Deacon Nick Donnelly has an interesting post at EWTN Great Britain about what appears to be an increasing amount of concern in Rome over the influence of Freemasonry in ecclesial affairs.
From my perspective, the operative word is appears.
Donnelly cited a report from Edward Pentin wherein it is alleged that Francis instructed Cardinal Burke to “clean out” Freemasonry from the Knights of Malta back in November.
He also made note of specific “on the record” comments made by Francis; one just four months after he took over for Benedict the Abdicator, wherein he mentioned “the problem” of “Masonic lobbies.”
Robert Moynihan, editor of Inside the Vatican, is quoted by Donnelly as saying:
Moreover, during the past several months, quietly and privately on most occasions, but sometimes publicly, a word has been whispered and spoken aloud in Rome in a way unlike any other time in the 33 years that I have been writing about Vatican affairs. That word is freemasonry.
Moynihan qualified the concern he is sensing in Rome, saying:
It may not be so much actual membership in a masonic lodge that is involved, but rather adherence to principles of that ‘masonic thought’ … not accepting any limit to the human ambitions to ‘be like gods.’
As for what “masonic thought” entails vis-à-vis Catholic doctrine, he said:
The fact is that the thought of freemasonry, which was the thought of the Enlightenment, believes Christ and his teachings, as taught by the Church, are an impediment to human freedom and self-fulfillment.
Are we to believe that Francis has a problem with those who espouse “Masonic thought”?
One might recall that Francis identified Paul VI – the “cult of man” pope – as “the great light” of his formative seminary years.
This is the same Paul VI who was mourned by Giordano Gamberini, former Grand Master of Palazzo Giustiniani (the Roman headquarters of the Masonic Grand Orient of Italy), in an obituary that was published in La Rivista Massonica which read:
To us, it is the death of him who made the condemnation of Clement XII and of his successors fall. That is, it is the first time – in the history of modern Freemasonry – that the Head of the greatest Western religion dies not in a state of hostility with the Freemasons! … For the first time in history, Freemasons can pay respect at a Pope’s tomb, without ambiguity or contradiction.
(See Paul VI Beatified? by Fr. Luigi Villa – available here in its entirety in PDF.)
Only a willing fool can possibly fail to recognize the “great light” of Paul VI not only reflected in so many of Francis’ words and deeds, but even magnified in his official acts to an unprecedented intensity.
If, indeed, there is any genuine concern in Rome about the Masonic attitude wherein human beings strive to “be like gods” apart from Christ, it is not so much a concern that is shared by Francis as one that is inspired by Francis.
He is, after all, the first Bishop of Rome to openly declare that man is “King of the Universe.”
As for treating “Christ and his teachings as an impediment to human freedom and self-fulfillment,” one need only read Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia – a document wherein Our Lord’s condemnation of adultery is effectively vetoed while insisting that “concrete situations” exist that do not allow adulterers to “act differently” – to see how well this shoe fits Francis.
If indeed accurately reported, it is a curious thing that Francis would order Cardinal Burke to excise the “influence of Freemasonry” from the Knights of Malta in a meeting held on November 10, 2016…
Was this the “aha moment” that opened Cardinal Burke’s eyes to the fact Francis had no intention whatsoever of affirming the true faith by answering the dubia he had submitted nearly two months prior, and what’s more, was likely planning his demise?
Surely, Cardinal Burke recognized the hypocrisy attached to Francis’ anti-Masonic order.
In any case, it was just four days later that Cardinal Burke & Company decided to go public with their dubia.
Since then, Francis has done nothing whatsoever to suggest that he isn’t the best friend that the “cult of man” has ever had in Rome; including Paul VI of most bitter memory.
As such, every time I read some quote that suggests that Francis is interested in eliminating the influence of Freemasonry in the Church, I cannot help but think that Jorge doth protest too much.
I mean, seriously, what’s next, a Bergoglian call to arms against modernism?
Thank you in advance for your continued support!
Francis, and liberal/socialists/communists in general, purposely accuse others of that which they are in fact guilty of.
