Archive for August, 2019

from Novus Ordo Watch

Recognize-and-OBEY is the Traditional Catholic Teaching

The sedevacantist blogger Steven Speray has recently released an important blog post we are happy to republish on this web site, with his permission. It concerns the foundational belief of those who try to be traditional Catholics while believing the “Popes” after Pius XII to be valid and true Vicars of Christ — the so-called “recognize-and-resist” position (R&R).

Pope Pius XI Squashes the Recognize-and-Resist Position

by Steve Speray (Aug. 27, 2019)

Can the faithful recognize and resist the pope? I dealt with this question in a 2015 article. However, I recently stumbled upon some teachings from Pope Pius XI that castigate the recognize-and-resist theology. I’ve highlighted the relevant parts within the context that contradicts R&R-ism.

In Mortalium Animos – On Religious Unity, Jan. 6, 1928, Pope Pius XI declared:

#5 Admonished, therefore, by the consciousness of Our Apostolic office that We should not permit the flock of the Lord to be cheated by dangerous fallacies, We invoke, Venerable Brethren, your zeal in avoiding this evil; for We are confident that by the writings and words of each one of you the people will more easily get to know and understand those principles and arguments which We are about to set forth, and from which Catholics will learn how they are to think and act when there is question of those undertakings which have for their end the union in one body, whatsoever be the manner, of all who call themselves Christians…

#7…There are some, indeed, who recognize and affirm that Protestantism, as they call it, has rejected, with a great lack of consideration, certain articles of faith and some external ceremonies, which are, in fact, pleasing and useful, and which the Roman Church still retains. They soon, however, go on to say that that Church also has erred, and corrupted the original religion by adding and proposing for belief certain doctrines which are not only alien to the Gospel, but even repugnant to it.

#11…Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius and the reformers, obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls?

The words “recognize and obey” are exactly opposite to “recognize and resist.”  The R&R crowd doesn’t obey those they call the legitimate successors of Peter. They ignore them, resist them, and reject their teachings. They are most certainly trying to stand in the way of the Vatican II popes and implementing Vatican II and the Novus Ordo. Of course, the R&R crowd is correct in rejecting the Modernism of the Vatican II “popes”, but their justification for doing so in opposition to what is recognized as the papal authority, is heretical, blasphemous, and just plain stupid.

The underlying principle of Mortalium Animos is rejected by the R&R crowd. But then again, every papal document is an instance of the Roman Pontiff putting forth his papal authority for the faithful to obey, not to resist.

On Dec. 31, 1929, Pope Pius XI declared in Divini Illius Magistri – On Christian Education:

18. Hence it is that in this proper object of her mission, that is, “in faith and morals, God Himself has made the Church sharer in the divine magisterium and, by a special privilege, granted her immunity from error; hence she is the mistress of men, supreme and absolutely sure, and she has inherent in herself an inviolable right to freedom in teaching.’…

20.The Church does not say that morality belongs purely, in the sense of exclusively, to her; but that it belongs wholly to her.…

25. The extent of the Church’s mission in the field of education is such as to embrace every nation, without exception, according to the command of Christ: “Teach ye all nations;” and there is no power on earth that may lawfully oppose her or stand in her way. In the first place, it extends over all the Faithful, of whom she has anxious care as a tender mother.

The whole document is about the importance of getting a good, holy, and true Christian education, which can only come about by following and obeying the teachings of the Roman Pontiff and following his rules for this education. What’s the point if the Catholic Church is propagating error like every other religion, as the R&R proponents essentially claim?

The position of the R&R crowd makes the Catholic Church out to be the biggest hypocritical organization in the world. It would mean that the Catholic Church is more or less permitted to lead people astray with error, while all other religions are condemned by the Catholic Church for doing the same thing. It would mean only the Catholic Church gets to be heretical, while Protestantism and Eastern Orthodoxy are condemned by the Catholic Church as false religions when they do so.

That’s why the R&R position is heretical, blasphemous, and stupid.

On Dec. 31, 1930, Pope Pius XI promulgated Casti Connubii – On Christian Marriage. Once again, the pope emphasizes his authority over all the faithful. He declares in #104:

Wherefore, let the faithful also be on their guard against the overrated independence of private judgment and that false autonomy of human reason. For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circumstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty. Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord.

The approach of the R&R crowd is to resist, dismiss, and disdain every papal teaching that they think comes short of proclaiming in an extraordinary manner dogmas protected by infallibility. In principle, the R&R crowd is really no different than the liberals who reject the teaching of Casti Connubii on the authority of the Roman Pontiff as much as they do — they just apply it to a different issue (that of contraception; see #54).

