It is not infrequently that the Mass propers call to mind the present situation in the Church in some way or another, but this past Sunday (the Seventh Sunday of Pentecost) this was the case, at least for me, more pointedly so than certain others.
It began at the Collect:
O God, whose providence faileth not in its designs, we humbly entreat Thee: put from us all that might be harmful, and give us all that will be profitable.
Is there any so harmful in our day, not just to the faithful, but to the world at large, as the man widely accepted as the Vicar of Christ?
As should be perfectly clear to those who hold the Catholic faith and understand that the greatest good to be had is salvation, this is a rhetorical question and not in the least bit intended to be taken as mere hyperbole.
As such, though many a Catholic (in particular those cut from “conservative” cloth) would perhaps shudder to do so, is it not meritorious for us to make this venerable prayer our very own? (Again, a rhetorical question.)
O God, whose providence faileth not in its designs, we humbly entreat Thee: put from us this dangerous man, Jorge Bergoglio, and give us all that will be profitable.
And yet, we mustn’t stop there. As has been stated many times in this space, “Francis” (as he is known) is a major problem, but he is not the problem. Therefore:
O God, whose providence faileth not in its designs, we humbly entreat Thee: put from us the false and misleading Council known as Vatican II, the Novus Ordo Missae that it inspired, and all who labor to press them upon Your people, and give us all that will be profitable.
Indeed, one may choose to fill in the blanks in any number of ways; e.g., put from us the scourge of abortion; put from us warlords and tyrants; put from us the many threats to marriage and family, etc.
Even so, there is only one real solution to the many societal ills of our day, and that is Truth incarnate, Christ the King, and the Holy Catholic faith that He Himself established.
And then came the Gradual at Sunday’s Mass:
Come, children, hearken to me; I will teach you to fear the Lord. Come ye to Him and be enlightened, and your faces shall not be confounded.
In context, the word “confounded” in this verse (taken from the Psalms) is best understood as “ashamed,” but the more common usage suggests confusion and bewilderment.
Whether it be in reference to written texts like Amoris Laetitia, commentary on a plethora of topics ranging from homosexuality to Hell, or the hidden agendas of Synods that have yet to take place, how often we hear it said that Francis sows confusion.
At times, we’ve even heard it suggested in traditional circles (by those who should surely know better) that Francis’ major faults are “weakness, innuendo or ambiguity;” as if he is guilty of little more than creating confusion among the faithful as opposed to actively leading the Church into error.
In all cases, it seems as if the Gradual (i.e., God’s word) is telling us that the reason so many are confounded by Francis is that they lack, in some degree, an appropriate fear of the Lord.
More specifically in the present case, there appears to be a lack in that awe inspiring awareness of God’s majesty, purity and holiness; the same that naturally gives rise to an abhorrence of heresy and other affronts to His infinite goodness.
In A Passiontide reflection on heresy, written by his Fr. Frederick William Faber (28 June 1814 – 26 September 1863), one gets a sense for the relationship between fear of the Lord and heresy:
The crowning disloyalty to God is heresy. It is the sin of sins, the very loathsomest of things which God looks down upon in this malignant world. Yet how little do we understand of its excessive hatefulness! It is the polluting of God’s truth, which is the worst of all impurities. Yet how light we make of it! We look at it, and are calm. We touch it and do not shudder. We mix with it, and have no fear. We see it touch holy things, and we have no sense of sacrilege. We breathe its odor, and show no signs of detestation or disgust.
Yes, today, many of us seem to “mix with” (i.e., tolerate) the heresy that is flowing out of Rome and elsewhere like so much refuse; showing relatively little fear, both of it and the Lord, as demonstrated by a willingness to relegate these attacks against the Truth to mere ambiguity and confusion; thereby downplaying its offensiveness in light of God’s greatness.
With this in mind, it is imperative for all of us in this age of diabolical disorientation, and I include myself first and foremost, to pray for an increase in the gift of the Holy Ghost that is fear of the Lord.
And then came the Gospel at last Sunday’s Holy Mass:
At that time, Jesus said to His disciples: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them. Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. (Matt. 7:15-21)
While we stop short of judging the interior disposition of anyone’s soul, which is the prerogative of God alone, we can “know” who the false prophets are among us:
They are those who say “Lord, Lord,” but whose fruits – plainly observable in an objective sense – are evil.
Again, my thoughts turned to this Francis that we’ve been discussing. What are his fruits?
– An increase in Eucharistic sacrilege even to the point where Cardinals and bishops are encouraged to institutionalize it.
– An increase in acceptance of homosexuality both within and outside of the Church.
– An increase in respect, honor and deference for the godless opinions of heathens, heretics, Jews, Muslims, earth worshipers, proponents of abortion, and euthanasia, etc.
– A full blown assault on marriage and family.
– A practical abrogation of mortal sin.
