To commemorate the 100th anniversary of Our Lady’s appearances at Fatima, in 2017 and 2018 Canadians for Faith & Family published all the Fatima apparitions in the Fatima Newsletter. By publishing the exact words of Sr. Lucy, without any commentary, we also hoped to “set the record straight” as many false versions of the apparitions were (and still are) being circulated.
As promised last year, we are offering the entire 12-part series again in 2019 to spread the true Fatima Message further. In 2017 we had published the apparitions of Our Lady of Fatima, and in 2018, those of the Angel. This year, with content unchanged, they are being presented in chronological order, starting with the least-known one of 2015.
You may access the 2019 Newsletters by clicking HERE or on the image on the sidebar.
In a day when the Faith is being perverted by Catholics themselves, the apparitions provide a crucial Heaven-sent refutation of heresy and blasphemy.
So please share them in any way with your friends and family, and encourage them to sign up to receive the entire free series of monthly installments directly by e-mailing us at: email@example.com.
God bless you in this new Year of Our Lord, 2019.
Canadians for Faith & Family
Needless to say, given that we are dealing with a most cunning enemy, it will necessarily take time before we will see exactly how this “Apostolic Letter” will be leveraged by the Bergoglians as a weapon against tradition.
Please allow me to underscore this point:
Like all things Bergoglian, the move to suppress Ecclesia Dei will almost certainly result in tradition being attacked, marginalized, and vilified. At best (and highly unlikely at that), it may prove to be neutral in that regard. Anyone who imagines otherwise is clearly delusional as Jorge Bergoglio has long since made his hatred for tradition and all things truly Catholic exceedingly well-known.
Below is the full text of the Apostolic Letter, with certain portions emphasized in italics, with my own commentary periodically inserted. [Note: The unofficial English translation has been provided by the Catholic Herald.]
For over thirty years, the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, established by the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei adflicta, of July 2, 1988, has acquitted with sincere and praiseworthy solicitude the task of collaborating with the Bishops and the Dicasteries of the Roman Curia, in facilitating the full ecclesial communion of priests, seminarians, communities or individual religious men and women once attached to the Fraternity founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who wished to remain united to the Successor of Peter in the Catholic Church, while preserving their spiritual and liturgical traditions.
Right out of the gate, the text begins by perpetrating, albeit in the backhanded manner one might expect, a worn-out, tired old lie; namely, that the SSPX was at one time, and is presently, not united to the Successor of Peter in the Catholic Church – a claim the Society has vehemently and repeatedly rejected. So much for this Letter being an example of Jorge playing nice with tradition. More on that in a moment.
In this way, the Commission was able to exercise its authority and competence over said Societies and Associations in the name of the Holy See, until otherwise provided.
Subsequently, under the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum of 7 July 2007, the Pontifical Commission extended the authority of the Holy See over those Institutes and religious communities, which adhere to the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite and earlier traditions of religious life, maintaining vigilance over the observance and application of established dispositions.
Here, the text refers to the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP), the Institute of Christ the King (ICK) and other such institutes.
Two years later, my Venerable Predecessor Benedict XVI, with the motu proprio Ecclesiae Unitatem, of 2 July 2009, reorganized the structure of the Pontifical Commission, in order to make it more suitable for the new situation created with the remission of the excommunication of the four Bishops consecrated without pontifical mandate. Moreover, considering that, after such an act of grace, the matters handled by the same Pontifical Commission were primarily doctrinal, my predecessor linked the Commission to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith more organically, conserving its initial ends, but modifying its structure.
A true statement; doctrine is where the rubber hits the road in this matter.
Now, since the Feria IV [the regular Wednesday meeting] of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of November 15, 2017 had formulated the request that the dialogue between the Holy See and the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X [SSPX] be conducted directly by the aforementioned Congregation, and since the issues treated are of a doctrinal nature, to which request I gave my approval in Audientia to the Cardinal Prefect [Cardinal Luis Ladaria,SJ] the following 24 November, and [since] this proposal was welcomed by the Plenary Session of the same Congregation celebrated from 23 to 26 January 2018, I have come, after ample reflection, to the following Decision.
