elected pope "deposed." Undoubtedly the future Pope Julius II knew this. The Catholic Encyclopedia, on the other hand, omits mention of heresy, preferring to mention only the question of simony in the election (another possible cause of invalidation, but not the only one at issue). From other sources, however, we know that Villari's account is correct. Savonarola and the cardinals were seeking to overthrow Alexander VI on account of the latter's heresy, and Savonarola made the point in correspondence to della Rovere and to various Catholic Princes that if they could only achieve the gathering of a council for the judgement of Alexander, then he (Savonarola) would prove the pope's heresy publicly.

Cardinal Journet, in his The Church Of The Word Incarnate (Vol. 1, p. 484, trans. A. H. C. Downes, Sheed & Ward 1955) offers the following information about these letters of Savonarola: 'In a study in the "Revue Thomiste" (1900, p. 631, "Lettres de Savonarole aux princes chretiens pour la reunion d'un concile"), P. Hurtaud, O.P., has entered a powerful plea in the case - still open - of the "Piagnoni". He makes reference to the explanation of Roman theologians prior to Cajetan, according to which a Pope who fell into heresy would be deposed "ipso facto": the Council concerned would have only to put on record the fact of heresy and notify the Church that the Pope involved had forfeited his primacy. Savonarola, he says, regarded Alexander VI as having lost his faith. "The Lord, moved to anger by this intolerable corruption, has, for some time past, allowed the Church to be without a pastor. For I bear witness in the name of God that this Alexander VI is in no way Pope and cannot be. For quite apart from the execrable crime of simony, by which he got possession of the [papal] tiara through a sacrilegious bargaining, and by which every day he puts up to auction and knocks down to the highest bidder ecclesiastical benefices, and quite apart from his other vices - well-known to all - which I will pass over in silence, this I declare in the first place and affirm it with all certitude, that the man is not a Christian, he does not even believe any longer that there is a God; he goes beyond the final limits of infidelity and impiety" (Letter to the Emperor). [Footnote : These were neither new nor isolated accusations. cf. Schnitzer, "Savonarola", Italian translation by E. Rutili, Milan, 1931, vol. ii, p. 303.]

'Basing our argument on the doctrinal authorities which Cajetan was soon to invoke, we should say that Savonarola wished to collect together the Council, not because, like the Gallicans, he placed a Council above the Pope (the Letters to the Princes are legally and doctrinally unimpeachable), but so that the Council, before which he would prove his accusation, should declare the heresy of Alexander VI in his status as a private individual. P. Hurtaud concludes: "Savonarola's acts and words - and most of his words are acts - should be examined in detail. Each of his words should be carefully weighed and none of the circumstances of his actions should be lost sight of. For the friar is a master of doctrine; he does not only know it but he lives it too. In his conduct nothing is left to chance or the mood of the moment. He has a theological or legal principle as the motive power in each one of his decisions. He should not be judged by general laws, for his guides are principles of an exceptional order - though I do not mean by this that he placed himself above or outside the common law. The rules he invokes are admitted by the best Doctors of the Church; there is nothing exceptional in them save the circumstances which make them lawful, and condition their application."'

From The Catholic Encyclopedia (1910), Vol. 1, p. 291, Alexander VI, Pope, we have the following : "The policy of Alexander was dictated not only by a laudable desire to maintain the peace of Italy, but also because he was aware that a strong faction of his cardinals, with the resolute della Rovere at their head, was promoting the invasion of Charles as a means towards deposing him on the twofold charge of simony and immorality. In September, 1494, the French crossed the Alps; on the last day of that year they made their entry into Rome, needing no other weapon in their march through the peninsula, as Alexander wittily remarked (Commines vii, 15), than the chalk with which they marked out the lodgings of the troops. The barons of the Pope deserted him one after the other. Colonna and Savelli were traitors from the beginning, but he felt most keenly the defection of Virginio Orsini, the commander of his army. Many a saintlier pope than Alexander VI would have made the fatal mistake of yielding to brute force and surrendering unconditionally to the conqueror of Italy; the most heroic of the popes could not have sustained the stability of the Holy See at this crucial moment with greater firmness. From the crumbling ramparts of St. Angelo, the defences of which were still incomplete, he looked calmly into the mouth of the French cannon; with equal intrepidity he faced the cabal of della Rovere's cardinals, clamorous for his deposition. At the end of a fortnight it was Charles who capitulated. He acknowledged Alexander as true Pope, greatly to the disgust of della Rovere, and "did his filial obedience", says Commines, "with all imaginable humility"; but he could not extort from the Pontiff an acknowledgment of his claims to Naples."

What does this tell us? Firstly, it demonstrates the fact that cardinals, including a future pope, were not afraid to try and unseat a pope, on the grounds of heresy and/or simony. Secondly, there is no suggestion by later authors (that I'm aware of) that this was unCatholic behaviour. Thirdly, della Rovere himself, after his accession to the Chair of Peter, confirmed the principle upon which he had acted as a cardinal, by the most solemn document a pope can issue - a bull. Fourthly, even in the period when Holy Church was at her most vulnerable, suffering from terrible levels of immorality among the clergy and laity, heresy was considered so serious that it constituted grounds upon which even a pope could be judged. This is in accordance with the teaching of the great Thirteenth Century pontiff, Innocent III, as expressed in a sermon as follows: "The faith is necessary for me to such an extent that, having God as my only judge in all other sins, I could however be judged by the Church for the sins which I might commit in matters of faith." Finally, it needs to be emphasised that Savonarola is singularly famous for the very fact that he wished to bring about the deposition of Alexander VI, and yet numerous popes and saints have been devoted to him. The Apostle of Rome Saint Philip Neri, for example, used to pray to Savonarola, and attributed miracles to his intercession. It is difficult, nay impossible, to imagine that so many saints and popes could have praised a man who was famous for being wrong, and in so grave a matter!

While it is true that Alexander never ceased to be pope, and it would be at least rash to assert otherwise, this is not necessarily because he was not a heretic, as some authors maintain. To understand what actually happened a little more theology is necessary. Heresy can be either internal or external. That is, one may doubt or deny a dogma merely internally, without expressing it, or one may announce one's heresy to others. While some authors maintain that all heresy makes one a non-Catholic, the common opinion is that only externally manifested heresy causes the loss of membership in Holy Church. And it is the loss of membership in Holy Church which is responsible for the automatic loss of offices in the case of manifest heretics. In addition to this, there is another distinction drawn by theologians, between "manifest" and "public." The common opinion is that only "public" heresy actually deprives one of the status of Catholic; "manifest" is a term which may apply to a case in which somebody admits their heresy privately, to one or two discreet individuals. Evidently, in a perfect and visible society, offices cannot be said to be lost by merely manifest heresy, if "manifest" is to be understood in this way. [Note : different authors use these terms in different ways - our concern is with the meaning, not the terms.] Heresy, for it to deprive a person of membership in Holy Church, and consequently any offices they hold, must be "public." For the sake of completeness, it is worth mentioning that "notorious" is again distinct from "public." "Public" facts are known, or capable of being known, to many. "Notorious" describes things which are actually known, or could be easily known, by all.

Applying these considerations to the case at issue, then: we see that indeed Alexander VI could well have been a heretic internally, and that he may have manifested this to a select number of persons, and that this could have been brought to the notice of Savonarola. There is no doubt that some doctrinal failure came to Savonarola's notice. But for Alexander to lose the papacy he would have to cease being a Catholic, and this is why Savonarola was agitating for a council to be called at which he could make his case. Once the case was made publicly, then Alexander would cease to be a Catholic and thus pope. In other words, Savonarola was most certainly right in his theology; and he was possibly right in his assertion that Alexander was a heretic. There seem to be absolutely no grounds for asserting that Savonarola was actually wrong in any way at all, unless we count excessive zeal for the honour of Christ's Church as an error.

Would that more suffered from this fault! The greatest tragedy of our era, and the most obvious cause of the further tragedies, is the failure of the clergy to act at the great moments of crisis in 1958 (when Roncalli emerged "victorious" from the conclave) and again in 1965 (when Vatican II was "promulgated" by Montini). Another great opportunity for action occurred in 1969 with the appearance of the Abomination of Desolation itself, the New "Mass." It was the express command of the Blessed Virgin that the third part of the Secret of Fatima be revealed by 1960, at the latest. In 1957 Sister Lucy confided to Father Fuentes, "The Most Holy Virgin has told me that the devil is about to engage in a decisive battle against the Virgin ... and that he knows what most offends God, and what will make him gain the most souls in the shortest possible time. He does everything to gain souls consecrated to God, for in this manner, he will succeed in leaving the souls of the faithful abandoned by their leaders, thereby the more easily will he seize them."

History knows no examples of such almost unanimous negligence, weakness, and faithlessness as that presented by the clergy of our age. Faced with somebody (Alexander VI) who was but a pale reflection in evil-mindedness of the servants of Satan who have despoiled the See of Peter in recent decades, no fewer than eighteen cardinals rose to the cause of defending Holy Church. And during the depths of the Arian crisis, the Roman clergy deposed Pope Liberius on the basis that he had compromised with the Arians, even though it was clear that he was not actually one of them. Where were men such as these when the Immaculate Spouse of Christ needed them to come to her defence in 1958?

And more importantly, where are they now?"

John Lane
December 13th 1998
Gaudete Sunday and Feast of St. Lucy
Revised December 22nd 1998
Feast of St. Frances Xavier Cabrini

No Stairway to Heaven

2010-09-15T10:05:00.000-07:00

According to Reuters, the Vatican II sect in Australia has just banned the use of rock, pop and secular songs (as well as DVD presentations) at funerals! The once sacred Requiem Mass is now as defunct as the Faith and Morals of the Vatican II hierarchy.
The story says:
Football club songs and pop or rock music have been banned from funerals in Catholic churches in Australia under new guidelines distributed this week to priests and funeral directors.

A funeral should not be a "celebration" of the deceased's life, Archbishop of Melbourne Denis Hart said in the rules, but a final sacred farewell. Celebrations of that life should be held at social occasions before or after the funeral, he said.

"The wishes of the deceased, family and friends should be taken into account ... but in planning the liturgy, the celebrant should moderate any tendency to turn the funeral into a secular celebration of the life of the deceased," the guidelines state.

Some funeral directors, however, said the directive was insensitive to relatives' needs as many grieving families wanted to incorporate multimedia presentations, including photographs and video of the deceased person's life as well as music.

Centennial Park, a leading provider of cemetery, crematorium and memorial services in Australia, in 2008 compiled a list of the 10 most popular songs at Australian funerals.

The top song was Frank Sinatra's version of "My Way," followed by "Wonderful World" by Louis Armstrong, "Time To Say Goodbye" by Andrea Bocelli and Sarah Brightman, and "Unforgettable" by Nat "King" Cole.

Rounding out the top 10 were "The Wind Beneath My Wings" by Bette Midler, "Amazing Grace," "We'll Meet Again" by Vera Lynn, "Over the Rainbow" by Judy Garland, "Abide With Me" by Harry Secombe, and "Danny Boy."

The list of top 10 most popular unusual funeral songs included listed as Queen's "Another One Bites the Dust," AC/DC's "Highway to Hell, "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life" by Monty Python, and "Ding Dong the Witch is Dead" from "The Wizard of Oz."

At least the "Punk Priest" can still do his groovy thing in Pennslyvania! Maybe 45 years after Vatican II, Ratzinger may want to adopt "Still Crazy after All These Years" for his sect.

The Real Absence

2010-09-10T16:40:00.000-07:00

Pity the Vatican II sect. Some "conservatives" who still believe in Traditional dogmas, try to stop "abuses." Here is a video put together by a group of conservative Concilliarists showing how one priest (most likely validly ordained before Vatican II), wanted to stop "communion" in the hand. This video takes place in the Diocese of Rockville Centre, which makes up all of Long Island, New York. "Bishop" William Murphy, originally from (where else?) Boston was quick to force him to re-instate the practice. Meanwhile, Murphy allows his "priests" to clamor for contraception, women "priestesses", and 'loving homosexual relationships.' Where is Ratzinger in all of this mess? Good question! Obviously, they forgot to check underneath the rocks. He can't do anything because he doesn't want to stop it! After all, the Chief Rat was among the most radical of heretics at Vatican II! As long as you belong to his One-World Ecumenical Religion, anything goes--from the so-called Motu Mass to this craziness shown in the video.

I just wish the Concilliarists would wake up and realize that Ratzinger is not the pope, and the Vatican II sect he helped found is NOT the Roman Catholic Church. These are not "abuses" in the video, they are the directly and indirectly sanctioned fruits of the heretical teachings of Vatican II. Since the Church is Indefectible (can not give evil), but the changes are evil (even when done 'by the book'), then the Church did not give us Vatican II. The heretics who lost their authority (and now their morality as well) sought to lessen and eventually destroy belief in the Real Presence to accommodate ecumenism. Ironically,what conservatives in the Concilliar sect subjectively believe to be Eucharistic sacrilege and blasphemy, is objectively nothing of the kind. Having invalidated both Holy Orders and the Mass, an invalid piece of bread and drink of wine is all they have left. One can almost hear the angels at the tabernacles (whatever is left of them) filled with mere bread saying, "You are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, He is not here." For the love of God, and the salvation of your soul, run, don't walk, to the nearest Traditionalist Church and convert!!

