+St. Vincent Ferrer+

Friday we celebrate the feast of Our Lady of Sorrows. This feast, according to Dom Gueranger, was consecrated by the Church in a special manner to the Sorrowful Mother under various titles beginning in 1423. That it was the intent of the usurpers to deprive us of this liturgical devotion to the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary is seen by the fact that John 23 downgraded it to a commemoration only along with the feasts of St. George, Our Lady of Mt. Carmel, St. Alexius, Sts. Cyriacus, Largus and Smaragdus, the Impression of the Stigmata of St. Francis, Sts. Eustace and Companions, Our Lady of Ransom, St. Thomas a Becket and St. Sylvester. Feasts actually abolished include those of St. Philomena, St. Christopher, St. Barbara, St. Ursula, St. Nicholas, The Finding of the Holy Cross, St. John Before the Latin Gate, The Apparition of St. Michael, and St. Peter’s Chains. Twenty more saints were removed by Benedict 16, just in case those believing him to be any better than his predecessors might be reading this.

This is precisely why the prayer society is one of reparation. We wish all to consider the Friday during Passion Week in Lent, Feast of the Seven Dolors of the Blessed Virgin — the compassion of Mary in union with her Son’s martyrdom — as the official anniversary of the establishment of this prayer society. On this feast day, we ask members to pray for the cessation of all ceremonies that falsely claim to celebrate the Continual Sacrifice offered by our Lord on the Cross, a sacrifice the Blessed Mother shared with Him. These ceremonies not only wound the Sacred Hearts deeply but lead souls astray. We pray for the conversion of those celebrating them and those attending them. Please see the prayer society checklist for April at the end of this blog. All prayer commitments are voluntary.

Update on Material-Formal debate

A reasonably well-researched and brief article has been presented by a Sedevacantist “cleric” from St. Gertrude the Great explaining why the church and seminary there do not accept Guerard des Lauriers’ material-formal theory. The author proves his point, although he cites modern works in some places. In this article the following statement is made:

“…Since the Thesis holds that Bergoglio and his bishops receive legal designation to maintain the apostolicity from the part of the Church, then the only logical conclusion would be that we, the Traditional Bishops and priests, have not received legal designation… That the traditional clergy is illegal, that is, outside the true Church and true apostolicity… is a position which is defended by the Novus Ordo and the R&R position; but it must be rejected by the Sedevacantists… One cannot see these differences among the traditional clergy as something one can just express his opinion about, like a debate about the working of God’s grace in a soul. These questions pertain to where is the true Church of Christ, which obviously affects the salvation of souls… While it is true that one can err in good faith where the true Church is, no one can remain in the state of doubt about it.”

But it is not this false thesis itself which holds Traditionalists are outside the Church and true apostolicity, but the constant teachings of popes and councils. And it is true, this cannot be and must not be something that is relegated to a matter of opinion. If no one may remain in doubt about where the true Church is, as this Traditionalist rightly states, then the next article that must be presented is a believable, provable CATHOLIC documentation of Traditionalists’ ability to operate minus a true pope, which is the real elephant in the room everyone is ignoring. And please, leave Cekada out of the proofs and quotes and stick to solid papal, conciliar and Church-approved sources in any such presentation. The article excerpted above proves they have the ability on some level to conduct research. But unless they prove their case without resorting to epikeia and other fallacies of operation, they are what their opponents claim — headed for total discreditation and dissolution, just as the material formal crowd itself is headed, and that is inevitable in any case. Because If they honestly and diligently investigate, they will discover that the very lack of integrity they decry in the Novus Ordo and R&R types is lacking in their own justification for operating outside the papacy.

Either the R&R, Novus Ordo and Sedevacantist sects accept ALL true Church teaching as this recent article states or they will accept the “holy pope” and “great monarch” now waiting in the wings, soon to be handed to them by Bergoglio and company. As Henry Cardinal Manning so aptly warns: “Whosoever shall fall on this stone [the Rock that is St. Peter] shall be broken, but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder” (Matt. 21:44).

