Heresies
of the Week – Miscellaneous Articles and Issues
By Bro. Michael
Dimond, O.S.B.
and Bro. Peter Dimond,
O.S.B.
Week of 1/28/05
Lex Orandi, lex
credendi – The
Novus Ordo Law of Prayer corresponds to the Novus Ordo Law of Belief: that Man is God
Comment: Lex Orandi, lex credendi
is a principle in Catholic teaching. It
simply means that the manner in which the Church prays or worships must reflect
what the Church believes. This is so true
that when the Protestant heretics split from the Church they most effectively
indoctrinated people with the Protestant heresies (denying the Real Presence of
Christ in the Eucharist, denying the Mass as sacrifice, etc.) by changing the
Mass in ways which reflected their new beliefs (e.g., treating the Eucharist
like an ordinary piece of bread, removing references to sacrifice, etc.)
We see the same thing in the Novus Ordo Missae (the New Mass). I don’t want to go into the many different
ways that this is true in the Novus Ordo, but simply
to focus briefly on how the Novus Ordo law of prayer
reflects the post-Vatican II teaching (enunciated by John Paul II) that man is
God. Even Michael Davies, the late
defender of the validity of the New Mass, clearly recognized that the worship
of the New Mass is the Cult of Man.
Michael
Davies, Pope Paul’s New Mass, p. 149:
“Perhaps the most dramatic symbol of the
man-centered nature of the new liturgy is the turning round of the altar, or
rather, its replacement by a table… Man has turned away from God to face his
fellow men. Not all liturgical
experts would state formally that they are replacing
the Cult of God by the Cult of
Michael
Davies, Pope Paul’s New Mass, p. 141:
“The late T.S. Gregory… was very disturbed by the post-conciliar
liturgical reforms… he warned: ‘… But though we can no more change the Catholic
Mass than we can change the nature of God… We can even think that the heart of the matter is not the
sacrificed Son of God but the assembled faithful.’ This was a prophetic warning of the nature of
the New Mass as defined by its compilers in the notorious Article 7, i.e. the
essence of the Mass consists in the coming together of the faithful. Those
who undertake the tedious task of wading through even a fraction of the
propaganda which has accompanied the New Mass in any Western country would
certainly concur that almost invariably it sees the meaning of the Mass in the
assembly, not the sacrifice for which, in theory at least, the assembly
comes together… Professor Salleron noted at once [in 1970] that the New Mass
represented the liturgical expression of the Cult of Man…”
The
meaning of the New Mass is in the assembly, according to the Vatican II sect;
because its creed is that the assembly – man – is now Christ.
Antipope John Paul II,
Very First Homily, Forever Marking the Beginning of his Pastoral Ministry,
Sunday, Oct. 22, 1978: “All of you who
are still seeking God, all of you who already have the inestimable good fortune
to believe, and also you who are tormented by doubt: please listen once again,
today, in this sacred place, to the words uttered by Simon Peter [Mt.
16:16]. In those words is the faith of
the Church. In those same words is the
new truth, indeed, the ultimate and
definitive truth about man: the Son of the living God – ‘You are the
Christ, the Son of the living God.”
This replacement of God with man in the (New)
Mass is also inculcated in the official Vatican II document on the liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium).
Vatican II
Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium #14: “This
full and active participation of the people [in the liturgy] is the aim to be
considered before all else;
for it is the primary and indispensable source from which the faithful are to
derive the true Christian spirit.”
Regarding this teaching, Michael Davies
comments:
Michael Davies, Pope Paul’s New
Mass, pp. 142-143: “What matters in the Tridentine
Mass is the reverence due to God, that the sacrifice should be celebrated in a
manner appropriate to the majesty of God to Whom it is
offered. Article 14 of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy is unambiguous,
attention must be focused upon the congregation rather than God.”
