Monday, April 16, 2018

Recognizing That You Can't Resist

The folly of the "recognize and resist" crowd (R&R) becomes more apparent everyday Bergoglio pretends to be "pope." Nevertheless, there are some who cannot let go of the idea that a pope can be "resisted" in his disciplinary and doctrinal pronouncements. In September of 2016, the website Catholicism (sic) Has The Answer, there was an entry entitled, "Why Is Sedevacantism Wrong?" It goes on to list eleven "errors" of sedevacantism--- the usual discredited tripe to dupe those not well versed in Church teaching to remain in the Vatican II sect. This post will propound the teaching of the Church on the papacy and then demonstrate what's wrong with the criticism of the alleged "errors" listed against the sedevacantist position. To read the website article in its entirety, see

The Vicar of Christ MUST be Obeyed

 The most cited passage for R&R is Galatians 2:11-14. We read, "But when Cephas [Peter "the Rock'] was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that some came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them who were of the circumcision. And to his dissimulation the rest of the Jews consented, so that Barnabas also was led by them into that dissimulation.But when I saw that they walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all: If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as the Jews do, how dost thou compel the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" 

Here St. Paul publicly rebuked St. Peter for dissimulating about observing the Old Testament dietary laws. St. Peter knew that Catholics were not bound by Jewish dietary laws and, therefore, he did not follow them because he ate with Gentiles. However, when Jewish converts entered the scene, it seems St. Peter went back to observing those laws so as not to offend the converts. This was a big problem because the Gentile Catholics sensed a separation from the pope. St. Paul was right to correct St. Peter, and such fraternal correction was not disrespectful toward St. Peter’s office. Fraternal correction is an act of charity—even in relation to a pope, because popes are sinners, but not heretics! (See theologian Cornelius a Lapide, "Ad Galatas 2:11," Commentarium in S.S. (Lyons: Pelagaud1839) 9:445, 446, 447.) The principle applies only to fraternal correction. No theologian teaches that the pope can be "resisted" in regard to his universal and ordinary teaching authority. (See my post

According to theologian Van Noort, "The Church's infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church...By the term "general discipline of the Church" are meant those ecclesiastical laws passed for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living." (See Dogmatic Theology, 2: 114-115; Emphasis mine). Therefore, you can resist an immoral command from the pope (e.g., "Kill my enemy for me," etc.) or fraternally correct an immoral act (e.g., setting a bad example, committing fornication, murder, etc.), but not legislation on the Mass. Hence, the SSPX, Salza, and the rest of the R&R crowd have no basis for rejecting the Novus Bogus "mass" (among many other things; I choose to  focus on the Mass as but one example). If Roncalli to Bergoglio are recognized by them as "popes," their ecclesiastical laws passed for the direction of Christian worship must be regarded as pure and holy.

This leads us to three options:

  • The Novus Bogus "mass" is pure and holy; equal to the Traditional Mass. Attachment to the Traditional Mass is a mere preference (Official Society of St. Peter position)
  • The Novus Bogus "mass" is evil because it is sacrilegious and/or invalid (The Church has defected and given evil. She is not infallible. This is heresy, and leads some into the Eastern Schismatics)
  • The Novus Bogus "mass" is evil because it is sacrilegious and/or invalid, so it could not possibly have come to us from the Church, precisely because it is a dogma that the Church cannot defect. The man who promulgated it must have previously taught heresy as a private theologian and lost his office as pope, or was never validly elected pope from the beginning, as the Church's theologians have always taught could happen. (Sedevacantism)
It seems very clear because it really is apparent, as is all Church teaching. The R&R will attempt to circumvent Church teaching for their desperate want/need to "have a pope." 

The (Mythological) Errors of Sedevacantism
I will list the eleven alleged errors in red followed in most cases by a short synopsis of what was argued, by quoting the article and/or paraphrasing it. My response will follow each "error."

First Alleged Error: "A man who is a heretic, publicly or privately, cannot be, or ceases to be Pope, because he cannot be head of that which he has separated himself from." They offer two reasons; (1) "...this is false for otherwise the First Vatican Council would not have confined the Popes charism of infallibility to a certain event, specifically when he defines a doctrine to be excepted de fide by the whole Church. If it were impossible for him to be in error on matters of faith and morals other times this clarification would have no meaning." And (2) "It also would imply then that Pope John XXII would have never been the Pope, or at least not until the last day of his pontificate when he renounced the error which he had proclaimed publicly from the pulpit that the beatific vision is not seen by the Saints until the last judgment, an error which was clearly false by reason of the whole weight of the Church’s universal magisterium up until that time."

Response: As to #1, the pope cannot give that which is evil or erroneous to the whole Church. According to theologian Herrmann:

"The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments…. If she [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, she would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible."
(Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae, Vol. 1, p. 258)

Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, Para. #9:

"[T]he discipline sanctioned by the Church must never be rejected or be branded as contrary to certain principles of natural law. It must never be called crippled, or imperfect or subject to civil authority. In this discipline the administration of sacred rites, standards of morality, and the reckoning of the rights of the Church and her ministers are embraced."

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, Para. #66

"Certainly the loving Mother [the Church] is spotless in the Sacraments, by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed on all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary graces through which, with inexhaustible fecundity, she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins and confessors."

The pope's infallibility extends to universal disciplinary laws. The pope can give "opinionative" decisions, which by their very nature could be modified or abrogated. In that sense he could be "wrong," but not in promulgating universal disciplinary laws, or deciding upon doctrinal issues. This is a misunderstanding of the 1870 Vatican Council's teaching on the papacy.

As to #2: Pope John XXII (1316-1334) preached a series of sermons in Avignon, France in which he taught that the souls of the blessed departed do not see God (Beatific Vision) until after the Last Judgement. It was open to debate among the theologians and had not yet been a made a dogma, so its denial is not heresy. Finally, he expressed his opinion as a "private theologian who expressed an opinion, hanc opinionem, and who, while seeking to prove it, recognized that it was open to debate." (Le Bachlet, "Benoit XII," in Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, 2:662.). Therefore, he lacked the pertinacity required for loss of office as he declared himself expressing an opinion, and was willing to submit his judgement to the Church.

Second Alleged Error: Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, which prevents a heretic from obtaining the papacy was superseded by the 1917 Code of Canon Law. It was not infallible.

Response: It need not be infallibly decreed because it expresses what is already known to be true by Divine Law; a heretic cannot become pope. According to canonist Coronata: "III. Appointment of the office of the Primacy. 1. What is required by divine law for this appointment: … Also required for validity is that the appointment be of a member of the Church. Heretics and apostates (at least public ones) are therefore excluded." (Institutiones 1:312; Emphasis mine). Such was the unanimous teaching of all pre-Vatican II canonists.

Third Alleged Error: "In the 1917 Code of Canon law, Canon 188.4 shows that a Pope who is becomes a heretic looses his office."  " 188 §4, in speaking of "public defection from" (or "abandonment of") the Catholic faith, can mean only that kind of defection that is obvious and indisputable before all the world, even to doctrinally illiterate Catholics and non-Catholics. In this kind of defection, the cleric in question ceases even to profess the Catholic faith and clearly has not the slightest desire to continue in his previous clerical office. Sedevacantists must admit that these occupants of the Apostolic Palace, recognized by the world as popes, have all at least publicly professed to be Catholics throughout their respective pontificates and have shown every public sign of intending to continue exercising the papal office until their dying day."

Response: Sheer nonsense. A heretic can continue to call himself "Catholic" but that doesn't make it so. Isn't it "obvious and indisputable" that a "pope" who tells us "atheists can go to Heaven," "There is no Catholic God," and "proselytism is nonsense" no longer has the True Faith? According to theologian McDevitt, "A cleric, then, if he is to occasion the tacit renunciation of his office, must have defected from the faith by heresy or apostasy in a public manner..." Further, "It is to be noted immediately that adherence to or inscription in a non-Catholic sect is not required to constitute the publicity that the canon [188] demands." Finally, "..even if only a few loquacious persons witnessed the defection from the Faith...the delict would be public in the sense of canon 2197, n. 1" (The Renunciation of An Ecclesiastical Office: An Historical Synopsis and Commentary, [1946], pgs. 136-140). In the case of Bergoglio, since he couldn't attain office in the first place, this argument is even more futile.

