What doth it profit a man to attend Latin Masses, but not live like the Good Samaritan?
Email: torontocatholicwitness@outlook.com

Friday, 31 January 2020

BREXIT ~ now may the REAL work begin that Britain may return to Her ancient Catholic Faith

+
Jesus, Convert England
Jesus, Have Mercy On This Country.
(Dying Prayer of Blessed Henry Heath)

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now,
and at the hour of our death. Amen.

Our Lady of Ransom, Pray for us
Our Lady of Walsingham, Pray for us
St Gregory the Great, Pray for us
St Augustine of Canterbury, Pray for us
St Thomas Becket, Pray for us
St John Fisher, Pray for us
St Thomas More, Pray for us
St Margaret Clitherow, Pray for us
St John Henry Newman, Pray for us
Blessed Henry Heath, Pray for us
Blessed English Martyrs, Pray for us
+
Jesus, Give Back The Faith To Wales
Jesus, Have Mercy On This Country.
Hail Mary...

Our Lady of Ransom, Pray for us
St David, Pray for us
St Winifred, Pray for us
St David Lewis, Pray for us
St Richard Gwyn, Pray for us
Blessed William Davies, Pray for us
Blessed Martyrs of Wales, Pray for us
+
Jesus convert Scotland
Our Lady of Aberdeen, Mother of God, Queen of Heaven,
we thank you for your intercession on our behalf in the past.
With renewed confidence we turn to you again,
asking that you may through your Son help to strengthen our faith
and guide us in our resolve to carry out His will

We commend to you our Holy Father, Pope Francis, and our Bishops of Scotland,
and ask that you may look favourably on their intentions
We pray for all the needs of the Church
that you may bring about unity among men in the love of your Son

Our Lady of Aberdeen
we pray for those who rule us; we pray for our neighbours,
our families and ourselves, that the peace of Christ may reign among us, always
Our Lady of Aberdeen, Our Lady of Good Success,
pray for us
+
Jesus convert Ireland
May the Strength of God pilot us.
May the Power of God preserve us.
May the Wisdom of God instruct us.
May the Hand of God protect us.
May the Way of God direct us.
May the Shield of God defend us.
May the Host of God guard us.
Against the snares of the evil ones.
Against temptations of the world

May Christ be with us!
May Christ be before us!
May Christ be in us,
Christ be over all!
May Thy Salvation, Lord,
Always be ours,
This day, O Lord, and evermore. Amen
+

Why are Catholic school trustees and teachers AFRAID to ANSWER questions on sexual morality?

Not teacher of the Faith, but corrupters of children 


But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, 
it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck 
and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.
Matthew 18:6

A couple of weeks ago we posed the following questions to the dissenting Trustees and teachers at the Toronto Catholic District School Board (TCDSB). We know this blog is read by these dissenters, and we have a combox. 

When challenged in the area of doctrine, to remain silent takes on a meaning of the utmost gravity. The dissenting trustees and teachers do not want to reply, because to reply in the negative, means they publicly and explicitly dissent from doctrine, and become gravely suspect of heresy. This has serious implications retaining their positions as trustees and teachers within a Catholic school system, thus they seek to avoid explicitly denying Catholic doctrine, as they would (without contradicting themselves) have to resign as teachers and trustees. However, as is usually the case, the love of money outweighs the love of heresy (or, as they see it, their love of LGBT-gender ideology).   

Catholic teachers endorsing homosexual activity

Dear readers, please review again the questions we have posed for those who have authority over children and youth for Catholic education. Consider the grave spiritual danger children are in when confronted with trustees and teachers who teach an evil ideology. History shows that evil teachers produce bad fruit. 