Thus, Vatican II officially teaches that
attention in the Mass must be on man rather than God. And this is why at the New Mass we hear about
every kind of abomination, including Clown Masses, Kiddie
Masses, etc., etc., etc., etc., which are all directed to making the worship conform to the assembly – which
is really the object of its worship.
Michael Davies, Pope
Paul’s New Mass, p. 170: “…the most
evident characteristic of the new liturgy is that it is the Cult of Man rather
than the Cult of God. The last thing
it intends to convey is that we are in but not of the world; the last thing it
intends is that we should be drawn out of our ordinary lives. The leit-motiv of contemporary writing on the [new] liturgy is
that the congregation must be made to feel at home during Mass and this is
best done by insuring that that the liturgy reflects its particular milieu…
This is particularly true in the case of children…the Directory on Children’s
Masses….”
This worship of man in
the New Mass was strikingly captured in an April 3, 1978 exposé
by the Boston Globe. It was an exposé
of a Clown Mass that took place in
“Send Your Spirit over
these gifts of bread and wine and over each of us so that together we might be the living and breathing moving Body
and Blood of Jesus Christ Your Son and our Brother.”
In this Novus Ordo
Clown Mass we see the blatant teaching that man is also Christ. This is precisely the doctrine of Antichrist,
the dissolving of Jesus into everyone (1 John 4:2-3), as we discussed in Antipope John Paul II: Final Antichrist
Revealed. The Novus Ordo religion that man is Christ is also inculcated in a
ruling laid down regarding the way the Novus Ordo
“Communion” must not be distributed.
Michael Davies, Pope Paul’s New
Mass, p. 340: “Many readers will be shocked to learn that the American
hierarchy is actually preparing the way for Catholic acceptance of the concept that the sacrifice in the Mass is that of
Christ being offered in virtue of His presence in the congregation who offer
themselves. In the official Newsletter of the Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy, a
ruling was laid down that when distributing Holy Communion a priest must not
say: ‘Receive the Body of Christ’ or ‘This is the Body of Christ.’ The reason given is that the congregation
itself is the Body of Christ.
[Bishops’ statement]: ‘The use of the phrase The Body of Christ. Amen, in
the Communion rite asserts in a very forceful way the presence and role of the
community… The change to the use of the
phrase The Body of Christ rather than
the long formula which was previously said by the priest has several
repercussions in the liturgical renewal.
First, it seeks to highlight the important concept of the community
as the body of Christ…’”
This is also reflected in the Novus Ordo Seminaries. At
many of these Seminaries, devotion to the Blessed Sacrament [the Real Presence
of Christ is not present in Novus Ordo, by the way]
is discouraged because it fails to recognize the presence of Christ in everyone!
Michael Rose, Goodbye, Good Men, p. 121, an exposé
of Novus Ordo Seminaries: “The [Novus Ordo] seminarian who kneels and
receives Communion on the tongue is guilty of three things: respect,
reverence, and piety, which are indicators that the seminarian has ‘outdated’
understanding of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.”
Here we see that the Novus Ordo
apostate Seminaries have fully imbibed the doctrine of the Antichrist, that man
is Christ. Those who even kneel for what
they deem to be the Blessed Sacrament at many of these Novus Ordo Seminaries are rebuked for their “outdated”
understanding of the Real Presence of Christ, i.e., “failing” to “understand”
that Christ is present in everyone! We know someone who no longer goes to the
Novus Ordo but who, many years ago, had visited a
Novus Ordo Seminary in the
Michael Rose, Goodbye, Good Men, p. 121: “Sister Katarina Schuth of St. Paul’s
Seminary in Minnesota explains that ‘students
may accuse faculty of not
supporting their devotions or loving the
Blessing Sacrament, to which faculty respond that they are simply asking
students also to see Christ in others…”
These people fail to realize that Pope Pius
XII expressly condemned confusing the Mystical Body of Christ (the members of
the Church) with the actual Body and Person of Jesus Christ.
