Thursday, December 30, 2010

Apostate Jewish Origin of Freemasonry

The article I have reproduced below is a very interesting read indeed, quite the discovery.

I. Introduction

It was generally believed that modern Freemasonry was created in 1717 when its Grand Lodge of England was established. It was also generally believed that it was Dr. James Anderson who wrote its "New Constitutions." (See, for instance, Paul A. Fisher, Behind the Lodge Door, Shield Publishing, Inc., P.O.Box 90181, Washington D.C.20090, p. 24). It is true that the new name was adopted in 1717, but the real founder of Freemasonry is not Anderson. Moreover, few people, including most of its members, know that its origin is 2000 years old. Indeed, as far as we know, none of the current books on Freemasonry traces Freemasonry to its true origin. Masonry was founded by King Herod Agrippa at the suggestion of Hiram Abiud, with the consent of Moab Levy, Adoniram, Johanan, Jacob Abdon, Antipas, Solomon Aberon, and Ashad Abia in the year 43. The original name was the "Mysterious Force." All its founders belonged to Judaism. In this article, we are going to present a true history based on the priceless manuscript written in Hebrew containing minutes of the meetings of the original founders of Masonry.

The following sections on Masonry are based on the English translation of the original manuscript written in Hebrew of the History of Masonry. The History was transmitted from the nine founders only to the direct descendants of these founders. One of the original Hebrew copies was passed from Moab Levy, a founder, to Joseph Levy in 17th century. However, Joseph Levy's copy was robbed by Desaguliers, the founder of modern Masonry, after Levy was assassinated by Desaguliers. Joseph's son Abraham Levy died of tuberculosis two years after his marriage to Esther. Esther remarried to Abraham Abiud who was a direct descendant of Hiram Abiud, the real founder of the ancient Masonic Association. Abraham Abiud possessed another copy of the original manuscript. Their only female child, also named Esther, was married to Samuel Lawrence. Their son Jonas Lawrence had a son Samuel by his first wife but later married Janet a Protestant and converted to Protestantism. This only manuscript was passed on to Jonas who expressed his desire to publish it. But Jonas was assassinated for his conversion and his illegal possession of the History because he was not a direct descendant of the Levy line. Jonas's will could not be carried out until his great grandson, Lawrence G. S. Lawrence born 1868, who was a Protestant, translated the History from Hebrew into English. In this translation, Mr. Lawrence -- the last Descendant of the owner of the history (the Hebrew manuscript) -- adopted the title: The Dissipation of the Darkness, the Origin of Masonry. In the following sections, we will quote extensively from the English translation of the Hebrew manuscript and the pages that contain the quotes refer to this document.

II. History of the Hebrew manuscript

These are the words of Lawrence G.S. Lawrence:

Thus it is that I, Lawrence, son of George, son of Samuel, son of Jonas, son of Samuel Lawrence, of Russian origin, the last descendant of the descendants of one of the owners of this History, say:

I inherited from my father a manuscript composed by our ancestors in the Hebrew language and translated by one of them to Russian language. Another of them translated it to English. (p. 18).

Our ancestor, Jonas, introduced in the manuscript a series of events; this History, thus, being produced by him and his ancestors. Jonas arranged it and divided it into two sections. He wanted to publish it, but various obstacles impeded it: health, economic means and political events. He and his wife, Janet, conceived the idea of the publication of this History; on finding themselves incapable of doing so, they commended its publication to their son, my grandfather, Samuel. Jonas died without seeing his longing fulfilled. (p. 18).

My grandfather, Samuel, the son of Jonas, who was the son of Samuel Lawrence, here addresses his words to his son, George, my father. Samuel said to his son, George:

Son: Here you see these introductions headed by a list of names. These names correspond to the successive heirs of this History since the renewal of the Association (The Mysterious Force) where it changed its name to "Freemasonry." They include: Joseph Levy. (p. 19)

Joseph Levy is one of the renewers of the association. He is a Jew and an heir of the History from his ancient ancestors who, in turn, inherited it from Moab Levy, one of the nine founders.

It was our ancestor, Joseph, who conceived the idea of changing the name of the association (The Mysterious Force) to Freemasonry and of reforming the statutes.

Here you have the details: He was sent to to London with his son, Abraham, and a friend named Abraham Abiud, all Jews, descendants of the heirs of the History and very well financed. They had made efforts to enter another city and, not having success, they headed for London. There they met two influential and knowledgeable persons who served as suitable elements to accomplish their purposes. They are:

John Desaguliers and a companion called George (last name unknown to manuscript owner). (p. 19)

After having strengthened the friendship among themselves, Joseph Levy revealed the name of the association, "The Mysterious Force," and related to his two friends, in synthesis and with discretion, some parts of the History, concealing its fundamental secrets. He also made it known to them that for a long time it was inactive, almost dead, needing for its renewal the change of name and the reform of the statutes in such a way that the new statutes and the changed name might attract many members. Thus it would grow. (p. 19)

With eloquence and cleverness, Joseph Levy succeeded in convincing his two friends, Desaguliers and George, of the necessity of reviving the association. Having achieved this initial success, they separated on condition that they would meet again, each one of them bringing three names appropriate for the new association, from which the specific name would come. The next meeting was held ten days later. Each one presented his names, the one approved being one of those proposed by Joseph Levy: FREEMASONRY. It was August 25, 1716. (p. 20)

Abraham, son of Joseph Levy, who had witnessed the two sessions, said:

This name had preference over the others for two reasons. First, because it is the same name that some Italian architects adopted in the 13th century (Freemasons). And second, because it was a suitable expression of the ancient signs and symbols used in the association, The Mysterious Force; symbols that pertained to construction and to architecture, proposed by Hiram Abiud, one of the founders, for the purpose of concealing the origin of the Association, attributing it to epochs prior to Jesus. (p. 20)

Desaguliers approved the words of my father, adding:

"In the third place, present-day architects and builders have associations, syndicates ond lodges where they gather to fortify and dignify their profession. With this name then, we can gather, all in a single association without anyone's knowing our purposes. And fourth, these two terms,' Masonry,' (construction) and 'Mason' are encountered since antiquity, will be a thick veil over the secret of the origin of the foundation; and, besides, without doubt, they will increase the prestige of the Association." (p. 20)

Our ancestor, Abraham Levy, before his death, added:

"Desaguliers specified that those people who joined the lodges before 1717 in London were masons, in the sense that they were engineers, architects, builders, apprentices, but they had no connection with the Association, The Mysterious Force, that began true Masonry." (p. 20)

For that purpose five men met: Levy, Desaguliers, and the companions mentioned above and they approved the addition of the term, "Free," thus unequivocally concealing the date of its foundation from the rest of the people in general and the members and associates in particular. (pp. 20-21)

