Wednesday, July 31, 2019

Did Taylor Marshall says Cdl. Muller is Promoting "Sedevacantis[m]"?

Dr. Taylor Marshall the co-host on the YouTube "TnT" show said:

"[Cardinal Gerhard Muller said] No pope alone if he spoke ex cathedra could make possible the ordination of women... It seems to be if the pope came out and said ex cathedra 'Women are to be ordained to the sacred order of the deaconate...'"

"You have only two options at that point. One, it's true. That is Divine Revelation that God revealed. I can't see how it works. Or second, the pope ain't the pope. Sedevacantist."
 (YouTube, TnT, Dr. Taylor Marshall, "What about Married Deacons, Minor Orders, and So-Called Women Deacons?,"  Time 18:15 to 19:02)

It appears that Marshall is accusing Cardinal Muller of promoting Sedevacantism

The YouTube co-host seemingly has painted himself into a corner in his apparent beliefs that it is 100 percent impossible that Francis can be a antipope or a heretical pope who can be by the Church "declare[d] deprived of his Apostolic See" which he and his collaborator Bishop Athanasius Schneider who wrote the foreword to Marshall's book "Infiltration" both appear to believe.

It is unfortunate for Schneider's and the YouTube co-host's beliefs that Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation:

"[T]he Pope... When he is explicitly a heretic he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, or as some say, declare him deprived of his Apostolic See."
(The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Page 305-305)

Also, renowned Catholic historian Warren Carroll contradicted their beliefs when he explained how a seeming pope even supported by the majority of the cardinals may be a antipope:

"But each Pope, having unlimited sovereign power as head of the Church, can prescribe any method for the election of his successor(s) that he chooses... A papal claimant not following these methods is also an Antipope."
(EWTN.com/library... Antipope,txt)

Bishop Rene Gracida has given convincing evidence that Pope John Paul II's conclave constitution "Universi Dominici Gregis" which "prescribe[d]... [the] method for the election of his successor(s)" was violated and must be investigated by the cardinals.

Why are Marshall and Bishop Schneider afraid to engage Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales and historian Carroll as well as Bishop Gracida?

Why are they apparently afraid of an investigation by the cardinals into the Francis conclave?

Why are they afraid of the renowned Open Letter scholar Fr. Adrian Nichols' called for the "world bishops [to]... admonish the Pope and [make sure he] must publicly reject heresy or face losing the papacy"?
( EdwardPentin.co.uk, "Father Adrian Nichols Signs Open Letter Charging Pope Francis with Heresy," May 1, 2019)

Moreover, if Francis were to say ex cathedra "there are now four Persons in God: Father, Son, Holy Spirit and Francis" would Marshall still say:

"[The] two options [are]... it's true... Or... Sedevacantis[m]."

Or, if Francis were to declare ex cathedra that he is the 4th person of the holy quadrity, would Marshall still say:

"[T]he two options [are]... it's true... Or... Sedevacantis[m]."

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.










Tuesday, July 30, 2019

Socci: Francis Criticized Benedict XVI "for his 'Halfway' Resignation"

Antonio Socci in his new book said "during the days of the polemical statements [by Team Francis] concerning Ratzinger's preface to the book of Cardinal Sarah Bergoglio [Francis] gave a homily that seemed to be a criticism of the pope emeritus, specifically for his 'halfway' resignation." Francis said:

"[A] pastor has to... take his leave well, to not leave only halfway."

Socci questioned:

"To whom is he referring? To Benedict XVI who relinquished all the power of governance while remaining pope?"
(The Secret of Benedict XVI, Pages 123-124)

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church?

Monday, July 29, 2019

True Mercy isn't giving Communion to Adulterers, but Praying for their Conversion

When St. Catherine of Siena saw "two malefactors" who she saw were surrounded by a "tumultuous mob of evil spirits" who had been condemned to the death penalty she prayed for their conversion.

Her confessor said she revealed to him that the "devils" threatened Catherine: "If you don't stop, we and those surrounding these two will find some way of tormenting you and making you a possessed woman." But Catherine responded: "Whatever God wills, I too will. I shall not stop doing what I have begun."

The two malefactors "turned their blasphemies to songs of praise" and were converted by the mercy of Jesus through the prayers of the saint.

In our time we must remember that true mercy is shown to sinners such as adulterers not by the sacrilege of giving them Holy Communion, but by praying for their conversion as St. Catherine did and Our Lady of Fatima asked us to do.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.

Monsanto, Francis and "Maybe the Most Important Information you will receive in your Lifetime"

The highly monitored Taringa is among the top five Facebook-like social networks in Latin America.

I came across the following post in Taringa when I was doing research on Genetically Modified Organisms or GMOs, but the website wouldn't allow me to enter. After a number of attempts I finally got in.

The headline of the article is:

"El Jesuita Bergoglio apoya a Monsanto" which means "The Jesuit Bergoglio [now Francis then Cardinal Mario Bergoglio] supports Monsanto."

Various polls list Monsanto as one of the most evil corporations on the planet. In 2013, IBtimes.com said a poll listed it as "2013's 'Most Evil Corporation.'"

Taringa apparently doesn't allow Google translations into English, so here is my translation of most of the post:

"Why a Argentinian Pope? The reason is because Monsanto and the pharmaceutical companies were allowed to work, operate and experiment without problems in Argentina."

"There is a bond or link between the Church and Monsanto. The municipality and 'Caritas' a Church parochial organization called "La Merced" signed an agreement to manufacture transgenic [GMO] food... according to the documentary "Hambre de Soja [Hunger of the Soybean]."

"The food was to be given to the most needy families... But to continue in this criminal experiment... Bergoglio and Monsanto commissioned or mandated that those who eat at Caritas would only receive transgenic [GMO] soybeans."

"... What were some of the consequences. Ten thousand children got aliments from eating transgenic soybeans within a year. And 3,300,000 rations of transgenic food were distributed throughout the country [Argentina] through Caritas." [video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10qxNPzAnA[/video]"

Besides the health dangers caused by GMOs, one of the world's foremost experts on seed science Fr. Sean McDonagh says GMOs are going to create famine and hunger according to my deceased friend and researcher Richard Salbato.

Moreover, the Argentinian website senalesdefin.com writer Leonor de Cisnero in a February 15, 2016 article titled "El Papa Francisco opero para Monsanto y Rothschild" ("Pope Francis operated [was a Operative] for Monsanto and Rothschild") said:

"What few know about... Pope Francis is that he collaborated extensively with Monsanto while presiding over the Catholic Church in Argentina...[and] also studied chemistry."

"This makes him doubly guilty and immoral, being aware of the science aspects of pesticide contamination... Francis never demanded Monsanto to stop violating the Law of Argentina."

"... Francis knows perfectly the toxic implications of releasing poisons such as glyphosate in the crops and communities... Bergoglio is a chemist!"

"... After authorizing the organization of the Catholic Church "Caritas" to distribute GMOs right and left in Argentina... Francis only eats organics."

I bring this articles forward so others might do more research. This websites seem legitimate.

I know for sure from some other research that the paedophile Legion of Christ was involved with GMOs and that long time Argentinian Francis friend Cardinal Sanchez Sorondo apparently has been running cover for GMOs for a long time.

Francis's long time friendship with Sorondo lends support to Cisnero's claim that Francis was a Monsanto operative.