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi #86, June 29,
1943: “For some there are who neglect the fact that the Apostle Paul has used metaphorical language of speaking of
this doctrine [of the Mystical Body], and failing to distinguish as they should
the precise and proper meaning of the terms the physical body, the social body,
and the mystical Body, arrive at a distorted idea of unity. They
make the Divine Redeemer and the members of the Church coalesce in one physical
person, and while they bestow divine attributes on man, they make Christ
our Lord subject to error and to human inclination to evil. But Catholic faith and the writings of the
holy Fathers reject such false teaching as impious and sacrilegious; and to the
mind of the Apostle of the Gentiles it is equally abhorrent, for although
he brings Christ and His Mystical Body into a wonderfully intimate union, he
nevertheless distinguishes one from the other, as Bridegroom and Bride.”
The following mind-boggling story of what
occurred in a St. Mark’s Novus Ordo Minor Seminary
takes this doctrine of the assembly as Christ – i.e., man as Christ – to its
full conclusion. It also illustrates how
unspeakably demonic the Vatican II sect, the New Mass and the Novus Ordo Seminaries are:
Michael Rose, Goodbye, Good Men, p. 166: “One of the
most memorable moments for Trigilio came during a rare benediction of the
Blessed Sacrament prayer service [at St. Mark’s] in the chapel. ‘The priest took the monstrance,’ Trigilio recounted, ‘and held it at waist level, walked
over to the tabernacle, and replaced the Blessed Sacrament. Then he took a clay pot that looked like a
Grecian urn, holding it much higher than he had held the monstrance, carried it
over to the altar, and placed it in the spot where the Blessed Sacrament had
been; he then incensed the pot and knelt before it, saying, ‘Abba, you are the
potter, we are the clay.’ There was
nothing in the pot, but the priest was incensing it, and praying to it…’ This, said Trigilio,
was the attitude of many of the formation team at St. Mark’s: in short,
idolatrous.”
The worship of man (the assembly) as Christ in
the New Mass so fully consumed this apostate Novus Ordo
“priest” that he
worshipped the clay pot, just as he worships the assembly of
people in the New Mass. And this is
precisely what the Novus Ordo/Vatican II religion of
John Paul II is all about. That is why
the Assisi-interreligious abomination has been
accepted whereby all religious leaders, including Christ-deniers, are
accepted. They are invited and accepted
because their dignity as men is more important than the fact that they reject
Christ. This worship of man is also the
reason that the Novus Ordo “priesthood” is a cesspool
of abomination, homosexuality and unspeakable perversion. A study of the missionaries reveals that
where idolatry is common (such as in mission territories fully under Satan’s
yoke), homosexuality is common. The
idolatry of the New Mass is a major factor in the massive perversion of the Novus Ordo
“priests.”
Obviously, these facts should show us once
again why the Novus Ordo Mass can never be attended
for any reason under pain of grave sin.
Pope St. Pius X, E Supremi Apostolatus, Oct. 4, 1903:
“While, on the other hand, and this according to the same apostle is the distinguishing mark of Antichrist,
man has with infinite temerity put himself in the place of God.”
Week of 1/21/05
Antipope John Paul II preaches that man is God again
Antipope John Paul II, Angelus Reflection, Jan.
6, 2005: “I invite the young people of
Comment: We proved in our video Antipope John Paul II: Final Antichrist
Revealed that John Paul II preaches that man is God in many different ways. A
full exposé of this issue can also be seen in the article by the same name on
our website.
But here again we see that he is clearly preaching
that man is God, by stating that we discover the Face of God in the Magi!
A few other interesting statements made over 2004
by John Paul II (which we have not quoted before today)
John Paul II,
Message Dec 8, 2003: ”I hope that today, when the new Europe is endeavoring to give itself an identity, the work
of the Stadium Generale Marcianum
will be able to reaffirm and demonstrate
to one and all that the purpose of every culture is man…” (L’Osservatore Romano Jan. 21, 2004 issue
p.4)
John Paul II, Message
Jan. 5, 2004: “Discrimination on the
basis of effectiveness is just as disgraceful as racial, gender or religious discrimination.” (L’Osservatore
Romano Jan. 21, 2004, p.6)
He is saying religious discrimination is
disgraceful.
