New Orleans Hurricane Exactly 9 Years After Katrina?

August 19th, 2014 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

It’s still over a week away, but a tropical disturbance east of the Lesser Antilles is being forecast by the GFS model to grow into a hurricane, making landfall near New Orleans just 1 day before the 9th anniversary of Katrina’s landfall:

Nine day forecast of 850 mb circulation and temperature from the 12Z GFS model run on 19 August, 2014.

Nine day forecast of 850 mb circulation and temperature from the 12Z GFS model run on 19 August, 2014.

Needless to say, it IS hurricane season, so a Gulf of Mexico hurricane in late August (near the peak in the season) is not that unusual.

But note the 2014 season is supposed to be relatively inactive:

Of course, this far in advance, the hurricane (even if it forms) could make landfall anywhere along the Gulf coast. I just thought the timing and location, exactly 9 years after Katrina, was interesting.


106 Responses to “New Orleans Hurricane Exactly 9 Years After Katrina?”

Toggle Trackbacks

    • You must see this completely factual and free video on the end of the world. It gives the full truth about the beasts of the Apocalypse, the kings, the mark of the Beast, the true identity of the Antichrist, Anti-pope Francis and how or whether he fits in with these things and much more. It will change your life. Here’s the link to the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cn9t0m6eG4Q The website that produced this video: http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com is the only place where people will find the essential information they need to know to save their eternal souls in these difficult times. Almost all of their material is completely free to view at all times and they have an enormous amount of the most important information you’ll ever see. They are the only place telling the complete and uncompromising Christian truth as well as the complete truth on the most important secular issues of our time such as 9/11, the prison/military/industrial complex, the Federal reserve and the international usury/banking system, natural health,etc. etc. The full collection of material they make available is the most powerful and compelling information in the whole world. Check it out.

      • LarryBudwiser says:

        You’re nuts, right? Please, loosen the straps on the tinfoil hat PRIOR to writing.

        • Hugh G Rexshun says:

          Your statement is childish and rude. If he wants to believe in certain conspiracies, that is OK. There ARE conspiracies, which explains the hundreds of laws that begin: “Conspiracy to…”
          He believes he is helping people. Ignore his post if you like, but don’t spout infantile media-promoted propaganda.

          • Bill Covington says:

            Let me get this straight. You chose to use the screen name Hugh G Rexshun, and now accuse someone else of being childish, rude, and infantile. What grade are you in?

      • Retired Ron says:

        If you want to promote your mental illness, buy advertising, don’t litter non-related websites with tributes to your imaginary heros.

        • dwh says:

          You prove the Bible well, “Better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt”
          God put the signs in the sky, the earth, the moon and the stars. These things are found in the Bible and their appearing now proves the Bible. That’s why God does it, so scoffers like you might believe.
          Here is the full gospel. God created all things, Satan the devil led man into sin and separation from God, but God loved his creation so much he sent his only son Jesus Christ, (the word of God made flesh)the bear our punishment for us. This he did on the cross, where he died and later he rose from the dead giving us the hope of salvation through faith in Jesus.
          Accept Jesus and be saved. Deny him and die in your sins, where you will be judged by Christ at the Great White Throne Judgement. You will stand naked and ashamed and all your sins will be revealed and then they will look in the Lambs Book of Life and your name won’t be in that book so you’ll be cast into the lake of fire forever. That’s where satan will reside for 1,000 years completely and utterly separated from God.
          Now you know the full gospel. Decide now whom you will serve.

          • For What its Worth says:

            God did not “put” any signs in any sky. Uneducated and primitive man “interpreted” events using the best language and understanding they could. At best, the books of the Bible were only meant to be an anthology of the History of a MINOR tribe in the middle east. Anytime something happened to Israel’s enemy’s they naturally wrote it down that it was “God’s will” because they didn’t know any better. They didnt have any formal science, forensics, detailed record keeping or any way of disputing one person’s word. Of course none of the original old testament was even written down until the time of David when the Jews were again, released from Babylonian captivity, so anything that happened in the earlier books was written down 1000s of years after it happened and we are supposed to take that on faith? Constantine only had the Bible put together in the 4th century to shut his wife up and even then had it compiled under duress and then any book that contradicted it was burned (there were many).

            There is also no proof outside the Bible that Jesus even existed. The first document of his deeds did not show up until 30-40 years after he died and then Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all copied it at different times as their anti-Roman movement took off. They only wrote it to allow people to know what Jewish life was like BEFORE the Romans sacked it in 66AD. Everything about Jesus was written AFTER this so obviously had a political slant against the institution that failed to protect them from the Romans.

            Grow up people! Think for yourselves!

          • In Charity, Protestantism is not true Christianity, as it rejects the biblical teaching on Justification, the Papacy, the Eucharist, Confession, and much more. The Catholic Church is the one true Church of Christ. http://www.vaticancatholic.com covers the biblical proof for the Catholic faith, as well as what has happened after Vatican II. On the website there is a section refuting Protestantism and dealing with the biblical proof for Catholic teaching.There is also a book called, The Bible Proves the Teachings of the Catholic Church. You also really need to see these videos: The Key to John 3:16: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyXQSUT4_hI Martin Luther, the devil, and denominations-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xL2Hyve-kwg Can a Christian Lose Salvation-1 Corinthians: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_4RFoknrwc
            It’s necessary for salvation to reject Protestantism and become a traditional Catholic. The following completely factual video on the end of the world is especially interesting if you enjoy Biblical prophecy as it covers the most likely fulfillment of what St. John prophesied in the Book of Revelation (the Apocalypse). It will change your life: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cn9t0m6eG4Q

        • BobCinGA says:

          Imaginary Heroes? What an arrogant SOB you are! Complain about the irrelevance to the subject at hand, but keep your arrogant condescending intolerance to yourself!

          • In reply to the person “What its worth”: You don’t know what you’re talking about. Civilizations at that time were much more advanced than most people realize today. There has been found undeniable archaeological evidence that they had primitive forms of batteries and electricity and ventilation in their homes. Since you are an atheist or an agnostic you need to see the following videos which undeniably prove the existence of the one true God and His one true Faith using the most reputable scientific evidence of the highest caliber from many fields of science including Bio-chemistry, forensics, Physics, Archaeology, etc. etc. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYLy7CCgqDk&list=PLD841087C099E5B90 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYSmV2FlHDw This following video absolutely proves the existence of Christ by absolutely proving the authenticity of His miraculous burial Shroud known as the Shroud of Turin using incredibly sophisticated scientific evidence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRB16BARvz0 Also, your erroneous claim that “there is no proof outside of the Bible that Jesus even existed” is irrefutably proven in the video I just linked as well as the fact that His existence was recorded by completely secular historians during the time of His life on earth. One example is the historian Josephus.

      • Donna says:

        I wouldn’t throw this out so quickly. One thing about the Dimond Brothers, they do their homework and somewhat accurately. Their facts are based on years of study from the Old & New Testaments including the Apocalypse.

        (pope) Francis I, there’s a controversy about him being a validly ordained priest. Among Catholics he was ordained correctly some say because the ordination rites were changed by the time he was ordained. One thing for sure, he is NOT a validly ordained bishop. And among Sede vacantists he and all Vatican II popes are invalid. Regardless Francis is one of many AntiChrists.

        You might read Walid Shoebat’s version, where the AC will be coming from Turkey and recently this article came out: http://shoebat.com/2014/08/18/muslim-brotherhood-says-turkey-capital-islamic-caliphate/

        If you read Catholic prophecies by their Saints throughout the centuries, they point to the AC coming out from the Turkey and so does the Bible.