What in the world… The Fatima controversy

Even before writing my last blog on the actual legitimacy of the Fatima apparitions, several secular works questioned the apparitions from a non-Catholic standpoint making blasphemous, claims, basing conclusions on sketchy information and generally trashing devotion to Mary and belief in miracles. While I have doubts myself about just how far the entire affair was compromised, I do believe Our Lady appeared to the children. Exactly what she said and what has been added or subtracted over the years I do not know. And now the Church and the world is in such a state of chaos we will NEVER know the truth, and that is something we simply have to live with. I have never been big on private revelations although I did write a book on Fatima in 2012. Even in that book I expressed reservations. I personally believe the use of dates and numbers at Fatima speaks volumes, and I explained this in that work. There is a way to interpret the clues the Blessed Mother left in her apparitions in a totally Catholic manner, aside from the messages, that tells us all we need to know about what she came to warn us about, including the contents of the Third Secret. The fact that no one ever delved into the spiritual side of the apparitions is why we find ourselves in the midst of this debate today.

Who do we trust regarding revisionist history on Fatima — Protestants? Novus Ordo authors? Sci-fi enthusiasts? If we can’t trace it back somehow through trustworthy channels existing at least pre-1959 is it even reliable? Are there anytruly trustworthy channels, since it appears to have been corrupted and redirected secretly from within the Church itself? We can only speculate on all these things, really, and that goes for either side, pro or con. Given a fake sister Lucy (and this has been proven from several different sources; the best researched of these can be found at https://diesilli.com/blog/) and the fact that the Vatican called in all Sr. Lucia’s handwritten notes, along with the Third Secret in 1957, something was definitely up. And we know what was going on in the Vatican in the 1950s, as demonstrated in The Phantom Church in Rome. More research is necessary to establish the facts as far as this can be done and is underway. And until we have a better idea of what we are looking at, it is probably imprudent to proceed any further. So why the big stir in the first place?

Well yes, the last blog has caused some of that stir, but someone had to point out how Fatima was manipulated all those years to help accomplish Vatican 2. Felix Morlion was the force behind religious liberty and was working in concert with John Courtney Murray to pave the way for Vatican 2. He also was the one responsible for instilling liberation theology sympathies among the clergy in Central and South America, as the hatchet man for John 23rd and Paul 6. This should help document the subversion of the Church, not cause an overreaction that entirely trashes the apparitions. Nor should people reading how Fatima has been propagandized be tempted to adopt a Manichaean attitude towards the apparitions, assuming that because the what they see proceeding from Fatima today is being used so successfully for evil it must be evil in itself. This is the same type of thinking that prompts people to believe that guns, not the people who use them to maim or kill others, are evil in themselves, so guns must be banned. The contents of the Third Secret should be clear whether it has been released or not; we have it on the word of Holy Scripture. All the markers are there. And this is what the Church expects us to resort to in determining the truth, not apparitions.

First came the great revolt — the cardinals posit an invalid election exactly as anticipated in Pope Paul IV’s 1559 bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, which calls the usurpation of the Holy See by a heretic the arrival of the Abomination of Desolation. Once he who withhold is taken out of the way as St. Paul predicts (the papacy), the bishops would complete the revolt at Vatican 2. Then the Man of Sin is revealed for what he truly is, the counterfeit church is set up and the Holy Sacrifice is officially taken away. What more do people want? That should be enough for anyone, coming as it does from an infallible papal document as well as several places in Holy Scripture. But people refuse to see things for what they really are because they are afraid to believe we live in the very last days. Private prophecies and revelations allow them to interpret events privately, something not allowed in Holy Scripture and regarding papal decrees. They then can customize and adjust these events to suit the times and their own personal tastes. And they can speculate endlessly about the contents of the Third Secret, since it was never released, all the while ignoring the fact that we don’t need to know it — we are living it!

Those subverting the Church knew Fatima was a useful distraction, which is why we have Traditionalism today. It kept the fires of hope burning, telling Catholics that this was merely a temporary situation — eventually the “clans would be united” and a true pope could be elected, when this is no longer possible. As pointed out in the last blog, the “holy pope” everyone is expecting and restoration Traditionalists are awaiting can only be a creation of the counterfeit church, no matter how orthodox he may appear to be. And many will settle for that rather than accept the fact that Antichrist has already come and only God Himself can resolve — or end, once and for all — this incredibly painful trial. The Fatima messages were compromised to perpetuate that false hope as well — peace in the end no matter how we behaved or what else might happen; no need for a sufficient number of the faithful practicing prayer and penance and no need to figure out what was really going on in the Church. Do what you please; it will all work out in the end because that promise of Russia’s conversion and the subsequent peace was unconditional. This kept people focused on political developments, private revelations and prophecies to help shore up that hope because they felt it was all they had left.