Fourth Alleged Error: "The excommunicated cannot hold office or be elected Pope." This is false for according to Pope Pius XII’s Apostolic Constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, "None of the cardinals may in any way, or by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the supreme pontiff. We hereby suspend such censures solely for the purposes of the said election; at other times they are to remain in vigor."

Response: This law of Pope Pius XII concerns only impediments of ecclesiastical law, not of Divine Law. As noted above, the impediment of heresy is of Divine Law according to the unanimous consent of the approved canonists and theologians. No pope can dispense from Divine Law. It's analogous to saying the pope could allow abortion or allow false worship--a complete impossibility.

Fifth Alleged Error: "Vatican II promulgated heresy, therefore the men who reigned over the council and have propagated it cannot be true popes."  This means that there was no heresy at Vatican II. Three reasons are advanced: (a) Montini (Paul VI) said Vatican II was only pastoral, (b) according to Dietrich Von Hildebrand, "When the pope speaks ex cathedra on faith or morals, then unconditional acceptance and submission is required of every Catholic. But it is false to extend this loyalty to encyclicals in which new theses are proposed." and (c) "the errors or alleged errors of the Second Vatican Council are shrouded in ambiguity making it impossible to truly convict the adherents or authors of heresy."

Response: (a) is easily dismissed. Montini said, "In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogma carrying the mark of infallibility but it [Vatican II] nevertheless endowed its teachings with the authority of the supreme Ordinary Magisterium, which ordinary (and therefore obviously authentic) Magisterium must be docilely and sincerely received by all the faithful, according to the mind of the Council regarding the nature and scope of the respective documents."

(b) Von Hildebrand was not an approved theologian, but a philosopher and married layman. Pope Pius XII decreed, "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me"; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians." (Humani Generis, para. #20)

(c) The Church teaches that God doesn't allow ambiguity to be taught by the Church:
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos,January 6, 1928:

"The teaching authority of the Church in the divine wisdom was constituted on Earth in order that the revealed doctrines might remain forever in tact and might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men." (Emphasis mine)

Sixth Alleged Error: "The post-Vatican II Church cannot be the True Catholic Church because it has promulgated evil rites such as the Novus Ordo Mass, Communion on the Hand, and altar girls." These are "abuses" but not intrinsically evil.

Response: How about approving as "valid" a "mass" with no words of Consecration? Wojtyla did just that when he allowed members of his sect to receive "communion" with Eastern heretics, as recorded in the document "Guidelines for Admission to the Eucharist between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the East." (2001). This sect's "anaphora" (the Canon which should contain the words of Consecration) never even contains the words "body" and "blood." This runs completely contrary to the Church's teaching on sacramental theology. Need I say any more?

Seventh Alleged Error: “Canon 844 of the New Code of Canon Law is intrinsically evil, and therefore could not have been promulgated by a valid pope.” 
It is supposedly an "error" because...
 " follows that even though in 1917 it was explicitly forbidden, the Church could give Holy Communion to those separated from her 'in good faith,' or 'through no fault of their own.' The judgment of whether someone is truly 'in good faith' is one that can only be made absolutely by God however the Church has given her ministers the authority to make the assumption for the good of souls who potentially receive sanctifying grace through the sacraments."

Response:  The idea that the true (1917) Code gave permission to give the sacraments to all those whom a priest believes to be outside the Church "in good faith" is not only false, it's not what the 1983 Code permits. Simply put, as long as they're baptized, non-Catholics can legitimately, according to the 1983 Code of Canon Law in the Vatican II sect, ask to be given "Communion", "absolution", and "Anointing of the Sick" — and then just as legitimately receive the same — without converting to Catholicism, as long as they have a "grave and pressing need", even outside the danger of death. This translates to, "I don't want to join the One True Church, I just 'need' your sacraments." Does that even make sense to you? It does if you buy into the heretical ecclesiology that the "Church of Christ" is distinct from the Catholic Church, and "subsists" there in its fullness, but it subsists in other sects according to how many "elements" of truth they possess. To have all the elements is best, but to have just some is good and leads to Heaven.

Eighth Alleged Error: "The Novus Ordo Mass changed the words of the consecration to the point where it is invalid, particularly with the vernacular change of ‘for many’ to ‘for all.’ The Mass has also deformed the intention of the priest rendering it invalid." 

Response: The very fact they approved a "mass" with no words of Consecration, makes having to refute this objection unnecessary.

Ninth Alleged Error: "Following the same logic which caused Pope Leo XIII to declare the Anglican church’s form of Episcopal Consecration invalid in ‘Apostolic Curae,’ the New form of Episcopal Consecrations are invalid."The form remains valid since it still expresses the grace of the Holy Ghost and the order of bishop.

Response: The form is invalid. Pope Pius XII specifically set forth what were the essential words necessary for ordination to the order of deacon, priest, and consecration to bishop. Why would any one want to change what was defined after so many years of study leading up to Pope Pius XII's decree Sacramentum Ordinis? Nevertheless, here's what Montini (Paul VI) made of the form in 1968:

 "So now pour out upon this chosen one that power which is from you, the governing Spirit whom you  gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Spirit given by him  to the holy apostles, who founded the Church in every place to be your temple for the unceasing glory and praise of your name."

To be valid, the form must, according to Pope Leo XIII (1) express the Grace of the Holy Ghost, and (2) unambiguously denote the rank bestowed (deacon, priest, or bishop). Even if "governing Spirit" is the Holy Ghost, the rank of bishop is not unambiguously signified. The article argues, "...we find the power of the order of the Episcopacy in the words “the power which is from you… the Spirit given by Him to the Holy Apostles” for faithful Catholics know that the Bishops are the successors of the Apostles." The Apostles were also the first priests, and the Holy Ghost is given to priests as well as bishops. The order is not thereby unambiguously signified. Further, Dom Bernard Botte, the Modernist who was the principal creator of the new rite, maintained that, for the 3rd-century Christian, "governing Spirit" connoted the episcopacy, not the Holy Ghost! More ambiguity in the form which renders it "absolutely null and utterly void."

Tenth Alleged Error: "Cardinal Siri was elected to the Pontificate in 1958 and took the name Pope Gregory XVII but was illegally forced to step down because of death threats, possibly even threats of a nuclear bomb being dropped on Rome. Before his death he consecrated bishops and made cardinals secretly…"

Response: To allege that sedevacantists all subscribe to the so-called "Siri Thesis" or that it is in any way necessary to sedevacantism is (at the risk of sounding uncharitable) simply moronic. I don't subscribe to it, but I've written on it:

Eleventh Alleged Error: "You’re missing the point! It is the teaching of Sts. Bellarmine, Francis De Sales, Alphonsus Ligouri that a heretical pope would ipso facto fall from the pontificate!" They claim the teachings of the theologians were not unanimous and there was conflicting opinion. "The Dominican Father Garrigou-Lagrange, (vehemently anti-modernist theologian and renowned neo-Thomist who lived from 1877-1964) basing his reasoning on Billuart, explains in his treatise De Verbo Incarnato, that a heretical pope, while no longer a member of the Church, can still be her head. For, what is impossible in the case of a physical head is possible, albeit abnormal, for a secondary moral head,

'The reason is that, whereas a physical head cannot influence the members without receiving the vital influx of the soul, a moral head, as is the Roman Pontiff, can exercise jurisdiction over the Church even is he does not receive from the soul of the Church any influx of interior faith or charity.'"

Response: Theologian Garrigou-Lagrange, in the place cited, speaks only of an occult, (i.e. secret) heretic. His purpose in this place is to defend St. Thomas Aquinas' teaching on membership in the Mystical Body, the Church, against what he perceives to be the error of St. Robert Bellarmine on the question, specifically in relation to membership by occult heretics. Sedevacantism holds that only contumacious, public heretics cannot lose (or cannot attain) the pontificate.