        Other biblical prophecies show these nations are cast into Hell alongside Lucifer the fallen angel, including Asshur – “Iraq – Syria”, (Ezekiel 32:22-23) Elam – “Iran” (Ezekiel 32:24-25) Meshech & Tubal “Asia minor -Turkey” (Ezekiel 32:26) – Edom – “Arabia” (Ezekiel 32:29, also see Ezekiel 25).

        NOTE: 43 priests leave SSPX? http://www.thefourmarks.com/#SSPX Once SSPX falls apart, Bishop Fellay leading them towards Rome, then the Warning and 3 Days of Darkness. Things are moving rapidly.

        • It is a fact that Antipope Francis is not even a validly ordained “Priest” because he was “ordained” in Anti-pope Paul VI’s invalid new “rite” of “Ordination”. Also, in charity, the SSPX are false traditionalists who claim to be against the Vatican II sect yet they still recognize the obviously heretical and apostate Antipopes of the Vatican II sect as true Popes and they believe in and preach along with basically every other so called “Traditionalist” group the horrible heresies of “Baptism of desire” and “Baptism of Blood” and they believe that souls can be saved in false religions without converting to the Catholic Faith. See the following videos which tell the undeniable and uncompromising truth about the SSPX: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1XGfD44NCE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4hGsL524Rc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J01vVszOObY The following proves that the new Rite of Ordination is invalid: Why the New Rite of Ordination is Invalid

          By Bro. Michael Dimond, O.S.B.
          Print this page

          The New Rite of Ordination

          The new rite of Holy Orders (bishops, priests, deacons) was approved and imposed by Paul VI on June 18, 1968. The following information is absolutely critical for all Catholics to know, since it concerns the validity of basically every “priest” ordained within the diocesan structure since approximately 1968; and consequently, it concerns the validity of countless confessions, indult Masses, etc.

          On Nov. 30, 1947, Pope Pius XII issued an apostolic Constitution called “Sacramentum Ordinis.” In this Constitution, Pope Pius XII declared, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, the words that are necessary for a valid ordination to the priesthood.

          Pope Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis, Nov. 30, 1947: “But regarding the matter and form in the conferring of every order, by Our same supreme apostolic authority We decree and establish the following: … In the ordination of priests, the matter is the first imposition of the bishop’s hands which is done in silence… But the form [of Ordination] consists of the words of the preface of which the following are essential and so required for validity:

          Grant, we beseech You, Almighty Father, to these Your servants, the dignity of the Priesthood (presbyteriii dignitatem); renew the spirit of holiness within them, so that they may hold from You, O God, the office of the second rank in Your service and by the example of their behavior afford a pattern of holy living.” (Denzinger 2301)

          The New Form in the New Rite of Ordination of priests

          Here is the form of the New Rite of Ordination of Priests:

          Grant, we beseech You, Almighty Father, to these Your servants, the dignity of the Priesthood; renew within them the spirit of holiness. May they hold from You, the office of the second rank in Your service and by the example of their behavior afford a pattern of holy living. (The Oratory Catechism, Published by the Oratory of Divine Truth, 2000, p. 340)

          The difference between the two forms is that the Latin word “ut” (which means “so that”) has been omitted in the new rite. In Sacramentum Ordinis, Pius XII declared that this word was essential for validity. This omission of “so that” gives rise to a relaxation of the reference to the clear naming of the sacramental effect (conferring the office of the second rank). This change presupposes an ordination which has already taken place, but not taking place, so that the last sentence thereby has become meaningless for the form of ordination. (The Oratory Catechism, p. 340)

          If the New Rite claims to be the Roman Rite, then this removal of the word “ut” (so that) renders the New Rite invalid or of gravely doubtful validity at best.

          Other Problems with the New Rite of Ordination

          But the change to the essential form is not the only problem with the New Rite of Ordination promulgated by Paul VI. The following points are just as significant, because the Sacrament of Order, although instituted by Our Lord Jesus Christ, was not instituted by Our Lord with a specific sacramental form – unlike the Sacraments of the Eucharist and Baptism, which were instituted by Our Lord with a specific sacramental form – so that the form of words in Ordination is given its meaning and significance by the surrounding rite and ceremonies.

          In his famous Bull, Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13, 1896, Pope Leo XIII solemnly declared that Anglican Ordinations are invalid. This means that the Anglican sect doesn’t have valid priests or bishops.

          Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13, 1896: “Wherefore, strictly adhering in this matter to the decrees of the Pontiffs Our Predecessors, and confirming them most fully, and, as it were, renewing them by Our authority, of Our own motion and certain knowledge We pronounce and declare that Ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been and are absolutely null and utterly void.”

          In making this solemn pronouncement it must be understood that Leo XIII was not making Anglican Ordinations invalid, but rather he was declaring that they were invalid due to defects in the Rite. But what were those defects or problems which Leo XIII saw with the Anglican Rite, which contributed to its invalidity? Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13, 1896: “When anyone has rightly and seriously made use of the due form and the matter requisite for effecting or conferring the sacrament he is considered by that very fact to do what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed. On the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church, and of rejecting what the Church does, and what by the institution of Christ belongs to the nature of the sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the sacrament.”

          Here we see Pope Leo XIII teaching that if a minister uses the Catholic rite in conferring the Sacrament of Order, with the correct matter and form, he is considered for that very reason to have intended to do what the Church does – intending to do what the Church does is necessary for the validity of any Sacrament. On the other hand, he tells us, if the rite is changed, with the manifest intention of introducing a new rite not approved by the Church, and of rejecting what the Church does, then the intention is not only insufficient but is destructive of the Sacrament.

          And what were the things that Pope Leo XIII described as showing the destructive intention of the Anglican rite of Ordination?

          Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13, 1896: “For, to put aside other reasons which show this to be insufficient for the purpose in the Anglican rite, let this argument suffice for all: from them has been deliberately removed whatever sets forth the dignity and office of the priesthood in the Catholic rite. That form consequently cannot be considered apt or sufficient for the sacrament which omits what it ought essentially to signify.”

          Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13, 1896: “So it comes to pass that, as the Sacrament of Orders and the true sacerdotium [sacrificing priesthood] of Christ were utterly eliminated from the Anglican rite, and hence the sacerdotium [priesthood] is in no wise conferred truly and validly in the Episcopal consecration of the same rite, for the like reason, therefore, the Episcopate can in no wise be truly and validly conferred by it; and this the more so because among the first duties of the Episcopate is that of ordaining ministers for the Holy Eucharist and sacrifice.”

          Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13, 1896: “Being fully cognizant of the necessary connection between faith and worship, between ‘the law of believing and the law of praying,’ under a pretext of returning to the primitive form, they corrupted the liturgical order in many ways to suit the errors of the reformers. For this reason in the whole Ordinal not only is there no clear mention of the sacrifice, of consecration, of the sacerdotium [sacrificing priesthood], but, as we have just stated, every trace of these things, which had been in such prayers of the Catholic rite as they had not entirely rejected, was deliberately removed and struck out. In this way the native character – or spirit as it is called – of the Ordinal clearly manifests itself. Hence, if vitiated in its origin it was wholly insufficient to confer Orders, it was impossible that in the course of time it could become sufficient since no change had taken place.”

