Hidden Agendas, Anyone?

By Lúcio Mascarenhas, Bombay. November 9, 2004. Revised April 8, 2005.

This page was principally written in rebuttal of certain comments made in opposition to me and my doctrinal position, cowardly insinuating "hidden agendas" on my part, when Mrs. Carrie Tomko made a mention of me in her former blog, Running Off At The Keyboard.

See also my rebuttal of Fr. Bento de Sousa.

Discuss: Has Wojtyla's Church fallen away?

It has been argued by certain persons that because I acknowledge Pope Michael, therefore I am, in some way or the other, wrong, and therefore to be avoided:

hmmm ... what is Lucio's agenda too? Who is Lucio Mascarenhas? What is a Orthopapism II? Have you gone through this man's site??

Just wondering.

PML

http://www.geocities.com/prakashjm45/index.html

Lucio Mascarenhas, formerly "Prakash"
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

Am I "Not In Communion" with Rome?
Orthopapism 1

"There are false simulations of Christianity - the various Protestantisms, Nestorianism, Jacobitism (Monophysitism), etc. .... group is the new sect, the New Catholic, led by pretender-popes who have also usurped the Vatican. .... as the second John-Paul, because he is a heretic and a Modernist Protestant. .... there has been no valid Pope. There are, at present two contenders for the Papacy - Michael I (David Bawden) and Linus II (Victor von Pentz). ..."
pml | 11.03.04 - 11:00 am

Lucio believe Michael Bawden of (KS?, USA) is pope; "Pope Michael I."
Dan | 11.03.04 - 12:13 pm

Now, I do not tell anyone to NOT avoid me, nor will I impose myself on anyone. However, where it concerns the Catholic Faith, it is my duty to address certain misconceptions.

I have no hidden agendas. I have never hidden what I stand for. But it is the culture of this day to attribute base motives to others without just cause....

It has been argued — against the argument made against the Antichurch and its Rites — that these cannot be defective or evil, because arguing that they are so (i.e., defective or evil) implies that God has failed His Church, that the Gates of Hell have prevailed against it.

That argument (or one may call that argument a counter-argument) is based on fallacious thinking.

The Church has very many times pronounced that it is entirely possible that the vast majority can fall away and the True Church be reduced to a minority.

Fr. William Jurgens:
"At one point in the Church�s history, only a few years before Gregory Nazianzen�s present preaching (+380 A.D.), perhaps the number of Catholic bishops in possession of sees, as opposed to Arian bishops in possession of sees, was no greater than something between 1% and 3% of the total.

"Had doctrine been determined by popularity, today we should all be deniers of Christ and opponents of the Spirit.

"In the time of the Emperor Valens (4^th century), Basil was virtually the only orthodox Bishop in all the East who succeeded in retaining charge of his see�

"If it has no other importance for modern man, a knowledge of the history of Arianism should demonstrate at least that the Catholic Church takes no account of popularity and numbers in shaping and maintaining doctrine: else, we should long since have had to abandon Basil and Hilary and Athanasius and Liberius and Ossius and call ourselves after Arius."
On Monday, October 11, 2004, Carrie Tomko wrote (Running Off At The Keyboard): "I have just pulled Yves Dupont's book Catholic Prophecy down from the shelf in order to read Emmerich's prophecies again. Another... dated June 1, 1821: "I saw what I believe to be nearly all the bishops of the world, but only a small number were perfectly sound. "Then, I saw that everything that pertained to Protestantism was gradually gaining the upper hand, and the Catholic religion fell into complete decadence. Most priests were lured by the glittering but false knowledge of young school-teachers, and they all contributed to the work of destruction. "In those days, Faith will fall very low, and it will be preserved in some places only, in a few cottages and in a few families which God has protected from disasters and wars." It is amazing how exact were these predictions—the "false knowledge of young school-teachers" is that of the Modernist seminarian teachers who were deliberately brought into "Vatican II" by the Antipope Roncalli ("John XXIII-II"), as the "periti" (experts) to brainwash the bishops and stampede them into heresy and apostasy! [See The Rhine Flows Into The Tiber, Sr. Maureen Sullivan's "101 Questions & Answers On Vatican II". See also TraditionInAction's The Doubtfulness of John XXIII]

The question, therefore, is not whether a section, large or small, of what used to be undoubtedly the Catholic Church up until October 1958, CAN fall away but whether it has actually happened in our day.

That is a question that must be argued on its own merits.

[For an example of the Catholic Resistance arguments showing that the Antichurch—the single largest section of what used to be undoubtedly the Catholic Chuch up until October 1958, and presently led by Karol Wojtyla aka "Pope John-Paul II"—is a sect that has fallen away from Catholicism, see my tract: "Repair My Church"]

As for the question of Rites, there are two answers:
1. If a section of the Church falls away, however large or small, the Rites as practised in that section would be, at the very least, schismatic, and therefore, even if unaltered and valid, would be displeasing to God.
2. But there is also the question of validity. If a schismatic group alters the form or matter of the sacraments, their rites are useless and will NOT confect the Sacraments. This has been the constant teaching of the Church, expressed infallibly and by Popes and Councils, and last iterated by H.H. Pope Leo XIII in his Encyclical "Apostolicae Curae" ruling that Anglican Orders were invalid.
Some acknowledge that the actions, especially what are called "Ecumenical", by the papal claimants Roncalli, Montini, Luciani and by the current Wojtyla ("John-Paul 2"), and by their henchmen, such as, more recently, the Bishop and Rector of Fatima, are deeply unacceptable, scandalous, sinful and eminently demonstrative of the lack of the sense of a true Catholic faith in the executor of these acts. However, they refuse to countenance the possibility that the same persons who do these acts could have so altered the Form and Matter of the Sacraments as to render them invalid. Is this position logical?

