Monday, September 25, 2017

Intolerance: Virtue And Vice

The Virtue of Intolerance

Intolerance can be both a virtue and a vice. On one hand, in today's world, we are told we must be tolerant of everything and everyone. If you say anything negative about another person's beliefs or actions, you will be accused of intolerance and extremism/fanaticism. The basis of this is the vile doctrine of religious and moral relativism, i.e.,"Whatever makes you happy and works for you is 'your truth,' and whatever makes me happy and works for me is 'my truth.'  We have Vatican II, and its poster-boy, Jorge Bergoglio, to thank for relativism's grip on the cultures of the world--- "Who am I to judge?" (moral relativism) and "Atheists can go to Heaven" (religious relativism). In the practical order, moral and religious relativism go hand-in-glove, as Bergoglio amply demonstrates. To be intolerant of evil and error, especially when not politically correct, is a virtue.

On the other hand, there are others (like "follow me or die" Traditionalist clerics), who insist on imposing theological opinions on others while having no Magisterial authority. Unfortunately, Fr. Anthony Cekada falls into this category, and this kind of intolerance is a vice. I'll write on the virtuous kind of intolerance first, and then Fr. Cekada's non-virtuous intolerance.

  Recently, I saw a citation I've used before from theologian Berry:

"The prophecies of the Apocalypse [book of Revelation] show that Satan will imitate the Church of Christ to deceive mankind; he will set up a church of Satan in opposition to the Church of Christ. Antichrist will assume the role of Messias; his prophet will act the part of Pope; and there will be imitations of the Sacraments of the Church. There will also be lying wonders in imitation of the miracles wrought in the Church. (See The Church of Christ: An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise [St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book Co., 1927], p. 119).

This is most accurate, as even St. Augustine referred to Satan as Simius Dei---"the ape of God." Consider the words of St. Augustine and theologian Berry as they relate to the Vatican II sect:


  • The "church" of Satan is clearly predicted in Apocalypse 2: 9. (Vatican II sect claims to be the Roman Catholic Church in a false imitation)
  • It has its own invalidly ordained ministers who bring false sermons and invalid sacraments (except some baptisms and marriages)--See 2 Corinthians 11: 4-5. 
  • It has its own system of theology (See the 16 Documents of Vatican II with the new and heretical ecclesiology)
  • It has false and lying wonders (the "Charismatic movement," etc.)
Vatican II and Moral Relativism

 More than fifty years after the Council ended, and started a new sect, we are reaping the results of its "who am I to judge" moral relativism. Remember the words of Christ: "For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man." (St. Matthew 24: 37-39). I'm not predicting or hinting the end of the world, as false Protestant ministers like the late Harold Camping did. However, the times certainly seem to be like Noah. The statistics bear this out. 

  • 71% of Americans believe divorce is morally acceptable
  • 68% of Americans believe fornication is acceptable as long as the two people "love" each other
  • 63% of Americans believe shacking up ("cohabitation") is okay
  • 63% of Americans believe it's OK for married people to have sexual thoughts about someone other than their spouse
  • 63% of Americans believe sodomite relations are okay
  • 61% of Americans believe it is acceptable to have a baby out of wedlock
  • 69% of Americans believe euthanasia should be permitted
  • 53% of Americans think having an adulterous affair is justifiable
  • 50% of Americans identify as "pro-choice"--the alleged right to murder an innocent unborn baby
(See George Barna, America at the Crossroads, (Grand Rapids, MI; Baker Books, [2016], pg. 9; abortion statistic from 2017 Gallup Poll).
Vatican II and Religious Relativism   

Let's look at two of the most Catholic countries in the world before Vatican II to see the decimation when "religious liberty" and the idea that "beliefs don't matter" take hold.

1. Ireland

Eighty-four percent of the Republic’s citizens still describe themselves as Catholic, but that’s becoming more of a cultural than a religious identity. According to the country’s archbishop, weekly church attendance has declined from 90 percent in 1984 to 18 percent in 2011. Less than half of Irish now consider themselves religious, and surveys show religiosity is declining faster in Ireland than almost every other country in the world. Ireland now ranks seventh in the world for atheism. And Ireland’s Catholics are decidedly non-orthodox about their faith: Ninety percent believe priests should be allowed to marry, for instance. Ireland once supplied priests to churches throughout the world, but the country now has so few that the church fears there may soon not be enough for weddings and funerals. (See http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/05/22/ireland_was_once_the_most_catholic_country_now_it_might_be_the_first_to.html) They have legalized sodomite "marriage."

2. Belgium
Once one of the most Catholic countries, as of 2009, only 56.8% baptize their children and only 5% attend the Novus Bogus "mass." They have legalized abortion, euthanasia (including children who want to die), and sodomite "marriage."

Finally, how about these statistics from Kenneth C. Jones, Index of Leading Catholic Indicators (2003):

 A 1958 Gallup Poll reported that three in four Catholics attended church on Sundays. A recent study by the University of Notre Dame found that only one in four now attend.

Only 10 percent of lay religious teachers now accept church teaching on contraception. Fifty-three percent believe a Catholic can have an abortion and remain a good Catholic. Sixty-five percent believe that Catholics may divorce and remarry. Seventy-seven percent believe one can be a good Catholic without going to mass on Sundays. By one New York Times poll, 70 percent of all Catholics in the age group 18 to 44 believe the Eucharist is merely a "symbolic reminder" of Jesus.

 Intolerance is a virtue. It doesn't mean we go around hating people, but ideas and actions should be forcefully hated and condemned. We should be intolerant of abortion, sodomite "marriage" and the idea that beliefs don't matter, because "all religions lead to God." If someone believes all religions lead to salvation, then he believes he has the correct perspective to the exclusion of all who think otherwise, whom he would consider wrong and (ironically) be intolerant of their belief! Relativism is self-refuting, and has lead to the disaster of the moral and religious chaos all around us. Objective truth and  objective morality exist, and it carries with it great implications for us. We must strive to live in accordance with them. 

 Intolerance as a Vice

 As the regular readers of my blog know, I believe that it is OK to attend the Mass of a valid priest who professes the Integral Catholic Faith, is not in actual union with the Vatican II sect, yet uses the name of Bergoglio in the Canon of the Mass (so-called "Una Cum" Mass). Please see my posts of 7/10/17 ("Una Cum") and 8/14/17 ("Prayers For Non-Catholics") for the full background. 

My opinion has been challenged by Fr. Anthony Cekada, a leading sedevacantist priest, who thinks attendance is sinful and anyone who disagrees with him is somehow benighted. Here is what he had to say about my blog post "Una Cum":

More recently, an anonymous sedevacantist blogger put up a lengthy post with what he thought was the ultimate gotcha argument against Grain of Incense: In the beginning of the 19th century, Pope Pius VII, he claimed, allowed the phrase pro Rege nostro Georgio to be placed into the Canon of the Mass in England, just after the name of the pope and the bishop in the una cum.

Since George III, obviously, was a Protestant heretic and a pope approved inserting his name — the blogger’s argument went — there’s no real problem for sedes to assist at a Mass where the name of a heretical pope is inserted into the Canon.

The blogger cited no papal decree for his rather astounding factual claim, and nothing to this effect appears in the official Decreta Authenica of the Vatican’s Congregation of Sacred Rites.

The only source the blogger provided was this link, which leads to an 1806 Latin-English missal for the laity,  in which the phrase pro Rege nostro N. (for our King, N.) has been inserted into the Canon. How did it get to be put into a Missal for the laity? Who knows? We certainly don’t have to accept the authority of  its publisher,  P. Keating of Brown & Co., 37 Duke St., Grosvenor Square.

But in any event, as regards the priest’s altar Missal itself, the liturgical commentators are clear: The Missal of Pius V discontinued the mention of the king or civil rulers in the Te Igitur, and the practice was allowed only by way of privilege (as in Spain and Austria), where the ruler was a Catholic.

Caught out on the specific issue of the Canon, the blogger replied that, well, having consulted one of the four thousand books in his personal library, he finds that the Church allowed other public prayers to be chanted for a non-Catholic monarch or president.

Well sure, — but this was in the official’s civil capacity as head of a secular state. And in the case of England, this took the form of a prayer chanted after the Mass was over.