          Dear reader, these things described above by Pope Leo XIII as the downfall of the Anglican rite of Ordination – the systematic removal of reference to the sacrifice of the Mass, consecration and the true sacrificing priesthood – are exactly the things that occurred in the New Rite of Ordination promulgated by Paul VI! In his book The Order of Mechisedech, despite his false conclusions on this and other matters, Michael Davies is forced to admit the following:

          “As the previous section made clear, every prayer in the traditional rite [of Ordination] which stated specifically the essential role of a priest as a man ordained to offer propitiatory sacrifice for the living and dead has been removed [from the New Rite of Paul VI]. In most cases these were the precise prayers removed by the Protestant reformers, or if not precisely the same there are clear parallels.” (Michael Davies, The Order of Melchisedech, p. 83)

          “…there is not one mandatory prayer in the new rite of ordination itself which makes clear that the essence of the Catholic priesthood is the conferral of the powers to offer the sacrifice of the Mass and to absolve men of their sins, and that the sacrament imparts a character which differentiates a priest not simply in degree but in essence from a layman… There is not a word in it that is incompatible with Protestant belief.” (Michael Davies, The Order of Melchisedech, p. xix)

          Here are some of the specific prayers and ceremonies which set forth the true nature of the priesthood in the Traditional Rite which have been specifically eliminated from the New Rite of Ordination of Paul VI. (The following information is found in Michael Davies, The Order of Melchisedech, Harrison, NY: Roman Catholic Books, 1993, pp. 79 and following.)

          In the Traditional Rite, the Bishop addresses the ordinands and says:

          “For it is a priest’s duty to offer sacrifice, to bless, to lead, to preach and to baptize.”

          This admonition has been abolished.

          The Litany of the Saints then follows in the Traditional Rite. It has been cut short in the New Rite.

          The New Rite abolishes the following unecumenical assertion:

          “That Thou wouldst recall all who have wandered from the unity of the Church, and lead all believers to the light of the Gospel.”

          Later on in the Traditional Rite, after pronouncing the essential form, which has been changed in the New Rite (see above), the Bishop says another prayer, which includes the following:

          “Theirs be the task to change with blessing undefiled, for the service of thy people, bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Thy Son.”

          This prayer has been abolished.

          In the Traditional Rite, the Bishop then intones the Veni Creator Spiritus. While anointing each priest he says:

          “Be pleased, Lord, to consecrate and sanctify these hands by this anointing, and our blessing. That whatsoever they bless may be blessed, and whatsoever they consecrate may be consecrated and sanctified in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ.”

          This prayer has been abolished. And this prayer was so significant that it was even mentioned by Pius XII in Mediator Dei #43:

          “… they alone [priests] have been marked with the indelible sign ‘conforming’ them to Christ the Priest, and that their hands alone have been consecrated, ‘in order that whatever they bless may be blessed, whatever they consecrate may become sacred and holy, in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ.’”

          Notice that Pius XII, in speaking of how the priests have been marked in Ordination, makes reference to this very important prayer which was specifically abolished by Paul VI’s new 1968 Rite.

          Shortly after this prayer in the Traditional Rite, the Bishop says to each ordinand:

          “Receive the power to offer sacrifice to God, and to celebrate Mass, both for the living and the dead, in the name of the Lord.”

          This exceptionally important prayer has been abolished in the New Rite.

          In the Traditional Rite, the new priests then concelebrate Mass with the Bishop. At the end, each new priest kneels before the Bishop who lays both hands upon the head of each and says:

          “Receive the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.”

          This ceremony and prayer has been abolished.

          In the Traditional Rite:

          “the new priests then promise obedience to their bishop who ‘charges’ them to bear in mind that offering Holy Mass is not free from risk and that they should learn everything necessary from diligent priests before undertaking so fearful a responsibility.”

          This admonition has been abolished.

          Finally, before completing the Mass, the Bishop imparts a blessing:

          “The blessing of God Almighty, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, come down upon you, and make you blessed in the priestly Order, enabling you to offer propitiatory sacrifices for the sins of the people to Almighty God.”

          This blessing has been abolished.

          Conclusion: It is totally obvious from these facts that there is no intention in the New Rite of Ordaining a true Sacrificing Priest. Every single mandatory reference to the true sacrificing priesthood was deliberately removed, just like in the Anglican Rite – which was declared invalid for that very reason by Pope Leo XIII.

          “As the previous section made clear, every prayer in the traditional rite [of Ordination] which stated specifically the essential role of a priest as a man ordained to offer propitiatory sacrifice for the living and dead has been removed [from the New Rite of Paul VI]. In most cases these were the precise prayers removed by the Protestant reformers, or if not precisely the same there are clear parallels.” (Michael Davies, The Order of Melchisedech, p. 83)

          “…there is not one mandatory prayer in the new rite of ordination itself which makes clear that the essence of the Catholic priesthood is the conferral of the powers to offer the sacrifice of the Mass and to absolve men of their sins, and that the sacrament imparts a character which differentiates a priest not simply in degree but in essence from a layman… There is not a word in it that is incompatible with Protestant belief.” (Michael Davies, The Order of Melchisedech, p. xix)

          Thus, the following words declared by Pope Leo XIII apply exactly to the New Rite of Paul VI.

          Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13, 1896: “For this reason in the whole Ordinal not only is there no clear mention of the sacrifice, of consecration, of the sacerdotium [sacrificing priesthood], but, as we have just stated, every trace of these things, which had been in such prayers of the Catholic rite as they had not entirely rejected, was deliberately removed and struck out. In this way the native character – or spirit as it is called – of the Ordinal clearly manifests itself. Hence, if vitiated in its origin it was wholly insufficient to confer Orders, it was impossible that in the course of time it could become sufficient since no change had taken place.”

          Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13, 1896: “When anyone has rightly and seriously made use of the due form and the matter requisite for effecting or conferring the sacrament he is considered by that very fact to do what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed. On the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church, and of rejecting what the Church does, and what by the institution of Christ belongs to the nature of the sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the sacrament.”

          The New Rite fits this description precisely. Could anyone deny this fact? No, to do so one would have to bear false witness. The New Rite of Ordination specifically eliminated the sacrificing priesthood. The intention it manifests is therefore contrary to the intention of the Church and cannot suffice for validity.

          Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13, 1896: “For, to put aside other reasons which show this to be insufficient for the purpose in the Anglican rite, let this argument suffice for all: from them has been deliberately removed whatever sets forth the dignity and office of the priesthood in the Catholic rite. That form consequently cannot be considered apt or sufficient for the sacrament which omits what it ought essentially to signify.”

          Michael Davies proves the New Rite is invalid

          In his book, The Order of Melchisedech, Michael Davies makes statement after statement which proves that the New Rite of Ordination must be considered invalid just as the Anglican Rite. Here are a few:

          Michael Davies, The Order of Melchisedech, p. 97: “If the new Catholic rite is considered satisfactory, then the entire case put by Apostolicae Curae [of Leo XIII] is undermined… If the new Catholic rite, shorn of any mandatory prayer signifying the essential powers of the priesthood, is valid, then there seems no reason why the 1662 Anglican rite should not be valid too, and still less can there be any possible objection to the 1977 Anglican Series III Ordinal.”

          Michael Davies, The Order of Melchisedech, p. 99: “As a final comment on the new Catholic ordinal, I would like to quote a passage from Apostolicae Curae and to ask any reader to demonstrate to me how the words which Pope Leo XIII wrote of Cranmer’s rite cannot be said to apply to the new Catholic Ordinal, at least where mandatory prayers are concerned.”

          Michael Davies, The Order of Melchisedech, p. 109: “… the differences between the 1968 Catholic rite and the new Anglican Ordinal are so minimal that it is hard to believe that they are not intended for the same purpose… It will be found that every imperative formula which could be interpreted as conferring any specifically sacerdotal power denied to the faithful at large has been carefully excluded from the new rite.”