"A Good Tree Can Not Bear Bad Fruit"-- Beware of Heretics in Shepherd's Clothing

2010-09-02T12:38:00.000-07:00

As we prepare to celebrate the feast of Pope St. Pius X, foe of Modernism (September 3), let us see the Modernist fruits of Vatican II. These fruits are the result of the deadly heresy of Modernism, which Pope St. Pius X drove underground, but came back after Roncalli (John XXIII) and Montini (Paul VI) lost their authority and worked to destroy the Church through Vatican II. The True Church is now underground, until Our Lord restores His Bride.

"Let's look at the numbers in the US first. In 1965, at the end of the Council there were 58,000 priests. Now there are 41,000. By 2020, if present trends continue (and there is no sign of a dramatic upsurge in vocations), there will be only 31,000, and half will be over 70. To give an example, I was ordained in 1981 at the age of 27. Today at the age of 52, I can still attend priests' meetings and be one of the younger priests there. In 1965, 1575 new priests were ordained, In 2005, the number was 454, less than a third, and remember that the Catholic population in the US increased from 45.6 million in 1965 to the 64.8 million of 2005, almost a 50% increase. The Venerable John Henry Newman said, "Growth is the only evidence of life." By his definition, the Church in the United States has been and continues to be in sharp decline. Now, quite clearly, there has been a sharp decline in the number of seminarians over this time period. Between 1965 and 2005, the number of seminarians fell from 50,000 (some 42,000 high school and college seminarians, and 8,000 or so graduate seminarians) to today's approximate 5,000, a drop of ninety percent.

The religious men and women (those taking vows) have even more precipitously declined in the US over this time period. In 1965, there were 22,707 priests; today there are 14,137 with a much higher percentage of them well over the age of 65. Religious brothers have gone from 12,271 to 5,451, and women religious from the astounding number of 179,954 in 1965 to 68,634 in 2005. I should mention here that the attrition in these numbers, as well as that of diocesan priests is not only due to deaths and a dearth of priestly or religious vocations, but also a massive defection, whether sanctioned or not by the Church. Again we do not have time to analyze the multiple causes that caused this precipitous decline in belief and practice; the doubting in questions of faith and morals that was widely spread in the post-conciliar Church after the Council also led many priests and religious to abandon ship into lay married life. Naturally this also has a depressing effect on the recruitment of response to a vocation by young men and women who had seen this exodus in full play. Quite clearly the abandonment or radical changes on the part of many religious congregations of their historical rules, community life, and clothing also had a deleterious effect both on perseverance and recruitment in vocations. There are many more women religious over the age of ninety than under the age of 30 in the US. The number of Catholic nuns, 180,000 in 1965, has fallen by 60%. Their average age is now 68. The number of teaching nuns has fallen 94% from the close of the Council. The number of young men studying to become members of the two principal teaching orders: the Jesuits and Christian Brothers, have fallen by 90 percent and 99%, respectively. There is little sign of growth in this part of the Church in the US. However there are some signs of hope with the arrival of some new religious congregations and revival of others.

"We can now examine the state of what was, in many ways, the pride and joy of the pre-Vatican II Catholic Church in America: the educational system that extended from grammar school through hundreds (yes, hundreds) of Catholic colleges and universities. It is accurate to say that there had never been such an extensive, and at least in appearance, such a fundamentally sound, education system, in any place or at any time in the history of the Church. Elementary education was basically taken care of by the parish following the pioneering work of St. John Neumann. The parish also directed many high schools but there were also many directed by the armies of men and women religious. Virtually all of the high schools were single-sex while some were co-institutional i.e., boys and girls in the same building but educated separately. Naturally the combination of stable marriages, relatively large families, and strong catechesis produced not only vocations but also well formed men and women who lived their faith in a coherent way in their professional work, including politics and marital life. That is all virtually gone now.

"Almost half the Catholic schools open in 1965 have closed. There were 4.5 million students in Catholic schools in the mid-1960's. Today there is about half that number. What is even more troubling is that those children still attending Catholic schools (grammar and high) are taught by lay poorly formed Generation X Catholics who often themselves have serious difficulties with aspects of Catholic doctrinal and moral life. Only 10 percent of lay religious teachers accept Church teaching on contraception, 53 percent believed a Catholic woman could get an abortion and remain a good Catholic, 65 percent said Catholics have a right to divorce and remarry, and in a New York Times poll, 70 percent of Catholics ages 18-54 said they believed the Holy Eucharist was but a "symbolic reminder" of Jesus." (See
Fr. C J. McCloskey, in an article entitled "The Church in the US,"at
catholiccitizens.org.

As Bishop Sanborn has said: "Such are the fruits of Vatican II. Consequently, we Catholics turn our eyes with disgust upon Vatican II, and curse the day that it was conceived in the Modernist brain of John XXIII. Our lives have been miserable ever since. What Ratzinger and his henchmen have done is to throw a wrench into a well-oiled and humming engine of truth, to smash a crystal-clear and precious vase of decency and righteousness, to defile a golden chalice of supernatural beauty by the turpitude of their heresies. They have destroyed our Catholic world and our Catholic lives. And after forty years, as the Catholic world falls down around them, they have nothing better to say or do than to tell us that it is all wonderful. It makes us sick to hear it.

Our Lord said: 'By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them.' (Matth. VII: 16-20)"

Welcome to the Novus, Novus, Novus Ordo

2010-08-20T20:19:00.000-07:00

On November 27, 2011, the Vatican II sect will release the third (yes folks, that's right, third) edition of the invalid Neo-protestant bread and wine service which replaced the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It is the third revision since it was released in 1969. Conservative members of the sect will claim it's a "reform of the reform", a "better translation", with "more expression of traditional theology." Yeah. Right. Sure.

Before anyone thinks this is anything positive, be warned that it is evil to the core. Simply replacing phrases like "and also with you" with "and also with your spirit" after the "priest" says, "The Lord be with you" does nothing to change the Novus Ordo's essential fixation on the "Assembly" as the center of worship. "Assembly theology" still reigns supreme, as the "General Instruction on the Roman Missal" states, "Then through his greeting the priest declares to the assembled community that the Lord is present. The greeting and the congregation's response express the mystery of the gathered Church." (See sec. 28, DOL 1418). The Novus Ordo equates the virtual presence of Christ "where two or more are gathered", as well as in the Bible readings, with the Real, Substantial Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Heretical theology to be sure, and now moot, since they have no more valid Eucharist. (Due to invalidly ordained "priests", incorrect words of Consecration--"for you and for ALL---and reading the words of Consecration, incorrect or not, as an "Institution Narrative").

Therefore, all this change is merely window dressing, much like "High Church" Anglicans, whose beautiful vestments and decorated Churches do nothing to give validity to their worthless services. This could be described as putting "putting lipstick on a pig." But even that analogy fails, since the pig was slaughtered and the pork sold to pay for Ratzinger's presbyter-pedophiles.

The Secular Case Against Sodomy

2010-08-09T19:59:00.000-07:00

This month, a federal district court judge found California's Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional. Proposition 8, ratified by 52% of California voters in 2008, made so-called "gay marriage" illegal in that state. As the Vatican II sect is too busy mired in their own unnatural sins which scream to Heaven for vengeance, they have lost all moral authority to speak on the issue (if, indeed, they speak to it at all). I will now give some good secular arguments to show how a person can oppose "gay marriage" WITHOUT any appeal to God, the Bible, Sacred Tradition, or Church authority.

This will show that, as in all cases, there is no contradiction between Faith and reason. Indeed, reason shows how all people of good will should oppose the legalization and celebration of sodomy, even if a person were an atheist! Here are the main pro-sodomite arguments and the secular counter-arguments:

1. Anti-Gay Marriage Statutes/Amendments (hereinafter "AGM") discriminate against homosexuals.

Reply: No they don't. The AGMs discriminate against behaviors, not persons. Marriage laws discriminate against the behaviors of homosexuals as well as bigamists and the incestuous, but not against them as persons. Laws must protect us from harmful behaviors regardless of why they commit them (and I will argue that homosexual behavior is harmful to society at large later in this post).

2. Homosexuals are a minority class deserving of equal protection.

Reply: No, homosexuals are no more a "class" of persons than those who commit bestiality or pedophilia. We should not classify people based on BEHAVIORS that are chosen--EVEN IF THE DESIRES ARE NOT CHOSEN. Are alcoholics a "class" that we discriminate against because we don't let them drive when not sober? Even if they are "born that way", the behavior is dangerous to society at large and can not be tolerated.

3. Homosexuals deserve equal rights.

Reply: They already have them. Everyone has the right to form their own relationships, but not all people are entitled to have them endorsed by the State. The State, for good reasons, chooses to endorse opposite sex relationships between two consenting adults. If the State must endorse homosexual relationships based on some fuzzy notion of "equality", on what basis do we deny this so-called "equality" to Mormons who consent to polygamy or first cousins who wish to wed?

4. Gay "marriage" is just as good as traditional marriage.

Reply: Not by a long shot. Traditional marriage is essentially about procreation, gay "marriage" is about hooking up. While it's true that we allow an old man and old lady to marry (and they can't procreate), the essence of traditional marriage is procreative. Hence, Red delicious apples are good to eat by essence or nature, even if a particular apple has a worm and is not edible. Rocks, in essence and nature, are NEVER edible and good for you to eat. Likewise, sodomites can NEVER procreate by natural means. They must adopt (two men), or use in vitro (two women). Homosexual "parents" always deny the child a mom or dad, and will confuse a child about their own sexuality (as most are born heterosexual--even if we buy into the idea of being "born that way").

5. AGMs violate the separation of Church and State.

Reply: Wrong again! Morality is being legislated and all laws legislate morality, including a law that legalizes gay 'marriage' through someone's moral ideas of equality and justice, and the notion that homosexual behavior is moral!! Just because some religions are against gay 'marriage' doesn't mean we can't legislate against it. If that were true, how could we pass laws against rape, murder, and stealing as most religions condemn these behaviors as well?

6. Homosexuality is not harmful to society.

Reply: Homosexual behavior is harmful because: (a) it results in numerous health problems to those who practice it, such as increases in AIDS and STDs, as well as rectal and colon cancer (See Dr. Jeffery Satinover, M.D., Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, Grand Rapids, MI, Baker, 1996), pg. 51), and (b) shortens the median life-span of homosexuals by 20-30 years (See Paul Cameron, Ph.D, William Playfair, M.D., and Stephen Wellum, B.A., 1994. "The Longevity of Homosexuals: before and After the Aids Epidemic." Omega Journal of Death and Dying, Vol. 29, No. 3, 249-272)

7. Gay "Marriage" won't hurt YOU!

Reply: Sure it will. Your social security taxes may go up in order to pay survivor benefits to gay 'widows' and 'widowers.' Medical costs could soar if insurances must cover fertility treatments for lesbian couples. Employee benefits may be reduced as limited benefit dollars are spread to cover homosexual partners. The ability to adopt children may be hindered as preference is given to homosexual couples who can't procreate on their own. your free speech and freedom of religion may be hindered as well, as opposition to homosexual behavior (now made equal to heterosexual behavior) will be seen as "hate speech" and denial of constitutional rights.

How's that for starters?

In summation, secular arguments show us homosexual "marriages" are destructive and should be banned. I guess it would be off-color (but not off the mark) to suggest that a society that condones sodomy will get it in the end.

Once a Pope, Always a Pope?

2010-08-02T12:47:00.000-07:00

An anonymous person left a comment at my post of 7/29/10, asking me to read an article written by one Mr. John Salsa, a lawyer and conservative member of the Vatican II sect (please see the comment to said post for the link to Mr. Salsa's article). This anonymous poster implores me to reconsider my "being in schism" after reading what Mr. Salsa has written. I read the article carefully, and I now implore both the anonymous commentator and Mr. Salsa to correct their ignorant and incorrect views regarding sedevacantism and join the fight against Ratzinger as Traditionalists.

Mr. Salsa's article, entitled The Errors of Sedevacantism and Ecclesiastical Law is a masterpiece of obfuscation regarding the pope's loss of authority when he falls into heresy. I would like to ask that my prior posts be read from June and July, as it will help paint a clear picture of what sedevacantism is--and is not. The title of the article is a red herring, as sedevacantism is an issue of DIVINE LAW, not ecclesiastical law, and Mr. Salsa's application of both is manifestly incorrect.