John Paul II,
Address Jan. 12, 2004: “There is no doubt at all that a healthy dialogue between the State and the Churches – which
are not rivals but partners – can encourage the integral development of the
human person and harmony in society.” (L’Osservatore
Romano Jan. 21, 2004, p.3)
The Catholic Church condemns the separation of the
Church and the State. But notice
that John Paul II speaks above about “the State and the Churches,” not the
State and the Church, because he accepts non-Catholic “Churches” as being true
Churches.
John Paul II,
Address Feb. 27, 2004: “In the name of religious freedom, which is one of the
fundamental aspects of freedom of conscience, every Christian and every follower of any religion has the
right to have his or her beliefs and practices respected…” (L’Osservatore Romano March. 11, 2004, p.
7)
John Paul II,
Message Sept. 30, 2004: “I was warmly and enthusiastically welcomed by you and
by the State Authorities, by H.B. Patriarch Teoctist
and by all the people of the venerable
Orthodox Church of
John Paul II,
Address Oct. 29, 2004 to new ambassador of Iran: “Indeed, freedom of worship is
only one aspect of freedom of religion,
which must be the same for all a country’s citizens…The various Christian
confessions, as well as the world’s
great religions, need to work together to eliminate the social and cultural
causes of terrorism…I am especially delighted at the establishment in your
Country of regular meetings for high-level dialogue between Christians and Muslims, under the
patronage of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious
Dialogue and the Shi’ite Authorities of Iran. I have no doubt that this initiative will pave the way to a constant improvement in
relations between believers, on the basis of mutual respect and trust. Through you, I am happy to be able to greet
the Catholic communities of various rites that live in
During this speech by John Paul II, 1) he promotes
freedom of religion; 2) he says that Muslims are believers who we should
respect and trust, when they are just the opposite – infidels (i.e., unbelievers);
3) he says that the schismatic “Orthodox” are our “brethren” whose schismatic
religion has assured the continuity of the Christian presence down the
centuries; 4) he says that ”Christians have always desired to be on good terms
with the Muslims”; and 5) he stresses how important it is that each person
express his false religious beliefs freely.
John Paul II,
Address to Prime Minister of Iraq on November 4, 2004: ”I
wish to encourage the efforts made by the Iraqi People to establish democratic
institutions which will be truly representative and committed to defending the
rights of all, in complete respect for
the ethnic and religious diversity which
has always been a source of enrichment for your Country.” (L’Osservatore Romano Nov. 17, 2004, p.2)
He is saying that false religions enrich the
country.
John Paul II,
Address to Religious Leaders of Azerbaijan on Nov. 18, 2004: “…the Russian Orthodox Church to which I
am bound by ties of esteem and affection…No one has the right to present or to use religions as instruments of
intolerance or the means of aggression, violence and death. On the contrary, if friendship and reciprocal esteem among them is additionally
sustained by a commitment to tolerance on the part of Government Leaders, it can be a rich resource of authentic
progress and peace. All together,
Muslims, Jews and Christians, let us appeal to humanity in the name of God and
civilization, so that homicidal violence may cease and people take the way of
love and of justice for all. This is the path of the religions. May God help us walk on it with perseverance
and patience!” (L’Osservatore
Romano Dec. 1, 2004, p.2)
In this speech: 1) he says that he has esteem and
affection for the Schismatic “Orthodox” Church; 2) he says that the Catholic
religion cannot be intolerant of any falsehood; 3) he states that esteem for
other religions – and friendship between them – is a rich resource of authentic
progress. He then says 4) “This is the
path of the religions.” This is total
religious indifferentism – a clear enunciation of the apostate idea that all
religions are more or less good and praiseworthy. These quotes provide just a small sampling of
what one sees in reading the writings of the arch-apostate John Paul II. This is the flavor of religious
indifferentism which his demonic mouth spews basically weekly.