I ask: Why is it that these people insist on Catholics reposing a "touching" faith in those whom they themselves acknowledge to be ravening wolves?

It has been pointed out, that various persons in the past were given messages pertaining to a time of crisis in the Church, showing how the Pope would be isolated and persecuted, etc. Are we not in a severe time of crisis — if not, indeed, in the most severest crisis that the Church has ever encountered? Is not that this "crisis" is actually the work of these "Popes": Roncalli, Montini, Luciani and Wojtyla, and that they protect and further this program? Do any of these prophecies tell of the Pope himself as being the cause and enactor of these shameful, un-Christian, indeed, viciously anti-Christian acts? What does that absence in the prophecies imply for the papal claim of these Modernist heretics who pretend to be the Catholic Popes?

It is the purpose of the Catholic Resistance to demonstrate that the Novus Ordo Rites or Montinian Rites meets the same criteria for which Anglican Rites (i.e., according to the "Edwardine Ordinal" drawn up by Cranmer, and promulgated by King Edward VI Tudor) are condemned as being invalid and not resulting in true and valid priests and bishops [See the Catholic Encyclopedia, 1907, on "Anglican Orders" & Byron Harries: The New Roman Ordinal].

Yet another aspect is Holiness: A consciously blasphemous rite can never be holy and can never be pleasing to God and therefore can NOT result in merit to the souls participating.

The Question is: Is the Novus Ordo a "Consciously blasphemous rite"?

I argue YES, based on the following facts:
1. The Rite has been deliberated mutilated, consciously keeping the earlier mutiliations of Cranmer, Luther, Calvin, etc., in mind. For evidence, see for e.g., Sr. Maureen Sullivan, "101 Questions & Answers on Vatican II", etc.
2. The Rite was crafted with the deliberate assistance of formal heretics, the Protestants of Taize — the Anti-Cistercium!
3. The Rite blasphemes directly by directly falsifying the word of God, based on the patently and proven false claims of a Protestant "scholar", Joachim Jeremias, who claimed that Our Lord used the words "for many" in the Consecration, because allegedly there was no word for "for all"; a claim that has been conclusively demonstrated to be nothing more than a lie! (See Patrick Henry Omlor's Interdum).
4. The Rite is also blasphemous because the Antichurch has deliberately and purposely abolished for itself the rules of modesty and of dress in churches, so that women do not veil, and frequently, women dress immodestly (See the book The Lion's Mouth, on Bishop Castro-Maier of Campos, Brazil: Women in bikinis were permitted to enter and attend services in one of the beachside chapels!)

Here in Bombay, a peculiar situation exists. Previously, there used to be a class of officers called the Porters (Ostiarii) who regulated the entry of people into the churches and kept out those who had no business inside the church. That is no longer done. When I used to visit my local parish church, I was always troubled and distracted by the sights and smells of women in dresses of the latest fashion and scents. Many women wore see-through clothes, miniskirts and tight pants or jeans, and it was rather awkward sitting behind them. Most wore high-heeled shoes or shoes that clicked ostentatiously as they wriggled their nubile, plump posteriors in our faces as they went to and fro "Communion". In the end I was compelled to sit in one of the wings, where usually these characters did not come.

When I went to Goa in about 1996, for the exposition of the Incorruptible Body of St. Francis Xavier, I stood in a long line for admission, and my temper went on building up as I tried to avoid looking at all the women in their fancy, sexy clothes, tight jeans and hot pants that left little to the imagination, primping like whores seeking to proposition some passerby. In the end, I blew up, and walked away.

It has been more than ten years since I have attended "church", but of the things I miss, these "happy" experiences are not part of it.

The Hindus among whom I work and live openly boast that they go to Church. They go to church, not to hear Christ and His Gospel preached, which is not, but to titilate their carnal desires. This is what they triumphantly boast of. This is why I say that these churches are not the temples of God, but are whorehouses — the temples of Ba'al!

Past Troubles, Present Solace?

Some seek to take solace in the consideration of the fact that there have been bad popes before, even viciously immoral. They confuse issues.

Immoral popes, there have always been.

Heretical popes? No.

The closest was Pope John XXII, whom some foolishly imply as having been a formal and manifest heretic. As a matter of fact, he was a heretic merely in the sense that he believed and taught error as a private theologian, and an error that the Church had not spoken on formally before him. When his error was demonstrated, he repented, while his immediate successor, Pope Benedict XII, closed that loophole by formally condemning that error for the first time, in his Encyclical Benedictus Deus, January 29, 1336. Only after this promulgation would any who professed this error be formal and manifest heretics.

By contrast, the Modernist antipopes Roncalli, Montini, Luciani and Wojtyla teach exactly those errors that the Church has ALREADY formally condemned, such as, for example, in Pope Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors, and Pope St. Pius X's Syllabus of Modernist Errors.

There is therefore no comparision between the two situations!

Lúcio Mascarenhas