He begins his article with the gratuitous--and incorrect--assumption that the biggest argument ("stick" as he calls it) that Traditionalists use is Pope Paul IV's Apostolic Constitution Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio (herinafter "CEAO"), declaring the election of a heretic to the papal throne null and void. Where Salsa gets this idea, I haven't a clue, and he provides us with no citations. All the big names in sedevacantist circles, Cekada, Dolan, Sanborn, Pivarunas, etc. cite to CEAO and a declaration by Pope Innocent III, to show that the Church has always held with theological certainty that it was possible for a heretic to wind up on the papal throne.

Pre-Vatican II theologians and canonists (e.g. Baddi, Bellarmine, Beste, Coronata, Dorsch, Iragui, Prummer, Regatillo, Salaverri, Van Noort--to name but a few!!) have held that a pope, once elected, could (as a private theologian) fall into heresy and lose his authority as pope. Please refer to the wonderful pamphlet Traditionalists, Infallibility, and the Pope by Fr. Cekada, and the articles on sedevacantism available at http://www.traditionalmass.org/. Salsa admits that CEAO does not cover this circumstance, but goes on to make the incredible assertion (without citations) that "most Sedevacantists believe (an elected pope losing his authority) is almost if not entirely impossible." Really? I hope you research your legal briefs better than your theological papers, Mr. Salsa.

Salsa claims that his analysis of CEAO applies to the case of a pope elected and then falls into heresy. How so is anybody's guess. Taking his enunciated principles to task, he claims that we can only know a heretic is a heretic "after the Church judges the matter." Well, not really. The maxim that "The First See is Judged by no one" is explained as follows by canonist Capello: "The Immunity of the Roman Pontiff. The First See is judged by no one (Canon 1556). This concerns the Apostolic See or Roman Pontiff who by the divine law itself enjoys full and absolute immunity." (See Summa Juris Canonici 3:19). This means that there can be no ecclesiastical tribunal by which the pope can be judged, or his decisions appealed. The maxim thus refers to a procedural norm.

One of the canonical sources for the maxium "The First See is judged by no one" comes from the Decree of Gratian, ca 1150, which reads as follows: "whose sins (the pope's) no mortal man presumes to rebuke, for he shall judge all and is to be judged by no one, unless he is suddenly caught deviating from the Faith." (Decree, I, dist. 60, ch. 6) This tells us the very OPPOSITE of what Salsa claims: defection from the Faith is the one sin of the pope we are permitted to judge!

Further, Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) one of the greatest canonists of his time, taught that a pope is "judged":"..he can be shown to be judged, if he manifestly 'loses his savor' in heresy. For 'he who does not believe is already judged'" (Sermo 2: In Consecratione, PL 218:656). A pope who commits a sin of heresy can indeed be shown as one "already judged." Salsa ends his article with this uncanny paragraph, "Restoring the Church will be furthered by recognizing the authority of the current pope, as well as properly distinguishing his binding papal teachings from his mere opinions and actions, which may be the product of human weakness or self-respect, but which can never be evidence of formal heresy."

Really, Mr. Salsa? If you recognize Ratzinger as your pope, you are bound in conscience to follow his commands! Do you believe that a Mass can be valid with no words of consecration, as Ratzinger with official approval from JPII decreed? If he's your pope you must! Who decides what is binding papal teaching and "mere opinion"? You, Mr. Salsa? The decree on a mass with no words of consecration was officially taught by the Modernist Vatican, Mr. Salsa! Who says actions and opinions can never be evidence of formal heresy Mr. Salsa? You? According to theologian Merkelback, external heresy can consist of "signs, deeds, and the omission of deeds" (Summa Theologia Moralis 1:746). Where does the Church teach that "human weakness" or "self-respect" excuses from an act such as kissing the blasphemous Koran like JPII? No where Mr. Salsa! You have not one citation for this novel contention! Salsa also equivocates on the meaning of "formal heresy." "Formal" does not mean "requiring a binding decree", but rather having lost the Faith after holding to it (as opposed to the "material heresy" of one raised in Protestantism, and never being a member of the One True Church).

In summation, being a Traditionalist does not make you a schismatic, but the "recognize the pope, and we will decide what to accept" thesis of Salsa will leave you schizophrenic! Counselor, if you practice civil law as poorly as you attempt to expound on Divine and ecclesiastical law, you'll be the defendant in a legal malpractice suit very soon.

Show Me the Heresy

2010-07-29T08:50:00.000-07:00

Some Vatican II apologists claim that the post-conciliar "popes", Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI, never really professed heresy, and therefore could not lose authority. The statements were "ambiguous" or "able to be squeezed within the limits of orthodox teaching." Such is simply NOT the case. Let's look at (a) heresy defined and(b) heresy displayed by the alleged "pontiffs."

(A)Heresy

A heretic, according to Canon 1325.2 is “one who, after the reception of baptism pertinaciously denies or doubts any of the truths to believed by divine and Catholic faith.” The teaching must be an article “of divine and Catholic faith” that the Church has authentically proposed as such.
A prior ex cathedra or conciliar definition is not required. “The explicit teaching of the universal ordinary Magisterium suffices for a truth to be authentically proposed for adherence by the faithful.” (See Michel, DTC 6:2215)

The heretic may deny the doctrine “in explicit or equivalent terms,” (See R. Schultes, De Ecclesia Catholica: Praelectiones Apologeticae (Paris: Lethielleux 1931), 638. “verbis explicitis vel aequivalentibus.”) through either a contradictory or a contrary proposition.

(B) Heretical Teachings

Justification: The October 31, 1999 Joint Declaration on Justification , approved by Ratzinger and 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 and approved by John Paul II.
These documents promote the “Subsistent Superchurch” heresy, as Fr. Cekada calls it, 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.”

Actions such as JP II kissing the blasphemous Koran. Canonists and theologians teach that external heresy consists in dictis vel factis — not only in words, but also in “signs, deeds, and the omission of deeds.” (Merkelbach, Summa Theologiae Moralis, 1:746.) Vatican II apologist Jimmy Akin (http://www.jimmyakin.org/) has tried to defend this kissing of the Koran because JPII may have wanted to show respect for "elements of truth" that the Islamic unholy book contains. Using the same logic, one could excuse kissing the Satanic Bible because it teaches "elements of truth" as well!

Declaring "valid" a "mass" with no words of Consecration!!!

The list could go on and on, but one thing is for certain: it's much easier to point to the few instances of NON-HERETICAL statements and actions of the post-conciliar "popes" than the plethora of heresy the Unholy Fathers of Modernist Rome regularly pour forth leading to the damnation of souls.

Going to the Dogs

2010-07-24T11:06:00.000-07:00

It has been reported by the Associated Press and at a web site CatholicCulture.org, that a dog named Trapper (owed by one Mr. Donald Keith) was allowed to receive "communion" with his owner at an Anglican Church in Toronto. Like the Vatican II sect, the Anglicans have no valid Apostolic Succession or True Mass, so the two only received bread, not Jesus Christ, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity under the appearance of bread. However, the Vatican II sect has become more and more like the Anglicans, who profess faith in almost anything, yet really believe nothing.

The Anglicans profess faith in the Real Presence, yet like their Vatican II counterparts, they have no sense of the sacred. Their actions tell us they do NOT believe in Christ's Real Presence. Did not Our Lord Himself tell us not to give "that which is Holy to dogs"? According to the report, Mr. Keith was asked to come up and receive communion by his minister, who gave communion to Trapper the dog. After receiving "communion" it was said that Trapper then "bent his head and said a little prayer." The Anglican bishop has done nothing to discipline his priest. He merely said it would not happen again. Peggy Needham, an official at the parish, said the complaint only came from one disgruntled person who e-mailed the bishop.

Before anyone says this was the Anglican Church, let's not forget how close to Anglicanism the Vatican II sect gets with each passing year. Standing and receiving communion in the hand, always allowed in the Anglican Church to tacitly negate faith in the Real Presence, was adopted by Vatican II "popes." Look at any Vatican II parish to see the scantily clad women handing out the Novus Ordo cracker to men dressed for the beach (at least during the summer). Watch as they sing inane songs like "Michael Rowed His Boat Ashore" and talk/laugh while going up to get the cracker. Sitting replaces kneeling after reception. Does anyone think it will be long before some Vatican II cleric like the Punk Priest thinks it's totally cool and bodacious to give the Novus Ordo cracker to a dog?

Hey, why not? After all, doesn't their Chief Heretic, Joseph Ratzinger fancy himself as their German Shepard?

Is Sedevacantism Heretical?

2010-07-18T22:26:00.000-07:00

One Vatican II apologist, I(van) Shawn McElhinney, has posted what he terms a 'treatise' entitled, "A Prescription Against Traditionalism." The author mainly tries to vindicate the Novus Ordo "Mass" and rails against the so-called Traditionalists of the Society of St. Pius X. One part of his posting is optimistically called "A Refutation of the Heresy of Sedevacantism."Far from a refutation, it merely recycles arguments which either misrepresent the issue or have premises which are false.

I will present his arguments available at www.matt1618.freeyellow.com/sedevacantism.html and expose the fallacies.

1. Christ did not depose the Pharisees who conspired to put Him to death, so who are sedevacantists to declare the papacy vacant?

Answer: We do not depose popes and make declarations. The Church through Her theologians has taught that an heretical pope loses his authority ipso facto, by divine law. As theologian Billot explains "...having become an unbeliever, he (the pope) would by his own will be cast outside the body of the Church." (See De Ecclesia, 5th edition,[1927],632). Sedevacantists recognize the fact of heresy and act accordingly. There is no legal declaration that Osama bin Laden is a terrorist, but would Mr. McElhinney want to board a plane where he was the pilot? In the practical order you see the turban, recognize the fact of a terrorist (in the absence of any legal disposition), and stay off the plane. No legal declarations, just public determinations. The author's argument analogizing to the Pharisees (and making an attempt to satirize it using "The Revised Sedevacantist Version" of the Holy Bible) is very glib, but doesn't get him very far. First, the laws of the Old Testament were superceded by the New Testament, and second, the Church has already interpreted through Her appointed theologians what Scripture and Tradition mean. According to Her approved theologians, the Church has taught that nothing in the Bible or Tradition precludes the possibility of sedevacantism.

2. The definition of the first Vatican Council in 1870 dogmatically assures us there will be "perpetual successors" in the papacy, therefore to claim that the papal throne is vacant is heretical.

Answer: Pure theological and historical ignorance. According to theologian Dorsch (See de Ecclesia, 2:191-192), the definition was directed against heretics who contended that either (a) the Primacy was a power that was given by Christ to St. Peter ALONE, or (b) Christ did not intend the Primacy to be passed perpetually to his successors, but it would either die with St. Peter or pass along to the episcopal college. Mr. McElhinney and his Vatican II sect apologists would have us believe that the definition of Vatican I means that except for a brief period of interregnum between the death of one pope and the election of another, we must always have a living, breathing pope on St.Peter's Throne.
As theologian Salavarri devotes 23 dense pages to this issue (See de Ecclesia, 1:385), the Church tells us that the papacy is an INSTITUTION whose rights and duties will endure in perpetuity, and does not teach that there must always be a man to fill that position.

3. Papal legislation regarding conclaves promulgated by Pope Pius XII allows Masons/heretics to be validly elected as pope.

Answer: The declaration Vacante Sede Apostolis is irrelevant to the issue of sedevacantism. Heresy is an impediment of divine law, that prohibits a man from receiving papal authority (See Coronata, Inst. I. C. 1:312, wherein "Heretics and apostates [at least public ones] are therefore excluded {from being pope}." To be free from heresy and apostasy, he explains, is a requirement to become pope "by DIVINE LAW"--emphasis mine. Hence, the contention that Pope Pius can dispense from Divine Law is false as NO HUMAN AUTHORITY CAN DO SO! Pius dispensed only from impediments of ECCLESIASTICAL LAW.

Mr. McElhinney claims that it is "impossible to embrace sedevacantism and not be a heretic." The facts prove otherwise. While he derides sedevacantists as theological "amateurs" and scoffs at "proof-texting," he nevertheless doesn't understand the Church documents he cites!! McElhinney's "Prescription", far from being medicinal, is pure theological poison that should result in a lawsuit for malpractice. In reality, it is impossible to embrace Ivan Shawn McElhinney's poor attempt at argumentation and not be an ignoramus.

The Traditional Dedication of the Twelve Months of the Year

2010-07-11T20:59:00.000-07:00

While the Vatican II sect downplays and denies miracles and the supernatural, we Traditionalists should not forget to add some prayer or devotion to the Subject which the Church holds up for our special consideration.

January.....The Holy Name of Jesus

February.....The Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ

March.....St. Joseph

April.....The Most Holy Eucharist

May....The Most Blessed Virgin Mary

June....The Most Sacred Heart of Jesus

July...The Most Precious Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ

August.....The Immaculate Heart of Mary

September.....Our Lady of Sorrows

October.....The Most Holy Rosary

November....The Holy Souls in Purgatory

December.....The Divine Infancy of Our Lord Jesus Christ

Shades of Gray

2010-07-09T09:09:00.000-07:00

"Fr." Kevin Gray of the Vatican II Archdiocese of Hartford, Conn. has been arrested. This is nothing new in Vatican II-land. The real shocker seems to be that they have ANY priests not under indictment! I'm bringing out this case NOT to "prove" the sect is false. Even in the True Church there have been scoundrels, starting with Judas Iscariot chosen by Our Lord Himself! Rather, the scandals show how they are the logical outgrowth of Vatican II's ecumenical worldview which necessarily encompasses relativistic morality.

