“The unique historical contribution of the Second Vatican Council consists in this: the universal call to holiness, a call we have to take seriously.” – Assessment recently offered by a man who shall be identified shortly.
The quote above hardly represents an original thought. Rather, it is a well-worn claim that is often put forth by neo-conservative types who are finding it increasingly difficult to avoid acknowledging the grave errors of Vatican II, and yet are determined to remain in the good graces of conciliar Rome, the gatekeepers of so-called “full communion,” and the various goodies that go along with it.
As such, these persons evidently feel compelled to find something, anything, praiseworthy in the conciliar text, as if it offers at least one morsel of valuable treasure that had somehow managed to escape discovery until the awakening of the 1960s.
For many, the universal call to holiness found in Lumen Gentium serves as the go-to citation for this purpose, the one that proves beyond all doubt that the Council – in spite of any alleged ambiguities and the necessity of applying a tortured hermeneutic to its text in order to render it even marginally Catholic – is surely just what the likes of John Paul the Great Ecumenist told us, a great gift of the Holy Spirit!
As for the claim that the Council’s universal call to holiness is a “unique historical contribution” to the children of the Church; this would come as a great surprise to our first pope, St. Peter, who wrote to the faithful “dispersed through Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia” the following words of exhortation:
Wherefore having the loins of your mind girt up, being sober, trust perfectly in the grace which is offered you in the revelation of Jesus Christ, As children of obedience, not fashioned according to the former desires of your ignorance: But according to him that hath called you, who is holy, be you also in all manner of conversation holy: Because it is written: You shall be holy, for I am holy. (1 Peter 1:13-16)
That the Council’s universal call to holiness is a unique historical contribution would also be news to St. Paul, who wrote:
Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of the flesh and of the spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God. (2 Corinthians 7:1)
Furthermore, such a claim would come as a complete shock to Moses and the children of Israel to whom God said:
Sanctify yourselves, and be ye holy because I am the Lord your God. (Leviticus 20:7)
Lastly, one shudders to imagine how such a claim – on the part of a Catholic, no less – strikes Our Lord Jesus Christ, who said:
Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matthew 5:48)
And perhaps most ironic of all is the fact that this dubious claim might even invite the laughter of the authors of Lumen Gentium themselves, who under the heading “Universal Call to Holiness” cited this very same verse, writing:
The Lord Jesus, the divine Teacher and Model of all perfection, preached holiness of life to each and everyone of His disciples of every condition. He Himself stands as the author and consumator of this holiness of life: “Be you therefore perfect, even as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (Lumen Gentium 40)
So much for the universal call to holiness being “the unique historical contribution of the Second Vatican Council.”
All of this only goes to show just how desperate certain persons are to avoid incurring the cost that one must pay for plainly warning the unsuspecting that Vatican Council II was, and remains, a work of the Devil that offers an array of deadly poison, albeit often shrouded in the pious sounding language of Catholic doctrine.
So, who is the author of this oft-repeated claim?
Bishop Athanasius Schneider, in his recently published book-length interview, Christus Vincit – a book that, at present, I have only read roughly halfway.
My impression of the book thus far is that it is very much like the conciliar text itself – an admixture of Catholic truth, ambiguity and error. Unlike the Council, however, one gets the unmistakable sense that its authors, Bishop Schneider and his interlocutor, Diane Montagna, are of genuine good will, each one wishing to make their own unique historical contribution to the Church in this time of crisis.
I’ll have more to say on how close, or not, they’ve come to making that contribution once I’ve finished reading.
Thank you, Louie. I look forward to your full comments on this book.
“The universal call to holiness of Lumen Gentium is the go-to citation of the new-conservative types”.
It shows why definitions are so important.
Those who support Conciliar Modernist Catholicism view holiness in a one way. Roman Catholics view holiness in another.
CMCs view the pagan idol worshipping ceremony with the Pope and senior Cardinals in attendance, the Wiccan presiders prostrating themselves in adoration of stone and wood and the demons behind them, as profoundly holy. They have abandoned God, and by definition now worship God’s enemy. In their fervor, they declare this “holy”.
It shows why we must insist in every phrase, word, jot and tittle of Tradition and not let even one punctuation mark of it go to the reprobates. Deviate by a single degree and you miss the mark by a mile. The narrow gate and the small way was not meant to be easy.
