Pope Leo XIII was no heretic and Our Lady of Fatima was not an alien

Pope Leo XIII was no heretic and Our Lady of Fatima was not an alien

+Feast of the Sacred Heart of Jesus+

Gossip and insane conspiracy theories regarding the “demonic” nature of Fatima are still abounding on the Internet, especially among those posting on social media. Not content with defaming the Fatima apparitions, and in order to bolster their claims, this emerging heretical sect has lumped popes Leo XIII through Pius XII in with the current usurpers, making Pope Pius IX the last true pope. (The dogmatic impossibility of this ever happening was discussed in our last blog.) These current dissenters are following people once operating “Our Lady’s Resistance” (OLR) and “the empress of the home” (writing under the pseudonym Bernal Diaz). These actors have been called out on this site before for their errors and cowardly anonymity, so inimical to the courage of every saint who ever lived. Their book on Fatima and the “papal heresies,” The Lady of Fatima and the Antichrist, was released in 2018, but when an attempt to access the OLR website is made, it states the website closed that same year and a malware warning comes up on the screen. And these people call themselves Catholics?!!!

The specious objections to Fatima raised by OLR and their miscreant followers can and will eventually be addressed: a work has been underway for several years that will show that Fatima was meant to be taken in a symbolic, not a literal sense. That work should be ready for release when the site work now underway is completed. But the accusation that ALL popes after Pope Pius IX are heretics must be addressed here and now. These trumped-up heresies are stated as Pope Leo XIII ’s denial of the absolute nature of separation of Church and state and his teaching that God is the common Father of all, also that  Christ died for all men. This even though “Diaz” has nothing whatsoever on which to base these claims of heresy and has taken papal quotes entirely out of their dogmatic and historical context. We begin below with God as the Father of all, something we learned as small children, which Diaz characterizes as heresy. From the Diaz book:

  1. Rerum Novarum, May 15, 1891

All men are children of the same common Father, who is God; …EACH AND ALL are redeemed and made sons of God, by Jesus Christ,

  1. Leo XIII’s Humanum Genus, 1884:

“[There is] …liberty, fraternity, and equality of right; not such as the Freemasons absurdly imagine, but such as Jesus Christ obtained for the human race and St. Francis aspired to: the liberty, We mean, of sons of God, through which we may be free from slavery to Satan or to our passions, both of them most wicked masters; the fraternity whose origin is in God, the common Creator and Father of all…

  1. Leo XIII in Auspicato Concessum, #13, Sept. 17, 1882:

“Therefore has he [Saint Francis] deserved well of that brotherhood established and perfected by Jesus Christ, which has made of all mankind one only family, under the authority of God, the common Father of all.”

  1. Pope Pius X to the French Bishops, August 15, 1910, Our Apostolic Mandate:

Catholic doctrine further tells us that love for our neighbor flows from our love for God, Who is Father to all, and goal of the whole human family…”

All of the following teachings of the Church and Councils clearly show that nos. 1-4 above are not heresies, but the teachings of the Catholic Church:

God is the Father of all men and Christ died for all

Ephesians 4: 4-6

“One body and one Spirit: as you are called in one hope of your calling. One Lord, one faith, one baptism. ONE GOD AND FATHER OF ALL, who is above all, and through all, and in us all.”

The Council of Trent, Session 6, Ch. 2:

(Translated by the Rev. J. Waterworth from the official 1564 edition):

“The heavenly Father, the Father of mercies and the God of all comfort, when that blessed fullness of the time was come, sent unto men Jesus Christ His own Son — who hath been both before the law and during the time of the law to many of the holy Fathers announced and promised — that he might both redeem the Jews who were under the law and that the Gentiles who followed not after justice might attain to justice, AND THAT ALL MEN MIGHT RECEIVE THE ADOPTION OF SONS. Him God hath proposed as a perpetuator through faith in His blood for our sins AND NOT FOR OUR SINS ONLY, BUT ALSO FOR THOSE OF THE WHOLE WORLD.”

Errors of Quesnel

“But, since the observing of commandments and therefore of the conditions necessary for salvation is not within the reach of all, it is evident that neither the intention of God to save nor the efficacy of the sufferings of the Saviour extend to all mankind. So “all those whom God wishes to save through Christ are infallibly saved” (prop. 30, Cath. Encyclopedia; DZ 1380. Condemned as proximate to heresy by Clement XI.)

The Vatican Council, Sess. III, Ch. 2, Revelation

“The same Holy Mother Church holds and teaches that God, the beginning and end of all things, can be known with certitude by the natural light of human reason from created things; “for the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen being understood by the things that are made” (Romans 1:20). Nevertheless it has pleased His wisdom and goodness to reveal Himself and the eternal decrees of His will TO THE HUMAN RACE in another and supernatural way as the apostle says “God who at sundry times and in divers manners, spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, last of all in these days has spoken to us by His Son” (Hebrews 1:1).

The Council of Trent, Session 6, Ch. 3:

“BUT THOUGH HE DIED FOR ALL, yet do not all receive the benefit of his death but those only unto whom the merits of His passion is communicated. For as in truth men, if they were not born propagated of the seed of Adam would not be born unjust — seeing that by the propagation they contract through Him when they are conceived in justice as their own so if they were not born again in Christ they never would be justified…”

HOW COULD CHRIST HAVE DIED FOR ALL, ACCORDING TO THE WILL OF HIS HEAVENLY FATHER, IF HIS FATHER LIKEWISE WAS NOT THE FATHER OF ALL?!

 Errors of the Jansenists

Innocent X condemned the following five propositions in the Bull “Cum occasione” (31 May, 1653) which were as follows, (from the Catholic Encyclopedia, Jansenism):

       •  Some of God’s commandments are impossible to just men who wish and strive (to keep them) considering the powers they actually have, the grace by which these precepts may become possible is also wanting;

  • In the state of fallen nature no one ever resists interior grace;

To merit, or demerit, in the state of fallen nature we must be free from all external constraint, but not from interior necessity,

  • The Semipelagians admitted the necessity of interior preventing grace for all acts, even for the beginning of faith; but they fell into heresy in pretending that this grace is such that man may either follow or resist it;
  • To say that Christ died or shed His blood for all men, is Semipelagianism.

“These five propositions were rejected as heretical, the first four absolutely, the fifth if understood in the sense that Christ died only for the predestined. All are implicitly contained in the second, and through it, all are connected with the above-mentioned erroneous conception of the state of innocence and the original fall.”

Christ died for all men, yet all do not receive the benefits of his Passion, as the Council of Trent states above. This is why Christ used the words pro multis (for many) in the Consecration of the wine, words which must be used in the Holy Sacrifice, for only those who have been baptized and have cooperated in His grace can receive His Body and Blood in the Eucharist.

Likewise God the Father made all of us in His image and likeness to know Him, love Him and serve Him in this world that we might be happy with Him in the next. He gave all of us an immortal soul and free will. This is from the basic Communion Catechism. But as with the Redemption, because our will is free, many reject Him. Yet no less may they rightly consider God their Father. To deny God is the Father of all is to deny He could send his Only-Begotten Son to die for all. The Trinity is indivisible; the wills of the Three Persons are one, hence identical.

 Civil allegiance, separation of the Church from the State

First, there needs to be a general understanding of what separation of Church and state itself actually entails. There are two types of this separation, “according to the Encyclopedia Britannica: French and American. The French version is: The attempt… not only to restrict the public role of the church but also to work toward its gradual disappearance. The church was to be replaced with a secular ideology (This model was later adopted by the Soviet Union and all communist nations under its sphere of influence…) The American form, ‘as implied in the Constitution of the United States, was supported by a tendency to leave to the church, set free from state supervision, a maximum freedom in the realization of its spiritual, moral, and educational tasks(https://completechristianity.blog/2020/08/23/a-catholic-understanding-of-the-separation-of-church-and-state/ but of course this is no longer the case, as the blogger points out. Progressives are tending to the French definition, and it is now becoming the norm. (Attribution here is given only for reference purposes. No endorsement of this site is intended.)

In the Diaz book, no background whatever is given for this, only the author’s own lame definition. But the historical background of this doctrine can be found in The Catholic Encyclopedia here: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03794b.htm

This article quotes Immortale Dei, cited below, at length and explains that the Church’s actual position on the extent of civil power and how it operated had not even been decided until Pope Leo XIII wrote Immortale Dei. In other words, it was a matter that theologians were allowed to discuss freely from both sides of the question until the pope weighed in on one side or the other and decided the matter: THEN the discussion was closed. It was not something the Church had already taught in a manner that the faithful had to adhere to with a firm and irrevocable assent; this is pointed out in the Catholic Encyclopedia article link above. Distinctions of this kind are very important and are constantly ignored by Traditionalists. Cherry picking among these groups is their committed method of operation, and they do it in two ways. First, they cherry-pick the quotes from the popes that support their accusations of heresy, ignoring other documents that better explain the popes’ intent. Then they proceed to interpret what they have cherrypicked to arrive at the desired conclusion when, as pointed out in our last blog, no one is allowed to interpret papal encyclicals or documents. Below are highlighted quotes on the separation of the Church from the State, taken from the Diaz book, which claims to prove Leo XIII a heretic.

5. “Nor can We predict happier times for religion and government from the plans of those who desire vehemently to separate the Church from the state, and to break the mutual concord between temporal authority and the priesthood,” Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos.

6. Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, Condemned Proposition #55, Dec. 8, 1864, ex cathedra:

“The Church is to be separated from the state, and the state from the Church.” – CONDEMNED

Antipope Leo XIII [teaches]:

7. “Yet, no one doubts that Jesus Christ, the Founder of the Church, willed her sacred power to be distinct from the civil power, and each power to be free and unshackled in its own sphere …” Pope Leo XIII, Arcanum, Feb. 10, 1880

8. “The Church, indeed, deems it unlawful to place the various forms of divine worship on the same footing as the true religion, but does not, on that account, condemn those rulers who, for the sake of securing some great good or of hindering some great evil, allow patiently custom or usage to be a kind of SANCTION for each kind of religion having its place in the State. And, in fact, the Church is wont to take earnest heed that no one shall be forced to embrace the Catholic faith against his will, for, as St. Augustine wisely reminds us, “Man cannot believe otherwise than of his own will” (Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885).

To demonstrate the wickedness of the above allegations regarding the popes and demonstrate the cherry-picking, we present the following:

“Whatever is therefore, in things human is of a sacred character whatever belongs either of its own nature or by reason of the end to which it is referred, to the salvation of souls or to the worship of God, is subject to the power and judgment of the Church. Whatever is to be ranged under the civil and political order is subject to the civil authority. Jesus Christ Himself has given command that what is Caesar’s is to be rendered to Caesar, and that what belongs to God is to be rendered to God.” — Immortale Dei, 1885

In fact, to wish that the State would separate itself from the Church would be to wish, by a logical sequence, that the Church be reduced to the liberty of living according to the law common to all citizens. It is true that in certain countries this state of affairs exists. It is a condition which, if it have numerous and serious inconveniences, also offers some advantages—above all when, by a fortunate inconsistency, the legislator is inspired by Christian principles—and,though these advantages cannot justify the false principle of separation nor authorize its defense, they nevertheless render worthy of toleration a situation which, practically, might be worse.” — Pope Leo XIII, Au milieu des sollicitudes, 1892

That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. …— Pope St. Pius X, Vehementer Nos, 1906

Not long before Pope Pius IX died he wrote the following in on March 12, 1877, an allocution on Royal Assent (DZ 1847): “…Very recently we have been forced to declare that the following can be tolerated that; the acts of the canonical institution of certain bishops be shown to a secular power so that as far as we could we might avert certain baneful consequences in which there was no longer question of the possession of temporal goods but of the consciences of the faithful, their peace, the care and salvation of souls which is the supreme law for us and which were called into open risk. But in this which we have done, in order to avoid most serious dangers, we wish it to be known publicly and again that we entirely disapprove and abominate that unjust law which is called royal assent declaring openly that by the divine authority to the church is harmed and its liberty violated.”

So given the above, it is clear that Pope Pius IX was already reluctantly adapting to the unfortunate circumstances in the world before his death. Pope Leo XIII in no. 7 above is also adjusting to these realities, relaxing the Church’s stance in order to keep some kind of peace with civil leaders. Keeping in mind, however, that as the Catholic Encyclopedia article above notes, HOW to deal with these matters was never a settled question! What were the popes supposed to do when the monarchies worldwide were being toppled and they had no control over what went on when anti-Catholic Protestant leaders or monarchs were placed in those positions? How were they supposed to enforce the rights of the Church without the cooperation of those heads of state? It is absolutely ridiculous to think there would have been any way for them to have done this.  In his book on The Vatican Council Decrees and Their Bearing on Civil Allegiance (1875) Henry Cardinal Manning explains how all of this works and why it was not able to be enforced the way it should have been. Pope Pius IX and Leo XIII both upheld what the Church will always teach — there should be no separation of Church and state. But what neither pope could do is control what the state did in regards to the rights of the Church.