It also fostered an unhealthy, cultistic attitude toward the apparitions that verged on Mariolatry, obfuscating the need to obey papal and conciliar teachings. This is why people like Schuckardt and Gruner were so successful. To be anti-Fatima was very nearly made the equivalent of being anti-Catholic; to belong to Traditionalist or conservative Novus Ordo sects and be accepted one had to go along with their devotions to get along. Even if they secretly harbored grave doubts, there are those who would not openly admit that Fatima was used as a propaganda tool by those who later set up the Novus Ordo. And this they do simply to appear to be part of the herd and avoid persecution. This is how, as Henry Cardinal Manning so well explains, the Incarnation and its earthly manifestation, the papacy, was driven from the face of the earth, setting the stage for Vatican 2. Perhaps papal obedience should have been part of the Fatima message as it was in Our Lady’s message to the children at La Salette. Who knows; maybe it was.

Knowing how and why Fatima was perverted is necessary to avoid the traps laid by the usurpers and their push to establish a worldwide religion in conjunction with the New World Order. They cannot be allowed to use Our Lady to make it appear her messages confirm their diabolical agenda. But with or without accepting Fatima as true, we are still tasked to save our own souls and that depends on accepting all the Church teaches up to the death of Pope Pius XII, not resorting to private revelations and prophecies to help figure out what’s going on in the world. We cannot be attacking each other over these apparitions which are not necessary for salvation. This is just another snare laid by the enemy to divide us even further. Yes, I know Fatima is approved by the Church but what exactly does such approval mean? Does it bind us for belief even when it is once realized that new doubts have arisen? The pronouncements of the Church should clear up any questions on this matter.

Concerning both Lourdes and La Salette, Pope St. Pius X wrote, in his encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis: “These apparitions or revelations have neither been approved nor condemned by the Holy See, which has simply allowed them to be believed on purely human faith, in the traditions which they relate, corroborated by testimony and documents worthy of credence. Anyone who follows this rule has no cause to fear.” St. Thomas Aquinas tells us human faith is an opinion strengthened by proofs, or certitude, which requires that the intellect firmly adhere to a given object. The Church allows belief in these apparitions on human faith arising from moral certitude as defined by the Council of Trent and Pope Benedict XIV. Pope Benedict XIV writes: “While there must not and cannot be given an assent of Catholic faith, there may, however, be given an assent of human faith following the rules of prudence and according to which these revelations are probable and piously credible,” (De Servorum Dei Beati…, 1747).

The following is taken from Rev. Michael Walsh, B.D., B.A., The Apparition At Knock – A Survey Of Facts And Evidence, 2nd ed. St. Jarlath’s College, Tuam, 1959. Pp 10-14. Chapter IV – Catholic Teaching: “In 1877 the [Sacred] Congregation of Rites was asked whether it approved the apparitions at Lourdes and La Salette. The reply was: “Such apparitions are neither approved nor reproved or condemned by the Holy See; they are simply authorised as pious beliefs on purely human faith, according to a tradition which has been confirmed by suitable testimonies and evidences.” (A.S.S., 11. 1877). As Walsh further notes: “Accounts of visions or apparitions are not to be accepted without serious examination… In general it can be said that until such time as a decision has been made by competent authority, two extremes are to be avoided in regard to reported revelations and apparitions. One is the credulous mentality which accepts all such stories uncritically. The other is the frame of mind which automatically rejects them. Neither attitude is scientific. Care must be taken to find the truth.”