The National Catholic Reporter writer John Allen did an interview on May 19, 2009 with Columban Missionary Fr. Sean McDonagh where the missionary says what the article title proclaims:

"GMOs are going to create famine and hunger"

Finally, this information is from my friend Richard Salbato who passed away a few years ago. It comes from his old website Unity Publishing:


GMOs - Genetically Modified Organisms

Maybe the most important information you will receive in your lifetime


By Richard Salbato

Feast of the Immaculate Heart of Mary 2009

Over the past few months I have been monitoring the Legion of Christ to see if they are obeying Rome’s mandate to remove their founder’s influence, and their vows of silence so opposed to Catholic Doctrine. I was happy to see that the leaders finally admitted to Maciel’s sexual problems, but not sure they are abandoning his methods of mind control, which in short can be called, “The ends justify the means.”

I was interested in complaints by parents of members who wanted to sue the Legion because LC leaders were encouraging their new members to abandon their school loan bills after entering the order. Not only is this immoral but because these loans were co-signed by the parents, it meant the parents had to pay the bills. Some of these bills are between $100,000 and $200,000. The children said that LC leaders saw no problem with this because (and this is my words) the ends justify the means.

What was sent to me during this investigation was even more like the former leader than this. I am referring to “The ends justify the means.” In this case it is the connection of the Legion and its founder, Maciel, with GMOs – Genetically Modified Organisms.

Like most people I always thought of GMOs as being crop selection that creates larger yields per acre of land. Crop selection is simple. You take the largest corn and use them for seeds, then you keep doing this over and over until you have very large plants and corn yields. Selection has greatly helped the world’s food supply. But GMOs are nothing like this at all.

What are GMOs?

GMOs are a result of the discovery of DNA. Using this discovery, scientists believed they could cross DNA in plants and create a new food supply or a better food supply. Maybe they had the best of intentions in the beginning but this soon turned into maybe the most dangerous science in the history of the world, including the Atomic Bomb.

Wanting to create seeds that could fight off insects or other problems that affect farmers and food suppliers, they even crossed the DNA of corn and wheat with the DNA of animals. Like the mule, however, they created seeds that cannot reproduce more seeds.

Let us understand this, if a farmer buys these seeds from the GMO producers and plant a field, they cannot use part of the field for new seeds. Some say the companies did this deliberately so that farmers had to depend on the companies that supplied the seeds. Deliberate or not, that created the world’s most dangerous monopoly. Without telling farmers that the seeds do not reproduce, farmers tried them and then ended up with no way to grow the next crop.

More dangerous than this is that a field of GMO seeds may in fact contaminate another field near by and produce a terminator gene, a plant whose seeds are genetically blocked from reproducing. Since 40% of USA farms are now GMOs this may have something to do with the mass extermination of bees.

Monopoly

Agrichemical sales have become increasingly concentrated in a handful of large MNCs. Syngenta, Bayer, Monsanto, BASF, Dow and DuPont together control 85 percent of the annual pesticide market valued at 30 billion US dollars.

Three companies -- Cargill, Archer Daniels and Bunge -- control nearly 90 per cent of global grain trade while DuPont and Monsanto dominate the global seed market. Eleven firms account for about half the world sales of seeds, of which about a quarter are sales of genetically engineered seeds.

This turns the market into a sellers' market, and consumers and farmers have little or no choice. Farmers are forced to accept whatever they are asked to use such as seeds and pesticides. A democratic market is a consumers' market, but this is a supplier’s market.

Legion of Christ and GMOs

Back when the Legion of Christ was founded in Mexico, several billionaires supported Maciel with millions of dollars. One of these billionaires is Alfonso Romo Garza. Garza is the father of Legion of Christ’s Vicar General. Garza owns rights to 25% of the world supply of these terminator seeds.

Is it any wonder that the Pontifical Academy of Science, run by a Legion of Christ so-called scientist, has not allowed any speakers against GMOs. By having what would appear is a Vatican support of GMOs the Garza family, and therefore the LC, would add billions of dollars to their wealth, not just now, but for many years to come.

Do not underestimate this, it may be the most dangerous news you will hear in your lifetime.

Notes and Quotes:

1. Father McDonagh, an Irish missionary who spent more than 20 years in the Philippines and maybe the world’s expert on seed science is the primary source of this information, and was blocked from speaking at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.

2. All genetically modified seeds are now patented; you're giving enormous control to a handful of corporations over the seeds of the staple crops of the world. It started with rice, then corn, now they're looking to wheat and potatoes. This should be totally unacceptable to anyone. Forget about the science of whether they're safe or not. To give six Western corporations, in the United States and Europe, control over the seeds of the world is outrageous. (Father McDonagh)

3. U. S. Supreme Court in 1980, with Diamond v. Chakrabarty.

4. The point of the recent "Failure to Yield" report from the Union of Concerned Scientists is that the increase in yield in crops over the last 25 to 30 years has come from conventional breeding. It has nothing to do with GMOs. (Father McDonagh)

5. My main concern, however, is giving this control to corporations. For example, 60 percent of lettuce in the United States is now controlled by Monsanto. This is frightening. In the 19th century, all kinds of securities and exchanges agencies were created to move in on monopolies. Of course, those were monopolies on things like telephones. Now they want to build a monopoly on food. That, mind you, is precisely what they're after.

The problem with regulatory agencies at the moment is that they're much too tied to political and economic interests. The United States is a very good example. It's amazing just how hard wired Monsanto is to the Environmental Protection Agency and to the Food and Drug Administration. There's a real problem there, as a researcher showed with the Bt potato. When he went to the FDA, they said, we deal with potatoes but not the GM kind, that's over at the EPA. When he went to the EPA, they said, we don't deal with foodstuff, we deal with chemicals. Between them, they couldn't figure out which one was responsible for allowing this to be brought onto the market. (Father McDonagh)

6. Pontifical Academy for Sciences

It is. This is the Pontifical Academy for Sciences, so let's start with the 'pontifical' part. It's a Catholic organization. Who are the church's real experts in this area? I would say people like myself. I would say particularly the aid and development agencies, such as Misereor, Cafod, and Caritas. … They thought so little of this expertise in the Catholic church that they didn't invite a single person from any one of those agencies.

Further, anyone who ever claims to be a scientist should hear the other side. That goes back to Plato. What are they afraid of? Why didn't they set up a decent colloquium over there? Also, why don't they take into account numerous independent studies in the last three years which have concluded that the way to food security is not through GM crops? Why just discard all that? There's a very recent study from Africa on the yields from organic farming, saying this is the kind of thing we should be promoting. I would consider this gathering grossly incompetent.

Why do you believe they're doing it this way?

They want to get rid of the very minimal regulations that we have at the moment. They said it in the introduction to the study week, and every one of them says it in his abstract. That's their goal. Bishop Sanchez Sorondo (chancellor of the Pontifical Academy) has said that the purpose is to examine whether GM crops are safe, but I'm sorry, that's not it. The purpose is to use the prestige of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and its good name to beat on governments so that you can reduce regulation.

Are you worried that the Vatican is going to come out with an official pro-GMO statement?

Not at all. We were more concerned back in 2003, when Cardinal Renato Martino began to talk about how maybe GMOs could feed the world. We were very worried then, but not so much now. The Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, for example, may not yet have assessed the science, but they have begun to see the impact on developing countries. On January 1, there was an article in L'Osservatore Romano, in which Martino was quoted on that side of it. (Father McDonagh)

7. Fr. Sean McDonagh: GMOs are going to create famine and hunger

Gathered here over the weekend, for the Pesticide Action Network (PAN)'s 25th anniversary, many expressed concern over the predatory nature of corporate agriculture and its attempts to corner the entire chain of food production from seeds to sales of food products.