Worship and adore Triune God first. Worship and adore no thing and no one else other than Triune God. Heart, mind, body, soul, strength – give them to God from whom they come and are due back. Everything else follows from that.
“My impression of the book thus far is that it is very much like the conciliar text itself – an admixture of Catholic truth, ambiguity and error.”
And thus he is a Modernist and not a Catholic, possessing neither Office nor Power.
“He is a Modernist and not a Catholic, possessing neither Office nor Power. ” This description applies to every prelate in the V2 “church”. The spirit of V2 flows through their veins. It is who they are. This does not mean to say that a transfusion of Truth and Tradition could not cure them.
“Deviate by a single degree and you miss the mark by a mile. The narrow gate and the small way was not meant to be easy.”
That’s Catholicism talking.
“A man that is a heretic after the first or second correction avoid.” (Tit. 3, io). Cf. Gal. i, 8 et seq.
“It is the unanimous conviction of the Fathers that salvation cannot be achieved outside the Church. This principle was extended not only to pagans but to heretics and schismatics as well. St. Irenaeus teaches that: “ in the efficacy of the spirit all those have no part, who do not hasten to the Church ; rather they, by their evil teaching and their evil deeds, rob themselves of life. For where the Church is, there is also the spirit of God, and where the spirit of God is, there is the Church and all grace ” (Adv. haer. Ill 24, 1). (“Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma,” pp. 312-313)
“Contribution” to what? It cannot be the Catholic Church because these men were not members of the Church. They had no grace in their souls. They were revolutionary renegades doing, NOT God’s work, but rather the devil’s. Those who are adamant in maintaining their adherence to Vatican II have a free will to do as they please. But to knowingly equate the heretical Vatican II religion to the Catholic Church is blasphemy.
Yes mmf,
You’ve come full circle, back to the first question that I asked of you, after the last article. Which comes first, the actual church of Antichrist or its actual council as vatican 2, which Louie now refers to as having come from the Devil? Doesn’t the Apostle Paul inerrantly teach in 2 Thess 2, that the man of sin, as the son of perdition, the Antichrist, receives all his power from Satan, as Satan brings him forth into this world, in his prophesied time, which is when the Vicar of Christ is gone from the world, and Apostolic Succession, then by definition lost, when broken? Amen. This creature beast thing from Hell itself offered a council, as it proclaims itself to be a church, and to have prelates and lay members. Councils do not beget councils, rather churches beget councils, the chicken egg thing again. Lastly for now, is there anywhere in Church Tradition to be found, the teaching of an exclusive time, whereby there will be the loss of Apostolic Succession, apart from the time of Antichrist, the very person of ? No there is not and of course there could not be, as once lost, it is then lost unto the consummation of the world, as it is humanly impossible to restore it, and there is no prophecy in Church Tradition to say this will occur. He is prophetically called, “Antichrist”, by the Blessed Apostle John as he is, “opposite”, as, “opposed to”, the Christ. All Lucifer can do is mimic in his blasphemy. He has to use what God has given and invert it. Christ had His Vicars, Antichrist has his, in those false popes who follow him. Amen. He tells us precisely who he will be, as the one who denies the Christ in His First Epistle, chapter 2. “Lumen Gentium” chapter 16, “Solemnly Promulgated” on Nov. 21, 1964. I pray this helps. In caritas.
They are so blind. Rather than rolling out a book and breathlessly exclaiming how brave and hope-instilling Bishop Schneider is, they should be calling an imperfect council, deposing Bergoglio and his beastiality-boosting bunch (the horror of the current pagan desecration of the Vatican) and consigning the entire Faith-destroying Vatican II to the dustbin of history. Never let up Louie. Your gaze is focused, your heart is pure, your intellect sharp and we thank you. You are a voice crying in the wilderness.