The Pope, on the other hand, is prayed for during the Canon of the Mass in his religious capacity as head of the Church.

If the blogger couldn’t figure out that basic distinction, his four thousand books haven’t done him a lot of good. Maybe he should get with (sic) the Bergoglio’s environmentalist program and recycle them. (See http://www.fathercekada.com/)

Got all that? Fr. Cekada has not engaged my arguments, but merely dismisses them in an intellectually shoddy manner.

 The fact that an 1806 missal for the laity in England contains a prayer for the King in the Canon, and that practice was eliminated since the 16th century, should raise some eyebrows that perhaps the King's name was used. Nevertheless, he wants to dismiss it for a lack of an authoritative decision from the Vatican. That's fair. However, one of those four thousand books I have in my library, was one contained in Fr. Cekada's library as well. It was theologian Szal,  The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, CUA Press, [1948] which he cites in his article The Grain of Incense. I wasn't "caught out on the specific issue of the Canon," but rather Fr. Cekada got caught out on the portion of Szal he didn't cite. I went back and examined Fr. Cekada's article The Grain of Incense available to view/download at traditionalmass.org. On page 10, footnote 50, Fr. Cekada writes, "... From [theologian Fr. Ignatius] Szal (183), though, it seems that the most the Holy See occasionally tolerated was a prayer for a lay heretic or schismatic in his capacity as a head of state (King, President, etc.) — but never one for a heretical or schismatic cleric."

This changes his argument substantially to, "It's permissible to pray for a heretical head of state liturgically, but not a heretical cleric." Says whom? When I say, "whom" I mean what approved theologian, canonist, or decree of the Holy See supports this contention? Not theologian Szal. Now, Fr. Cekada is inferring something not expressly addressed. From page 183 of Szal's book, we read:

Benedict XIV, in an encyclical letter of March 1, 1756, condemned the practice of mentioning liturgically the name of the Bishop or Patriarch when he was recognized as a heretic or a schismatic. However, a favorable reply was given by the Holy Office on February 23, 1820, for the Archdiocese of Quebec. It was revealed in this case that prayers were said for the Pope, for the Bishop, and for the King, at Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament. And at Solemn Mass there was sung the "Domine, salvum fac Regem." The continuance of both practices was tolerated. Here, then, there was question of a heretical monarch, but the same principle of tolerance could also find application when there was question of a schismatic.

Fr. Cekada argues that it is a grave sin to attend an Una Cum Mass, and that the King of England (a) was only prayed for in his capacity as head of a secular state, and (b) in any event, his name did not appear in the Canon.

Here are the pertinent problems of Fr. Cekada's position and his attempted defense of it:

1. Theologian Szal makes it clear that the King of England was prayed for liturgically.

2. Fr. Cekada makes an unsupported assertion that it was strictly in his civil capacity as head of a secular state.

3. There is nothing in Szal’s text that supports this contention. It is Fr. Cekada’s assumption for which he supplies no citation to relevant authority.

4. In the case of England the monarch is also the Head of the false Anglican Sect. To hold one office necessarily entails the other. For example, if we pray for the U.S. President, we pray for the Chief Executive of the Nation. We also pray for the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces serving the U.S., because that is intimately bound up as one of the powers and duties of the office. You cannot impeach and remove Donald Trump as Commander-in – Chief of the armed forces while retaining him as Chief Executive of the Nation, or vice-versa. To pray for the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces is to pray for the Chief Executive of the Nation.

5. Since the time of Henry VIII, the King (or Queen) of England is also the Head of the Anglican Church. Just as you can’t separate the functions of the American President, the same holds with regard to the English monarch. In order to be the Head of the Anglican sect, you must be the English monarch. To be the English monarch, you must be the Head of the Anglican sect. The monarch of England is therefore a religious office. In a real sense, one could consider the King/Queen of England a cleric.

6. It is not at all clear from the text of the prayer used liturgically that the King of England is only being prayed for as head of a secular state, especially when England in 1820 had a state religion and Catholicism was merely tolerated. The person in the pew would think that the King --and all he represents--are being prayed for, and if this were not true, (if he were only being prayed for as Head of a secular state, but people would think otherwise) the liturgical prayer would be scandalous.

7.  However, the Church cannot give that which is evil (scandalous), so praying for a heretic, even one who is the head of a false sect, cannot be considered wrong or contrary to Divine Positive Law. Fr. Cekada has also not shown how praying for a heretic in the Canon is qualitatively different than in other official liturgical functions. Is one fine, but the other a grave sin? Is it only the name of a heretic in the Canon that's sinful? What authority makes these distinctions? Fr. Cekada even contends that to make a visit to a Traditionalist chapel to adore the Blessed Sacrament is a sin if done while an Una Cum Mass is being offered!

8. Back to my analogy with the U.S., Fr. Cekada claims that in the Canon of the Mass, the pope is prayed for as Head of the Church. The 25th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution allows the U.S. President, when prevented from exercising his powers, to retain the office as a placeholder, while the Vice-President receives all powers and duties of office as Acting President. Here we have a "material" president who holds the office devoid of authority. Sound like sedeprivationism? It should! Why can’t we do the same in regard to Francis and pray for him as material papal placeholder? How about as Head of State of Vatican City?

9. Fr. Cekada offers no citations saying #8 above can’t be done, especially since theologian Guerard des Lauriers didn’t discuss his thesis until after the Great Apostasy of Vatican II, so you will find no approved pre-V2 theologians writing about its plausibility, merits, or demerits. Unlike Fr.Cekada, Fr. (later Bp.) Guerard des Lauriers was a top theologian pre-Vatican II. He drafted the Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus at the request of Pope Pius XII which defined the dogma of the Blessed Virgin Mary's Assumption into Heaven.  

10. What does Fr. Cekada offer to “prove” the name of Bergoglio can’t be used if the sedeprivationist theory is viable? His own ipse dixit.  (The authority of  P. Keating of Brown & Co., 37 Duke St., Grosvenor Square, is looking better all the time).

11. In the practical order, you cannot attend the Mass of a sedevacantist priest who disagrees with Fr. Cekada. One of the nine ways to be an accessory to another's sin is by counsel. The CMRI, SSPV, and some independent sedevacantist priests tell their congregations it's OK to attend an Una Cum Mass by the SSPX or other "R&R" clergy. If what Fr. Cekada says is true, they are telling people it's alright to commit a grave sin. That's public scandal, and manifestly evil. You could not go to that priest's Mass just as if he were to counsel people it's not a sin to go to an Eastern Schismatic liturgy, or the Novus Bogus "mass." Does Fr. Cekada believe this is the case? He may end up keeping many people "Home Alone" even when SSPV and CMRI chapels are readily available! 

As far as being able to discern basic distinctions, I have no problem in that area. For example, I know the distinction between ordinary and extraordinary means of life support. This prevents me from making a disgrace of myself by sanctioning the MURDER of Terri Schiavo by dehydration and starvation. My spiritual father, the late, great Fr. Gommar DePauw was a REAL Canonist, having received his JCD from Catholic University of America in 1955 (pre-Vatican II). He taught Canon Law and Moral Theology at Mount St. Mary’s Major Seminary for the Archdiocese of Baltimore from 1955-1962, and was a peritus (theological expert) at Vatican II, helping fight the Modernists. Fr. De Pauw, like ALL Traditionalist Catholic clergy (except Fr. Cekada and his buddy Bp. Dolan) roundly condemned what was happening to her from the pulpit using Catholic moral principles applied to the facts at hand. If Fr. Cekada claims he didn't know all the facts of the case (as some say in his defense), he had no business making such claims regarding (literally) life and death. 

Not only did Fr. Cekada disgrace himself, he made other Traditionalists look like ghouls by claiming a direct sin against the Fifth Commandment was morally permissible. To my knowledge, he has not been humble enough, nor man enough, to admit he was wrong and apologize for what scandal he caused.

Conclusion
Intolerance can be a virtue or a vice. In the Vatican II sect, they teach people must never be intolerant (except when it comes to Traditionalists). For some clerics, you must be intolerant of anything that contradicts them, even on matters not settled by those with Magisterial authority. I thought Fr. Cekada would give me a real intellectual challenge. Instead, he prefers to be flippant and dismissive. If this all he learned while at Econe, he may want to add his diploma to my books when I take them to the Bergoglian environmental recycling plant. 