What innocent children are taught has SERIOUS consequences 


1. Do you reject lust as a morally disordered desire that is isolated from the right use of sexual pleasure within marriage? (c.f. CCC 2351)

2. Do you reject masturbation as an objectively evil act? This question must be asked, as homosexuality involves mutual masturbation, manually, orally and anally. (c.f. CCC: 2352)

3. Do you reject pornography as it (e.g.) offends against the marital act? Sex "education" that teaches sexual acts outside of marriage, or the teaching of the "LGBT" agenda as acceptable expressions of sexuality therefore qualify as pornographic. (c.f. CCC 2354)

4. Do you reject homosexual acts as "acts of grave depravity" and "intrinsically disordered"?  Do you reject homosexual acts as "contrary to natural law"?
(c.f. CCC 2357)

5. Do you accept that persons with same-sex attraction are "called to chastity", and therefore to refrain from same-sex sexual activity? (CCC 2359)

6. Do you accept that sexual love is "ordered to the conjugal love of a man and a woman"? (CCC 2360)

7. Do you accept that under no circumstance can homosexual acts be approved? (CCC 2357)

8. Do you accept that for those for whom homosexual inclinations is a trail, they should be accepted "with respect, compassion and sensitivity", such that they can "fulfill God's will in their lives"and, "if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition"? (CCC 2358)

9. Do you accept the following teaching that "Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices"? (CCC 2396)


Those who reject Sacred Scriptures and the teachings of the Church are in dissent. They break with the Church and despise Her Teaching Authority founded in Christ. Human sexuality and the morality of all human acts, are not, as dissenting trustees and teachers claim, based on political positions. We are speaking about truth, not passing political ideology. Either these people are incredibly stupid or incredibly duplicitous when they make these claims. We suspect they are a bit of both. 

Sexual morality is based on Divine Revelation through the Authority of Christ's Church. All human actions are founded in moral decisions.


The Catechism is not conjecture, opinion, it is mandated with Apostolic Authority. St. Pope John Paul II wrote in Fidei Depositum

"...by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church's faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church's Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith..."

Those who promote the "LGBT-gender" ideology agenda, do so contrary to Sacred Scripture, Apostolic Tradition and the Church's Magisterium. Their silence convicts them. 

St. John Bosco, pray for us. 

Tuesday, 21 January 2020

Part II: Pope Francis ~ Pope or Antipope? Is Pope Francis a heretic, schismatic?

Abbe de Nantes in Rome

Following on my previous post regarding the question of Pope Francis being  "deposed" for schism and heresy, in essence NOT being Pope Francis, but rather Cardinal Bergoglio etc., it is important to clarify for Catholics my modest claims. Firstly, the claims I make are not my own. I am merely repeating what the Church has always taught. Nothing new, nothing different. Catholics seem to be conflating two separate issues, either due to confusion, or deliberately, due to a schismatic intent. In other words, some are legitimately (and who can blame them) confused, given a Pope who is scandalizing the faithful through his words and actions, to those who already in secretum have broken Catholic unity, and are working backwards to "prove" the Pope is an Antipope, and hence justify their bad break with the Church. 

The Abbe de Nantes
Catholics should be aware that there were at least five Popes who were heretics at one time or another during their papacy. Liberius, Vigilius, Honorius, Boniface IV, John XX and perhaps Alexander VI. There have also been in recent years strange and confusing statements and actions by Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI. Bizarre and outrageous actions and words which could easily be argued were scandalous, if not heretical. However, NONE of these men were ever excluded from the List of Popes. All men mentioned remain, to this day, listed as Popes. In fact two of them have been canonized. Yes, a sinner can repent and die in the state of Grace. If you do not believe me, go and look it up. As such we historically have had heretics on the Throne of Peter, and these same heretics, remained Popes during their heresy, and these same Popes, following their deaths, were retained by their successors as legitimate Popes.  

Let us now review a possible solution to the crisis in the Church. The Abbe de Nantes, who was suspended a divinis in the mid sixties, for his opposition to the innovations at the Council, had a horror of schism and heresy. He saw no need for a Catholic to fall into these twin evils just because the Pope and most of the bishops had gone out of their Catholic minds. The Abbe fought equally against those who had entered into sedevacantism and schismatic dissent, as he fought the modernist innovators. His motto was "neither heretics nor schismatics, we remain Catholic". I reproduce the part on what Catholics can do when the Pope engages in heresy, schism or scandal.