The pick-and-choose mentality of the R&R crowd is what makes them the worst of hypocrites. They profess to be obedient and faithful Catholics but are neither.

Jesus told us where hypocrites go in Matt. 24:51 — and it’s not paradise.

Minor edits have been made to this post to enhance readability and consistency, with the author’s permission. The original can be found here.

Image source: Wikimedia Commons (cropped)
License: public domain

Communist America

August 17th, 2019 by Vigilo

from In Veritate

Just when you thought that you heard everything, a new shock came to light in July. America magazine, the publication of the Jesuit order in the United States, actually published an article advocating communism — yes, communism. The title of the article is: “The Catholic Case for Communism.”

The author is a certain Dean Dettloff. His basic theme, as I read him, is that the Catholic Church ought to warm up to communism, since for centuries it has been too closely associated with the privileged classes.

He makes the absurd claim that communism reflects the Church’s teaching on the limitation of private property. The Catholic Church staunchly defends private property, as a form of strict justice, but does say that it would be limited by extreme need. I will illustrate by an example. It would be stealing to take an apple from a fruit stand without paying for it. However, if a man were starving, he would have the right to take the apple, since private property is not guaranteed by God in such a way that it would deprive another of the right to live. Ultimately the earth and its riches belong to the entire human race, and private property is not so absolute that humans should be permitted to starve to death in order to protect the principle of private property.

Such cases, however, are extreme. Furthermore, the Church has never neglected the plight of the poor, and has never defended liberal capitalism. Catholic philosophers have always taught the necessity of some government control of the economy, in such a way that, precisely, super-rich entrepreneurs could not take advantage of poorer classes, in most cases laborers. This problem became acute in the nineteenth century, when, with the sudden advent of the industrial revolution, laborers quit their farms and went to the cities, where they worked for very low wages and under intolerable conditions in the workplace. The governments said little or nothing about these problems, causing a tremendous gap between the monied classes and the working classes. Whenever such a gap exists, it is the occasion of major trouble, and often of revolution.

The “remedy,” proposed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, was the abolition of private property altogether, giving the State proprietorship of all industry and land, all means of production, and all natural resources. In short, the factory worker and the farmer would become employees of the State, and the former private owners would be stripped of their private property.

This is communism. It is an intrinsically evil system because it is based on the negation of private property, which is a part of the virtue of justice. Therefore there is nothing that can redeem communism. It is intrinsically flawed, and fatally so.

Because it is contrary to the most fundamental demands of justice, it is contrary to nature. As a result, communism has been an economic disaster historically.

Let us name them: the Soviet Union, China (before it was propped up by investment from the West), Cuba, Venezuela, Hungary, East Germany, Poland, Rumania, Yugoslavia, and other Soviet satellites. Conversely, regimes which respect private property have prospered immensely: The United States, Canada, the nations of Western Europe, Japan, Australia, to name the principal ones. Even these, however, have been burdened to a greater or lesser extent by socialism, the “little sister” of communism, which has limited a great deal the political and economic freedoms of peoples living in nations infected with it.

The Catholic Church endorses neither unbridled, laissez-faire economy, nor communism, nor socialism. All of these systems rest on serious errors, and consequently produce very serious economic and social problems.

The author of the article would have us believe that communism just has not had a chance to prove itself, that it has learned from its mistakes, and is now ready to make another go of it. He states: “Communism in its socio-political expression has at times caused great human and ecological suffering. Any good communist is quick to admit as much, not least because communism is an unfinished project that depends on the recognition of its real and tragic mistakes.”

Among these “tragic mistakes” is the murder of approximately one hundred million people in the twentieth century. But this is just a little hiccup on the way to the perfection of the system. It has also reduced billions of people to abject poverty, as well as slavery to the immense, all-powerful, and far-reaching government. For example, in Communist China, it is now forbidden that those under eighteen attend church services. Priests must shoo them away in the event that they try. This is because religion, except for the State-controlled “Catholic Church” (recently approved by Bergoglio), is an indoctrination which runs counter to the party line. They also have incarcerated in concentration camps, with guard towers and barbed wire, between 500,000 and 1,000,000 people, in order to “reeducate” them. But these, again, are just hiccups in a system which can bring to mankind a classless society and paradise for all on earth.

If you want to learn about what life was like in the 1980’s in the Soviet Union, I invite you to go to YouTube and visit The Ushanka Show, presented by a man born and raised in Kiev under Soviet domination. (Caution: occasional immodesty) You will learn how it was necessary to wait seven years to buy a car, which was so expensive that hardly anyone could afford it. You will learn that in order to move away to another city, you needed to get permission from the government to do so, which would not be given necessarily. You will learn that it was necessary to share an apartment with complete strangers because of the housing shortage.