Monday, September 18, 2017

NDE


 In 1975, Dr. Raymond Moody (b. 1944) published a most controversial and groundbreaking book entitled Life After Life. Dr. Moody (who impressively is a philosopher, psychologist, and medical doctor) coined the term "near death experience" or "NDE." His research began after meeting psychiatrist Dr. George Ritchie in 1965. Ritchie believed that when he was twenty-years-old, he journeyed into the afterlife for about nine minutes while clinically dead. He believed that his soul had left his body for a short time. Moody then began to investigate others who made similar claims. There was a definite pattern in what they had to report such as the feeling of being out of one's body, the sensation of traveling through a tunnel, making contact with dead relatives, and encountering a bright light during clinical death. To be "clinically dead"  means death as judged by means of medical observation of the complete cessation of a beating heart and respiration. It is distinguished from "actual death" because of the possibility of resuscitation within a reasonably short time.

 Moody is convinced that NDEs are scientific proof of life after death. Skeptics have accused Moody of "cherry-picking" his subjects to fit his preconceived ideas, and both doctors and scientists have offered naturalistic explanations for NDEs. The value of NDEs has also come under fierce criticism from Protestants and conservative members of the Vatican II sect because of Moody's later research which cannot be reconciled with Christian teaching. They say NDEs are of Satanic origin to confuse the faithful. The case against Moody's later research is strong:
  • Moody claims that by staring into a mirror in a dimly lit room, people can summon "spiritual apparitions"
  • Moody now believes in the false pagan belief of reincarnation (from his study of "past life regression") and claims to have had "nine past lives." 
 The NDE has been made very popular recently by the books Heaven Is for Real and Proof of Heaven, both of which had dominated the New York Times Bestsellers list. The former was also made into a 2014 movie.

 For a Traditionalist, is there any truth to NDEs? Are they merely the final hallucination of an oxygen-starved brain? Are they all deceptions of the father of lies? I think that based on all the available research, there are good reasons to believe NDEs may give certain people an actual glimpse into the hereafter. What I will attempt to do below is outline some common objections to the NDEs and give a brief rebuttal to each.

NDEs Under Scrutiny: Materialist Explanations

1. There is bias because the researchers already believe in life after death, or they want to believe it.
That objection can easily be flipped on those researchers who try to debunk NDEs because they allegedly don't believe in life after death or don't want to believe in it. According to Dr. Bruce Greyson, professor of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences at the University of Virginia and a highly respected researcher, "Most near death researchers did not go into their investigations with a belief in mind-body separation, but came to that hypothesis based on what their research found." (See Dr. Bruce Greyson, Commentary on Psycho-physical and Cultural Correlates Undermining a Survivalist Interpretation of Near-Death Experiences, p. 140, cited in Chris Carter, Science and the Near-Death Experience (Rochester: Inner Traditions, 2010), p. 200).

2.  Oxygen deprivation causes an NDE.
 No, it doesn't account for many aspects. The research shows that many NDEs took place where the oxygen levels were being closely monitored in a hospital. The subject was able to tell what was accurately going on in his (and other!) rooms, while having sufficient oxygen in the brain. Researchers who are cardiologists and extremely familiar with oxygen deprivation, nevertheless reject it as a viable hypothesis (e.g. Drs. van Lommel, Sabom, and Rawlings who have all been published). 

Fighter pilots, during rapid acceleration, will sometimes experience tunnel vision, pass out, and dream of friends/family due to oxygen deprivation. However, there is a qualitative difference between the two accounts. The pilots report a dream-like state and experience a lack of peripheral vision, which makes it look like a tunnel around them. NDEs are experienced as vivid and describe a feeling of moving through a tunnel, not seeing things in a tunnel-like way.

3.  Science does not believe in immaterial components. There is a brain, but no "mind" or "soul" independent of the brain. To believe in a soul is like believing in goblins or ghosts for which we have no scientific evidence.

 Science actually does believe in components that are unseen and basically immaterial. Scientists believe in electrons which are invisible even when observed under the most powerful microscopes. Science sees their effects, so they must exist, but they function more like invisible waves than observable particles. Therefore, if we have enough evidence of the effects of a mind or soul, we should believe in it. 

Are NDEs Compatible with the Teaching of the Church?

  •  Why would God permit an NDE? We are appointed to die only once and then to judgement.
True, but clinical death is not actual death which is irreversible (except in the case of rare miracles, such as Jesus raising Lazarus). There are many reasons that God could permit such an experience, not the least of which is to give people a realization there is an afterlife, you have a purpose, and you need to get right with God. I'm not God, so I may never understand why He permits the experience, but that doesn't mean NDEs aren't real. 

  • NDEs are not compatible with Church teaching. Some people claim to see the false prophet Mohammed, or a false Hindu "god." An NDE is culturally determined and does not support the Traditional Catholic Church as the True Church.
 Did they get that information (they saw Mohammed, etc) from the experience itself, or did they assume it and make it conform to their already held beliefs? That's a big difference. Many researchers have proven that what people actually saw, and how they interpreted it, are entirely different!

  • NDEs are of Satanic origin because (a) God would make Himself clearly known; (b) everyone seems to go to Heaven regardless of belief or the life they led; (c) some people report seeing pets. Animals have no immortal soul.

 In reply to (a), we are assuming we know what God would do. That's pretty arrogant.  "For My thoughts are not your thoughts: nor your ways My ways, saith the Lord.  For as the heavens are exalted above the earth, so are My ways exalted above your ways, and My thoughts above your thoughts." (Isaiah 55: 8-9). In reply to (b), this is not accurate. Beginning with Moody and continuing until today, there is a significant number of people who have frightening NDEs, mention the experience after being resuscitated, then forget about it; perhaps repressing its horror. Some people do report encounters with Hell.

Remember, an NDE does not guarantee your final destination. Just because you see Heaven doesn't mean you will go there, and the same holds true for Hell. Perhaps God is giving the one who has the experience more time to enter the Church and/or repent from sin. The repression of an NDE may also explain why, even though we all have a soul, only some people during clinical death assert they experienced it.  In response to (c), many who see pets are children. Perhaps God wants to make things as pleasant as possible for them; He is not teaching that animals have immortal souls.

Conclusion

 NDEs are not per se opposed to Church teaching. They actually serve as evidence of life after death, and the importance of finding and living the True Faith. The materialistic explanations are caving in as more and more research in this field is being done. The theological objections are not without merit. I'm certainly not claiming that all NDE experiences are true (some people lie) or good (some are of demonic origin). The majority of these experiences are compatible with Church teaching, even if we don't know why God permits them. We should go where the evidence leads. If anyone claiming an NDE speaks contrary to Church teaching, the NDE should be spurned as either a falsehood or of demonic origin. 

Just as there are true apparitions (Our Lady of Fatima) and false apparitions (Our Lady of the Roses at Bayside, New York), so too there can be true and false NDEs. We must learn to discern. As the Apostle St. John wrote under Divine Inspiration, "Dearly beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits if they be of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world." (1 John 4: 1). 

Monday, September 11, 2017

Hitler's Demons


 They end their e-mails with "88" after their signatures. They are mostly in their teens and twenties, and claim to be Traditionalists. Their nightstand has a statue of the Sacred Heart of Jesus next to a copy of Mein Kampf, and a picture of Adolph Hitler. "8" represents the eighth letter of the alphabet (H), so "88" means "Heil Hitler!" Meet a strange new fringe group claiming to be Traditionalist Catholics. They are young historical revisionists who think the Nazis were "good guys;" they were anti-Communists and got "bad press" because of Jewish conspiracies lurking behind every door. I had the misfortune to know of one such young man; he wanted to be a Traditionalist priest, entered the seminary, and left to be an Eastern Schismatic. He descended into Neo-Nazism shortly thereafter. He always had a fascination with Nazis and Fascism.