Week of 12/24/04
Satan Claus, Antichrist of the Season
As the world grows darker and darker as it moves
farther and farther away from Catholic society, the true significance of Christmas
correspondingly grows dimmer and dimmer in the eyes of the world. This could not have been possible to the full
extent we now see, however, without the Antichrist known as Santa Claus. What is Christmas about for the modern pagan
world and modern pagan America? It’s
about Santa Claus bringing people gifts.
What do we see all around us? We
see people dressed up as Santa Claus in his stupid costume.
Satan knows that he cannot do away with the
celebration of Christmas. He also knows
that, as long as it is celebrated, the whole world is going to be reminded in a
profound way of Our Lord Jesus Christ, whom most of the world has forgotten. Every year when Christmas came around
everyone was reminded, whether they liked it or not, of Our Lord Jesus
Christ. Whether it was the profound
sinner who had fallen from the practice of the Catholic Faith, or the Jew
trying to forget about Christ so that he didn’t have to believe in Him, all of
them were reminded of Jesus Christ every Christmas… at least until the creation
of Satan Claus.
Instead of trying to do away with the Feast
completely, which he knows would be a futile attempt, Satan devised one of his
most diabolically ingenious ideas yet: substitute Santa for Jesus. His plan has been brilliantly successful; it’s
to the point where Christmas is, for most of the country, almost totally about
Santa Claus. Jesus is barely mentioned
at all, and the general public doesn’t think it at all incongruous. Santa has effectively has replaced Jesus especially
in the lives of countless children. This
Antichrist substitution is perhaps most identifiable in the famous tune, “Santa
Claus is coming to town”:
You better watch out
you better not cry
you better not pout
I'm telling you why
Santa Claus is coming to town
Wait
a second… who comes to town on Christmas?
Jesus Christ comes to town, of course.
Jesus Christ is the one who arrives in the world on Christmas, which is
why we are celebrating the Feast. But
this tells us that Santa Claus is the one who is actually coming. It is very obvious that Santa Claus is a
false Christ. He is actually Satan Claus.
He's making a list
And checking it twice
Gonna find out who's naughty or nice
Santa Claus is coming to town
He knows when you are sleeping
He knows when you're awake
He knows when you've been bad or good
So be good for goodness sake
We
see from this that Santa is invested with supernatural powers. Santa is not only able to miraculously fly
and deliver presents to everyone in the world, but he knows your conscience; so
you better be good. In other words,
Santa is not only the one who is coming on Christmas instead of Christ, but he is also “the god” to whom you must
be accountable for your conduct.
People
say that Santa Claus simply represents St. Nicholas. I’m only aware of one similarity between the
modern-day Santa Claus and St. Nicholas.
In order to help out a poor family in need (whose poverty was
exasperating some grave spiritual problems), the real St. Nicholas went to the
family’s house three times in the middle of the night, and threw a sack of
money through the window (The Liturgical
Year by Dom Prosper Gueranger, p. 341.).
This helped the family out spiritually as well as materially. But from this single similarity Satan has
created the modern-day Santa Claus, who has effectively replaced Jesus Christ on
Christmas. And “Christian” families
allow it to happen through the pretext that Santa represents St. Nick.
A
Catholic should clearly see that Santa is a false god, an idol, a false Christ,
an Antichrist invented by Satan to substitute for Our Lord. That being the case, Santa Claus is clearly
one of the more reprehensible things in the modern world. No Catholic should teach his or her children
about this idol. No Catholic should promote
this Antichrist mockery of Christmas.
And no Catholic (of course) should put out cookies for Satan Claus or having anything to do
with him. But undoubtedly many Catholics
and countless heretics will substitute Santa for Jesus this Christmas.