Considering today the conditions that had led the holy Pontiff, John Paul II, to the establishment of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei; noting that the Institutes and religious communities that usually celebrate in extraordinary form have today found their own stability of number and life; …
We must stop here, mid-sentence, to make a very important point that many are apparently missing.
Bergoglio is not conceding that the celebration of the Latin Mass is here to stay; as if he is somehow throwing in the towel in his battle against tradition and the ancient Roman Rite. He is simply making an accurate observation; referring to the likes of the FSSP and ICK, acknowledging that they have reached a certain stability in number and life.
One must ask, however, in what does this “stability” consist according to the modernist mind of Jorge Bergoglio?
It consists in not rocking the boat with respect to such things as the spate of fake canonizations, the abominable Mass of Paul the Pathetic, and the error-riddled decrees of Vatican Council II, etc.
It also consists in behaving as if that “certain fashion” that people like us call the Mass of Ages is compatible with such egregious offenses against the Faith as religious liberty, ecumenism, and the wholesale dethronement of Christ the King – the stock and trade of modernist Rome; the official structures of which are the happy home of these Institutes.
In other words, Francis does not consider these groups “stable” because they are attached to Eternal Rome and to tradition; on the contrary, he views them as such because they peacefully co-exist within that conciliar house of horrors known as modernist Rome; with its all too “Ordinary” Novus Ordo and a catalogue of doctrinal and moral errors that they dare not publicly condemn for fear of expulsion.
Friends, that’s the antithesis of stability, in spite of whatever outward appearances might suggest. As such, is the statement under review a reason for so-called traditionalists to applaud? (Yes, some actually are.) Hell no!
Let us continue:
… noting that the aims and issues dealt with by the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei are of a predominantly doctrinal nature; wishing that these aims be ever more visible to the conscience of the ecclesial communities, with the present Apostolic Letter motu proprio data;
Here, Bergoglio makes it known that he intends to take the tug-of-war between modernist Rome and the SSPX to the streets; i.e., “ever more visible to the conscience of the ecclesial communities.”
Who are the “ecclesial communities”? One may reasonably understand this to refer to Catholic parishes, dioceses both local and national, religious orders, etc.
Note, however, that “ecclesial communities” is Council-speak for the heretics and their denominations too numerous to number. This suggests that he considers the matter of tradition and its standing to be the business even of those outside the Church; perhaps even especially so. After all, Francis is not just an ecumenist, he is a globalist.
So, what does this portend? Again, we will have to wait and see, but it very well may mean that the days of behind-the-scenes negotiating sessions between the Roman modernists and the SSPX are over. It could be that Bergoglio wants all to see just how unreasonable, intolerant, rigid, triumphalistic, behind the times, and let us not forget, anti-Semitic, the Society and others who think like them truly are.
To what purpose? To discredit, not just the Society, but tradition itself in the eyes of the world; setting it up for persecution by the leaders of the one-world government that he is so pleased to serve.
Remember, the so-called pontificate of Francis (to quote Fr. Nicholas Gruner once more) is nothing if not a massive, well-oiled, PR machine. So, one has good reason to believe that he is posturing to send some kind of message to the masses.
Moving on to the meat of the Letter:
I establish (Delibero):
1. The Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, established on 2 July 1988 with the motu proprio, Ecclesia Dei adflicta, is suppressed.
2. The tasks of the Commission in question are assigned in full to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, within which a special Section will be set up to continue the work of supervision, promotion and protection so far conducted by the suppressed Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei.
The CDF will now keep an eye on the FSSP and ICK to make sure they don’t rock the boat.
The budget of the Pontifical Commission is part of the ordinary accounting of the aforementioned Congregation.. E’soppressa la Pontificia Commissione Ecclesia Dei, istituita il 2 luglio 1988 col Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei adflicta.
Moreover, I establish that the present motu proprio, to be observed in spite of anything contrary, even if worthy of particular mention, is promulgated by publication in the 19 January 2019 edition of the L’Osservatore Romano newspaper, entering into immediate force, and subsequently inserted in the official gazzette of the Holy See, Acta Apostolicae Sedis.