 Just as Pope Pius XI famously said, "No one can be at the same time a sincere Catholic and a true socialist," there is also a mutually exclusive stance between Traditionalist Catholicism and Nazism/Fascism.  A phenomenal  scholarly book was released earlier this year entitled Hitler's Monsters, by Eric Kurlander and published by Yale University Press. As the subtitle declares, it is "a supernatural history of the Third Reich." I would suggest that anyone claiming to be Christian, and  flirting with the idea of Nazism, be given this book to read. It's 300 pages long, with myriad footnotes, but well worth the time to read. This is a serious work by a serious scholar.  I will give but a small exposition below how Hitler and Nazi Germany were deeply rooted in the occult and wanted Catholicism wiped off the face of the Earth.

The Nazis and Paganism

 People can make claims all they want. The crux of the issue is whether or not the claims are backed up by sound reasoning and sufficient evidence. One of the so-called "New Atheists," Dr. Richard Dawkins, enjoys quoting Hitler as saying,  "...as late as 1941 he told his adjutant, General Gerhard Engel, 'I shall remain a Catholic forever.' (See The God Delusion, pg. 274). Was Hitler Catholic? Not by a long shot. Yes, he was baptized in the Church, but the "god" he worshiped was not the historical Jesus Christ Who founded His One True Church.  Even Dawkins admits, "Hitler, oddly, was always adamant that Jesus himself was not a Jew."(Ibid, pg. 276). Why would the world's biggest anti-Semite worship a Man born of a Jewish woman as God?  The answer is simple: he didn't. 

 On March 14, 1937, Pope Pius XI issued his encyclical letter Mit Brennender Sorge (On the Church and the German Reich).  His words prove more true than ever, as greater evidence has been brought forth confirming his every contention. In paragraph # 7, His Holiness writes:

The believer in God is not he who utters the name in his speech, but he for whom this sacred word stands for a true and worthy concept of the Divinity. Whoever identifies, by pantheistic confusion, God and the universe, by either lowering God to the dimensions of the world, or raising the world to the dimensions of God, is not a believer in God. Whoever follows that so-called pre-Christian Germanic conception of substituting a dark and impersonal destiny for the personal God, denies thereby the Wisdom and Providence of God who "Reacheth from end to end mightily, and ordereth all things sweetly" (Wisdom viii. 1). Neither is he a believer in God.

Hitler only mentioned being Catholic once in the quote given by Dawkins. Hitler also wrote of "gods" and "goddesses" proving, if all of his religious utterances are to be believed literally, that he was a polytheist. The gods are referred to in Mein Kampf-"the manifestations of decay showed only that the gods had willed Austria's destruction" [vol. I chapt. 3]-and there are references to goddesses as well: to the "Goddess of Suffering" [vol. I chapt. 2] and the "Goddess of Destiny" [vol. I chapt.5]. There is even a "goddess of eternal justice and inexorable retribution" which Hitler believed "caused Archduke Francis Ferdinand, the most mortal enemy of Austrian- Germanism, to fall by the bullets which he himself had helped to mold" [vol I chapt.1].


There is also a "Goddess of Peace and a God of War." More significantly, there are numerous references to "Fate." For those unfamiliar with world religion and philosophy, Fate is a non-Christian term referring not to the personal God of the Bible, but to an impersonal force of unknown character. (See Keysor, Hitler, the Holocaust and the Bible, pgs. 87 et. seq.). In keeping with paganism, there is also evidence that the high ranking Nazis were sodomites. (See my post of 9/14/15, "Homo-Fascism").

Paragraph #9 of Pope Pius XI's encyclical reads:

Beware, Venerable Brethren, of that growing abuse, in speech as in writing, of the name of God as though it were a meaningless label, to be affixed to any creation, more or less arbitrary, of human speculation. Use your influence on the Faithful, that they refuse to yield to this aberration. Our God is the Personal God, supernatural, omnipotent, infinitely perfect, one in the Trinity of Persons, tri-personal in the unity of divine essence, the Creator of all existence. Lord, King and ultimate Consummator of the history of the world, who will not, and cannot, tolerate a rival God by His side.

 Rival "gods" were all Hitler and his henchmen knew. According to the latest research from Eric Kurlander:

"The irony is that the evidence indicating an important link between Nazism and the supernatural has never been greater. In the mid-1920s Hitler almost certainly read Ernst Schertel's parapsychology tome Magic: History, Theory, Practice, underlining sentences such as 'Satan is the fertilizing, destroying-constructing warrior' and 'He who does not carry demonic seeds within him will never give birth to a new world.' ..." (See Hitler's Monsters, pg. x)

 Kurlander also reveals how the Nazis held a seance on the night of February 26, 1933 using clairvoyant Erik Hanussen who "predicted" the next day's Reichstag fire, which helped justify the Nazi imposition of martial law. Deputy Fuhrer Rudolf Hess sponsored astrology, "cosmobiology," and other esoteric medical practices. SS Chief Heinrich Himmler encouraged research on the Holy Grail (the movie Raiders of the Lost Ark got their story-line from such records, albeit with great artistic license), witchcraft, and medieval devil worship (Luciferianism).

The Nazis were fascinated with "werewolves." Hitler revived belief in lycanthropy or "a magical change from man into wolf." While calling himself "Christian" or "Catholic"once or twice in his adult life, Hitler loved to compare himself to a wolf. "I don't need to be afraid of wolves, I myself am a wolf." He even named his headquarters Wolfschanze i.e., "Wolf's Lair." It is noted that while the Catholic Church may have associated werewolves with witchcraft and Satanism, lycanthropy was looked upon favorably and with awe in pagan Germany and Scandinavia.

In my personal experience, Fr. DePauw knew of a story, circulated by many high-ranking prelates, that circa 1941 Pope Pius XII called together all the cardinals of the Curia, and late at night in St. Peter's Basilica, attempted a "long distance exorcism" of Hitler and the Nazi officials. The story has never been proven (or disproven). Did Hitler submit to the teaching of Pope Pius XI in his encyclical as a good Catholic must? The answer is obvious.

Kurlander draws this conclusion:

Based on this evidence, I argue that no mass political movement drew as consciously and consistently as the Nazis on...occultism and "border science," pagan, New Age, and Eastern religions, folklore, mythology, and many other supernatural doctrines..in order to attract a generation of German men and women seeking new forms of spirituality..."

A State Religion Based on Racism

 These pagan ideas would be incorporated into a National German Church, where exaggerated nationalism and evil racism would reign supreme. According to the New York Times of January 2, 1942, there was to be such a sect. I reproduce below the beginning of the article and the first 5 of the "30 point program" for the sect's establishment:

BERNE, Switzerland, Jan. 2—Dr. Alfred Rosenberg, long the anti-religious polemicist of modern Germany and the protagonist of the “new national church,” has just released for publication a thirty-point program that will form at the same time the program and tenets of the “religion of National Socialism.”

The Nazi religious concept is founded not on the worship of Wotan and Valhalla, dear to the memory of General Erich von Ludendorff, but surprisingly enough, in view of Dr. Rosenberg's past attacks on Christianity and its teachings, on a partial worship of God, whose works are “eternal.”

Briefly but succinctly he outlines the organization and teachings of the church in the following phrases—for which, as the Swiss Socialist newspaper Volksrecht of Zurich points out, “one needs to be no ecclesiast to draw his own conclusion”:

1. The National Reich Church specifically demands the immediate turning over to its possession of all churches and chapels, to become national churches.

2. The German people have no call to serve the National Reich Church, but that church itself is called to serve its single doctrine—race and people.

3. The domain of the National Reich Church is limited by the territorial frontiers of the Reich and its colonies.

4. The National Reich Church will oblige no German to adhere to it. It is, however, ready to do all in its power to include in its ranks every German soul. Other churches or religious associations, above all those based on international bodies or directed from abroad, will not be tolerated in Germany by the National Reich Church.