          Michael Davies, The Order of Melchisedech, pp. 94-95: “When the changes [to the Rite of Ordination] are considered as a whole it seems impossible to believe that any Catholic of integrity could deny that the parallel with Cranmer’s reform [the Anglican reform] is evident and alarming. It is quite obvious that there are powerful forces within the Catholic Church and the various Protestant denominations determined to achieve a common Ordinal at all costs… The sixteenth century Protestants changed the traditional Pontificals because they rejected the Catholic doctrine of the priesthood. Archbishop Bugnini and his Consilium changed the Roman Pontifical in a manner which makes it appear that there is little or no difference between Catholic and Protestant belief, thus undermining Apostolicae Curae [of Leo XIII].”

          St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. III, Q. 60, A. 5: “… intention is essential to the sacrament, as will be explained further on. Wherefore if he intends by such addition or suppression to perform a rite other from that which is recognized by the Church, it seems that the sacrament is invalid; because he seems not to intend to do what the Church does.”

          It is also worth noting that Cranmer, in creating the invalid Anglican Rite, abolished the Subdiaconate and minor orders and replaced them with a ministry in three degrees – bishops, priests, and deacons. This is exactly what Paul VI did in changing the Catholic rites.

          The New Rite does mention that the candidates for ordination are to be elevated to the “priesthood” – but so does the invalid Anglican. The fact is that Pope Leo XIII explained in Apostolicae Curae that if an ordination rite implies the exclusion of the power to offer propitiatory sacrifices, as the New Rite does, then it is necessarily invalid, although it may express or mention the word “priest.”

          Michael Davies, The Order of Melchisedech, p. 60: “Since the Second Vatican Council, Catholic teaching on the priesthood and the Mass has been insidiously and inexorably undermined from within the Church. An endless stream of books and articles casting doubt on or openly denying the traditional teaching has appeared in every Western country, with sanctions rarely if ever taken against the authors. Some of those authors occupied and still occupy official positions in the post-conciliar body of the Church in the West. Those writings have been reflected in, and to a certain extent endorsed by, the postconciliar reform; not simply in its illegal abuses (rarely followed by sanctions) and heterodox but official translations of the new texts, but by the officially promulgated Latin texts themselves… the existence of a priesthood, distinct not simply in degree but in essence from that of the faithful, has been obscured even in the official texts.”

          Michael Davies, The Order of Melchisedech, p. 54: “Had Cranmer continued to use the Catholic rite, even his known heretical belief might not have been sufficient to invalidate his ordinations, but by introducing a rite intended to exclude the essence of the Catholic priesthood he made manifest and public his intention to do other than the Catholic Church does.”

          Dr. Francis Clark, quoted by Davies, The Order of Melchisedech, p. 35: “In the Bull Apostolicae Curae of 1896, pronouncing Anglican orders invalid, Pope Leo XIII singled out one factor as vital; on it his central argument depends. It is the ‘native character and spirit’ of the Ordinal, the anti-sacerdotal and anti-sacrificial connotation, which, he declared, the new rite acquired from the circumstances of its origin and which rendered its wording incapable of serving as a sacramental form for ordination.”

          In fact, The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments admitted that the Catholic theology of the priesthood was not made explicit in the 1968 rite. (Michael Davies, The Order of Melchisedech, p. xxii.)

          The fact is that the New Rite of Paul VI is an entirely new rite, which rejects what the Church does, by rejecting what by the institution of Christ belongs to the nature of the Sacrament [the Sacrificing Priesthood], so it is clear that the necessary intention manifested by this rite is insufficient, and even adverse to and destructive of the Sacrament of Holy Orders (Leo XIII). These facts prove that the New Rite of Ordination of Paul VI cannot be considered valid, but must be considered invalid.

          Conclusion: This means that any Confessions made of grave sins to “priests” ordained in the New Rite must be Confessed again to a validly ordained priest who was ordained in the Traditional Rite of Ordination by a Bishop Consecrated in the Traditional Rite of Episcopal Consecration. If one cannot remember which sins were confessed to New Rite “priests” and which were forgiven by a priest ordained in the Traditional Rite, then a Catholic must make a General Confession mentioning all grave sins (if there were any) that may have been confessed to a “priest” ordained in the Rite of Paul VI (the New Rite).

          Obviously, no Catholic may lawfully approach any such “priest” ordained in the New Rite of Paul VI for either “Communion” or Confession or any other Sacrament requiring a valid priesthood under pain of grave sin, since they are not valid priests.

          In fact, Pope Innocent XI, Decree of the Holy Office, March 4, 1679 (Denz. 1151), condemns the idea that Catholics can receive “probable” sacraments. In other words, even if one believed that the New Rite of Ordination is probably valid (which is clearly false, since it is clearly invalid), one is still forbidden to receive sacraments from those “ordained” in it under pain of mortal sin. Sacraments may only be received when matter and form are certainly valid.

          These facts mean that all indult Masses celebrated by “priests” ordained in the New Rite of Paul VI (1968 Rite) are invalid and cannot be attended.

          The Society of St. Pius X also occasionally has men join their Society who were “ordained” in the New Rite of Ordination, and they don’t always have them conditionally ordained. The “Masses” offered by such “priests” would be invalid, of course.

          Thus, those priests who were “ordained” in this New Rite of Paul VI who are open to the truth must be re-ordained by a validly Consecrated Bishop in the Traditional Rite.

          This also necessarily means that the Novus Ordo Missae (the New Mass), without even considering its own problems which render it invalid, is of course invalid if celebrated by any “priest” ordained in the New Rite of Ordination.

          These facts should really not be that surprising to those familiar with the Vatican II revolution. “Archbishop” Bugnini, a suspected Freemason, was the principal architect of the New Rite of Ordination; he was also the principal architect of Paul VI’s New Mass. Protestants were also consulted in the formulation of the New Rite of Ordination.

          “Fr.” Gregory Hesse has publicly attempted to defend the validity of the New Rite (he was ordained in the New Rite in 1980) by saying that it is not a Catholic rite, but a non-Catholic rite of a heretical sect (the Vatican II sect). Thus, he argues that the criteria declared by Pius XII necessary for Ordination in the Roman Rite do not apply. In conclusion on this point of ordination it is necessary to respond to this claim.

          The fact that the New Rite deliberately removes every reference to the specifically sacrificial nature of the priesthood renders it invalid by that very fact, as Leo XIII says. It is invalid because its “native character” or “spirit” is manifestly contrary to that which the Church does. This fact invalidates the rite even if the form declared by Pius XII were adhered to.

          Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13, 1896: “For this reason in the whole Ordinal not only is there no clear mention of the sacrifice, of consecration, of the sacerdotium [sacrificing priesthood], but, as we have just stated, every trace of these things, which had been in such prayers of the Catholic rite as they had not entirely rejected, was deliberately removed and struck out. In this way the native character – or spirit as it is called – of the Ordinal clearly manifests itself. Hence, if vitiated in its origin it was wholly insufficient to confer Orders, it was impossible that in the course of time it could become sufficient since no change had taken place.”

          Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13, 1896: “For, to put aside other reasons which show this to be insufficient for the purpose in the Anglican rite, let this argument suffice for all: from them has been deliberately removed whatever sets forth the dignity and office of the priesthood in the Catholic rite. That form consequently cannot be considered apt or sufficient for the sacrament which omits what it ought essentially to signify.”