Our Lady of Good Success said that in the 20th century Freemasonry would reign supreme. It’s only gotten worse in the 21 century. Certainly the Vatican seems to be controlled by the masons and their thought. The goal of the masons is to make the Church into their image, to make it their private parakeet who will say whatever it’s taught to say. These wicked and evil men are in for quite of surprise when the Mother of God will step in and clean house in an unprecedented way. Woe to them!
When I first read what the pope had said about Freemasons and Malta, it didn’t sound right. It seemed from very far out in left field. All indications are he is a cunning man, and must have had a strategic reason for saying that. One suspects he said it for nefarious purposes, not in fact, to rid Malta of any such influences, and doubtful as to just deflect attention, but for some other sketchy design roiling around in his fevered head.
But I believe he had all this in mind when he exiled Cardinal Burke to Malta. I don’t believe his post was assigned randomly. He had a plan.
Exactly. This is one of the NWO globalist atheistic dictatorship’s tenets by which they strategically gain more and more power over the people and neutralise their enemies. Has worked very well for them to date.
This is just the Vatican’s riff on the Democrats accusing Trump of Russian sympathies.
“for nefarious purposes” is right! Part of the modernist method is to inject a little truth here and there to make themselves look orthodox. Keeps the unsuspecting off balance. He operates like satan, a little truth but mostly deception. Try as I have, I cannot see this man as having good intentions. But we keep praying for him as we should.
This is Francis’ joke, a mockery to everyone who knows what freemasonry is and stands for. He probably got quite the kick out of telling Cardinal Burke to root out the masons. I can only imagine the look on Cardinal Burke’s face.
And the vast majority of novus-ordoites haven’t a clue, and will echo his little joke with all sincerity as they continue to try to make sense of this man.
With the election of John XXIII in 1958, the Masons achieved a major goal on their way to a one world government and one world religion. This is why a new Council was needed. To create a new religion, then a new mass, new canon laws, new cathecism, new saints, new devotions (Divine Mercy), new priests, new sacraments. Why do so many who know this still call it the Catholic Church?
Tom, you oppose the Divine Mercy devotion? I’m curious as to your reasoning as Christ appeared to Sr. Faustina way before the Second Vatican Council. Is it just because John Paul II promoted it? Are most traditionalist against this devotion? Just curious.
And another thing. I know that many – if not all – traditionalists are opposed to John Paul II adding the Mysteries of Light (or Luminous Mysteries) to the Holy Rosary. I can understand someone not liking the idea that he added to what the Holy Virgin gave us as complete. I, myself, recently began praying only the original 15 mysteries again. But, IN AND OF THEMSELVES, do traditionalists see the content of the added mysteries as UNorthodox? Again, just curious. After all, I’m here to learn.
The Freemasons are certainly advocates of the “cult of man”, but Francis probably sees the semi-secret Masonic orders and clubs as potential hiding places for resistors against his plans.
Hello Dennis.
I hope this helps you with understanding the dangers of “divine mercy devotion.”
http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f072_DivMercy.htm
– and-
http://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/B662_Mercy.html
There is more on this site if you just do a search on their “search site.”
Regarding the luminous mysteries, here is one of many objections.
http://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/d018rpLuminousMysteries.html
–
God bless you in your search for Truth. Thanks be to God for Louie in this battle for truth.
Regarding the luminous mysteries, here is one of many objections.
http://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/d018rpLuminousMysteries.html
–
God bless you in your search for Truth. Thanks be to God for Louie in this battle for truth.
I am sorry about the double posting.
Thanks for your input, Servant. I was shocked to learn of the condemnations of Faustina’s apparitions by previous popes! I’ve read her diary and wondered about some things allegedly said by Jesus.
However, just reading the TIA site on the Rosary, I do agree with what the lady says about the origins and intentions of the original version. In fact, that’s what led me to go back to the 15 that I first learned before JPII introduced the new set. But, meditating on the gospel events in Christ’s life has been a plus, even if I keep it separate from Our Lady’s Rosary. I especially love when the Holy Virgin advocates for the wedding couple who has run out of wine. It convinced this ex-Protestant that she intercedes for us. Thanks, again!