Henry Cardinal Manning on moral impossibility

Cardinal Manning was one of the most trusted advisors of Pope Pius IX. He made an oath of fealty to him to see the Vatican Council through to its successful conclusion. He wrote his work on Civil Allegiance during Pope Pius IX’s reign so it cannot be said that he was simply falling in line with what Leo XIII did not even write until 10 years later. His comments below reveal that he was well aware of the dilemma that faced the Church in this regard.

(From the Introduction)

“• That the relations of the Catholic Church to the Civil Powers of the world have been immutably fixed from the beginning, inasmuch as they arise out of the Divine Constitution of the Church, and out of the Civil Society of the natural order.

“• That any collisions now existing have been brought on by changes, not on the part of the Catholic Church, much less of the Vatican Council, but on the part of the Civil Powers, and that by reason of a systematic conspiracy against the Holy See.

“• That by these changes and collisions the Civil Powers of Europe are destroying their own stability.

“• That the motive of the Vatican Council in defining the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff was not any temporal policy, nor was it for any temporal end; but that it defined that truth in the face of all temporal dangers, in order to guard the Divine deposit of Christianity, and to vindicate the divine certainty of faith.

“The command of our Lord to the Apostles: Go ye into the whole world and preach the Gospel to every creature: he that believeth and is baptised shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be condemned, clearly invests the Church with authority to baptise every creature. But the exercise of this right was suspended upon a moral condition. It conveyed no right to baptise any man against his will; nor without an act of faith on his part. But an act of faith is a spontaneous and voluntary act of submission, both of intellect and will, to the truth, and to the teacher who delivers it. The absolute and universal authority therefore of the Church to baptise depends upon the free and voluntary act of those who believe, and, through their own spontaneous submission, are willing to be baptised. The Church so regards the moral conditions on which its acts depend, that as a rule it will not even suffer an infant to be baptised unless at least one of the parents’ consents.

“In like manner the power of absolution, which has no limit of time or of subject, can be exercised only upon those who are willing. Confession and contrition, both voluntary acts of the penitent, are absolutely necessary to the exercise of the power of the Keys. This principle will solve many questions in respect to the Spiritual authority of the Church over the Civil State. First, it shows that, until a Christian world and Christian Rulers existed, there was no subject for the exercise of this spiritual authority of judgment and correction. Those who amuse themselves by asking why St. Peter did not depose Nero, will do well to find out whether people are laughing with them or at them. Such questions are useful. They compendiously show that the questioner does not understand the first principles of his subject. If he will find out why St. Peter neither baptised nor absolved Nero, he will have found out why he did not depose him. Until a Christian world existed there was no apta materia for the supreme judicial power of the Church in temporal things. Therefore St. Paul laid down as a rule of law that he had nothing to do in judging those that were without the unity of the Church.

“But when a Christian world came into existence, the Civil society of man became subject to the Spiritual direction of the Church. So long, however, as individuals only subjected themselves, one by one, to its authority, the conditions necessary for the exercise of its office were not fully present. The Church guided men, one by one, to their eternal end; but as yet the collective society of nations was not subject to its guidance. It is only when nations and kingdoms become socially subject to the supreme doctrinal and judicial authority of the Church that the conditions of its exercise are verified. When the senate and people of the Roman Empire were only half Christian, the Church still refrained from acts which would have affected the whole body of the State. When the whole had become Christian, the whole became subject to the Divine Law, of which the Roman Pontiff was the supreme expositor and executive.

“Pius IX, on July 20, 1871, thus addressed a Literary Society in Rome: In the variety of subjects which will present themselves to you, one appears to me of great importance at this time; and that is, to defeat the endeavours which are now directed to falsify the idea of the Infallibility of the Pope. Among all of her errors, that is malicious above all which would attribute (to the Infallibility of the Pope) the right of deposing sovereigns, and of absolving people from the obligation of allegiance. This right, without doubt, has been exercised by the Supreme Pontiffs from time to time in extreme cases, but it has nothing to do with the Pontifical Infallibility; neither does it flow from the Infallibility, but from the authority of the Pontiff. Moreover, the exercise of this right in those ages of faith which respected in the Pope that which he is, that is to say, the Supreme Judge of Christendom, and recognised the benefit of his tribunal in the great contentions of peoples and of sovereigns, was freely extended (by aid, as was just, of public jurisprudence, and the common consent of nations) to the gravest interests of States and of their rulers.

“Now, the Holy Father in these words has abundantly shown two things: first, that they who connect Infallibility with the Deposing Power are talking of what they do not understand; and, secondly, that the moral conditions which justified and demanded the deposition of tyrannical Princes, when the medieval world was both Christian and Catholic, have absolutely ceased to exist, now that the world has ceased to be Catholic, and has ceased to be even Christian. It has withdrawn itself socially as a whole, and in the public life of nations, from the unity and the jurisdiction of the Christian Church. In this it differs altogether from the mediaeval world. And it differs also from the ancient world. For, the ancient world had never yet believed the faith; the modern world has believed, but fallen from its faith. The ancient world was without the unity of the Christian Church de facto et de jure. The modern world is without de facto; and this has changed all the moral conditions of the subject” (and here Manning merely repeats scholastic teaching on this subject, as Revs. McHugh and Callan state in their work on Moral Theology: “

“In cases of physical impossibility (i.e., when the powers requisite for observance are wanting), one is manifestly excused; for law is reasonable, and it is not reasonable to require impossibilities. In cases of moral impossibility (i.e., when a law cannot be kept without the infringement of a higher law or the loss of a higher good), one is also excused; for it is unreasonable to prefer the less to the more important” (#317, a and b).

To resume Cardinal Manning’s comments: “If Catholics were in power tomorrow in England, not a penal law would be proposed, nor the shadow of constraint be put upon the faith of any man. We would that all men fully believed the truth; but a forced faith is a hypocrisy hateful to God and man. If Catholics were in power to-morrow, not only would there be no penal laws of constraint, but no penal laws of privation. If the Ionian Islands had elected, some years ago, to attach themselves to the Sovereignty of Pius IX., the status of the Greek Church separate from Catholic Unity would have been tolerated and respected. Their Churches, their public worship, their Clergy, and their religious rites would have been left free as before. They were found in possession, which was confirmed by the tradition of centuries ; they had acquired Civil rights, which enter into the laws of political justice, and as such would have been protected from all molestation.

“Our older writers, such as Bellarmine and Suarez, when treating of this subject, had before their eyes a generation of men who all had been in the unity of the faith. Their separation therefore was formal and willful. Their separation from the unity of the Church did not release the conscience from its jurisdiction. But if Bellarmine and Suarez were living at this day, they would have to treat of a question differing in all its moral conditions. What I have here laid down is founded upon the principles they taught, applied to our times. Cardinal Tarquini, in treating the same matter, has dealt with it as it has been treated here. —Juris Eccl. Publ., Institutiones, p. 78.” And this is what the Catholic Encyclopedia is referring to in the link above on civil allegiance. Cardinal Manning beat them to the punch.

Conclusion: Helter-Skelter

One reader has aptly summed all of this up in two words: Helter-Skelter. He notes well that the meaning of this word is undue haste, confusion and disorder, all of which describes the actions of those demonizing Fatima and the Roman Pontiffs. For all we are seeing today is the constant fulmination of sect after diabolical sect intent on destroying what remains of the Church. Many also will recognize this as the title of the book on cult leader Charles Manson, published many years ago, and that too is significant, given the history behind the title. To Beatle Paul McCartney, who wrote the song by this same name, it meant the rise and fall of the Roman Empire, the complete demise of society. But Manson took it one step further; to him it represented a subliminal message to rise and kill, to be an active agent of that demise. It might do well to mention here the number 666, which verbally symbolizes divide, divide, divide, a perfect definition of all the schismatic sects down through history and right up to Traditionalism, including the one now under discussion. This is the number of the mystical body of the Devil, as described by St. Thomas Aquinas:

“There are two mystical bodies in this world: The Mystical Body of Christ and the mystical body of the Devil or of the Antichrist. To one or another every man belongs. The Mystical Body of Christ is the Holy Church, His pure and faithful Spouse …. The mystical body of the Devil is the ensemble of impious men. Like an adulterous wet nurse, it nourishes this ensemble. The Devil is its head, and the evil persons are its members …. ‘The body of the Devil,’ says St. Gregory, ‘is composed by all the impious men… Just as Christ, in Himself and through His disciples, always seeks to cut off the members of the Devil and incorporate them to Himself.… so also does the Devil. By his efforts and those of his cohorts, the Devil aims to amputate the members of Christ to unite them to the sordid members of his prostitute …’”

So we know where this attack came from. And no, we are not out to destroy anyone’s reputation; that has already been done by the actors themselves. Their inability to understand the written word, their refusal to conduct proper research, their ignorance of, and even contempt for, the Catholic faith and their malicious — yes malicious — intent to deceive others has made this refutation necessary. It is not personal; it is about the Church and the papacy we love and are bound to defend. Let the heathen rage; God will ever be with His Church unto the consummation of the world. Nothing — and no one — can keep us from the love of Christ.

Addenda 

The one defaming Pope Leo XIII also just tweeted:
“The Sacred Heart won’t continue to be mocked by these Workers of Iniquity who mislead others into believing LIES! Stop excusing the inexcusable!!!”

Betrayedcatholics responds:
Stop YOUR lies! From Pope Leo XIII’s Longinqua Oceani, 1895, to the Church in the United States : “It would be very erroneous to draw the conclusion that in America is to be sought the type of the most desirable status of the Church or that it would be universally lawful or expedient for State and Church to be, as in America, dissevered and divorced.” No endorsement of separation of Church and state here!

The one defaming Pope Leo XIII further tweeted:
“This is not Assisi, this was not JP2. THIS NONSENSE IS ALL THE MAKING OF LEO 13!!” (Commenting on an ecumenical gathering attended by Cardinal Gibbons and other U.S. Church officials which she insinuates Pope Leo XIII endorsed.)

Betrayedcatholics responds:
This was later condemned by the pope in his encyclical below, oh clueless one. Where are your hard facts? All you have is tweets and twerps. Provide readers with the WHOLE document like a real Catholic, not your stupid cherry-picked snippets.

https://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13teste.htm  (Testem Benevolentiae, addressed personally to Cardinal Gibbons!)

Here are just a few of those hard facts for you, excerpted from the link above, since you will not provide them yourself:

“…This letter is not intended, as preceding ones, to repeat the words of praise so often spoken, but rather to call attention to some things to be avoided and corrected It is intended to suppress certain contentions which have arisen lately among you to the detriment of the peace of many souls.

“The underlying principle of these new opinions is that, in order to more easily attract those who differ from her, the Church should shape her teachings more in accord with the spirit of the age and relax some of her ancient severity and make some concessions to new opinions. Many think that these concessions should be made not only in regard to ways of living, but even in regard to doctrines which belong to the deposit of the faith. They contend that it would be opportune, in order to gain those who differ from us, to omit certain points of her teaching which are of lesser importance, and to tone down the meaning which the Church has always attached to them.

It does not need many words, beloved son, to prove the falsity of these ideas if the nature and origin of the doctrine which the Church proposes are recalled to mind. Let it be far from anyone’s mind to suppress for any reason any doctrine that has been handed down. Such a policy would tend rather to separate Catholics from the Church than to bring in those who differ. There is nothing closer to our heart than to have those who are separated from the fold of Christ return to it, but in no other way than the way pointed out by Christ.

POPE LEO XIII IS CONDEMNING ABOVE EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE ACCUSING HIM OF ENDORSING! Purveyor of error! Enemy of truth!

 

Content Protection by DMCA.com
These incorrigible Fatima deniers are workers of iniquity

These incorrigible Fatima deniers are workers of iniquity

St. Aloysius Gonzaga+

Because those posting on social media simply refuse to obey the teachings of the Roman Pontiffs that private apparitions and revelations must not be treated with derision and/or contempt once they have been approved by the Church, we are forced once again to address attacks on Fatima (see https://www.keepandshare.com/doc18/25945/rodriguez-rebuttal-1-pdf-326k?da=y and https://www.keepandshare.com/doc18/25946/rodriguez-rebuttal-2-pdf-539k?da=y). One can choose not to believe such revelations and even to believe they are not of divine origin. But no one can publicly or privately deride them or treat them with contempt. It scarcely needs to be said that if the Church was here to guide us today it is doubtful anyone would be allowed to discuss or debate religious topics on social media, if we were allowed to use it at all! The reasons should be obvious but unfortunately to some they are not. Religious topics are ordinarily off bounds for the majority of the laity, who would need to receive special permission from the bishop to even print. While Pope Pius XII has given the laity permission in the absence of the hierarchy to assume many of their duties, including the defense of the faith, this permission must be interpreted strictly and engaged in with the greatest caution and reverence.