John Desaguliers and his companion began to demand that Levy show him the History. Levy had made it known to them that it was translated into English, that three of the inherited manuscripts had been lost recently, four had been lost long ago, and there remained only his manuscript and one other ( Note: the other is the manuscript of Abraham Abiud. It is the one whose translation we have on hand). Such declarations excited Desaguliers and George extremely, the reason why they insisted on the need for a suitable copy so that with said copy it would be much easier for them to form the new statute. They showed themselves so faithful to the principles, desires and doctrines of Levy that they succeeded in convincing him to deliver a copy to them. It was delivered to them. A time passed during which they read it. (p. 21)

The five met again and decided to summon some friends on the pretext of establishing a "Unitive Association." The true purpose was the renewal of the Association, the Mysterious Force, its resurrection with the new name agreed upon by the five and the restoration of the first Principal Lodge (Jerusalem). Thus Levy wanted it. (p. 21)

On March 10, 1717 they invited several architects and acquaintances. The invited were presided over by a wise man named Dr. James Anderson, who was a friend of Desaguliers. After lengthy discussions they reached an accord and designated June 24, 1717, to realize a great meeting. (p. 21)

Meanwhile Levy was preparing his son, Abraham, for the great events of the future. Days later Abraham Levy journeyed to Portugal accompanied by Abraham Abiud, his relative. The latter is the descendant of Hiram Abiud, one of the founders, and owner of this copy. (p. 21-22)

Between March 10 and June 24 a great conflict was begun between Levy and Desaguliers and George because of their refusal to return the copy. In the June 24 meeting, the majority were on the side of Desaguliers and Anderson; as a result both conspired against Levy, assassinating and robbing his papers including the aforementioned English copy and the Hebrew copy. (p. 22)

On the June 24, 1717 meeting, they agreed on creating the Grand Lodge of England.

Here it is necessary to mention the names of the successive heirs of this History, from our ancestor, Joseph Levy, the renewer of the Association, down to me, Lawrence.

Joseph Levy was the son of Nathan, who was the son of Abraham, Abraham the son of Jacob, Jacob the son of Nathan, Nathan the son of Jacob, who was the son of Isaac, who was the son of Moab, Moab the son of Rafael, etc., etc. back to Moab Levy, the first ancestor and one of the Nine Founders of the Association, the Mysterious Force. (p. 22-23)
               1. Joseph Levy, Jew, 1665-1717
               2. Abraham, son of Joseph Levy, Jew, 1685 - 1718
               3. Nathan, son of Abraham Levy, Jew, 1717 - 1810
               4. Esther, daughter of Nathan Levy, Jew, 1753 - 1793
               5. Samuel Lawrence, her husband, Jew, 1742 - 1795
               6. Jonas (son of Samuel and Esther), converted to Protestantism with the name of James, 1775 - 1825
               7. Janet, daughter of John Lincoln, Protestant, 1785 - 1854
               8. Samuel, son of Jonas and Janet (Stepmother), Protestant, 1807 - 1883
               9. George, son of Samuel Lawrence, Protestant, 1840 - 1884. (p. 23)

Desaguliers, born March 12, 1683 and died in the year 1742, was the only man who distinguished himself by his fervent zeal in the revitalization of the Association in the beginning of the 18th century. He merited the title of "Father of the New Masonry." The existence of the grand Lodge of England is due to his effort alone. (P. 41)

Notwithstanding the indication of the name of Anderson as the one who established the first edition of the fundamental statutes of the new Masonry, its forger and original observer was Desaguliers. If Anderson composed it, it was Desaguliers who believed it and dictated the fundamental themes and basic ideas. (p. 41)

Masonry was founded by King Herod Agrippa with other 8 Jewish Founders

In the year 43, King Herod Agrippa summoned the court of Jerusalem and said:

"Dear Brothers, you are not the King's men and his collaborators. You are the support of the King and the life of the Jewish people. Until now you have been his faithful followers. From this moment on you will be his brothers . . .

"Let us all understand then, and let us not forget, that this fundamental meeting realized by this new group is based on Brotherhood . . .

"My Brothers, the aristocracy as well as the common people have perceived the spiritual and even political revolt that the appearance of the Impostor Jesus ( as in the original) has caused among the people, and especially among our Israelites.

"We have noted a great power in him, which he left as an inheritance to that group he called disciples. He founded an Association that he called a religion, it being called that by them as well. This supposed religion is at a point of overturning the foundations of our religion and demolishing it . . .

"He attributed to himself the gift of prophecy and the power of performing miracles. He claimed to be the hoped-for Messiah of whom our prophets announced the coming; not being anything but a vulgar man like the rest of the people, devoid of any feature of the Divine Spirit, withdrawn to the extreme from the rectitude of our firm Jewish doctrine, from which we are determined not to deviate in even one point.

"Never will we recognize such a person as the Messiah, nor will we recognize his divinity. We know that the hoped-for Messiah is not yet among us, nor has the time of his coming arrived. Nor has any sign been exhibited that might indicate his appearance. If we commit the error of letting our people follow him and be deceived, we convict ourselves of an unforgivable crime.

"...We crucified him, he died and we buried him, leaving guards who watched the tomb. But it was claimed that he was risen, resurrected!... He disappeared in an unknown manner, in spite of the zealous vigilance and the security of the closure . . .

"His leaving the tomb, my friends, was a decisive blow for his rivals; it was a powerful means that encourages his men to continue spreading his teachings and to prove the confirmation of his divinity . . .

"We will not recognize, on any point, a religion other than ours, the Jewish religion that we have inherited from our ancestors. Duty calls us to preserve it until the end time.

"That blow had never been expected. That mysterious force had never been dreamed of. Our fathers attacked it and we continue attacking it. In spite of everything, astonishing! Their number increases. Observe with me how the son is separated from the father, the brother from his brother, the daughter from her mother, all alienating themselves to join that group. This affair encloses a great secret. How many men, how many women, how many entire families have abandoned the Jewish religion in order to follow those impostors, those partisans of Jesus. How many times they were threatened by the priests and authorities, in vain!" (The Dissipation of the Darkness, the Origin of Masonry, pp. 45-47).

The original name of ancient Masonry was "The Mysterious Force"

Hiram Abiud, the King's Counselor, who was the real founder of ancient Masonry, proposed the name of the association as the "Mysterious Force." This was his reason:

"...It seems that there has been a hand, a force, secret, mysterious, that punishes us without our being able to offer resistance. It seems we have lost all our strength to defend our religion and our existence itself.

"Majesty, based on the evidence that there is no efficacious means of incorporating our ideas, nor firm hope of attacking that force, undoubtedly mysterious; there is no other oath than to establish a Mysterious force, similar to that one (to attack mystery with mystery) . I have come to the conclusion that it is our unavoidable duty, unless you have a better idea to establish an Association of greater power so it may assemble the Jewish forces threatened by that mysterious force. It is fitting that no one knows anything about this foundation, its principles and its actions. Only those whom Yours Majesty may choose as founders will know the secret of the foundation." (p. 43).