Traditionally mercy was always closely associated with justice. The two go hand in hand. The modernists have stripped mercy from its mooring with justice. Free of justice, mercy can now be used as a sword to cut through all the ancient morals in their goal to excuse all sin. Hence the scandalous Year of Mercy that saw terrible abuses against justice and tradition.
That makes a lot of sense. If you’re not already aware, they treat “Divine Mercy Sunday” as a sort of second baptism, with the claim that if you go to confession and receive Holy Communion, you’re as clean as when you were first baptized – all sins AND their punishment is forgiven. Sounds great, but with what I’ve read today, very doubtful. Thanks, Tom.
He is a man of so many contradictions. Against, while he acts as if he were one of them. Insisting on Confession, while if you follow AL, you don’t need it. Mercy, while his continues to attack, malign, and destroy his “enemies.”
Because smart people know Christ promised us the Church will not fail. You’ve just spoken material heresy, implicitly, by implying that the very same Body that Christ founded on Peter at some point stopped being the Catholic Church.
–
So, let’s take a look at Church teaching regarding its perpetual visibility, a necessary attribute of the Church.
–
Before speaking of the visibility of the Church per se, a brief detour into the nature of the papacy. Is it possible for the office of the papacy to be empty for extremely long periods of time – decades, even the better part of a century, as the sedevacantists assert? No, not really.
–
Vatican I, Session IV, Ch. II: “…if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord Himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter *should have perpetual successors in the primary over the whole Church*; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.”
–
“Perpetual” means continuous as well as unbroken – large gaps in time are not congruent with this teaching. The illustrious 20th century theologian, Fr. E. Sylvester Berry (whom sedes like to quote, actually), notes that, “the successors of St. Peter… form *an unbroken line of supreme pastors to rule the Church in its continued existence*… the Church must have a custodian, a supreme law-giver and judge, if she is to continue as Christ founded her.” The illustrious Msgr. Van Noort echoes: “It is a fact beyond question that the Church can never fail to have a successor to Peter.” (Both these quotes are on p21 of True Or False Pope.)
–
(Note that in times of multiple papal claimants, such as the Great Schism, there was a true pope, though his identity was not plainly known – his reign was not a dogmatic fact (unlike the situation today) since he had not been accepted by a moral unanimity of the episcopate. It should also be apparent to common sense that the brief period of an election, necessary as they are, do not violate this rule.)
–
On, now, to the visibility of the Church. Van Noort wrote that, “That the Church is visible follows necessarily from the fact that it is a real society, for there can be no genuine society in the world of men unless it is visible.” (Christ’s Church, quoted in TOFP, p25.)
–
This visibility has both material and formal aspects – the latter, basically, speaks to the ability of people to recognize the Church for what She is – the true Church, which men are *commanded* to enter for their salvation (God could not command such a thing if the Church were not both materially visible and able to be recognized as the true Church). It is the Church’s four Marks that give it formal visibility.
–
Fr. Berry, “The Church of Christ”: “The Church of Christ is formally visible, not only as a Church, but also as the true Church of Christ. **This is an article of faith, having been defined by the Vatican Council in the following words: ‘God established a Church through His only begotten Son, and endowed it with manifest marks of its institution, that it might be known by all as the guardian and teacher of the revealed world.”
–
Sede objections of, “the Church isn’t teaching truth anymore!!” and so on do not really hold water because the *official* teachings of the Church have not changed one whit in the past 50 years. The set of defined dogma is the same now as then; yes, this is the protection by the Holy Ghost of His Church, and, yes, this is the *opposite* of what we’d expect to see from a false church aping the true Church.
–
It should be readily apparent that this formal visibility is indeed a *necessary* attribute of the Church, as Fr. Berry points out is, in fact, a de fide teaching (this means, in point of simple fact, to deny or obstinately doubt it is material heresy). Next, we come to the closely related additional attributes of indefectibility, which means, simply, that the Church cannot “fail.” Despite what has been asserted here time and again, having one Catholic in his basement with his Bible somewhere in the world is *not* sufficient to hold back “failure” – the Church must remain materially and formally visible, as noted above.