Probable opinions are defined by theologians as those that are well founded either by the weight of the authority favoring it or the weight of the testimony and evidence supporting the opinion itself. Catholics may freely prefer any other opinion for any good reason (paraphrased from Rev. Sixtus Cartechini’s The Value of Theological Notes and the Criteria for discerning Them. This is also the teaching of St. Alphonsus Liguori and the theologians.) This is not to be confused with being unable to use a probable opinion where the sacraments or one’s eternal salvation is at stake. Fatima is not a sacrament; it does not involve the established rights of a third party nor is it necessary for our eternal salvation. A probable opinion can be used then to determine other matters not related to these three exceptions and this includes the matter of Fatima. So what well-founded evidence and testimony are we bound, as Catholics, to consider?

According to the Fatima Center website, “With the knowledge and consent of Pope Pius XI, on October 13, 1930, Bishop da Silva of Leiria (the diocese in which Fatima is contained) announced the results of the official inquiry of Fatima in a pastoral letter on the apparitions. This official approval contained these important paragraphs: “In virtue of considerations made known, and others which for reason of brevity we omit; humbly invoking the Divine Spirit and placing ourselves under the protection of the most Holy Virgin, and after hearing the opinions of our reverend advisors in this diocese, we hereby declare worthy of belief the visions of the shepherd children in the Cova da Iria, parish of Fatima, in this diocese, from the 13th May to 13th October, 1917 [and] permit officially the cult of Our Lady of Fatima.”

Pope Pius XII indicated his acceptance of the Fatima apparitions with his two consecrations, but he never officially approved the complete content of the messages per se, even though he had received photocopies of all of them from Sr. Lucia. He did the same with La Salette in 1946 (Acta Apostolica Sedis [AAS]; 38, 1946; 155), commenting that the investigation of the apparition of Our Lady at La Salette was “a canonical process that proved favorable.” But this does not embrace the controversial La Salette message and its many versions. The same is true of Fatima. We can believe in the apparitions then without believing necessarily in the exact particulars of the messages. And we certainly have every right to withhold judgment concerning these messages whenever there is undisputed proof, which there is in the case of Fatima, that they may have been wrongfully conveyed, or were possibly coerced, doctored, manipulated, or are being deliberately misinterpreted to fit a given political agenda. If Pope Pius XII appears to have had his doubts, no one can blame us for entertaining doubts of our own.

 So we are free to disregard Fatima entirely if we have any serious doubts whatsoever that it is true. What we cannot and must not do, in the interests of charity, is condemn each other for believing either pro or con that Fatima is true or false. The Blessed Mother has so much to mourn for in these evil times, and we add this to her sorrows? In the interests of charity and peace among the few of us who are left, there must be no condemnation either way — to believe or disbelieve; no insistence that anyone order their conscience either way; this is precisely what Traditionalists do to retain their followers. Peaceful toleration of both beliefs must prevail until a true pope can advise further on the matter, should we ever see one.

Chaos is such a useful tool in creating dissension and disunity. We daily see the results. We have our Lord, we have the teachings of his vicars on earth, we have the Blessed Mother in all her many lovely manifestations. Why do we need anything more?

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Prayer Society Intention for April: Devotion to the Eucharist by refusing to dishonor it

(Compiled by Victoria Rodriguez)