This obsession with Fatima as a “demonic” apparition that supposedly signaled rot in the Church decades prior to Our Lady’s appearance at Fatima has, predictably, escalated to involve the rejection of all popes reigning after Pope Pius IX as false popes. This was necessary for these Fatima deniers in order to justify their errors and escape the accusation that they are not Catholic for refusing to obey the popes in refraining from demonizing — literally — the apparitions. The primary promoter of this base calumny apparently subscribes to the work of one “Bernal Diaz,” (a pseudonym; generally, only cowards and hucksters, not Catholics, write under assumed names), as the basis for the rejection of Fatima and the Roman Pontiffs. The deluded follower of this man and promoter of Fatima as demonic has publicly stated this author (man, woman?) she follows is a Catholic, but offers no proof whatsoever for this. And none can be found anywhere on the Internet. The most disturbing aspect of all this is the repeated insistence — with absolutely nothing to back it besides speculation, far less “proofs” of any kind as the promoter pretends — that demon worship and cooperation with the demonic on the part of the seers was involved. I speak with St. Teresa of Avila, who wrote in her biography:

“I do not understand those terrors which make us cry out, Satan, Satan! when we may say, God, God! and make Satan tremble. Do we not know that he cannot stir without the permission of God? What does it mean? I am really much more afraid of those people who have so great a fear of the devil, than I am of the devil himself. Satan can do me no harm whatever, but they can trouble me very much…”

And to this I say a resounding, “Amen.” Whenever we see something this pernicious that has so violently seized the minds of those who once walked along the straight path, we can quite rightly suspect that such a thing itself is from the devil. As an article on the Fisheaters forum explains, “Sometimes demons, including Satan himself, and the souls of damned humans go beyond merely tempting a person, and wage a more intense assault. This sort of assault can happen to those who give the Devil an “entree” into their lives by willfully engaging in sin, playing with heresy, becoming inordinately interested in the occult (“occult” meaning “hidden” and referring to those things naturally veiled from us)… Certain forms of mental illness can be caused by or attract the demonic. When demons see weakness, they attack, and some of our mentally ill are victims of the diabolical…” And there also exist in those obsessed “…all of the [other] things that go with obsession, such as illnesses, unexplainable pain, what appears to be incessant, incredibly ‘bad luck,’ etc.” https://www.fisheaters.com/praeternaturalworld4.html

The Popes may be judged by no one

Most sorrowful in all of this is the attack on the popes based on maliciously misconstrued and misunderstood quotes taken entirely out of context, and with no historical perspective provided to better understand what is being discussed and why. Diaz and his follower(s) violate a condemned proposition of the Church, that “The judgment of the Apostolic See, whose authority is not surpassed, is to be disclaimed by no one, nor is anyone permitted to pass judgment on its judgment,” (Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, DZ 1830). In his infallible 1559 bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, Pope Paul IV teaches: “The Roman Pontiff, who is Vicar of God and of Jesus Christ on earth, holds fullness of power over peoples and. kingdoms, and judges all, but can be judged by no one in this world…” He then goes on to explain exactly how and when such a man can be considered a heretic, and it is NOT when he is in office, but only prior to his election. The Vatican Council forever precluded the possibility that the Roman Pontiff could speak heresy as a validly elected pope, and the only thing that could effectively invalidate a papal election, Pope Paul IV teaches, is the invalid election of one who was an apostate, heretic or schismatic.

This is confirmed by St. Robert Bellarmine here as well as the eminent theologian Rev. Felix Capello, De Curia Romana iuxta Reformationem a Pio X, vol. II: De Curia Romana “Sede Vacante” (Rome: Fridericus Pustet, 1912) as quoted by NovusOrdoWatch (https://novusordowatch.org/tag/felix-cappello/)

  • “[Pope] Gelasius in his epistle to the bishops of Dardania says: “The Church throughout the world knows that the holy Roman see has the right to judge all, and that nobody is permitted to pass judgment on its judgment.”
  • “[Pope] Nicholas I in his epistle to Michael writes: “It is perfectly clear that the judgment of the Apostolic See, whose authority is excelled by none other, is not to be reviewed by anyone.”
  • “[Pope] Gregory [Lib. 9, epist. 39 ad Theotistam.]: “If Blessed Peter, he says, when he was blamed by the faithful, had paid attention to the authority that he had received in holy Church, he could have responded: let the sheep not dare to reprimand their pastor.”
  • “[Pope] Boniface VIII [In extrav. Viam sanctam, tit. de maiorit. et obedient.]: “If, he says, an earthly power goes wrong, it is to be judged by the spiritual power. If the spiritual goes wrong, the lesser [is judged] by the greater, but if the supreme [power goes wrong, it is judged] by God alone, for it cannot be judged by man.”

“In light of all this, with good reason we conclude that the opinion that affirms that the Roman Pontiff cannot become a heretic even as a private doctor, is most probable, indeed according to our judgment is entirely certain” (end of Capello quote).

As someone writing about theological issues, I have tried my best to follow the teachings of the Church on these matters. I have used as my guide the rules found here, provided by Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton. “Proper reasoning and the correct and adequate use of sources” is essential to theological procedure, Fenton wrote. “In demonstrations from reason, the thesis of theological propositions must remain as the legitimate and certain conclusion. Too many would-be theologians today become entangled in the web of modern thinking and abandon logic as well as Catholic principles in proving their arguments.” Only Catholic truth assisted by right reason can safely arrive at the desired destination or conclusion. Obedience to the ordinary magisterium must be observed at all times. And these cautions pretty well define all that has plagued those defaming Fatima on social media. Logic and Catholic principles are not being observed, right reason has been abandoned and no one is obeying the magisterium.

Those pretending to conduct research on matters Catholic and publish their “findings” without adhering to these standards are scandalizing and misleading fellow Catholics. They are to be exposed and corrected for the good of the faithful and the Church does not just allow this, She demands it (Canons 1324, 1325, 1935). After the fashion of the worldlings they pander to, the Fatima deniers do not even follow the standards of secular scholarship, far less Catholic scholarship, in what they publish. To borrow material from what will later be posted as a new article on the revised website, these secular standards include failing to obtain the proper training (competence), maintaining objectivity, offering projects for criticism and review, respecting colleagues and treating them fairly, conducting research according to established standards, properly evaluating evidence and available sources, considering counter-evidence, exercising great care in making judgments and refraining from allowing emotions or bias to influence what one is writing/researching. And all these standards are currently available online from several different sources for those who care to write ethically and morally.

Hokum and hysteria

It should seem pretty clear to those who have read the false claims about Fatima by Diaz and his minions that all the principles above, Catholic and secular, have been violated. Research standards demand that as many primary and secondary sources be used as possible. The Fatima bunch has rejected nearly all those sources as tainted by actors unknown working to destroy the Church, their excuse for not resorting to them to establish the proper chronology and background of the apparitions or the seers. No evidence of this is provided. Inaccurate statements made that could be easily checked out are repeated over and over again and never corrected. Any evaluation of contrary evidence is always made in favor of the authors’ opinion that Fatima was satanic in origin and no mention is made of anything true and good that came from the apparitions. No alternative explanations are considered nor is it noted that the younger children died as Our Lady predicted, or that World War II came as predicted on the heels of an unprecedented light display in the skies, also foretold by Our Lady. The Holy Father certainly had a great deal to suffer, and the consecration would be done but it would be “too late;” Russia would spread her errors. And those errors were not just about Communism. No counter-evidence is allowed because the devil himself and the spiritists arranged everything in advance — they all hitched a ride in a UFO and dropped an alien in a mini-skirt on top of the holm oak in the Cova de Iria.

This is hokum and hysteria, not reason and logic. It can be attributed to minds obsessed with the devil, also preoccupied with modern day psychic phenomena married to conspiracy theories on steroids. Shades of Q and other insanities. This speculative and undocumented attack on Fatima is primarily based on anti-Catholic “literature,” false suppositions, and the unofficial notes of a priest of questionable credibility (the seers’ parish priest was accused of possibly cooperating with the Freemasons who kidnapped the children, was known to dislike and distrust the seers and later abandoned his parish). But this is what passes as “research” in works that would be condemned today if we had a true pope. These people are unrelentingly vicious in their insistence that this apparition is “satanic.” They actually seem to relish the outrage they inspire among their fellow Catholics who for years have been devoted to Fatima, faithfully practiced what Our Lady requested there, and have incorporated details of the apparitions and messages into their meditations and prayer life. Worst of all, this scandalous and uncatholic behavior is coming from people pretending to be practicing pray-at-home believers. The most egregious of all is the denouncement of true popes and the violation of the papal prohibitions for casting contempt on apparitions and revelations approved by the Church. Needless to say, no one who dares to disobey the popes could ever count themselves as truly Catholic.

Liberal Catholics parading as ultra-conservatives

What mental aberrations could possibly explain how the mind of anyone identifying as Catholic could become so twisted such a person could actually believe there is a Catholic Church outside of papal obedience? We decry it in Traditionalists, then discover it in our own midst? Where is this noxious plague coming from? Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton explained its source in great detail long ago, and his conclusions may astonish many who believe they can identify religious-wise as “ultra-conservatives.” He traces it to the appearance of liberal Catholicism in the early 1800s and its later evolution as full-blown Modernism in the latter part of that century. His description of the essence of Catholic liberalism is precise and easily understood: religious toleration and indifferentism. But as liberal Catholicism developed, and subsequently was condemned repeatedly by successive popes, it used pretexts to avoid these condemnations in order to more easily embed tendencies among Catholics receptive to their ideas.

As Fenton relates, “This group was practically driven to the adoption of minimism and to the claim that the Catholic Church’s dogmatic teachings changed over the course of the years and acquired new meanings quite different from the interpretations which the teaching Church had originally given. If this group wished to present as teachings acceptable to loyal Catholics some tenets which had obviously forcefully and frequently been repudiated by the popes, they were bound to try to convince their dupes that, within this area at least, people could reject or ignore these papal rejections of liberal Catholicism while still remaining loyal Catholics. There were only two plausible reasons that could be offered: either for some reason or other the papal pronouncements against liberal Catholicism were such that they did not require assent from loyal Catholics or the meaning which the Church attached to these statements had changed with the passing of the years.

“Minimalism was the first alternative; the false theory of the transformistic development of dogma the second. Ultimately theological minimalism was a device employed by liberal Catholics to make the rejection of authoritative papal teaching on any point appear to be good Catholic practice. Sometimes it took the crass form of a claim that Catholics are obligated to accept and to hold only those things which had been defined by the explicit decrees or the Ecumenical Councils or of the Holy See. This attitude unfortunately manifest in a Congress of theologians of which Dollinger [the schismatic Old Catholic bishop from Germany] was the leading spirit. It was condemned by Pope Pius the IX in his letter Tuas Libentur” (“The Components of Liberal Catholicism, The American Ecclesiastical Review, July, 1958). Fenton notes further that a crasser form of minimism was found in the objections to the definitions of papal infallibility, and that the Rambler group in England headed by John Henry Cardinal Newman also promoted it, if only in a more subtle manner. By the time Pope St. Pius X condemned the full development of liberal Catholicism in his Pascendi and Lamentibili, Modernist tendencies had already become firmly entrenched among modern Catholics, especially in the U.S., to emerge as full-blown Modernism and ecumenism in the 1950s-60s.

We are not surprised to find that the premier Old Catholic bishop Dollinger, who rejected the dogma of infallibility, was at the head of this movement. For he and his ilk were supporters of the Gallicanist heresy and Traditionalists are only refashioned Old Catholics with a new and misleading name. They have no pope as their head and have been ignoring and misrepresenting papal documents for decades. In fact they have gone even farther than liberal Catholics by questioning, even fabricating, the documents of the Council of Trent and unquestionably infallible papal encyclicals. Call themselves what they will, Traditionalists — and this includes Sedevacantists — are really liberal Catholics parading as conservative promoters of Catholicism. They may be politically and socially conservative — cultural Catholics only — but dogmatically and in reality they are liberals. Give them another generation and their children will be full-blown Modernists; then Vatican 2 will start looking good. As Perry Mason once said, history doesn’t really repeat itself; people just try to repeat history. And we know who these people are.

