+St. Edward, King of England+
In the past, there’s been some objections to the designation by the Church of certain suppositions as not safe for belief, and this would include the recent topic we discussed in our last blog concerning the Millennium. The designation for that error as not safe appears to indicate that there will be some time of peace between the death of Antichrist and the Second Coming, as certain private prophecies and Scripture commentators predict. Below we see how the Church classified “not safe for belief,” and what that classification means.
“When an opinion which at one time the Church declared could not be safely taught is later established by new arguments, it can be accepted by Catholics without any implication that the doctrine of the Church has changed. There is no inconsistency in holding that a view which at one time could not be reasonably maintained because the arguments were insufficient can later be demonstrated by virtue of new proofs” (Rev. Francis J. Connell, “Does Catholic Doctrine Change?,” American Ecclesiastical Review, Nov., 1947).
What Rev. Connell says above is dependent on the assumption that there would be canonically elected popes to determine such things. And as we know, there is no possibility now that we will have another pope, nor as with other decisions of this nature, can he answer the question on whether it could still be speculated upon by approved theologians, who all disappeared with the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958. Pope Pius XII’s papal election constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis is written ins such a way that that no other conclusion is actually rational. If you accept the vicar of Christ as God’s mouthpiece, then you must accept the fact that certain things cannot be done during an interregnum, and that if they are done despite what he legislates, that they are null, void and invalid. Obedience allows us no other choice.
We either believe that the Pope speaks with Christ’s voice or we don’t. It is either true or it is not true. If we don’t accept it, then I don’t see how anybody not accepting it can be members of the Catholic Church because it’s a tenet for belief. What probably needs to be done here is to track down why Catholics believe so strongly there would be an era of peace in the first place. And I think this can be laid up mainly to the Fatima apparition and messages given to the children. It’s appropriate that we mention that today since October 13 is the anniversary of the Miracle of the Sun. Now I have explained in other articles on my site that I believe that there are some major, major problems with Fatima. And I say this with very good reason, having thoroughly researched it and prayed about it for a long time.
But I do believe Our Lady appeared there. I do believe that she told Sr. Lucia certain things, maybe up to the 1930s, in addition to those secrets given to the three children, and that she reported accurately her vison of the Trinity at Tuy. But there was a concerted effort, which can be proven and shown to be true, to totally use Fatima as a vehicle to steer the faithful to ecumenism. This was explained at length in The Phantom Church in Rome. The first thing I’d like to mention as far as that demonstration is the fact that in one of the messages related to us by Father Goncalves, Our Lady told Lucia that when Lucia was praying to Our Lady, Our Lady told Lucia that the Pope would consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, but it would be late. And that’s what was reported for many, the sentence structure seemed off. I know tthat sounds funny, but even when I was not all that into researching things, it just seemed strange that it would be put that way.
Pius XI fails to consecrate Russia
And then some more recent Novus Ordo writers came out and said, no, no, it translates as “too late.” Now I’m not sufficiently familiar with the Portuguese language to say with any certainty whether that’s valid or not, but it makes a lot more sense to me than late. And it’s borne out by the fact that at the time Our Lady appeared to the children, the Russian Revolution hadn’t even broken out yet, not until November of 1917. Now, if you look at this from that point of view, and the fact that Pius XI is specifically mentioned in one of the secrets, I think it’s quite clear that what Our Lady was asking Pius XI to do was consecrate Russia to her Immaculate Heart before things got out of hand and communism was established in that country. So why didn’t he do it? Perhaps his advisors were ill-informed, he was preoccupied with other matters, or his prayers on the subject indicated otherwise. There’s just no way of knowing why it wasn’t done when Our Lady asked for it to be done.
But I think the consequences are pretty clear. The consequences show us that communism prevailed. Russia did spread her errors, and that’s what Our Lady predicted if the consecration was not made. She told the children on July 13, 1917: “IF My requests are heeded, Russia will be converted and there will be peace; if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions against the Church. The good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, various nations will be annihilated. In the end my Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me, which will be converted, and a time of peace will be given to the world.” There again, everything makes sense today if you end this message of Our Lady with the word “triumph.” for Our Lady would triumph when Christ comes to cast the false prophet and Antichrist into Hell, and perhaps she will manifest herself in some way at this time.