PAN is a network of over 600 participating non-governmental organizations, institutions and individuals in over 90 countries working to replace the use of hazardous pesticides with ecologically sound and socially just alternatives. Global Research Articles by Anil Netto
[http://www.unitypublishing.com/Government/GMO.htm]

Sunday, July 28, 2019

How do we know if Francis is a Antipope or Heretical Pope & What can be Done?

It appeared to me a few days ago that the former highest doctrinal authority in the Church, ex-Prefect of the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Gerhard Muller admitted that Francis could be a antipope.

Remember that only an antipope when he speaks "ex cathedra" can speak what is "invalid" because the false pope's papacy is invalid.

LifeSiteNews reported that Cardinal Muller said:

"'[I]f he [Francis] spoke ex cathedra... make[ing] possible the ordination of women... in contradiction to the defined doctrine of the Church,' he continues"

"'It would be invalid,' he adds."
(LifeSiteNews, "Cardinal Muller: No pope or council could permit female deacons, 'it would be invalid," Friday July 26, 2019)

Steven O'Reilly at Roma Locuta Est who always bends over backward to be fair and cover all angles showed the Vatican I background to my assertion a few days ago of the Muller statement. Moreover, he added that it could, also, mean Francis is a heretical pope:

"However, as Catholics well know, this poses an obvious difficulty. Vatican I defined the dogma of papal infallibility in the following terms (emphasis added):

'…the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic authority he explains a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, through the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that his church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable.'  (Pastor Aeternus cited in Fundamentals of Catholic Doctrine, Denzinger, 1839)"

"In addition, this definition is followed by a canon, which states: 'But if anyone presumes to contradict this definition of Ours, which may God forbid: let him be anathema' (Denzinger 1840).

Clearly, a faithful Catholic will note the seeming disconnect between what Pastor Aeternus defined infallibly, and what Cardinal Müller said above. But, the Cardinal is no dummy as to suggest ex cathedra statements can be disregarded. This suggests, to me at least, a hidden, unstated and inescapable implication in the Cardinal’s statement, as well as being an indication of how he and other Cardinals are now privately viewing Pope Francis–though this is speculative."

"There is only one way, in logic at least, for a Catholic to accept Vatican I on papal infallibility but reject a heretical declaration that seemingly meets the formal conditions of being ex cathedra.
Given that a true pope is protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching an error ex cathedra, it follows that if a man, seemingly “pope,” were to teach something which denies or conflicts with a known truth of the Catholic Faith it must be either (1) the man thought to be “pope” was never a true pope to begin with, or (2) the man thought to be “pope” had, at some point in the past, already fallen through heresy or apostasy from the Petrine office. Those are the logical implications as I see them. Whether these are intended by the Cardinal or not with respect to Francis, in such a hypothetical scenario as he outlined, I cannot say."

"If this a fair analysis, it may suggest the Cardinal and at least a few others in the Sacred College are actively considering one of these options to be a real possibility in the case of Pope Francis. If nothing else, it certainly is a shot across the bow of Pope Francis. It does suggest, along with other statements from the likes of Cardinal Brandmuller, that some in the “resistance” are reaching the point where they can bend no more. So, after so many years, we may be reaching a decisive moment."
[https://romalocutaest.com/2019/07/27/when-is-a-pope-not-a-pope/]

If "the Cardinal and at least a few others in the Sacred College are actively considering one of these options to be a real possibility in the case of Pope Francis," it seemed proper to go over how and why Francis might be a antipope or a heretical pope.

We will start with the two reasons why he may be a antipope:

Bishop Rene Gracida and others have convincingly demonstrated that there is valid evidence that Pope John Paul II's conclave constitution "Universi Dominici Gregis" which "prescribe[d].. [the] method for the election of his successor(s)" was violated and must be investigated by Cardinals. If, after the investigation, Francis is found to be a antipope then a new pope would have to be elected after Benedict XVI's resignation is investigated to see if his resignation was valid.

If Benedict's abdication was "a forced resignation [it] would be invalid" as Cardinal Walter Kasper said (LifeSiteNews, "Cdl. Kasper: A 'forced resignation' of Pope Francis would be invalid," January 30, 2019) or if Benedict resigned in a invalid manner as Antonio Socci presents evidence for in his new book ("The Secret of Benedict XVI") then he would either have to resign validly or remain pope until his death.

If the Benedict resignation was invalid then the conclave investigation is irrelevant because the Church can't have a valid conclave if the previous pope (Benedict) is still the pope which simply means the so-called "pope (Francis)" is a antipope.

Getting back to the topic of violation of "papal election procedures," renowned Catholic historian Carroll explicitly says that what matters in a valid papal election is not how many cardinals claim a person is the pope. What is essential for determining if someone is pope or antipope is the "election procedures... [as] governed by the prescription of the last Pope":

"Papal election procedures are governed by the prescription of the last Pope who provided for them (that is, any Pope can change them, but they remain in effect until they are changed by a duly elected Pope)." 

"During the first thousand years of the history of the Papacy the electors were the clergy of Rome (priests and deacons); during the second thousand years we have had the College of Cardinals."

"But each Pope, having unlimited sovereign power as head of the Church, can prescribe any method for the election of his successor(s) that he chooses. These methods must then be followed in the next election after the death of the Pope who prescribed it, and thereafter until they are changed. A Papal claimant not following these methods is also an Antipope."

"Since Antipopes by definition base their claims on defiance of proper Church authority, all have been harmful to the Church, though a few have later reformed after giving up their claims."
[http://www.ewtn.com/library/homelibr/antipope.txt]

Next, why might Francis be a heretical pope:

As Muller asserted "No... Pope alone, if he spoke ex cathedra, could make possible the ordination of women as bishop, priest, or deacon. [He] would stand in contradiction [of] the defined doctrine of the Church. It would be invalid."

In other words, if Francis taught heresy that contradicted Church defined doctrine he would be a antipope or a heretical pope. A antipope and, apparently in
O'Reilly's view a heretical pope, when he speaks "ex cathedra" can speak what is "invalid" because the false pope's papacy is invalid. Muller wrote:


“The Magisterium of the Pope and of the bishops has no authority over the substance of the Sacraments (Trent, Decree on Communion under both species, DH 1728; Sacrosanctum Concilium 21). Therefore, no synod – with or without the Pope – and also no ecumenical council, or the Pope alone, if he spoke ex cathedra, could make possible the ordination of women as bishop, priest, or deacon. They would stand in contradiction the defined doctrine of the Church. It would be invalid. Independent of this, there is the equality of all baptized in the life of Grace, and in the vocation to all ecclesial offices and functions for which exercise the Sacrament of Holy Orders itself is not necessary.” (On the Synodal Process in Germany and the Synod for the Amazon by Cardinal Gerhard Müller, text posted by LifeSiteNew, 7/26/2019)
[https://romalocutaest.com/2019/07/27/when-is-a-pope-not-a-pope/]

Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation:

"[T]he Pope... WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See."
(The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)


Saint Robert Bellarmine, also, said "the Pope heretic is not deposed ipso facto, but must be declared deposed by the Church."
[https://archive.org/stream/SilveiraImplicationsOfNewMissaeAndHereticPopes/Silveira%20Implications%20of%20New%20Missae%20and%20Heretic%20Popes_djvu.txt]