This is the best that R&R has to offer in opposition to sedevacantism, and it's not much. I dispensed with no less than eleven charges of our biggest "errors," and in just one post! It's getting more and more difficult to believe that the SSPX, Bp. Williamson's "resistance," and John Salza are in good faith. In the case of Salza, I wonder if he's still wearing a Masonic apron to deceive who he can into remaining with the Masonic/Modernist Vatican II sect.  

Monday, April 9, 2018

The Unholy Face

 He was born in Croatia, as Josip Grbavac, in the year 1967. Since circa 1995, he has been known to the world as Braco (pronounced  BRAT-tso) or "little brother." Also nicknamed "The Gazer," Braco has garnered a large following. Why? He does not claim to possess spiritual powers, or to be a "healer," yet thousands claim that by staring at his face (or sometimes even a picture of his face), they have experienced cures, sensations of energy, and inner peace. He has not spoken to anyone for an interview since 2002, however his website says the following:

Those meeting Braco´s peaceful Gaze(sic--capitalized as if belonging to God) for the first time commonly note this inviting feeling of familiarity, even friendship and trust. Others report this connection growing with time, becoming a uniquely personal foundation as their lives are enriched by the gift Braco shares. Braco’s work on behalf of people everywhere, to better lives and offer renewed hope, has been taking place since 1995, helping people in many countries: including Croatia, Slovenia, Germany, the United States, Mexico, Japan, Austria, Switzerland, Hungary, Holland, Czech Republic, Finland, Portugal, Denmark, Israel, Australia, Russia, Dominican Republic. And this list is growing with new countries offering invitations for Braco to visit. (See

Braco does not espouse any religion, but simply spouts sweet platitudes such as, "Life is always worth living" reminiscent of the 1950s show with Abp. Fulton Sheen, Life is Worth Living, so they're not even very original platitudes. So why a post on this man? He is a danger, and very insidious. Unlike pagan gurus who openly espouse false teachings, what could be wrong with Braco? He doesn't claim to have healing power. The fact is that Braco is indeed claiming, albeit indirectly, that staring at his face promotes peace, happiness, and cures. What I hope to expose in this post, is that going to Braco is an evil inversion of devotion to the Most Holy Face of Jesus Christ. Just as "Divine Mercy" detracts from devotion to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, this deceitful man detracts and perverts devotion to the Holy Face of Jesus. He is peddling a form of anti-Christian New Ageism, and many people are falling for it.

"The Gift" Has Sinister Beginnings

 Braco claims to have received his "gift" from one Ivica Prokić (d. 1995). According to Braco's website, Prokic As a young boy of age seven, had a potent experience while playing by a river with other children. He passed out and later described "feeling a piece of the sun enter him", and this would become a determining moment of his outstanding abilities being awakened.

In childhood, Ivica already felt different from his friends, but it took him years to realize the nature of his special kind of abilities and talents. As a young man, he began experiencing unusual visions that grew more numerous and stronger with time. Eventually, he would recognize that some of the unique things he saw in these visions were becoming a reality, and then he finally came to understand many of the symbols he saw as well.

Moving to Zagreb, Ivica would undergo two more defining encounters. He underwent a near-death experience, which heightened his visionary abilities, and in 1989, he visited a bio-energetic clinic where his talents were recognized as prophetic in nature and exceptional for healing. Now Ivica found the certainty he needed to begin sharing his work to lovingly help people in their lives. His abilities had further developed to enable him to see the past, present and future of those who requested his aid.

Working techniques evolved, and Ivica would come to have short conversations with his visitors, offering advice for their lives, and for the lives of loved ones brought in photographs by visitors. Ivica also began writing short books and gave one to each person. These books offered to help people better understand themselves and life, and many people felt a special loving aid assisting them as they read, and afterwards.

This "gift" was given to Braco, as if he were a "little brother" of his; Braco met Ivica in October 1993. Their bond and recognition of each other was instant, and the friendship and trust that ensued was the foundation of Braco’s future.

Completing thirteen books, Ivica would write about Braco in several, naming him as his successor and carrying on the life mission he began. Years before Ivica met Braco, he also prophetically spoke of his coming to join him and work at his side.

Their meeting, filled with such joy and happiness, made Braco immediately decide to leave his career and former life-style to be at Ivica’s side. After Ivica’s death in April 1995, visitors did not stop coming to Srebrnjak 1 (the Center in Zagreb, Croatia), but instead came to Braco to tell him he was the one to carry on Ivica’s loving work. Braco accepted this responsibility and found in himself the talents to share the gift with people, that began helping visitors and their loved ones immediately, and continues today.

What do people pay to do when seeing Braco? Again from his website:

After visitors are welcomed and brief introductory information about Braco and his gift is shared, sometimes including a film clip, Braco will come on stage. He will stand in front of the group. During the five to seven minute duration of him sharing his Gaze(sic), he remains peacefully calm and motionless. His Gaze(sic) embraces the whole group, and he may not look at every single person individually. There are no therapeutic actions and he neither speaks to his visitors, nor touches them. He does not make any diagnoses, or provide any treatment. Braco’s Gaze(sic) alone is the way of sharing the gift with others.

  • After Braco leaves the stage, time will be offered for a few people to share their own experience who wish to do so. A session usually lasts 30-35 minutes.
  • Only adults (18 years or older) may gaze with Braco.
  • Women who are pregnant past their third month may not attend.
  • People with illnesses are advised to follow the recommendation of their doctor before and after their gazing experience.

Some people bring a photo of their children and other loved ones who are not able to gaze with Braco to create a loving connection for the non-gazing individual. (see 

What's Wrong With It?

1. Possible Foul Play. 

Braco's mentor, Ivica Prokic, died on the coast of South Africa by a freak wave. The exact circumstances of his death at the young age of 44 are unknown to this day. Interestingly, Prokic allegedly took off his gold jewelry and handed his money to Braco before his freak accident. 

2. Prokic claimed to have received "energy," had an NDE, and became a fortune teller.

His encounter (if he is not a charlatan), was not of God. Divination (fortune telling) in all its forms is condemned by God, "Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to the Lord; because of these same detestable practices the Lord your God will drive out those nations before you." (Deuteronomy 18:10-12). 

3. Meditating on Braco's face causes people to "feel energy." 

"That energy started moving inside me. I could actually see it," says Ashley Shapiro, who believes Braco’s gaze cured her respiratory disease. "I said, ‘Oh my good Lord in Heaven, I’m going to heal.'" (See 

The experience of a surge of energy or power is also related to the cultivation of altered states of consciousness.(See  Karlis Osis, et al., "Dimensions of the Meditative Experience," The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, vol. 14, no. 1, 1982, p. 121). Thus, "[Meditation is] a profoundly transformative process, for when practiced intensely, meditation disciplines almost invariably lead into the transpersonal [occult] realm of experience…. A progressive sequence of altered states of consciousness can occur, which may ultimately result in the permanent, radical [occult] shift in consciousness known as enlightenment or liberation." (See Roger N. Walsh, Frances Vaughan, eds., Beyond Ego: Transpersonal Dimensions in Psychology (Los Angeles, CA: J. P. Tarcher, 1980), pp. 136-137). The pagan meditation he encourages can open the door to possession via the occult. 

4. Braco uses a pagan sun symbol (and sells jewelry with the image for people to wear).

"Sun worship has also been found in Babylonian texts and in a number of Asian religious cults. Today, many Pagans honor the sun at Midsummer..." "The sun has long been a symbol of power and magic. The Greeks honored the sun god with "prudence and piety," according to James Frazer's . Because of the sun's sheer power, they made offerings of honey rather than wine -- they knew that it was important to keep a deity of such power from becoming intoxicated!