The Abbe warned Catholics years ago:
The successor of St. Peter and Vicar of Jesus Christ is reiterating the perfidy of Caiaphas, with a view to perpetrating the new deicide foretold by the Scriptures, that of man dethroning Jesus Christ in his own temple to enthrone himself there instead and so receive the world’s adoration of himself as God and Saviour.
The full essay can be read here


III. WHAT ACTION CAN BE TAKEN
AGAINST PAPAL HERESY, SCHISM, OR SCANDAL?


1. IMPRACTICABLE SOLUTION

Bellarmine put forward a solution that sounds extremely drastic, but we must remember that he regarded the possibility – and hence presumably the solution – as merely academic. “ PAPA HAERETICUS DEPOSITUS EST… A heretical Pope is deposed ”. The reason is simple. Heresy being a form of spiritual death, a Pope who should fall into it would be spiritually dead and cut off from the Church, thus ceasing to be her Head.

Such reasoning, however excellent it may be in theory, does not take into account the psychological and sociological aspects of the situation. We have seen over these past ten years that such a solution is inapplicable in practice. To be effective, it would require two preliminary conditions which are, today, inconceivable. The Pope would, in the first place, have to have a clear understanding that he was renouncing the Faith in favour of heresy, and to be doing so deliberately and in consciousness of the mortal sin involved. Secondly, the priests and faithful would have to grasp fully the heresy in the papal teaching and to be unanimously agreed that the Pope was in fact a heretic. Today, however, the heretic sees himself as one ahead of his time, not a rebel but a prophet who is to save the Church! The priests and faithful, for their part, no longer have a clear idea where lies heresy and where the true Faith, or indeed if there is any contradiction between the two...

Thus we have today a situation where a Pope can be guilty of heresy, schism and scandal while believing himself to be engaged in founding Christianity anew, and where he is able to convince the great mass of priests and people into following him, just as they followed the greatest and holiest Popes of the past!
To admit the idea of the automatic deposition of the Pope on account of heresy would entail two possible consequences, the one disastrous and the other absurd. Either we should be left without any possibility at all of ridding ourselves of such a Pope, because the masses would continue to follow him regardless, or else any Tom, Dick or Harry who happened to have some grievance against the Pope could declare, on any ground whatsoever, and claiming for himself the justification of St Robert Bellarmine, that the Pope was a heretic and deposed on this account!

2. OPEN SOLUTION

The solution which we regard as a practicable one is that proposed by Cajetan, followed by John of St Thomas and others: “ PAPA HAERETICUS DEPONENDUS EST… A heretical Pope must be deposed ”. This implies not only that a heretical Pope must be deposed from his office, but equally that anyone who feels impelled to bring a charge of heresy against the Pope has an obligation to take the necessary steps towards a judicial process of deposition. He has no right to raise his personal judgement into a legal verdict.

There remain, however, unanswered questions regarding the manner of bringing about such a deposition. Who is to depose the Pope? The Church, evidently. But has the Church the competence to pass judgement on him who is the Head and Sovereign Judge of all? Cajetan maintains that in undertaking such a process of deposition the Church is not in fact passing a verdict on the offender, but only bringing before God’s own Tribunal the evidence required.

It is God Himself alone from whom the process of deposition can emanate. It is hard to see just what Cajetan had in mind and at this point his discussion becomes somewhat nebulous. We are left only with the idea that any ecclesiastical tribunal would be competent merely to institute proceedings, but not to pass sentence.

The Libellus fidei addressed by Adrian II to the Eighth Council of Constantinople gives us some further guidance. In it he reminds the faithful, in connection with Honorius, that they have the right to resist a Pope who errs against the Faith and to refuse the directives of superiors who are in heresy. He adds that even in such a case, no patriarch or bishop would have any right to pass a sentence (of anathema) except with the consent of the Sovereign Pontiff himself. “ Cuipiam de eo quamlibet fas fuerit proferendum sententiam, nisi ejusdem primae sedis pontificis consensus praecessisset auctoritas. ” When Adrian II said that the consent of the Pope was necessary before a condemnation could be issued in such a case, he was thinking, evidently, of a posthumous sentence. But why should we not follow a similar argument and apply it within the lifetime of the Pope concerned? When souls are in danger, there is no case for waiting until death takes its course.

3. MODERN SOLUTION

The solution that we are putting forward takes account of the dogma of Papal Infallibility as it was defined by the Vatican Council over 100 years ago. Indeed, though strange at first-sight, this application of the dogma could well seem to future historians a providential one. For the dogma of Infallibility shows us that the only person able to pass judgement on a Pope guilty of heresy, schism, or scandal, is none other than the Pope himself, speaking with the authority of his infallible Magisterium.