But the last two sentences on July 13 appear to contradict everything that is said prior to that. Why would she say a certain period of peace would be granted despite the fact that the consecration wasn’t done and Russia spread her errors? It makes sense that if it wasn’t done the way she asked it to be done, there wouldn’t be a peace because the very fact that Russia spread her errors and World War II commenced was punishment for Pius XI not consecrating Russia to her as she requested and not enough of the faithful saying the Rosary and making their First Saturdays. Maybe the peace she was referring to was a false peace? I would doubt that, but there was a certain period of peace between the end of World War II and the death of Pope Pius XII. Not very long, but then the enemy’s plans were already well underway.
Questions about the secrets
In the article The Fatima Controversy on this site, we read: “Many events reported in Frere Michel’s work, (The Whole Truth About Fatima), when linked to other events, seem to point to the fact that Pope Pius XII had serious doubts about Fatima following 1952. These doubts seem to have surfaced, several appear to agree, during the poisoning of Pope Pius XII as related by his own physician in August 1952. These deep reservations seem to have been more or less confirmed over a two-year period (1952-54); perhaps discoveries made about the true state of affairs in the Holy Office once Montini was no longer pro-secretary of state?). In 1952, after issuing the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary on July 7, Pope Pius XII reportedly commissioned the Austrian Jesuit Schweigl to present 31 questions regarding the conversion of Russia to Sr. Lucia, who possibly by that time was deceased. Was Pius XII perhaps suspicious that Russia was not the true focus of the apparition? Was it possible he even suspected she was no longer alive? Schweigl later revealed his previously undisclosed mission to the Vatican 2 council fathers (according to Frere Michel). He also told them that “…in 1952, the Archbishop of Coimbra demanded that the replies given by Sister Lucia not be published without authorization of the Holy Office.” And that authorization was never given.
In late August of 1952, shortly after sending Schweigl to speak to Sr. Lucia, while Montini was still acting as Pope Pius XII’s pro-secretary of state in the Vatican, Frere Michel reports that Pope Pius XII fell gravely ill, according to his physician Galeazzi-Lisi. According to Frere Michel and one account online, Galeazzi-Lisi attributed the illness to “chromic acid poisoning” caused by the pope’s toothpaste. This report came from John-Peter Pham, an American priest who served in the Vatican diplomatic service. What Galeazzi-Lisi failed to mention is that he had referred Pius XII to the dentist who prescribed the chromic acid treatments. The pope’s gastritis returned the following year and on the advice of Galeazzi-Lisi, the pope received unorthodox treatments for the condition, according to Pham. Pius XII received these same treatments again in January of 1954 when he became gravely ill with gastritis and a diaphragmatic hernia.
According to William E. Barrett’s biography of Paul 6, Shepherd of Mankind, shortly after the death of the former Archbishop of Milan in August of 1954, Pius XII told Montini he would be appointed to the empty see. The official announcement of his appointment was not made, however, until November of 1954.
Barrett also confirms the pope had suffered quietly from his stomach condition for some time before it worsened in January of 1954. During the time span of Pope Pius XII’s illness, August of 1952 to December of 1954, the pope had learned many disturbing things about Montini. It was shortly before his illness worsened that Pope Pius XII discovered Montini’s true role as a U.S. agent, working first with the OSS and later the CIA. Ill or not, the pope took action. Following the additional discovery that Montini was actively cooperating with the Communists, had failed to inform him of a schism in China, and that some of the information he had leaked to the Soviets resulted in the assassination of bishops and priests sent secretly into Russia, he informed Montini of his dismissal as pro-secretary of State. And perhaps, following his dismissal, and Pius XII’s eventual recovery from the poisoning he suffered, he began to discover certain connections regarding Fatima and Montini’s activities that also alarmed him.
Fatima as a political vehicle
Frere Michel asks in his work: “Why did the Holy Office, in 1956-1957, suddenly demand the manuscript of the third Secret when it was no longer offered to it, and had refused the manuscript in 1944? Bishop da Silva had permission to read the Secret, but …he stubbornly refused to open it. They knew that after him, it would fall to the Patriarch of Lisbon to open it and divulge it to the world in 1960, or upon the death of Sister Lucy prior to 1960. Perhaps they feared that the seer would grant the future Bishop of Leiria, Msgr. Venancio, permission to read it. In short, one could be certain that if the Secret remained in Portugal, it would certainly be revealed to the world in 1960.” Frere Michel then goes on to speculate that forces suspicious of the Fatima Secret did not wish it to be left in the hands of the Portuguese hierarchy who might certainly release it, whether it was providential to do so or not. And he concludes that the Holy Office wished to reserve that decision to itself.