5. The National Reich Church is immutably fixed in its one objective: to destroy that Christian belief imported into Germany in the unfortunate year 800, whose tenets conflict with both the heart and the mentality of the German. (Emphasis mine)

Conclusion

Hitler, the Nazis, and fascism are incompatible with Catholicism. Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding himself. It is based on all things not merely un-Christian, but decidedly ANTI-Christian. I wince when I hear that "nationalism" and "racial pride" (white, black or otherwise) are called compatible with the One True Church. Once more Pope Pius XI:

10. This God, this Sovereign Master, has issued commandments whose value is independent of time and space, country and race. As God's sun shines on every human face so His law knows neither privilege nor exception. Rulers and subjects, crowned and uncrowned, rich and poor are equally subject to His word. From the fullness of the Creators' right there naturally arises the fullness of His right to be obeyed by individuals and communities, whoever they are. This obedience permeates all branches of activity in which moral values claim harmony with the law of God, and pervades all integration of the ever-changing laws of man into the immutable laws of God.

11. None but superficial minds could stumble into concepts of a national God, of a national religion; or attempt to lock within the frontiers of a single people, within the narrow limits of a single race, God, the Creator of the universe, King and Legislator of all nations before whose immensity they are "as a drop of a bucket" (Isaiah XI, 15).

Hitler and the new "Nazi Traditionalists" can call themselves "Catholic" but they fail the test of Our Lord Himself, "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." (St. Matthew 7: 16-19).


Monday, September 4, 2017

Singing For Satan--Part 2



 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.


The Eagles

 This rock group was founded in 1971 in Los Angeles, California. The original line-up consisted of Don Henley (drums, vocals, b. 1947), Glenn Frey (lead guitar and vocals; b. 1948, d. 2016), Bernie Leadon (guitars, vocals, b. 1947), and Randy Meisner (bass guitar, vocals, b. 1946). Both Henley and Frey would go on to have very successful solo careers as well.  Rolling Stone magazine ranked them #75 of the "100 Greatest Artists of All Time." The Eagles have never been considered a hard rock group, but rather a "melodic rock" or even a "country rock" band, due to the slow pace of most of their songs and the many ballads they sing. Like the group Journey they disprove the idea that only heavy metal groups are bad. 

 Despite protests from the band members and their adoring fans, The Eagles are seeped in the occult, blaspheme God, glorify drugs, and promote rebellion against lawful superiors, as will be shown below.

Occult Origins and Influences

 All the band members were raging drug addicts and alcoholics. The very name "The Eagles" was decided upon when they were under the influence of the hallucinogenic drug peyote. While drunk and stoned in a California desert, they chose the name in reverence to the "Chief Spirit of the Indian Cosmos." According to Time magazine, they wrote most of their songs while hallucinating on peyote (See Time, August 15, 1975 issue, pg. 4). 

  The song Witchy Woman is about witchcraft, alleged to be "good" or "white magick" (when spelled with a "k" at the end, it refers to the occultist "science and art of causing change to occur in conformity with the will" as opposed to Magic, which refers to slight-of-hand parlor tricks). Don Henley admits to the occult influence, yet tries to pass it off as a "phase" and not a big deal. In an interview with Rolling Stone magazine, Henley stated: 

Another inspiration for the song [Witchy Woman] was the roommate of a girl I was seeing in the early 1970s. All things occult were popular in those days. Ouija boards, séances, palm reading, etc. A lot of the girls were into what was called "white witchcraft," that is, they were practitioners of folk magic for benevolent purposes, as distinguished from malevolent witchcraft or black magic. I think some of them practiced a little of both. I thought it was charming and seductive, but I never took any of it seriously. For the most part, it was just a phase people were passing through, part of the overall youth movement and the quest for spirituality, which included a re-enchantment with the "old ways." It was harmless fun.

Another inspiration for that song may have been the shamanistic aspects of the Carlos Castaneda books we were intrigued with at the time. In the late Sixties and early Seventies, the Peruvian-born Castaneda became a popular American author while earning his Ph.D. at UCLA. (See http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/eagles-complete-discography-don-henley-looks-back-20160610/eagles-1972-20160609)

The Church certainly does not view Ouija boards, palm readings, and the like as "harmless fun" or a "quest for spirituality." There is also no distinction between alleged "white" and "black" witchcraft because God condemns it all as evil. As I've written before, witchcraft, Ouija boards, and all other occult practices Henley mentions are condemned by both the Bible and Church teaching. "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." (See Deuteronomy 18:10-12; Emphasis mine.) According to theologian Jone, "Spiritism claims to be able to communicate with the spirit world and endeavors to establish such commerce with it. Although spiritism is for the most part fraud, still the intention alone to enter into communication with spirits is gravely sinful. Therefore, it is mortally sinful to conduct a spiritistic seance or to act as a medium." (See Moral Theology, pg. 100; Emphasis mine).

 Moreover, Carlos Castaneda (d. 1998), was indeed a shaman who wrote a series of books that describe his training in shamanism. A "shaman" is defined as one who is "reaching altered states of consciousness in order to perceive and interact with a spirit world and channel these transcendental energies into this world." It is Castaneda's books that inspired The Eagles; a man who uses drugs to alter his consciousness and allow malevolent spirits (demons) access to himself. They can then use him to influence and possess others.

The Eagles' most controversial song is Hotel California. The band will tell you it's about excess in partying out in California. By now, you are probably convinced by the band's background that their explanation is a lie. So am I. The enigmatic song tells of the founding of the Church of Satan by the evil Anton LaVey, the founder of the Luciferian sect who died in 1997.  Below are the lyrics:

On a dark desert highway, cool wind in my hair
Warm smell of colitas, rising up through the air
Up ahead in the distance, I saw a shimmering light
My head grew heavy and my sight grew dim
I had to stop for the night.

There she stood in the doorway;
I heard the mission bell
And I was thinking to myself
'This could be heaven or this could be Hell'
Then she lit up a candle and she showed me the way
There were voices down the corridor,
I thought I heard them say

Welcome to the Hotel California
Such a lovely place (such a lovely place)
Such a lovely face.
Plenty of room at the Hotel California
Any time of year (any time of year) you can find it here

Her mind is Tiffany-twisted, she got the Mercedes bends
She got a lot of pretty, pretty boys, that she calls friends
How they dance in the courtyard, sweet summer sweat
Some dance to remember, some dance to forget

So I called up the Captain,
'Please bring me my wine'
He said, 'we haven't had that spirit here since nineteen sixty-nine'
And still those voices are calling from far away,
Wake you up in the middle of the night
Just to hear them say"

Welcome to the Hotel California
Such a lovely place (such a lovely place)
Such a lovely face.
They livin' it up at the Hotel California
What a nice surprise (what a nice surprise), bring your alibis

Mirrors on the ceiling,
The pink champagne on ice
And she said, 'we are all just prisoners here, of our own device'
And in the master's chambers,
They gathered for the feast
They stab it with their steely knives,
But they just can't kill the beast

Last thing I remember, I was
Running for the door
I had to find the passage back to the place I was before
'Relax' said the night man,
'We are programmed to receive.
You can check out any time you like,
But you can never leave!'

Hotel California refers to the infamous "Black House" where LaVey lived at 6114 California St, San Francisco, California from his founding of the sect in 1966 until his death in 1997. It was used for Satanic rituals and was bought because it was known to be used as a brothel ("mirrors on the ceiling" say the lyrics).
Heaven is written in lower case but "this could be Hell" is upper case. Note well, the fifth stanza calls up "the Captain" (Satan) who sacastically asks for wine, but "we haven't seen that spirit here since 1969." This is a reference to the authorship of the Satanic Bible (1969) and the institution of the invalid Novus Bogus "mass" of the V2 sect. Wine remains wine, and the "spirit" (Holy Ghost) is now gone. Below is a picture of the Black House.

Hotel California is also a a metaphor for Hell, because "you can never leave."

Backmasking is used in the song. Backmasking is a recording technique in which a sound or message is recorded backward onto a track that is meant to be played forward and the technique was first used by The Beatles in 1966. Many years ago, I worked for a year in radio as a part time gig. I literally heard the subliminal message played backwards. In Hotel California it clearly states, "Yeah. Satan organized his own religion."

Here are some "edifying" lyrics from Witchy Woman:

Raven hair and ruby lips
Sparks fly from her finger tips
Echoed voices in the night
She's a restless spirit on an endless flight
Wooo hooo witchy woman see how

High she flies (Emphasis mine)

The song One of These Nights contains these words:

You got your demons, you got your desires
Well, I got a few of my own.....
I've been searching for the daughter of the devil himself
I've been searching for an angel in white

I've been waiting for a woman who's a little of both (Emphasis mine)

You can't be on God's side and Satan's side for Christ said, "He who is not with Me is against Me, and whoever does not gather with Me scatters." (St. Matthew 12: 30).