The Church must therefore make AN APPEAL TO THE POPE CONCERNING THE POPE. This is precisely what I have been asking for over the past six years – but public opinion is as yet so little prepared for such a solution that I am constantly being accused of having “ condemned ” the Pope, or of having passed “ judgement without appeal ” on him, when I have rather been calling upon him to pass such a judgement, and limited myself to the role of accuser. For the proposed solution is the only one that would do justice to the Pope. Whether his accusers are right or wrong – whether he is guilty or innocent – a Pope whose orthodoxy has thus been called into question cannot honourably extricate himself except through a process in which everything is set out with precision.

Who is to bring the charge? We can have no doubt but that any Catholic, any member of the Church, is entitled to do so. If there should be found a Prince or Emperor to take on the task, so much the better, for his standing would give it added weight. History shows that though force may be a dangerous tool for settling an argument, it has sometimes been used in the service of the Faith. Better still would be a Saint, and we can only regret the passing of the ages of faith when there would come forward Saints who not only expressed their reprimands with the greatest boldness, but followed them up with prophecies and miracles, showing that they were indeed inspired by God. The next best would be a member of the Hierarchy – the higher his rank, the better.

But failing a Saint or a Prince, a Curial Cardinal or even a Bishop, the last and least among Catholics is entitled to bring his charge against the Pope and therefore, for want of anyone better qualified, I decided to undertake the task myself.

If the Pope’s accuser should be in the wrong, he will suffer for it, and that would only serve him right. But, as long he is inwardly convinced that the Pope is in heresy, there remains on him the moral obligation to say so openly. In remaining silent while he is in a state of inward rebellion against the Pope he puts himself into peril of damnation for, if he should be wrong, he is cutting himself off from the Pope and hence from the Church. If he is right, he fails in his obligation of charity by not warning his brethren.

Before which tribunal? The only tribunal competent in matters of Faith is the CHURCH herself, by virtue of her authority as the SPOUSE of the LORD. Her judgement is infallible. The “ believing Church ” owes her faith to and retains her “ sensus fidei ” through the constant help and support given by the “ teaching Church ”. The Process would have to be instituted before the eyes of the whole Church, either by representative members of the Hierarchy, or by a tribunal consisting of ordinary theologians, whose brief would consist merely in establishing whether or not the teaching and acts of the Pontiff were compatible with the Catholic Faith and the Tradition of the Church. Their decision would be subject to the verdict passed by the Pope himself speaking infallibly.

It would fall to the Pope himself to pick the members of the tribunal charged with instructing the Process in all freedom and impartiality. It would seem to me preferable if the members were simple theologians rather than bishops and cardinals who might be tempted to set themselves up into a Council and claim for themselves the right to pass judgement upon the Pope – thus coming back full circle to the erroneous theory of Conciliar supremacy.

Who will be the Sovereign Judge? The Church, of course, but she would have to be represented by one man – the only man – competent to speak in her name, the same who is the lawful Head of every Conciliar Assembly – the Pope himself. He would be called upon, forced, to pass judgement on himself. Here we have the updated solution of the ancient problem – the Pope, speaking ex cathedra, is assured of the help of the Holy Spirit and cannot err either from ignorance or malice. Even if he were a “ demon in his very soul ”, to use the words of Cajetan, he would nevertheless be “ holy by virtue of his office ”. And everything will be saved by God!