The frightful oath of founding members

The nine founders had to take a horrifying oath :

"I,... son of ..., swear by God, the Bible and my honor, that, having become a member of nine founders of the Association, 'The Mysterious force', I bind myself not to betray my brothers, the members in anything that might harm their persons, nor to betray anything concerning the decrees of the Association. I bind myself to follow its principles and to realize what is proposed tin the successive decrees approved by you, the nine founders, with obedience and precision, with zeal and fidelity. I bind myself to work for an increase in the number of its members. I bind myself to attack whoever follows the teaching of the Impostor Jesus and to combat his men until death. I bind myself not to divulge any of the secrets preserved among us, the nine; either among outsiders or among the affiliated members.

"If I commit perjury and my betrayal is confirmed in that I have revealed some secret or some article of the decrees preserved among and our heirs this commission of eight companions will have the right to kill me by whatever means available." (pp. 51-52).

Meaning of instruments and symbols of Masonry

King Agrippa explained the meaning of instruments and symbols used in Masonry:

"You already know that we must make everyone believe that our Association is very ancient... We will reinforce this deceit with the use of the instruments of construction that the architect Hiram utilized in the construction (of the Solomon Temple), such as the Square, the Compass, the Trowel, the Scales, the Hammer, etc., all of wood as Hiram Abiff had them." (p. 62).

"...Every session will be opened by striking three times consecutively with this hammer; thus we will remember eternally through centuries, that we have crucified him and with this hammer we have fixed the nails in his hands and feet, killing him. These three stars you see symbolize the three nails . We would be able to change them for three points that will have the same significance. Among our symbols will be the three steps, ridiculing with them this blasphemy: God is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, with his claiming to be the Son." (p. 63).

"Within our Association, we will make degrees, as we have mentioned previously. These will be thirty-three, symbolizing the age of the impostor. We will give a name to each degree and we will create other similar symbols. All these things were my ideas and those of brothers Moab and Hiram. The meaning of these ironic symbols must not be perceived; it must remain among the nine of us. For the other brothers or affiliates it is enough to make them see the utilities and instruments so they may believe that the Association was founded in the times of Solomon or earlier than this." (p.64).

"Any brother can propose a new symbol."

"What do you think and observe, brothers, concerning what I have presented to you?"

The six men approved without objection, everything being recorded. (Note from the Original Manuscript: 6 men and the three proposers: the King, Moab, and Hiram. End of Note.)

Then the King said: "Let us rejoice! Let us begin the march on the path of triumph! Let us take our first three steps! Let us strike three times with this victorious hammer, with the symbol of death for our enemy the Impostor, the symbol of the establishment of our honorable principles that we fix with the nails of brotherhood and union! Let us all exclaim with joy: Onward to victory!" (p. 64)

During the First Session, the nine founders also created a new symbol: the apron that symbolized the protection of the clothing from the mud. This together with the Masonic instruments are to conceal the true purpose and to assure the affiliates of the antiquity of the Association. (p. 64).

The King-President said: "I, with my authority as President (and not as King) grant each one of you the 33rd degree, the highest in our Association. . . . Since our brother Hiram is orphaned of his father since childhood, knowing no one other than his widowed mother, I propose to call our Association, "The Widow," asking your approval. From now on the name of the founders will be "The Sons of the Widow." Each member of the Association will call himself a son of the widow until the end of time because we believe that our Association will live until the end of time." (p. 65)

(Note: King Agrippa became blind within five days of the illness of the eyes, then paralyzed, and died shortly afterward in the year 44. Acts of the Apostles (12:23) reported that the King was struck by an angel and eaten by worms before he died. Hiram Abiud replaced The King as president of the Association but disappeared mysteriously and his body was found eaten by vultures. Desaguliers became mad and died in extreme poverty).

The name was changed to Freemasonry on June 24, 1717 in London

Masonry set up the Temple of Jerusalem and sent heir-descendant of Hiram Abiud to Rome to establish the two Temples of Rome and of Achaea. After the members of the latter two temples killed St. Peter and St. Andrew, the Temple of Rome became the presider of all temples in the East. The heir-descendant of Moab Levy was sent Russia, that of Adoniram to Gaul (France) and those of the successor of Abiud to Germany. The movement initiated by the Mysterious Force did not expand greatly due to the fear created by its name. Joseph Levy and Abraham Abiud, heir-descendants of Moab Levy and Hiram Abiud, were sent from Russia and Germany to London where they met John Desaguliers, who was a Protestant with intense hatred for Catholics. The three agreed on naming the Association : Freemasonry on August 25, 1716. Then on June 24, 1717, they met with the associations of architects and builders in London and officially launched the Association with the new name. Since 1717, the temples were changed to lodges.

The counsels offered by Janet to her husband James (Jonas)
James said:

Before beginning with her words, my wife required me to relate to her all the efforts and conspiracies that the Masons devised against Catholicism.

I told her how, through my permanent contact with the grand Masons, I discovered that there are three groups of them in the lodges: Some attack Catholicism. Others attack all religions. The third, composed of men from the first two groups, battle in politics for the purpose of coming to dominate temporal authority.

Here is what my wife said to me:

"James, your affiliation with the new Masonry was not to support the enemies of religions, nor to support any religion, but, as we have resolved from the beginning, to study it and compare it with the Masonry of your ancestors for the purpose of completing this History."

"We have both understood in the texts of this History the upset produced when your ancestor Levy changed the name o f the Association, together with Desaguliers. In accord with what you relate to me, there exists among us Protestants a sect united to the Jews (your relatives) whose goal is to demolish what our Jesus (sic), may He be glorified, and to crush Catholicism and the Roman Church. Such are the principles of Desaguliers and Anderson."

"My parents and I, dear James, are not of that sect. Yes, we are Protestants, but we are far from the intention of crushing the Roman Church. Listen to what I tell you: We believe that Jesus Christ is the one who built it and He said that it will not fall. You must have our faith in spite of our traditional revolt that we inherited from our parents against the authority of the Pontiff. In our hearts we conceal a firm faith that the Church of St. Peter is the original Church of Jesus. Never have we thought, neither my parents nor I, of associating with the enemies of the Church. You, who are now converted to Christianity through my intercession, must adopt the principles I have inherited from my parents. Be careful in collaborating with those two sects: the one that attacks Catholicism in particular and the other that attacks all religions in general. Be careful that you do not fall into their traps. Since you obeyed me and converted to my religion, you loved me and married me, I desire that you always continue firm with me in your Christianity, firm in your promises, and in your new principles.

"Continue then in the path of completing the studies for which you entered the new Masonry, to succeed in satisfying our longings to reveal truth and to denounce evil, in order to dissipate the darkness when later the doors of light will be opened before the blindfolded eyes so they may orient themselves in the path of truth. And there on the peak of the solid mountain of reality the light will be irradiated that will guide each confused person and each confuser." (pp. 107-108)

The objectives of Masonry were to destroy the Holy Roman Catholic Church, to create Socialism, and to establish domination of the whole world

There are triple-objectives of the new Masonry: (a) to preserve Judaism for the Jews, (b) to attack Roman Catholicism, (c) and to embrace naturalism and nihilism. As a result, it acted for the demolition of thrones, the abolition of authorities, spiritual and temporal, so it may have absolute domination of the world. (p. 115). It preaches liberty, equality, and fraternity with perverse meaning: liberty without limits, liberty of blasphemies and deceits, liberty destructive of character, religions, wealth, lives and families; equality signifies the disappearance of all order, everything falling into confusion, with the loss of true values; fraternity is a brotherhood full of egotism and privileges, love of revenge, divisions, endless conflicts, betrayal, robbery, pride, profanation, and nihilism. If the new Freemasonry is the daughter of mother Masonry, Socialism is its granddaughter.