According to CBS News, 64 yr old Fr. Gray had been embezzling money since January 2003, to the tune of approximately 1.3 MILLION dollars!! What did he do with the money? He spent it on a lavish sodomite lifestyle: high class restaurants, top rated hotels, and high priced male prostitutes. He then paid his catamites rent and put one through Harvard (an act of 'Charity'?). When asked by police why he did it he claimed that he thought the "Church owed it to me, because I was unhappy with my assignments." What has happened to him? He has been suspended while awaiting trial, but not excommunicated. Apb. Lori, of Hartford, apparently "overlooked" Gray's failure to submit annual finance reports because he is a "popular" priest! To top it all off, Fr. Gray told his parishioners that he had terminal cancer in an attempt to elicit sympathy when his scandal broke.

What does all this tell us about Vatican II? Lots:

1. Since 1972, candidates with "same sex attraction" were no longer officially barred from entering Vatican II seminaries; unofficially the practice began in the late 1960s, right when Gray was admitted. The focus shifted from the theological to secular psychology not in alignment with Traditional Church teaching. Homosexuality was not a moral disorder to be overcome, you were "born that way." It didn't disqualify you for service in the Church because keeping such a person surrounded by men was not seen as an "occasion of sin" to be avoided. Sin is negative theology!

2. The priesthood is seen as a "job" or "career" not a vocation--a sacred calling by God. How many times in the corporate world do you hear of embezzlers feeling like they got the short end of the stick? Priests talk of retirement packages and benefits as if this were a secular job. With the sense of the sacred trashed by Vatican II's promotion of man-centered, Modernist theological heresy, the priesthood is not seen as a sacred calling from God and the need to make sacrifices (working until death or physically/mentally unable) is disappeared. So now if you don't like your assignments, don't do them well and offer up the hardship to Christ. No, the Church "owes" you the "right" to steal money and break your vows to commit the unnatural vice with young sodomites for sale. Likewise, Holy Matrimony is no longer viewed as a vocation, so if you're not being "fulfilled" as you think you should, get a divorce--and the Vatican II equivalent of a quick "annulment" will follow. This man, Kevin Gray, is an apostate who has no fear of God (if, indeed, Gray ever believed in Him in the first place). Stealing from Church and faking terminal illness? Heathens of old had better standards of morality.

3. There are no consequences for your actions. "Bishops" will cover up for their "popular" perverts. If a priest were popular for saying unpopular (true) things (e.g.condemning pre-marital sex, denying communion for abortion politicians), he would have been strictly scrutinized. When the late, great Fr. Paul Wickens left the Archdiocese of Newark, New Jersey, to abjure the heresies of Vatican II and offer the True Mass and Sacraments in a chapel, he was "excommunicated." To be Catholic is the only crime! Gray is still "in good standing" while suspended from all priestly functions!!

4.This is the sad legacy of Vatican II. Some of Gray's parishioners actually attempted a "defense" of his actions. But what can one expect when the lines of right and wrong, black and white are all blurred? The color represented by our indicted sodomite-embezzler's name says it all.

Two Rites Make a Wrong

2010-07-07T17:37:00.000-07:00

Three years after Joseph Ratzinger allowed the 1962 version of the Mass to be used without restriction (see Summorum Pontificum--hereinafter SP), it should be worthwhile to see what we have learned:

1. According to Ratzinger's own document, the True Mass (called the "Extraordinary Form"), are "two uses of the one Roman Rite" (SP, para. #1). This means that members of the Vatican II sect are schizophrenic. The anthropomorphic Novus Ordo with it's focus on the Assembly ("People of God") and bastardized words of consecration recited in an "Institution Narrative" is just another use of the God-centered Traditional Mass. The "Punk Priest's" use of AC/DC is just another use of Gregorian Chant(see posting of 6/30/10). Can anyone seriously maintain this position with a straight face?

2. The Motu Mass is NOT the 1962 Missal. It's an amalgamation of sorts. SP para. #6 states that "Scripture readings may be proclaimed in the vernacular." Indeed, according to "Fr." Gary Dickson in England, he allows the laity to "proclaim the readings" in the vernacular at a microphone stand facing the people. He also allows for reception of communion in the hand. Does anybody old enough to remember 1962 recall ANY of these sacrilegious practices? Ratzinger also modified SP at the urging of the Jews to allow only the Novus Ordo version of Holy Week in Latin or the vernacular. The reason? The unecumenical (and therefore sinful!!) term "perfidious Jews" in the Traditional Mass calling for the (horrors!) CONVERSION of the Jews to Catholicism! So, some priests will use 1962 (minus Holy Week which must be full-blown Novus Ordo), some use parts of 1965 inserted (Canon read aloud), some other priests will make use of Vatican II inventions a la Fr. Dickson. The Motu Mass should really be called the 'Forrest Gump Liturgy', because just like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're going to get.

3. As the late Traditionalist priest, Fr. Carl Pulvermacher once sagaciously noted, "Once there are no more valid priests, they will allow the True Mass." Yes, indeed, nearly 40 years after Holy Orders was rendered "absolutely null and utterly void" in 1968, Ratzinger allows for (some distorted form) of a real Mass, knowing full well that many of the "priests" who will attempt to offer it are mere layman. No real priest, no real Mass.

4. In SP, Ratzinger tells us his reasons for allowing (some form of) the True Mass is"...a form of encounter...particularly suited to them{the 'People of God'}..." It's a "sacrality which attracts many people" Compare this with Pope St. Pius X, the foe of Modernist heretics:"Everything in their system is explained by inner impulses or needs." (Encyclical Pascendi, speaking about Modernists and the Sacraments).

Conclusion: Ratzinger has allowed the Motu Mass in an attempt to lure unsuspecting souls who have just found Traditionalism, into his clutches. His Wickedness wants you in his One World Ecumenical religion, and he will give you ANYTHING you want to get you there. Well, everything except this: The Integral Roman Catholic Faith, Mass, and Sacraments. Be warned!!

Reconciling Penance with the New Order

2010-07-03T15:46:00.000-07:00

Many in the Counterfeit Church of Vatican II are unaware how the Modernist heretics have destroyed not merely the Most Holy Sacrifice of The Mass, but all the Sacraments as well (with the possible exceptions of Baptism and Marriage). By destroying the Sacrament of Holy Orders, the Vatican II sect has destroyed the Episcopate and Priesthood and the five Sacraments that depend on a valid Apostolic Succession (for an in-depth treatment of how the heretics invalidated Holy Orders see Fr. Cekada's scholarly article "Absolutely Null and Utterly Void" at http://www.traditionalmass.org/).

Some Traditionalists feel that it is OK to confess their sins to a priest validly ordained in the Traditional Rite (used prior to 1968), but adheres to the Vatican II sect. There are many problems with this idea. As every True Catholic knows, each Sacrament is composed of matter (the sensible thing or action), and form (the necessary words that determine the meaning of the matter), performed by the proper minister (one who has the power to act "in the Person of Christ" for that Sacrament), who joins the matter and form to confect the Sacramental Sign with the Intention of doing what the Church does in the administration of the Sacrament. In addition, the recipient of the Sacrament must have the intention to receive it and place no obex, or obstacle in the way(i.e. the female sex is an invalidating obex to the reception of Holy Orders).

If any of the aforementioned requirements are defective, the Sacrament is null and void. Assuming we have a validly ordained priest (whose ordination was in 1958 for argument's sake), can we go to him for confession if no Traditionalist priest is available? Outside the danger of death the answer must be a resounding NO!!!

Reasons:

1.The priest is an apostate. He has broken his Anti-Modernist Oath and follows the new tenets of the Concilliar religion, bereft of all Catholicism. A Greek Orthodox priest is validly ordained, but is outside the True Church--he is a schismatic (actually a heretic as he denies the Divine Institution and prerogatives of the Papacy) and outside danger of death, you may not approach a schismatic or heretic for Confession.

2.The Rite itself is quite possibly defective. No longer called "Penance" (negative theology), the Feel Good Church of the Punk Priest (see post of 6/28/10) has renamed it "Reconciliation." Even if you could confess to a heretic, you still may not have your sins Sacramentally forgiven. The Confessional has been replaced with the "Reconciliation Room" wherein you have a "rap session" with the priest who now functions as a sort of social worker. In many cases, the "rap" takes place where you are "face to face" which may make a penitent less likely to confess really serious sins out of shame and embarrassment. (There was a reason for the anonymous screen Confessional!) If you wind up in such a situation and omit a mortal sin, your confession is null and void--plus the added sin of a bad confession!

3. Sometimes the Vatican II sect priests make up their own form of the Sacrament, thus invalidating confession with such "absolutions" as "May Our Lord Bless You." A nice Blessing but NOT an absolution from sin!

4. Even adherents of their own sect may not be forgiven with a valid priest because the Vatican II laymen (esp. those born after 1970), are not taught to have a firm resolution to avoid sin and amend their lives. Without this resolution, there is an obex on the part of the recipient that renders it invalid.

Conclusion: Outside of the danger of death, Traditionalists must never approach a Vatican II priest for Penance, whether such priest is validly ordained or not. The once sacred seal of confession is now gone and replaced with little more than psychobabble in a reconciliation room designed to seal your fate.

Operation Survival 22 Years Later

2010-06-30T13:28:00.000-07:00

On June 30, 1988, His Excellency, Archbishop Marcel Levebvre (with the assistance of Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer) consecrated four Society of St. Pius X priests to the Episcopacy in opposition to the Modernist Vatican. Those two brave prelates along with newly consecrated Bishop Bernard Fellay (now age 52), Bishop Alfonso de Galleretta (now age 53), Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerias (now age 65) and Bishop Richard Williamson (now age 70) were "excommunicated" by Karol Wotyla (John Paul II) the next day. Wotyla began the "Ecclesia Dei" Commission on July 2, to try and keep as many away from the Society by offering them the Traditional Mass if they would accept the poison of Vatican II and the "papacy" of Wotyla.

Now, 22 years later, "Operation Survival" as the Archbishop called the consecrations, can be seen in light of history. The Archbishop, who had come to a de facto acceptance of sedevacantism, went to his eternal reward March 25, 1991. Bishop de Castro Mayer, who shared his views, departed a month later on April 25. Bishop Bernard Fellay took control of the Society in 1994 and began "negotiations" with the Modernist Vatican. The Archbishop had broken off his negotiations when he realized (a) a Catholic doesn't negotiate with a Pope, he obeys, and (b) the continuation of the Church with a valid Apostolic succession needed to be preserved. When you add (a) plus (b), you get the formula for sedevacantism.

Bp. Fellay thinks that you can have a pope and not obey. It's "Cathestant"--the mixing of Catholicism with Protestantism. You have a Holy Father and you decide when and what to obey! Against abortion? Yes, your Holiness! You want us to celebrate the Novus Ordo? No, your Holiness can not command us to go against Tradition. You decry homosexual "marriage"? Yes, your Holiness! Archbishop Levebvre died excommunicated? No, Your Holiness, it was illegal for John Paul II to do so. And so it goes on and on.

On July 7, 2007, Ratzinger issued Summorum Pontificum, which allowed the 1962 Missal to be used as the "Extraordinary Rite" of the Church (a sort of "Equal Rites Amendment"). In January 2009, he lifted the "excommunications" against the four living SSPX Bishops. A month later when Bishop Williamson disputed a point of secular history (how many Jews died in the Holocaust and were gas chambers used), Ratzinger jumped through hoops to apologize and "silenced" Bp. Williamson, demanding a retraction and apology. Had Bp. Williamson sodomized some young boys and/or denied some Truth of Divine and Catholic Faith, Ratzinger would have helped hide his crimes (no apology necessary), and to silence a heretic is intolerable!

Readers wonder why I don't consider the SSPX as Traditionalist. The foregoing should make it obvious. You can't pick and choose what commands of a pope to follow. You must follow them all! If the Novus Ordo is as good as the "Extraordinary Rite", you have no doctrinal basis not to use the New Mass. It becomes a matter of preference; you like vanilla and I like chocolate. You can't claim that the Traditional Mass is more reverent, because that implies that the Church gave us a Rite that is less reverent. The Dogma of the Indefectability of the Church assures us the Church can not give that which is evil--and not to give God the most reverence is an evil (think of Cain and Abel--Cain gave God less than the best he had, and God was not pleased)!