What could be the possible outcome of such a Process?
Three alternatives spring to mind:
  1. A new definition of belief. This would be the most glorious way for the Pope to show that he had been wrongfully accused, and to rebut his accuser. The Pope would repeat, this time in the form of a solemn pronouncement, what he had said before in the ordinary way and the orthodoxy of which had been challenged. His opponent and the followers of the latter would have to submit and recant under pain of excommunication for formal heresy.Let us illustrate this by an example: Paul VI had authorised the giving of Holy Communion to a Presbyterian. The opponent claims that such an act was against the Faith and the Church’s God-given Law. The tribunal would have to establish that the facts had been correctly stated, that it was not a misunderstanding or some other accidental confusion but a genuine conflict between two different interpretations of the revealed Faith. It would be for the Pope to show that his interpretation had a sound theological basis, founded in Divine Revelation, and to make an ex cathedra pronouncement justifying intercommunion as compatible with the Faith. In that case, we should have to bow before his decision.
  2. A recantation by the Pope. “ But that is surely impossible ”, is what you may well say. In that case, you are either speaking without reflection or else you are lacking in faith. For if a Pope who has been guilty of serious error is faced with the alternatives of either affirming the Catholic teaching – which would involve admitting his own error – or denying it in order to persist in his own view, it is surely to be expected that he would recant. The five Popes who were guilty of heresy in the past all recanted!This should remind us that, while there is an obligation to take steps against a Pope guilty of heresy, it is also vital to pray for him as well as for the Church. It would be a glorious termination of such a Process against a Pope guilty of heresy, schism, and scandal, it he were to make an act of humility and submission to the will of God, for His greater glory and the inestimable benefit of the Church.
  3. The formal establishment of the Pope’s defection. The Pope might refuse to listen to his accuser. “ Does he have to present himself here? Close the doors; I will have nothing to do with him. “ So the case might drag on until others take up the charges. One day the priests of the Pope’s own diocese might come and demand a reply. “ No, I do not wish to reply ”. In such a case, the Church of Rome would have to draw up an acknowledgement of this refusal and this abuse of authority: the Pope is not willing to exercise his supreme Magistrature!But perhaps the process will commence with a series of procrastinations. The Pope shilly-shallies. He is pressed by his very own Church, the Church of Rome, which is particularly qualified to exercise this role. He is summoned to abandon his calculated inertia: “ The world is waiting for you to settle this question. You cannot stay silent, you must assume your role as Supreme Judge ”. If he again refuses to listen to his Church, further decisions will have to be envisaged.
The Church of Rome would then have to threaten the Pope with deposition. In such a summons, it would be the Pope's own act, his repeated refusal to exercise his responsibilities, that would constitute a resignation. His deposition by the Church would be only a consequence of this. The sentence of deposition would thus be the canonical conclusion of this acknowledgement of the Pope’s resignation. The Church of Rome would then declare the Apostolic See vacant and she would call a conclave for the election of his Successor. For she owes it to herself to have a Head who will teach with authority, judge and punish, and uphold the peace and unity of the Church. She cannot remain for any length of time – to use the term applied to the Republic by Marcel Sembat – “ a woman without a head ”.

Then, once again, the memory of a heretical Pope would fade from people’s minds

Sunday, 19 January 2020

POPE FRANCIS: Pope or Antipope? Schismatic and Heretic?




Contrary to fantastical proclamations by neo-protestants claiming to be Catholics, Pope Francis remains the Pope. I say neo-protestants, for these uneducated and very dangerous people are taking upon themselves Authority they do NOT have. The Catholic Church, whether these neo-protestants like it or not, is a Monarchy. Jesus Christ is the King and Head of His Church. He decided to institute a Hierarchy, and for this same Hierarchy to transmit Spiritual Authority. He also placed a visible head, His Vicar at the head of His Hierarchy. In an age of "democracy", "liberty", "freedom", "individualism", this is a hard concept to grasp, but it must be, if one wishes to remain Catholic.




I have warned readers several times over the past few years that the temptation to schismatic dissent will intensify as the crisis in Rome grows darker. However, I for one, will not wonder off to some Synagogue of Satan. Nor do I intend to leave the Church secretly, in my heart, yet play the lie that I am still Catholic before my friends and associates. I recall speaking with a friend a few months ago whom I had not spoken with for several years. He informed me that though the Pope was not the Pope, he attended a parish that was in union with "Antipope" Francis. When I asked him why he attended a parish that was in union with an "Antipope", and received Holy Communion at a Mass offered for this same "Antipope" he had no answer, other than "Jesus permits it", and going on about a so-called "private revelation" he had heard about. Absolute rubbish and damnable heresy! 






The Church is visible, is She not? 

The Church is hierarchical, is She not? 

We have a Pope, do we not? 

Ah, the Pope is a "heretic" our neo-protestant self-declared theologians proclaim (now there is a sure sign of the protestant spirit!). It is "manifest", "obvious".  

Manifest to whom? Obvious to whom? 

Who will judge what is "manifest" and "obvious"? 

From where will these self-appointed judges receive their Authority?