– Outright blasphemy that paints mortal sin as God’s will, and Divine Law as impossible for some to keep.
Each of these “fruits” are objective realities, plainly visible and right before our very eyes.
We could go on to list far more evil Bergoglian fruit, and I invite you to do so below if you’re so inclined.
And why should we even bother to consider such things?
Not for spite or for boasting or any such thing, but in order to warn the ignorant; i.e., those who cannot see beyond the sheep’s clothing to the false prophet who is lurking beneath.
All glory and honor to God, however, my next thought; a far more important one – was to ask myself, “What are my own fruits?”
And it occurs to me – if any among us should find that particular examination a walk in the park, then either great virtue or great delusion is present.
May it please the Lord to grant us greater insight into the will of our Father who is in heaven, and the grace to make it our own.
The Gospel warns us to “beware” of false prophets and to observe the “fruits” to distinguish the anti-prophet, but does this really apply to Francis? It would seem that he has long ago shed his sheep’s costume and his fangs are plainly visible. Perhaps this Gospel would apply more to someone like John Paul II, now labeled a Saint, or even Pius XII, considered by many the last good pope. The fruits of the actions taken by these pontificates are now plain to see, but their sheep disguises were tightly buttoned up during their time in office.
Or the last bad Pope.
It is certainly true the evil fruits of the conciliar church go back to the Second Vatican Council, the “misleading council,” as Louie wrote in his blog entry, promoted and interpreted by the “ravenous” Popes from John XXIII to the present, but did not Sister Lucy of Fatima, a good prophet, say that the Third Secret be revealed to the world no later than 1960, , “because then it will seem clearer (mais claro).”Thus I believe that Pius XII has to be included as a False Prophet, a wolf in sheep’s clothing, because of his actions and inactions against progressivism leading up to the Council.
THE CATHOLIC THAT WAS . . . . . . AND IS NO MORE
By Archbishop Alban Goodier, S.J.
[CATHOLIC TRUTH SOCIETY of London No. C240a (1949).]
http://pamphlets.org.au/docs/cts/england/html/ctsc240a.html
But he died in 1958. To be fair, how do you know for sure that he wouldn’t have revealed it before 1960? If you are going to place blame using the “Third Secret” it falls squarely on the man in the Chair at that time: John XXIII. Instead he opened up the false, non-Catholic Council.
It is becoming more likely with each passing day that Francis is indeed the False Prophet. I suspect that some here believe him to be just that, as do I. This would mean that the Antichrist is “waiting in the wings” as his FP is getting up there in age.
What you wrote is so crystalline. Especially appreciate the description of heresy by Father Faber+.
My consternation over what is happening in the Church is daily tempered by my own supplication of mercy for my own sins and prayers for
priests. Lord, make me humble and give me the ability to discern your will in these dark days.
That Bergoglio might be the False Prophet has been the subject of my study recently, prior to the production of an article on the subject.
I was worried about the subject for this reason:
“We command all those who exercise the function of preaching, or will do so in the future, not to presume, either in their sermons or in their affirmations, to fix a date for future evils, whether for the coming of Antichrist or for the Day of Judgment, seeing that the Truth has said: ‘It is not for you to know the times or the moments, which the Father put in His own power .’ Those, therefore, who have had the audacity to make such statements in the past have lied, and it is well known that, on their account, the authority of those who preach wisely has greatly suffered.”
(The Fifth Lateran Council in 1516 under Pope Leo X)
Well, I’m not a priest who has that ‘function’ but nevertheless, there was a concern. I have continued the study because of the number of subsequent quotes from other Popes, Saints and others that suggest the “future evils” are with us now.
To tread the knife-edge between accusing Bergoglio and not confronting him at all is a nightmare for us laity. We have been so badly let down by Cardinals Burke, Brandmuller, Muller, Sarah and the others.
It would probably be fortuitous to share your article given the dark times we live in, when the shepherds are not guarding the sheep.
I hope it’ll be published over the next two or three months.
Allow me to clarify. Who reveals the secret is irrelevant. The point is that if it was revealed “no later then 1960” say 1958, than the spread of Russia’s errors would be clearer to see. Ostensibly, these errors would have already occurred during the reign of Pius XII.
Great. Let us know how to get a copy.
Will do for sure.
Pius XII a false prophet?! Have you actually read any of his Encyclicals? This is madness.
And you are completely wrong about the ““no later then 1960”. The instruction written on the two envelopes in which the Secret is contained reads (and I paraphrase here) ‘To be opened only in 1960 by the express command of Our Lady’. NOT ‘To be opened no later than …’. Chris Ferrara is very good on this – see his lecture “the Third Secret Still Hidden”.
Stalin, Did YOU actually see these envelopes and read what was on them?
Were you even alive then?