The mother Masonry threw all her intention in a single goal, which was the battle against Jesus' men. The daughter Masonry (i.e. Freemasonry) surpasses that limit by great distances. It acts for the demolition of thrones and the abolition of authorities, spiritual and temporal, so it may have absolute domination of the world. (p. 115)

Jonas (James) Lawrence (1775-1825) predicted even before the birth of Communist theory (Karl Marx, 1848: Communist Manifesto) that the new Masonry will give birth to Socialism. Not only that, all the corrupt descendant organizations will be the daughters and granddaughters of mother Masonry. (p. 119).

These are Jonas' own words:

"Know, my son, that the new Masonry, responding to the demands of the enemy of humanity and fulfilling orders to increase the daughters of corruption, gave birth to Socialism. This granddaughter came to be evil worse than earlier evils.

"I predict to you, Samuel, that all these creatures will grow and give birth, by Satanic spouses, to all other creatures of wickedness, corruption and destruction.

"They will be multiplied and they will scatter their seeds over all the earth, corrupting it and how poisonous will be their fruits!

"Each one of those creatures will form a party and each party will look out for the interests of its mother, aggravating the evils of confusion, civilization disappearing, eliminating religion and education degenerating. Then the trumpets of grief and disaster will blow.

"This prophecy of mine will be fulfilled and will have a great echo. Our descendants will see infernal generations. Men will remember me, after my death. They will testify to this opinion of mine that all the corrupt descendants will be daughters and granddaughters of mother Masonry. How fitting this is, with respect to this: Evils beget nothing but evils." (p.119)

Jonas' prediction has been fulfilled for the most part.

Saturday, December 25, 2010

Gluttony, and why it is one of the Seven Deadly Sins

Please read also:
Get Good at Fasting

Eating and drinking are not to be done without a reasonable object.  The objects to which these actions are ordered, that is the reason they were created, are the health of the body (for growth, energy, medicine, etc.) and mutual association and concourse with our fellow man.  Eating for the pleasure of the palate alone is disordered, is not why food was made by God, and is the sin of gluttony.  As we will see, this sin, if not resisted can not only become mortal, but can also lead to the mortal sins of lust and forgetfulness of God.

Decree of the Holy Office under Pope Innocent XI, March 4, 1679: "Eating and drinking even to satiety for pleasure only, are not sinful, provided this does not stand in the way of health, since any natural appetite can licitly enjoy its own actions." - CONDEMNED (Denzinger 1158)

St. Francis de Sales, Introduction into the Devout Life, Third Part, Ch. 39: "Just as eating not merely for the preservation of life but to maintain the mutual association and consideration we owe one another is an extremely just and virtuous act, so also mutual, lawful satisfaction of both parties in holy matrimony is called a debt by St. Paul."

The following are excerpts from the Summa Theologica of the Angelic Doctor, explaining the sin of gluttony:

Gluttony, rooted in the desire, carried out in the deed

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Secunda Secundae Partis, Q. 148, Art. 1: "Gluttony denotes, not any desire of eating and drinking, but an inordinate desire. Now desire is said to be inordinate through leaving the order of reason, wherein the good of moral virtue consists: and a thing is said to be a sin through being contrary to virtue. Wherefore it is evident that gluttony is a sin.

"That which goes into man by way of food, by reason of its substance and nature, does not defile a man spiritually. But the Jews, against whom our Lord is speaking, and the Manichees deemed certain foods to make a man unclean, not on account of their signification, but by reason of their nature [Cf. I-II, 102, 6, ad 1]. It is the inordinate desire of food that defiles a man spiritually.

"As stated above, the vice of gluttony does not regard the substance of food, but in the desire thereof not being regulated by reason. Wherefore if a man exceed in quantity of food, not from desire of food, but through deeming it necessary to him, this pertains, not to gluttony, but to some kind of inexperience. It is a case of gluttony only when a man knowingly exceeds the measure in eating, from a desire for the pleasures of the palate."

Gluttony is serious enough to lead man away from God:

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Secunda Secundae Partis, Q. 148, Art. 2: "In so far as it turns man away from his last end, gluttony is opposed to the love of God, who is to be loved, as our last end, above all things: and only in this respect is gluttony a mortal sin.

"Gluttony is said to bring virtue to naught, not so much on its own account, as on account of the vices which arise from it. For Gregory says (Pastor. iii, 19): "When the belly is distended by gluttony, the virtues of the soul are destroyed by lust.""

Gluttony leads to mortal sins of the flesh:

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Secunda Secundae Partis, Q. 148, Art. 6: "Further, the uncleanness which is particularly the result of gluttony ..."

"On the part of the body, mention is made of "uncleanness," which may refer either to the inordinate emission of any kind of superfluities, or especially to the emission of the semen. Hence a gloss on Ephesians 5:3, "But fornication and all uncleanness," says: "That is, any kind of incontinence that has reference to lust."

Avoid gluttony, lest you be an enemy of Christ, ending in destruction

Philippians 3:18-19: "For many walk, of whom I have told you often (and now tell you weeping), that they are enemies of the cross of Christ; Whose end is destruction; whose God is their belly; and whose glory is in their shame; who mind earthly things."

The Revelations of St. Birgitta of Sweden, Book 4, Chapter 89: "The knight's coat of mail represents abstinence. Just as a coat of mail consists  of  many  small  rings  of  chain,  so  too  abstinence  consists  of  many  virtues,  for example, abstinence from immoral sights or things affecting the other senses, from  gluttony and lust and superfluity, and from many other things that St. Benedict laid  down as forbidden. One cannot put this coat of mail on alone without another's help.  Therefore, my Mother, the Virgin Mary, should be invoked and venerated, for every  good example and type of virtue are to be found in her. If she is steadfastly invoked, she will indicate to your spirit all the perfect types of abstinence."

Sunday, December 19, 2010

4th Sunday in Advent

The following is not from a Missal, but is taken from a book by Fr. Leonard Goffine.

What Must You Do To Get to Heaven?

Padre Pio was a schismatic

A short time before his death, the schismatic Padre Pio wrote a letter to antipope Paul VI. In the letter he expressed his firm adherence to the Second Vatican Council and its teachings, specifically mentioning Paul VI's then recent encyclical letter, Humanae Vitae,  which promotes the evil of the Rhythm Method of birth control.