From “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma”:
“c) Falling away from the Faith
Jesus foretells that in the time before the end false prophets will appear who will lead many astray (Mt. 24, 4 et seq.). St. Paul asserts that before the coming- again of the Lord “ the schism ” must come, that is, the falling-away from the Christian Faith (2 Thess. 2, 3).
d) The appearance of Antichrist
The falling-away from the Faith stands in a causal connection with the appearance of Antichrist. 2 Thess. 2, 3 : “ unless there be a revolt first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition. Who opposeth and is lifted up above all that is called God or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God.” He appears in the power of Satan, works apparent miracles, in order to lead men astray into the falling-away from the truth and into unrighteousness, and to cast them into destruction (V. 9-11). The Lord Jesus will, on His arrival, kill him “ with the spirit of His mouth,” that is, destroy him with a power proceeding from Him (V. 8). The name Antichrist is first used by St. John (1 John 2, 18. 22 ; 4, 3 ; 2 John 2, 7); but he also designates the false teachers, who speak in the spirit of Antichrist, by this name. According to SS. Paul and John, Antichrist is to appear as a definite human personality who is the instrument of Satan. The Didache speaks of a “ seducer of the world” (16, 4).
The historical interpretation associated with a particular time (Nero, Caligula, and others) as well as the historico-religious explanation, which seeks the origin of the idea of the Antichrist in Babylonian and Persian myths, arc to be rejected. The oldest monograph on Antichrist is that composed by St. Hippolytus of Rome.” (“Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma,” Ludwig Ott, p. 487)
There it is.
That exact thought has been rolling around in my head, undefined, until you said it. It’s just a book! It means precisely nothing. The nice Prelates and celebrity Catholics have their conference. Shake hands all around among the like-minded. We debate the book’s strengths and weaknesses. The heretic apostates continue with their wrecking ball in the Holy of Holies. Nothing has changed.
Formal declarations and Imperfect Councils – that is the role reserved for Bishops and Cardinals. Wild eyed holy man of God kicking over idols and bull rushing Shamans out of God’s Temple and away from His holy presence – that is the role of every Catholic.
“Unite The Clans” behind the one, true Pope ; antipope declared; error deposed; Truth elevated; the Faithful united behind the restoration.
This other thing they’re doing is an embarrassing waste of moral capital. Yippee! I’ll wait for the Kindle version.
Archbishop Lefebvre was once ridiculously hailed as the Athanasius of our time… now we have another one.
Louie, do you have a big enough salt shaker to read a book like that? You may have to call the Culligan Man! Bishop Williamson says it takes a lot more than a grain of salt to read most religious and political commentators these days, but then he went on to say it takes a little less salt to read what Paul Craig Roberts has to say!
I’m just joking, we all know you will be a lot rougher on him then I would be. I think he could be one of the lucky ones who gets run out of Rome with Pope Benedict XVI! Or, he may fall from grace and George Soros will have to convert to Catholicism to take his place and get run out of Rome!
“….one gets the unmistakable sense that its authors, Bishop Schneider and his interlocutor, Diane Montagna, are of genuine good will, each one wishing to make their own unique historical contribution to the Church in this time of crisis…..”
Hell is paved with good intentions.
“…. one gets the unmistakable sense that its authors, Bishop Schneider and his interlocutor, Diane Montagna, are of genuine good will, each one wishing to make their own unique historical contribution to the Church in this time of crisis…”
Hell is paved with good intentions.
“one gets the unmistakable sense that its authors, Bishop Schneider and his interlocutor, Diane Montagna, are of genuine good will, each one wishing to make their own unique historical contribution to the Church in this time of crisis…”
Hall is paved with good intentions.
Wow … sorry for all those duplicate posts…not sure why I was having trouble posting this morning.
We are in the horrible position of having to sort out who is with us and who is not.
That’s frankly what we are doing, and not without reason. We need to know where we stand and who stands with us. It became clear about 4 years ago there would be no fence sitters left sitting. Each must choose, public and private.
It is with dismay I note Cardinal Sarah’s words of late, that anyone who criticizes the pope has put himself outside the church. He has apparently forgotten about St. Paul himself who criticized Peter. If St. Paul is outside the church excuse me, I’m leaving now to go stand with him. Many saints also criticized the pope, and rightly. They would spin in their graves if they knew what we are living.
I look forward to your review Louie, I’m torn on this one. I hope you finish it this week.
Hello Evangeline,
A precarious position indeed it is. Unfortunately, the criticism of St. Peter by St. Paul is another thing twisted and used by the devil to trick the faithful and turn them into heretics. St. Paul was not rebuked for heresy; it was not a matter of Faith.