Trashing of papal decrees by Traditionalists

In another article, Msgr. Fenton explains exactly how liberal Catholics even in his day attempted to interpret and minimize papal documents and condemns this onerous practice. Traditionalists have learned well from them. He begins by stating that the whole of theologians then existing, in the Church of the 1940s, agreed that all the teachings found in papal encyclicals, “merit at least an internal religious assent from all Catholics.” He then goes on to describe a tendency that had developed among theologians to act as though they are qualified “to distinguish two elements in the content of the various encyclicals. One element would be the deposit of genuine Catholic teaching which of course all Catholics are bound to accept at all times. The other element would be a collection of notions current at the time the encyclicals were written. These notions, which would enter into the practical application of the Catholic teaching, are represented as ideas which Catholics can afford to overlook.

The men who have adopted this mentality imagine they can analyze the content of an individual encyclical or of a group of encyclicals in such a way that they can separate the pronouncements which Catholics are bound to accept from those which would have merely an ephemeral value. Today’s theologians would then tell the Catholic people to receive the Catholic principles and to do as they liked about the other elements. When a private theologian ventures to analyze these statements and claims to find a Catholic principle on which the Holy Father’s utterance is based and some contingent mode according to which the Sovereign Pontiff has applied this Catholic principle in its own pronouncement, the only effective doctrinal authority is that of the private theologian himself… [But] the Holy Father’s authority stands behind his own individual statements precisely as they are found in the encyclicals… The private theologian is obligated and privileged to study these documents to arrive at an understanding of what the Holy Father actually teaches and then to aid in the task of bringing this body of truth to the people. The Holy Father however, not the private theologian, remains the doctrinal authority. The theologian is expected to bring out the content of the Pope’s actual teaching, not to subject that teaching to the type of criticism he would have a right to impose on the writings of another private theologian” (“The Doctrinal Authority of Papal Encyclicals,” The American Ecclesiastical Review, September, 1949).

Msgr. Fenton then points out that this tendency to interpret and critique papal documents can be traced back to Cardinal Newman, a promoter of doctrinal minimism. He warns of its dangers and as always upholds the supreme doctrinal authority and rights of the Roman Pontiff. What we have read above is exactly what we see among Sedevacantists and other Traditionalists vainly attempting to justify their existence minus a Roman Pontiff. Their crude attempts are even more grievous since they are not even properly trained clerics, or clerics at all, far less theologians. But what all of this does is simply highlight the reason why even those professing to keep the faith at home wind up derailing their own spiritual train. They presume to critique the teachings of the Roman Pontiffs and either determine they may ignore those teachings or that in these times, in their situation, they do not apply. Therefore they are no better than the Traditionalists they pretend to condemn or any of the other schismatics who went before them.

Work out your salvation in fear and trembling

It is a sad day when we see those we have worked with side by side and considered fellow Catholics descend to something so low as the public characterization of a Church-approved apparition as satanic. It greatly grieves those who have their best spiritual interests at heart to see them join the very forces raging against the Church, those forces spreading filthy anti-Catholic literature across the Internet. But as Mother Mary Potter wisely wrote, “You have wondered perhaps when you have heard of the falling away from the Church of even the very good. You have sorrowed perhaps over some sad instance — it may be in your own family or community — of some unhappy soul for whom the temptations of the age have been too strong. Yes, we have wondered at it; we are thoughtless and careless. We do not fear for others till we see them fall but we are not wise. Did not our dear Lord “fear” for us? We should be wiser if we did FEAR more and wonder less” (Path of Mary, 1878; emph. Mother Potter’s).

Those liberal Catholics who today ignore the teachings of the Roman Pontiffs would do well to heed the words of Pope Leo XII, quoted from Msgr. Fenton’s article: “[God’s]… judgments are incomprehensible. God who destroys the wisdom of the wise seems to have handed over the men who are enemies of His Church and who despise the supernatural revelation into a reprobate sense and into that mystery of iniquity that is written on the forehead of the shameless woman described by [Saint] John. For what iniquity can there be greater than that of these proud men who not only have fallen away from the true religion but who use every kind of pretext and use words and writings filled with deceit to turn the unwary away from the true religion also. May God rise up and restrain, destroy and bring to nothing this licentious kind of speech, writing and publication” (Ubi primum, 1824).

Content Protection by DMCA.com
“For all men” in the Consecration first introduced in 1959

“For all men” in the Consecration first introduced in 1959

+Feast of Corpus Christi+

It will be 18 years ago June 25 since my mother passed away, God rest her dear soul. The year she died, my siblings, my husband and I spent most of that summer emptying out her home of 38 years and doing some minor repairs before it was put up for sale. While cleaning things out, I stumbled across her hope chest in the basement, originally handmade for my grandmother. As a child I knew that she had always kept important things in that chest, things from her childhood – a few toys, childhood knick-knacks, dresses she had worn while dating my father, favorite jewelry from the 1940s, her wedding cake topper and her wedding dress, my father’s WWII uniform and memorabilia. They were all still there, in the order I always remembered. And in the top section there were some trays that held odds and ends.

Programs from sports events and plays, awards she had won, a few pictures. And then at the bottom I found something that startled me — a small white booklet from the parish where I made my First Communion and a larger green booklet with an ugly black and white church splattered across the front of it. I knew what they were. It took me back to one Sunday when I noticed a pile of the green books at the end of the pew in our church and picked one up to look at it. My mother took one too, made a face at the ugly, modern cover, then looked through it. She used it for Mass and tucked one in her purse to take home. The next time we went to church she took out her missal and told me to use my missal, not the green books. I never thought much about it. But knowing she didn’t like that book but kept it in a place she considered important all those years intrigued me.

So I took them home and one day decided to look through them closely to see if anything jumped out at me. They were both dated January 1959. That piqued my interest. They were dialogue Mass books issued after that particular form of Mass was approved shortly before Pope Pius XII died, with responses the laity could recite. I turned to the Canon and coursed through it, then the Consecration. And it was there that I saw what must have prompted my mother to keep those books. On the left was the Latin, and I checked — it read pro multis. On the right I did a double take: the English read “for all men.” I checked the little white booklet and it read exactly the same. It took awhile for the implications to fully sink in, for finally I had proof of what I had always suspected: Roncalli played a much larger role in destroying the Mass than previously known.

I read the Instruction Sacred Music and the Sacred Liturgy issued Sept. 3, 1958 a little more than a month before Pope Pius’ death. It stated that all Pope St. Pius X’s instructions on Gregorian chant still remained in force. It cautioned that only choirs trained to sing Gregorian chant and “more modern sacred music,” should be allowed to sing during the Mass, in keeping with “the dignity, seriousness and sanctity of the liturgy.” Pius was clear in stating that the participation in the Holy Sacrifice could be either interior or exterior, as determined by the individual. He especially emphasized interior devotion and orders that the faithful be instructed by their pastors regarding how to participate in the Mass, according to the Council of Trent. This in order to “achieve the chief purpose of this participation, which is a more complete worship of God and the edification of the faithful.”

But there was nothing in that instruction that referred specifically to the formula used for the Consecration of the wine. In the white booklet above, it is clear that an attempt was made to make it appear that the booklet issued was attributable to Pius XII, which implies approval of the translation “for all men.” It was Roncalli’s job to see to it that the people were desensitized to this false translation long before it was included in the Novus Ordo Missae. It was up to him to see that the “people of God” began to believe what they were praying, so that later they could simply pray what they believed. My mother knew the difference. She had attended Catholic schools until the age of 14 when she quit school to help support her mother and disabled brother. She never attended college, but she knew. I remember Mom talking about her altar society meetings in the late fifties, early sixties and how so many of the women were involved in the liturgical renewal movement; she could never figure out why they thought anything about the Mass should be changed. And when the Mass did change in 1969, she told us the Communists had gotten into the Church somehow and we couldn’t go there anymore.

When the controversy first began about the Novus Ordo Missae, it was about validity. Was the NO mass valid? Were the new ordination and episcopal rites valid? If the fix had not already set in with those who remained in the NO, the answers would have been very simple. And for Traditionalists, if their know-it-all “clergy” had kept their mouths shut, we would have had an easier time making up our own minds. But that is not what happened. Because we didn’t need any of them to tell us how to understand basic truths of faith. No one has the right to change Christ’s very own words, as they stood in our missals for almost 1400 years. NO ONE may touch the Sacraments He Himself instituted, the forms of which were set in stone for well over a millennia. And in the end NO ONE allowing such things may pretend to rule in the stead of the Pope, who Christ placed at the head of the Church to rule in perpetuity. This is basic catechism stuff. When Christ was directly attacked, no one had an excuse NOT to leave.

But having left the Novus Ordo, another trap loomed. Catholics were expected to accept a Church without a pope, something entirely novel in the history of the Church. For the pope was always the distinguishing factor between Protestantism and Catholicism, the Eastern schismatics and the Church in Rome. But now there were these rival bishops, and no mention of ever again having a true pope, even though throughout history, the Church had never been ruled by bishops in a contested papal election; always a rival pope was elected. Why was this never challenged? Because a lot of people didn’t know even their basic catechism. And those who did were confused, because nothing like this had ever happened in the Church before. They had always listened to Father, and simply attended Mass, maybe a few society meetings a month. The idea of Catholic Action, while strongly promoted, left most of them cold. They avoided the more complicated arguments of who was pope, and who was valid, epikeia, necessity and jurisdiction, leaving them to be decided by men they believed to be valid clergy. But were they?

Was it really all that hard to determine if Marcel Lefebvre and Peter Martin Ngo dinh Thuc were truly able to ordain priests and consecrate bishops in this ”emergency”? Even common sense should have told us that they were not exactly what they claimed to be. If Lefebvre was truly divorced from the Novus Ordo, which he must have been in order to avoid their heresies, how is it that he resigned the offices he held under Pope Pius XII, accepted offices from John 23 and set up a seminary under NO auspices in Switzerland? How is it that Bp. Ngo dinh Thuc, in the handwritten copy of his declaration, signed himself as the Bishop of Bulla Regia, a title bestowed upon him by Paul 6? Did all Traditionalists not believe that the Novus Ordo was a non-Catholic Church? If they did not believe this, then why did they leave? And why did they tolerate in their “clergy” an association, however tenuous it was made to appear, with the very false church they had rejected?!

Bp. Peter Martin Ngo dinh Thuc was in his sixties during the Vatican Council (born in 1897). He held degrees in philosophy, theology and Canon Law. Abp. Marcel Lefebvre was an Apostolic Delegate to Africa and a superior of a religious congregation, a doctor of theology. He was in his late 50s during Vatican 2. There is no way either of these men could claim ignorance or confusion; Canon 16 states that no ignorance of invalidating or inhabilitating (disqualifying) laws excuses from their observance. And there are several Canon Laws they violated that declare their actions either invalid and themselves as incapable of positing valid acts. This has been demonstrated repeatedly on this site. But the faithful did not need to know about these Canon Laws to know they were not Catholic.

Both Lefebvre and Thuc celebrated the new mass. Both participated in Vatican 2. Both acknowledged John 23 and Paul 6 as true popes. This information was available to Traditionalists in the 1980s from various sources. Why was it not enough to avoid these schismatics? Because Traditionalist “clergy” who received orders from these two men would have found themselves without any power and any way to ply their trade. And they were their most ardent defenders and supporters. People listened to them as they struggled to explain away every possible doubt about those who “ordained” or “consecrated” them. They had a horse in the race, and it was their job to make sure that horse ran. And that meant even convincing those trying to be Catholic not to listen to the still voice of the Holy Ghost telling them something just wasn’t right.

I guess the point I am trying to make here is that those rejecting Vatican 2 as a false council and the new mass as no mass at all may not realize it, but by their ACTIONS they implicitly rejected John 23 and Paul 6 as usurpers and heretics when they left the Novus Ordo church in the late 1960s, early 1970s. For how could a council teaching heresy, a mass falsifying Christ’s very own words, or changes in the very Sacraments Christ instituted ever issue from a true pope?! Catholic instincts, the Catholic sense yet remaining among the faithful remnant, was dead-on in judging Montini’s acts as those of a man who had abandoned the faith. What else would have prompted these Catholics, many of them the descendants of the faithful who had professed Catholicism for well over a millennia, to abandon the beloved Church of their ancestors? We have been told, over and over again — by various Traditionalist factions, beginning with William Strojie in the 1970s — that Montini’s heresy was not manifest. Hogwash. They deliberately misapplied the word and made it appear that no one could be certain the See was really vacant, advancing various theories but careful to avoid any examination of the possibility that Roncalli or Montini were heretics pre-election, or that Roncalli’s election was invalid. Instead they spent decades laughing at the hapless Conclavists (who at least were championing the papacy), arguing over the material-formal nonsense and playing with the Siri stupidity, because this at least kept them all in business.