The renowned scholar Arnaldo Xavier de Silveira who was one of the top experts in modern times of the subjects of papal validity and heretical popes gave a brief overview of his authority on this matters:

"In the 1970 Brazilian edition of my study of the heretical Pope, in the French edition of 1975 and in the Italian in 2016, I stated that on the grounds of the intrinsic theological reasons underpinning the Fifth Opinion I considered it not merely probable but certain. I chose not to insist on the qualification 'theologically certain' for an extrinsic reason, namely, that certain authors of weight do not adopt it.43 This was also the opinion of the then Bishop of Campos, Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer, as expressed in a letter of 25th January 1974, when he sent my work to Paul VI, asking him to point out any possible errors (which never took place), expressly stating that he referred to the study 'written by lawyer Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira, with the contents of which I associate myself .'”
[https://www.scribd.com/document/374434852/Arnaldo-Vidigal-Xavier-Da-Silveira-Replies-to-Fr-Gleize-on-Heretical-Pope]

Here is what de Silveira says in his book "Implications Of New Missae And Heretic Popes (Page 176)" on the subject of heretical popes:


"Conclusion

"Resuming: We believe that a careful examination of the question of a Pope heretic, with the
theological elements of which we dispose today, permits one to conclude that an eventual Pope heretic would lose his charge in the moment in which his heresy became 'notorious and publicly divulged'."

"And we think that this sentence is not only intrinsically probable , but certain , since the reasons
allegeable in its defense appear to us as absolutely cogent. Besides, in the works which we have
consulted, we have not found any argument which persuaded us of the opposite. "

"(1 ) The second opinion referred by Saint Robert Bellarmine - See pp. 1 56 ft.

(2) The first subdivision proposed by us to the fifth opinion referred by Saint Robert Bellarmine - See p. 170.

(3) The second subdivision which we proposed to the fifth opinion - See p. 170.

(4) The third subdivision which we proposed on the fifth opinion. - See p. 1 70.

(5) The fourth opinion referred by Saint Robert Bellarmine . - See pp. 161 ff.

(6) We transcribe that long argumentation on pp. 1 64 ff. - See also note 2 of p. 1 64.

(7) One ought not to see shades of conciliarism in the principle that ecclesiastical organisms, as the Council, can omit a pronouncement declaring the eventual cessation of functions of a Pope heretic, as long as these organisms do not claim for themselves any right other than that enjoyed by any one of the faithful. For motives of mere convenience or courtesy, it could behoove these organisms to make such a declaration, in the first place; but this priority would not constitute for them a right of their own, or even less exclusive."
[https://archive.org/stream/SilveiraImplicationsOfNewMissaeAndHereticPopes/Silveira%20Implications%20of%20New%20Missae%20and%20Heretic%20Popes_djvu.txt]

Finally, Dr. John R. T. Lamont, philosopher and theologian, explains the procedures of how Francis's papacy could cease if he is declared a heretical pope by the Church:

"Some... argue that the dubia and other criticisms of Amoris Laetitia that have been made already suffice as warnings to Pope Francis, and hence that he can now be judged to be guilty of the canonical crime of heresy..."

But for juridical purposes – especially for the very serious purpose of judging a Pope to be a heretic – they do not suffice. The evidence needed for a juridical judgment of such gravity has to take a form that is entirely clear and beyond dispute. A formal warning from a number of members of the College of Cardinals that is then disregarded by the Pope would constitute such evidence."


"The possibility of a Pope being canonically guilty of heresy has long been admitted in the Church. It is acknowledged in the Decretals of Gratian There is no dispute among Catholic theologians on this point – even among theologians like Bellarmine who do not think that a Pope is in fact capable of being a heretic..."

"It is to be hoped that the correction of Pope Francis does not have to proceed this far, and that he will either reject the heresies he has announced or resign his office..."


"Removing him from office against his will would require the election of a new Pope, and would probably leave the Church with Francis as an anti-Pope contesting the authority of the new Pope. If Francis refuses to renounce either his heresy or his office, however, this situation will just have to be faced."


To read the whole article click below:


[http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/12/article-considerations-on-dubia-of-four.html?m=1]

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.



























































Saturday, July 27, 2019

Catholic Prophecy of "Four Cardinals... [and a] "Roman Anti-Pope"

Please take the 19th century German stigmatist Helen Wallraff's prophecy and the other prophecies as well as the interpretations of them with a grain of salt.

Remember what the great saint and mystic St. John of the Cross said:

Revelation and reason are better guides to truth than visions.

These prophecies are not infallible Church doctrines.

The author Yves Dupont's interpretation of the stigmatist's prophecy is interesting because it appears to predicted four Cardinals accompanying a Pope in a time of crisis and a "Roman anti-pope."

The 19th century German stigmatist Helen Wallraff's prophecy and other prophecies as well as interpretations of them are from the Dupont book:


CATHOLIC PROPHECY

THE COMING
CHASTISEMENT


by
Yves Dupont

"|i 67. Helen Wallraff ( 19th century). 'Some day a pope will
flee from Rome in the company of only four cardinals . . .
and they will come to Koeln [Cologne].'

Comment: This prophecy lends credibility to what I have
said before: only four cardinals will be with the Pope. The
other faithful cardinals will be isolated in various countries,
and unable to communicate because of the chaotic conditions
prevailing then, and they will be in no position to elect a new
Pope when the Pope of that time dies in his exile. As a result,
the Roman anti-pope will be able to persuade many Catholics
that he is the true Pope. This prophecy says that the Pope
will come to Cologne (Koeln in German). There are others,
too, which say that he will go to Germany; but many more
insist that he will go overseas. Perhaps, he will go to Germany
before going overseas."
[https://archive.org/stream/CatholicProphecy/CatholicProphecy_djvu.txt]


"Nun Emmerich (19th century): I also saw the Holy Father– God-fearing and prayerful. Nothing left to be desired in his appearance, but he was weakened by old age and by much suffering (Dupont p. 68).

The Prophecy of Premol (5th century): And I see the King of Rome and his Cross and his tiara, shaking the dust off of his shoes, and hastening his flight to other shores. Thy Church, O Lord, is torn apart by her own children. One camp is faithful to the fleeing Pontiff, the other is subject to the new government of Rome which has broken the tiara. But Almighty God will, in His mercy, put an end to this confusion and a new age will begin. Then, said the Spirit, this is the beginning of the End of Time.

Comment: From this prophecy, it is clear that the true Church will be faithful to the Pope in exile; whereas the new Pope in Rome will be, in fact, an anti-pope…a large number of Catholics will be misled into accepting the leadership of the anti-pope (Dupont, pp. 72-73). {Note the comment is from Dupont personally}.

So if the current pope flees and goes to Cologne (Germany) he might fulfill those prophecies.

So, the above does give the Roman Catholics “wiggle room” if there remains more than one pope left. But if there is only one, the next one would likely be the False Prophet of Revelation 16:13.

Notice also the following prophecy:

St. Malachy (12th century): During the persecution of the Holy Roman Church, there will sit upon the throne, Peter the Roman…the City of Seven Hills (Rome) will be utterly destroyed.