These are only a few of the horrors of this system. Pope Pius IX in Quanta Cura referred to communism as a “deadly error.” The author of the America article, however, would have us believe that communism and Christianity are in fact compatible, and gives many examples of how he knows a lot of church-going communists.

But it is impossible that communism be compatible with the Catholic Faith. The reason is that, as I said, it is an intrinsically evil system inasmuch as it denies a fundamental right of justice, which is the right to private property.

Leo XIII said in Quod Apostolici Muneris of 1878: “Catholic wisdom most skillfully provides for public and domestic tranquility, supported by the precepts of divine law, through what it holds and teaches concerning the right of ownership and the distribution of goods which have been obtained for the necessities and uses of life. For when Socialists proclaim the right of property to be a human invention repugnant to the natural equality of man, and, seeking to establish a community of goods, think that poverty is to be by no means endured with equanimity; and that the possession and rights of the rich can be violated with impunity, the Church, much more properly and practically, recognizes inequality among men, who are naturally different in strength of body and mind; also in the possession of goods, and it orders that the right of property and of ownership, which proceeds from nature itself, be for everyone intact and inviolate; for it knows that theft and robbery have been forbidden by God, the author and vindicator of every right, in such a way that one cannot even covet the property of another, and that ‘thieves and robbers, no less than adulterers and idolaters are excluded from the kingdom of heaven.’” [cf. I Cor. VI: 9-10] In his encyclical Diuturnum Illud of 1881, Leo XIII refers to communism and socialism as “plagues,” “most loathsome monsters” and “nearly fatal to society.” (no. 23)

The faithful would do well to read these two encyclicals which I have cited here, as well as Rerum Novarum of Leo XIII, and Quadragesimo Anno and Divini Redemptoris of Pius XI. In this last encyclical, Pius XI explodes the very main theme of the author of this article, namely that Catholicism and communism are compatible. The Pope states: “Again, without receding an inch from their subversive principles, they invite Catholics to collaborate with them in the realm of so-called humanitarianism and charity; and at times even make proposals that are in perfect harmony with the Christian spirit and the doctrine of the Church. Elsewhere they carry their hypocrisy so far as to encourage the belief that communism, in countries where faith and culture are more strongly entrenched, will assume another and much milder form. It will not interfere with the practice of religion. It will respect liberty of conscience. There are some even who refer to certain changes recently introduced into Soviet legislation as a proof that communism is about to abandon its program of war against God. See to it, Venerable Brethren, that the faithful do not allow themselves to be deceived! Communism is intrinsically wrong, and no one who would save Christian civilization may collaborate with it in any undertaking whatsoever.”

Communism was also unequivocally condemned by Pius XII in his Christmas radio message of 1941 and 1942, and again in important documents issued in 1949 and 1950. He barred from the sacraments “anyone who publishes, disseminates, or reads books, periodicals, newspapers, or leaflets which uphold communistic doctrine and practice, or contributes articles to such organs.”

Shame on the Jesuits for publishing this article. What would their holy founder say?

In the United States in the 1950’s and even 1960’s, members of the communist party were surveilled by the FBI, and had to carry cards identifying themselves as communist party members. They were considered subversives. I can hardly believe that in a matter of about sixty years, there would be serious contenders for the presidency who espouse these very ideas.

The reason for the rise in sympathy for communism and socialism is the overall decline in religion in this country. These two evil systems, socialism and communism, are replacements for religion, inasmuch as they promise for the entire human race an earthly paradise, a utopia of commonness and shared wealth.

Socialism and communism have as their basis a totally materialistic view of man, seeing him only as a highly developed animal with no immortal soul. Consequently what is paramount is the distribution of wealth and the equal enjoyment of it. Hence everyone has a right to an equal share of wealth, an entitlement, simply because he or she is a human being. It ignores the natural differences of intelligence and talent as well as the learned virtues of diligence, entrepreneurial fortitude, good workmanship, reliability, and other qualities which make both employers and employees excel. Everything is leveled.

Needless to say, this equalization of all, regardless of their merits, qualities, or hard work, completely destroys the motivation to do good work, and ultimately makes a proverbial “basket-case” of the national economy. Fallen human nature being what it is, it will forever tend to take the easy way out, and become lazy. Destroy the profit motive, and you destroy the economy.

Catholics should be on guard against these modern evil tendencies of socialism and communism. In the 1990’s, after the fall of the Soviet Union, everyone said: “communism is dead.” Not so. It is alive and well in the United States of America.

from Novus Ordo Watch

The official web site and media portal of the “Catholic Church” in Switzerland has released a video promoting the idolatrous worship of Hinduism.