According to the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas, as explained to us by the greatly esteemed theologian Garrigou-Lagrange, “St. Thomas concludes: ‘Heresy is the species of unbelief practiced by those who profess to believe in Christ, but who corrupt His teachings’… Formal heresy is a pertinacious adherence to error that is manifestly contrary to faith… A heretic [is] one who refuses to ‘choose whatever Christ has truly taught’…. The one thing that suffices for formal heresy is an obstinate denial of any truth which has been infallibly proposed by the Church for belief. It is not necessary that the individual believer realizes that the truth in jeopardy has been proposed. If it were necessary, heretics would become few and scarce.” Those exiting the Novus Ordo Church recognized that what Paul 6 was teaching was not what Christ taught; His very words in the Consecration being changed and the Mass abolished. They fled the bathhouse, after the example of St. John. Montini’s heresy alone was only a manifestation of his previously held heretical beliefs, publicly written and spoken. Once the NOM was announced, he could no longer pretend to be Christ’s vicar on earth. The See was officially recognized as vacant by those departing, although in fact it had been so since the death of Pope Pius XII.

If what John 23 and Paul 6 were doing was not manifest heresy, deserving of their absolute abandonment by the faithful, how could Traditionalists ever possibly justify calling themselves the continuation of the Church on earth? The faithful followed the teaching of the apostle St. John: a heretic avoid. It is estimated by various polls that 40-60 percent of Catholics exited the NO after Vatican 2. The only reason they did not ALL publicly and formally conclude that these men were heretics is because they were duped into believing they must listen to men they trusted as true successors of the Apostles. They fled to them in fear, being told that if they did not have Mass and Sacraments, they could not obtain the graces to save their souls. To this day they labor under a delusion based on the suppression/misrepresentation of Church law and teaching regarding the nature of the primacy and indefectibility. Rather than risk denying the dogma of indefectibility, as defined by Traditionalists, they accepted the lie that during an extended interregnum, bishops had the right and the divine assistance necessary to rule the Church and to demand obedience.

Those leaving the Church after the promulgation of the new mass did so under an inspiration of the Holy Ghost. But what happened when they were rounded up by Traditionalists was no inspiration. It would not be generally known for many years that both Lefebvre and Thuc had not only attended the false V2 council but had signed council documents, nor was it known for some time that both men celebrated the Novus Ordo Missae. But when it was known, and known in a manner that left no room for doubt, why didn’t those who first left the Novus Ordo warn their children and grandchildren, still attending these services, to reject those issuing from Lefebvre and Thuc because they were the fruit from the poisonous tree?

The great apostasy of the laity did not occur when Catholics exited the Novus Ordo after the new mass was introduced. That was the scattering of the sheep following the defection of the cardinals and bishops. The great apostasy concluded with the participation of the laity in the schismatic services of Traditionalists who created something that in any other age would have been unthinkable: a “Catholic” Church without the pope. From a Catholic standpoint this can only be described as surviving a plane crash only to be hit by a semi.

On this Feast of Corpus Christi, we remember with fondness the solemn processions and ceremonies which once took place on this day. And we make reparation for those who dishonor Christ by remaining in Traditionalist sects, thinking they receive Him in the Eucharist when they receive only a lifeless wafer that leads to their destruction.

Content Protection by DMCA.com
St. Therese’s Little Way Explained and Prayer checklist for June

St. Therese’s Little Way Explained and Prayer checklist for June

+Queenship of the Blessed Virgin Mary+

In last month’s blog on living in the spirit, Fr. Hagspiel’s work on devotion to the Holy Ghost and the realization of ourselves as His temple was emphasized. And of necessity of course, in this humble and unworthy temple dwells Our Lord, if we but invite Him in during our spiritual communions and pause during the day to acknowledge His presence. During the 19th century Fr. Frederick Faber and Fr. Jean-Pierre Caussade both emphasized the necessity of complete abandonment to God’s holy will and utmost confidence in His love and assistance. These are things we are in great need of today, when so many things assail us from without and our future seems fraught with danger and uncertainty. But the great master of becoming as a little child and loving God as a Father and our Redeemer was practically a mere child herself, having died in early adulthood, yet leaving a priceless legacy on the easiest way of all to keep ourselves in the presence of Our Lord.

As many will know, her name was St. Therese of the Child Jesus, and while some today have attempted to taint her simplistic way of holiness with the gall of Jansenistic rigorism, it takes nothing away from the sweetness and unfaltering confidence in God she teaches us in her Little Way. As Fr. Faber tells us, “Confidence is the only real worship… It is worth our while to have lived, if it were only to have known the delight of trusting in God… If we consider the results of confidence, we shall see how impossible it is to exaggerate its importance. Without it there can be no living faith, because living faith, in the religious sense of the word, must inevitably lead to trust.” Spiritual childhood was her hallmark and she ever thought of herself as a child resting in God’s loving arms, incapable of doing anything for herself without His help and support.

Fr. Caussade is thought to have played into the development of St. Therese’s Little Way. In the introduction to Caussade’s Abandonment to Divine Providence, author John Beevers notes that while there has been no historical connection made between Caussade and St. Therese, theologians teaching at the time St. Therese lived had been profoundly affected by Caussade’s works, and this was bound to filter down to the spirituality of the lay people they influenced. He notes that St. Therese states no matter how small the task accomplished, if it is done for love of God and in obedience to His will this is testimony of our love for Him. He then quotes Caussade, who wrote: “To achieve the height of holiness, people must realize that all they count as trivial and worthless is what can make them holy. Consider your life and you will see it consists of countless trifling actions. Yet God is quite satisfied with them, for doing them as they should be done is the part we have to play in our striving for perfection.” And the sentiments are the same.

Living in the spirit, always realizing we are in the presence of the Blessed Trinity, is key to remembering the need to perform all of our daily acts worthily and as perfectly as possible. Without this realization, renewed throughout the day, our efforts will not be sanctified. All these little steps to God, so well known to St. Therese, lead us directly to Him. Accomplishing His will in all things, as Fr. Caussade instructs, is the surest road to heaven. While complex methods and rules to arrive at holiness may have been suited for those with access to the Sacraments and directors in previous times, they simply are not adaptable to our circumstances today, and Caussade acknowledges this. The best complement to living in the spirit, the simplest and easiest method for us today is the Little Way. Those who choose to follow it can go about their daily lives in God’s presence, loving Him with their frequent ejaculatory prayers and acts. What a wondrously simple and workable way to save our souls in the midst of daily trials and responsibilities!

Below are excerpts taken from two works outlining St. Therese’s Little Way. This first section is from Ida Friedereke Gorres’ The Hidden Face, 1959.

“The weaker we are the more suitable we are to love Jesus, to be the victim of His love. The mere desire to be His holocaust suffices, but we must consent to remain always poor and powerless. And you see, that is where the difficulty lies. For who will find the man truly poor in spirit? He must be sought far away, says the Imitation of Christ. It does not say that he is to be found among the great souls but far away, that is to say in lowness and nothingness. Let us stay far from everything that glitters; let us love our littleness; let us love feeling nothing and Jesus will come to fetch us, no matter how far away we may be and He will reshape us in the flames of love.

“I have long believed that the Lord is more tender than a mother and I know more than one mother’s heart to the very bottom. I know that a mother is always ready to forgive trivial, involuntary misbehavior on the part of her child. Children are always giving trouble — falling down getting themselves dirty, breaking things. But all this does not shake their parents love for them. If through weakness I should chance to fall, may a glance from Your eyes straightaway cleanse my soul and consume all my imperfections as fire transforms all things into itself. We can never expect too much of God who is at once merciful and almighty. To surrender to love means to depend upon the omnipotence of God. I dare to gaze upon the Son of Love burning to take my flight to Him. I longed to fly and imitate the eagles, but all I can do is flutter my small wings. I am not strong enough to fly.

“We live in the age of inventions now and the wealthy no longer have to take the trouble to climb the stairs; they take a lift. That is what I must find — a lift to take me straight up to Jesus because I am too little to climb the steep stairway of perfection. So I searched the Scriptures for some hint of my desired lift until I came upon these words from the lips of Eternal Wisdom: “Whosoever is a little one, let him come to me… Your arms my Jesus are the lift which will take me up to heaven. Even poor people give a child everything it needs but when it grows up the father no longer wants to support it and says to it ‘You can stand on your own feet now, go out and work.’ Do you see, that is just what I never wanted to hear. That is why I never wanted to grow up since I felt myself incapable of earning my own livelihood, of earning eternal life by my own efforts. The innocents of heaven are not children; they only have the inexpressible charm of childhood. We imagine them as children only because we need images in order to understand invisible things.

Gorres writes: “Underlying Saint Therese’s examples of spiritual childhood is Jesus’ words: “Unless you become as little children, you shall not enter the Kingdom of Heaven… Her doctrine is everywhere based on the Scriptures. St. Therese wrote: ‘It is enough to acknowledge our nothingness and like children surrender ourselves in the arms of God, leaving to great and lofty minds, to beautiful books which I cannot understand still less put into practice. I rejoice in my littleness because only little children and those who are like them shall be admitted to the heavenly banquet. To remain little means to recognize one’s own nothingness; to expect everything from God and not worry too much about one’s faults… not to wish to lay up treasures in heaven but to keep an untroubled heart. To be little also means not to ascribe to oneself the virtues one practices; is not to think of oneself as competent but to recognize that God places His treasure in the hand of His little child for it to use when it has need.

“Finally it means not to lose courage on account of one’s faults, for children often fall but they are too small to hurt themselves seriously. The little ones will be judged with the greatest leniency” (and here St. Therese paraphrases and explains a biblical passage from the book of Wisdom). “It is easy to please Jesus, to delight His heart,” she continues. “It is necessary only to love Him without paying too much attention to our own faults. A glance at Jesus’ recognition of our own wretchedness makes all well again. If only, my Jesus, I could tell all little souls about Your ineffable condescension. I feel that if supposing the impossible you could find a soul more weak than mine you would delight in lavishing upon it far more grace still, so long as it abandoned itself with boundless confidence to Your infinite mercy. But why this desire to tell others the secrets of Your love can You not yourself reveal to others what You have revealed to me? I know You can, and I beg you to do so. I implore You, cast Your eyes upon a multitude of little souls. Select in this world I beg of You a legion of little victims worthy of Your love.”

Gorres relates that “The great Cardinal Berulle, [whose confessor was St. Francis de Sales], and his possibly still greater disciple Condren, preached the spirit of childlikeness which was to be not so much the spirit of the Child Jesus as the spirit of one of the little ones whom Jesus let come unto Him. It consisted in the spirit of self-annihilation, detachment from all earthly things, mortification of self will and the inclinations to pride, which are flattered by accomplishments. Those who surrender themselves to such childhood must come to be guided by their self-will and let the spirit of Jesus Christ fill and impel them. They must cease to be self-belonging. Yet this attitude is not so much a tense, militant one whose object is violence towards the self. It is not a stifling of the self, not a negation, but the gentle, relaxed, peaceful abandonment of the child in its mother’s arms.

“It is in a sense rather, then, a conscious forgetfulness of self. It banishes all the toil and fret of spiritual ambiguities in order not to turn back to self and seek self in vanity, rancour, or sorrow over what has been done or said, over praise or blame received, over evils seen or heard… The childhood of Our Lord teaches us the annihilation of our ego, obedience to God, silence, innocence, without self-assertion, but with the tranquil yielding of a child to grace. The soul no longer asserts itself to attain anything but on the contrary, annihilates itself; lets itself be led in littleness and implicit simplicity with pure and trusting gaze. This loss of the self-will is still another peculiarity of Christian childlikeness. This symbol of it is the natural behavior of children who trouble about nothing, abandoning themselves entirely to the care which parents devote to them” (end of Ida Gorres quotes).

We now move on to the work, The Little Way of Spiritual Childhood by Rev. G. Martin, 1923, written before St. Therese was canonized. This book is available for free download at https://archive.org/details/littlewayofspiri00martuoft

Rev. Martin begins by explaining who may benefit from employing St. Therese’s Little Way.
“Let us… observe that this state is always possible at any age and in all positions in life. For, as Blessed Therese asserted: “It is quite possible to remain little even in filling the most important offices, and even on attaining extreme old age. As for me, she said, if I lived eighty years, having filled all the offices, I should, I feel certain, be quite as little at the time of my death as I am to-day.” So her simple method is for everyone, and was even then.

The Divine justice
Martin observes: “But, someone will again object, ‘in God there are other attributes besides Mercy, and some of them very formidable. There is Justice.’ The objection would certainly be grave if justice tended solely to severity. But it falls of itself when we consider that the property of justice is to render to each one that which is his due, and consequently to reward the good as well as to punish the evil. Moreover, justice, to be equitable, must take into account good intentions and also circumstances which lessen the responsibility no less than those which increase it. Now there is in man so much of natural weakness, and original sin has added thereto so much of corruption, that before chastising him for his misdeeds, God, through a sentiment of justice, begins always by considering his profound misery.