Only sedevacantism gets you out of this conundrum. Ratzinger is NOT pope, therefore we need not obey him--period! The fact that the Novus Ordo is the Novus Bogus (invalid and irreverent), is proof that those who gave it to us are not part of the Church but defected through the profession of heresy. I beg all SSPXers to leave before the sell-out to Ratzinger. Stop trying to walk the fence. If the SSPX is to really survive, the operation they most need is one to remove the deadly disease of Ratzinger from the Body of Christ.

Vatican II, The "Punk Priest" and the Highway to Hell

2010-06-28T17:49:00.000-07:00

" In the Traditional Mass only the bread and wine ever change. In the New Mass everything EXCEPT the bread and wine changes."--Attributed to Bp. Blaise Kurz, circa 1969

"Before an institution self-destructs the more ridiculous it becomes."--Voltaire

Apologists for the Deformation that was Vatican II will frequently complain that the wacky goings-on are "abuses never sanctioned by the Council or Pope." The facts tell a different story. Meet one "Fr." Bob Lubic, a Vatican II priest in the Diocese of Greensburg, Pennsylvania. Known like most Vatican II clerics as just "Father Bob" (just a regular guy, no alter Christus here!) he has the distinction of also being called the "punk priest" for his use of rock music and punk attire in and out of church. Check out his web site at http://www.thepunkpriest.com/. Fr. Bob has actually sang the infamous AC/DC song Highway to Hell (a song about the band's love and admiration for "Father Satan") in Church and made it part of his "homily" (formerly known as the sermon). He's also used Led Zepplin's Stairway to Heaven---most probably for a Vatican II "Mass of Christian Burial" wherein everything is draped in white and each departed person is de facto canonized as being in Heaven. I wonder if Fr. Bob realizes that Jimmy Page, guitarist for Led Zepplin, was an admirer of Aleister Crowley, the renowned satanist? So enamoured with Crowley, Page purchased the castle where he lived in England. The song even has a proven backward masked message (which I heard) saying "my sweet Satan."

Ah, well, how can Gregorian Chant or Mozart's Requiem Mass in D minor compete with such superior musical talent? Before the chorus of "this is an abuse" chimes in, consider that Fr. Bob operates with the full knowledge and blessing of his "bishop" who in turn is united to Ratzinger. And why shouldn't he; after all, if you read his web site he's simply trying to make the priesthood and Catholicism (at least his parody of it) "more relevant to the people." This WAS and REMAINS the rubric of Vatican II--"making things relevant to modern man." How is this accomplished?

First, downplay/deny "negative theology" which is repugnant to the modern mentality. Such concepts as Hell, Satan, and God's Vengence for Sin must go. Sing a satanic song because (a) there probably is no Hell, so why worry? (b) If there is, no one goes there because we're all good and God will never permit it, so still don't worry! (Maybe Fr. Bob might want to make Don't Worry, Be Happy the official parish anthem).

Second, conform the Church to the modern world. Imitate the world, don't make the world imitate Christ as those "pre-Vatican II schismatics" try to do and whom Fr. Bob condemns on his web site. Interestingly, for someone so eager to placate everyone, we Traditionalists are the ONLY PEOPLE he condemns(Deo gratias!). Actually, under Fr. Bob's theology on Hell, who cares if we're schismatic or not--sin and Hell must go! (The baby-boomers might say "Hell? No, we won't go"!).

Now, you might think I'm making this up. Where does the Vatican II sect teach such things? The General Instruction for the New Mass (GI 69 section 24, DOL 1414) states "..the faithful coming together establish communion among themselves, and dispose themselves for properly hearing the Word of God and worthily celebrating the Eucharist." The Modernist heresy to "establish communion"is nebulous language employed to devalue the real Communion at Mass. This concept of "Christ in the Assembly as Communion" was a driving force of the Modernists which accounts for the numerous times the General Instruction allows the priest to ad lib or omit parts "for pastoral reasons." This explains how the Novus Ordo can be so different from parish to parish or even priest to priest. Use the Motu Mass, Fr. Conservative? Sure! There are pastoral needs! Fr. Bob wants to sing a song about Satan and give a homily that rants with "Amen" responses like a Jimmy Swaggert revival? Sure! Pastoral needs rule again! What are these "pastoral needs", you ask? Why anything that Fr. Conservative or Fr. Bob concoct in their heads, you silly goose!

After the "Prayer after Communion", the GI allows for more impromptu speeches and/or announcements for that warm, fuzzy feeling. Fr. Bob can sell tickets to the Woman's Ordination Conference, tell everyone to give at the Blood drive, ask the people for donations to the Bishop's fund for his million dollar wine cellar, or ask that greeting cards be sent to the former pastor at the local prison. It's all good; and really cool! Then when Fr. Bob says, "The Mass is ended", I can't help but think, "Yep. And I know the heretics who destroyed it, dude."

Religious Liberty, Religious Tolerance, and Vatican II

2010-06-21T09:30:00.000-07:00

Mr. Peter Gaffney has seen fit not to continue our dialogue after I posed some direct questions to him (see post of 6/14/10). Moreover he has purged his blog "Aretheos" of my comments and any ability to make further comments! Such is the typical Vatican II sect member. Unable to refute or answer our arguments, they retreat to a place where they don't have to face the ugly reality of a false pope and counterfeit church. For them ignorance is bliss (except on Judgement Day when it will be asked why they did not perform due diligence into this matter). Pray for Mr. Gaffney and his coreligionists that they may seek the Truth wherever it may lead.

One point on his blog I never touched upon was his endorsement of so-called "religious liberty." He says "error has no rights. People do." Well, people don't have the right to be wrong and lead others into error. Might as well say, "Murder has no rights, but murderers do." Yes, but it doesn't mean they have the right to murder and disrupt the public order! If, as Mr. Gaffney contends, people can not be made to act against their religious consciences, what about Satanists who wish to sacrifice their babies to the devil? People whose religions compel them to make abortion legal? All persons are free to profess their mistaken beliefs in private and not proselytize. This is religious tolerance, the teaching of the Church before Vatican II.

Here is what Vatican II says about religious "liberty":

"The Declaration of this Vatican Council (Dignitatis Humanae)on the right of man to religious freedom has its foundation in the dignity of the person, whose exigencies have come to be more fully known to human reason through centuries of experience... Revelation does not indeed affirm in so many words the right of man to immunity from external coercion in matters religious. It does, however, disclose the dignity of the human person in its full dimensions.”

The Vatican II decree demands that states concede false religions the right to exist:

(P.2) “This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom... The Council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person, as this dignity is known through the revealed Word of God and by reason itself. This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed; thus it is to become a civil right.”

(P.2) “Therefore, the right to religious freedom has its foundation, not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth... and the exercise of this right is not be be impeded?”

Now for the True Traditional Teaching--please compare--on religious TOLERANCE:

“Liberty is a power perfecting man, and hence should have truth and goodness for its object. But the character of goodness and truth cannot be changed at option. Those remain ever one and the same and are no less changeable than nature itself. If the mind assents to false opinions, and the will chooses and follows after what is wrong, neither can attain its native fullness, but both must fall from their native dignity to an abyss of corruption. Whatever, therefore, is opposed to virtue and truth, may not rightly be brought temptingly before the eye of man, much less sanctioned by the favor and protection of the law” (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei).

As His Holiness, Pope Leo XIII said, “It is contrary to reason that error and truth should have equal rights.” The Popes, the true Vicars of Christ on earth, have had the perennial duty to root up and destroy heresy while planting and nourishing what is true. Divine Justice and the integrity of the true religion demand that error be condemned and that the forces of evil be thwarted. Evil and error can be, at most, tolerated in this vale of tears. Never can it be said to have the right to exist.

Pope Pius IX, in the Syllabus of Errors, condemned the proposition “that it is left to the freedom of each individual to embrace and profess that religion which by the guidance of the light of reason he deems to be the true one.”

Both Pope Leo XIII, above, and Pope Pius IX, below, condemn the notion that states should sanction false religions:

“They do not hesitate to put forward the view which is not only opposed to the Catholic Church, but very pernicious for the salvation of souls — an opinion which Gregory XVI, Our Predecessor, called absurd. This is the view that liberty of conscience and worship is the strict right of every man, a right which should be proclaimed and affirmed by law in every properly constituted state... When they rashly make these statements, they do not realize or recall to mind that they are advocating what St. Augustine calls a liberty of perdition” (Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura).

What True Catholics Must Believe: The Role of Theologians

2010-06-15T05:24:00.000-07:00

In my prior posts, and in talking with aquaintances and friends, many non-Traditionalists don't understand the obligation for true Catholics to assent to the common teaching of the theologians. Here, I will reprint a text that will explain a true Catholic's obligation in this matter.

Taken from:I. Salaverri SJ. Tractatus de Ecclesia, 3rd ed., Madrid, BAC 1955, 846ff.

Thesis 21. The consensus of theologians in matters of faith and morals is a certain criteria of divine Tradition.

A. Dogmatic Value of this Thesis. It is:
1. Catholic Doctrine. (From the teaching of Pius IX )
2. Theologically Certain. (From the practice of Trent & Vatican I.)

B. Proof of the Thesis

1. Major Premise. The consent of theologians in matters of faith and morals is so intimately connected with the teaching Church that an error in the consensus of theologians would
necessarily lead the whole Church into error.

2. Minor Premise. But the whole Church cannot err in faith and morals. (The Church is infallible.)

3. Conclusion. The consensus of theologians in matters of faith and morals is a certain criteria of divine Tradition.

C. Proofs of the Major Premise.
1. Citation of Theological Works. Popes, bishops, etc., from the 8th century onwards taught material which they drew from the teaching of theologians.

2. Supervision. From the 12-16th centuries, the Church founded, directed, and watched over all theological schools.

3. Legislation. From the time of Trent, theological works were used in seminaries which were supervised by bishops and popes.

4. Consultation. Church used theologians as her consultors for doctrinal matters.

5. Implicit Approval. The Church implicitly approves the contents of theologians’ works by not censuring them, which she is obliged to do in case of theological errors.

6. Recommendation. The writings of various theological schools are praised by popes and held out as examples to imitate.

ADDENDUM:Those Who Reject the Common Teaching of Approved Theologians

Opponents to Authority of Theologians.

A. Humanists. (Rejected supernatural principles. Put man at center
of universe.)

B. Protestants. (Rejected doctrines theologians defended.)

1. Luther. Scholastic theology is “ignorance of the truth and
inane falsehood.”

2. Melancthon. Scholastic theology is “the Gospel obscured,
the faith extinguished.”

C. Jansenists. (Claimed that theologians “obscured revealed doctrine.”)

D. Modernists, liberals rationalists. (Reject the immutable nature of Truth).

Another objection:

“The teachings of theologians were responsible for the doctrinal errors of Vatican II. Because these theologians erred and we reject their teachings, we are also therefore free to reject the teaching of earlier theologians if a teaching ‘does not make sense’ to us.”

Response: The group of European modernist theologians primarily responsible for the Vatican II errors were enemies of traditional scholastic theology and had been suspect of heresy by the Holy Office and otherwise censured or silenced byChurch authority: Murray, Schillebeeckx, Congar, de Lubac, Teilhard, Ratzinger, Kung,etc. When the strictures were removed under John XXIII, they were able to spread their errors freely. If anything, the fact that they had been previously silenced demonstrates the Church’s vigilance against error in the writings of her theologians.

False Charges Part II

2010-06-14T11:40:00.000-07:00

I continue my exchange with Mr. Gaffney.

He writes: "You equate "Sacred Tradition" erroneously with "Magisterium". One is a source of Revelation and the other is the ACTUAL LIVING TEACHERS who interpret that source for the Body Of Christ. An individual may be excommunicated and lose his office but the Magisterium never fails. NO NOT YOUR PILE OF CANONISTS AND CITATIONS BUT THE OFFICE! YOU DO NOT HAVE THE OFFICE! And, for courtesy sake, do not reply on my poem"

Reply: Sorry about the reply on your nice poem! As to your comment, the ACTUAL LIVING TEACHERS are expressing themselves through the solemnly approved tomes of canon law, moral theology, and dogmatic theology! The Church itself has taught that the hierarchy could defect. In such a case, those who hold on to the Traditional teaching remain the Church until the papacy and hierarchy can be restored by an imperfect general council, which was discussed by the pre-Vatican II theologians.

Read this again:"Mr. Gaffney seems to think that unless you are a pope or bishop you can not discern the teaching of the Magisterium. Why else would the Church solemnly approve tomes on dogmatic theology, moral theology, and canon law if not to explain to the faithful exactly what She wants them to believe? Why require all priests to be taught and tested on these tomes before they can graduate from the seminary and be ordained to the priesthood?Can you imagine if Ratzinger ("Pope" Benedict XVI) were to say, "Mary was not taken body and soul into Heaven", or "abortion is not murder" that any informed Catholic would not be able to immediately draw upon all the official teachings of the Church and determine that he was teaching error? Or do you (like many others) fall into papolatry? This is the un-catholic doctrine that the pope is a little god who can say "black is now white" and it becomes so! Taking the hypothetical one step further, Ratzinger says, "Your citations on the Church's past teachings on abortion are mistaken. You only think they teach it is murder, but only I have the authority to interpret Sacred Tradition, and I tell you they really teach that abortion is not sinful, not murder, but perfectly moral." Would any sane person accept this nonsense? We can never know what the Church teaches as one so-called pope says one thing, the next contradicts the last one and so on. The whole purpose of having a Magisterium is to have a clear authority so we can always know exactly what the Church teaches in all essential matters of Faith and Morals! Papolatry would leave us in a state of agnosticism where we can never be sure of what anything means because it is always subject to change, embellishment, or abolition."