On July 23, 2019, the Swiss so-called “Catholic Media Center” (Katholisches Medienzentrum) published a 3-minute video clip showing a puja, which is the essential Hindu worship ritual. The abomination can be witnessed here:

The puja (or pooja) took place at the Hindu temple in the Swiss capital of Bern inside the so-called “House of Religions” (Haus der Religionen) and is carried out every Friday night. The House was designed to provide “sacred” spaces for those religions that previously didn’t have any in the city, and to facilitate dialogue between different cultures and religions. The Novus Ordo Sect in Bern has collaborated with this House of infidelity by being part of an ecumenical club associated with it, called “Church in the House of Religions” (Kirche im Haus der Religionen), since 2009.

Considering that the supposed Catholic Media Center did not condemn this idolatrous ceremony — which they had an obligation to do — but left it uncommented, even displaying their “Catholic” logo throughout and most prominently at the very end, this clip is tantamount to an endorsement of Hindu worship, for silence implies consent.

What is more, on July 29, the Media Center released a report to accompany the Hindu puja video, as part of their ongoing 2019 summer series of articles on the topic of “Sacred Music” (!). Whether a future report will cover the music and dances of the Israelites around the Golden Calf (see Exodus 32) or “the sound of the trumpet, the flute, and the harp, of the sackbut, and the psaltery, of the symphony, and of all kind of music” (Daniel 3:7) of the Babylonians worshipping King Nabuchodonosor, is not known at this time.

One of the false gods of Hinduism is Shiva, a favorite of “Saint” John Paul II, who once received Shiva’s mark on his forehead when he traveled to India in 1986. Although Novus Ordo apologist Jimmy Akin has tried his best to make people believe that the Polish apostate received merely the Indian equivalent of a handshake, the facts tell a different story:

Shiva is currently running into problems with climate change, where a melting ice stalagmite is threatening to do away with a famous place of pilgrimage in Indian Kashmir.

Long-time readers of this blog may recall that in January of 2014, Benedict XVI’s and Francis’ interreligious frontman “Cardinal” Jean-Louis Tauran happily visited a Hindu temple in London, where he paid homage to its false deities:

On July 5, 2018, Tauran was summoned before the Judgment Seat of God to render an account of his works and receive his just reward.

The “divine monkey” Hanuman is another false deity Hindus worship
— the Vatican II Church rejects nothing that is true and holy about it.

All of this blasphemy and apostasy we see today in the Novus Ordo Church was made possible only by the theological revolution of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), promulgated by “Pope Saint” Paul VI. Quite predictably, its Liberalism and Modernism have led to a de facto Indifferentism in matters of religion among most of those who consider themselves Catholics today, meaning that they deem “all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy” (to use the words of Pope Pius XI, who once condemned the idea), and certainly good enough for eternal salvation, the precise error condemned by Pope Pius IX in his famous Syllabus (see error n. 16).

The wicked Vatican II robber synod teaches that “in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry” (Decree Nostra Aetate, n. 2). It outrageously proclaims, furthermore, that the “Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in [other] religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men” (ibid.).

This idea that we should praise false religions for the “good elements” they contain is a decidedly Liberal, that is, Modernist idea. That it has been rejected by the true Catholic Church can be seen, for example, in its refutation by the 19th-century priest Fr. Felix Sarda y Salvany, whose book Liberalism is a Sin received the Vatican’s recommendation under Pope Leo XIII:

When [Sir Edwin] Arnold’s Light of Asia appeared [a work promoting Buddhism –N.O.W.], not a few Catholics joined in the chorus of fulsome praise which greeted it. How charming, how beautiful, how tender, how pathetic, how humane; what lofty morality, what exquisite sentiment! Now what was the real purport of the book and what was its essence? To lift up Guatama, the founder of Buddhism, at the expense of Jesus Christ, the Founder of Christianity! The intention was to show that Guatama was equally a divine teacher with as high an aspiration, as great a mission, as lofty a morality as our Divine Lord Himself. This was the object of the book; what was its essence? A falsification of history by weaving a series of poetical legends around a character, about whose actual life practically nothing is known. But not only this, the character was built up upon the model of Our Lord, which the author had in his own mind as the precious heirloom of Christianity; and his Gautama, whom he intended to stand out as at least the divine equal of the Founder of Christianity, became in his hands in reality a mere echo of Christ, the image of Christ, made to rival the Word made flesh! Buddhism, in the borrowed garments of Christianity, was thus made to appeal to the ideals of Christian peoples, and gaining a footing in their admiration and affections, to usurp the throne in the Christian sanctuary. Here was a work of literary merit, although it has been greatly exaggerated in this respect, praised extravagantly by some Catholics who, in their excessive desire to appear impartial, failed or refused to see in Edwin Arnold’s Light of Asia a most vicious, anti-Christian book! What difference does it make whether a book be excellent in a literary sense or not, if its effect be the loss of souls and not their salvation? What if the weapon in the hands of the assassin be bright or not, if it be fatal? Though spiritual assassination be brilliant, it is nonetheless deadly.