The Egyptians identified several of their gods with a solar disc above the head, indicating that the deity was a god of the light." (See

5. It engenders Indifferentism and a cult of personality. 

The focus becomes this man's face, and it gives you peace and healing for some unknown reason. Nothing is attributed to God; every religion is treated as being just as good as every other belief system (Indifferentism). The so-called "theoretical physics" that support Braco's claims come from one Professor Alex Schneider, Board member of the Swiss Society for Parapsychology. This is not a "scientific endorsement." Moreover, the professor's explanation on Braco's site is little more than mumbo-jumbo meant to sound profound:

Basically, Braco’s influence is not to be understood as energies coming from his person. His charisma is such that his "higher" human qualities, together with the help of the catalysis of the individual participants (the above-mentioned group dynamics), puts him in a position to change the people standing before him in their deeper human layers in such a way that they are able to absorb harmonizing information, as well as to awaken these themselves. These then become effective in the outer being of the participants, such as self-healing. Braco always stresses that he is not a healer, meaning, he does not focus on influencing a physical disability of an individual.  Measurements done by Volkamer show that Braco’s subtle energies are about the same as those of any other spiritual healer. The unique feature of Braco, therefore, does not consist of the release of any healing energies, but is taking place on another level. (With nonsense like this written under the guise of being meaningful, Schneider might want to consider a career in politics).

How to Explain the "Healings"

1. The "Placebo Effect." In a psychology experiment, a placebo is an inert treatment or substance that has no known effects. "Even though placebos contain no real treatment, researchers have found they can have a variety of both physical and psychological effects. Participants in placebo groups have displayed changes in heart rate, blood pressure, anxiety levels, pain perception, fatigue, and even brain activity. These effects point to the brain's role in health and well-being." (See The huge build-up given Braco before you get into a staring contest with him, can make people believe something will happen and trigger the placebo effect. It's a type of group hysteria, where people experience the same "symptoms."

2. Natural Processes. Many people are taking conventional treatment while going to stare. The treatments start to work, and they attribute it to staring. It reminds me of someone who told me an old joke about a city kid who goes to a farm. The farmer tells him, "When the rooster crows, the sun is rising." The city kid said, "Wow! That's some pretty powerful rooster!"

3. Liars and lunatics. Some people want 15 minutes of fame, some might get paid by Braco, or some might be embarrassed to say they experienced nothing when everyone else allegedly did. People who are mentally unbalanced will often attend these type of events, and they imagine all kinds of things due to their illness.

4. Demonic activity. Braco got his "power" from someone who practiced divination; an occult practice. He uses pagan images and wants people to go into an altered state while meditating on him as some wacky "deity." It's not too hard to see demons at work.

The alleged healings can be the result of any (or any combination of) the above. One thing is certain: they are not true healings from God.  

Insulting the Holy Face of Our Lord

Devotion to the Holy Face of Christ was revealed by Jesus to Sr Marie of St Peter (1816-1848) a Carmelite nun of Tours in France. The primary purpose of the devotion is to make reparation for sins against the first three commandments: Denial of God (atheism / communism), blasphemy, and the profanation of Sundays and Holy Days.

The devotion to the Holy Face of Jesus, based on the life and writings of Sr. Marie of St. Peter, was eventually approved by Pope Leo XIII in 1885 who established the devotion as an Arch-confraternity for the whole world. There are promises attached to the devotion, and a "Golden Arrow" prayer. Just as sins are like poison arrows in Christ's Sacred Heart, so those who recite the prayer and keep the devotion shoot a "golden arrow of love" into His Heart, bringing delight.

Devotion to the Holy Face is also a reminder of our true last end, the Beatific Vision of God face to face. According to theologian Pohle, "The supernatural beatitude of Heaven fundamentally consists in the intuitive vision of the Divine Essence (visio Dei intuitiva), as opposed to the purely abstractive and analogical knowledge which man has of God here below." (See Dogmatic Theology, B. Herder Book Co., [1955] 12:30). Now, we are to focus on the face of a mere man, devoid of true religious signification, seeped in occultic origin and influence, who wants you to pay for staring at him in the hopes of achieving peace and wellness. I'm surprised he can keep a straight face when taking people's money while saying he doesn't claim to be a healer! So why do you stare at people, and have them stare at you?

So, is Braco insane, possessed or a charlatan? Any one (or any combination) is possible. I doubt that he is deranged, unless "crazy like a fox" counts. He certainly does the devil's work, whether or not a case of actual possession, and he may certainly take advantage of people desperate for healing and peace of mind. Stay clear of this man, who could open you up to malevolent influences. Seek your peace in the Prince of Peace, Jesus Christ. While looking at an image of His Holy Face, recite the "Golden Arrow" prayer, ""May the most holy, most sacred, most adorable, most incomprehensible and unutterable Name of God be always praised, blessed, loved, adored and glorified in Heaven, on earth, and under the earth, by all the creatures of God, and by the Sacred Heart of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar. Amen."

Finally, let us develop a devotion for the Holy Face of Jesus Christ, as recommended by Pope Leo XIII in 1887 to the members of the Archconfraternity whom honor It:

I. To wear on their persons a picture of the Holy Face, to kiss it devoutly the 1st thing in the morning on awaking and at night before going to sleep, to consecrate their actions during the day to the divine Face, to resolve to perform them in its presence and before its eyes.

II. At the commencement of their prayers, or of any exercise of piety, has an easy means of placing themselves in the presence of God, and of combating distractions, to think of the Holy Face whose eyes are open and fixed upon us, to adore it with faith, to look at it with love.

III. In presence of the Blessed Sacrament, to recall to our remembrance the fact that the Face of the Savior is present there in the sacred Host: that it sees us, listens to us, blesses us, speaks to us interiorly.

IV. To endeavor in their conduct to imitate the virtues of patience, of gentleness, of serenity, of modesty, which shine in the Holy Face. Listen to the divine Master who said learn of me, and seeing me, that I am meek in face and humble of heart: knowing that, in fact the gentleness and humility of the heart of Jesus are, as in a very clear mirror, admirably reflected on the Face of the Man God.

V. In trials, sicknesses, accidents, temptations, to prostrate themselves before the picture of the Holy Face whether in their private Oratory, or above all, in the church of the Confraternity where it is specially exposed.

VI. To have in their houses a picture of the Holy Face which they shall honor as the protector of the family and the Guardian of the domestic hearth; to recite before it the prayers which are habitually said in common by the household.

VII. When they shall hear any blasphemies pronounced, or shall see and act of impious sacrilege which they cannot prevent, to recollect themselves and to pronounce with their hearts, if they cannot with their lips, the words: Behold, O God, our protector, and look upon the Face of thy Christ, or: May the Name of the Lord be blessed! Sit Nomen Domini benedictum!

VIII. To propagate the worship of the Holy Face in their locality, amongst their friends and acquaintances, and to make use of it in order to combat, in every possible manner, the terrible effects of indifference and irreligion.

Monday, April 2, 2018

Singing For Satan---Part 9

This week I continue my once-per-month series of posts regarding an informal study I undertook in the early 1990s regarding rock and pop music. The purpose of my study (and the background to it) can be read in the first installment of August 7, 2017. If you have not read that post, I strongly encourage you to do so before reading this installment. I will only repeat here the seven (7) evil elements that pervade today's music:

1. Violence/Murder/Suicide
2. Nihilism/Despair
3. Drug and alcohol glorification
4. Adultery/ Fornication and sexual perversion
5. The occult
6. Rebellion against lawful superiors
7. Blasphemy against God, Jesus Christ in particular, and the Church

 The exposing of the bands/artists continues.

Nirvana and Kurt Cobain

 This week, April 5th marks the 24th anniversary of the suicide of Kurt Cobain (b.1967), founder, lead singer, and guitarist for the quintessential alternative rock band Nirvana. The group was started by Cobain in 1987, and although they only released three full length studio albums, Nirvana has sold an incredible 75 million albums worldwide. Nirvana is ranked number 27 on Rolling Stone magazine's "100 Greatest Artists of All Time," and Cobain is ranked by the magazine as number 45 among "The 100 Greatest Singers of All Time," and number 75 among "The 100 Greatest Guitarists of All Time." They were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 2004, their first year of eligibility. 

Cobain and Nirvana are considered one of the most (if not the most) influential musicians of the 20th century. Nirvana has been called "The Beatles of the 90's," and Cobain "The John Lennon of the 90's." Just like The Beatles and Lennon, they are anti-Christian and spread an evil message. Cobain formed the band with high school friend Chris Novoselic (b. 1965) who played bass, and they recruited Dave Grohl (b. 1969) to play drums. The band was originally to be called Fecal Matter, but Cobain decided on "Nirvana," the pagan Hindu and Buddhist concept of a release from reincarnation, where your individuality is "blown out" like a candle. 