The citations to the theologians and canonists EXPRESS THE TEACHING OF THE MAGISTERIUM!

A query for Mr. Gaffney: Are the words of consecration necessary to effectuate Transubstantiation? What does the Magisterium teach? How can you be sure that your answer is correct? Answer these three questions and we can proceed from there.

The False Charge of Private Interpretation--Again!

2010-06-12T22:09:00.000-07:00

I have been having a charitable discussion with one Mr. Peter Gaffney (readers should refer to my post of 6/10/10). Mr. Gaffney has responded with a comment accusing us Traditionalists of "private interpretation." I have already dealt with this fallacy in my post of 6/5/10, and I would kindly ask all readers, including Mr. Gaffney, to please refer to it. However, I will respond to what Mr. Gaffney wrote point by point.

He writes: "You have no authority to interpret Sacred Tradition."

Response: You're correct, I don't. However, the Church does. As I wrote previously, Traditionalists are not in the business of judging and deposing popes with private interpretations. We look at reality (contradictions in the teachings of Vatican II with prior teaching as defined by the Church and Her appointed theologians and canonists), tries to explain it (true authority can't give evil/errors), and act accordingly (get out/keep out of the false sect of Vatican II and join/remain with the Remnant Church--the Traditionalists). No private interpretations, just public determinations.

He writes: "Martin Luther could not prefer his interpretation of the 'black and white' of Scripture and you can not pile up citation after citation to provide the clothing of office which you lack"

Response: Mr. Gaffney's argument misses the point repeatedly made that this is not MY INTERPRETATION! It is that of the CHURCH! Mr. Gaffney seems to think that unless you are a pope or bishop you can not discern the teaching of the Magisterium. Why else would the Church solemnly approve tomes on dogmatic theology, moral theology, and canon law if not to explain to the faithful exactly what She wants them to believe? Why require all priests to be taught and tested on these tomes before they can graduate from the seminary and be ordained to the priesthood?

Can you imagine if Ratzinger ("Pope" Benedict XVI) were to say, "Mary was not taken body and soul into Heaven", or "abortion is not murder" that any informed Catholic would not be able to immediately draw upon all the official teachings of the Church and determine that he was teaching error? Or do you (like many others) fall into papolatry? This is the un-catholic doctrine that the pope is a little god who can say "black is now white" and it becomes so! Taking the hypothetical one step further, Ratzinger says, "Your citations on the Church's past teachings on abortion are mistaken. You only think they teach it is murder, but only I have the authority to interpret Sacred Tradition, and I tell you they really teach that abortion is not sinful, not murder, but perfectly moral." Would any sane person accept this nonsense? We can never know what the Church teaches as one so-called pope says one thing, the next contradicts the last one and so on. The whole purpose of having a Magisterium is to have a clear authority so we can always know exactly what the Church teaches in all essential matters of Faith and Morals! Papolatry would leave us in a state of agnosticism where we can never be sure of what anything means because it is always subject to change, embellishment, or abolition. Interestingly, the "conservatives" of the Vatican II sect have swallowed a chief doctrine of Modernism hook, line and sinker!

Do not counter with "the Holy Ghost would not permit this to happen to a pope." You would have said the same thing ten years ago if I proposed that the pope could do away with the words of consecration to effectuate Transubstantiation in the Mass---but this is EXACTLY what happened in 2001! (See my post of 6/10/10). It IS TRUE that the Pope can not teach error when exercising his Petrine Office. However, the Church teaches that a pope can fall into heresy as a private theologian and lose his office. So, in one sense Mr. Gaffney is correct, the Holy Ghost would not permit the POPE to teach heresy, yet heresy has been taught, so it could not come from a True Pope. Therefore, Ratzinger, as a private theologian, fell into heresy and lost his office.

Finally, he writes: "Vatican II sect--how convenient. How many sects of Traditionalists are there?"

Response: An argument that is very glib, but doesn't get you very far. I have demonstrated by logical argumentation that Vatican II set up a false religion based on the heresy of Modernism. It is "counterfeit Catholicism." Traditionalists agree on all defined matters of Faith and Morals as taught by the Church pre-Vatican II. We disagree on issues novel to the terrible times in which we live (e.g. how to proceed in the absence of a pope for many years). But, as Scripture tells us, "when the Shepard is struck, the sheep are scattered." It is to be expected that this will occur when people disagree and we have no supreme authority to "kick it upstairs" and make a binding determination.

In the case of the Vatican II sect, you supposedly have a supreme authority, but like Anglicans, have three divisions: a high church, broad church, and low church. The high Vatican II division doesn't like Vatican II yet tries to live in a state of contradiction, unable to reconcile the changes with perennial teaching, yet accept Ratzinger as pope, ignore the illogic of their position, and content themselves with traditional trappings (e.g. Society of St. Peter,Motu Mass parishes, etc). The broad Vatican II division likes Vatican II, but not alleged "abuses" (e.g. "Clown masses' for kids, etc). The low Vatican II division thinks the Council wasn't heretical enough (!) and clamor for woman "priests", abortion "rights", etc. If Ratzinger were truly pope, why the divisions? They did not exist before--you obeyed or were excommunicated. The fact of the matter is Ratzinger will tolerate, indeed accept, ANYTHING, as long as you submit to the heretical teachings of his ecumenical one-world religion.

Mr. Gaffney I pray that like the women who went to see Our Lord on Easter morning, you will realize that what the angel told them applies to your sect, "You're looking for the Lord, but He is not here." More disturbing than the vacant see of Peter, is the vacant tabernacles of Vatican II which contain mere bread. For the love of God and His Blessed Mother, may your eyes be opened and convert!

The Church's Teaching on Loss of Ecclesiastical Office by the Pope

2010-06-11T06:36:00.000-07:00

As a follow-up to my last post of 6/10/10, I would like to set out the Teaching of the Church, as expounded by Her theologians, on the subject of the possibility of a pope who loses his office through the profession of heresy. This proves the CHURCH teaches that the hierarchy, including the pope himself, can defect from the Faith and lose their authority!

Heresy and Loss of Papal Office

It may seem surprising to Catholics who have been taught the doctrine of papal infallibility that a pope, as a private teacher, can nevertheless fall into heresy and automatically lose his office. Lest it be thought that this principle is a fantasy invented by Traditionalist 'fanatics', or, at best, just a minority opinion expressed by an obscure Catholic writer or two, we reproduce some texts from popes, saints, canonists and theologians.Lay readers may not be familiar with the names of Coronata, Iragui, Badii, Prummer, Wernz, Vidal, Beste, Vermeersch, Creusen and Regatillo. These priests were internationally recognised authorities in their fields before Vatican II. Our citations are taken from the massive treatises they wrote on canon law and dogmatic theology.

Matthaeus Conte a Coronata (1950)

"III. Appointment to the office of the Primacy [i.e. papacy]. 1o What is required by divine law for this appointment: (a) The person appointed must be a man who possesses the use of reason, due to the ordination the Primate must receive to possess the power of Holy Orders. This is required for the validity of the appointment.Also required for validity is that the man appointed be a member of the Church. Heretics and apostates (at least public ones) are therefore excluded."...2o Loss of office of the Roman Pontiff. This can occur in various ways:....c) Notorious heresy. Certain authors deny the supposition that the Roman Pontiff can become a heretic.It cannot be proven however that the Roman Pontiff, as a private teacher, cannot become a heretic - if, for example, he would contumaciously deny a previously defined dogma. Such impeccability was never promised by God. Indeed, Pope Innocent III expressly admits such a case is possible.If indeed such a situation would happen, he [the Roman Pontiff] would, by divine law, fall from office without any sentence, indeed without a declaratory one. He who openly professes heresy places himself outside the Church, and it is not likely that Christ would preserve the Primacy of His Church in one so unworthy. Wherefore, if the Roman Pontiff were to profess heresy, before any condemnatory sentence (which would be impossible anyway) he would lose his authority."Institutiones Iuris Canonici. Rome: Marietti 1:312,316.

Pope Innocent III (1198)

"The Roman Pontiff has no superior but God. Who, therefore (should a pope 'lose his savor') could cast him out or trample him under foot - since of the pope it is said 'gather thy flock into thy fold'. Truly, he should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he rashly glory in his honour and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God.Still less can the Roman Pontiff glory [Minus dico] because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy; because he who does not believe is already judged.In such a case it should be said of him: 'If salt should lose its savor, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men'."Sermo 4.

St Antoninus (1459)

"In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off.A pope who would be separated from the Church by heresy, therefore, would by that very fact cease to be head of the Church. He could not be a heretic and remain pope, because since he is outside of the Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church."Summa Theologica, cited in Actes de Vatican I. V. Frond, publisher.

Pope Paul IV (1559)

"Further, if ever that it should appear that any bishop (even one acting as an archbishop, patriarch or primate), or a cardinal of the Roman Church, or a legate (as mentioned above), or even the Roman Pontiff (whether prior to his promotion to cardinal, or prior to his election as Roman Pontiff), has beforehand deviated from the Catholic faith or fallen into any heresy, We enact, decree, determine and define:- Such promotion or election in and of itself, even with the agreement and unanimous consent of all the cardinals, shall be null, legally invalid and void.- It shall not be possible for such a promotion or election to be deemed valid or to be valid, neither through reception of office, consecration, subsequent administration, or possession, nor even through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff himself, together with the veneration and obedience accorded to him by all.-Such promotion or election, shall not through any lapse of time in the foregoing situation, be considered even partially legitimate in any way....- Each and all of the words, as acts, laws, appointments of those so promoted or elected - and indeed, whatsoever flows therefrom - shall be lacking in force, and shall grant no stability and legal power to anyone whatsoever.- Those so promoted or elected, by that very fact and without the need to make any further declaration, shall be deprived of any dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power."Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio. 16 February 1559.

St Robert Bellarmine (1610)

"A pope who is a manifest heretic (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 Completes. 9:232.

Vatican I (1869), Serapius Iragui (1959)

"What would be said if the Roman Pontiff were to become a heretic? In the First Vatican Council, the following question was proposed: Whether or not the Roman Pontiff as a private person could fall into manifest heresy?The response was thus: 'Firmly trusting in supernatural providence, we think that such things quite probably will never occur. But God does not fail in times of need. Wherefore, if He Himself would permit such an evil, the means to deal with it would not be lacking.' [Mansi 52:1109]Theologians respond the same way. We cannot prove the absolute impossibility of such an event [absolutam repugnatiam facti]. For this reason, theologians commonly concede that the Roman Pontiff, if he should fall into manifest heresy, would no longer be a member of the Church, and therefore could neither be called its visible head."Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae. Madrid: Ediciones Studium 1959. 371.

J. Wilhelm (1913)

"The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church."Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Encyclopedia Press 1913. 7:261.

Caesar Badii (1921)

"c) The law now in force for the election of the Roman Pontiff is reduced to these points:....Barred as incapable of being validly elected are the following: women, children who have not reached the age of reason, those suffering from habitual insanity, the unbaptised, heretics and schismatics....Cessation of pontifical power. This power ceases:....(d) Through notorious and openly divulged heresy. A publicly heretical pope would no longer be a member of the Church; for this reason, he could no longer be its head."Institutiones Iuris Canonici. Florence: Fiorentina 1921. 160, 165.

Dominic Prummer (1927)

"The power of the Roman Pontiff is lost:....(c) By his perpetual insanity or by formal heresy. And this at least probably....The authors indeed commonly teach that a pope loses his power through certain and notorious heresy, but whether this case is really possible is rightly doubted.Based on the supposition, however, that a pope could fall into heresy, as a private person (for as pope he could not err in faith, because he would be infallible), various authors have worked out different answers as to how he could then be deprived of his power. None of the answers, nevertheless, exceed the limits of probability."Manuale Iuris Canonici. Freiburg im Briesgau: Herder 1927. 95.
F.X. Wernz, P. Vidal (1943)

"Through notorious and openly divulged heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact [ipso facto] is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgement by the Church....A pope who falls into public heresy would cease ipso facto to be a member of the Church; therefore, he would also cease to be head of the Church."Ius Canonicum. Rome: Gregorian 1943. 2:453.