Long week. “St. Paul was not…” should read “St. Peter was not…”
Evangeline,
Just wanted to point out that the Saints are alive and well in heaven, and that they are perfectly enlightened and know very well what’s going on “down here”, and are praying for us.
Aqua: I am aware that most commenters and even Louie seem to have chosen Sede-ism after long research, prayer, and soul searching. My intent in this comment is not to stir the pot (though I have made past comments with the specific intent to do that); rather my intent is to elicit non-emotive (if that is possible) replies to these thoughts which seem to me reasonable yet perhaps unsatisfactory. They concern the matter of BiP and why it will likely remain unsettled at this present time and perhaps for my lifetime and maybe even my children’s lifetimes:
Faith. Jesus asks us as He asked His apostles, “Who do you say I am? Who do you say My Church is? Who do you say My Vicar on Earth is? Will you choose Sede-ism and make your own Pope? Do you think that I don’t keep My promises?”
Where Peter is, there is My Church. Choose Peter and don’t turn back.
Perhaps this is Christ’s test for each of us individually in this time–for BiP to remain unsettled by an authoritative statement from the sure authority of the Church. Lack of authoritative statement does not make BiP less true BUT it does test one’s individual Faith. Does it not?
I have not chosen sedevacantism. I attend diocesan Latin Mass when SSPX Mass is not available. However, I do recognize a skunk has been planted on the Throne. I pray our panty-waist churchmen act. I’ve prayed this for years now.
What’s this “emotive” crap? We are Catholics, and Catholicism is the apex of logic and correct reason. It’s simple for a Catholic: he must see evidence of holiness in someone who claims the Seat of Peter; he must not see even a hint of contradiction with previous Church teaching; he must be convinced that this man is a valid pope before he will give his allegiance. If Pope St. Pius X were to walk into the room right now, I would instantly recognize him as a valid successor to Pope St. Peter. I would, without hesitation say: “This is the Pope.” If ANY of the VII “popes” were to walk into the room, I would say: “I do not believe any of these men are valid popes. They contradict previous Church teaching.”
BTW, don’t put words into Our Blessed Lord’s mouth (unless you’re a protestant, that is, because that’s what THEY do).
There’s nothing whatsoever “emotive” in knowing and then following the commands of St. Paul and the teachings of the true Popes of the actual and Catholic Church, vs our own will:
“…lest it may befall Us to see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by the prophet Daniel, in the holy place… We ENACT, DETERMINE, DECREE and DEFINE that if EVER at ANY time it shall APPEAR that ANY Bishop… prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or ROMAN PONTIFF, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some HERESY… the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of ALL of the Cardinals, SHALL be NULL, VOID and WORTHLESS…”
“…those this promoted or elevated SHALL be DEPRIVED AUTOMATICALLY, and WITHOUT NEED for any further DECLARATION, of ALL dignity, position, honour, title, authority, OFFICE AND POWER… the laity…SHALL be permitted AT ANY TIME to WITHDRAW WITH IMPUNITY FROM OBEDIENCE AND DEVOTION to those thus promoted or elevated and to AVOID them as WARLOCKS, heathens, publicans, and HERESIARCHS. NO ONE AT ALL…may infringe this document…or by RASH PRESUMPTION contradict it. IF anyone, however, should PRESUME to attempt this, let him know that HE IS DESTINED to incur the WRATH of Almighty GOD and of the blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul.
-Pope Paul IV, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio
Each and EVERY ONE of the actors playing “Pope” since Oct 9, 1958 has very publicly deviated from the Faith PRIOR to their so-called “elevation”. Anyone at all who says otherwise is A LIAR.
And yes, of course the above also applies to each and every Cardinal and Bishop of the counter-church posing as the Catholic Church today.
Now, ask the Holy Ghost to put 2+2 together for you and enlighten you as to why doing anything but the above might lead to the abomination of desolation. The answers are contained in this blog and are not the personal opinion of any individual(s) but are the infallible teachings of the true Popes.
CC, the problem in Rome that we all see is not because Bergoglio is an heretic or bad pope or teaching error. The problem is Vatican 2 and the NO. Those who willing adhere to V2 and NO cannot be Catholic. To say they are, is an inherent contradiction where none can exist. So Ratzinger was never Pope nor Wojtyla nor any conciliar cardinal, bishop, nor priest.