Week of 9/10/04
John Paul II Endorses Liberty, Equality
and Fraternity in France
Antipope
John Paul II, Address to Jacques Chirac,
August 14, 2004: “With respect for the responsibilities and competences of all,
the Catholic Church desires to offer
society a specific contribution towards the building of a world in which the
great ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity can form the basis of social
life, in the tireless pursuit and promotion of the common good.” (L’Osservatore Romano, Aug. 25, 2004, p.
5.)
Comment: The slogan “liberty, equality and
fraternity” was the motto of the French Revolution when it overthrew the
Catholic/Christian order in
Many Popes have condemned the French Revolution’s
slogan “liberty, equality and fraternity,” but I will just quote Pius X.
Pope St. Pius X, Vehementer Nos (# 8),
Feb. 11, 1906:
“If follows that the Church is essentially
an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of
persons, the Pastors and the flock, those who occupy a rank in the different
degrees of the hierarchy and the multitude of the faithful.”
Pope St. Pius X,
Apostolic Letter on “the Sillon,” Aug. 15, 1910: “…the reign of Justice,
The entire Apostolic Letter of Pius X on “the Sillon” deals with why this slogan is opposed to Catholic
teaching.
Week of 8/6/04
The infinite stupidity of the theory of
Evolution on display again
This week an electrician came to the Monastery to
help us with a minor problem we had. The
man did the work very well and fixed our problem. He was a very nice person, naturally
speaking, and very easy to deal with. In
the course of his visit, we got into a religious discussion. This
electrician happened to be a severely anti-God atheist who said, “I love to
debate religion.” He came to the
right place. Believe it or not, he was even wearing a shirt
which read “In blues we trust,” which is apparently a mockery of the
slogan, “In God we trust.” I can say
that I can’t remember many I’ve come across who were more enthusiastic about
their detestation for religion than this man, yet, being mature adults, we were
able to discuss our differences (with passion and without compromise) without
anyone getting upset.
In the course of the discussions we discovered, not
surprisingly, that he believed in the “theory” of Evolution. It must be remembered that this man is
intelligent, and knows how to do almost anything when it comes to fixing or
constructing a house. The “theory” of Evolution holds that over
billions of years, by a gradual process, dirt (yes, dirt) eventually became a
human being. Many proponents of the
“theory” of Evolution will deny this, but when you trace back what they believe
started the whole Evolutionary process, they are
forced to admit that it was dirt.
The man was vehemently opposed to murder. That was the great moral evil, according to
him. He believed that those who commit murder should be put to death, and he
said that one of his problems with the idea of God is that those who commit
murder can repent and be saved. But we
pointed out to him his inconsistency. We
said: “If there is no God, and man evolved, by what criteria do you say that
murder is wrong?” He answered by
repeating the same thing he already told us, that murder is evil because it
takes away the life of another. But we
again pointed out to him his inconsistency: “If there is no God, then there is
no moral law, there is no absolute right or wrong. One can say that I hate murder and it’s
wrong, but the next man could say ‘murder makes me happy.’ By what criteria does one say that the second
man is absolutely wrong and the first man is right? The fact is that without God one cannot say
the second man is wrong.”
But he responded again with a different, illogical
rationalization. He said that the law of
the land prohibits murder. We responded
by pointing out that there have been many regimes in history where the law of
the land allowed murder, and where those in power murdered and made murder a
way of life. So, to be consistent, he
would have to admit that murder was right in those regimes, since it was the
law of the land. But no, he illogically
deviated from his principles again. When
you would pin him down, he would ignore you or switch the subject, just like
the people who defend Antipope John Paul II. (In seeing the illogic, the
inconsistency and the dishonesty that he displayed by deliberately failing to
remain consistent, simply because deep down he is running full speed away from
the truth, I was strikingly reminded of those who believe that John Paul II is
the “Pope” and reject his “Canonizations” and then say that one could not deny
a Canonization proclaimed by a Pope before Vatican II.)
Furthermore, if there is no God, and man evolved,
then the evolutionist must also admit that killing a human being is morally no
different from killing a deer or a wild animal.