“But He cannot look upon that without being moved to pity, and so it comes about that His Justice itself excites His Mercy. This it is which explains the very different manner in which He dealt with sin in the Angels and in man, and how the same justice which in presence of the sin of the Angels immediately delved out the abysses of hell, in face of the sin of Adam began by opening abysses of love, in the Redemption. And so it is because He is just that the good God is compassionate and full of gentleness “slow to punish and abounding in mercy. For He knoweth our frailty; He remembereth that we are but dust.”

“Besides, since in redeeming us Jesus Christ has made grace to superabound where sin hath abounded, we have through Him an incontestable right to the Divine pity. Since He has paid, and far more than paid all our debts, it is no longer through mercy alone, but through justice that the good God grants us pardon.” (And here we might add that we in these times, being deprived of all other spiritual aids save those which God generously provides us, have a greater claim to that pity than ever before.)

“One can sin by excess of confidence or presumption; and he would sin by presumption who, while wishing to continue to live in sin or in tepidity, should consider himself nevertheless as assured of salvation, or of attaining to perfection, on condition of supplying for his bad will by the excess of his confidence. To act so would be to fall into a very grave practical heresy. And that is certainly not what we wish to say. On the contrary, we suppose a well-grounded good
will — and one of those souls of whom there are many — who, still far from perfection, unite to sincere desires of being all for God many imperfections and failures. It happens to them to fail in their resolutions and to yield to their faults; they fall; but deep down, their will to sanctify themselves perseveres, and they are always in the disposition to work at it seriously. It is to them we say that they may give free scope to their confidence.

“Such were the habitual thoughts of our Beata. Therefore, the justice of God no less than His other attributes appeared to her all radiant with love. She hoped no less from it than from His Mercy, and so it is, that this justice which frightens so many souls was for her a subject of joy and confidence. In God she saw above all a father. And from the supremely equitable justice of a father infinitely good, what may a child well expect who no doubt sometimes forgets himself, but who nevertheless tries to love as much as he can and who feels that he is tenderly and deeply loved? Severity or tenderness?

“There is no room for doubt. If this father were ever so little unjust, ah, then the child would have reason to fear. From a father perfectly just, he may on the contrary hope all things. And when this father is God, the justice being infinite, confidence, too, ought to be without measure. Such are the true sources of supernatural hope. How, after that, could we restrict our confidence to the measure of merely human confidence? How could we set bounds to it?

Fears concerning the future
Numerous are the souls that trouble and torment themselves thinking of what shall happen and even of what shall never happen, and often they are all but crushed beneath the weight of sufferings fabricated by their imagination. Soeur Therese, more prudent and more wise, took refuge simply in confidence in God, and nothing could disturb the calm of her soul. For unalterable peace is one of the sweetest fruits of confidence. That is why the Psalmist says that “nothing shall move him who trusts in the mercy of the Most High.” Speaking of the possible sufferings of her malady and the last combats of the agony, our Beata avowed that she feared them not: The good God,” she said, “has always come to my assistance; He has helped me and led me by the hand from my earliest years . . I count on Him. My sufferings may reach their furthest limits, but I am sure that He will never abandon me.”

Yes, and so may ours reach their furthest limits, but He is ever with us. And we cannot fail in desiring to love Him if we put to use the excellent recommendations of St. Therese. Please download this work and use it as balm for the soul.

********************************************

Prayer Intention and checklist for June

Intention for the Month of June:
Sacred Heart of Jesus, Thy kingdom come! (Raccolta, 300 days)

June 1 – St. Angela Merici
Wednesday
🔲 Morning Offering in reparation for sins
🔲 Consecration by Pope Pius XII
🔲 Devotion to the SIH
🔲 Holy Rosary

June 2 – Sts. Marcellinus and Companions
Thursday
🔲 Morning Offering in reparation for sins
🔲 Consecration by Pope Pius XII
🔲 Devotion to the SIH
🔲 Holy Rosary

June 3 – St. Clotilda Queen, (FIRST FRIDAY)
Friday
🔲 Morning Offering in reparation for sins
🔲 Consecration by Pope Pius XII
🔲 Devotion to the SIH
🔲 Holy Rosary
🔲 Abstinence

June 4 – Vigil of Pentecost, St. Francis Carraciolo (FIRST SATURDAY)
Saturday
Morning Offering in reparation for sins
🔲 Consecration by Pope Pius XII
🔲 Devotion to the SIH
🔲 Spiritual Mass and Mortification for the intentions of the Society
🔲 Renew consecrations to SH and SIH to promote their interests and intentions
🔲 Holy Rosary

June 5 – Pentecost Sunday (St. Boniface)
Sunday
🔲 Morning Offering in reparation for sins
🔲 Consecration by Pope Pius XII
🔲 Devotion to the SIH
🔲 Holy Rosary

June 6 – St. Norbert
Monday
🔲 Morning Offering in reparation for sins
🔲 Consecration by Pope Pius XII
🔲 Devotion to the SIH
🔲 Holy Rosary

June 7 – St. Claude
Tuesday
🔲 Morning Offering in reparation for sins
🔲 Consecration by Pope Pius XII
🔲 Devotion to the SIH
🔲 Holy Rosary

June 8 – Ember Wednesday, fast and partial abstinence
Wednesday
🔲 Morning Offering in reparation for sins
🔲 Consecration by Pope Pius XII
🔲 Devotion to the SIH
🔲 Holy Rosary

June 9 – Sts. Primus and Felician
Thursday
🔲 Morning Offering in reparation for sins
🔲 Consecration by Pope Pius XII
🔲 Devotion to the SIH
🔲 Holy Rosary

June 10 – St. Margaret, Queen of Scotland
Friday
🔲 Morning Offering in reparation for sins
🔲 Consecration by Pope Pius XII
🔲 Devotion to the SIH
🔲 Holy Rosary
🔲 Abstinence

June 11 – Ember Day, St. Barnabas
Saturday
🔲 Morning Offering in reparation for sins
🔲 Consecration by Pope Pius XII
🔲 Devotion to the SIH
🔲 Spiritual Mass and Mortification for the intentions of the Society
🔲 Renew consecrations to SH and SIH to promote their interests and intentions
🔲 Holy Rosary

June 12 – Trinity Sunday
Sunday
🔲 Morning Offering in reparation for sins
🔲 Consecration by Pope Pius XII
🔲 Devotion to the SIH
🔲 Holy Rosary

June 13 – St. Anthony of Padua
Monday
🔲 Morning Offering in reparation for sins
🔲 Consecration by Pope Pius XII
🔲 Devotion to the SIH
🔲 Holy Rosary
🔲 Spiritual Mass and Mortification for the intentions of the Society
🔲 Renew consecrations to SH and SIH to promote their interests and intentions

June 14 – St. Basil the Great
Tuesday
🔲 Morning Offering in reparation for sins
🔲 Consecration by Pope Pius XII
🔲 Berthe Petit’s Consecration
🔲 Devotion to the SIH with the intention to renew oneself in the spirit of the Society
🔲 Holy Rosary

June 15 – Sts. Vitus, Modestus and Crescentia
Wednesday
🔲 Morning Offering in reparation for sins
🔲 Consecration by Pope Pius XII
🔲 Devotion to the SIH
🔲 Holy Rosary

June 16 – Feast of Corpus Christi
Thursday
🔲 Morning Offering in reparation for sins
🔲 Consecration by Pope Pius XII
🔲 Devotion to the SIH
🔲 Holy Rosary

June 17 – Sts. Nicander amd Marcian
Friday
🔲 Morning Offering in reparation for sins
🔲 Consecration by Pope Pius XII
🔲 Devotion to the SIH
🔲 Holy Rosary
🔲 Abstinence

June 18 – St. Ephrem the Syrian, Deacon
Saturday
🔲 Morning Offering in reparation for sins
🔲 Consecration by Pope Pius XII
🔲 Devotion to the SIH
🔲 Spiritual Mass and Mortification for the intentions of the Society
🔲 Renew consecrations to SH and SIH to promote their interests and intentions
🔲 Holy Rosary

June 19 – Second Sunday after Pentecost
Sunday
🔲 Morning Offering in reparation for sins
🔲 Consecration by Pope Pius XII
🔲 Devotion to the SIH
🔲 Holy Rosary

June 20 – St. Silverius
Monday
🔲 Morning Offering in reparation for sins
🔲 Consecration by Pope Pius XII
🔲 Devotion to the SIH
🔲 Holy Rosary

June 21 – St. Aloysius Gonzaga
Tuesday
🔲 Morning Offering in reparation for sins
🔲 Consecration by Pope Pius XII
🔲 Devotion to the SIH
🔲 Holy Rosary

June 22 – St. Paulinus
Wednesday
🔲 Morning Offering in reparation for sins
🔲 Consecration by Pope Pius XII
🔲 Devotion to the SIH
🔲 Holy Rosary

June 23 – Vigil of Nativity of St. John the Baptist
Thursday
🔲 Morning Offering in reparation for sins
🔲 Consecration by Pope Pius XII
🔲 Devotion to the SIH
🔲 Holy Rosary

June 24 – Feast of the Sacred Heart of Jesus –
(Renew Consecration of Family to the Sacred Heart)
Friday
🔲 Morning Offering in reparation for sins
🔲 Consecration by Pope Pius XII
🔲 Devotion to the SIH
🔲 Holy Rosary
🔲 Abstinence

June 25 – St. John the Baptist (transferred)
Saturday
🔲 Morning Offering in reparation for sins
🔲 Consecration by Pope Pius XII
🔲 Devotion to the SIH
🔲 Spiritual Mass and Mortification for the intentions of the Society
🔲 Renew consecrations to SH and SIH to promote their interests and intentions
🔲 Holy Rosary

June 26 – Third Sunday after Pentecost
Sunday
🔲 Morning Offering in reparation for sins
🔲 Consecration by Pope Pius XII
🔲 Devotion to the SIH
🔲 Holy Rosary

June 27 – Our Mother of Perpetual Help (in some places)
Monday
🔲 Morning Offering in reparation for sins
🔲 Consecration by Pope Pius XII
🔲 Devotion to the SIH
🔲 Holy Rosary

June 28 – St. Irenaeus
Tuesday
🔲 Morning Offering in reparation for sins
🔲 Consecration by Pope Pius XII
🔲 Devotion to SIH
🔲 Holy Rosary

June 29 – Sts. Peter and Paul, Apostles
Wednesday
🔲 Morning Offering in reparation for sins
🔲 Consecration by Pope Pius XII
🔲 Devotion to the SIH
🔲 Holy Rosary

June 30 – Commemoration of St. Paul
Thursday
🔲 Morning Offering in reparation for sins
🔲 Consecration by Pope Pius XII
🔲 Devotion to the SIH
🔲 Holy Rosary

Content Protection by DMCA.com
Church teaching on scandal taken, discord and contention

Church teaching on scandal taken, discord and contention

+St. Bernardine of Siena+

Over the past several years, the majority of questions posed by readers have involved how one is to conduct oneself among the Novus Ordo and Traditionalist sects regarding prayer in common with non-Catholics, attendance at and participation in weddings and funerals, sponsorship at Baptism, etc. When site revisions are completed, articles addressing these issues will be posted. In the meantime, a particular question has arisen that should be addressed to avoid any further confusion and speculation. After searching my library for days, a more definitive answer on this question has finally been located. It involves praying privately inside a pre-1958 Catholic church in order to make reparation for the false sacrifices offered there.

When questions like this arise, we cannot rely on a knee-jerk reaction to resolve them. While we may have the best of intentions, an opinion, however well-educated we think it might be, is not sufficient when we are dealing with matters that could involve serious sin such as communicatio in sacris. In these times when we have no clergy to approach for resolution of these cases the only thing we can do is to consult approved works written by valid pre-1959 clergy citing documents from the Roman Congregations and the Holy Office to provide a trustworthy answer to our questions. The selection below is taken from Questions and Answers II, Precepts, by Canon E. J. Mahoney, D.D., 1948, compiled from articles printed in the Clergy Review in Great Britain from 1931 to 1947:

“Titius is in the habit of entering the ancient cathedrals of this country, and other pre-Reformation churches now in Protestant hands, when no Protestant service is being performed, and there praying for the return of this country, and of the formerly Catholic shrine, to the faith. He is motived by thef acts (a) that this is in itself a good thing; (b) that at least some Catholic worship and reparation are thus offered in the desecrated shrine; and (c) that Catholics are encouraged at times to do this, e.g. the annual Catholic visit to the shrine ofSt Edwardat Westminster. On theother hand, he is aware of the possibility of scandal at being seen praying in a Protestant place of worship; also he is afraid there may be some positive prohibition of the practice, when not specially authorized by authority, as in the above case of St. Edward’s Shrine. What is to be answered?