Cobain: In Open Rebellion Against God
Born in Aberdeen, Washington, Kurt Cobain's parents divorced when he was seven, an event that greatly traumatized him. He said, "I had a really good childhood… then a classic case of divorce really affected me." He would spend the rest of his childhood bounced between his mother and father, who considered him a "nuisance." Sent away to live with family friends who were "born-again" Christians, Cobain joined the sect, but it did not last long. (See

Around the age of 13, he became a frequent drug abuser, and became full fledged heroin addict by 1986. He penned songs full of despair and misery, echoing the state into which he had gotten himself. Cobain then turned to Satan worship as a way out and achieve respect and success. According to biographer Christopher Sandford, Cobain made it known publicly that his stated goal was to "get stoned and worship Satan" (See Kurt Cobain, Carroll & Graff Publishers, Inc., New York, 1997, pg. 42). 

Cobain was an admitted bisexual, and he would desecrate churches with Novoselic. According to Sandford, he spray-painted "GOD IS GAY" on the side of a Church and he would take song lyrics he was dissatisfied with and set them on " and leave [them] burning on the porch of the Open Bible Church." Rolling Stone magazine reports he spray-painted "ABORT CHRIST" on the side of a church. In that same article, it is stated that "Cobain made a satanic-looking doll and hung it from a noose in his window." (April 16, 1992 issue). His biographer confirms that Cobain decorated his apartment with "baby dolls hanging by their necks with blood all over them," and he sported a most blasphemous decapitated statue of the Blessed Virgin Mary. (Kurt Cobain, pgs. 54 & 89). 

That a man this depraved could be seen as a "hero" and the anniversary of his suicide "commemorated" demonstrates the depths to which our society has sunk. Unfortunately, Cobain's degeneracy doesn't stop with sick and sacrilegious acts. He became involved with witchcraft and began casting spells. He met occultist author William Burroughs, a whore-monger and bisexual pervert whose book Naked Lunch (1959) was so perverse that it went to court as it was considered a violation of the U.S. anti-sodomy laws. Burroughs "accidentally" killed his wife in Mexico while drunk and "playing William Tell" with a pistol in 1951. He was convicted of manslaughter and spent time in prison. Burroughs had such an influence on Cobain that, "William S. Burroughs received ‘special thanks’ on In Utero [Nirvana's third album] for being a cherished inspiration to Cobain."(See Chuck Chrisafulli, Teen Spirit, Simon & Schuster, pg. 6 [1996]). 

Cobain was obsessed with Church of Satan founder, and author of the Satanic Bible, Anton LeVay.  He wanted LeVay to play cello on Nirvana's first album, but for reasons unknown, it never happened. It was through his involvement with witchcraft leading to Satanism that Cobain's inspiration for songs came via "automatic writing." This is a process by which a person's hand moves without them consciously controlling it. Demons are thus channeled. According to the Rolling Stone interview, Cobain was "...stumbling on melodies by means he himself didn’t fully understand." 

As a result of his inspirations for songs, the band was signed to it's first major label, DGC Records, and they put out their second album entitled Nevermind in 1991. The first single, Smells Like Teen Spirit, was an instant success; so much so the song has been referred to as the "anthem of alternative rock." By Christmas of that year, the album was selling 400,000 copies per week, outselling Michael Jackson, and culminating with 30 million copies sold. DMG was shocked as they didn't expect it to sell more than 250,000 copies in total. Immediately shooting to superstardom, the band put out its third album In Utero in 1993, another enormous success.

Nihilistic Rantings
In the original cover, the baby's penis is clearly displayed. Outrage from decent people forced them to put out a second cover without displaying the genitalia of  the child

 Cobain's demon-inspired music changed the face of rock (and even pop) music. While the message of rock and pop in the 1960s-1980s was about attacking traditional values, Nirvana led the way to attacking human existence itself. The ideology they sold was that human life is a waste spent in pain, and that the lives of others only serve to compound each person's suffering. Everyone is better off dead. Cobain, in spite of his Satanic beliefs, also held to pagan ideas as well. "Nirvana" is defined as, "... a blowing out, or extinction, of the flame of life; reunion with Brama." Cobain told Rolling Stone, "I would prefer to be in a coma and just be woken up and wheeled out on stage and play and then put back in my own little world." 

The song Polly is about the abduction and rape of a 14 year old girl which took place in Washington. It's based on a true story in 1987 when the girl was forcibly taken while leaving a rock concert. The malevolent miscreant proceeded to suspend her upside down from a pulley in his mobile home and then raped and tortured her with a blow torch. The song is told from the "point of view of the rapist." "Sick" doesn't even begin to adequately describe someone who would pen this song.

 Polly wants a cracker
I think I should get off her first
I think she wants some water
To put out the blow torch
It isn't me
We have some seed
Let me clip
Your dirty wings
Let me take a ride
Don't cut yourself
I want some help
To please myself
I've got some rope
You have been told
I promise you
I have been true
Let me take a ride
Don't cut yourself
I want some help
To please myself
Polly wants a cracker
Maybe she would like some food
She asks me to untie her
A chase would be nice for a few
It isn't me
We have some seed
Let me clip
Your dirty wings
Let me take a ride
Don't cut yourself
I want some help
To please myself
I've got some rope
You have been told
I promise you
I have been true
Let me take a ride
Don't cut yourself
I want some help
To please myself
Polly said
Polly says…

The song Lithium is about religion being the "opiate of the masses" as Communist founder Karl Marx said.

I'm so happy because today
I've found my friends
They're in my head
I'm so ugly, but that's okay, 'cause so are you
We've broken our mirrors
Sunday morning is everyday for all I care
And I'm not scared
Light my candles in a daze
'Cause I've found god (sic)
Hey, hey, hey
I'm so lonely but that's okay I shaved my head
And I'm not sad
And just maybe I'm to blame for all I've heard
But I'm not sure
I'm so excited, I can't wait to meet you there
But I don't care
I'm so hor*y but that's okay(vulgarity censored by me)
My will is good
Hey, hey, hey
I like it, I'm not gonna crack
I miss you, I'm not gonna crack
I love you, I'm not gonna crack
I killed you, I'm not gonna crack
I like it, I'm not gonna crack
I miss you, I'm not gonna crack
I love you, I'm not gonna crack
I killed you, I'm not gonna crack

The song I Hate Myself and I Wanna Die glorifies suicide and would become a "self-fulfilling prophesy:"

Runny nose and runny yolk
Even if you have a cold still
You can cough on me again
I still haven't had my fulfill

End it someday what's that sound?
End it someday what's that sound?
End it someday what's that sound?
End it someday what's that sound?

Broken heart and broken bones
Finger plaster cast and horse pills
One more quirky cliche'd phrase
You're the one I wanna refill

End it someday what's that sound?
End it someday what's that sound?

Cobain: Misanthropic Pervert Who Takes His Own Life

Cobain in his [usual] drugged out state
Cobain's widow, the equally detestable Courtney Love, indicated that his homosexual escapades went well beyond that of three or four men when she claimed that he'd "made out with half the guys in Seattle." (See Kurt Cobain , pg. 359)  He publicly French kissed his bass player, Novocelic, on Saturday Night Live [TV Show], and he would also publicly display his perverted penchant for cross-dressing while in concert. He would carry around pictures of women engaging in sex acts with animals (bestiality).

When journalist Lynn Hirschberg wrote of his wife, Courtney Love, unfavorably in Vanity Fair by calling into question her alleged use of cocaine while pregnant, Cobain stated, "I’m going to kill this women with my bare hands. I’m going to stab her to death. First I’m going to take her dog and slit its guts out in front of her and then sh*t all over her and stab her to death.” (See Kurt Cobain, pg. 172). 

That he hated people is evident from his biography where he is quoted as saying, "Ninety-nine per cent of humanity could be shot if it was up to me." (Do you think this might have something to do with school shootings? The youth look up to creeps like him). His biographer muses, "Nirvana and the new fauna of Seattle rock shared a number of attitudes and taste, including a form of exoticism centered on punk, a public display of apathy, a disinterest in work, the cult of feminism, and the subversion of traditional values via music."