Heresy under a charming disguise is a thousand times more dangerous than heresy exposed in the harsh and arid garb of the scholastic syllogism — through which the death’s skull grins in unadorned hideousness. Arianism had its poets to propagate its errors in popular verse. Lutheranism had its humanists, amongst whom the elegant Erasmus shone as a brilliant writer. Arnauld, Nicole, Pascal threw the glamour of their belles lettres over the serpentine doublings of Jansenism. Voltaire’s wretched infidelity won its frightful popularity from the grace of his style and the flash of his wit. Shall we, against whom they aimed the keenest and deadliest shafts, contribute to their name and their renown! Shall we assist them in fascinating and corrupting youth! Shall we crown these condemners of our faith with the laurels of our praises and laud them for the very qualities which alone make them dangerous! And for what purpose? That we may appear impartial? No. Impartiality is not permissible when it is distorted to the offense of truth, whose rights are imprescriptible. A woman of bad life is infamous, be she ever so beautiful, and the more beautiful, the more dangerous. Shall we praise Liberal books out of gratitude? No! Follow the liberals themselves in this, who are far more prudent than we; they do not recommend and praise our books, whatever they be. They, with the instinct of evil, fully appreciate where the danger lies. They either seek to discredit us or to pass us by in silence.

Si quis non amat Dominum Nostrum Jesum Christum, Sit anathema [“If anyone does not love the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema”], says St. Paul. Liberal literature is the written hatred of Our Lord and His Church. If its blasphemy were open and direct, no Catholic would tolerate it for an instant; is it any more tolerable because, like a courtesan, it seeks to disguise its sordid features by the artifice of paint and powder?

(Rev. Felix Sarda y Salvany, Liberalism is a Sin, Chapter 18; some formatting changed; underlining added.)

When St. Paul the Apostle asked, “And what concord hath Christ with Belial?” (2 Cor 6:15), his question was rhetorical. In our day, Vatican II believers would respond: “Well, we reject nothing that is true and holy about the devil….” Along those lines, a most hilarious parody of Nostra Aetate was produced some years back, and it is entirely spot-on. Have a look:

By the way: At the end of Vatican II’s Nostra Aetate, Paul VI, pretending to be the Vicar of Christ, blasphemously declared:

Each and all of the items set forth in this Declaration have met with the approval of the Council Fathers. And We, by the apostolic power given Us by Christ, together with the Venerable Fathers approve, decree, and establish it in the Holy Spirit and command that what has thus been decided in Council be promulgated for the glory of God.

(See Latin original in Acta Apostolicae Sedisvol. 58 [1966], p. 744; our translation.)

It is absolutely impossible that a true Vicar of Christ could have promulgated this Vatican II document “for the glory of God” and “approve[d], decree[d], and establish[ed]” its contents “in the Holy Spirit”! This consideration is very important because, whereas most self-styled traditionalists will quickly argue that the document isn’t infallible, that really has nothing to do with it. If words have meaning, then Paul VI, if he was the Vicar of Christ, really did “approve, decree, and establish” all the errors of Vatican II “for the glory of God”. It is an impossibility and a blasphemy!

Time and again we hear that the revolution of Vatican II and its subsequent “New Mass” — another product of the oh-so holy Paul VI — have really opened the Scriptures to us, and that we must let ourselves be constantly nourished by God’s Word. However, when we look at what the Written Word of God actually teaches, what we find is definitely not the principles of the Vatican II religion.

Quite the contrary:

“Thou shalt not have strange gods before me. Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth. Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them….” (Ex 20:3-5)

“But if thou forget the Lord thy God, and follow strange gods, and serve and adore them: behold now I foretell thee that thou shalt utterly perish.” (Deut 8:19)

“The idols of the gentiles are silver and gold, the works of the hands of men. They have mouths and speak not: they have eyes and see not. They have ears and hear not: they have noses and smell not. They have hands and feel not: they have feet and walk not: neither shall they cry out through their throat. Let them that make them become like unto them: and all such as trust in them.” (Ps 113:12-16)

“For the worship of abominable idols is the cause, and the beginning and end of all evil.” (Wis 14:27)

“Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God.” (1 Cor 6:9-10)

“Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, luxury, idolatry, witchcrafts, enmities, contentions, emulations, wraths, quarrels, dissensions, sects, envies, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like. Of the which I foretell you, as I have foretold to you, that they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God.” (Gal 5:18-21)

“But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, they shall have their portion in the pool burning with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.” (Apoc 21:8)

Entirely in line with the teaching of Sacred Scripture is the real Catholic Church with her real saints and Popes.