We pointed out to him that, in order to be consistent and logical, he
would have to admit that there is nothing immoral in murder. At best, he could only say that it is
inexpedient in human society, because those who murder are more likely going to
get murdered – but he could not say that it is wrong; for nothing is right or
wrong, according to him, since we all evolved from dirt and there is no
God. But, of course, he did not admit
this – and asked us whether we believed that one could be a good person if one
did not believe in God. We responded:
“No,” with the clarification that one could be good on the natural level only,
but not truly good. It is interesting to
note that almost all of these atheists want to think of themselves as good
people – proof again that God’s natural law is written on their hearts.
Pope St. Pius X: “As a matter of fact, however, merely naturally good acts are only a counterfeit of virtue since they
are neither permanent nor sufficient for salvation.” (Editae Saepe # 28, May 26, 1910)
Realizing that he wasn’t going to be consistent on
the murder issue, we moved back to his belief that a human being evolved from
dirt. When we pointed out to the electrician how
irrational it is to actually think that a human being or any creature evolved
from dirt, he actually responded:
“If you add water a lot of things are possible.”
This, ladies and gentlemen, is the Heresy of the
Week! This is actually what these people
believe! I guess this is why God sends
them to Hell forever. Yes, just get some
dirt, water, and a few billion years and you have a human being! And, guess what, if you throw in a few sand
pebbles, you get a cat! Mix in some
grass with the dirt, and you get a dog!
How desperate man is to deny God; they will truly believe in anything
but Him.
Romans
1- “For, professing themselves to be
wise, they became fools….”
Romans
1: “For the invisible things of him from
the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that
are made. His eternal power also and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.
Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God or given
thanks: but became vain in their thoughts. And
their foolish heart was darkened.”
The human eye alone contains the following parts:
Eyeball muscle; retina; fovea; blind spot; optic nerve; vitreous body; rods;
cones; bipolar cells; ganglion cells; choroids coat; scherotic
coat; cornea; iris; lens; pupil; aqueous humor; zonules;
ciliary muscle.
Each part is extremely complex, performing many functions and
incorporating various systems. And each
part works together so that a person can see.
If you have one part and not the others, you cannot see.
At the thought of the human eye, even Charles
Darwin (the originator of the “theory” of Evolution) was forced to confess the
absurdity of the theory of evolution.
Charles
Darwin: “To suppose that the eye with
all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances,
for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical
and chromatic aberration, could have
been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely
confess, absurd in the highest degree.”
No Charles, all of creation tells us that evolution
is absurd in the highest degree.
Mathematicians have actually calculated the probability that man could
have miraculously evolved. The probability
is zero. There is more chance that a man could get
trillions of letters, dump them on the ground, and come up with a well ordered
University Library, than there is that a man could
have evolved by chance. Atheistic
Evolution is infinitely stupid, and it denies the infinite God. And Theistic Evolution is also false for
reasons one cannot get into here. At the
end of his visit, we gave the atheistic electrician some materials, and he said
he would look at them. We should pray
for his conversion.
Religion is defined as “Human
recognition of superhuman controlling power…” This means that, whether the atheistic
evolutionists want to admit it or not, their religion is that they believe in
dirt. We believe in God; and they believe in
dirt. This is a fact. They believe that
dirt was the eternal, uncreated thing, which miraculously (and by chance)
became all the living beings we have on earth.
Can anyone think of anything that is more stupid? It is
so stupid that they will spend all eternity in hell and never plumb the depths
of its stupidity! They will have
millions and millions of years, burning in the eternal flames, to consider its
never-ending stupidity: “So I guess dirt
became the clouds, and the water, and the trees?” And yet this monstrosity is being taught in
all the public schools as fact. Boy, how
darkened can man’s mind become?