 On April 5, 1994, Cobain went home and shot himself in the head with a shotgun. His suicide note was addressed to his "invisible friend" named "Bodda." He complained that "his muse had gone south." Typically, Satan gives you power only to take it away and leave you in despair. Despite having a wife and child, his music was the only thing he really cared about and it made him want to live; now it was seemingly gone, and he took his life at age 27. He thought of the false idea of reincarnation, "If you die you’re completely happy and your soul somewhere lives on. I’m not afraid of dying. Total peace after death, becoming someone else is the best hope I’ve got." Having gone to judgement, Kurt Cobain knows the truth, and he's not someone else.

Kurt Cobain and Nirvana poisoned impressionable youth with a nihilistic view of life. Cobain looked for solutions in paganism, drugs, and Satan himself. He "aborted Christ," the Only One Who could save him from his misery and give real meaning and purpose to his life. Worse, his music is giving the youth ideas that life is hopeless and you're better off dead. For those who think music couldn't influence people like that, tell it to the family of Daniel Casper, a then 28 year old man, who shot himself in the head upon coming home from a vigil for Cobain. A sixteen year old girl also went home from the vigil that day, locked herself in her room with Nirvana music blasting and shot herself in the head like her idol. 

According to Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, the suicide rate for teens more than doubled between 1962 and 1982. (When the faith was taken away via Vatican II). Between 1980 and 1995 the suicide rate doubled again for youth ages 10 to 14. Suicide has become the second leading cause of death among youth ages 15 to 18. But no one wants to blame the evil messages in music and the new paganism in the wake of the Great Apostasy. Ozzy Osbourne was sued because his song Suicide Solution led to teenage suicides, but First Amendment "artistic freedom" allowed Osbourne to prevail. 

The youth are going in the wrong direction. David Hogg, a survivor of the Parkland shooting wants to take away the guns while doing nothing to uproot the reasons behind the shootings. It's analogous to banning cars to stop drunk driving. Do you think maybe the booze had something to do with it? If you really want to "March for Our Lives"---embrace the True Faith and March to Christ and His Mother.

To my readers: Mr. Michael Cain, owner of the magnificent website, is fighting a brave battle against lung cancer. His bravery and resignation to God's Will is incredible; he is an inspiration. Along with Novus Ordo Watch, is among the best Traditionalist Catholic websites. Please pray for Mr. Cain, keep him in your prayers, and have Masses said if possible. In these terrible times of the Great Apostasy, we need great people like Mike. He is truly "one of the good guys."---Introibo  

Monday, March 26, 2018

The Profits Of Doom

 Fear is a great motivator, and what could be more frightening than the end of the world? Fear can cause people to do things they otherwise would not; like donate money to the "prophet" who warned you about (or can save you from) the coming onslaught. Such was the case in 2011, when Protestant preacher Harold Camping told everyone that the end of the world would definitely take place on May 21st of that year. Forget that Our Lord Himself said, "But of that day and hour no one knoweth, not the angels of heaven, but the Father alone." (St. Matthew 24:36). Harold Camping was "special"--he knew the exact month, day, and year of the Second Coming. Needless to say, that never happened, and hundreds of people quit their jobs, gave away all their possessions (mostly to Camping and his "Family Radio" station), and waited for the end that never arrived.Camping revised the date to October 21st, and when that day came and went, many of his disillusioned followers were now homeless and jobless. Camping never even attempted restitution. He met his own end in December of 2013, at age 92.

"Fr." Nicholas Gruner (d.2015), was the Harold Camping of "conservative" Vatican II sect members, and unfortunately, of some calling themselves "Traditionalists." I use the term "Apparitionist" for those who exalt private revelations (approved by the Church or not) over Church doctrine. "Fr." Gruner has been derided as the "CEO of the Fatima Industry," and with good cause. In this post, I will shed light upon Gruner, his skewed theology, and his never ending quest for donations to "save the world." (N.B. I personally believe in the apparitions at Fatima. I wear the Five-Fold Scapular, pray the Rosary daily, and attend First Saturday Mass when I can. However, I refuse to quibble over the "true meaning" of alleged quotes attributed to Our Lady, and I will never exalt a private revelation over Church teaching, which we need to know and follow now more than ever).

Meet "Fr." Nicholas Gruner

 Nicholas Gruner was born in Montreal, Canada, the fifth of seven children in 1942. He obtained a post-graduate degree in theology from Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas in Rome. He was invalidly ordained a Vatican II sect "priest" on August 22, 1976. Two years after his "ordination" he began publishing The Fatima Crusader, a magazine dedicated to promoting recitation of the Most Holy Rosary. By the early 1980s, Gruner changed the focus to consecrating Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary as requested by Our Lady of Fatima. This would be the beginning of his unrelenting promotion of himself as the only one who understood the "true meaning" of Fatima, and how he needed money to "make the bishops and pope" consecrate Russia, thereby saving the world from catastrophe. 

Gruner became convinced (in good faith or not) that world peace and the prevention of calamities could only be prevented by a collegial  consecration of Russia (specifically named) done by the "pope" and all his "bishops" at the same time in their various cathedrals. Anything else was "against Fatima," and could not save the world. In Gruner's own words, "I have taken it upon myself to defend the truth of the message of Fatima, with a full-time apostolate dedicated entirely to promoting and defending this Message." (See Crucial Truths To Save Your Soul by "Fr." Nicholas Gruner, Immaculate Heart Publications, Buffalo, NY, [2014], pg. 17).

I remember reading the Fatima Crusader back in the mid-1980s, at the height of Cold War tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union. It scared me very much at the time, and I was wondering if he could be right about impending doom via nuclear war. The world was very evil, and punishment from God would be well-deserved. Every issue told the readers that "time is running out" to prevent all out thermonuclear war, and only Gruner's efforts to "get the pope and bishops to perform the consecration of Russia" could save us. It was never made clear to me exactly how he was "the chosen one" who understood what Fatima really meant, even when his own "pope" apparently didn't understand. It became evident as the years passed, and the dire warnings intensified, that Gruner was little more than an "ecclesiastical chicken little," asking for money by using scare tactics.

 In 1989, his magazine asked readers to, "Let Our Lady's hand guide you to write the largest check possible" in giving him a donation. That statement was the last straw. I threw the magazine in the garbage and refused to read it any longer, although I still kept some of his material from that era as a reference for what can happen when you make apparitions into "dogma." Gruner claimed about 400,000 readers and if they only contributed an average of five dollars each per year, that would be a cool two million dollars! How much does it cost to "petition" the "bishops" and the "pope"? Here's but a sample of Gruner's fear-mongering:

"Many bishops to this day do not know about the urgent necessity to consecrate Russia immediately. They do not know: 
(1) That world peace and the literal existence of various nations depends on it.

(2) That millions will die if it is delayed much longer.

(3) That the salvation of many souls depends on it.

(4) The we here in the "free" world will be overcome and enslaved by Communist Russia if it is not done in time." (See World Enslavement or Peace...It's Up To You, Gruner and other Fatima experts, The Fatima Crusader, Ontario, Canada [1990], pg. 45; quotes around the word free in the original, and the authors call themselves "Fatima experts"). 

Gruner kept questionable company. I had the displeasure of speaking with his friend and supporter Fr. Michael Jarecki (ordained 1944, d. 2012), a staunch Feeneyite and a member of "The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary" in New Hampshire. In the early 1990s, I spoke with Fr. Jarecki on the phone about Fatima and Vatican II. He assured me that there was nothing wrong with either the Novus Bogus "mass," or Vatican II; there were just "abuses." He claimed anyone who thought differently was incapable of reading the Latin text of the documents and terribly "uneducated." When I asked him if  that would apply to my spiritual father, canonist Fr. Gommar DePauw, who attended the Council as a peritus (i.e., a theological expert) and spoke Latin fluently, he said Fr. DePauw was "touched in the head" and angrily hung up on me! 

Gruner was not a Feeneyite by the end of his life (if he ever was one, I'm not certain). His "apostolate" was also praised by the "chameleon" himself, Malachi Martin (for more on Martin, see my post 

Was Gruner "Suspended" By His Own Vatican II Sect?