          Further, if the New Rite is considered to be the Catholic Roman Rite, it is defective because it is missing the word “ut” (so that), declared by Pius XII as necessary for validity. And if it is considered a non-Catholic rite, as Gregory Hesse says, then it is invalid on the same grounds that Leo XIII mentioned with regard to the non-Catholic Anglican rite – abolishing every reference to sacrifice, etc. (as explained above). So, no matter what way one looks at the 1968 New Rite of Ordination of Paul VI, it is invalid.

          The goal and intention of this new rite is not to ordain a sacrificing priest (a true priest), but the presider of an assembly.

          The New Rite of Consecration of Bishops

          Now I will briefly discuss Paul VI’s New Rite of Consecration of Bishops. This is also a very important issue, since groups like The Fraternity of St. Peter, the Institute of Christ the King, and the Society of St. John (indult groups) ordain their men in the Traditional Rite of Ordination, but they use “Bishops” who were made “Bishops” in the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration.

          In Sacramentum Ordinis, Nov. 30, 1947, Pius XII also declared what is the essential form for the Consecration of Bishops:

          Pope Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis, Nov. 30, 1947: “But regarding the matter and form in the conferring of every order, by Our same supreme apostolic authority We decree and establish the following:… in the Episcopal ordination or consecration… the form consists of the words of the ‘Preface,’ of which the following are essential and so required for validity:

          Complete in Your Priest the fullness of Your ministry, and sanctify him, adorned (as he is) with the ornament of all glorification, with the dew of heavenly anointing. (Denzinger 2301)

          The Form in the New Rite for the Consecration of Bishops

          The form in the New Rite of Paul VI for the Consecration of Bishops is radically different from that which was declared essential for validity by Pius XII. Here it is:

          “And now pour out upon this chosen one the power that comes from You, the excellent spirit You gave Your beloved Son Jesus Christ, which He Himself gave the Holy Apostles, who built the Church in every place as Your Sanctuary for the everlasting glory and praise of His name.” (The Oratory Catechism, p. 339)

          The two forms only have one thing in common, the single word “et,” which means “and.” In the Traditional Rite, with its expression “the fullness of Your ministry” and “ornament of all glorification,” the purpose of Consecration is clearly defined since both can refer only to the bishop. In the new rite, an unambiguous description of the effect of Episcopal Consecration is missing.

          In the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration, basically every reference to the specifically Catholic understanding of the Episcopate has been deleted, just like in the New Rite of Ordination. In fact, there is not one unambiguous statement about the intended sacramental effect of Episcopal Consecration that can be found.

          In the Traditional Rite of Consecration, the Consecrator instructs the bishop elect in the following terms:

          “A bishop judges, interprets, consecrates, ordains, offers, baptizes and confirms.”

          This has been abolished.

          In the Traditional Rite, the Bishop-to-be is asked to confirm his belief in each and every article of the Creed.

          This has been abolished.

          In the Traditional Rite, the Bishop-to-be is asked if he will “anathematize every heresy that shall arise against the Holy Catholic Church.”

          This has been abolished. The deletion of this requirement to anathematize heresy is significant, for this is indeed one of the functions of a Bishop.

          In the Traditional Rite, after the consecratory prayer, the functions of a Bishop are once again specified in these words:

          “Give him, O Lord, the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven… Whatsoever he shall bind upon earth, let it be bound likewise in Heaven, and whatsoever he shall loose upon earth, let it likewise be loosed in Heaven. Whose sins he shall retain, let them be retained, and do Thou remit the sins of whomsoever he shall remit… Grant him, O Lord, an Episcopal chair…”

          This entire prayer has been abolished in the New Rite.

          Conclusion: Paul VI’s New Rite of Episcopal Consecration has a radically different form than what Pius XII declared was necessary for validity. Further, other references to the specifically Catholic understanding of the Episcopate, such as that the Bishop is empowered to ordain, were deliberately abolished. The words of Leo XIII against Anglican Orders again prove relevant.

          Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13, 1896: “When anyone has rightly and seriously made use of the due form and the matter requisite for effecting or conferring the sacrament he is considered by that very fact to do what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed. On the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church, and of rejecting what the Church does, and what by the institution of Christ belongs to the nature of the sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the sacrament.”

          Thus, the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration cannot be considered valid. All “priests” ordained by such “Bishops” consecrated in this Rite, even if the Traditional Rite of Ordination was used, such as with most of the Fraternity of St. Peter priests, Institute of Christ the King priests, etc. cannot be considered valid priests.

          These facts also show that the Novus Ordo Missae (the New Mass), besides its own inherent problem of a changed form of consecration, is not valid when offered by such a “priest” or “Bishop.”

          Objection – But Paul VI approved these New Rites; therefore, I accept them because he was the Pope.

          Answer – It is not within the scope of this article to show why Paul VI was definitely not the Pope, but a Satanic infiltrator who tried to change every aspect of the Church that he possibly could. I refer you to our video Vatican II: Council of Apostasy and the articles on our website to prove this assertion. But it should be noted that if one accepts as valid and sure his New Sacraments just because Paul VI approved them, then one must also accept as valid and without blemish the documents of Vatican II, since Paul VI approved Vatican II and the New Rites by the same degree of authority. But it is a fact that most traditional Catholics would have grave problems with Vatican II (since Vatican II contains clear heresies), so they must logically admit that Paul VI’s approval of the New Sacramental Rites could also be fatally defective. Further, if one argues that the New Rite of Ordination or Episcopal Consecration is valid just because one of the conciliar “popes” approved it, then, in order to be consistent, one must also accept the New Catechism (promulgated by John Paul II with equal authority) as valid and sure in teaching the Faith.

          But if all of those other things contain denials of the Faith (as they clearly do), then the New Rites of Ordination of Paul VI also are not sure and could be invalid – as, in fact, they are. The changes to the Rites of Ordination and Episcopal Consecration followed precisely the pattern of the Anglican Reformers: a deliberate attempt to remove the specific Catholic understanding of these things from the rites. No sincere person can deny this. The rites are therefore invalid on the same grounds.

          The truth is that Paul VI was not the Pope, but a non-Catholic Antipope, as our material proves. Only those who obstinately blind themselves to the truth can fail to see what is going on here – an enemy of the Catholic Church in Antipope Paul VI who tried to destroy the sacraments, the Faith and the holy priesthood; who changed the rites to all 7 seven sacraments; abolished the Oath Against Modernism; abolished the Profession of Faith of the Council of Trent; abolished the Index of Forbidden Books, etc., etc., etc. Frankly, only a foolish person would unfailingly accept his New Rites of Ordination and Consecration when we consider the man, what he believed, the dubious nature of his “election,” and how, among other things, he was publicly and repeatedly seen clothed in the vestment of a Jewish high priest and Freemason (see picture of Paul VI wearing Jewish rationale on our website).

          The fruits of Paul VI’s new Vatican II “priesthood” are clear for all to see – mind-bogglingly sick and bad, because his New Rites of Ordination and Consecration are simply not valid, just like Vatican II is fraught with heresy and was an invalid robbers’ council filled with denials of the Catholic Faith.

          http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com

          • hunter says:

            As an active practicing Catholic, I read the above and just walk away slowly, shaking my head in sadness.
            And I think an apologyis owed from those who hijacked his thread on the mild hurricane season we are experiencing and derailed it into a bunch of apocalyptic claptrap.

  1. Patrick says:

    Got to your web site from Drudge and I must say it’s refreshing to see that someone KNOWS that global warming is not man’s fault.
    It says “former” NASA scientist, is this why you don’t spew the same old pay Al Gore money and the world will be saved crap? Anyway I like your site and will be back to see what else you have to say.