Given at Rome, in St. Peter’s, January 17, 2019, VI of Our [so-called] Pontificate.
One final comment: The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has three offices; Doctrinal, Discipline, and Marriage. The first two are of concern in this discussion.
According to the CDF’s official profile:
The Doctrinal Office takes care of the matters that relate to the promotion of the doctrine of the faith and morals.
The Discipline Office handles the offenses against the faith as well as the grave offenses committed against morals and in the celebration of the sacraments. It attends also to the examination of other problems connected with the discipline of the faith.
Bear well in mind that the “faith” referred to here is not the Catholic faith, but rather the conciliar faith. Likewise, the “morals” it intends to promote are not the immutable dictates of the Divine Law, but rather the likes of that which is enshrined in Amoris Laetitia.
The CDF, as opposed to the former Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, has the authority to issue censures and otherwise punish those who do not toe the modernist line.
With this in mind, Francis may have just signaled that he is preparing to put the squeeze on the SSPX and other traditional recalcitrants who are considered to have so-called “partial communion.” Should they fail to fold their cards, this may perhaps result in a CDF decree declaring them schismatic, or maybe even more bogus excommunications.
If this is so, I say bring it on. Tradition wins.
Did you find this analysis helpful? If so, please help us continue our efforts!
As I write, the 46th annual “March for Life” is taking place in Washington, D.C. According to organizers, the vision is “a world where the beauty and dignity of every human life are valued and protected,” and the mission, to “end abortion by uniting, educating, and mobilizing pro-life people in the public square.”
The March, while featuring a large number of attendees assembled under a Catholic banner, attracts a diverse collection of individuals and groups; even among the self-identified Catholics.
One of the featured speakers at this year’s March for Life is Carl A. Anderson, Supreme Knight of the Knights of Columbus; a group that is always well-represented at the event. In a 2016 editorial for The Hill, Anderson wrote:
The Catholic position – that abortion takes a human life, is morally wrong, and should be substantially restricted — is not only backed up by science, it is now the public’s consensus by a wide margin.
Yes, you read that correctly; Anderson is leveraging his Catholic creds to deceive people into believing that the Church simply seeks to substantially restrict abortion. Apparently, he either does not know, or does not care about, the meaning of intrinsic evil.
In any case, welcome to the Big Tent otherwise known as “Pro-Life, Inc.” and its premier national event, March for Life.
According to an article posted online yesterday by “a correspondent for the National Catholic Reporter’s Field Hospital”:
Don’t like Trump? Gay? Feminist? Atheist?
That’s OK, you can still be pro-life, say activists warning that the movement against abortion has been captured by conservative culture warriors promoting adherence to Republican politics as a litmus test. That concern came into sharp focus in 2016.
Highlighted in the article was a group called Rehumanize International, a March for Life participant and “seamless garment” cult that believes “being pro-life means being against abortion, the death penalty, war, and discrimination as well as supportive of immigrants.”
Also participating in the March will be a wide assortment of Protestant groups, like members of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, the public policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, which exists to protect every American citizen’s “right” to reject Jesus Christ.
And let us not fail to mention the Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians; another March for Life participating organization, the members of which presumably have little firsthand knowledge of so-called “unwanted pregnancy.”
Among all of these marchers, the one group whose name and purpose most aptly describe the event is Secular Pro-Life, an organization that “seeks to increase the inclusiveness of the overall pro-life movement by creating space for pro-life atheists, agnostics, humanists, and other secularists.”
Key word: Humanist.
Let me be very clear, I do not mean to denigrate the many well-intentioned individuals that make the annual journey to Washington, D.C. to participate in the March for Life. I am personally familiar with, and friends with, any number of them and they do mean well.
At the same time, I want to be equally as clear in stating the truth: The March for Life, in spite of any sincere efforts on the part of certain individuals or groups to adorn the event with Christian overtones, really isn’t about Christ at all; it’s about man.
For far too many Catholic “pro-lifers,” including the leaders of the movement (Fr. Frank Pavone, for example), the human embryo – not the Kingdom of Heaven – has become the “pearl of great price” for which they are pleased to sell everything, including whatever commitment they may have had to the mission that Christ actually gave to His Church.