The song Good Day In Hell mocks the names written in the Book of Life: (See Apocalypse 3:5)

 The devil's on the phone, he laughs 
And says you're doin' the just fine 
In that big book of names I want to go down 
In flames 
Seein's how I'm goin' down (Emphasis mine)

He doesn't want his name in the Book of Life, but wants to go "down in flames" to Hell instead.

For Drugs and Against Lawful Authority
The song Chug All Night tells the tale of a man who wants to drink all night, every night with a woman while engaging in sex:

I believe we could chug all night
I believe we could hug all night
The band is loose and the groove
Is right you're so much woman I

Believe we could chug all night
On the day that I die, well
I just might scream
If I'm alive in the morning

The song James Dean is a tribute to the iconic movie actor who died in a car crash at age 24 in 1955. He was the symbol of rebellion. According to co-star Sal Mineo, "Jimmy Dean started the whole youth movement."  Dean desired rebellion, confrontation, and defiance of authority just for the sake of doing so. This attack of moral conventions was a subtle indoctrination of the youth that was a catalyst to the counterculture movement in the 1960’s. He is alleged by several sources (although some claim otherwise) to have derided Christianity as "those destructive influences of beliefs based on torture and blood and crucifixion." He also supposedly said, "I believe in freedom, not God." Dean was raised a Quaker, but is claimed to have been sexually abused as a youth, and was bisexual. The tribute song says:

You were the lowdown rebel if there ever was 
Even if you had no cause 
James Dean, you said it all so clean 
And I know my life would look all right 
If I could see it on the silver screen  (Emphasis mine)

Conclusion

Don't let the slow tempo of many Eagles' songs fool you. The band members want you to believe that the occult is harmless and "just a phase" they went through. Drugs and alcohol were also "a phase." Yet the evidence shows that they were flying high as an eagle on drugs, wrote their songs in that state, were involved in the occult and consulted books written by a shaman. They even have backmasking on  Hotel California about Satan, while claiming the tune has nothing to do with the devil.  You can shut your eyes to the evidence, or ditch their music and their lies. 

Monday, August 28, 2017

Pushing Back The Time Of The Vacancy


  There are some sedevacantists that make the rest of us Traditionalists look bad. The world, in its ignorance, already sees us as  "strange." We dare to call attention to the fact (using solid Catholic theological principles) that there has been no pope since the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958, and Vatican Council II created a heretical sect that is not the Roman Catholic Church. There are, however, people who think that they can decide matters authoritatively and impose those beliefs on others. They don't merely attempt to expound Church teaching, they presume to invent it.

Many of my readers have problems with the Holy Week changes of Pope Pius XII, and even the mitigated Eucharistic Fast. If you want to say you prefer the pre-1955 legislation, that's fine (I prefer it too!). There are problems though for those who claim the changes are intrinsically evil. The Church is Indefectible and cannot give that which is evil or erroneous. The Holy Ghost would not permit the hand of Pope Pius XII to sign anything heretical or evil, unless he fell into heresy as a private individual prior to that and lost the pontificate. That implicitly moves back the time of the sedevacante. Some dare to explicitly declare Pope Pius XII an antipope, and some go back even further!

 Take the case of Richard Ibranyi, who used to be with Fred and Bobby Dimond. He set up his own little cult and decided (on his own authority, with zero ecclesiastical education and theological training) which popes were heretical and which were not. According to him, there has been no pope since 1130 AD! More common are those who put the time of sedevacante at the death of Pope St. Pius X in 1914 (not a saint for them since Pope Pius XII canonized him). One such individual is Mike Bizzaro (no, I'm not making a joke) who runs the website  http://www.gods-catholic-dogma.com.

 One of my readers in the comments of a prior post had asked me to expose him, and Mike sent a response saying all of my "followers" are going to Hell. His website is so bold as to state that if anyone thinks any other site is Catholic, e-mail him the link, and he'll tell you what's wrong! He knows with apodictic assurance that no one else has the Truth. I did a Google search and allegedly he runs the site along with one Victoria DePalma. (I cannot attest to the truth of Ms. DePalma's involvement, or Mike's last name, I'm going by what I found after he commented on my blog. He does not choose absolute anonymity as I do).

 I could write several posts over the next couple of months detailing all the incorrect teachings that are as far removed from Traditional Catholicism as you can get. However, I don't need to do so. The three-fold problem with Mr. Bizzaro is the same as that for Ibranyi, the Dimond brothers, Lionel Andrades, etc. First, they only accept defined dogmas and everything else is up for grabs. Second, the dogmas are interpreted, not by the approved theologians of the Church, but by them, as if they had Magisterial authority. Third, they are not qualified as theologians with the requisite education and training, and yet do not hesitate to condemn everyone else to Hell who doesn't agree with them. Pride goeth before the fall.

 I wanted to see why Mr. Bizzaro claims Popes Benedict XV, Pius XI, and Pius XII were false popes because of being heretics. On section 20, 20.1, and 20.2 of his labyrinth-like website, he gives the reasons. As I suspected, they are quotes purposefully pulled out of context to "prove" something he wants others to accept. He should look up the definition of calumny.  It's also no surprise that he (like Ibranyi, the Dimonds, and Andrades) is a Feeneyite. As I've written before, there's an old saying, "A proof-text taken out of context is a pretext." I can't go through all errors attributed to the three pontiffs he maligns, as it would take more than one post, but a sample of a couple of "heresies" from each pope will more than suffice to expose his lies.

Below is the dishonest "scholarship" of Mr. Bizzaro.

False Accusations Against Pope Benedict XV

 Mr. Bizzaro writes the following:

The following statement is by anti-Pope "Benedict XV" in ...
Pacem, Dei Munus Pulcherrimum, Para 21:

The heresy ...
"We humbly implore the Holy Ghost the Paraclete that He may graciously grant to the Church the gifts of unity and peace." 

 It's allegedly heresy because of the following:

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, 18 Nov 1302 -- Ex-Cathedra Dogma > 
"Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is One, Holy, Catholic, and also Apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins, as the Spouse in the Canticles (6:8) proclaims: 'One is my dove, my perfect one'."

Note: "Benedict XV" is in violation of this dogmatic decree which states "the Church is One". Benedict XV is saying exactly the opposite, that the Church is still in need of oneness. 

Now, back to reality. Pope Benedict XV never even said what is attributed to him!  Pacem, Dei munus Pulcherrimum was written May 23, 1920. The quote in question is actually a quote Pope Benedict took from the Secret Prayer at Mass for the Feast of Corpus Christi. (See footnote 24 of the Encyclical, available online). The Church is infallible in Her disciplinary laws and Her liturgy. 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). Further, the encyclical is talking about peace and unity among the warring Christian Nations during World War One, when it was promulgated. It is not denying the "Church is One" as the Mystical Body of Christ.

The next "heresy":

The following statement by "Benedict-XV" in: Spiritus Paraclitus, Para 68: 
The heresy ...
"The voice of Jerome summons those Christian nations which have unhappily fallen away from Mother Church." 

Catholic corrections ... to the above heresy: 

Vatican Council of 1870, Pope Pius IX Session 2, Profession of Faith -- Ex-Cathedra Dogma >
"This true Catholic Faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold, is what I shall steadfastly maintain and confess, by the help of God, in all its completeness and purity until my dying breath, and I shall do my best to ensure that all others do the same. This is what I, the same Pius, promise, vow and swear." 

Note: "Benedict XV" is in violation of this dogmatic citation by saying that heretic nations are "Christian" ... and by doing so implying that the heretics (in these heretic nations) might be getting to Heaven ... when they are not. 

Here, Bizzaro places a period in the middle of the sentence. It reads, "The voice of Jerome summons those Christian nations which have unhappily fallen away from Mother Church to turn once more to Her in whom lies all hope of eternal salvation.   Pope Benedict XV meant they were founded as Christian nations (not Moslem states, etc) and urges them to become Catholic because only in the True Church "lies all hope of eternal salvation." Sounds pretty Catholic to me. (Unless you end the sentence in the middle with a period and redact the other words I underlined).