    Pat

    • gary says:

      Pat:

      If 99% of the world’s doctors told you that you had cancer and needed treatment, would you listen to them, or just trust the 1% that say ‘wait and see’, and resort to paranoia that the 99% just want some of your money?

      If you took your car to 10 mechanics who all said that your car needed a new engine or it could fail catastrophically, but one mechanic didn’t, would you just assume that 9 out of 10 mechanics just want your money?

      Would you consider your own (uneducated) opinion as valid as a medical doctor? Or a mechanic? Or a dentist? Or a home inspector? Or a home security specialist? Or would you trust them for professional advice, realizing that they all spent YEARS in college to become experts?

      Your notion that 99% of climate scientists can’t be trusted ‘because they are looking to make a buck, like Al Gore’ is… flawed and downright bizarre. Do you understand how implausible your suspicion is? It has no basis in a normal person’s reality; it is based entirely on paranoia, distrust and misinformation.

      If this distrust and paranoia aren’t the norm in your dealings with all of those other examples I’ve listed, why are you denying the professional scientific consensus on something that has nothing whatsoever to do with you?

      • Danno says:

        How old are you- 15?
        A Doctor uses test and scans to verify Cancer…
        A car mechanic uses diagnostic testing equipment and are able to detect faulty parts that are designed to fail eventually.
        A Dentist uses x-ray technology to determine the problem.
        Al Gore figured out a way to scheme hundreds of millions of dollars into his bank account, all the flying around in his private jet…good for him-
        PLAUSIBLE? How dare you utter plausible in the context of global warming.
        Look no further than the manipulated data of Mann’s BS Hockey stick- the falsified Temp data from East Anglia Univ. and its subsequent defective modeling. And do ignore the ice core samples that prove the Earth has been WARMER during the last Millennia- with apparently no man made assistance.
        Your global science are LIES and just as corrupt as the U.N. controlled IPCC thugs who squash any SCIENTIFIC DISSENT that becomes public.
        You are a know nothing pawn of these disgraceful “Consensus Scientists”

        • Greg Budell says:

          Excellent points. Starting with Weather Channel founder John Coleman, many meteorologists find these dire predictions laughable- when they can’t say with 100% certainty at 12 Noon if it will rain by 6PM the same day.
          I lived in Miami in the 80s when these same panic-mongers told us the beach would move inland to US1 because of GW. The beach remains where it was then. I am convinced there are some people who aren’t happy unless Armageddon is imminent. By the way alarmists- that volcano simmering under Iceland will spew more debris in the air in 4 days than all the CO2 saved with your fascist green programs. We pollute the atmosphere with the money we send up in smoke on Solyndra and other O-scams.

      • Brian says:

        Gary,

        Please cite your 99% primary source. It’s really boring when you people blather on with your political talking points. But seriously, please give your source so we can all have a good laugh.

        BTW, nice point by Danno. Doctors, mechanics, dentists, etc. all make decisions based on facts, empirical data, and experienced judgement. Not based on which agency is going to give them more money to come up with more propaganda.

        If climate scientists were held to the same standard as mechanics? We wouldn’t even be having this discussion.

        Brian

        • Phil Bickel says:

          The 99% is a lie that has been repeated oft enough it can no longer be sourced, and hence is now the accepted truth.

        • Scott Scarborough says:

          I don’t care who they are, doctors, dentists, mechanics, or climate scientists. If I caught them talking about my “case” like the climate scientists were caught in climategate I would NEVER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES LISTEN TO ANYTHING THEY EVER SAID AGAIN … PERIOD!

      • Ray says:

        If have repeatedly asked so-called climate scientists to explain how the keys could have been under about 60 feet of water two hundred thousand years ago when there was little or no man made CO2 and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were demonstrably lower than today. In the alternative explain how we caused global warming on Mars. Dr. Dirac told me many years ago that megalomania is rampant in the scientific community. They want the grants but more importantly they want the recognition.

        • Phil Bickel says:

          There was also something called the mid continental sea where the Mississippi valley is now. Which group of civilized men or apes caused that sea level rise?

      • Curt says:

        Theory of evolution is..,a THEORY.
        Something based on computer models is an hypothesis.
        To say it is real is not science. It is chicanery or a scheme. Probably a scheme by those who brought you nuclear freeze movement, global cooling in the 1970s, environmental disaster (pick one), which is, at base, global redistribution of wealth. And that redistribution includes those who create a market in carbon emission offsets. Oh, by the way, why is it always “carbon”, because “carbon” sounds more dastardly than carbon dioxide? CO2 is what plants “eat” to create oxygen. I love the way you guys scare people with euristics.

        Curt

      • JohnFLob says:

        You are a good and loyal little soldier in the Army of Gullible Warriors (AGW). Okay, 98% of the team members MANUFACTURING the data for the latest IPCC report agree with each other. It is not unexpected that a team’s members will support and defend each other.

        What explanation(s) do those 98% have for the failure of their doomsday prognostications to be manifested by real world data. Their deflective trick of saying “so what that it has not happened but sometime in the future it might” is becoming more humorous as time passes. Just keep pushing the target date(s) for Armageddon further and further into the future. Did ALL Gore mean 2113, 2213, 2313, 2413, or perhaps even 2513 that the Arctic would be ice free?

      • JohnFLob says:

        Gary:
        Maybe this link will help CO2 truths

      • Phil Bickel says:

        The 99% is a made up statistic. 99% believe that man has altered his environment and that it may or may not be changing the long term client to some degree. I think that is the correct and logical stance. Alarmist on the other hand are either after government money, or are afraid to challenge the prevailing idea for fear of being ostracized, which is happening. By the way Galileo and Darwin were 1%ers too!

      • Ray says:

        Gary,
        I am educated in meteorology. Global climate change is happening, but is not the result of man. Take the fear tactics somewhere else.

      • Mike Smith says:

        I just love how it is now 99% of scientists. The original 96% was a fabricated number and has been disproved but the percentage keeps going up. With the intimidation of scientists that challenge GW it is no wonder that many are afraid to come forward. The rest are bought off with billions of dollars of research money.

      • ATM says:

        Your narative that 99% of climate scientists agree on AGW was debunked long ago. That anyone continues with that line of fraud is laughable. You are either a fraud or simply ignorant and as such should be ridiculed.

        • Cheek plus tongue says:

          You are all wrong. 110% of scientists and people who claim to have met a scientist believe in global warming. Get your statistics right.

      • Avid Flyer says:

        Funny how they came up with the green environmental crap back in 1965, it was a way to kill the U.S. military Complex, Read Iron Mountain Document, you can google it if you want to read it. If not all I can say is your either blind or don’t want to see the truth. I was a Mechanic Now retired but still dabble in it to keep up with technology so what I say comes from experience in the Industry since 1960 to present and here is what I say about global warming and those pushing the agenda. First I want to say that in the 70′s we started cleaning up out pollution, indeed they did spew out gas’s that we didn’t know of, the first attempt to clean up emissions was in 1973 when the came up with the PCV valve by the late 70′s they had added more technology to clean up cars but were not good at it till the mid 80′s when they had cars that had very little pollution and in mid 90′s they got the emissions down so low that the machines could no longer detect carbon in the exhaust stream, in fact if you had ever been to a shop back in the 90;s you would have not seen a gas analyzer because the emissions were so low that it could not detect anything under parts per billion. Todays technology is far better than it’s ever been. I can also show you how that not just one scientist but many fudged the figures I will put them here so that you can read it but hope you read then with an open mind. BTW I believe that we need to be good stewards of the earth but don’t believe that the EPA should be able to fine you for polluting without you being able to go to court and garnish your wages also without being able to defend yourself in court. To me that’s way to much power by one government agency, they can now make laws without congress and that’s wrong. anyway here are some more sites to look at if you really interested, BTW why do you attack someone? Name calling just proves you have been brain washed and won’t think for yourself.
        http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/spectacularly-poor-climate-science-at-nasa/ and read there are many sites you can visit from there. Have a good day and Open your eyes.