Padre Pio was a bold schismatic from the Catholic Faith, and may have held to other of the heretical beliefs of the false Vatican II religion, to which he professed his allegiance. If, like the Dimond brothers and Richard Ibranyi, you are part of the "evil and adulterous generation seeketh a sign"  crowd (Matthew 12:39), then I am sure Padre Pio is your patron "saint". If you seek Catholic Truth, then you must denounce Padre Pio as an evil schismatic from the Catholic Faith, who praised the Vatican II religion along with its apostate antipopes, who blasphemously teach the Muslim god will judge mankind on the last day (Lumen Gentium #16).

The full text of Padre Pio's abominable letter to the ephod-wearing antipope Paul VI, taken from Page 9 of the October 10, 1968 edition of L'Osservatore Romano, is as follows:

"Your Holiness: 

"Availing myself of Your Holiness' meeting with the Capitular Fathers, I unite myself in spirit with my Brothers, and in a spirit of faith, love and obedience to the greatness of Him whom you represent on earth, offer my respectful homage to Your August Person, humbly kneeling at Your feet.

"The Capuchin Order has always been among the first in their love, fidelity and reverence for the Holy See. I pray the Lord that its members remain ever thus, continuing their tradition of seriousness and religious asceticism, evangelical poverty, faithful observance of the Rule and Constitutions, renewing themselves in vigorous living and deep interior spirit—always ready, at the least gesture from Your Holiness, to go forward at once to assist the Church in her needs.

"I know that Your heart suffers much these days on account of the happenings in the Church: for peace in the world, for the great needs of its peoples; but above all, for the lack of obedience of some, even Catholics, to the lofty teachings [at the Second Vatican Council] which You, assisted by the Holy Spirit and in the name of God, have given us. I offer Your Holiness my daily prayers and sufferings, the insignificant but sincere offering of the least of your sons, asking the Lord to comfort you with His grace to continue along the direct yet often burdensome way—in defense of those eternal truths which can never change with the times.

"In the name of my spiritual sons and of the "Praying Groups" I thank Your Holiness for the clear and decisive words You have spoken in the recent encyclical, Humanae Vitae, and I reaffirm my own faith and my unconditional obedience to Your inspired directives.

"May God grant truth to triumph, and, may peace be given to His Church, tranquility to the people of the earth, and health and prosperity to Your Holiness, so that when these disturbing clouds pass over, the Reign of God may triumph in all hearts, through the Apostolic Works of the Supreme Shepherd of all Christians.

"Prostrate at Your feet, I beg you to bless me, my Brothers in religion, my spiritual sons, the "Praying Groups", all the sick—that we may faithfully fulfill the good works done in the Name of Jesus and under your protection.

"Your Holiness' most humble servant,

"PADRE PIO, Capuchin

"San Giovanni Rotondo, 12th September, 1968."

For those who don't know, L'Osservatore Romano was the official newspaper of the Holy See, but is now the newspaper of the antipopes. So it is abundantly clear and public knowledge that Padre Pio was an evil schismatic, who subjected himself to antipope Paul VI and praised the work of the Second Vatican Council and Humanae Vitae, thus manifesting heresy also.

Saturday, December 18, 2010

The Right Ordering of Marital Intimacy

Marital Relations in view of Church Teaching

This article presents various teachings of the Church and Saints, in order to shed their light on a subject which, although it calls for much discretion, is nevertheless important to be understood rightly, from both a moral and from a doctrinal perspective.

Intercourse and Eating, a Theologically Similar Relationship

St. Augustine, On the Good of Marriage: "What food is to a man's well being, such is sexual intercourse to the welfare of the whole human race."

St. Francis de Sales, Introduction into the Devout Life, Third Part, Ch. 39: "There is a certain resemblance between sexual pleasures and those taken in eating. [...] Just as eating not merely for the preservation of life but to maintain the mutual association and consideration we owe one another is an extremely just and virtuous act, so also mutual, lawful satisfaction of both parties in holy matrimony is called a debt by St. Paul."

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Secunda Secundae Partis, Q. 147, Art. 8: "[F]asting was instituted by the Church in order to bridle the concupiscences of the flesh, which regard pleasures of touch in connection with food and sex."

Note that St. Thomas did not say concupiscence IS pleasure, but regards pleasure.  Do not fall into the error, which holds that concupiscence is pleasure, because such an error will render you heretical.  Concupiscence is the inordinate desire for pleasure, that is desiring pleasure more than is lawful and seeking it for its own sake, without regard to the ordained purpose of the actions to which the pleasure is attached.

Just as we know that those whose "end is destruction; whose God is their belly" (Philippians 3:19), are destroyed by their disordered use of lawful created goods (food), so too are there dangerous actions that must be avoided, which by their disorder, render unlawful what would otherwise be good and holy. These sinfully disordered actions will be touched upon later in this article, once we have examined the doctrinal foundation, upon which a right morality must stand.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part I-II, Q. 34, Art. 1: "A sin, in human acts, is that which is against the order of reason. Now the order of reason consists in its ordering everything to its end in a fitting manner. Wherefore it is no sin if one, by the dictate of reason, makes use of certain things in a fitting manner and order for the end to which they are adapted, provided this end be something truly good. Now just as the preservation of the bodily nature of one individual is a true good, so, too, is the preservation of the nature of the human species a very great good. And just as the use of food is directed to the preservation of life in the individual, so is the use of venereal acts directed to the preservation of the whole human race. Hence Augustine says (De Bono Conjug. xvi): 'What food is to a man's well being, such is sexual intercourse to the welfare of the whole human race.' Wherefore just as the use of food can be without sin, if it be taken in due manner and order, as required for the welfare of the body, so also the use of venereal acts can be without sin, provided they be performed in due manner and order, in keeping with the end of human procreation."

In other words, sex, like food, has its purpose. Food provides nutrition to the body, sustaining it in this world, and therefore well ordered eating (eating for proper reasons) is good, and even the enjoyment thereof.  So, too, do marital relations provide offspring for the continuation of the human race, sustaining it in this world; this is the end for which they were created.

Pleasurable Procreative Marital Intercourse is a Created Good

Genesis 1:27-28: "And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created themAnd God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply,"

Genesis 2:8: " And the Lord God had planted a paradise of pleasure from the beginning: wherein he placed man whom he had formed."

If they were created male and female and told to multiply, then it follows that from the very beginning of their existence, Adam and Eve had the full capacity of their respective genders, which includes the ability to cooperate in procreation.

If Adam and Eve had chosen to immediately fulfill the command, not only would they have done so without sin (since "God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply" - and God does not command  us to sin), but their obedience to God's command would also bring about pleasure, both the spiritual pleasure of obeying God and using His created goods as He ordained and also natural pleasure of the senses.

It is Heresy to call Created Goods Evil

Now that it is established that both marital intercourse and pleasure are created goods, we need to examine the logical conclusions of those who would condemn either one as being intrinsically evil (that is, evil of itself, without consideration of the motive, desire or will behind the act).