Dear Louie et al,
If Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano accepts, will he be considered a novus ordo pope or the Pope of the Holy Roman Catholic Church? Patriarch Elijah and the Bishops of the Byzantine Catholic Patriarchate have elected and proclaimed in an extraordinary election Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano as the rightful Pope.
Habemus Papam!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPuofrOFH0Q
https://gloria.tv/text/FwTRDksvW4iJ6sMiNBCea2Eb9
Well seeing how Vigano is a proponent of V2 and the NO, I cannot see how he can be Pope of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. He would have to profess the Holy Roman Catholic Faith and renounce the conciliar V2 NO false ecumenist religion. So even if the Patriarch could make a case that he somehow has to authority to designate a Pope, he would have to actually designate a Catholic, which Vigano clearly is not.
To understand the book Christus Vincit, it is only necessary to understand that
Diane Montagna is one of Opus Dei’s popular journalistic clones stationed in Rome. She is originally from Pittsburgh and was recruited by Opus Dei as a young girl. This is just another way of saying, the text of the book has been filtered through Opus Dei whose “unique” identity we know is “the universal call to holiness.”
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.
Randy Engel, Contributor, Aka Catholic , The Catholic Inquisitor.
MMF: “We are Catholics, and Catholicism is the apex of logic and correct reason. It’s simple for a Catholic: he must see evidence of holiness in someone who claims the Seat of Peter;”
Council of Constance: “If the pope is wicked, and especially if he is foreknown to damnation, then he is a devil like Judas the apostle, a thief and a son of perdition and is not the head of the holy church militant since he is not even a member of it” – CONDEMNED
I’ve said it before, this new generation of sedevacantists are absolutely clueless.
MMF: “he must not see even a hint of contradiction with previous Church teaching; he must be convinced that this man is a valid pope before he will give his allegiance.”
More utter stupidity. It is no surprise MMF fell into the sedevacantist heresy with idiotic statements such as this.
Tell me MMF, how would any American Catholic 100 years ago have become personally convinced that the Pope was a “valid Pope”? Travel half way around the world on a ship and interrogated him?
Do any of you sedevacantist heretics think before you write such stupidity?
The Council used the word “wicked”, not “a heretic”. It speaks to his moral life, nothing more and nothing less. Had they been speaking of heresy they would have used the word but they did not. One can possess the Supernatural Virtue of Faith yet lead a wicked (sinful) life.
If the Pope is a heretic, then he is not the head of the holy Church militant because he is not even a member of it.
FACT. Heretics are outside of the Church, de Fide.
“More utter stupidity. It is no surprise MMF fell into the sedevacantist heresy with idiotic statements such as this.”
FormerSede: Define “sedevacantist,” please.
ConcernedCommenter:
After seeing what I just saw, in the Anathema declarations by Patriarch Elijah and the Pagan ritual celebrations enshrining demons in the Holy of Holies; claiming Christian ground for Lucifer – I no longer have any confidence in the Conciliar Church and it’s Papacy and the Apostolic line. It’s almost as if it is not even relevant as they’ve all abandoned our Lord and their Office.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=esDn1eFCk-Y
What happened?! Who is with Patriarch Elijah? No one!
It’s no longer simply what Bergoglio and his chums are doing. It’s the entire Church with him, either silent in assent, or loud in acclamation. The Bishops are either happy the gates of hell are opened, or simply don’t care.
I no longer know exactly what to think about this. All I know is the entire Church appears populated with Apostates.
I follow Christ and I do so with His Blessed Mother. These people are His enemies. And so they are also mine.
Still waiting on the definition, FormerSede.
Thank you,Randy. It is pleasure to read an “on topic, brief and charitable comment” on Louie’s blog. It appears that Opus Dei is pulling a lot of strings behind the scenes in plain sight. God bless you.
Yes, Aqua, yes. Your anger is admirable and rightly moves you to act. I have no doubt that if you had been in Rome this morning, you would have been one of the Cisteros who acted so well on Jesus’ Bride’s behalf. She Who is Divinely instituted yet run by those who are fallible and even by some who are demonically Oppressed or Possessed. But I will ask the questions to you that keep me centered: Who do you say that I am? Do I keep my promises? Am I faithful even when my representatives are not?