Consider, for example, the case of St. Francis Xavier, who relates:

After their baptism the new Christians go back to their houses and bring me their wives and families for baptism. When all are baptized I order all the temples of their false gods to be destroyed and all the idols to be broken in pieces. I can give you no idea of the joy I feel in seeing this done, witnessing the destruction of the idols by the very people who but lately adored them.

(Lives of the Saints, Dec. 3: “St. Francis Xavier”)

Clearly not a Vatican II man, that Francis Xavier.

Neither was St. Benedict, the father of Western Monasticism:

Trusting in God and relying on His ever present help, [St. Benedict] went south and arrived at a fort “called Cassino situated on the side of a high mountain…; on this stood an old temple where Apollo was worshipped by the foolish country people, according to the custom of the ancient heathens. Around it likewise grew groves, in which even till that time the mad multitude of infidels used to offer their idolatrous sacrifices. The man of God coming to that place broke the idol, overthrew the altar, burned the groves, and of the temple of Apollo made a chapel of St. Martin. Where the profane altar had stood he built a chapel of St. John; and by continual preaching he converted many of the people thereabout”.

(Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Fulgens Radiatur, n. 11)

Lastly, it was Pope Pius XI who composed the beautiful Act of Consecration of the Human Race to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, in which Catholics pray to Jesus Christ: “Be Thou King of all those who are still involved in the darkness of idolatry or of Islamism, and refuse not to draw them into the light and kingdom of God” (underlining added).

That is a truly Catholic prayer: It is not afraid to call idolatry by its name and to condemn it as spiritual darkness, for that it truly is; at the same time, it seeks not the destruction but the conversion and eternal happiness of those who are unhappily caught up in the service of idols. It thus reflects the Church’s divine mission to convert the nations to Jesus Christ and His Mystical Body, the Church (see Mk 16:15-16; 1 Cor 12:27; cf. 1 Tim 2:4).

It goes without saying that it will be a cold day in hell before the Swiss Novus Ordo bishops will ever try to do that.

Image source: / / (screenshot)
License: paid / paid / fair use

from Novus Ordo Watch

If McDonald’s were looking for a new toy to include in their Happy Meals, they would need to look no further than the atrocity currently on display in the 16th-century Basilica of San Giorgio Maggiore in Venice.

The piece is entitled “Opulent Ascension” and was perpetrated by 74-year-old Irish-American “artist” Sean Scully. It is part of Scully’s ongoing HUMAN exhibition (May 8 – Oct. 13, 2019) and placed directly in the nave of the church, blocking the view to the sanctuary.

Several photos, incl. close-ups, can be seen in the embedded viewer below (it has a scroll function):Embed from Getty Images

One cannot help but notice certain similarities with the Tower of Babel (see Gen 11:1-9), but there is no need to get theological. Scully himself is happy to explain his work and its background:

The “artist” is also stunning the world with his incredibly meaningful paintings, which include the following that are currently on exhibit in the basement of the same church:Embed from Getty Images

And to think that other people have to work for a living…

More photos of this profanation of the basilica can be found here.

What does “Pope” Francis think of “Opulent Ascension” in a (formerly) Catholic church? He hasn’t said anything about it, but we surmise he is thrilled. After all, it is colorful (think: diversity!), it profanes the sacred, it keeps people’s thoughts focused on the mundane (cf. Col 3:1-2), and it has nothing to do with Catholicism. But most of all, Scully says his work “is an attempt to release the spirit” and assures us that “[t]here are no certainties in my paintings”.

In other words, it’s all right up Francis’ alley.

Image sources: (screenshot) / Getty Images / Getty Images
Licenses: fair use / Getty embed / Getty embed

The Worst Crime

August 3rd, 2019 by Vigilo

from In Veritate

Recently it was reported that a priest in Minneapolis, who is a member of the Priestly Ordinariate of the Chair of Saint Peter, was excommunicated and his parish permanently closed.

The priest’s name is Rev. Vaughan Treco. He was accused of the “rejection of the magisterial authority of an Ecumenical Council and a series of popes.”

The “crime” that the priest “committed” was to criticize Vatican II. He gave a sermon in November of 2018.

In his sermon the priest contrasted the spirit of Vatican II with the spirit of Catholicism, saying that whereas the first is in favor of embracing the world, the second is set in opposition to the world.