 I would get phone calls from Gruner's people asking for donations. As soon as I said I was a Traditionalist, they hung up. In the early 1990s, they changed their tune and said Gruner celebrates the Latin Mass (it would be invalid regardless since he was invalidly ordained in the 1968 Vatican II rite of ordination). When I pressed the issue and asked about the heresy inherent in Vatican II, they hung up. (Do you notice a certain pattern? In the days before cell phones and iPhones, my right ear was ringing a lot!)

Gruner was making a lot of money, and becoming very popular in certain circles. He tried to be "traditional" yet remain attached to Vatican II. He started to get the Vatican II clergy angry. Here is a brief, but accurate, chronology of his troubles with the Modernist Vatican:

1976 – Bishop Pasquale Venezia ordained Fr. Gruner. He refused to serve the diocese of Avellino and left for Canada without permission.

1978 – Bishop Venezia sent Gruner a letter saying that he could remain in Canada if a local bishop incardinated him. None did and no applications were made.Bishop Gerardo Pierro ordered him to return to his diocese. Fr. Gruner did not answer his letter.Cardinal Innocenti, Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, wrote to him and ordered him to return to Italy and his bishop. Fr. Gruner refused.

1989 – Bishop Gerardo Pierro again sent Gruner a letter ordering him to return or find another bishop in 30 days.

1990 – Fr. Gruner went to Avellino and met with Bishop Pierro to give him time to seek incardination. This was granted but two years later he still had not started the process or found a receptive bishop.

1992 – Cardinal Sanchez and Archbishop Sepe stated in L’Osservatore Romano that Fr. Gruner and his Apostolate had not been approved by the competent ecclesiastical authorities (October 14, 1992).

1994 – The new bishop of Avellino issued a decree declaring Fr. Gruner a vagus priest. Such priests have no faculties and cannot publicly offer the sacraments. (See

Gruner appealed, and according to EWTN, also in union with his own Vatican II sect, "...the Congregation for the Clergy [decided] his priestly faculties (jurisdiction permitting celebration of the sacraments) have been suspended and his appeal of that suspension rejected by the highest Church court, the Apostolic Signature. However, I understand that he continues to publicly celebrant (sic) the sacraments, justifying it by arguments for the canonical invalidity of his suspension. What efforts he is making to settle this matter is not known."

Gruner: Recognize and Resist By Necessity

Gruner's entire "apostolate" revolved around the "pope" consecrating Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize if he became sedevacantist, his whole raison d'être collapses. Therefore, he became another SSPX, and parroted their whole theological line of off-kilter reasoning. "We are persecuted unjustly by true and valid bishops and a real pope, so we can resist them."  Gruner went so far as to use all the arguments of the SSPX.

In his book, Crucial Truths, he discusses the "fact" that Vatican II was "only pastoral" and not binding. On page 51, Gruner cites to a general audience held by Montini (Paul VI) on January 6, 1966 in which he said, "In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogma carrying the mark of infallibility." There's a big problem. His citation does not end with a period. The rest of what Paul VI said (and Gruner conveniently omitted) was this:

"...but it [Vatican II] nevertheless endowed its teachings with the authority of the supreme Ordinary Magisterium, which ordinary (and therefore obviously authentic) Magisterium must be docilely and sincerely received by all the faithful, according to the mind of the Council regarding the nature and scope of the respective documents." (Emphasis mine). If Montini was pope, all of Vatican II is binding on you and must be believed. On pages 57-60, he brings up the argument that the documents of Vatican II are not heretical, but only ambiguous. This is patently false. However, even if I were to concede, ad arguendo, that the documents were merely ambiguous this is enough to condemn the Council!

The Church teaches that God doesn't allow ambiguity to be taught by the Church:

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos,January 6, 1928:

"The teaching authority of the Church in the divine wisdom was constituted on Earth in order that the revealed doctrines might remain forever in tact and might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men." (Emphasis mine)

Pope Pius VI taught in Auctorum Fidei, of August 28, 1794:

"In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, the innovators sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuous maneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner. Once the truth had been compromised, they could, by means of slight changes or additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith that is necessary for our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal damnation. This manner of dissimulating and lying is vicious, regardless of the circumstances under which it is used. For very good reasons it can never be tolerated in a synod of which the principal glory consists above all in teaching the truth with clarity and excluding all danger of error.

Moreover, if all this is sinful, it cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done, under the erroneous pretext that the seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statement, or of leaving it up the personal inclinations of the individual – such has always been the fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error. It allows for both the possibility of promoting error and of excusing it. "

Private Revelations become..."Public Prophesies"?

 In his book World Enslavement(cited above), we read on page 105, "There may be 'private revelations' communicated to individuals for their personal good. But there are also 'public prophesies' given to the Church, affecting its conduct and the conduct of its members." From whence does this idea come? A Vatican II "theologian" and a "cardinal" are cited. What does the Church teach about private revelations? Pope Benedict XIV taught, "It is not obligatory nor even possible to give them the assent of Catholic faith, but only of human faith, in conformity with the dictates of prudence, which presents them to us as probable and worthy of pious belief)" (De canon., III, liii, xxii, II). What does the Church say about "public prophesies"? Nothing. It was made up.

Finally, Gruner seems to have settled on "resignationism" before his death. There is reason to believe he thought Ratzinger's resignation was invalid so he is still "pope," not Bergoglio. This would make him popular in "conservative" and (sadly) even some "Traditionalist" circles, while he can still have a "pope" to perform a consecration. He told people to stay "in the Church (sic)" regardless.(See 

Some Serious Problems with Gruner's Position

  •  With all his doomsday predictions, we are still here. He never set a date, but "millions will die" if the consecration "is delayed much longer." This went on from circa 1982 with more and more urgent and dire predictions for the world until just before his death (2015).  
  • He constantly asked for money
  • In spite of all the money he took in and publications he distributed, how could he claim with a straight face that "many bishops" and the so-called "pope" don't know "the truth"?
  • His own sect rejected him and suspended him
  • He adopts the "recognize and resist" position to defend his theory
  • If the post-V2 "popes" are legitimate, wouldn't they know what to do? How does Gruner know more (and know better) than his own alleged "pope"?
  • He makes up a novel theological idea of "public prophesies" 
  • Told people to "remain in the Church (sic)" whether Ratzinger or Bergoglio is "pope"--keeping people OUT of the True Church and in the Vatican II sect
  • His idea of a consecration followed by peace or else the annihilation of millions is very difficult to square with the Apocalypse. The "Third Secret" was spoken of with "Three Days of Darkness;"another scary private revelation (See my post
  • The idea of bishops being "collegial" in the sense of needing to work with the pope to make something efficacious, or that something is lacking in the pope without the bishops, is the false theology of Vatican II 


We may be in the end times, but I don't know this for sure. Don't fall for fear-mongering clerics who seek donations. Stay close to the sacraments. We will have to meet God either at the Second Coming, or when we die, so always be ready to meet your Maker. The teaching of the Church is what matters, not private revelation, and not even when approved by the Church. If any Apparitionist tries to scare you, stay strong and don't listen because as Our Lord said of His return, "But of that day and hour no one knoweth, not the angels of heaven, but the Father alone." (St. Matthew 24:36).

That "Fr." Gruner was a false prophet (making lots of profits) is evident in that he kept saying "the end is near," yet here we are. Remember the words of Scripture, "Thou shalt have this sign: Whatsoever that same prophet foretelleth in the name of the Lord, and it cometh not to pass: that thing the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath forged it by the pride of his mind: and therefore thou shalt not fear him." (Deuteronomy 18:22). 

Monday, March 19, 2018

The Ordinary Magisterium Of The Papacy

 There are many Traditionalists who incorrectly believe that only ex cathedra pronouncements of the pope need to be followed or believed. Hence, when Pope Pius XII promulgated the Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus, defining the Assumption of Mary, using his charism of papal infallibility, it must be believed or else you are a heretic. (This is correct). They then assert, incorrectly, that when a pope issues a decree that is not infallible, like Pope Pius XII's encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu (on Sacred Scripture), a true Catholic does not have to assent to it. They fail to grasp the Ordinary Magisterium of the papacy and all it implies. The purpose of this post is to set forth this teaching authority of a true pope, and the disastrous consequences which follow when it is either denied or not understood.