False Accusations Against Pope Pius XI

Mr. Bizzaro writes the following:

The following statement is by anti-Pope "Pius XI" in ...
Mortalium Animos, Para 2:
The heresy ...
"Founded on that belief a hope that the nations, although they differ among themselves in certain religious matters, will without much difficulty come to agree as brethren in professing certain doctrines, which form as it were a common basis of the spiritual life." 
  
Catholic corrections ... to the above heresy: 

Trent, Session 7, Baptism Section, Canon 8 -- Ex-Cathedra Dogma > 
"If anyone says that those baptized are free from all the precepts of holy Church, whether written or unwritten, so that they are not bound to observe them unless they should wish to submit to them of their own accord, let him be anathema." 

Note: "Pius XI" is in violation of this dogmatic decree in that he states that "differing in certain religious matters" is not a barrier to "agreeing as brethren" on other matters. This Canon 8 states the opposite, that religious differences causes one to be outside the Church and headed for Hell. Pius XI by stating that heretics may be seen "as brethren" contradicts this dogmatic statement which tells the truth about the pending damnation of all heretics.

Reality check. Bizzaro really did a number on this encyclical. Having stripped the sentence from the paragraph it appears to be saying heretics may be seen as brethren, when in fact, the encyclical actually condemns it.

Read paragraph #2 of Mortalium Animos in context:

"A similar object is aimed at by some, in those matters which concern the New Law promulgated by Christ our Lord. For since they hold it for certain that men destitute of all religious sense are very rarely to be found, they seem to have founded on that belief a hope that the nations, although they differ among themselves in certain religious matters, will without much difficulty come to agree as brethren in professing certain doctrines, which form as it were a common basis of the spiritual life. For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission. Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little. turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion." (Emphasis mine to show how Bizzaro lifted the words out of context).

Notice he starts the sentence, fraudulently, with the word "founded." Pope Pius XI was talking about people who aim at "unity" founded on a belief...etc. What does Pope Pius XI say about those who do so? "Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule."

Next alleged "heresy":

The following statement is by anti-Pope "Pius XI" in ...
Quas Primas, Para 18:
The heresy ...
"Thus the empire of our Redeemer embraces all men." 

Catholic corrections ... to the above heresy: 

Pope Saint Leo the Great, Council of Chalcedon, Letter to Flavian section, 451 A.D. -- Ex-Cathedra Dogma; 
"For there are three who give testimony – Spirit and water and blood. And the three are one. In other words, the Spirit of Sanctification and the Blood of Redemption and the water of baptism. These three are one and remain indivisible. None of them is separable from its link with the others." 

Note: "Pius XI" is in violation of this Source of Dogma which states that sanctification of the soul is inseparable from water baptism ... by which we enter the Catholic Church ... which alone is the empire of the Redeemer. Un-baptized pagans are not in the empire of the Redeemer so "Pius XI" is clearly lying again for the damnation of souls.

The encyclical has nothing to do with "water baptism" at all! It's talking about the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ and it instituted the Feast of Christ the King. Immediately after the sentence Bizzaro quotes, he references His predecessor Pope Leo XIII, whom even Bizzaro acknowledges as pope. Here's what was actually written in context:

Thus the empire of our Redeemer embraces all men. To use the words of Our immortal predecessor, Pope Leo XIII: "His empire includes not only Catholic nations, not only baptized persons who, though of right belonging to the Church, have been led astray by error, or have been cut off from her by schism, but also all those who are outside the Christian faith; so that truly the whole of mankind is subject to the power of Jesus Christ." (citation to Pope Leo's encyclical Annum Sacrum, May 25, 1899). Bizzaro might want to push the time of sedevacante back to Pope Pius IX, before Pope Leo XIII.

False Accusations Against Pope Pius XII

 Bizzaro writes:

The following statement is by anti-Pope "Pius XII" in ...
Anni Sacri, Para 14:
The heresy ...
"Let those who hold the government of state be persuaded that there is no more solid social foundation than Christian teaching and the safeguarding of religious liberty." 

Catholic corrections ... to the above heresy: 

Apostate anti-Pope "Pius XII" telling people to ... believe whatever they want (liberty) ... thus shoving them toward eternal Hell. 

Those who believe that there is such as thing as "religious liberty" ... are headed for Hell. 

Here, Bizzaro wants you to think Pope Pius XII was in favor of "religious liberty" where one religion is as good as another and Catholicism should not be the State religion as Vatican II heretically taught. Anni Sacri is about a program for combating atheistic propaganda throughout the world. Paragraph # 14 reads in full:

"Let the lies of the wicked be exposed by His light, let the surly arrogance of the proud be humbled, let the rich be led to justice, generosity and charity, let the poor and wretched take as their model the family of Nazareth, which also earned its bread through daily labor; finally, let those who hold the Government of State be persuaded that there is no more solid social foundation than Christian teaching and the safeguarding of religious liberty." Pius meant liberty for the Church based on Christian teaching.

Another alleged "heresy":

The following statement is by anti-Pope "Pius XII" in ...
Mystici Corporis, Para 103:
The heresy ...
"As you know, Venerable Brethren, from the very beginning of Our Pontificate, We have committed to the protection and guidance of heaven those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church."

Violates the following Dogmatic Decrees: 

Council of Florence, Session 11, Pope Eugene IV, 1442 A.D. -- Ex-Cathedra Dogma > 
"It (the Catholic Church) firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Catholic Church before the end of their lives."

Note : "Pius XII" is saying the opposite of this dogmatic decree by Pope Eugene IV because this dogmatic statement clearly says that those who die outside of the Catholic Church will descend into Hell at the moment of death. For this statement of liar "Pius XII" to be true, Heaven would have to be "guiding" those who are outside the Catholic Church into Hell -- because that is where they are headed. This is, to say the least, completely ludicrous not to mention a spiritual impossibility since God or the Heavenly principalities cannot deceive or be deceived.

Once more Bizzaro lies to "prove" his calumny. The sentence reads thus: "As you know, Venerable Brethren, from the very beginning of Our Pontificate, We have committed to the protection and guidance of heaven those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church, solemnly declaring that after the example of the Good Shepherd We desire nothing more ardently than that they may have life and have it more abundantly.

Once more he cuts off a sentence. The "example of the Good Shepherd" is to go looking for the "sheep that was lost" (Outside the Church), and bring him back to the fold (within the One True Church).

Conclusion

 Poor Mike Bizzaro and his lying, error-laden website "God's Catholic Dogma" is a sad example of what happens when laymen set themselves up as self-anointed "saviors." They will interpret Church teaching, not the approved theologians. They will even lie to make their point in some cases. And, of course, they tell you that you must "Follow me or burn in Hell." Please be careful when ascribing theological error. A preference for the old Holy Week Rites (pre-1955) does not make the Pope Pius XII Rites "evil" or "erroneous." To say otherwise can put you on the wrong track of pride and (God forbid) you start to set yourself up as a Magisterial authority. The day may come when one such person puts the time of sedevacante back to St. Peter himself. 

Monday, August 21, 2017

Time Off Purgatory


  In January of 2016, this incredible announcement was made, "A newly released document co-authored by the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Christian Unity and the World Council of Churches promotes the upcoming January 18-25 ‘Week of Prayer for Christian Unity’ with the theme ‘Reconciliation: The love of Christ compels us.’

Encouraging commemorations in all dioceses of the world, the document notes the theme is drawn from the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation. In 2017, it says, “Lutheran and Catholic Christians will for the first time commemorate together the beginning of the Reformation.” The text also states that “Catholics are now able to hear Luther’s challenge for the Church of today, recognizing him as a ‘witness to the gospel."
(See https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/vatican-catholics-now-recognize-martin-luther-as-a-witness-to-the-gospel).

So the heresiarch and apostate priest Martin Luther is a "witness to the Gospel" according to Bergoglio and his Vatican II sect. The 500th anniversary of the beginning of the Protestant "Reformation"which will be "celebrated" this year, began on October 31, 1517, when Luther nailed his so-called 95 theses on the door of All Saints' Church in Wittenberg, Germany. The full and proper name for the document is Disputatio pro declaratione virtutis indulgentiarum ("Disputation on the Power of Indulgences"). 