Udalricus Beste (1946)

"Not a few canonists teach that, outside of death and abdication, the pontifical dignity can also be lost by falling into certain insanity, which is legally equivalent to death, as well as through manifest and notorious heresy. In the latter case, a pope would automatically fall from his power, and this indeed without the issuance of any sentence, for the first See [i.e. the See of Peter] is judged by no one.The reason is that, by falling into heresy, the pope ceases to be a member of the Church. He who is not a member of a society, obviously cannot be its head. We can find no example of this in history."Introductio in Codicem. 3rd ed. Collegeville: St John's Abbey Press 1946. Canon 221.

A. Vermeersch, I. Creusen (1949)

" The power of the Roman Pontiff ceases by death, free resignation (which is valid without need for any acceptance, c.221), certain and unquestionably perpetual insanity and notorious heresy.At least according to the more common teaching, the Roman Pontiff as a private teacher can fall into manifest heresy. Then, without any declaratory sentence (for the supreme See is judged by no one), he would automatically [ipso facto] fall from a power which he who is no longer a member of the Church is unable to possess."Epitome Iuris Canonici. Rome: Dessain 1949. 340.

Eduardus F. Regatillo (1956)

"The Roman Pontiff ceases in office:....(4) Through notorious public heresy? Five answers have been given:1. 'The pope cannot be a heretic even as a private teacher.' A pious thought, but essentially unfounded. 2. 'The pope loses office even through secret heresy.' False, because a secret heretic can be a member of the Church.3. 'The pope does not lose office because of public heresy.' Objectionable. 4. 'The pope loses office by a judicial sentence because of public heresy.' But who would issue the sentence? The See of Peter is judged by no one (Canon 1556). 5. 'The pope loses office ipso facto because of public heresy.' This is the more common teaching, because a pope would not be a member of the Church, and hence far less could be its head." Institutiones Iuris Canonici. 5th ed. Santander: Sal Terrae, 1956. 1:396.

Citations taken from the scholarly work, Traditionalists, Infallibility, and the Pope, by Fr. Anthony Cekada, 1995.

Concerning Theological Misconceptions and Traditionalists

2010-06-10T06:23:00.000-07:00

I frequently visit and comment on the blogosphere, both Traditionalist and non-Traditionalist alike (political blogs too!). I write this post to address some theological misconceptions and errors regarding Catholic theology I came across at a blog called "Aretheos." The post entitled "Concerning Traditionalists"(1) was written by the blog's owner, one Mr. Peter Gaffney. From what I could surmise from the post, Mr. Gaffney is a former seminarian in the Vatican II sect from the 1970's.

Mr. Gaffney is to be commended for a very charitable and heartfelt post. I would like to address his errors in an equally charitable manner and hope this engenders a fruitful dialogue between us and possibly some who will read our posts. I will outline the major points Mr. Gaffney makes and respond.

1. The pre-Vatican II Church allowed the vernacular under certain conditions.
This is true. No Traditionalist maintains that vernacular is the reason for the rejection of the Novus Ordo, nor do we contend that rubrical and calandar changes can not be made. What we object to are the changes in doctrine. There are very good reasons to keep Latin, e.g. to prevent corruption of meaning in a living language (think when the word gay meant happy, and mistress meant a woman in charge), to give a sense of the sacred, and to have a universal tongue for a universal Church (Catholic means universal). True, Eastern rites were allowed to keep their tongues, but this was to prevent the inroads by "Orthodox" schismatics.

Changing the Mass into a vernacular bread and wine service indistinguishable from an Episcopalian service is another matter!! Indeed, John Paul II allows the use of a "mass" that contains no words of consecration! "Context" will produce the miracle of Transubstantiation!!
It is de fide that Christ instituted the sacraments. We must believe it by supernatural faith. This means that He gave to the sacraments their nature, their substance. He did this by assigning the use of a certain physical element in conjunction with certain words. In some cases, He specified both the element and the words, as in Baptism and Holy Eucharist. In other cases, He explained to the Apostles the nature of the Sacrament, determined in general the element and words, and left to the Church the determination of the specific elements and words.

It is the teaching of the Church that the Church does not have the power to change anything which pertains to the substance of the sacraments. (See The Council of Trent, Sess. XXI, chapter 2. Denz. 931).On July 20th, 2001, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Novus Ordo replacement for the Holy Office, issued a document which devastates all Catholic sacramental doctrine. The document was not made public until October, 2001.
The document is entitled, "Guidelines for Admission to the Eucharist between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the East". The original Vatican text is in English.

The document, which has the explicit approval of Wojtyla (aka John Paul II), permits Chaldean Catholics to attend the Masses of the Nestorians, and to receive Communion at their liturgies.
This is nothing new, however. Vatican II permitted such heretical and sacrilegious behavior for Catholics, and the 1983 Code of Canon Law specifically allows the practice in certain cases.
There is, nonetheless, an astounding detail about this act of ecumenism. By the admission even of the Vatican itself, the Nestorians do not have a consecration formula in their anaphora (canon) of the Mass. Their priest never recites the words of consecration, “This is My Body,” nor “This is the chalice of My Blood...” with the subsequent words. Nor does he recite anything even similar to them.

The Modernist Vatican text states:

"The principal issue for the Catholic Church agreeing to this request, is related to the question of the validity of the Eucharist celebrated with the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, one of the three anaphoras traditionally used by the Assyrian Church of the East. The Anaphora of Addai and Mari is notable because, from time immemorial, it has been used without a recitation of the Institution Narrative." (I invite the reader to reference my citation of this document on the Modernist Vatican's own web site).

By “Institution Narrative” they mean what Catholics commonly call the consecration formula, that is, the essential words which are the form of the sacrament. In the Catholic Church, by the institution of Christ Himself, they are “For this is My Body,” for the consecration of the bread, and “This is the chalice of My Blood, of the new and everlasting testament, the mystery of faith, which for you and for many shall be shed unto the remission of sins,” for the consecration of the wine.

These words, or anything similar to them, cannot be found in the Nestorian liturgy. In their liturgies, one of the canons or “anaphoras” which they use is a very old one called the Anaphora of Addai and Mari. In this anaphora, the words of consecration which Our Lord used at the Last Supper cannot be found. There is nothing even equivalent. Rather these words take the place of the consecration:

"O Lord, may thy holy Spirit come and rest upon this the offering of thy servants, and bless and sanctify it: in order that it be for us, O Lord, unto the propitiation of trespasses and the remission of sins and unto the great hope of resurrection from the dead and unto a new life in the kingdom of heaven with all who are pleasing in Thy sight."

Beautiful words, indeed, but unfortunately they do not produce the sacrament. These words are a formula found in all Eastern Rite liturgies known as the epiclesis, which is an invocation to the Holy Ghost to bless and sanctify the bread and wine. The Greek Orthodox hold that without the epiclesis there is no valid sacrament.

Let us assume for a moment, for the sake of argument, that John Paul II is a true Pope. Given the fact that he has dispensed with the words of consecration, the form of the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, we would have to conclude one of two things:

• The words of Christ at the Last Supper do not pertain to the substance of the Holy Eucharist, or
• The words of Christ at the Last Supper do pertain to the substance of the Holy Eucharist, but the Church has the right to alter the substance of the sacraments.

There is no third possibility. But each of these two conclusions is contrary to the teaching and immemorial practice of the Catholic Church, and against the unanimous consent of the Doctors and theologians of the Church, as well as against all of the liturgical tradition of the Catholic Church.

The first conclusion, that the words of Christ do not pertain to the substance of the sacrament, is contrary to the Council of Florence, which declared:

"The words of the Savior, by which He instituted this sacrament, are the form of this sacrament; for the priest speaking in the person of Christ effects this sacrament. For by the power of the very words the substance of the bread is changed into the body of Christ, and the substance of the wine into the blood; yet in such a way that Christ is contained entire under the species of bread, and entire under the species of wine."(Council of Florence, Decree for the Armenians. Denz. 698).

It is furthermore contrary to the teaching of Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei:

"The unbloody immolation at the words of consecration, when Christ is made present upon the altar in the state of a victim, is performed by the priest and by him alone, as the representative of Christ and not as representative of the faithful."

The second conclusion, that the Church can change the substance of a sacrament, is contrary to the Council of Trent:

"It [the Council] declares furthermore that this power has always been in the Church, that in the administration of the sacraments, with the exception of their substance, she may determine or change whatever she may judge to be more expedient for the benefit of those who receive them or for the veneration of the sacraments, according to the variety of circumstances, times, and places. [emphasis added](Denz. 931)

It is also contrary to the teaching of Pope Pius XII contained in Sacramentum Ordinis:

"And for these sacraments instituted by Christ the Lord in the course of the ages the Church has not, and could not substitute other sacraments, since, as the Council of Trent teaches, the seven sacraments of the New Law have been all instituted by Jesus Christ, our Lord, and the Church has no power over the “substance of the sacraments,” that is, over those things which, with the sources of divine revelation as witnesses, Christ the Lord Himself decreed to be preserved in a sacramental sign..."

Concerning the form of the Holy Eucharist, the Catechism of the Council of Trent, promulgated by Saint Pius V, states:

"We are then taught by the holy Evangelists, Matthew and Luke, and also by the Apostle, that the form consists of these words: This is my body; for it is written: Whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to his disciples, and said: Take and eat, THIS IS MY BODY.
This form of consecration having been observed by Christ the Lord has always been used by the Catholic Church. The testimonies of the Fathers, the enumeration of which would be endless, and also the decree of the Council of Florence, which is well known as accessible to all, must be here omitted, especially as the knowledge which they convey may be obtained from these words of the Savior: Do this for a commemoration of me."

Now I ask, how could anyone say that the words of Christ do not pertain to the substance of the form of the Holy Eucharist?
Concerning sacramental form, Pope Leo XIII declared in Apostolicae Curae, on the subject of the invalidity of Anglican orders:

"Moreover it is well known that the sacraments of the New Law, being sensible signs which cause invisible grace, must both signify the grace which they cause and cause the grace which they signify. Now this signification, though it must be found in the essential rite as a whole, that is, in both matter and form together, belongs chiefly to form; for that matter is by itself the indeterminate part, which becomes determinate through form."

Where in the “form” used in the Anaphora of Addai and Mari is the Body and Blood of Christ signified? It does not even mention the Body and Blood of Christ!

It is these types of changes in doctrine as to this anaphora and the Novus Ordo itself, that we object.

2. Archbishop Lefebvre and Fr. DePauw (as well as Padre Pio, Mother Teresa and Sr. Lucia) all accepted John XXIII and their successors as popes therefore "proving" they must be so.

This is certainly a novel argument, and also historically and theologically inaccurate. Fr. DePauw was the first--along with Bishop Blaise Kurz, to reject the poison of Vatican II in 1964 when the Council was still going on! Apb. Lefebvre came out of retirement in 1970 to join the fight. Both men were open to the opinion of sedevacantism. Fr. DePauw omitted the names of these men in the Canon of the Mass, as he doubted their legitimacy. By the end of his life, he was a sedevacantist (I knew him personally as well as Bp. Williamson who was consecrated in 1988 by Lefebvre).

In the autumn of 1979, Archbishop Lefebvre issued a declaration in which he stated that he would not tolerate in the Society of Saint Pius X those who refused to place the name of John Paul II in the canon of the Mass. He dismissed a number of priests in Europe for refusal to observe the dictum. In the spring of 1980, he came to America with the same agenda: to dismiss those who would not say the name of John Paul II in the canon.

In the course of the negotiations with the American priests, however, Archbishop Lefebvre came to a compromise, of sorts. He would not throw out the priests from the Society of Saint Pius X, if they would agree to keep their sedevacantism to themselves. They could leave out John Paul's name from the canon, as long as they did not make a public issue out of it. "Opinionism" was born. The Archbishop himself would formulate the fundamental tenet of opinionism: "I do not say that the pope is not the pope, but I do not say either that one cannot say that the pope is not the pope."(See Bp. Sanborn's article on "Opinionism" at www. traditionalmass.org) By the time he consecrated the four bishops on June 30, 1988, he had pretty much come to the same inescaable conclusion--JP II is a heretic, not a pope! Unfortunately, two of his bishops are eager to sell out his Society of St Pius X to Ratzinger and try to "reconcile" how you can be a heretic and yet remain pope! Fr. De Pauw, Bp. Kurz, and Abp. Lefebvre were in new teritorry; a situation they were aware could happen, but desperately hoping that it just wasn't so!

Padre Pio, Mother Teresa, and Sister Lucia prove nothing. Catholics are not bound to believe in private revelations (even ones solemnly approved by the Church). Some Traditionalists buy into all the kinds of wacky conspiracy theories and visions galore (and Mr. Gaffney rightly scoffs at such). We must be led by the Teaching of the Magisterium as expounded by Her approved theologians, remembering as Scripture tells us that "even if an angel of God should preach to you another Gospel, let him be ANATHEMA"(Galatians 1:18).