–
Fr. Berry, “The Church Of Christ,” TOFP p30: “Perpetuity is indefectibility in existence. Strictly speaking, indefectibility pertains to the essential qualities of the Church, perpetuity to her existence. These two qualities, although distinct, are so closely related that it is difficult to treat them separately… If the Church is indefectible in her essential qualities and perpetual in her existence, **she must be perpetually indefectible in all essential qualities**.”
–
There we have it: The Church will always be formally visible. Period. This is *not* the hidden, underground, invisible church of the sedevacantists. The Church can’t be the true Church one day then not be it the next Church – and this preposterous thesis is EXACTLY what the sedevacantists teach.
–
According to the sedes, there was the Catholic Church, in 1958, then the day after John XXIII’s election, POOF – she’s just plain gone. And still nowhere to be found – except in sede chapels here or there. Again, this is textbook Protestant ecclesiastical theology – PERIOD!
–
Just as the evil, heretical Arian bishops (90-99% of the hierarchy at the time) did indeed constitute the visible Church then, along with its head, the predominantly (that may even be slightly too harsh) modernist bishops of today do as well, like it or not.
–
Cardinal Billot – another eminent theologian – explained that the Church publicly adhering to a false pope would irreparably damage her indefectibility – it would make Christ’s promise a lie: “… the adhesion of the universal Church will be always, in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined pontiff, and therefore also of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself… For the adhesion of the Church to a false pontiff would be the same as its adhesion to a false rule of faith.”
–
(You can’t wiggle out of this by saying it’s a false church that’s accepted these false popes – see above.)
Despite the fact that you’re right that the Church is currently soiled with a completely false “mercy,” what you said doesn’t really make sense.
–
Mercy and Justice are independent. In fact, says the great Thomist Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, men on earth are incapable of completely reconciling these two qualities of God in the intellect.
–
God IS perfect Justice, which is rational repayment of fault with punishment, but, the theologians say, God’s mercy is not something that can be explained via reason alone. God does not NEED to be merciful – ever. We know faith that He is, but not via reason.
–
The problem the the false “mercy” now being promoted is not that it’s “disconnected” from justice (which, again, doesn’t really make sense), but that it is claimed to be offered *without repentance and contrition.* THAT is a complete aberration of mercy; the Church teaches – officially, which is all that matters in the end – that God’s mercy is reserved for the repentant sinner. That this has to be stated explicitly, and is indeed being contradicted in practice by modern churchmen, is certainly a paramount example of how horrible this crisis is and how deranged some current prelates are in their theology.
I’m no Sede but…
you said
“Cardinal Billot… explained that the Church publicly adhering to a false pope would irreparably damage her indefectibility – it would make Christ’s promise a lie”
How about the Church publicly adhearing to a false religion?
Which is is more important, the pope? The faith? Both together?
You can not excuse the ‘Concilliar Chuch’ by saying that it has not engaged the Magisterium in promulgating error. Of course it hasn’t. Why? Because the same Concilliar Church that promotes the error IS NOT THE MAGISTERIUM, it is not the Catholic Church, even if it run by people who are still (formerly) Catholic and even if is run by a Pope who should be defending the Faith instead of promoting heresy.
I agree with CraigV. Obama did this kind of thing all the time. I called it “flaunt to taunt”. Perhaps it’s also why Jorge Bergoglio dedicated his pontificate to Our Lady of Fatima. That act now seems not hallowed, but hollow.
Yes, and when THAT fake Lucia said that the final battle will be between marriage and the family she was simply parroting their evil plan which they whispered into her ear to confuse us further in our times to say…”see she was right”…and deceive us that the Fatima cover-up rested well with her…she is a fake….and they spoke their plans through the loud speaker of this fake deceiver. This is what they do..hidden in plain sight!
You have to be blind and deaf to not see that two men dress and call themselves “Pope” and even blinder to think that those 2 women are the one true Lucia.