St. Vincent Ferrer

? Fast/Ab

? Morning Offering in reparation for our sins

? Consecration by Pope Pius XII

? Devotion to the SIH

? Holy Rosary

 6 Wednesday

? Fast

? Morning Offering in reparation for our sins

? Consecration by Pope Pius XII

? Devotion to the SIH

? Holy Rosary

7 Thursday

? Fast

? Morning Offering in reparation for our sins

? Consecration by Pope Pius XII

? Devotion to the SIH

? Holy Rosary

 8 Friday

Seven Sorrows of the BVM

? Fast/Ab

? Morning Offering in reparation for our sins

? Consecration by Pope Pius XII

? Devotion to the SIH

? Holy Rosary

? Spiritual Mass and Mortification for the intentions of the Society

? Celebrate with special devotion the Feast of the Sorrowful Heart

? Renew consecrations to SH and SIH to promote their interests and intentions

9 Saturday dedicated to Our Lady

? Fast

? Morning Offering in reparation for our sins

? Consecration by Pope Pius XII

? Berthe Petit’s Consecration

? Holy Rosary  

10 Palm Sunday  

? Morning Offering in reparation for our sins

? Consecration by Pope Pius XII

? Devotion to the SIH

? Holy Rosary

11 Holy Monday

St. Leo I

? Fast

? Morning Offering in reparation for our sins

? Consecration by Pope Pius XII

? Devotion to the SIH

? Holy Rosary  

12 Holy Tuesday

? Fast

? Morning Offering in reparation for our sins

? Consecration by Pope Pius XII

? Devotion to the SIH

? Holy Rosary    

13 Holy Wednesday

St. Hermenegild

? Fast

? Morning Offering in reparation for our sins

? Consecration by Pope Pius XII

? Devotion to the SIH

? Holy Rosary  

14 MAUNDY THURSDAY

? Fast

? Morning Offering in reparation for our sins

? Consecration by Pope Pius XII

? Devotion to the SIH

? Holy Rosary   

15 GOOD FRIDAY

? Fast/Ab

? Morning Offering in reparation for our sins

? Consecration by Pope Pius XII

? Devotion to the SIH

? Holy Rosary

? Spiritual Mass and Mortification for the intentions of the Society

16 HOLY SATURDAY

? Fast/Ab Until Noon

? Morning Offering in reparation for our sins

? Consecration by Pope Pius XII

? Berthe Petit’s Consecration

? Holy Rosary  

17 EASTER SUNDAY 

? Morning Offering in reparation for our sins

? Consecration by Pope Pius XII

? Devotion to the SIH

? Holy Rosary

18 EASTER MONDAY   

? Morning Offering in reparation for our sins

? Consecration by Pope Pius XII

? Devotion to the SIH

? Holy Rosary

19 EASTER TUESDAY   

? Morning Offering in reparation for our sins

? Consecration by Pope Pius XII

? Devotion to the SIH

? Holy Rosary

20 Easter Wednesday 

? Morning Offering in reparation for our sins

? Consecration by Pope Pius XII

? Devotion to the SIH

? Holy Rosary

21 Easter Thursday

St. Anselm

? Morning Offering in reparation for our sins

? Consecration by Pope Pius XII

? Devotion to the SIH

? Holy Rosary

 22 Easter Friday 

Sts. Soter & Caius

? Ab

? Morning Offering in reparation for our sins

? Consecration by Pope Pius XII

? Devotion to the SIH

? Holy Rosary

? Spiritual Mass and Mortification for the intentions of the Society

23 Saturday dedicated to Our Lady

Easter Saturday

St. George  

? Morning Offering in reparation for our sins

? Consecration by Pope Pius XII

? Berthe Petit’s Consecration

? Holy Rosary  

24 Low Sunday

St. Fidelis 

? Morning Offering in reparation for our sins

? Consecration by Pope Pius XII

? Devotion to the SIH

? Holy Rosary

25 Monday

1. MARK, Ev

? The Greater Litanies

? Morning Offering in reparation for our sins

? Consecration by Pope Pius XII

? Devotion to the SIH

? Holy Rosary

26 Tuesday

Sts. Cletus & Marcellinus

? Morning Offering in reparation for our sins

? Consecration by Pope Pius XII

? Devotion to the SIH

? Holy Rosary

27 Wednesday

St. Peter Canisius

? Morning Offering in reparation for our sins

? Consecration by Pope Pius XII

? Devotion to the SIH

? Holy Rosary

28 Thursday

St. Paul of the Cross. and St. Vitalis

? Morning Offering in reparation for our sins

? Consecration by Pope Pius XII

? Devotion to the SIH

? Holy Rosary

29 Friday

St. Peter of Verona

? Ab

? Morning Offering in reparation for our sins

? Consecration by Pope Pius XII

? Devotion to the SIH

? Holy Rosary

? Spiritual Mass and Mortification for the intentions of the Society

30 Saturday dedicated to Our Lady

St. Catherine of Siena

? Morning Offering in reparation for our sins

? Consecration by Pope Pius XII

? Berthe Petit’s Consecration

? Holy Rosary  

Prayers to be Practiced in Common 

▪︎Spiritual Mass in union with all of the Sacrifices of the Mass ever offered throughout the world, preceded by the Perfect Act of Contrition and followed by Spiritual Communion.

▪︎Devotion to the Agonizing Heart of Jesus, in favor of the many thousands of persons who die every day.

▪︎Devotion to the souls in Purgatory.