3. The problem is not from Vatican II, but from those who are "mentally immature"

Here Mr. Gaffney quotes from theologian Tanquerey to somehow hope to prove that Vatican II made good spiritual direction that was not properly followed. How can he explain the errors of ecclesiology which reduce "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla salus" ("Outside the Church No Salvation") to a meaningless formula? The Vatican II sect promotes the notion of universal salvation, so morality doesn't matter all that much. I think Mr. Gaffney's position could be called a form of "Mentavacantism" (i.e. the mind is vacant), so immature people don't realize they are heretics! Not true--the errors of Vatican II are directly the cause of the problems not any alleged "misreadings" or "immaturity."

4. The Hierarchy can not defect.

That is not the universal teaching of the pre-Vatican II theologians!! As the great theologian Dorsch pointed out:

“The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, or even for many years, from remaining deprived of her head. [vel etiam per plures annos capite suo destituta manet]. Her monarchical form also remains intact in this state.…

“Thus the Church is then indeed a headless body.… Her monarchical form of government remains, though then in a different way — that is, it remains incomplete and to be completed. The ordering of the whole to submission to her Primate is present, even though actual submission is not…

“For this reason, the See of Rome is rightly said to remain after the person sitting in it has died — for the See of Rome consists essentially in the rights of the Primate.

“These rights are an essential and necessary element of the Church. With them, moreover, the Primacy then continues, at least morally. The perennial physical presence of the person of the head, however, [perennitas autem physica personis principis] is not so strictly necessary.” (de Ecclesia Vol.2: pgs.196–7)

Mr. Gaffney contradicts the theology propounded by the Magisterium!! The Church resides with the Traditionalists and her hierarchy until such time as the papacy can be restored. I also ask Mr. Gaffney and any person reading this to check out my previous post regarding the false charge of "private interpretation." The problem with good people like Mr. Gaffney is that they are not well versed in the actual teachings of the Church and end up in a form of "papolatry."

I boldly challenge Mr. Gaffney to seriously consider the arguments presented and the weakness--indeed fallacies-- contained in his own. I will continue this exchange if he wants to in order that all may be enlightened. God Bless you Mr. Gaffney, and I hope to hear from you again in fraternal charity!

(1) Please go to http://aretheos.blogspot.com/
N.B. I want to thank the scholarly works of Fr. Cekada and Bp. Dolan in the preparation of this post.

Pope? Nope! A Syllogism for Sedevacantism

2010-06-07T05:27:00.000-07:00

As a follow-up to my last post, eminent Traditionalist priest Fr. Cekada has put together a concise argument for the sedevacantist position:

1. The authority of the Church, because of Christ’s promise, cannot give evil laws or teach error.

2. It is therefore impossible that the evils and errors officially sanctioned by the post-Vatican II hierarchy could have proceeded from the authority of the Church.

3. Those who promulgated these evils and errors must somehow lack (have lacked) real authority in the Church.

4. Canonists and theologians teach that public or manifest defection from the faith, automatically brings with it loss of ecclesiastical office (authority). They apply this principle even to a pope, who in his personal capacity, becomes a heretic.

5. Two popes, Innocent III and Paul IV, explicitly mentioned the possibility that a heretic could end up on the throne of Peter. Paul IV even declared that such a pope’s election would be invalid and that he would lack all authority.

6. Since the authority of the Church cannot defect (give evil or error), but a pope (or a bishop) as an individual can, the best explanation for the post-Vatican II evils (the new Mass) and errors (religious liberty, ecumenism, etc.) is that they proceeded (proceed) from individuals who, despite their occupation of the Vatican and various diocesan cathedrals did (do) not objectively posses canonical authority, having lost it through public defection from the faith.

Fr Cekada and others have repeatedly published pronouncements from pre-Vatican II theologians, canonists and popes — Badii, Bellarmine, Beste, Coronata, Dorsch Herrmann, Iragui, Prümmer, Regatillo, Salaverri, Schultes, Van Noort, Vermeersch, Wernz-Vidal, Wilhelm, Zubizarreta, Pope Innocent III, Pope Paul IV, etc. —to support the principles enunciated above. All Traditionalists would do well to memorize this quick argument in support of the Traditionalist position.

Who Are You To Judge The Pope?: False Charges of Private Interpretation Against Traditionalists

2010-06-05T21:30:00.000-07:00

One of the most frequent arguments against sedevacantism by followers of the Second Vatican Council sect (hereinafter "Conciliarists", i.e. followers of the false Vatican II), is that we Traditionalists are "judging the Pope by using private interpretation, just like the Protestants." Well, what about this indictment? Does the charge hold? Are we modern day Martin Luthers, using Sacred Tradition as the sole rule of Faith instead of Scripture? As I will not demonstrate, we are "not guilty" on all counts!

The Roman Catholic Church Can Not Give That Which Is Evil

The Dogma of the Indefectibility of the Church guarantees that nothing evil/false can be given by the Church in Her teachings on Faith and morals, as well as Her universal disciplinary laws.(See, e.g.theologian Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, pg. 296). Yet Vatican II has taught and given evil (e.g. the novel teaching that the Holy Ghost uses false sects as a "means of salvation", that the Church of Christ "subsists in"--not IS--the Catholic Church, and the impious and invalid Novus Ordo "mass", etc.). How do we reconcile this with Indefectibility? There are really only two ways to do this:

(1) The contradictions are only apparent not real. This argument claims that the teachings of Vatican II, do not really contradict past teaching. They merely present old teachings in new ways ("subsists in" is another way of expressing "is"), or develop past teachings more fully (the Magisterium pre-Vatican II taught that non-catholics could be saved, so false sects can be a means of salvation). Unfortunately, this argument does not hold water. Vatican II-speak talks of "full" and "partial" communion with the Church depending on how many "elements of truth" a false sect possesses. This is novel. You are either Catholic or not. No one can be a little bit Catholic anymore than one could be a little bit dead or a little bit pregnant. Any talk of "partial communion" contradicts the express teaching on the Mystical Body of Christ (Mystici Corporis) of Pope Pius XII, and all prior Catholic teaching. Likewise, the teaching that non-Catholics can be saved applied only to individuals, not the false sects!! A Protestant can be saved in spite of his external membership with a false sect, not because of it. He is saved by virtue of his Baptism of Desire which unites him with the True Church. The contradictions, by force of logic and evidence are REAL.

(2) The hierarchy defected from the Faith by profession of heresy--even the Pope can fall from office; hence the Church did not give us the new teachings--they were given by men who, despite all external appearances to the contrary--were heretics and therefore NOT Catholic. There are scores of canonists and theologians who have always taught this with full approbation of the Magisterium. I will give but one quote in today's entry. The eminent canonist Coronata wrote of the possibility of the pope professing heresy as a private theologian and falling from ecclesiastical office: "If indeed such a situation would happen, he (the Roman Pontiff) would by divine law, fall from office without any sentence, indeed, without even a declaratory one. He who openly professes heresy places himself outside the Church, and it is not likely that Christ would preserve the Primacy of His Church in one so unworthy. wherefore, if the Roman Pontiff were to profess heresy, before any condemnatory sentence (which would be impossible anyway) he would lose his authority." (See Coronatta, Institutiones Canonici [1950] Volume I, pgs. 312,316). This is precisely why I am a Traditionalist. I long ago concluded by force of reason that the teachings of Vatican II contradict prior Magisterial teachings which makes them erroneous, heretical and evil. No true pope could have promulgated these evils. The conclusion is therefore inescapable: The post-Vatican II popes (Paul VI, JP I, JP II, Benedict XVI) were not true popes. The evil teachings were not the cause of the loss of papal authority, but rather evidence that such a loss had already taken place by profession of heresy as a private theologian to even a few other individuals.

You Can't Judge The Pope

Often, Traditionalists hear the cry, "Who are you to judge the pope? No one can do that!" These people confuse two things:

(1) A formal legal declaration that Joseph Ratzinger is a heretic and not a pope and (2) acknowledgement of the reality that such is the case. The former can not be done except by a true pope in the future who will posthumously condemn Ratzinger. That latter can and should be done by all thinking Catholics. No court of law has convicted Osama bin Laden as a terrorist, but would you want to get on a plane if he were the pilot? In the practical order you'd act not according to any legal declaration that doesn't yet exist, but according to the reality that does so exist. You're not going to wait for the legal authorities to catch up with bin Laden; you see the turban, acknowledge the reality, and keep off/get off the plane.

Traditionalists are not in the business of judging popes and making legal declarations with private interpretations. We look at reality (contradictions of Vatican II with prior teaching as defined by the Church and Her appointed theologians and canonists),tries to explain it (true authority can't give evil/errors), and acts accordingly (stay out/get out of Ratzinger's man-made sect and join the Traditionalist Movement as the Remnant Church). No private interpretations, just public determinations.

"Reforms" of Vatican II --already Condemned!

2010-06-03T08:03:00.000-07:00

The story of Bishop Carlos Duarte Costa is an interesting one which allows us to assess the "reforms" of the Vatican II Deformation in the 1960s. Bp. Duarte Costa, the bishop of the Diocese of Botucatu, Brazil, was excommunicated by Pope Pius XII on July 2, 1945. He proceeded to set up his own sect, the Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church. During one of his ad limina visits to Pope Pius XI in 1936, he proposed the following "reforms" to the Holy Father:

1. Celebration of the Mass and administration of the sacraments in the vernacular language

2. Permission for clergy to marry

3. The abolition of auricular confession, replacing it with general or communal confession and absolution

4. Distribution of Holy Communion to the laity under both species (i.e., Host and Blood)

5. Institution of the "permanent diaconate" for married men

6. Celebration of the Mass "versus populi" (facing the people) with the priest behind the altar (i.e. a table)

7. Creation of a Council of Advice, composed of bishops who would govern the Church together with the Pope(read "collegiality")

8. Participation of laypersons in the Mass, including distribution of Communion (1)

The Pope was outraged and Duarte Costa silenced from promoting such heretical, blasphemous and sacrilegious "reforms"!! His sect immediately implemented his agenda, and today is much akin to High Anglicanism! If Duarte Costa (died 1961) had lived just a little longer, he would have witnessed most of his agenda, with other Modernist ideas,fully implemented at the Second Vatican Council by fellow heretic Giovanni Montini ("Pope" Paul VI). It's only a matter of time before the married "priests" are welcomed by the Modernist Vatican. If only Paul VI had been as intellectually honest as Duarte Costa to admit that he too was setting up his own sect, divorced from the One True Roman Catholic Church of Christ!

Endnotes

1. See official web site of the Catholic Apostolic National Church at http://www.canc.org.uk/ This sect also calls itself the "Brazilian Catholic Church" which Duarte Costa founded.

Welcome Fellow Traditionalists!

2010-06-02T17:39:00.000-07:00

Welcome to Introibo Ad Altare Dei, a blog dedicated to philosophy, theology, politics and world events as seen from a Traditionalist Catholic perspective. I will add posts whenever I can, as I am a busy individual (like most of you reading this now!). Let me first define some terms and give the guiding principles of this blog :

By Traditionalist Catholic, I mean a Roman Catholic who adheres to sedevacantism, the belief firmly founded in strong theological arguments that the See of Peter has been vacant since at least 1964, when Giovanni Montini ("Pope" Paul VI) signed the heretical Vatican II document Lumen Gentium. Pope Pius XII was the last pope we can be sure did not lapse into heresy and fall from his office.
I do NOT include those who recognize Joseph Ratzinger (aka "Pope" Benedict XVI) in theory (e.g. Society of St. Pius X) or in fact (e.g. Society of St. Peter, and other so-called "Indult" groups permitted by Modernist Rome) as Successor of St. Peter in my definition of Traditionalist Catholic.
The Vatican II religion is of man-made origin. It is pure Modernist heresy condemned by Pope St. Pius X, and Counterfeit "Catholicism." The only valid sacraments they possess are Baptism (in most cases), and Matrimony (where no bogus "annulments", i.e. divorces, have been granted).
I welcome both comment and debate. "The Truth shall set you free," as Our Lord told us. However all comments and debate must be both free from ad hominem attacks and charitable in tone. I will always respond in like manner.

With that said, I'm excited to be reading the newly published book by Traditionalist priest and author Father Anthony Cekada, entitled Work of Human Hands: A Theological Critique of the Mass of Paul VI. Fr. Cekada's erudition and wit shine forth as he exposes the Vatican II "Mass" as just an invalid bread and wine service. His arguments are well grounded in the teachings of the pre-Vatican II theologians and Magesterium. The New "Mass" is NO Mass my friends! The Novus Ordo (new order) is the Novus Bogus! This is the first comprehensive book on the Vatican II "Mass" since Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy published The Problems with the New Mass in 1990. A must read! Buy two copies, one for yourself and another for a friend trapped in the Vatican II sect looking for a "reverent liturgy." Once they perceive the Novus Ordo as evil, they will come to arrive at the inescapable conclusion: The dogma of the Indefectibility of the Church means the Church can not give that which is evil. The Novus Ordo is evil (sacrilegious, invalid). Therefore, the Church did not--indeed COULD NOT-- give us the Novus Ordo!

Order your copies today from http://www.philotheapress.com/