Roman Catechism:
“Church”
The word ecclesia (church) means a calling forth. But writers afterward used it to signify a meeting or assembly, whether the people gathered together were members of a true or of a false religion. Thus in the Acts it is written of the people of Ephesus that when the townc lerk had appeased a tumultuous assemblage he said: And if you inquire after any other matter, it may be decided in a lawful church. The Ephesians, who were worshippers of Diana, are thus called a lawful church (ecclesia). Nor are the Gentiles only, who knew not God, called a church (ecclesia); by the same name at times are also designated the councils of wicked and impious men. I have hated the church (ecclesiam) of the malignant, says the Prophet, and with the wicked I will not sit.
In common Scripture usage, however, the word was subsequently employed to signify the Christian society only, and the assemblies of the faithful; that is, of those who are called by faith to the light of truth and the knowledge of God, that, having forsaken the darkness of ignorance and error, they may worship the living and true God piously and holily, and serve Him from their whole heart. In a word, The Church, says St. Augustine, consists of the faithful dispersed throughout the world.
++++++++++++ end of quote+++++++++
One can have a Church with a crummy Pope and not only can, it may be the will of God that it be so.
St Vincent of Lerins taught us that one way God tests us to see if we love Him is to let heresies and apparent chaos reign.
ABS refers to what is visible now as the Shadow Church (lacking substance) while invisibilium is the true church which, in effect, might refer to those caves of Covadongas that are, largely, invisibilium to ,most men; caves like SSPX, FSSP etc where one prays young Pelayos are being formed and asa it once referred to the Church in Japan without any visible Bishops etc but the Faith there was preserved by the invisible domestic church.
In any event, Jesu si, has always been, and will until the end of time, be the Head of His Church and if He wills we have crummy Popes, ours is not to wonder at why but to maintain communion with even the crummiest of local Bishop and Pope.
But, that is just the way ABS has chosen to live – to call upon the Lord and then wait patiently for Him; HE will settle permanently the matter of epicene Bishops and crummy Popes and He will do that in His own time.
(I’m sure many have noticed how Hollywood does the same thing..they get off on dangling their evil plans in everyone’s faces. Ha ha! What fun!)
From “The Matrix”:
“After this, there is no turning back. You take wthe blue pill—the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill—you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes. Remember: all I’m offering is the truth.
Wow. Good point, Cortez.
–
http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/g12htArt2_TwoSisterLucys.htm
–
The same fake Lucy told us their “plan” about marriage, all the while knowing THAT WAS THE NEXT STAGE OF THEIR EVIL PLAN — to destroy marriage.
I personally think “they” killed the real Sister Lucia shortly after the 1957 Fr. Fuentes interview.
–
http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/g23ht_Interview.html
Please continue and increase prayers for Mr. John Vennari.
You are most welcome, Dennis.
What is to be done if one or more dissent from the rest.
[7.] What then will a Catholic Christian do, if a small portion of the Church have cut itself off from the communion of the universal faith? What, surely, but prefer the soundness of the whole body to the unsoundness of a pestilent and corrupt member? What, if some novel contagion seek to infect not merely an insignificant portion of the Church, but the whole? Then it will be his care to cleave to antiquity, which at this day cannot possibly be seduced by any fraud of novelty.
…
Why Eminent Men are permitted by God to become Authors of Novelties in the Church.
[27.] But some one will ask, How is it then, that certain excellent persons, and of position in the Church, are often permitted by God to preach novel doctrines to Catholics? A proper question, certainly, and one which ought to be very carefully and fully dealt with, but answered at the same time, not in reliance upon one’s own ability, but by the authority of the divine Law, and by appeal to the Church’s determination…
..he is clearer than day why Divine Providence sometimes permits certain doctors of the church to preach new doctrines— “That the Lord your God may try you;” he says. And assuredly it is a great trial when one whom you believe to be a prophet, a disciple of prophets, a doctor and defender of the truth, whom you have folded to your breast with the utmost veneration and love, when such a one of a sudden secretly and furtively brings in noxious errors, which you can neither quickly detect, being held by the prestige of former authority, nor lightly think it right to condemn, being prevented by affection for your old master.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3506.htm
CraigV: You are one of the few who seems to understand the methods used by the diabolical.