      • dwh says:

        Your 99% is way off and getting smaller with each passing day.
        The 99% use intimidation and name calling but they don’t use science and statistics!

      • BobCinGA says:

        Without even knowing you Pat, I think I will not be too far out on a limb in saying:

        1. I am closer to being a scientist than you.
        2. I am better educated than you (especially in the sciences)
        3. You are a koolaid guzzling lib who has not a clue about the 99% lie you are parroting like a good little robot.

        Man-made global warming is a proven hoax and a lie. Those with pecuniary interest have been caught bending the data to fit their needs.

        Progressive idiots who continue to spew the lie are just communist traitors to this once great nation!

      • If all those doctors and mechanics and home inspectors made up their own versions of the laws of medicine and physics, you bet your boots I would not listen to any of them. If they only used selected data that supported their contentions instead of all the data, I would not listen to them. If they told me theories based on the situation twenty years ago, and in the interim, all their predictions were proved wrong, I would not listen to them no matter how many of them joined the lemming march to the edge of the cliff.

      • hunter says:

        If someone is caught fibbing time and time again and relying on fallacious arguments from authority, you are darn tootin’ I am giong to be skeptical. And if someone is predicting any sort of apocalypse, climate, religious, or etc. I am extra skeptical.

  2. Vexorg the Destroyer says:

    I was thinking more of Galveston than New Orleans. We need the rain in Southeast Texas, but not necessarily a hurricane.

  3. Nys Parkie says:

    This time do it right. Leave nothing standing…

    • Greg Locke says:

      Wow. What’s wrong with your life that you want the homes of a million of your fellow citizens to be destroyed. Pretty sick stuff.

      • Myhr Kheen says:

        He only wants a million ? I want an asteroid strike.Now go and pay your taxes so a few million more brown people can get added to the kill list for their natural reso…..I mean to be delivered freedumb, merkin style. Thanks for your assistance.

    • CFGal says:

      You mean in Jersey/Northeast again? How about send all the hurricanes to California – I wish!

  4. Scotty Gunn says:

    Awesome. Imagine a Katrina crisis under “do nothing” Obama?

  5. Patrick says:

    Um….the GFS is prone to blow up hurricanes after 7 days due to the climatic influences needed to keep it from blowing up. The 6Z run had it over Houston, TZ and European doesn’t spin anything up. Still way too early to tell.

  6. Terwilliger says:

    Good to see Obama finally figured out Bush’s hurricane generation machine and got it running again. Rumor has it that when the Bush Administration left Washington they took the instruction manual with them. This caused Obama to accidentally send Hurricane Sandy to New York instead of the Gulf Coast as planned. Obama hasn’t touched it presumably until now, resulting in the remarkably calm hurricane seasons we’ve been experiencing.

  7. Mike says:

    New Orleans is a catcher in the game of hurricane….

  8. olecap says:

    Fuck you idiots…

  9. bloweasy says:

    Let’s see if the current N.O. mayor will have the sense to get the government funded whiners out of the city.

  10. mad*men says:

    9 years to the day? Must be God’s way of honoring the Saints and drew brees (#9).

  11. john says:

    W was crucified in the media for not landing in the cesspool called New Orleans. This go-around the POTUS will have the helicopter pilot land so that he can have a photo op on the ground. That would have kept everyone alive last time, right?

    • The Bruce says:

      Obama’s going to land at ground zero and attempt to keep one of his campaign promises: lowering ocean levels.

      Sounds like a good time for a tidal wave.

  12. Ricky says:

    A hurricane did not hit New Orleans nine years ago. A hurricane hit the Mississippi Gulf Coast nine years ago and New Orleans was flooded due to levies that were not build correctly.

  13. Bill Martin says:

    No matter what kind of hurricane season it happens to be, there will ALWAYS be a hurricane threatening over Labor Day weekend!

  14. Paul says:

    The people of NOLA are some of the kindness, most giving people in the US and we all appreciated the help after Katrina.
    To wish this on us, again, or any city, shows those of you to be nothing but helpless, foolish humans. Nonetheless, I don’t wish ill on you. That’s just how we are!

    • Paul says:

      Meant to type ‘kindest’ not kindness. Guess some will make fun of that as well.

      • Hugh G Rexshun says:

        I visit NOLA twice a year. Love the people and place! No one is wishing a hurricane to land anywhere (unless they’re nuts-and I ignore them).
        But I will ridicule forever the inept elected officials there who caused the deaths of dozens and got away with it through media manipulation.
        Love,

    • The Bruce says:

      I wouldn’t wish a hurrican on anyone. I just hope to God the people running your state used the money they received back then to build up those levies instead of funneling it out for pet projects as they had done for over a decade leading up to Katrina.

    • hunter says:

      Well said. May this possible storm remain only a potential, never fulfilled.

  15. liz48 says:

    Wasn’t there a hurricane to the day 7 years after Katrina called Issac? It messed up some gay parade or festival that was to be held in N.O. We wondered about the name “Issac” meaning laughter in Hebrew, as though it was a reminder of being Holy and a warning…

  16. ManBearPig says:

    Good, maybe this hurricane will flush the rest of the crap out of New Orleans.

  17. carlb says:

    saw a helsinki newspaper report on drudge about the sun going from a 100 year warming to a new cooling phase. when i tried to link back it had been removed. it looks like the chicken little people running the fraud are removing other people findings! the last 40 years of this scam are coming to a end. but if i was you i would be buying a few thick parks as the warming continues! lol

  18. ossqss says:

    Doc, perhaps this may help with remedial training for some posting.

    Pay attention to #1 folks. Gheeze!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_nEKwju8rI

  19. Brian says:

    Uncouple the “science” of global warming from grant money, from political agendas and from the phenomenon of economic opportunism, and it will simply go away.

  20. Frank K. says:

    Roy,

    This is also the 45th anniversary of hurricane Camille (1969). I submit that Camille was much worse than Katrina, yet Katrina gets all the press.

    http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/45-years-later-remembering-hur-1/32461820

    “Camille is one of only three known hurricanes to make landfall in the U.S. as a Category 5 storm; Camille killed 259 people and caused nearly $9.2 billion (2014 USD) in damages.”

    • De Coop says:

      I was there for both. Actually in the same apartment. Katrina much, much worse. Water just seeped under door and got about three feet of carpet wet with Camille. Katrina I had five feet, six inches of water throughout apartment. Everything ruined and lost.

      • The water in your apartment was due to political corruption, not a hurricane.

        • De Coop says:

          Respectful of your assumption, I was not in New Orleans. It was in Gulfport, MS, apartment on lot 22 feet above sea level. And probably never again for me as I now live in Milton Florida on a lot about 66 feet above sea level.
          Mission accomplished, bring it on! :)

  21. Jake Steele says:

    Global warming is a hoax being lied to us by liberals. In the 1970′s they also said we were headed for an “Ice Age”, and backed in all kinds of bogus science too. (still waiting on the snow to start)…

    Fear is what they will use to keep you in line.. Do not believe the liberals lies…

  22. AK says:

    Man. The gulf coast is screwed. Obama has a tee time that day.