Certain Catholic prophecies warn that a major “antipope” is to come—and since this has not happened—they could be interpreted to mean that the next pope is likely to be an antipope:

Anna-Katarina Emmerick (19th century): I saw again a new and odd-looking Church which they were trying to build. There was nothing holy about it… (Dupont, p. 116)

Yves Dupont {writer interpreting A. Emmerick}: They wanted to make a new Church, a Church of human manufacture, but God had other designs…The Holy Father shall have to leave Rome, and he shall die a cruel death. An anti-pope shall be set up in Rome (Dupont, p. 116).
[https://m.facebook.com/PenguPirateChristoBell/posts/132276816922942:0]

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.

Science: Original and Final Sin

By in Uncategorized on .
By James Larson
 

In considering what might be called the “collective thinking” of the entire Western world (and beyond), there is no position one can take which elicits more universal disdain than that of being “anti-science.” It immediately calls forth stereotyped images of backwardness, anti-progress, rigidity, and just plain stupidity.

There are of course other epithets that are accompanied by much more vehement condemnations: terms as such anti-semite, racist, etc. But we are not here concerned with such individual prejudices and passions, but rather with the scientific weltanschauung (world-view) which now dominates our thinking, and the rejection of which is almost unthinkable to modern man.
Integral to this world-view is the belief that there is a world of “Science” containing all knowledge of the depths of the physical world, that the human mind has the potential to fully encompass this knowledge, and that it is only in the use of this knowledge that man sins.
It is our contention here, on the other hand, that the scientific weltanschauung is integrally constituted by a dominant hubris, which has profoundly altered human consciousness, and constitutes a war against both God and man.

Such an “anti-science” position is bound to elicit the following protest: “But the Popes have said that there is no conflict between true science and Faith – between the natural laws that govern the physical universe and Divine Revelation!” Yes, this is certainly true. But what has never been fully explored by these same Popes is that “Science”, as a human endeavor, is never just about objective truth, and that its pursuit inherently involves perversions of the intellect and will which alter not only man’s relationship with God, but also human psychology and spirituality itself.

We will explore this subject from three perspectives: 1) in the light of what Scripture has to say in regard to the nature of God’s creation, and the inevitable consequences of man’s attempts to penetrate the nature of God’s “works”; 2) the consequences of original sin upon man’s intellect and will; 3) the overwhelming existential and historical facts concerning the immensely destructive fruits of the scientific enterprise itself.

Before proceeding with this analysis, however, we wish to acknowledge that we may have already alienated some readers. Let us begin, therefore, by offering some very down-to-earth statistics in order to convince the reader of the possibility that there may indeed be a raging fire from which proceeds the following smoke.

In the United States, the members of the National Academy of Sciences represent the elite of those on the cutting edge of their corresponding scientific disciplines. Membership is by election only (no applications please), and such membership is considered one of “the highest honors that a scientist can receive.” The total current membership is approximately 2,350, with 485 foreign associates. Approximately 500 have received Nobel Prizes
.
In the 23 July, 1998 issue of Nature, authors Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham presented the results of a survey of NAS scientists in an article titled Leading Scientists Still Reject God. Their questionnaire duplicated that used by researcher James H. Leuba in his surveys of “leading scientists” in the years 1914 and 1933. The results show in fact that the title of the Nature article understates the significance of their findings – leading scientists do not merely still reject God, but increasingly reject God in what appears to be geometric proportions.

In 1914, “leading scientists” responded with statistics showing that 27.7% believed in a Personal God (“a God in intellectual and affective communication with humankind”). In 1933, this percentage was down to 15%. And, in Larson and Witham’s 1998 study, this belief in a personal God had reached a low of 7.0% (approximately one-fourth of the number found in 1914).

In the words of Larson and Watham, “Disbelief in God [not only a Personal God, but God in any form] and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers.” The first sentence of this quote adds another dimension. Obviously, the closer one gets to being the type of scientist (especially physicists) whose pretention is to penetrate to the absolute foundations of physical reality, the less likelihood there is of a belief in God.
We can contrast the above statistics with a Pew Forum survey in 2007 which found 78.4% of Americans professing to be Christians, 4.7% “Other Religions”, and 5.8% identifying themselves as “Unaffiliated Believers” – a total of 88.9% who believe in God.
The contrast revealed here is absolutely stark. Unquestioningly, these statistics (even if we are somewhat skeptical about such polls) reveal that there is something within the scientific enterprise itself which is destructive of faith in God. As we shall see, its destructiveness extends equally to human life and dignity.

Holy Scripture and the Scientific Enterprise
We begin with the first perspective which mentioned above: the inevitable consequences, from a Biblical perspective, of the scientific enterprise itself.
It is a kind of dogma of modern life that man has the inalienable right, and even responsibility, to the pursuit of unending growth in all the spheres of his secular activity: economic, political (New World Order), scientific knowledge, technological development, etc. Such “unending quest for knowledge and growth” would almost seem to constitute modern man’s definition of his most fundamental dignity. This is fully in accord with the dominant forms of modern philosophy which define him in terms of evolutionary becoming rather than created being.
Such is not the Biblical view, which rather sees such pursuits as wreaking disaster to both individual and society, and to man’s relationship to Truth and to God. The Biblical perspective begins with Original Sin which, according to St. Thomas, was constituted as an intellectual pride by which Adam and Eve sought an intellectual excellence of knowledge independently of God. In the situation of Original Sin, this is described in terms of “knowledge of good and evil.” It is obvious in the light of further Old Testament scriptures, however, that this disorder also extends to the “seeking after an excellence” which would presume to penetrate to the depth of the nature of created things. Thus, we have the following scriptures:
Nothing may be taken away, nor added, neither is it possible to find out the glorious works of God: When a man hath done, then shall he begin: And when he leaveth off, he shall be at a loss.” (Ecclus 28:5-6).
And I understood that man can find no reason of all those works of God that are done under the sun: and the more he shall labor to seek, so much the less shall he find: yea, though the wise man shall say, that he knoweth it, he shall not be able to find it.” (Eccl 8:17).
For the works of the Highest only are wonderful, and his works are glorious, secret, and hidden.” (Ecclus 11:4).
For great is the power of God alone, and he is honoured by the humble. Seek not the things that are too high for thee, and search not into things above thy ability: but the things that God hath commanded thee, think on them always, and in many of his works be not curious. For it is not necessary for thee to see with thy eyes those things that are hid. In unnecessary matters be not over curious, and in many of his works thou shalt not be inquisitive.                                                             
For many things are shewn to thee above the understanding of men. And the suspicion of them hath deceived many, and hath detained their minds in vanity.” (Ecclus 3:21-26).
These scripture passages proscribe any effort by man which attempts to penetrate (or even be inquisitive and curious about) the hidden depths of God’s “works.” It is evident that in these scriptures the word “works” refers to the physical world itself – to all those “works of God that are done under the sun.” There is no allegorical interpretation possible here. We are simply faced with a choice between considering these teachings as divinely revealed truth, or merely the product of primitive and ignorant Old Testament human minds,
 