“The principle is stated in an instruction of the Holy Office, given for the faithful of Kentucky, 13 January, 1818: An liceat Catholicis adire templa hareticorum?;Licere, si adeant merae curiositatis causa, absque ulla com- municatione in sacris, in qua talis aditus communiter habeatur pro actu protestativo falsae religionis; quandoquidem sicuti profana aedificia, sic et templa haereticorum adire, est actus per se indifferens; qui non nisi a pravo fine, vel ex circumstantiis efficitur malus. Malus nimirium efficitur: 1. Si quis ea adeat animo adsistendi sacris haereticorum functionibus; 2 . vel etiam sine tali animo, si ingressus ipse in haereticorum ecclesias aliquam inferat vel inferre videatur cum iisdem haereticis in divinis communicationem, hinc et scandali occasionem praebeat . . . . 4. vel utrumque communiter habeatur veluti tessera unius eiusdemque communionis catholicorum et acatholi- corum.’

“The reply is concerned chiefly with permitting such visits curiositatis causa, and I know of no definite instruction which covers exactly the point raised above. But it is clear, both from this text and from other instructions, that what is absolutely forbidden is communicating in the worship of heretics even though the prayers said contain nothing heretical. Therefore, the use of a building is indifferent. The Church even tolerates, for proportionately grave reasons the use for public Catholic worship of a building which belongs to non-Catholics or is used alternately by Catholics and non-Catholics, as for example the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. Granted its intrinsic lawfulness, the question can be answered by applying the voluntarium indirectum principle to each individual case. The point to be examined is whether the possible scandal, or danger of perversion, is compensated by a proportionately grave cause justifying the practice.

“In the case of public Catholic worship in non-Catholic churches the permission of the Ordinary must be obtained, as is done, presumably, in the case of St. Edward’s Shrine, or in the case of Mass celebrated in the ruins of a monastic church. But an individual may arrive at a prudent decision, if necessary, by consulting a confessor, in determining the lawfulness of private prayer. If one may consider the generality of cases of this kind, it appears that, whereas it is the exception to tolerate the presence of a Catholic at non-Catholic religious rites, it would be rather the exception to prohibit the practice of private prayer in a pre-Reformation church. For it would only be in exceptional cases that any scandal or danger of perversion would arise. A recent convert, for example, in a cathedral town, should not be allowed to visit the cathedral for private prayer; there is danger of perversion. Likewise no Catholic should use a pre-Reformation church which is now devoted by Anglicans to a close imitation of “Roman” rites; there is possibility of scandal. Similarly, one should not visit a pre-Reformation church situated in one’s own parish; there would be danger of giving scandal to the Catholic population. But, apart from such cases, no bad result can usually be anticipated. On the contrary, it is good for the sacred building to be used occasionally by the faithful for whom it was erected, and I believe it is a fairly common practice for the clergy to recite their office in such churches” (end of Mahoney quote).

Comments

It should be said from the outset that such cases must be judged based on the particular circumstances and according to the intentions of the person entering the church. That being said, it is hard to see how doing so with caution in these times and in the absence of true scandal could be taken as sinful or wrong in any way. To answer questions that may arise after reading the above, we would like to note the following.
  1. Canon Mahoney discourages this practice if the pre-Reformation church in question is used for services “in close imitation of Roman rites.” Here I believe he is referring to high Anglicans who conform more closely with some Catholic rituals and even include some Latin in their services at times. This would apply to Traditionalist services far more than to the Novus Ordo, (but the services are not Traditionalist in this case but Novus Ordo). In other words, it would be prohibited to pray in any Traditionalist church. a) I do not think anyone believes the Novus Ordo rite can any longer be considered a “close imitation” of Roman rites. Mahoney also says there is only the “possibility” of scandal but who would be scandalized given our current situation today? b) As Rev. John R. Bancroft, C.S.S.R., J.C.B., S.T.L. reminds us in his 1943 CUA Canon Law dissertation, Communication in Religious Worship with Non-Catholics: “When the danger of perversion or scandal to the faithful is not to be feared, what is not illicit in itself may be tolerated more easily and priests should be cautious about forbidding what can never be permitted lest they disturb good faith without hope of fruit.” The Church herself declares that praying in such churches is not illicit and Canon Mahoney even deems it commendable. If even priests should be cautious in prohibiting such things, all the more so the laity in these circumstances.
  2. As far as praying in a church situated in one’s own parish, we have no such parishes per se any longer, and there are no fellow Catholics to scandalize.
  3. Taking scandal at such things is not the same as actually being scandalized in the proper sense. Taking scandal consists in thinking we see sin or offensive behavior where there is none. Fr. Frederick Faber writes in his Spiritual Conferences: “To give scandal is a great fault, but to take scandal is a greater fault. It implies a greater amount of wrongness in ourselves, and it does a greater amount of mischief to others” (https://www.fisheaters.com/ontakingscandal.html).

Rules of fraternal correction

Before becoming alarmed at what we believe to be sinful or offensive behavior, we need to make certain it is truly what we believe it to be and that we are obligated to address it. The following is taken from Moral Theology: A Complete Course Based on St. Thomas Aquinas and the Best Modern Authorities by John A. McHugh and Charles J. Callan, 1958:

  1. IT IS NOT OFTEN NECESSARY FOR ONE WHO IS NOT A SUPERIOR TO MAKE FRATERNAL CORRECTION, SINCE THERE ARE MANY CONDITIONS THAT MUST EXIST BEFORE ONE IS OBLIGED TO IT. These conditions include the purpose to be attained, of which we have just spoken, and the proper circumstances, which are as follows: (a) THE FAULT TO BE CORRECTED SHOULD BE A KNOWN AND SERIOUS SIN; (b) the person to give the correction should be one who has the right and duty to correct; (c) the manner of giving the correction should be such as will promote the end in view.
  2. ONE SHOULD NOT ATTEMPT TO CORRECT A FAULT, UNLESS ONE IS MORALLY SURE THAT A FAULT HAS BEEN COMMITTED OR IS ABOUT TO BE COMMITTED. For this reason the scrupulous, who are inclined to suspect or see evil where there is none, are generally excused from the duty of making corrections.
  3. Since fraternal correction is given for the purpose of converting a sinner from the evil of his ways, IT IS NOT CALLED FOR WHEN ONE’S NEIGHBOR IS NOT A SINNER, strictly speaking, or has already reformed. Thus, there is no need of this correction in the following cases: (a) WHEN A PERSON SINS THROUGH IGNORANCE AND IS NOT GUILTY OF FORMAL SIN; (b) when a person who was a sinner in the past has given up his old ways.

If the person is a superior with the obligation to correct, and is certain they are not afflicted with scruples, how can morally certainty be obtained in such cases? Primarily by consulting works that treat of the case at issue and following them. We are not allowed to correct another in such instances unless we are certain, based on the teachings of the Church, the approved canonists and doctors of sacred theology and the moral theologians, that they are sinning. This not only injures our neighbor and may even alienate him, but involves ourselves in sins against prudence and even more other serious sins as well.

And from here we head into a different but related issue that also has been making the rounds these days. If we wish to live in peace with our neighbor, to experience the fruits of a prayer apostolate and continuing study of the faith, we must avoid all those things the New Testament teaches regarding charity and love of the brethren. Unless we all purge ourselves of any inclination whatsoever to sins against charity, we will become nothing more than those eventually exiting and recreating the forever splintering Traditionalist sects. St. Thomas Aquinas, quoted by Revs. McHugh and Callan, explains the dangers of these sins below

Sins Against Peace (Summa Theologica, II-II, qq. 37-42.)

  1. Sinfulness of Unintentional Discord — (a) From its nature, this kind of discord is not opposed to charity, nor is it sinful; for the concord of charity consists in a union of wills, not in a union of opinions. Thus, the disagreement between Paul and Barnabas about John Mark (Acts, xv. 39) was not sinful, although the difference of judgment indicated their human limitations. (b) From its circumstances, this kind of discord may be sinful, as when it is caused by culpable ignorance in matters of faith, or is carried on with obstinacy.
  1. By whom is the sin of discord committed? (a) It is committed sometimes by one party only, as when one knowingly resists the will of another who wishes to perform a necessary act of charity. (b) It is committed at other times by both parties, as when each in defending his own good infringes knowingly on the charity due the other.
  1. 1355. Contention — Contention is discord carried into words or equivalent signs, (i.e., a dispute or altercation), in which one denies what the other affirms. It is divided as follows: (a) by reason of the intention, it is either an investigation of the truth, a defense of the truth, or an attack on the truth; (b) by reason of the manner in which it is conducted, it is either suitable or unsuitable to the persons and the matter in question.
  1. Contention whose aim is the discovery of the truth is lawful as follows. (a) Such contention is lawful and useful in itself, for it is a means of acquiring useful knowledge, of seeing both sides of a question, and of sharpening the mind for the refutation of error. Hence, a contest in a court of justice, a controversy in a scientific journal, a public debate on some important matter, and a theological disputation are according to their nature lawful, and may be necessary. (b) DEBATE IS UNLAWFUL IN ITS MANNER WHEN A DISPUTANT DOES NOT ARGUE ACCORDING TO THE RULES, APPEALS TO PREJUDICE OR IGNORANCE, USES AN INSULTING TONE OR UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE, ETC.
  1. The Sin of Contention — Contention is a sin when its aim is the concealment or discomfiture of the truth. (a) From its nature this kind of contention is a mortal sin, for it is the external expression of internal discord in matters about which charity requires concord and the same speech. Hence, the Apostle numbers contention among the works of the flesh that exclude from the kingdom of God (Gal, v. 20). (b) From the lightness of the matter or the imperfection of the consent, this kind of contention is very often, if not usually, only a venial sin, or no sin at all. Examples: A person argues against what he knows is true, but the matter is trivial (e.g., his weight); or he is distracted by the heat of dispute or the tactics of the other party.
  1. Mortal sin is not committed by contention, therefore, unless the truths against which one contends are of a serious kind. Such truths are: (a) truths of a religious or moral character, such as the doctrines of faith and the commandments of God; (b) natural truths of a universal character, the knowledge of which pertains to the perfection of the intellect, such as first principles; (c) natural truths of a particular character in which important rights are involved. Example: An historian who writes against some deservedly revered person of the past, or a lawyer who attempts to prove against an accused what he knows is not a fact, are guilty of the sin of contention.
  2. Hence, one may be defending one kind of truth and contending against another kind of truth at the same time. St. Paul, accordingly, makes the distinction between announcement of the truth out of charity and announcement of the truth out of contention (Philip, i, 15 sqq.). (a) The truth is defended out of charity when one does not use truth as a means for the defense of error; (b) it is defended out of contention when one makes use of it as a means for the propagation of error. Thus, while St. Paul was imprisoned at Rome in 61, certain personal enemies preached Christ, but at the same time spoke or hinted falsehoods against St. Paul in order to undermine his authority or add to the bitterness of his captivity. [To defend] the truth to make oneself appear different or better than one is, one speaks from contention.
  3. Ways in which one is guilty of the mortal sin of contention: (a) when one contends formally against the truth, that is, when one knows the truth and intends to overcome it or suppress it; (b) when one contends virtually against the truth, that is, when one is so bent on carrying one’s point that one does not care whether it is true or false. Thus, the Sophists aimed to win, right or wrong.
  1. When the aim of contention is the overthrow of error: (a) in itself, such contention is good and praiseworthy, and at times necessary; (b) by reason of circumstances, it may be a venial or a mortal sin. Examples: A dispute on a matter that is unbecoming, such as which of the disputants is greater (Luke, xxii. 24); dispute with greater warmth than the case requires; a dispute that leads to scandal or other evil consequences, as in religious controversies (I Tim., ii. 14).

While spending time with the conclavists, such discord and contention was rife and was actually encouraged by the group’s head.  All of those involved, but especially the young, were truly scandalized by it and many of them lost their faith. To this day, those of us who were adults emerging from that sect deeply regret that we did not recognize it for what it was and immediately put an end to it. These sins against peace have been the cause among Traditionalists of family upheaval, economic hardship, lost children, divorce, ruined friendships, mental illness and much more. Therefore the axe needs to be put to the root of this evil tree before it bears any further bad fruits. If we did not speak out against it God would hold us accountable. For “It is better that scandals arise than the truth be suppressed.” -– Pope St. Gregory the Great

Content Protection by DMCA.com
Be ye perfect and live in the Spirit!

Be ye perfect and live in the Spirit!