As organizers of the March have plainly and accurately stated, it’s mission concerns “mobilizing pro-life people in the public square.” With this being so, a successful March entails showing enough strength-in-numbers to convince public officials that, if indeed they wish to keep their cushy jobs, they would do well to acknowledge pro-lifers as a voting block.
Sounds terrific, until such time as an even more influential constituency flexes its collective muscle to promote whatever its agenda may happen to be; e.g., LGBT rights, contraception, so-called “religious liberty” – each of which are an assault against Christ.
At its heart, the March for Life does not so much contribute to building the Kingdom of God, over which Christ the King reigns, as it demonstrates a commitment to the American democratic lie that the power of government comes from the people.
Has the pro-life movement as a whole made some headway in educating the ignorant about the horrors of abortion? Certainly. There has been a swing in public opinion of late, and statistics show a reduction in the number of abortions taking place in the U.S.
To what extent the March for Life itself has contributed to this is questionable at best. The event, especially given the scant coverage it receives from the mainstream media, which practically owns the eyes and ears of the Church’s enemies, does little to change the hearts and minds of abortion advocates.
In spite of whatever good the March may do, let’s not lose sight of the fact that the mission that Christ gave to His Church, and by extension to the faithful, each in their own way, is to convert the nations to Him; i.e., to bring them to heel under “the sweet and saving yoke of our King” ( cf Quas Primas 3).
As Pope Pius XI wrote in 1925, “When once men recognize, both in private and in public life, that Christ is King, society will at last receive the great blessings of real liberty, well-ordered discipline, peace and harmony” (ibid., no. 19).
So, instead of a march for human life, how about a march on Washington, D.C. for Christ the King who is the Life, calling our civic leaders to account for their duty to acknowledge, not us and the power we ostensibly wield at the polls, but rather He to whom all authority in heaven and on earth truly belongs?
This, my friends, is how a godless society is rid of the scourge of abortion.
Time is running out, but you can confess and repent of your sins, crimes and sacrileges, and do so publicly, since they have themselves become public. Your eternal salvation is at stake … I implore you, repent publicly of your sins, so as to make the Church rejoice and present yourself before the tribunal of Our Lord cleansed by His blood.
Bearing in mind that Archbishop Viganò has effectively surpassed Cardinal Raymond Burke as the top neo-con cult hero du jour, it is no surprise that his latest issuance is being widely hailed by many in that camp as yet another bold effort in witness to the faith.
One small problem, however; Viganò’s latest salvo is far more emotional than faithful.
While witnessing the aged and discredited pervert pleading for forgiveness in some public venue may be satisfying to some, the truth of the matter is that his eternal salvation is not contingent upon him doing so.
Repentance – as in confessing all of his mortal sins to a priest in number and kind, with sincere contrition and a firm purpose of amendment – indeed this is necessary; as it is for all of us. But doing so publicly? (Hey, folks, you really want to take your own sins to the microphone?) It is for McCarrick’s confessor to prescribe a penance and no one else.
Archbishop Viganò wasn’t finished with the empty emotional pleas. He went on to write:
But something else of great importance is also at stake. You, paradoxically, have at your disposal an immense offer of great hope for you from the Lord Jesus; you are in a position to do great good for the Church. In fact, you are now in a position to do something that has become more important for the Church than all of the good things you did for her throughout your entire life. A public repentance on your part would bring a significant measure of healing to a gravely wounded and suffering Church.
Is Uncle Ted McCarrick really in a position to do great good of the Church as the public face of anything? This is a dubious suggestion at best.
Can he do good? Certainly – all things are possible with Christ, but let’s be real. McCarrick has squandered whatever opportunity he had to act as an emissary for Holy Mother Church in any capacity. A private life of prayer and penance would be by far the more fitting service to the good; even if less satisfying to the under-nourished masses who have lost their sense of things eternal.
Furthermore, public repentance on McCarrick’s part would not, in fact, bring a significant measure of healing to the Church. Hierarchical homos would still be running amok, and far more important is the fact that a raging manifest heretic in white would still be running the show in Rome, the errors of Vatican II would still be widely taught and accepted as true by many, the despicable Mass of Paul the Pathetic would still be considered their “Ordinary” rite, etc.