  23. John Stevens says:

    We all konw that computer modeling is never right, especially this far out. Don’t bother taking any prediction seriously until 3 to 4 days out.

  24. Sodor The Annunaki says:

    I see a large microwave antenna sitting on a platform run by DARPA in the Gulf of Mexico aimed at New Orleans. It’s heating the ocean and air and pretty soon you will have a monster of a storm like Sandy, tsunamis in the Pacific coasts, and Katrina. Isn’t our government and our private military evil, doing the deeds of Al Gore and the Swiss Templar.

  25. Joe says:

    If they’re predicting NOLA now, there’s no way that’s where it will hit. Early predictions for gulf coast storms are always wrong.

    I’ll bet it goes up the east coast mever making landfall.

  26. Mitchell Ivey says:

    I don’t doubt the Earth is warming. How much of it is natural and how much is related to our activities is in doubt. The fact the models every one cites are no where near accurate should be enough to disqualify them, but they are not. The 98% cited is from a survey of articles published that mention he earth warming. there were around 3000 articles I believe. I might be off on that number but I think it is close. Out of those they threw out any article that did not cite a cause for the warming. In the remaining articles, which I believe numbered around 335 or so, 98% of those declared man as the reason. So it reality the articles were cherry picked as is much of the data the AGW crowd cite. Remember they declared 2011 the hottest year ever, then had to go back when someone pointed out that a year in the 30′s was not only hotter, but way hotter.
    People cite the glacial retreat as signs of GW. When they examine the land the glaciers had uncovered they find remnants of prehistorical villages. That means that glacier has retreated before. My overall reason for doubting the “science,” is the money trail. Follow the money. If people are profiting off this “crisis,” then my skepticism is on full alert.
    I do believe we can be more conservation oriented and fully believe we should be developing new and better energy sources. The Earth nears its carrying capacity and we are going to have to makes some changes in order to advance.

  27. Kyle says:

    Check out the record low temperatures this year and blame it on global warming.

  28. Massey Ferguson says:

    On Jan.27,2006 Al Gore said the world will be cooked in 10 years. On that day Rush Limbaugh started the Al Gore Doomsday clock and posted it on his website. It is still there and I check it occasionally to see how we are doing. As of today we have 1 year, 159 days and 23 minutes until we are all cooked. Wow, I’m starting to get really scared! Aren’t you?

  29. Wallace Fard says:

    Just curious, Roy: does the “Ph. D” asserted in your title stand for “Posthole Digger”??? Surely anyone with an advanced degree would have enough respect not to engage in alarmist speculation on a sensitive subject with such dire ramifications on public safety and the economy. As a New Orleanian with a Doctorate myself, I say to you with all due respect “Go f____ yourself” (see what I did there? you are due absolutely no respect whatsoever, so I wrote something wholly disrespectful).

    • Mitchell Ivey says:

      Except he wasn’t engaged in alarmist speculation, he said the models forecast it, but being so far out, it could go anywhere. The post was more about the timing than creating alarm. He even says if it develops. there is no guarantee it will. You just read the headline didn’t you? That is the only explanation for your post. You are one of those smart people that like to complain about anything and everything aren’t you?

    • hunter says:

      Like manners and class, reading comprehension is not one of your strong suits either.

      • Wallace Fard says:

        The headline was no accident. Shameful effort to whore clicks for his blog. You want manners, show some yourself. “Class” is the place where you learn these things, butt-hunter …

  30. Martin says:

    I just hope this time around if there is indeed a hurricane headed their way, the people actually head the news weather forecast warnings and get out of the affected areas.

    I was so shocked when i watched a documentary on hurricane katrina and saw people partying the night before the hurricane was to strike.

    And those people that decided to stay in their houses and ‘stick it out’. Are you kidding me? Nature in its most dangerous form should never be underestimated or mocked.

    It was sad though that many people simply couldn’t leave New Orleans because they didnt have a car.

    I felt especially sorry for all the people that were stranded inside the stadium.

    I just wonder what would happen if a hurricane it New Orleans again, or anywhere else for that matter.

    • Mike says:

      If watch the documentaries, you would know about the hundreds of city vehicles that could have been used to bus folks out of harms way.

      Then again, Al and Jesse would have probably hollered about bussing colored folks.

    • Scrap Iron in Texas says:

      I am reading a new book by alternate history writed Harry Turtledove entitled Supervolcano.
      The book tell the story of the world just before, and the for years after, Yellowstone blows.
      Yellowstone IS a supervolcano that is due to erupt>
      It might ne in the next 100 years.
      Or it might blow next spring.
      We don’t know, but we will have a few months of warning, if we care to see the signs.

      And the world we be a lot tougher to live in when it sends up to 00 cubic MILES of ejecta into the atmosphere.
      I’m not going to worry about a couple degrees change in a century. Volcanoes and metoers/comets will cause way more damage, and a lot quicker, that this “global warming/ climate change” garbage will EVER do.

  31. It has been a very slow hurricane season and I’m hoping this one does not happen either.

  32. Mike says:

    Now would be a good time for store owners to hire moving vans to get all their inventory out of town and put plate metal over all the openings. They have plenty of warning.

    And you black folks, there will be a rehearsal for the George Bush Don’t Like Colored People second line at your favorite meeting hall later tonight

  33. Mark says:

    NAVGEM (Formally NOGAPS) has this curving to the right and riding North along the East Coast of the US.

  34. Bob Kranz says:

    Thanks for the heads up, puttimg up shutters as a precaution.
    Keep us updated.

  35. Roses4bren says:

    9 years after Katrina…? How about only 2 years since Hurricane Isaac hit Louisiana…flooded thousands of homes. Hate to even think about another hurricane.

  36. robert woods says:

    Looks like 96L isn’t going to make it into the gulf according to the latest models.

    It appears that the folks in Washington picked the wrong year to try to frighten us with speeches about more frequent and stronger hurricanes coming because of global warming. I know we still have September left, but it looks like the prediction of a mild season is coming to pass.

    Robert

    Houston, Tx
    Still no state income tax!

  37. Lonnie says:

    I’m pretty sure the National Hurricane Center directed the statement below directly at Dr. Spencer and this page’s 9-day forecast model fear-mongering…

    Now that we have entered the heart of the hurricane season, there is an increase in the Internet hype around disturbances that NHC is monitoring. Given the long lead times involved, the wide range of possible outcomes, and the historically poor and erratic performance of guidance models with weak disturbances, there is no reliable science to forecast potential impacts to specific locations that would be more than a week away.
    Nearly every disturbance poses some potential to become a dangerous hurricane. Folks in hurricane-prone areas should always be keeping an eye on the tropics and be prepared to respond when a true threat develops, but also remember the limitations in the science. NHC’s forecasts of tropical cyclone formation and track extend out only to 5 days – because the science hasn’t advanced enough to reliably forecast beyond that time frame. (We’re working on internal forecasts out to 7 days, but we’re a ways away from feeling comfortable making them public because the errors can be quite large.)
    The bottom line really is: be alert, be prepared, but also be wary of long-range projections that go beyond what the science can offer.

  38. chazz says:

    Mississippi gulf Coast had a hurricane name katrina…new Orleans had tropical winds with a levy breach did their damage!

  39. That is a really good tip especially to those new
    to the blogosphere. Short but very precise info_ Appreciate
    your sharing this one. A must read post!