+ St. Robert Bellarmine+

Having laid aside various distractions and phantoms, it is time to regroup and start paying attention to our day-to-day spiritual life. This was the purpose of creating the prayer society — and it needs to be supplemented with material that will help nourish and develop the interior life so long neglected for lack of spiritual directors and reading material appropriate to these times. Yes, I will still call out Trads when necessary, but only briefly and by pointing to previously published works.  The focus however will be self, myself and yourselves. My English ancestors’ motto, in the days before the Reformation, was “Nosce te ipsum” — know thyself. For without self-knowledge there can be no spiritual realization and therefore no advancement.

So where to begin? A Jesuit priest writing in 1953 provides a short and simple evaluation of what to address first; a link to this work and an excellent work on the Holy Ghost by Henry Edward Cardinal Manning will be provided below. The work by the Jesuit priest , Fr. Eiten, emphasizes the need to perfect ourselves, and this is the goal, but first it may be useful to drive home the reasons why we should strive for perfection and the initial step needed to begin that journey.  A fellow pray-at-home blogger has pointed out the importance of realizing the necessity of practicing the presence of God, and this is indeed essential to prayer life (https://catholiceclipsed.com/2022/04/13/on-the-omnipresence-of-god-and-the-self/). But the most compelling reason for this practice is something few of us really comprehend.

As Saint Paul writes, “Live in the spirit!” This is the title of Fr. Bruno Hagspiel S.V.D.’s touching and very instructive work, written in 1957. He lamented that rather than being revived in the 20th century, devotion to the Holy Ghost “has fallen into near oblivion” (p. 2). Hagspiel, a retreat master and an acclaimed author on the spiritual life, very carefully guides his readers around the many pitfalls that prevent them from realizing their commitment to live in the spirit and in so doing renew their spiritual life. While Fr. Hagspiel’s work was written for religious women, it provides a sound foundation that can be used by the laity as well to reawaken their Catholic instincts and arm themselves for the spiritual combat that today so closely resembles the circumstances of the early Christian martyrs.

Fr. Hagspiel tells us: “St. Paul, writing to the various churches and reprimanding the faithful for various vices and abuses that had crept into their congregations used a uniquely sharp tone in reminding them that they are temples of the Holy Ghost: “Know you not that you are the temple of God and the spirit of God dwelleth in you? (1 Corinthians 3:16 and Romans 6:19). In other words, how could you ever fall so deeply? How could you ever forget that you are the very temples of the Holy Ghost who is in you? With him in you, you no longer belong to yourselves. This is a truth that you should never forget, for without it how can you practice faithfully the essential Christian virtues?” And Fr, Hagspiel says that those are namely charity, chastity and a childlike trust in God, a trust which the great spiritual master, Fr. Frederick Faber, describes as “…The strength of love… chastised, equable and steadfast. It breaks out into action as if it could not be kept in…It has also the same irresistible tendency to prayer which it has to action… All our spiritual exercises, whatever nature they may be, are so many means of acquiring confidence in God.” Fr. Hagspiel continues:

“In this world of sudden events and sudden changes, in these days of growing unrest and gloom and depression, do we not need such trust and confidence in God more than ever before? what if we, in our own country, should have to face such days of bloodshed and persecution as our brethren have had to face in Russia, Mexico, Austria, Poland, Hungary etc.? How shall we be able to bear such trials bravely and valiantly if we are not strong in our trust and confidence in the indwelling spirit of the living God?”  And here he gives a little prayer Cardinal Mercier wrote called “A Secret to Sanctity.” The cardinal writes: “I am going to reveal to you a secret of sanctity and happiness. If every day, during five minutes, you will keep your imagination quiet shut your eyes to all the things of sense and close your ears to all the sound of earth so as to be able to withdraw unto the sanctuary of your baptized soul, which is the temple of the Holy Ghost, speak there to the Holy Ghost saying:

‘O Holy Ghost, soul of my soul, I adore Thee.

Enlighten, guide, strengthen and console me.

Tell me what I ought to do and command me to do it.

I promise to be submissive in everything that

Thou permittest to happen to me.

Only show me what is Thy will!’

“If you do this your life will pass happily and serenely. Consolation will abound even in the midst of troubles. Grace will be given in proportion to the trial as well as strength to bear it, bringing you to the Gates of Paradise full of merit.” Fr. Hagspiel adds: “We must get back to the spirit of God if we want to prove ourselves staunch Christians and true members of Holy Mother Church. We must again make this devotion to the Holy Ghost the outstanding devotion among all members of the Catholic Church after the example of the Christians of old in order to rid ourselves of the spirit of the world.”

Make no mistake — there is at this very moment a fierce battle being waged for our souls. It is a life and death battle — spiritual life and death — conceived and set in motion by the rulers of this world of perceptible darkness, the masters of evil and deception. It takes little imagination at this point to envision what those in power today eventually have in store for anyone refusing to obey their commands. In order to successfully fight this battle, all Christians must be fitted with the spiritual armor described by Saint Paul that they may be able to overcome “the spirits of wickedness in the high places” (Ephesians, Ch. 6:13). The first piece of that armor is having your loins girt about in truth (Ibid., v. 14). The breastplate of justice (v. 15) and the gospel of peace comes next in verse 16. This order continues with the shield of faith, the helmet of salvation of the sword of the spirit, which is the word of God (verse 17-18). Christians are then instructed to beg the Saints for their intercession by “praying in the spirit” (verse 19).

Having thus armed themselves, the battle lines must be drawn: first in the battle against self — one’s own spiritual life — and second, in a more general manner, to fight together as Catholics against the spirits of wickedness now cast down upon this earth. Truth is the one most elusive piece of this armor so necessary to this spiritual combat and to eternal salvation. Without it no preparedness of any kind can even begin. Many today boast of all the measures they have taken to ensure their physical survival but what have they done, in equal and most necessarily in greater measure, to study the truths of faith and come to a clear understanding of what war it really is they are engaged in?

For every battle fought, battle lines must be drawn and only in the correct estimation of these lines can victory be assured. Catholics today do not know where to draw these lines. Some believe themselves to be Catholic when this is not even the case. Pope Benedict XV wrote in his encyclical Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum in 1914: “Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected:This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved (Athanas. Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim Christian is my name and Catholic my surname, only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself.” What IS true Catholicism — who can count themselves as members of this most noble society, the Mystical Body of Christ on earth? How successful the enemy has already been in penetrating the camp of the Saints and how few indeed are fully aware of the destruction he has wrought! Those exploring this topic have offered several explanations and remedies but all of them entirely miss the point, in whole or in part. The type of approach to employ in evaluating the dire situation in the Church today — for those who truly believe there is a major departure in teaching belief and practice over the past 60 plus years — is not to analyze persons and events and dialogue readers to death.

If we truly believe in the words of Holy Scripture; if we are truly willing to prepare ourselves to fight this spiritual battle, then we must be willing also to abandon any preconceived notion of this truth and return to its age-old sources.

Prior to his death, the Reformation martyr St. Thomas More told his Anglican interrogators:

       “For I doubt not, but of the learned and virtuous men now alive — I do not speak only of this Realm, but of all Christendom — there are ten to one of my mind in this matter; but if I should take notice of those learned Doctors and virtuous Fathers that are already dead, many of whom are Saints in Heaven, I am sure there are far more, who all the while they lived thought in this Cause as I do now. And therefore, my Lord, I do not think myself bound to conform my conscience to the counsel of one Kingdom, against the general consent of all Christendom” (From The Trial of Sir Thomas More, May 7, 1535 in A Complete Collection of State Trials and Proceeding Upon Impeachments for High Treason, etc. (London, 1719), http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/more/moretrialreport.html).

How many Catholics or those calling themselves Catholics today really know what the Catholics in St. Thomas More’s time and before his death thought and believed? Do they really think that today they could say they believe the same as those Catholics believed, or even those who Fr. Hagspiel wrote for during the time of Pope Pius XII? Do they simply look at what exists today and believe what they are told is Catholic by those who never even saw the inside of a Catholic college or seminary, or do they study their faith and really know for a fact it is Catholic, from approved pre-1959 sources? Because between the death of Saint Thomas More and the death of Pope Pius XII, none of those beliefs changed; none of them. Nor did or could Christ’s very words in the liturgy change or any of the beliefs that Catholics have always held because truth never changes. It may become better defined, clearer, and made more available, but it forever remains the same because God is its ultimate author and is Himself incapable of change. Doctrine develops; it does not and cannot evolve. That is Modernism.

The solution for the lack of Catholicity in the world today begins by learning once again to “live in the spirit.” The following book by Robert B. Eiten, S.J.  provides some general guidelines for the lay person wishing to lead a more perfect life:

https://curate.nd.edu/show/8049g448904 

See also Cardinal Manning’s work on the Holy Ghost at:

https://ia800309.us.archive.org/14/items/TheHolyGhostTheSanctifier/TheHolyGhostTheSanctifier.pdf

May we all learn together to become once again the Catholic Christians Our Lord always intended us to be.

What in the World…

A good summary of the decline of the Church? Really?

I recently viewed an older video made by a Traditionalist “bishop” that reportedly gave a good summary of what happened to the Church that brought us to where we are today. The omissions found were not surprising but the fact that someone thought this a good summary of what had happened to the Church was disappointing to say the least. The history given was a truncated one, which in it itself is always prone to oversimplifying issues that should be explained more carefully. But the three major omissions, predictable though they were, is what was concerning. The reason they are concerning is that an entirely skewed and incomplete picture of what led to the infiltration of the Church results, one that does NOT give Catholics any meaningful idea of what really happened. This is not just an opinion but is based on incontrovertible facts. In rendering this history, the topics of Gallicanism, Freemasonry and the primary causes of Modernism are ignored. Look for a new article on this topic on the Articles page under The Churchfollowing the completion of the site rebuild.

A pope cannot become a heretic

A Traditionalist site has provided the partial translation of a work by the theologian and canonist Felix Cappello that categorically states the pope cannot become a heretic. This teaching of St. Robert Bellarmine has been presented on this site for decades. While what Cappello says is very instructive, given the claims by Novus Ordo and other so-called Traditionalist clergy and lay writers to the contrary, it does not address the problem of what happened following the death of Pope Pius XII. This site has never maintained that John 23 was not a pope because he became a heretic while in office, as others have claimed regarding the usurpers. It has been demonstrated repeatedly that John 23 was suspect of heresy PRIOR to his election, can be judged as a heretic based on his statements and behavior pre-election, and in the end was doubtfully elected on several different counts. So ergo, per St. Robert Bellarmine, Roncalli could never have been pope. All this is based on the teachings of Pope Paul IV’s 1559 infallible bull, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio.

Follow this up with Canon 2391 §1, which states “A college which knowingly elects an unworthy person is automatically deprived for that particular election of the right to hold a new election.” The conduct of the cardinals at the false Vatican 2 council alone proves they knowingly elected Roncalli for they willingly went along with everything he proposed. So bingo, we can kill two birds with one stone and be rid of both Roncalli and Montini thanks to Can. 2391. But now we have Novus Ordo conservatives alleging that Francis was invalidly elected (ya think?!) and Benedict 16, the known Modernist, is still pope. What is it with these folks that makes it so impossible for them to extend their thinking processes to Roncalli? Is it the thought of all the tithes wasted, the errors learned, the sacraments never received?  Well join the club, people, and start making amends. We cannot control our past but we can and must repent and take charge of our future. If we are really serious about saving our souls, we cannot waste time lamenting over the fact we were duped. For none of us ever know when our time is up.

Further notes on Fatima

Having said my last about Fatima, relatively speaking, I want to sum everything up with this. Marian apparitions all have the same message: Pray, do penance, make sacrifices for sinners, perform your daily duties and if the world does not convert, expect a terrible, twofold chastisement, one spiritual (which we have already seen) and the other physical, which we may soon expect. We don’t need any more particulars. Had Catholics studied doctrine and obeyed the popes, had they concentrated less on Fatima and Rosary crusades, anti-Commie rallies and other popular devotions and learned their faith, we would not be where we are today. The rally mentality and profit mongering created around Fatima was likely intended to distract the laity from the infiltration of the Church. “My people have been silent, because they had no knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will reject thee, that thou shalt not do the office of priesthood to me” (speaking to the Jewish priests — Hosea 4:6). Prophecy fulfilled.

We are not required to believe in any given apparition; but we must accept every truth of faith that is taught by the Church and obey the Roman Pontiffs. We have to recognize that the Fatima messages most likely were falsified to an unknown degree and are now being used as a propaganda vehicle. (Francis recently embraced the Russian Orthodox Patriarch as part of the church in Rome, as anticipated.) Therefore we must reject the falsification of those messages and all that comes from it. Beyond that, nothing more is necessary. For those wishing to hear more on this topic, see our most recent video at:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6Gltn_ZdfGo

Content Protection by DMCA.com