And somehow Teddy McCarrick is in a position to offer significant healing? Nonsense.
Look, don’t get me wrong. I am all for Archbishop Viganò outing the homosexual network, their various evil deeds and their well-kept secrets. I applaud him for doing so. This latest sappy plea on his part, however, is not only useless; it serves to discredit him and undermine his good efforts.
That said, it does contain a bit of advice that he himself should take. So with this in mind, here is my open letter to Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò:
You are in a position to do great good for the Church. In fact, you are now in a position to do something that has become more important for the Church than all of the good things you did for her throughout your entire life.
It would seem that you are still in possession of information, and perhaps even documents, as yet unrevealed; truths that once exposed to the light of day might serve to rid the Church of some of her enemies operating from within. Cease with the piecemeal revelations; rather, put all of your cards on the table and let Our Lord take care of the rest.
It is time to set aside your fear of martyrdom and come out of hiding. Stand up boldly and publicly for whatever truths you may have to share in defense of Holy Mother Church, and if indeed this costs you your life, blessed are you.
Furthermore it can be s aid without any exaggeration whatsoever, that the majority of Masses celebrated without altar stones, with common vessels, leavened bread, with the introduction of profane words into the very body of the Canon, etc. are sacrilegious, and they prevent faith by diminishing it. The desacralization is such that these Masses can come to lose their supernatural character, ‘the mystery of faith,’ and become no more than acts of natural religion.
At this, I am reminded of a daily Novus Ordo Mass that I often attended some years ago, where the priest always used common vessels (made of crystal) and introduced profane words into the Canon (“He took bread and, giving thanks, broke it, and gave it to his ‘friends’ saying…”).
Such Masses, according to the Archbishop, prevent faith and are sacrilegious. He also said that they can even lose their supernatural character – a very serious charge, indeed.
Think about this for a moment. If, during the celebration of a Novus Ordo Mass, Our Blessed Lord is truly made present in the Most Holy Eucharist, then it is safe to say that the “supernatural character” of the rite remains; in spite of whatever offenses against the Faith may be present therein.
If what the Archbishop states is true (and in my opinion it most certainly is), however, then it is reasonable for the faithful to harbor reservations on this point; i.e., they may reasonably entertain doubt as to whether or not Christ is truly present in a Novus Ordo Communion.
Lest anyone imagine that this describes an exceptional situation, Archbishop Lefebvre went on to broaden his commentary concerning the faithful’s reservations to include every Novus Ordo Mass, stating:
The New Mass, even when said with piety and respect for the liturgical rules, is subject to the same reservations since it is impregnated with Protestantism. It bears within it a poison harmful to the faith.
Archbishop Lefebvre was simply pointing out what every so-called traditional Catholic today most certainly realizes; the Novus Ordo Missae, no matter how holy the priest, regardless of how reverently he offers it, and in spite of his sincerity of intention to do what the Church does, is poisonous and therefore a mockery of the Sacrifice of Christ.
So, dear reader, do you agree with Archbishop Lefebvre’s assessment of the Novus Ordo?
If so, consider the following common scenario: A diocesan Traditional Latin Mass that is celebrated at a parish that also offers the Novus Ordo.
Question: Does the priest at the Traditional Mass take care to consecrate a sufficient number of hosts for those present, or does he also make use of what is reserved in the tabernacle; including hosts that remained after a Novus Ordo?
If the latter, then there is reasonable cause for concern that some of the faithful at that Traditional Mass may be receiving ordinary bread. In other words, in such a situation, the faithful – the thoughtful ones, anyway – cannot help but harbor reservations similar to those that are attached to the Novus Ordo itself.
Bear in mind, here we are simply discussing reservations. In other words, it is not necessary for one to conclude with certitude that the Novus Ordo hosts are mere bread; rather, our concern stems from the presence of doubt, which is well-justified based upon the grave deficiencies of the rite itself.