Yes, the clueless pick up these little quibs and run with them which is also an excellent way to distract and keep the brainless masses occupied while the smoke keeps evolving into what eventually will be a roaring fire which is the real goal.
How many more posts is it going to take before you have finished cutting and pasting Salza’s entire book?
And if you don’t see that all this infiltration into the Catholic Church and the tearing apart of all civilization in EVERY area that we are seeing today, isn’t all related, than ask God for the Grace to coordinate your eyes and brain to work together to help you see through all this deception and hype.
At least we won’t have to buy it!
Let me put it another way:
The place for the father of a family is in the home with his wife and children. If he decides to take up with another woman, and live in an adulterous relationship with her, kicking out his wife and the children who don’t want to accept their new ‘mother’, guess what?
The father is still the father, he is still the head of the family, the children are still his children, and his original wife never cease to be wife and mother. But the family home is no longer the family home. The association of humans now living in what was the family home are not the father’s family (even though some of the children there are still part of it), the family is now outside the structure, but still very much the family, albeit with an absentee head.
this is the case with the Church. The concilliar church is the adulterous union between the Pope and the heresies of modernism and liberalism. They have the structure, but don’t kid yourself into thinking that it is the Church.
And by the way, “Visibility’ does not mean ‘most visible’ or ‘biggest’ or ‘one with the most frescos painted on the ceiling’. It simply means not hidden. ‘Traditional’ Catholicism (a.k.a. Catholicism) has never been hidden, and we’re certainly more public than the Church was when it was in the catacombs. +Lefebvre was no obscure personage… his proclamation of the true Faith was broadcast around the world on more than one occasion… for all to see, (and that was without the internet!) and the legacy he left behind is now more accessible than ever.
Our Lady, recall told us that The Church would be hidden – in eclipse- the Earth being the place controlled by the Prince of Darkness, casting a Shadow over the Moon – Her footstool.
Its not that the Church has failed to be indefectible- That is the Mystical Body of Christ- no Pope has control over that, be he a heretic or a Christ deny or . These successive Men elected as Popes have chosen a pathway to darken the True Faith, Hide its truthful visibility with counterfeit strategies and bogus declarations. All sponsored by the Father of Lies. That’s the distinction A Catholic Thinker ought to point out. The framework they move within is freemasonry.
As much as the facial evidence does lead to the two Lucys theory, I cannot accept that she was killed shortly after the 1957 interview. I can believe that she was silenced and that a doppelganger was used for public appearances. At least I believe that she was alive in 1977 when she had an impromptu meeting with Cardinal Luciani and told him that he would become pope but have a short reign. This is all contained on the Abbe de Nantes site: http://crc-resurrection.org/toute-notre-doctrine/contre-reforme-catholique/la-vie-de-jean-paul-ier/ in French.
He was certainly a changed man after that meeting.
Paul
Dear paultdale,
Thank you for the link. I am always wanting to learn more about Fatima.
I only gave “my opinion” which is based on the view of the editors of Tradition in Action. My opinion may change after I read your link. I have read much about Abbe de Nantes and realize he truly knew the deception that was being carried out.
Thank you for the additional pieces of the puzzle.
–
Also, have you read any of Father Luigi Villa’s work?
http://www.padrepioandchiesaviva.com/Padre_Pio___Fr.html
Dear Paul,
Could you help me please? I do not know how to translate your link. Is there a way that it can all be translated without putting piece by piece into “google translate”?
Thank you.
I think you can enter the URL address in the box and the whole document will be “translated”.
If Lynda’s suggestion doesn’t work, on the page paul linked to, go down the left column and click on English.
You should be able to search for the article if it’s not on the front page. See, this is another reason I love Mr. V’s website, I find so many new helpful books, websites and other good things! Thanks, Paul!
Got it!
Thank you, Lynda, Dennis and Paul.
Servant
You could try and contact them as I originally read this document in English, so it does exist. Vis-vis Father Luigi I have read his work, and I must say, that if what he documents it is true, then Catholics need to reassess just how pervasive and deep the evil that exists in the Church. It is far worse than we could imagine.