No these people are just trying to excuse their grave sin of schism (which always leads straight to heresy) by breaking Catholic Unity. 

Let us refer once again to the writings of the Abbe de Nantes, who reviewed the various theses as to the possibility of an heretical Pope: 

" Papa hæreticus depositus est… A heretical Pope is deposed. ” This is the solution advocated by Robert Bellarmine in the heyday of the Counter-Reformation. “ Heresy being a form of spiritual death, a withdrawal from the Church, any Pope who should fall into heresy, would find himself ipso facto cut off from the Church. He is, by this very fact, deposed. He ceases to occupy the Apostolic See of his own accord. ” This theory was well adapted to an epoch when everyone clearly distinguished the Catholic Faith from error.
 What neither Suarez nor Bellarmine could have foreseen, is that a time would come when evolutionism and subjectivism would spread such darkness in people’s minds that it would be impossible for them to immediately identify heresy, particularly in the private doctrines of a pope. Given the current confusion, in which Protestant private judgement is further complicated by Modernist immanentism, if we were to accept this solution, anyone might declare the Pope a heretic according to his own private whim and conclude that, as far as his own direction was concerned, there was no longer any pope. ” (CRC no. 30, March 1970, p. 7) Thus, the theologian of the Catholic Counter-Reformation was of the opinion that this solution would be impracticable as it would have no effect other than to cause confusion and lead to contesting any Pope whoever he might be.
“ Papa haereticus deponendus est, a heretical Pope must be deposed. ” This is the solution proposed by Cardinal Cajetan and other theologians. It implies two important consequences. “ If it so happens that a Pope is a heretic, he must be deposed for him to cease being the Pope. Furthermore, the person who accuses the Pope of heresy must not leave it at that, but must ask for the legal process for his deposition to be undertaken, since he cannot make a universally and immediately executory decision of his personal judgement. ” (CRC no. 69, June 1973, p. 10)
This is a wise solution, yet it raises further questions, in particular, who will judge the Pope  ? Cajetan’s answer is unsatisfactory. He maintains that in undertaking such a process of deposition of a heretical Pope, the Church is not in fact passing a verdict on the offender, but is merely bringing him to the attention of the Sovereign Judge Who is God Himself. “ It is hard to see just what Cajetan had in mind, ” Fr. de Nantes comments. “ He is in an obvious dilemma. We are left only with the idea that any ecclesiastical tribunal in such a trial would be competent merely to institute proceedings, but not to pass sentence. "

Will you stay loyal to Jesus,
or will you leave His Church like Judas? 

We are left with the solution that the Pope short of defecting from the Catholic Faith, by declaring his intent to leave the Church, remains Pope. It remains to a future Pope and Council the question of a previous Pope's heresy and/or being an Antipope. 

Whatever Francis may or may not have done can in no way be compared to iniquity of the High Priest Caiaphas, who orchestrated the greatest crime in human history, the crime of Deicide, who committed the gravest in of Blasphemy denying the Divinity of Our Lord. Did Jesus depose Caiaphas? No, He allowed Himself to condemned by the "Pope" of the Jewish Church, to be Crucified in obedience to His Father. When on the Cross did He succumb to the jeers of the Jews to come down from the Cross? No, He remained faithful even when it was most painful to do so. 

We too must imitate Christ. Anything less is to re-crucify Him ourselves. 

Father forgive them for they know not what they do, He prayed. 

Can we do any less? 

When are we going to start praying for the Pope, instead of cursing him?

Saturday, 18 January 2020

Letter from Archbishop Weakling to Fr. Aidan McNutty: "...keep the Cross hidden"



Gaudium synagoga Satanae

                                                                                                                             January 17, 2020 

To: Fr. Aidan McNutty
      Franciscan Flyers of the Annulment
      Holy Smoke Parish
      1717 Lenin Square
      Sardis


My dear Brother Aidan,

Firstly, I wish to thank-you for all the destructive work you have done at the parish, Holy Smoke. I especially wish to congratulate you for all the hard work you are doing to destroy the young people. Is it not edifying when young people come to church on Sundays, and yet, in their daily lives, live like the "Gentiles"?

Just a few key reminders: do not forget that the young people are influenced by word and deed. Repeated sins, however small, will desensitize them quickly. Keep them in a corruptive environment. It may be a simple thing such as giving someone a rap CD or a movie laced with profanity. 