In saying this, the priest was absolutely right. By the “world” should be understood not the creation which God made, or human beings in general, but instead the ensemble of persons, customs, culture, laws, and institutions which set the enjoyment of wealth, power, and pleasure as the ultimate goal in life, at the same time rejecting the life of heaven as the ultimate goal of mankind. It is exactly what St. Augustine called the City of Man, which is opposed diametrically to the City of God. The Catholic Church is the City of God, having its sights set irrevocably upon the next world, and at the same time considering this world to be of no value. This City of God, of which Christ is the King, and the City of Man of which the devil is the Prince, are engaged in a perpetual spiritual warfare. Consequently, the Church can never compromise with the world; it can only convert it.

Father Treco said: “The Catholic Church exists to bring all men and every nation under the Kingship of Jesus Christ, the Lord of the Universe, but friends: In the face of our Lord’s clear teaching regarding the mission of the Church, the Conciliar Popes, the Successors of Peter have — in a way — repeated Peter’s threefold denial of Jesus Christ.”

He accused Paul VI of wrongdoing in seeing the United Nations as the provider of world peace, contrasting this view to what Pope Pius XI taught in his encyclical Ubi Arcano of 1922, in which he said that the only remedy for human conflict is the peace of Christ. Fr. Treco criticized Paul VI for his laxity in disciplining Catholic bishops, theologians, and seminary professors who were deviating from Catholic doctrine. He summed them up in this way: “men who denied the divinity of Christ; men who denied the historical resurrection of Jesus Christ; men who denied the unique saving power of Jesus Christ, and the daily re-presentation of this sacrifice, made once for all on the Cross of Calvary, in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass; men who denied the divine origin of the Church; men who denied the apostolic succession of the episcopacy, and men who denied the necessity of the ministerial priesthood of Jesus Christ.” The priest further decried the concessions that the post-Vatican II “popes” made to non-Catholic religions in the form of ecumenical gestures. He pointed out that since the Council, previously condemned errors and heresies have been permitted to run rampant, and have even been promoted by professors of Catholic theology and philosophy, theologians, priests, bishops, and cardinals.

All of these accusations are absolutely true, and are not in the slightest way exaggerated. It is refreshing to hear them said by someone who is in the Novus Ordo establishment.

He went on to point out that, in the wake of the Council, 80,000 nuns forsook their vows and 32,000 priests left the priesthood.

He denounced the permission to give Holy Communion to persons living in adultery, recently promulgated by Bergoglio in Amoris Lætitia. Then he declared: “The current epidemic of fornication, adultery and the acceptance of homosexuality as a moral good among the faithful and of the clergy . . . and the current scourge of homosexual predation among the priests and bishops of the Catholic Church are the foreseeable and inevitable fruit of the conciliar popes’ decision to respect, honor and approve the aspirations of modern man so-called; and to declare, pursue and defend the exaltation of man in the temples of God.”

These words are at once concise and accurate. I could not have said it better myself. This priest certainly understands Vatican II, and apparently sees Vatican II as the root of the problem, which is key to understanding the current disaster in the Catholic Church. So many focus only on the errors and outrageous statements of Bergoglio as the problem, as if John Paul II and Benedict XVI were free from the taint of Modernism.

What is interesting is that the first question posed to him by the “authorities” was whether or not he was a sedevacantist. They immediately understood that these accusations necessarily lead to that conclusion. But the priest made it clear that he was not a sedevacantist. Fr. Treco said: “I was asked if I believed that the Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis were legitimate popes. Quite honestly, I was taken completely off-guard by the question. It seemed to be quite unrelated to anything that had been said in the meeting thus far, and I was surprised because the question was completely unrelated to the substance of my homily.”

Although Fr. Treco made it clear that he was not a sedevacantist, and that he recognized Vatican II as legitimately convened, and even said, “I will recant anything that was wrong to state as I remain faithful to the Church and magisterium,” Bishop Lopes of Minneapolis excommunicated him for schism, saying: “Your published denial of magisterial authority of the Second Vatican Council and your assertion that the Council itself and a series of Popes are in error constitutes a public act of schism.”

Lessons to be learned. The first lesson is that there is no liberty for those who deny liberty. This was one of the axioms of the French Revolution. Here we could say, There is no Vatican II for those who deny Vatican II. In other words, for those who even dare to criticize Vatican II, there is no dialoguing, no sensitivity, no openness, no pluralism, no “accompaniment,” no “discernment,” in a word no wishy-washy, mushy, sleazy, nebulous, murky, or hazy approach to truth, so typical of Vatican II theology, but instead nothing but stern rigidity, so typical of pre-Vatican II Catholicism. No freedom of thought, but only swift excommunication. The difference is that the Catholic Church uses this very stern rigidity with regard to heresy and error, which rightfully deserve such treatment. The Modernists, on the other hand, use it only when the Golden Calf of Vatican II is blasphemed.