In the above scenario, more specifically, the faithful who assist at the Traditional Mass would have no way of knowing if the Novus Ordo priest used common vessels, introduced profane words into the consecration, or performed any other acts that could serve to render the rite devoid of supernatural character.
For those individuals who find themselves in this situation and are inclined to dismiss this concern because the Novus Ordo Mass is “valid,” Archbishop Lefebvre would suggest otherwise. He writes to confused Catholics:
Your perplexity takes perhaps the following form: may I assist at a sacrilegious Mass which is nevertheless valid, in the absence of any other, in order to satisfy my Sunday obligation? The answer is simple: these Masses cannot be the object of an obligation; we must moreover apply to them the rules of moral theology and canon law as regards the participation or the attendance at an action which endangers the faith or may be sacrilegious.
Here, the Archbishop makes plain the fact that validity alone does not render other reasonable concerns about the Novus Ordo null.
Question: In the case where the priest offering the Traditional Mass does take care to consecrate enough hosts for all present, does he also take care to keep any undispensed Sacred Hosts separate from those “Novus Ordo” hosts that may be reserved in the tabernacle?
If the priest in question also celebrates the Novus Ordo, chances are very good that he does not, as doing so would be tantamount to admitting his own doubts concerning whether both constitute the Real Presence of Christ. And yet, if the Sacred Hosts are commingled, without distinction, with what may be just ordinary bread, then surely Our Lord’s Body is not being handled with due reverence.
Consider the following question as well:
Question: Does a church building wherein the Novus Ordo is routinely celebrated stand in need of being rededicated?
This question may be reworded to ask whether or not a church has been desecrated by virtue of the fact that a sacrilegious rite, one that makes a mockery of the Sacrifice of Christ, is routinely celebrated within.
According to the new Code of Canon Law:
Sacred places are violated by gravely injurious actions done in them with scandal to the faithful, actions which, in the judgment of the local ordinary, are so grave and contrary to the holiness of the place that it is not permitted to carry on worship in them until the damage is repaired by a penitential rite according to the norm of the liturgical books. (Canon 1211)
Sacred places lose their dedication or blessing if they have been destroyed in large part, or have been turned over permanently to profane use by decree of the competent ordinary or in fact. (Canon 1212)
Recall the words of Archbishop Lefebvre who said that the Novus Ordo is impregnated with Protestantism, bears within it a poison harmful to the faith, and is subject to reservations even when said with piety and respect for the liturgical rules.
This certainly sounds like what the Code of Canon Law describes as a gravely injurious action, contrary to the holiness of the place, that does scandal to the faithful.
And while the routine celebration of the Novus Ordo in a church building does not constitute it having been turned over permanently to profane use, one may rightly insist that a religious rite that poses as the Sacrifice of the Mass, in spite of bearing “a poison harmful to the faith” (to quote the Archbishop once more), is by far the more scandalous.
The Ceremonial of Bishops states that a church building stands in need of rededication, which would follow a penitential rite as an act of reparation, when:
Crimes committed in a church affect and do injury to the entire Christian community, which the church building in a sense symbolizes and represents. The crimes in question are those that do grave dishonor to sacred mysteries… (cf Ceremonial of Bishops, no. 1070)
Yes, Canon Law does state that it falls to “the judgment of the local ordinary” to determine whether or not a church has lost its dedication, and clearly no bishop that approves of the Novus Ordo will draw that conclusion.
Even so, the local bishops’ failure to recognize the above-mentioned crimes in no way makes the Novus Ordo any less sacrilegious, any less poisonous, or any less scandalous; i.e., it still does dishonor to sacred mysteries and is a grave offense against Christ. Is this not the very reason why “traditionalists” would not be caught dead at a Novus Ordo?
And yet, many of us assist at the Traditional Latin Mass in a parish or chapel that routinely plays host to this rite; not infrequently, celebrated on the very same altar.
Now, please don’t get me wrong. I am not suggesting that one should avoid such Masses. I am simply raising some uncomfortable questions that I’ve not seen addressed elsewhere, but which merit our consideration; the most pressing of which concerns Holy Communion.
These questions are perhaps not easily answered, but such is the sad state of affairs in our day when refuge is sought by many and found by relative few.