The Patriarch Elijah starts with the distraction and not from the Ground Zero of the question: What did Pope Benedict–a duly elected pope–declare his intent to renounce? Patriarch Elijah did NOT include BiP as one of his options.
Aqua, “what earthly father would give his son a scorpion when he asks for a fish? How much better is My Father Who is in Heaven?” This is the God-Man Who keeps His promises. His ways are not ours.
For sure you do follow Christ as does His Mother follow Him. His enemies are our enemies and He has not forsaken us while we fight them with ALL of the graces He makes available to us through her hands. Don’t miss out on any single one of them.
Thank you, Akita.
Who do I say that He is? Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of the Living God who taketh away the sins of the world. To whom else would I go?
I think it is inappropriate to use the language of God, used by Jesus about Himself; revealing Himself in parable; testing the faith of His Disciples as they abandon Him; as if He were also using the same language for similar reasons in reference to the Pope. Those Holy words of Scripture are reserved for the Holy Name of Jesus.
Who do I say the Pope is? He is the Cornerstone of the Church. Christ founded His Church on that Rock. It is crucial that we have a valid Pope and that we clearly know who that Pope is. It is crucial that we are in unity around that central figure, who is in unity with Jesus Christ our Lord and who carefully leads us to Jesus in heaven with all the Saints who ever lived and will live and always in exactly the same way: One Way. That is the Tradition of the Church, based on the words of Christ.
We live in evil times, in which it is not clear who the Pope is; where and how he is taking us and there is not unity, rather disunity which is the smoke of Satan. My faith will not be shaken. I look to Jesus and stand with the eternal Church which will never fail.
Addendum: One Of The marks of Francis as antichrist is that he is seen, (he sees himself), in Messianic terms such that the Magisterium is his (the Francis Magisterium). He controls truth. He cannot be wrong, no matter how he rules. Whatever he says is true is true. And Catholics now practice their faith in that way: “what are the Messianic words of Francis today? What is our path today”? I have heard many Catholics say this “Francis *IS* the Magisterium”.
That is papolatry. I do not believe that. The Pope is Peter, in the same way that St. Peter was Peter; in full.
Jesus, only Jesus, is the Word; Truth.
Thank you, Aqua. You are correct, it is not appropriate to use the words of God that apply to Jesus alone. Yet, did not Our Lord and Savior Himself say, “Who hears you, hears me?” And as you so eloquently articulate, “[The Pope] is the Cornerstone of the Church. Christ founded His Church on that Rock. It is crucial that we have a valid Pope and that we clearly know who that Pope is. It is crucial that we are in unity around that central figure, who is in unity with Jesus Christ our Lord and who carefully leads us to Jesus in heaven with all the Saints who ever lived and will live and always in exactly the same way: One Way.” You continue and I agree, “We live in evil times, in which it is not clear who the Pope is”.
Perhaps you would agree that inasmuch as it is not clear who Peter is in these evil times, it is clearer who Jesus’ Bride is. Is it possible then to invert the truism to locate Peter, “Where the Church is, there is Peter?” Put another way: FiP and Jesus lied; BiP is a mess but Jesus’ promises stand.
You know with whom we wrestle. Thank you for sharing your wrestling skills.
Addendum: As you know, the only apostle to make it to and through the Crucifixion was John because Mary took him there. The Catholic Popes and the Saints also, as Mary does, lead us to Him but in the end only He is Who we, like they, choose or don’t choose.
My point: We are looking for a human leader, a hero in these times, even. BUT we already have all the necessities to choose Jesus and His Bride should a human hero, leader, pope of our own personal liking or standards not materialize in this evil time.
Joan of Arc said, “Act and God will act.” She didn’t say, “I will lead so you all can have someone to follow.” That’s how it turned out for as much time as God willed, but I don’t think that “to lead” was ever her intention. At least “follow me” was not her instruction to others because her task was to point to the One Who gave that command. Mary and the Saints help us and the clergy is supposed to help us, but while the majority of them have failed us, His Bride’s spotless beauty is not besmirched. Nor have the Gates of Hell prevailed because BiP.
Well said. Especially the Joan of Arc quote.
As to the true Pope, it is obviously Pope Benedict XVI. My mind is made up on that. We are in the midst of Divine Judgement.