The Destruction of Human Intelligence
The last sentence in the final quote offered above is possibly the most revealing. It speaks both of the disordered motivation (“suspicion”) for such a quest, and it also pegs its consequent fruit (vanity).
The “suspicion” which scripture designates as the source for this “seeking” to understand the depths of God’s works must relate not only to God’s works themselves (their substantial reality, and man’s ability to objectively know them with his ordinary perception), but to the trustworthiness of God Himself as revealed through the substantial reality of His creation. Most revealing in this regard was a book written in 1996 by John Horgan, former senior writer at Scientific American, titled The End of Science. Mr. Horgan interviewed over 40 of the top scientists in the world (many of them physicists, and Nobel Prize winners) on the subject of “the end of science,” the ultimate meaning of reality, etc. What is revealed through these interviews is that none of these men is, in even the remotest fashion, a Christian, or a believer in a Personal God. Possibly even more revealing is that they have no epistemology (the philosophy of how we know things) whatsoever. In other words, none have the slightest notion of how it is even remotely possible to equate the findings of their “science” with reality as we perceive it. As the first scriptural passage quoted above states; “When a man hath done, then shall he begin: And when he leaveth off, he shall be at a loss.”
None of these scientists, for instance, have any idea as to how to connect the “scientific” understanding of water – of two atoms of Hydrogen compounded with one of Oxygen, constituted by electrons spinning at comparatively enormous distances around nuclei, with the whole thing being comprised of 99.999999999 % void – to the marvelous substance we know as water. They are, in other worlds, and in the most profound sense, “lost” in a world of suspicion in regard to the substantial reality of God’s creation, and therefore also of God Himself. This is why we often see such scientists flirting with Eastern forms of religion which deny the reality of our perceived world.
Further, the fruit of this “suspicion” is described by the scripture as having their minds “detained in “vanity.” Vanity is, of course, the same as St. Thomas’ “vainglory.” It is an inordinate desire to manifest one’s own excellence, very similar to that original sin of intellectual pride by which Adam and Eve sought an excellence above their nature, with the only significance difference here being its communitarian nature. The scientist becomes, in other words, a kind of Magi, guardian of an esoteric knowledge obtainable only to the elite, and before whom the multitudes must bow in reverence. The scientist, in other words, becomes the ultimate Gnostic.
The Old Testament proscriptions against such Gnostic-inspired “scientific” pursuits come to fruition in the most profound violations of the Beatitudes of the Gospel. We will not attempt to explore that teaching here. Suffice to say that the Beatitudes demand a simplicity of life, founded upon humility and poverty of spirit, in regard to the exercise of all of man’s faculties, and in all realms of human endeavor. There is no way in which we can imagine the living of the simplicity and poverty of spirit described in the Beatitudes as being in any way compatible with the development of the modern consumeristic, scientific, technological, economic, and political cultures in which we now are immersed and spiritually poisoned.
All of this leads to the second perspective mentioned above: the consequences of original sin upon man’s intellect and will.
The “vanity” which is the moral inversion involved in the Gnostic-scientific enterprise seeking to reach to the depths of created realities, produces a parallel inversion in man’s intellectual perception of reality. The entirety of the scientific quest is immersed (involved) in accidental being. The scientific method, although it indirectly deals with substantial being, is directly concerned only with accidental (quantifiable) realities. As such, it involves a continuous series of reductionisms through accidental analysis. Thus, a living substance is reduced to cells, cells to chromosomes and other structures, chromosomes to DNA molecular arrangements, molecules to atoms, atoms to sub-atomic particles, quanta, etc. In this ever-descending process, each reduction somehow becomes the substantial “reality” behind the previous “appearance,” accompanied by a total epistemological disconnect between the present reduction and what came before. The whole process entails a recurring and deepening process of dissolving what appears to our senses and minds as truly substantial, and replacing it with greater obscurity and unsubstantiality. Suspicion replaces substantiality, Gnostic-becoming replaces God, vanity replaces humility, and man becomes in the most profound sense “lost.” The whole interior order of human psychology and spirituality, in other words, becomes inverted.
It is therefore profoundly naïve to believe that such “scientists,” immersed in this deadly, poisoned, and inverted interior world, can be turned around through better or deeper knowledge concerning their own particular discipline, or through education in “natural law.” Their fundamental spiritual and intellectual perceptions are too perverted in order to make sense of such an enterprise. They must first be turned completely around, and that is possible only through a profound conversion of their whole being to God and His Church, and to the substantial natures of both God and man. And, if they are scientists, this must also involve a conversion of their entire intellectual orientation to a Thomistic metaphysical view of created realities.
One of the great, collective delusions of both the so-called “Conservative” and “Traditional” Catholic worlds is the prevalent view that the accomplishments of the West in regard to science, technology, etc. are the glorious fruits of Catholicism, and its embrace of rationality as the handmaid of Faith and Revelation. Few seem to even consider the possibility that true Catholic rationality demands a profound poverty of spirit in relation to any scientific endeavor, a devotion to both material and intellectual humility, and a commitment to material and technological asceticism, etc. No one seems to consider, in other words, that the “Goddess of Reason” which Western Culture has embraced, with its scientific and technological revolutions, represents a profound decay in Catholic civilization. It is not a true reflection of the Holy Spirit of Wisdom, but rather the offspring of that original sin which also sought a knowledge which was prostitute to the temptation of Satan to be “like Gods.”
The absurdities in the thinking of conservative and traditional Catholics which flow from this are startling. Just to offer one example: Any attempt to seriously consider the possibility of global warming (and we here make no judgment about its objective truth or falsity) is absolutely dismissed as a liberal agenda. This, despite the fact that the profound violations of the Sermon on the Mount, and its prescriptions for living a life of simplicity and poverty towards all the goods of this world, are morally bound to have their consequences upon the physical world in which we live. The same, of course, may be said of all the other hubris’ of modern science and technology: industrialization, urbanization, massive pollution, chemically-based industrial agriculture, genetic-modification, etc.