 Indulgences are a thing of the past for the Vatican II sect; after all, who needs them when everyone is assured of going straight to Heaven anyway? I doubt that most Vatican II sect members under the age of 40 even know what an indulgence is, including their malformed clergy. Surprisingly, there is still much that is misunderstood by Traditionalists about what indulgences are and how to make use of them--both for themselves and the Faithful departed. In this post I will set forth the teaching of the True Church regarding indulgences.

What is an Indulgence?

The word Indulgence is derived from Indulgere (Latin) which conveys the idea of sweetness in one's dealings with others. From the etymology, Indulgere could be applied to a mother's love for her child, the cancellation of a debtor's obligation by the creditor, or in this case, God's pardon of the repentant sinner.  The 1917 Code of Canon Law has this to say about indulgences in Canon 911, "Let all highly prize indulgences, or the remission of sin before God of the temporal punishment due to sins already forgiven as to guilt, which remission the ecclesiastical authority grants out of the treasure of the Church, and applies to the living by way of absolution, to the departed by way of suffrage." 

 This definition in the Code has several factors to be examined:
  • The negative element
  • The positive element
  • The value of indulgences and their source
  • The gaining of an indulgence


Each factor will now be examined.

The Negative Element

 All actual sins impart a double wound on the soul. The first is called reatus culpae, which is the wound of guilt. This occurs when you turn away from God and towards creatures. As a result, you forfeit (either partially or completely) your divine friendship with God which consists in having sanctifying grace in your soul. Those unfortunate enough to incur mortal sin, turn totally away from God, lose sanctifying grace completely and are worthy of Hell. Those who commit venial sin, only partially turn their allegiance from God, and it lessens (but does not extinguish) sanctifying grace. Hence, those guilty of venial sin only are not worthy of Hell.

 The second wound is called reatus poenae, or liability to punishment. According to the Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas, mortal sin is an aversion from God, and venial sin is a turning toward creatures but not completely away from God. Therefore, mortal sin is a complete rebellion against God and deserves eternal punishment. Venial sin is not absolute rebellion and is deserving of a temporary punishment only.

Since mortal sin is both complete rebellion against God, and contains the lesser included offense of turning towards creatures over God, it merits not only an eternal punishment, but a temporal one as well, just like venial sin (See Summa Theologica, III, q. 84, art. 4). The guilt of mortal sin can only be removed either by Confession or an Act of Perfect Contrition cum voto (with desire and resole to go to Penance as soon as you can). The guilt of venial sin can be removed not only in Confession or perfect contrition, but also by hearing Mass devoutly, receiving Holy Communion with fervor, and pious use of Sacramentals. 

Indulgences remove the temporal punishment due after the guilt of sin has been eradicated. 

The Positive Element

 In certain cases both guilt and punishment can be remitted, but this is not the usual case except in the Sacrament of Baptism, where the soul of the person just baptized is rendered completely acceptable to God and can enter Heaven immediately. In its Decree on Original Sin, the Council of Trent declares, "For in those who are born again God hates nothing, because there is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism unto death, who walk not according to the flesh, but, putting off the old man and putting on the new one who is created according to God, are made innocent, immaculate, pure, guiltless and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, joint heirs with Christ; so that there is nothing whatever to hinder their entrance into heaven." 

The rule is the opposite outside of Baptism. The Council of Trent infallibly declared:

CANON XII.--If any one saith, that God always remits the whole punishment together with the guilt, and that the satisfaction of penitents is no other than the faith whereby they apprehend  that Christ has satisfied for them; let him be anathema.

CANON XV.--If any one saith, that the keys are given to the Church, only to loose, not also to bind; and that, therefore, priests act contrary to the purpose of the keys, and contrary to the institution of Christ, when they impose punishments on those who confess; and that it is a fiction, that, after the eternal punishment, has, by virtue of the keys, been removed, there remains for the most part a temporal punishment to be discharged; let him be anathema.

Therefore, indulgences are good works by which we can remove some or all of the temporal punishment due to forgiven sins. Where does the power of these good works to remove sin come to us? Through "the treasure of the Church." By reason of the Hypostatic Union (the Divine and human natures of Christ united in the one Person of God the Son), the smallest act of Christ was of infinite value and could satisfy Divine Justice for the sins of the world. The incredible number of hardships and tortures Our Lord endured was thereby superabundant, but not wasted. These merits as well as those of the Blessed Mother and the saints are applied in later generations for the remission of our temporal penalties that remain after sin is forgiven. The One True Church ALONE is the dispenser of indulgences; She alone has Divine Authority.

When the wretched heretic Martin Luther dared to deny the treasury of the Church, he was excommunicated by a real Pope, Leo X, in the Apostolic Decree Exsurge Domine. He declared the following teaching of Luther condemned and heretical:

17. The treasures of the Church, from which the pope grants indulgences, are not the merits of Christ and of the saints.

The Value of Indulgences

There are numerous accounts in the lives of the saints which inform us that one instant in Purgatory (where those with temporal punishments must suffer before gaining entrance to Heaven) is more painful than many years of suffering on Earth. Who wouldn't want to expiate their temporal punishments here rather than hereafter? 

Indulgences may be either partial or plenary. A plenary indulgence expiates all temporal punishment, while a partial indulgence remits just some. When a prayer has a number of days or years ascribed to it (e.g., an indulgence of 300 days) that doesn't mean 300 days come off your time in Purgatory, rather it means so much remission is gained by that indulgenced prayer (or pious work) as would have been gained by 300 days of penance during the era of public penitential discipline. 

 A plenary indulgence is gained by performing the proscribed work of the Church; however, if any venial sin remains, the plenary indulgence cannot be completely received since there is still the guilt of actual sin. In such case, the plenary indulgence becomes partial. According to Canon 926, "It is to be understood that a plenary indulgence is granted in such a way that if one cannot gain it in plenary form, nevertheless one gains it partially according to the dispositions one has."

As to the source of what may be indulgenced, the pope alone, as the Vicar of Christ on Earth, has the primary and supreme power over the granting of indulgences. 

The Gaining of a Plenary Indulgence

 There are seven requirements to gain an indulgence:

1. One must have the right intention of gaining the indulgence.

2. The good work prescribed (prayer, stations of the cross, etc) must be carried out faithfully and not substantially altered in any way. 

3. One must be baptized, not excommunicated, and in the state of sanctifying grace (at least at the completion of the prescribed work). 

4. Holy Communion must be worthily received within eight (8) days of the completion of the prescribed work.

5. Prayers must be vocal, the lips must move and the words mouthed at least silently. Mental prayer does not suffice. 

6. You must make a good Confession eight (8) days before or after the day on which you would gain the indulgence (fulfill the prescribed work). However, you must still be in the state of sanctifying grace on the day you complete the prescribed work.

7. You must pray for the pope's intentions. This does not mean a particular person who is pope, or that you can't gain indulgences in a time of sedevacante. "The Pope's Intention" comprises what any true pope would want:
  • the exultation of Holy Mother Church
  • the propagation of the One True Faith
  • the uprooting of heresy
  • the conversion of sinners
  • peace and concord among Christian nations
  • the other needs of Christianity
 N.B. You can apply an indulgence to yourself or to a departed soul, but not to another living person! For a partial indulgence, only numbers 1, 2, and 3 above apply. 

(The above was gathered from theologian Davis, Pastoral and Moral Theology, 3: 428-433. Also from theologian Hagedorn, General Legislation on Indulgences, CUA Press, [1924] I give full acknowledgement and credit to their works ). 

Conclusion

 The Vatican II sect has jettisoned indulgences as a thing of the past (at best) or superstitious (at worst). Know what indulgences are and make use of them. Don't suffer in the next world when you can easily expiate your sins now and grow closer to God in the process by doing these good works. Bergoglio hails the infamous founder of false Protestantism (and the denier of indulgences), Martin Luther, as a "witness to the Gospel." Remember the inspired words of St. Paul, "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema." (Galatians 1: 8).