The word "creature", means something that was "created".  Bear this in mind while you read the following dogmatic definition of the Holy See:

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, ex cathedra: "It firmly believes, professes and teaches that every creature of God is good and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because according to the word of the Lord not what goes into the mouth defiles a person, and because the difference in the Mosaic law between clean and unclean foods belongs to ceremonial practices, which have passed away and lost their efficacy with the coming of the gospel."

The above passage, in context, treats of animals used for food.  But note that the word "creature" was used.  Since God the Holy Ghost does not permit any error at all to be taught from His infallible Magisterium, we know with certainty then, that it is a divinely revealed truth that "every creature of God is good," even when extended beyond the mind of the Fathers, who were specifically discussing dietary discipline.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, ex cathedra: "[T]he one true God, Father, Son and holy Spirit, is the creator of all things that are, visible and invisible, who, when he willed it, made from his own goodness all creatures, both spiritual and corporeal, good indeed because they are made by the supreme good, but mutable because they are made from nothing, and it asserts that there is no nature of evil because every nature, in so far as it is a nature, is good."

Therefore if anyone asserts that sex or pleasure are evil are professing a heresy, which is in opposition to both Scripture and the infallible words of Pope Eugene IV.  St. Thomas Aquinas, who lived two centuries before the above dogmatic definition, stated the same thing:

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Supplement, Q. 41, Art. 3: "If we suppose the corporeal nature to be created by the good God we cannot hold that those things which pertain to the preservation of the corporeal nature and to which nature inclines, are altogether evil; wherefore, since the inclination to beget an offspring whereby the specific nature is preserved is from nature, it is impossible to maintain that the act of begetting children is altogether unlawful, so that it be impossible to find the mean of virtue therein; unless we suppose, as some are mad enough to assert, that corruptible things were created by an evil god, whence perhaps the opinion mentioned in the text is derived (Sent. iv, D, 26); wherefore this is a most wicked heresy."

Some Pleasures Good, Some Evil

That does not mean that all pleasure that one has in intercourse is good, however.   Pleasure itself, being created by God is good, but remember that one can use created goods in a manner contrary to their natural end, contrary to reason, and that by doing so, one commits sin.  This is a basic tenet of the Natural Law.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part I-II, Q. 34, Art. 1: "We must therefore say that some pleasures are good, and that some are evil. ... Now pleasures which are conjoined to actions are more akin to those actions, than desires, which precede them in point of time. Wherefore, since the desires of good actions are good, and of evil actions, evil; much more are the pleasures of good actions good, and those of evil actions evil."

St. Augustine, Marriage and Concupiscence, 1:15:17: "I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame."

In line with the above quotations from Sts. Thomas and Augustine, then, we can conclude with certainty that any use of the marital act that seeks to circumvent conception or even desires to do so (such as the Rhythm Method, NFP), is sinful use thereof, in that the evil desire to avoid the natural end of marriage has tainted the exercise of the act.

The evil of lust is when the venereal pleasure, which is rightly associated with procreative, marital intercourse, is wrongly enjoyed outside its association with procreative, marital intercourse. You see this is what the devil does with just about every good that God has created. Instead of using the good in the natural manner that God designed and enjoying any pleasure as a reward for the performance of the good and natural act, the devil gets us to want the pleasure outside the good and natural act of procreative, marital sexual relations, or to desire this pleasure for its own sake. This is lust.

Once an intimate coupling has ended with a final deposit of seed, it is over.  Anything done beyond this time would be for pleasure alone and not in line with the natural end of procreation.  Any pleasure obtained in such a way would be unreasonable, disordered and evil pleasure.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part II-II, Q. 153, Art. 3: "The more necessary a thing is, the more it behooves one to observe the order of reason in its regard; wherefore the more sinful it becomes if the order of reason be forsaken. Now the use of venereal acts, as stated in the foregoing Article, is most necessary for the common good, namely the preservation of the human race. Wherefore there is the greatest necessity for observing the order of reason in this matter: so that if anything be done in this connection against the dictate of reason's ordering, it will be a sin. Now lust consists essentially in exceeding the order and mode of reason in the matter of venereal acts."

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part II-II, Q. 154, Art. 1: "(T)he sin of lust consists in seeking venereal pleasure not in accordance with right reason"

Husbands and wives commit the sin of lust if their sexual activities do not aid in, lead to, and end with procreative sexual intercourse.  The Church Fathers unanimously condemn any intercourse that is not within these confines.

The Early Christians on the Procreative End of Marriage

Lactantius, Divine Institutes, 6:23:18: “The genital [‘generating’] part of the body, as the name itself teaches, has been received by us for no other purpose than the generation of offspring.”

St. Jerome, Against Jovinian, 1:19, A.D. 393: “But I wonder why he [the heretic Jovinianus] set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother’s seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?”

St. Augustine, The Morals of the Manichees, 18:65, A.D. 388: “This proves that you [Manicheans] approve of having a wife, not for the procreation of children, but for the gratification of passion. In marriage, as the marriage law declares, the man and woman come together for the procreation of children. Therefore, whoever makes the procreation of children a greater sin than copulation, forbids marriage and makes the woman not a wife but a prostitute, who for some gifts presented to her is joined to the man to gratify his passion.”

St. Augustine, Against Faustus, 22:30: “For as the eternal law— that is, the will of God the Creator of all— for the preservation of the natural order, permits the indulgence of the bodily appetite under the guidance of reason in sexual intercourse, not for the gratification of passion, but for the continuance of the race through the procreation of children;” 

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Supplement Q. 41, Art. 4: "For if the motive for the marriage act be a virtue, whether of justice that they may render the debt, or of religion, that they may beget children for the worship of God, it is meritorious. But if the motive [for the marriage act] be lust, yet not excluding the marriage blessings, namely that he would by no means be willing to go to another woman, it is a venial sin; while if he exclude the marital blessings, so as to be disposed to act in like manner with any woman, it is a mortal sin.

Mortally Sinful Sexual Disorders That Will Send You to Hell

St. Barnabas, Letter of Barnabas 10:8, AD 74: "Thou shalt not be like to those whom we hear of as committing wickedness with the mouth with the body through uncleanness; nor shalt thou be joined to those impure women who commit iniquity with the mouth with the body through uncleanness."

St. Augustine, On The Good of Marriage: "For necessary sexual intercourse for begetting [children] is alone worthy of marriage. But that which goes beyond this necessity no longer follows reason but lust. [...] [T]hey [must] not turn away from them the mercy of God [...] by changing the natural use into that which is against nature, which is more damnable when it is done in the case of husband or wife. Of so great power is the ordinance of the Creator, and the order of creation, that [...] when the man shall wish to use a body part of the wife not allowed for this purpose, the wife is more shameful, if she suffer it to take place in her own case, than if in the case of another woman."