The Teaching Authority of the Pope

 On August 12, 1950, Pope Pius XII promulgated his encyclical Humani Generis, which exposed and rejected some false opinions threatening to undermine the foundations of Catholic doctrine. His Holiness asked the great Thomist and Dominican theologian, Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, a fervent anti-Modernist, to draft the encyclical. Paragraph number 20 of that document states:

Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me"; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.

This paragraph brings forth great theological truths. I will condense the commentary on these truths as written by theologian Fenton. 

1. The teachings of the pope are not to be minimized based on the subterfuge that he is not exercising the fullness of his authority.

The teachings of the encyclicals posits an assensum per se (an assent by its very nature), because it is a teaching of the supreme doctrinal authority within the One True Church of Christ. Catholics are bound to give, not merely a polite acknowledgement, but a genuine and sincere acceptance, to the teachings which the pope sets forth with a theological qualification less than de fide (of faith--infallible) or even doctrina certa (certain doctrine). 

Humani Generis thus reasserts the right of the Supreme Pontiff to command "opinionative"assent.  When in his encyclicals, or in any other documents or utterances of his doctrinal office, he imposes a teaching upon the members of the Church with anything less than his supreme authority (i.e., as infallible), the faithful must accept his opinionative judgement as their own. The obligation to assent  is not satisfied when a person merely allows that a teaching set forth in a non-infallible papal pronouncement is a "respectable opinion." Catholics are bound, guided by the teaching authority of Christ which comes to them in the declarations of His Vicar on Earth, to take that opinion as their own.

The day may come when an opinion of this kind needs to be modified. The Church Herself allows for this possibility by not proclaiming it as definitive and binding for all time. The holding of this opinion will possibly be seen as no longer necessary for the purity of the faith. The labors of the approved theologians will, in large part, be responsible for this development. The modifications of these declarations, when and if such modification ever comes, in no way violates the infallibility or Indefectibility of the Church since the doctrine in question was never presented as infallible and irreformable teaching.

2. The pope also teaches in a universal and ordinary manner; encyclicals are always based largely on assertions that have been taught by the Magisterium (in one form or another) before.

The First Vatican Council infallibly defined that a dogma of the faith is a truth which the Church finds contained in either of the two sources of Revelation (Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition) and which She presents as divine revelation that all must accept as such. The Council goes on to explain that such presentation may be done in an extraordinary manner (infallible definitions of popes and ecumenical councils), or in a universal and ordinary way (the unanimous teachings of the approved theologians or teachings of the bishops spread throughout the world). 

Vatican Council I also presents as dogmatic the assertion that the pope enjoys the same infallibility in defining dogma that the universal Church possesses. Since the bishops can define a dogma in an extraordinary way (ecumenical council called and approved by the pope), or in a universal and ordinary way (when approving theology manuals and catechisms, etc.), it follows that the pope can also teach in an extraordinary manner (ex cathedra pronouncements like the Immaculate Conception, Assumption, canonizations, etc.), he can also do so in an ordinary way, as in an encyclical letter. The pope's teaching is truly universal because he exercises true episcopal jurisdiction over each of the faithful. Many theologians consider the papal bull Apostolicae Curae of Pope Leo XIII, declaring Anglican Orders "absolutely null and utterly void," to be in this category of a dogmatic pronouncement. 

3. When the pope passes judgment on a disputed theological point, it is no longer up for debate and discussion among theologians. This is one (but not the only) sign that the pope has exercised his supreme authority in an ordinary manner.

An example of this is the encyclical Mystici Corporis of Pope Pius XII. The question was disputed as to whether bishops receive their episcopal jurisdiction immediately from Christ, or from Our Lord through the Roman Pontiff, in such a way that it comes immediately through the pope. A large number of prominent theologians taught that the jurisdiction came immediately from Christ; the majority of theologians taught that it came through the Supreme Pontiff. Pope Pius XII settled the question in favor of jurisdiction coming through the pope. Another example is the Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis also promulgated by Pope Pius XII, who settled long standing controversies over exactly what constituted the necessary and proper matter and form for Holy Orders when ordaining/consecrating deacons, priests, and bishops. 

N.B. The above section was condensed from theologian Fenton, The Church of Christ, Cluny Media, [2016] reprint of 1951 "Humani Generis and the Holy Father's Ordinary Magisterium" pgs. 110-123.   

Problems for "Recognize and Resistors"

 Given the above, how can the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) refuse to submit to the following teachings of "Pope" "Saint" John Paul II in his encyclical Ut Unam Sint (all emphasis is mine). 

 Today we speak of "other Christians", "others who have received Baptism", and "Christians of other Communities". The Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism refers to the Communities to which these Christians belong as "Churches and Ecclesial Communities that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church".This broadening of vocabulary is indicative of a significant change in attitudes. There is an increased awareness that we all belong to Christ. (para. # 42)

Indeed, the elements of sanctification and truth present in the other Christian Communities, in a degree which varies from one to the other, constitute the objective basis of the communion, albeit imperfect, which exists between them and the Catholic Church.To the extent that these elements are found in other Christian Communities, the one Church of Christ is effectively present in them (para. #11)

Problematic, as they must give their assent. Yet, how can they assent to an encyclical that teaches an ecclesiology completely opposed to what the Church taught pre-Vatican II? Consider:

And here it seems opportune to expound and to refute a certain false opinion...They add that the Church in itself, or of its nature, is divided into sections; that is to say, that it is made up of several churches or distinct communities, which still remain separate, and although having certain articles of doctrine in common, nevertheless disagree concerning the remainder; that these all enjoy the same rights; and that the Church was one and unique from, at the most, the apostolic age until the first Ecumenical Councils. Controversies therefore, they say, and longstanding differences of opinion which keep asunder till the present day the members of the Christian family, must be entirely put aside, and from the remaining doctrines a common form of faith drawn up and proposed for belief, and in the profession of which all may not only know but feel that they are brothers. The manifold churches or communities, if united in some kind of universal federation, would then be in a position to oppose strongly and with success the progress of irreligion. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, para. #7)

Those who acknowledge Christ must acknowledge Him wholly and entirely. "The Head and the body are Christ wholly and entirely. The Head is the only-begotten son of God, the body is His Church; the bridegroom and the bride, two in one flesh. All who dissent from the Scriptures concerning Christ, although they may be found in all places in which the Church is found, are not in the Church; and again all those who agree with the Scriptures concerning the Head, and do not communicate in the unity of the Church, are not in the Church"(Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, para. # 16). 

Remember, an encyclical is made up of assertions, most of which were previously taught by the Magisterium. Not so in this case, which is one of many such examples. Ut Unam Sint, clearly contradicts all that has gone before.  Yet, if your recognize the post-V2 "popes," you must assent to the teachings of Ut Unam Sint. The SSPX rejects how the Church teaches us. 

Problems for Feeneyites

In his encyclical Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, Pope Pius IX declares in para. #7:

Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.

In the first part I emphasized, Pope Pius IX clearly states the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (Outside The Church No Salvation). In the next part, he acknowledges that those invincibly ignorant, who live honest lives according to the Natural Law, and are open to the actual graces of God can be saved, not by baptism of water--or he would have written it--but "by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace." God can infuse them with sanctifying grace and the True Faith before death (Baptism of Desire). "But it's only an encyclical, it's not infallible," the Feeneyites inevitably whine. As we see above, true assent must be given to encyclicals, but Feeneyites reject how the Church teaches us.  

When Traditionalists reject (or are in ignorance of) how the Church teaches us, error will inevitably follow. Non-infallible decisions of the pope are not "up for grabs" opinions that you can accept or reject at will. Those of the SSPX (and other R&R) reject this and wind up being pulled towards joining the Vatican II sect and losing the Faith. Feeneyites will accept only infallible decrees, and their own interpretation of them, to deny the doctrine of Baptism of Desire. 

In this time of the Great Apostasy, those of us who learn and accept the way the Church teaches us--- and we alone--- can hope to remain Catholic by God's grace. " But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved." (St. Matthew 24:13).