The second lesson is that the Modernist hierarchy understood immediately that to criticize the “magisterium” of Vatican II and of the subsequent “popes” leads logically to sedevacantism. Why is this so? Because they understand that it is impossible to reconcile the assistance of Christ to His Church and the rejection of the magisterium. In other words, if you need to sift the magisterium for what is Catholic, you are implicitly denying the assistance of Christ to His Church. If you say, however, that the magisterium does not enjoy the assistance of Christ, then you are implicitly saying that the person who claims to be the pope is not in fact the pope, since, if he were, he would have this assistance.

from Novus Ordo Watch

[UPDATED 02-AUG-2019 — see below]

First convened by the “Theology of the Body” mastermind “Pope Saint” John Paul II in 1985, the Novus Ordo phenomenon of World Youth Day has long been dubbed the “Catholic Woodstock” on account of the rampant occasions of carnal sin it offers due to the free mixing of large groups of young men and women, most of whom are dressed in shockingly immodest ways.

It may just be, however, that there is an even more sinister side to World Youth Day.

The most recent such event took place in Panama in January of this year. Frequent visitors to this site may recall the horrendous prayer and adoration vigil “Pope” Francis presided over, which featured a grotesque-looking hollow metal monstrance in the form of the Blessed Mother:

So far, so bad.

But now some people on Twitter have claimed that during that ceremony Francis used a humeral veil with a trim pattern that displays a logo used by pedophiles and pederasts to identify themselves to kindred spirits. Thus we decided to investigate, and what we found was shocking.

First, regarding the symbol itself. On Jan. 31, 2007, the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) internally published an unclassified but law-enforcement-sensitive intelligence bulletin entitled “Symbols and Logos Used by Pedophiles to Identify Sexual Preferences.” This document was made available to the public on Nov. 22, 2007 by Wikileaks and can be accessed in full here.

The logo the FBI identifies as “BLogo aka ‘Boy Lover’” is this one:

The FBI intelligence bulletin describes and explains the symbol, and also shows an alternate logo that is intended to convey perverted attraction specifically to little boys and is called, accordingly, “LBLogo”:

This sickening stuff isn’t made up, and the threat is real. The following two mainstream news sites have published articles warning people of these (and other) symbols and what they really stand for. But be careful, as these two sites are very secular and tend to have immodest photos and lewd advertisements on them:

Anyone who has, has the care of, or cares about children and their safety ought to be familiar with these logos and what they represent.

Now let’s have a look at the liturgical vestments used by Francis and other Novus Ordo clergy during World Youth Day 2019. We’ll begin with the prayer vigil for young people on January 26. The trim on Francis’ humeral veil features triangles that are practically indistinguishable from the sordid “Boy Lover” logo. Only the additional bottom bar is missing — perhaps for deniability’s sake? [UPDATE: A reader kindly pointed out that the two logos are truly 100% identical, as proved here.]

The same logo appears on the trim of Francis’ cope, both in the back and in the front:

For verification purposes, you can view all the photos released by the Vatican here, of which some of the above screenshots have been taken. In addition, we present here the entire video of the ceremony, made available by Vatican Media:

The following day, January 27, Francis presided over the event’s closing “Mass” wearing a chasuble with the same curious trim pattern:

Many of his concelebrants did as well:

Here too we share the full video and a link to the photo gallery:

Conclusion: Although the symbol on the liturgical vestments is not perfectly identical [CORRECTION: they are!] to the logo the FBI has identified as conveying pedophilia or pederasty, nevertheless it is almost so and certainly similar enough to where an untrained eye could not tell the difference. This accomplishes two things: Anyone who is an insider can tell what it is meant to signify and therefore “gets” it; and yet, should the need ever arise, pedophiliac symbolism can be denied since the logo is not perfectly identical.

Which brings us to a related case: Remember the curious logo for the World Meeting of Families last year in Dublin, Ireland, and the entirely coincidental resemblance with a symbol used in the sodomite underworld? No wonder Francis wore a “Baphomet miter” for the occasion!

Ladies and gentlemen, draw your own conclusions.

Just remember that it’s called World Youth Day for a reason.

Image sources: own composite with screenshot elements from and / (screenshot) / (screenshot) / (screenshot) / (screenshot) / (screenshot) / (screenshot) / (screenshot) / (screenshot) / (screenshot)
Licenses: fair use