We are not just targeting the young; but also, and take care here: the parents in the parish. If we can continue to lull the parents into a sense that they are "practicing Catholics" just because they turn up in a pew on Sundays, then you have as much as got them. If the parents are seduced into the "good" life, the youth naturally follow. It is human nature to take the easiest path. When the young see the parents as - in essence - nominal Christians, why would they ever not follow? Bad generals make bad foot soldiers.

If we consider Liguori's advice to parents, we can invert it and set as a general template what practical results we should be looking for in the young. Parents, schools etc. should - (indeed, must!) - be encouraged to instill in the young a lively sense of vulgarity, obscenity, licentiousness. Nothing drags a young person away from Christianity as quickly as "impurity". We have a lot to work with: even a so-called saint is only flesh and by proximate occasions, he or she may become a devil. Never give up the work! There is one doctrine of the Catholic Church I believe in: Original Sin. Aidan, make good use of fallen human nature to corrupt parish and school life! 

Some practical advice: encourage the young to turn to celebrities as their idols; encourage indulgence in social media, etc. Facebook, Snapchat, Tinder, Grindr, Badoo etc., are marvelous fantasy tools for this. How ecstatic I become, Aidan, when you send me reports of school girls barely in their teens behaving  like cheap tramps and tarts on social media! When I hear that they come from our Catholic schools "in the Catholic tradition", with the sacraments and even Mass, then I know we know that we are proceeding from triumph to triumph for the Evil One. 

What joy it brings me, to think of stupid parents spending tens of thousands on their daughter or son's "traditional" Catholic education, when the same girl will end up as a cheap, whoring little tart for a dirty little boy. This is the delicious reality! 

Now, if you can be fortunate to find a few double-faced parents, that is, active enablers of children's sin, all the better. It may come to chance that you may be blessed to strike upon a parent who perhaps has a psychological problem, or even a pathology. Here, there is a gold mine to work with. Human pride and psychological weaknesses must be exploited to the full. =

People should also be encouraged to cause scandal and so on in the local parish. The more the merrier. An old Spanish proverb, perhaps a bit colourful, is advisable here: encourage this monkey to climb his or her tree, but in doing so you keep well back, for it is only when this monkey is well up the tree that we find out what is inside of him or her! 

In closing, my dear Aidan, I am edified to hear your reports of the growing corruption of the youth in our Catholic schools. Truly I am edified. Indeed, much "work" merely entails allowing society and corrupt teachers to do their "work" undisturbed. Encourage freedom! You have so far excelled at that! Liberty, liberty! Ah, the word that brings the only joy in Hell! 

Keep wearing your cassock; but keep up soft, sentimental, pious external practices. Even say a Latin Mass or two! The key is doctrine, so no doctrine! But by all means allow a bit of extravagant theatre now and then. Make it "high church", but keep it "false church". 

Emphasize a sociological Christianity; if anything at all. Keep Man at the centre, and Christ Crucified out! Aidan, whatever you do, keep the Cross hidden from sight. 

No Cross, no Salvation!

I remain, fraternally yours, Brother Perfides

Rupert Weakling
Archbishop of Pergamum

Thursday, 16 January 2020

CHRISTIANS OR PAGANS ? ~ is our Catholic Faith alive in our works, or are we "Christian charlatans"?



The Christian life is a life of belief and action, our actions are informed by our belief, our belief is reflected in our actions. They are inseparable.

St. Paul outlined for us a few identifiers of the authentic Christian.

In the Book to the Romans 12; 9-21, he wrote: 


Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good.
Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves. 
Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord.
Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer.
Share with the Lord’s people who are in need. Practice hospitality.
Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.
Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn.
Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited.
Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone.
If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.
Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord.
On the contrary: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”
Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.  

              
St. James stressed this in his epistle:

Just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead. (James 2:26). 

Sunday, 12 January 2020

Crisis at the Toronto Catholic District School Board ~ Have trustees and teachers LOST the Catholic Faith?



The outstanding Catholic blog, Everyday for Life, Canada once again has published gravely disturbing details on the ongoing demolition of our once Catholic schools. Readers of that blog, as well as our own, will be aware of years of corrosive decay in the areas of Catholic Faith and Morals. 