“Who hath delivered us from the power of
darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his love” (Colosians 1:13)
The only thing that can explain why this idea is
actually believed is that men’s minds are so darkened by the devil,
that he blinds them and they cannot see or perceive the folly into which
they have fallen. And those who don’t think that we are in the last days of the
world should consider this: Evolution (the worship of dirt) is being taught as
fact to all children in the public schools today, while the teaching of
Creationism is not even allowed. God
help us.
Week of 2/20/04
Antipope John Paul II is condemned again
for promoting Modernist Worship
Antipope
John Paul II, Chirograph for the Centenary of the Motu Proprio Tra
le Sollecitudini, Nov. 22, 2003: “The music and song requested by the
liturgical reform – it is right to stress this point – must comply with the legitimate
demands of adaptation and inculturation.”
(L’Osservatore Romano, Jan. 28, 2004,
p. 6.)
Comment: I could bring forward hordes of statements
from Antipope John Paul II on inculturation in the
liturgy, the idea that the worship of the Catholic Church should conform to the
various customs of peoples and cultures.
In fact, Antipope John Paul II has taken part in many events, both in Rome and
abroad, where a native pagan ritual is included in the liturgy. These rituals spring from cultures which are
entirely demonic and satanic in every aspect of their organized religious
practices, yet are included in many of Antipope John Paul II’s liturgical
events. But the reader should note that
what Antipope John Paul II teaches above, that the liturgy must comply
with adaptation to various cultures and peoples, which is also what we see all
over the Vatican II sect, is exactly what Pope St. Pius X condemned as
Modernist worship in Pascendi.
Pope Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis (# 26), Sept. 8, 1907, On the Worship of Modernists: “THE
CHIEF STIMULUS IN THE DOMAIN
OF WORSHIP CONSISTS IN THE NEED OF ADAPTING ITSELF TO THE USES AND CUSTOMS OF
PEOPLES, as well as the need of availing itself of the value which
certain acts have acquired by long usage.”
But the heretical idea of inculturation
in the liturgy expressed above, which was condemned by the Catholic Church in
the person of Pope St. Pius X, was officially taught by the Vatican II sect in
the Vatican II document Sacrosanctum concilium.
Vatican
II Document, Sacrosanctum concilium # 37:
“… (the
Church) cultivates and encourages the gifts and endowments of mind and heart
possessed by various races in peoples… Indeed, it sometimes allows them into the liturgy itself, provided
they are consistent with the thinking behind the true spirit of the liturgy.”
Please notice that Vatican II is allowing the
customs of various peoples into liturgical worship.
Vatican
II Document, Sacrosanctum concilium # 40.1:
“The competent local Church authority
should carefully and conscientiously consider, in this regard, which elements from the traditions and
particular talents of individual peoples can be brought into divine worship. Adaptations which are adjudged useful or
necessary should be proposed to the apostolic see, and introduced with its
consent.”
Notice again that Vatican II is calling for the
customs and traditions of various peoples to be incorporated into the
liturgy. This is exactly what Pope Pius
X solemnly condemned in Pascendi as Modernist worship above. Here is what Pope St. Pius X decreed about
those who would defend any of the propositions condemned in Pascendi, such as that the
liturgy should be adapted to various cultures.
Pope St. Pius X, Motu proprio,
"Praestantia Scripturae," Nov. 18, 1907:
"...Modernists, who by sophisms and artifices of every kind endeavor to
destroy the force and efficacy not only of the Decree, 'Lamentabili
sane exitu'... but also of Our Encyclical Letter,
'Pascendi Dominici gregis,' given on the eight of September of this same year
by Our Apostolic Authority, We repeat and confirm not only that Decree of the
Sacred and Supreme Congregation, but also that Encyclical Letter of Ours [Pascendi], adding the penalty of excommunication against
all who contradict them; and we declare and decree this: if anyone, which God forbid, proceeds to
such a point of boldness that he defends any of the propositions, opinions, and
doctrines disproved in either document mentioned above, he is ipso facto
afflicted by the censure imposed in the chapter Docentes
of the Constitution of the Apostolic See, first among those excommunications latae sententiae..."