War Against God and Man
All this brings us to the third point mentioned above: that the scientific enterprise has predominantly been employed for destruction– in war against both man and God.
There are several good books which delineate the unholy marriage between scientists and mass slaughter of human beings down through history. The one I now have in my possession is titled Science Goes to War: The Search for the Ultimate Weapon, from Greek Fire to Star Wars, by Ernest Volkman. It represents a fascinating and terrifying exploration of the degree to which science and scientists, over thousands of years of human history, have been the concubines of the god of War. The Twentieth Century represented, of course, the great zenith of this holocaust conducted by science and “scientific materialism” (which, appropriately, was an oft-used name for Communism) against human dignity. The list of such scientific achievements in the torture and murder of human beings during the last century is almost endless.
But it has been so, to varying extents, from the beginning. Let us take, for instance, the example of Alexander the Great, considered by many to be the greatest conqueror of all time. Alexander the Great is famous for establishing the great Library in Alexandria, Egypt. But what is little known is that this Library was actually part of the Museion which, in the words of Volkman, was centered upon the creation of “the penultimate scientific research institute that would join Western and Eastern science in an effort to solve all practical problems of running the Greek Empire and ensuring that it remained supreme over all possible competitors. Its mandate included engineering, navigation, astronomy, geography, road-building, determining land boundaries – and the machines of war….All living expenses of the scientists working at the Museion were underwritten by the state. They learned that they could hardly think of a line of research that would not be funded if it had anything to do with benefitting the state [and especially improving the engines of war], there was a certain guarantee that the state would throw money at it.”
And, it has been the same ever since. Scientific research and the development of its technology always demands an immense amount of money and resources, and the State supplies. Political Power- Money- Science-War – the Four Horses of the War against Man and Human Dignity. As Heraclitus said, “War is the Father of all things.”
Inevitably, and even right from the beginning, this war against man evolved into a War Against God. Scientific reductionism, as we have seen, immerses the human mind in accidental analysis, which inevitably creates the poisoned world-view which identifies substantial reality with the fruits of such reductive analysis. And since accidental being is the basis of all change, then Being becomes identified with Becoming, and God as an Immutable Being must die. Man thus loses his moorings in both the substantial being of created things, and in his relationship to the Absolute Being and Immutable Truth of God. He becomes lost in phenomena. As a philosopher in the modern world he is forced into Nominalism, Empiricism, Kantianism, Phenomenalism, Personalism, Modernism, or any of a host of idealistic and subjectivist philosophies by which man is forced to retreat into himself, and away from objective, absolute truth. And this spiritual retreat also necessarily devolves into rejection of any belief in an immutable Natural Law.
All of this came home to roost in the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. Virtually no “serious” philosopher or scientist could hold to Thomistic metaphysics. And if they stayed in the Catholic Church during the 16th or 17th centuries it was usually more from fear of being burned at the stake than because of any faith they still possessed.
This war between scientific reductionism (atomism) and Thomistic metaphysics always comes down to the Catholic dogma of Transubstantiation. This is something little understood by Catholics, but fully comprehended by many of their enemies. Dr. Bernard Pullman, late Professor of Quantum Chemistry at the Sorbonne, wrote the following in his 1998 book The History of the Atom in Human Thought:
There remains a very specific and quite important disagreement – the most important one in the view of many – dividing Christians and the atomists. It centers on the problem of the Eucharist….As we have seen, the only reality is this theory [Atomic theory, which is the foundation of all modern science] is atoms (and void), and the perception of sense qualities derives solely from the movements of particles, which bring them in contact with our sensory organs and stimulate them. Sense qualities have no independent existence per se. When a substance (bread or wine) disappears, all that is left of these qualities are names. Borrowing the language of Democritus, we might say that they exist only ‘by convention.’ Under these conditions, while sensory effects are produced by atoms, the persistence of these effects in the consecrated wafer implies, of necessity, the persistence of the atoms of the bread. The substance remains, therefore, bread, squarely in contradiction with Church dogma.” (p. 93-95).
The almost universal rejection of Catholicism by “eminent” scientists is therefore not the product of some sort of undefined indifferentism, but rather a necessity of their “science,” which requires rejection of the intellectual contents of Catholic Dogma. And, of course, this rejection is not restricted to the Dogma of Transubstantiation. The Theory of Evolution, for instance, leaves no room for such doctrines as those which posit an original state of Justification for Adam and Eve, the fall of that “Nature” through Original Sin, restoration through Sanctifying Grace, and all the rest of Catholic doctrine which so profoundly relies on the concepts of substantial being and nature as being distinct from accidental being.