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Secunda Secundae Partis, Q. 154, A. 11: “(W)herever there occurs a special kind of deformity whereby the venereal act is rendered unbecoming, there is a determinate species of lust. This may occur in two ways: First, through being contrary to right reason, and this is common to all lustful vices; secondly, because, in addition, it is contrary to the natural order of the venereal act as becoming to the human race: and this is called "the unnatural vice."  This may happen in several ways. First, by procuring pollution, without any copulation (i.e. self-stimulation, see next quotation from St. Thomas), for the sake of venereal pleasure: this pertains to the sin of "uncleanness" which some call "effeminacy." Secondly, by copulation with a thing of undue species, and this is called "bestiality." Thirdly, by copulation with an undue sex, male with male, or female with female, as the Apostle states (Romans 1:27): and this is called the "vice of sodomy." Fourthly, by not observing the natural manner of copulation (see the above quotes by St. Augustine and St. Barnabas), either as to undue means (i.e. procuring unnecessary and superfluous agents or devices), or as to other monstrous and bestial manners of copulation.”

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Secunda Secundae Partis, Q. 148, Art. 6: "On the part of the body, mention is made of "uncleanness," which may refer either to the inordinate emission of any kind of superfluities, or especially to the emission of the semen. Hence a gloss on Ephesians 5:3, "But fornication and all uncleanness," says: "That is, any kind of incontinence that has reference to lust."

Do not forget that even willful venial sin is also odious and offensive to God, and if indulged persistently, can bring on spiritual blindness and lead to mortal sin.

Decree of the Holy Office under Pope Innocent XI, March 4, 1679: "The act of marriage exercised for pleasure only is entirely free of all fault and venial defect." - CONDEMNED (Denzinger 1159) 

If a couple wishes to be perfect, they should pray to God to keep them from sinning during the act, and that they may beget holy children to love and serve God.

The Catechism of the Council of Trent, Sacrament of Matrimony

The Motives and Ends of Marriage: "We have now to explain why man and woman should be joined in marriage. First of all, nature itself by an instinct implanted in both sexes impels them to such companionship, and this is further encouraged by the hope of mutual assistance in bearing more easily the discomforts of life and the infirmities of old age.

"A second reason for marriage is the desire of family, not so much, however, with a view to leave after us heirs to inherit our property and fortune, as to bring up children in the true faith and in the service of God. That such was the principal object of the holy Patriarchs when they married is clear from Scripture. Hence the Angel, when informing Tobias of the means of repelling the violent assaults of the evil demon, says: I will show thee who they are over whom the devil can prevail; for they who in such manner receive matrimony as to shut out God from themselves and from their mind, and to give themselves to their lust, as the horse and mule which have not understanding, over them the devil hath power. He then adds: Thou shalt take the virgin with the fear of the Lord, moved rather for love of children than for lust, that in the seed of Abraham thou mayest obtain a blessing in children. It was also for this reason that God instituted marriage from the beginning; and therefore married persons who, to prevent conception or procure abortion, have recourse to medicine, are guilty of a most heinous crime ­­ nothing less than wicked conspiracy to commit murder.

"A third reason has been added, as a consequence of the fall of our first parents. On account of the loss of original innocence the passions began to rise in rebellion against right reason; and man, conscious of his own frailty and unwilling to fight the battles of the flesh, is supplied by marriage with an antidote by which to avoid sins of lust. For fear of fornication, says the Apostle, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband; and a little after, having recommended to married persons a temporary abstinence from the marriage debt, to give themselves to prayer, he adds: Return together again, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency.

"These are ends, some one of which, those who desire to contract marriage piously and religiously, as becomes the children of the Saints, should propose to themselves. If to these we add other causes which induce to contract marriage, and, in choosing a wife, to prefer one person to another, such as the desire of leaving an heir, wealth, beauty, illustrious descent, congeniality of disposition ­­ such motives, because not inconsistent with the holiness of marriage, are not to be condemned. We do not find that the Sacred Scriptures condemn the Patriarch Jacob for having chosen Rachel for her beauty, in preference to Lia."

The Use of Marriage: "Finally, the use of marriage is a subject which pastors should so treat as to avoid any expression that may be unfit to meet the ears of the faithful, that may be calculated to offend the piety of some, or excite the laughter of others. The words of the Lord are chaste words; and the teacher of a Christian people should make use of the same kind of language, one that is characterized by singular gravity and purity of soul. Two lessons of instruction to the faithful are, then, to be specially insisted upon.

"The first is that marriage is not to be used for purposes of lust or sensuality, but that its use is to be restrained within those limits which, as we have already shown, have been fixed by the Lord. It should be remembered that the Apostle admonishes: They that have wives, let them be as though they had them not, and that St. Jerome says: The love which a wise man cherishes towards his wife is the result of judgment, not the impulse of passion; he governs the impetuosity of desire, and is not hurried into indulgence. There is nothing more shameful than that a husband should love his wife as an adulteress.

"But as every blessing is to be obtained from God by holy prayer, the faithful are also to be taught sometimes to abstain from the marriage debt, in order to devote themselves to prayer. Let the faithful understand that (this religious continence), according to the proper and holy injunction of our predecessors, is particularly to be observed for at least three days before Communion, and oftener during the solemn fast of Lent.

"Thus will they find the blessings of marriage to be daily increased by an abundance of divine grace; and living in the pursuit of piety, they will not only spend this life in peace and tranquility, but will also repose in the true and firm hope, which confoundeth not, of arriving, through the divine goodness, at the possession of that life which is eternal."

Sunday, December 12, 2010

Pius IX and Freemasonry

Pope Pius IX has been accused these days of being a Freemason.  First off - I do not believe he was a Mason.  Not at all.


The thing about membership in a secret society is that it cannot be PROVEN ABSOLUTELY, unless the suspected party has either been caught in the act and publicly been exposed and has no excuse or alibi, or has publicly admitted to this. These are the only ways that an excommunication could take effect in the external forum, so as to bind Catholics to the duty to reject such a one.


Membership in a secret society is just that: secret. The only way that a person could lose an ecclesiastical office in the EXTERNAL FORUM is if he was publicly known as a Mason. A secret Mason, although he would already have lost his internal union with Christ, would nevertheless be unknowable as such to "his" flock, unless he were to give himself away somehow.  He would in effect be an occult heretic.

As such, "his" flock would be invincibly ignorant, as per the definition of St. Thomas Aquinas.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Prima Secunda Partis, Q. 76, Art. 2: said:
Now it is evident that whoever neglects to have or do what he ought to have or do, commits a sin of omission. Wherefore through negligence, ignorance of what one is bound to know, is a sin; whereas it is not imputed as a sin to man, if he fails to know what he is unable to know. Consequently ignorance of such like things is called "invincible," because it cannot be overcome by study. For this reason such like ignorance, not being voluntary, since it is not in our power to be rid of it, is not a sin: Wherefore it is evident that no invincible ignorance is a sin. On the other hand, vincible ignorance is a sin, if it be about matters one is bound to know; but not, if it be about things one is not bound to know.

Since the Church, additionally to being spiritually united as the body of Christ, is a social body externally united, it's absurd to imagine that a man who cannot be known to have internally apostatized could create a schism, unless he were to openly manifest or profess his apostasy.