To quote from Everyday for Life, Canada: 
The Toronto Catholic District Schools Board (TCDSB) is no longer the school board that many parents believe or want it to be....The Biblical words "sin," "evil," "devil," and "hell" are no longer welcomed at the TCSDB....The updated TCDSB board code of conduct says that boys and girls are not just boys and girls but that a girl can be a boy and a boy can be a girl....
The full article can be read here. 


No one is forcing these dissident trustees and teachers, administrators etc. to remain Catholic. The gift of Faith is given freely, but must be accepted in its entirety. As St. Augustine taught, to reject one doctrine, is to reject all doctrine. The Christian Faith is not a personal assemblage of ideas; the keeping of some doctrines, the discarding of others. It is received. The Faith is, as is defined in the Catechism, is: "a supernatural virtue, infused by God" (1,1, 153). This definition also means that there is only one Faith, for God cannot contradict Himself, and impart "faiths" that are in conflict with each other over doctrine. 

As I have written before, these trustees, teachers and others, when they reject the Church's teachings on the sanctity of human sexuality, the exclusiveness of sexual expression within Matrimony, are guilty of material heresy. They blaspheme God by mocking the order of Creation and the reflection of the Triune Love as reflected in the acts proper to marriage between husband and wife. St. John Paul II could not have written it more clearly: so-called same sex "marriage" is an ideology of evil. 

It is time to move from the pastoral admonition to challenge these dissenters on the doctrinal level, to challenge each and every trustee, teacher and administrator ad seriatum


1. Do you reject lust as a morally disordered desire that is isolated from the right use of sexual pleasure within marriage? (c.f. CCC 2351)

2. Do you reject masturbation as an objectively evil act? This question must be asked, as homosexuality involves mutual masturbation, manually, orally and anally. (c.f. CCC: 2352)

3. Do you reject pornography as it (e.g.) offends against the marital act? Sex "education" that teaches sexual acts outside of marriage, or the teaching of the 'LGBT" agenda as acceptable expressions of sexuality therefore qualify as pornographic. (c.f. CCC 2354)

4. Do you reject homosexual acts as "acts of grave depravity" and "intrinsically disordered"?  Do you reject homosexual acts as "contrary to natural law"?
(c.f. CCC 2357)

5. Do you accept that persons with same-sex attraction are "called to chastity", and therefore to refrain from same-sex sexual activity? (CCC 2359)

6. Do you accept that sexual love is "ordered to the conjugal love of a man and a woman"? (CCC 2360)

7. Do you accept that under no circumstance can homosexual acts be approved? (CCC 2357)

8. Do you accept that for those for whom homosexual inclinations is a trail, they should be accepted "with respect, compassion and sensitivity", such that they can "fulfill God's will in their lives"and, "if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition"? (CCC 2358)


9. Do you accept the following teaching that "Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices"? (CCC 2396)


Those who reject Sacred Scriptures and the teachings of the Church we can openly state they are gravely suspect of material heresy. How we approach human sexuality and the morality of human acts, is not, as one dissenting teacher wrote (his arrogance only outdone by his ignorance) based on political positions. It is based on Divine Revelation through the Authority of Christ's Church. The Catechism is not conjecture, opinion, it is mandated with Apostolic Authority. St. Pope John Paul II wrote
I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church's faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church's Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith...
Those who reject this Apostolic Authority, and the Catechism are placing themselves in a very dangerous position. Such people expose themselves as actors of ill will, knowingly pouring spiritual poison into our children and youth. They are not just bad Catholics, but public dissenters and evil corrupters of the innocent. Following Bishop Emeritus of Calgary, His Excellency Fred Henry, we quote:
Only God can judge the state of the human soul but it is pure nonsense to suggest we cannot and should not judge human behaviour. Reluctance to judge moral behaviour is the inevitable consequence of moral relativism and moral subjectivism that has eroded confidence in the ability to determine objective moral truth on which sound judgment is based.
As Bishop Henry also wrote there is an objective moral order of truth. Part of this objective moral order is that "male and female He created them" (Gen 5:2; Mt 19:4; Mk 10:6) and that "a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh" (Gen 2:24; Mt 19:5; Mk 10:7; 1 Cor 6:16; Eph 5:31).