The Myth of “Religious” Scientists
Let us briefly look at four famous scientists who, it is often claimed, were “deeply religious men.” We will begin with Galileo.
Scientists will often attempt to dismiss Catholicism using what we might call a “polemical shortcut” – arguing that they cannot have anything to do with a Church that once condemned Galileo and his heliocentrism. As a consequence, an immense volume of Catholic literature and apologetics has issued forth from Catholic pens attempting to either justify the Church’s condemnation or make excuses for it. Such authors fail to comprehend the much deeper issues at stake here in regard to science and faith. Nor do they comprehend the depths of Galileo’s own infidelity.
Recent research in the Vatican archives, resulted in discovery of a document that clearly showed Galileo’s rejection of Transubstantiation. Under the power of his own reductive atomic science, there could no longer exist a real distinction between substance and accidents. It was the contention of Pietro Redondi, in his 1998 book Galileo Heretic, that the real motive for the Holy See’s condemnation of Galileo was his heretical views regarding the Eucharistic Presence, and his rejection of Transubstantiation. Whatever merits one might ascribe to this theory, we cannot deny the almost infinitely greater consequences of such a heresy to the Catholic Faith. Such reductionism in the microcosmic realm, dealing as it does with the very nature of substantial reality itself, is vastly more destructive to Catholic faith than any errors or misunderstandings which might ensue upon rejection of geocentrism. Any honors that the Church now bestows upon Galileo can therefore only be viewed as a self-inflicted wound to her own integrity, and a prostitution to the world of reductive science.
The delusion endemic among Catholics in regard to the alleged “compatibility of Faith and Science,” is inevitably associated with attempts to offer us instances of “Good Catholic Scientists.” For instance, in the pre-Vatican II Catholic textbooks for children, Pasteur is often extolled as the premier example of the really great “Catholic” scientist. A serious study of his life, however, reveals that he came to be a modern type of Siger of Brabant, embracing a two-truth epistemological position – one truth for religion and one for science. Towards the end of his life he quit frequenting the sacraments.
Newton is our third example of a scientist whom Catholic sycophancy has often embraced as a “scientist who believed in God.” Yes, he did believe in God, but it was not our God. Newton was an Arian who totally rejected Christ as God, and considered worship of Christ to be idolatry. For a Catholic to therefore consider him as some sort of spiritual fellow-traveler is simply self-deception.
Finally, we cannot leave this subject without examining the case of Einstein who, in one of his most famous quips, stated, “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” He is also credited with quotes about the mysteriousness of the universe requiring intelligence in its origins. But this “intelligence” has nothing to do with a personal God. The following two quotes are from his letters:
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
I believe in Spinoza’s God [Spinoza was a pure Pantheist] who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.”
This dissolution of Einstein’s intellectual world extended to his moral life, which included divorce and remarriage, abandonment of two of his children (the first, which was conceived illegitimately before his first marriage, to adoption; the second to a sanatorium), and “serial” sexual affairs and adulteries. In The World As I See It, Einstein wrote: “There is nothing divine about morality; it is a purely human affair.” He apparently reaped the benefit of such affairs: it was the conclusion of his personal physician that he died of syphilis. (see Robert Sungenis’ Galileo Was Wrong, The Church Was Right, Vol. II, p. 40-48 for a more extensive treatment of this subject – also available from many other sources on the internet).
It also should be noted that Einstein’s position in regard to Catholicism proved to be a prophetic anticipation of the current effort to force Catholic institutions to provide health insurance to cover contraception Thus, the following from a 1954 letter:
I am convinced that some political and social activities and practices of the Catholic organizations are detrimental and even dangerous for the community as a whole, here and everywhere. I mention here only the fight against birth control at a time when overpopulation in various countries has become a serious threat to the health of people and a grave obstacle to any attempt to organize peace on this planet.”
It is time that we stopped being “useful idiots” in the hands of our enemies. Catholics, for centuries, have been like frogs in the slowly warming water of this universal scientific ambience. It is now virtually impossible for them to perceive the obvious historical truth: that virtually no one could be in any sense on the cutting edge of the scientific endeavor, and remain a faithful Catholic. The practice of science is a vortex which almost inevitably drowns the Catholic intellect. Nor is this effect exclusive to only the grand poobahs of science. The world hangs on every word and attitude of the Magi of science, and it reflexively (even if more slowly) absorbs the rejection of the Christian Faith which is the necessary consequence of their Gnosticism. And if some particular scientist does attempt to hold to both science and faith, science almost inevitably ends by being the victor in an even more diabolical manner: through subtle or not-so-subtle distortions and infections of his faith. Such constitutes the history of the relationship between science and Christianity over the past several-hundred years.
In other words, the War against God which is integral to scientific reductionism goes much deeper than the seemingly inevitable loss of faith of individuals. As I have said, in rejecting Thomistic metaphysics and embracing the fruits of accidental analysis, scientists and philosophers become immersed in a world which replaces the concept of being with that of becoming. They consequently become the Magi and inculcators of gnostic- evolutionism in every sphere of human thought and belief. And in so doing, they become the declared enemy of all that is Absolute – Revelation, Dogma, the very idea of a fixed human nature, and God Himself. Such Gnosticism is thus the true spiritual descendant of the Museion of Alexander the Great, and the inevitable fruit of the scientific enterprise itself.
The scientific quest which was initiated by original Sin finds its ultimate expression today in the efforts of genetic engineering (and Eugenics) to totally transform human nature itself. Under an umbrella of associated names and movements – which are, I think, best designated by the popular term Transhumanism (or Teilhard de Chardin’s term “Ultra-human”)it promotes goals such as the following: the overcoming of human disease and even mortality, the uploading of human intelligence and moral consciousness into machines and robots, total access to “rewriting” any part of the human genetic code, the synthetic “writing” of an entirely new genetic code, etc. In other words, the “scientific enterprise” believes that it is now on the threshold of gaining full control over what is conceived as the evolutionary process itself, and of enabling man to become “like Gods,” – even to the point of creating “post-humans.” This point of radical transformation in human history and evolution has even been given a name: “Singularity.” The term “singularity” was in fact coined by Teilhard de Chardin. It is no accident, therefore, that he is considered a “father” to both the New Age movement and to the secular effort which is called “Transhumanism”. He is also integral to the one-world “spirituality” of the United Nations. On the UNESCO website, one finds the following:
In 1981, UNESCO convened an international symposium and exhibition to mark the birth centenary of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, the French theologian, philosopher and paleontologist. A medal was also issued. Designed by the French artist Paul Belmondo and struck at the Paris Mint, the obverse side shows a portrait of Teilhard de Chardin. The reverse features a map of the world, in its centre, the Greek letter ‘omega’, the philosopher’s term for the convergence point of the earth’s evolution.”
We must not make the mistake of believing that all of this resides only in the world of science fiction. The Museion of Alexander the Great finds its logical fruition in Singularity University, named precisely in honor of, and belief in, this radical evolution and transformation into the Ultra-human. The founding of Singularity University was hosted by NASA in 2007. Its facilities are at NASA’s Research Park in the Silicon Valley, CA. Raymond Kurzweil, co-founder of Singularity University was awarded the National Medal of Technology by President Bill Clinton. This is now a main-stream, government-associated agenda.
In looking at the website of Singularity University, one discovers that their oft-repeated mantra is exponential technology, which is, of course, the evolutionary engine by which they expect to transcend the present limitations of humanity.
It is clear, even from a purely biographical and historical study of science and scientists, as we have sketched above, that exponential technology effects a corresponding exponential loss of the ability not only to understand the revealed Truths of God, but also Natural Law itself. This makes it to be a Draconian threat to man’s future.
For instance, it was, for many centuries of Christian civilization, a matter of basic moral synderesis concerning the conduct of warfare, embraced by virtually all, that direct killing of innocent civilians was morally unacceptable. In World War I, the civilian casualty rate was 10 %. In World War II, conducted with an exponential growth in science and weaponry, it was 60 %. And lest we are tempted to attribute this loss of basic moral fiber exclusively to Hitler and Nazism, we need only remember Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the fire-storm, phosphorous bombing of such cities as Tokyo (80,000), Dresden (130,000), Hamburg (80,000), and other German cities, – all this perpetrated by “civilized” western democracies. The civilian casualty rate in all wars conducted since 1980 is now reputed to be 80%. This is just one area which demonstrates that any real, active sense of the natural law diminishes with the growth of science and technology.
In order to provide even more clarity, let us look at the issue of pro-life, specifically from the perspective of the concept of “exponential growth” of human knowledge. In recent decades there has occurred an exponential growth in science and technology in relation to contraception, abortion, embryonic stem-cell research, etc. – everything involved in the destruction of unborn human life. At the same time, however, there has also been an exponential growth in revelation (we won’t say “understanding,” because the “revelation” has been largely rejected) to scientists concerning the facts of embryonic development (think of the models of embryonic development popular with Pro-Life groups or the famous images and genetic information involved in the Carnegie Stages of Human Development). It is abundantly clear from this latter “scientific” knowledge that at all stages of embryonic development the “substantial form” (soul) of a human person is present. Despite this objective knowledge which is rudimentary education for any student of genetics, we know which “exponential” has won – it was not even a real contest. Natural Law, and even obvious scientific “fact,” did not possess a ghost of a chance against the intellectual and moral disintegration which has been accomplished by the engines of science.
We now find ourselves thoroughly ensnared in a world constructed upon the foundation of scientific hubris. Every field of human endeavor – economics, politics, education, communications, recreation, and yes, religion (especially in regards to Teilhardian evolutionary theory), is enslaved and perverted by the scientific Weltanschauung. There may be little hope for the world – it would seem impossible to conceive a reversal, without total political and economic chaos. The world waxes old, enmeshed in its own sins.
But there is indeed hope for the Church and every individual who will look, see, and be converted. We believe that the definitive solution to our present crisis was given to us, in all its clarity, purity, and grace, through Saint Francis and St. Thomas in the Thirteenth Century. This twofold grace offered a vision of the integrated life of intellect and will (truth and charity) which was to be man’s only solid defense against the rising tide of Renaissance humanism and science that was about to break upon Christian civilization. This twofold grace of God was almost immediately compromised and distorted by Catholics, and simply denied by the world. We are now bearing the full weight of our betrayal. It is not too late, however, for the Church to revisit and embrace this Gift.
But this twofold Gift can only be embraced through the deepest prayer and conversion. As we have pointed out, what has occurred over the centuries is a profound alteration of human consciousness and heart. Man’s becoming has replaced substantial being as the fundamental principle of man’s approach to reality, evolution has replaced Revelation, and unending scientific, technological, economic, and political progress have replaced humility and poverty as our fundamental orientation to this world. All this is encapsulated in Pope Francis’ oft-repeated mantra “Time is greater than space, which is integral to the Teilhardian evolutionary theology so on display in his environmental encyclical Laudato Si, and therefore at the heart of the agenda being promoted for the upcoming Amazonian Synod (see our recent articles on this subject)
In the midst of this march towards Antichrist our souls are threatened, especially within the interior of our own minds and hearts, with an immensity of evil which surrounds and threatens to drown us. St. Paul writes: “Be not overcome by evil, but overcome evil by good.” (Rom. 12: 21). From all eternity, God has willed that the space, wherein resides this reservoir of infinite goodness, be available to us (especially in these times of terrible emergency) within the Immaculate Heart of Mary. And all of these graces to overcome evil are available through Her Rosary. As Sister Lucia said in an interview with Father Fuentes in December 26, 1957:
“Look, Father, the Most Holy Virgin in these last times in which we live has given new efficacy in the recitation of the Holy Rosary. She has given this efficacy to such an extent that there is no problem, no matter how difficult it is, whether temporal or above all spiritual, in the personal life of each one of us, of our families, of the families in the world, or of the religious communities, or even of the life of peoples and nations that cannot be solved by the Rosary. There is no problem, I tell you, no matter how difficult it is, that we cannot solve by the prayer of the Holy Rosary. With the Holy Rosary, we will save ourselves.”
Let us take this not merely as a pious sentiment, but as reality. We beg you to read, and act upon, our Original Proposal.
Please spread the word about the Rosary!