Therefore, if he kept it secret, "his" flock would be following a heretic, they would have invincible ignorance of this fact, as such ignorance was defined by St. Thomas. So if they had already been baptized and were otherwise professing the Catholic faith whole and inviolate, then they have not lost their Catholicity, they have not committed schism, because they CANNOT KNOW that their prelate is a Mason, whereas if they could have known, they should have known and their ignorance is no longer invincible; they are culpable.

It is the difference between following a manifest heretic and an occult heretic.  One you can and ought to know is heretical, the other you cannot unless he lets it slip externally.

This is where conjecture comes in. A person can guess that a man was a Mason because of his outward actions. We can even possess what is known as MORAL CERTAINTY, which is not the same thing as absolute certainty.

Moral certainty is "a very high degree of probability, sufficient for action, but short of absolute or mathematical"

Such is the case with certain papal claimants, since they are on PUBLIC RECORD as using the popular Masonic hand signal (something that just doesn't happen by accident - try it and see - to make the hand signal you have to deliberately PURPOSE to make the hand symbol). Therefore this, in addition to their very Masonic sounding words and doctrines (eugenics, birth control, New World Order) provide evidence and establish a moral certainty of their Masonic membership.

I have seen no evidence at all that Pope Pius IX was publicly known as a Mason, either at the time of his reign, or afterward.

All I see is Masons themselves trying to claim that Pius IX had joined their sect as a young man, though even they admit it is only (in their view) "likely", which is far from a moral certitude requiring we anathematize a man who never publicly defected from the faith, not even in one iota.

Antipope Leo XIII, on the other hand, expressly taught the Masonic doctrine that "God is Father of all", despite the true pope before him, Pius IX, sepcifically defining the follwoing dogma:

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session 3, Chapter 3, #8-9, ex cathedra: "Wherefore, by divine and Catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in Scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the Church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium. Since, then, without faith it is impossible to please God and reach the fellowship of his sons and daughters, it follows that no one can ever achieve justification without it, neither can anyone attain eternal life unless he or she perseveres in it to the end."

From the allocution of Pope Pius IX, to the Cardinals, Quibus Quantisque Malis, April 20, 1849, refuting the allegation that he was a mason:  "To the other innumerable deceptions, which the enemies of the Catholic Church continually use to tear away and snatch from Her bosom, principally the imprudent and the inexperienced, are added the most dreadful and shameful slanders, which they do not blush to invent and hurl against Our Person. We certainly, although unworthy, who stand on earth in place of Him who "while he was cursed did not curse, while he was suffering did not threaten,” We endured with all patience and in silence the most bitter outrages, and never failed to pray for Our calumniators and persecutors. But being in debt to the learned and to the ignorant, and bound, with every care, to provide for the salvation of all, especially in order to prevent the scandal of the weak, We cannot fail to repudiate, in this your assembly, that most false and blackest of all calumnies published against Us by some of the most recent papers. In truth, We were struck by incredible horror when We read that invention, with which Our enemies strive to inflict a deep wound upon Us and the Apostolic See, but we cannot in any way think that these most impudent lies can even slightly touch that supreme Chair of Truth, and We who, without any merit, find Ourselves in it. And certainly by singular celestial mercy We can use those words of our divine Redeemer: "I have spoken openly to the world ... and in secret I have said nothing." Here, Venerable Brethren, We would like to repeat and inculcate what we specifically stated in Our Allocation of December 17, 1847, namely that the wicked, more easily to harm the true and genuine doctrine of the Catholic Religion, and to deceive and induce others to err, do not fail to use inventions, machinations, and efforts of every kind, so that the Holy See itself, in a certain way, appears to be part of, and an advocate for, their folly."

"To all, then, it is evident that these darkest and most destructive societies and sects have been founded at various times by fabricators of falsehood, followers of perverse doctrines, to instill in spirits their deliriums, systems and plots more deeply, to corrupt the hearts of the simple and to open a broad road to commiting all sorts of wickedness with impunity. These abominable sects of perdition, most pernicious not only to the salvation of souls, but also to the good and the peace of society, which have always been detested by Us, and already condemned by Our Predecessors, We also condemned in the encyclical to the Bishops of the Catholic world given November 9, 1846, and now also, with supreme apostolic authority, We again condemn, forbid, and proscribe."

3rd Sunday in Advent

The following is not from a Missal, but is taken from a book by Fr. Leonard Goffine.

Saturday, December 11, 2010

The Patriarchs as Types of Christ: Jacob

 From The Christian Topography, Cosmas Indicopleustes.

This is Jacob, himself also a co-heir of the promises of God, and one who looked for the city which hath the foundations, whose builder and maker is God----that is, the heavenly Jerusalem, into which, as our forerunner, Christ has entered----and to which state of existence the whole scheme of Christian worship looks, which new and living way the Lord Christ first of all instituted for us, which also the great Jacob predicts in transmitting it to Judah his own son, when he was blessing him; by whom also Jesus Christ is announced as the Lord of the promises in these words which he spake:
Judah, thee shall thy brethren praise: Thy hand shall be on the neck of thine enemies; thy father's sons shall bow down before thee; Judah is a lion's whelp; from the branch,my son, hast thou ascended, he stooped down, he couched as a lion, and as a lions whelp; who shall rouse him up? A ruler shall not fail from Judah nor a leader from his thighs until what is laid up in store for him shall come, and he the expectation of the nations. Binding his foal unto the vines, and to the tendril of the vine his ass's colt. He shall wash his garment in wine, and his vesture in the blood of the grape. Wine shall make his eyes sparkle with joy, and his teeth shall be whiter than milk. 

But the sons of his father did not bow down before him, nay, on the contrary he made obeisance to Joseph, even after the death of his father. It is evident therefore that the whole of this prophecy had its fulfilment in the Lord Christ who descended from him according to the flesh, and that it sets before the mind his kingly power, and his Passion, and his blessed Resurrection after his Passion.


And this Jacob, who is the third patriarch, being reckoned with the other two, married a wife whom he did not from the first himself wish to marry, namely Leah; and on the fourth son whom he begat by her, that is, on Judah, he conferred the blessings and the promises; so that from this it is manifest, that the blessing did not accrue to any chance person but to those from whom the Lord Christ according to the flesh, the Prince of the second life, was to spring.

And from Judah himself we can learn, that it was not from his own wife, but from his daughter-in-law Thamar that the line of descent of his posterity, from which sprang the Lord of the promises, was reckoned. Most clearly still, when the patriarchs had received such great promises from God, namely, that in them and in their seed all the nations should be blessed, and this promise in like manner: Unto you I will give this land, and unto your seed, and when they had received not so much of it as they could set their foot on, but dwelt in tents, they, being full of faith, showed themselves to be expecting and hoping for another dispensation in which they would receive the promises. Wherefore also each one of them in his dying moments transmitted the blessing to him whom God had ordained to receive it. Wherefore also again scripture, laying up, as it were, the fathers in a treasure-house, says with reference to each of them: And he was gathered unto his fathers, meaning that all of them together being treasured up for the future state, will receive possession thereof.