“To provide an excuse, they requested a photocopy of all writings of Sister Lucy. Yet, it was clear that only one thing really mattered: transferring the original text of the Secret from Leiria to Rome, to snatch it from the hands of its future recipient, Cardinal Cerejeira” (Ibid.). The delivery of the photocopies of Sr. Lucy’s writings and the Third Secret to the Vatican is seen by Frere Michel to be a sort of hostile takeover, to prevent Cerejeira from releasing the secret. But the corruption of the Fatima Secrets and their message may well have begun under the very cleric primarily responsible for promoting the American Proposition heresy of John Courtney Murray, Felix Morlion. Morlion was great friends not only with Murray, but with Roncalli, Maritain and Montini. Morlion’s propaganda program, the Apostolate of Public Opinion, was set up in Lisbon with the help and blessing of Cerejeira. It was the perfect vehicle for moving Americans to support the Cold War and the anti-communist campaign carefully engineered to promote democracy. It is no wonder that the CIA funded Fatima prayer campaigns. It is interesting to note that Montini was the first to promote the false version of the Fatima prayer, “lead all souls to heaven.” The true and original prayer was “assist the poor souls in Purgatory especially the most abandoned,” and it was given a 100 days indulgence.
Pope Pius IX and La Salette
Fatima would not be the first secret to be co-opted by enemy forces. Many modern-day prophecies have been shamelessly falsified or corrupted in some way. There are parts of the 1846 La Salette secret that were completely manipulated by Melanie Calvat’s confessor and are so misconstrued that it really did not reflect what Our Lady told Melanie and Maximin. That being said, I also think that some of the real truths of what was said in the La Salette secret shine through quite clearly. I say this because there was a separate secret that the children were asked to write out and hand to Pope Pius IX. Given what the pope said after reading that, I don’t think that there can be much doubt that Pius IX believed what Our Lady told Melanie to be true and obeyed her requests. This is recorded in one volume that I have here on the Secret and the apparition of La Salette, (Mary Fabyan Windeatt, The Children of La Salette, 1951). After reading it, Pope Pius IX was asked what it said, and he just quoted from Holy Scripture: that if we don’t do penance, we shall all perish. So, I think it’s pretty clear. He certainly didn’t discount it; he understood and took to heart what was said. Had Pope Pius XI followed the example of his predecessor I might not be writing this today.
Windeatt related in her work that Melanie asked how to spell ‘infallibility’ and ‘Antichrist,’ also the word ‘defiled.’ Having asked those particular questions, and then later Pope Pius IX convening the Vatican Council in 1869, I think it’s pretty telling that obviously there was some other secret that was to be relayed only to the pope, and that whatever that secret was, he took it most seriously. The council legislated that the pope has supreme power and authority over everyone, even all the bishops, all the priests, each one of us personally. And as Melanie Calvet herself would later say, as did St. Catherine of Siena and Pope Pius XI, “The pope is Christ on earth.” This is something people don’t understand and absolutely refuse to comprehend. But if they had, many of the dangers we face today could have been avoided or mitigated.
Conclusion
The subject of Millenarianism had been a hot topic for decades. The popular belief at the time that Pope Pius XII made his decision about the topic was that following Antichrist’s reign, the Church would enjoy a spiritual revival of sorts and a holy pope, even a Great Monarch would reign, (although this belief about the Monarch was born of legends that long preceded any Catholic prophecies so-called). Clearly that cannot happen now, and once a decision is finally made on a disputed topic, it may no longer be discussed or debated. This Pope Pius XII taught in Humani generis below.
“Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: ‘He who heareth you, heareth Me’… Generally, what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.
“This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church. But if the Church does exercise this function of teaching, as she OFTEN has through the centuries, either in the ordinary or in the extraordinary way, it is clear how false is a procedure which would attempt to explain what is clear by means of what is obscure. Indeed, the very opposite procedure must be used. Hence Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Pius IX, teaching that the most noble office of theology is to show how a doctrine defined by the Church is contained in the sources of revelation, added these words, and with very good reason: “in that sense in which it has been defined by the Church.”
The question must be asked, now that the Church in Rome is occupied by the enemy, how could Russia ever convert? Is such a conversion to the Novus Ordo under the guise of a Catholic revival in the offing? If Leo 14 dies soon from his cancer will the next pope be a Traditionalist and make everything all better again? Will it be staged to coincide with the expected Jewish Millenium? Nothing would surprise us at this point, nor should it. Everything possible will be attempted to deceive the elect. Whatever lies ahead, may God grant us the strength to stand firm in the faith, and persevere until the very end.