Having been both alive and paying attention as were so many other pious Catholics at the time. We all FULLY expected it to be read in 1960. In fact , there was a particular date the Pope planned to read it to the world. We all waited anxiously on that day and our Principal, Sr Cecily, even made the announcement over the Intercom .The Pope had read it and decided it was not for his time or Pontificate.
I too noticed the reading last Sunday (Latin Mass ) and was expectant that the homilist would give both barrels to the numb-nut hierarchy. No such luck, though. No warnings about false shepherds, false teachers or blind guides. NOPE! Instead.. if you can believe it, the priest turned Scripture upside down and said something stupid like “we all can be our own false prophets…leading ourselves astray.” Really? Blaming the victims now are we? (Sigh) A typical example of how priests regularly slaughter the Scripture to make it seem as if it supports their own strange theology when it clearly does not. What a letdown. The timidity left me stunned and ashamed, kind of like when a father abandons his kids to chase his girlfriend. Really, these guys couldn’t lead water to flow downhill. The only glimmer of hope was that this guy was a visitor.
sweep–My memory of this is exactly the same as yours. It left a lasting impression because the nuns expressed their confusion and dismay that the secret was not revealed in 1960 as requested by Our Lady. John 23 knew it was a warning about V2 and the wheels were already in motion. He listened to the Modernists not Our Lady. Thus—this Big Mess!
This doesn’t surprise me.
My 2 Cents, and we are not alone. I remember the collective moans coming from all the classrooms because I sat next to the door which opened to the hallway.
Marian Horvat has the same recollections. It was on a particular day and we were all waiting for it.
All that hype and what a crashing let down.
It is a very good article. This “papacy” is a disaster inflicted upon the Catholic world and by extension upon the rest of the world.
Of course it is down to the individual person to try to discern the utterings of Francis. My own view is that the majority of what he says contradicts what the Church has always held. The discernment is therefore clear. The demarcation is visible. Either Francis is correct and age-old church teaching was wrong. Or age-old church teaching was correct and Francis is wrong.
One very difficult part of the problem is the assumption that because a person is pope that what they say, and how they behave, is in full accordance with age-old church teaching. The wider world makes this mistaken assumption regarding Francis.
Francis needs to be permanently taken out.
“Stalin, did YOU actually see these envelopes and read what was on them?”
Yes, I did, when I saw them held up on Italian TV by Cardinal Bertone.
I don’t agree with Chris Ferrara on everything, but on Fatima’s Third Secret he is very sound. The video of his lecture is available to you too. It’s in tbe public domain.
Thank you for the information about Fatima. In fact, I lived 45 kms from Fatima for four years and went to Mass there very often. I was at the first (and only, thus far I think) SSPX Mass said at the capelinha in the main Praca do Sanctuario.
You advocate murder?
Did the good Sisters know the were now a dying breed? Truly Catholic education died with them.
Not in 1960. Every year we hard about 8th grade classmates who were going to be nuns or boys who were going off the junior seminaries.
Sadly in 2003, nuns came around from different Orders and were speaking at Diocesan churches on Sunday asking for donations because they said they did not have money for the older nuns care as the teaching nuns did not have SSI.
I am wondering what Rad Trad Thomist’s investigation will uncover about the two Lucias.
Remembering when the Carmelite official necrology list was posted online and Lucia dos Santos was listed as deceased in (I believe it was 1949). a Trad nun sent it to me online and told me to make a copy because it will disappear and or change in about two weeks. It did.
also , in the mid nineties when I first met M Martin in a book store in mid Jersey, and elderly nun sat in front of me. She was a Carmelite wearing a thread bare habit literally held together with safety pins. Martin’s chauffeur and friend had brought her.
She was being used as an Extern by her convent after a modernist Mother Superior had taken over. everything was changes. They no longer wore their habits , televisions were brought in and the usual fasts were no longer observed.
About five years earlier they were on the News. Five or six nuns had boarded themselves in one area of the convent in protest and appealed to the Vatican for help because they had to change or get out.
A young lawyer friend told me one younger nun had contacted her for advice. She said the woman had returned to her family and had done some research on the new Superior who was accompanied by a priest and traveled from the West coast staying at convents and “bringing them up to date”. The nun said they were responsible for convents closing all over the country and that she felt bad for the older nuns who had no family left and no where to go………..When I met the safety pinned older nun at the book signing years later , I found out she was one of the older ones and was allowed to stay ( and wear the one habit she had left)…….they made her an Extern (going to the grocery stores pharmacies and dry cleaners for the convent.) Reminded me of Cinderella and the evil step mother ( the blue jean wearing Mother Superior).
Martin’s driver friend (an old Irish gentlemen who never married ) had told me later on the phone he believed the Bishops wanted the Carmelite properties to sell when the convents shut down.
If you would listen to the Chris Ferrara lecture again and see if he says “To be opened ONLY in 1960…” I would appreciate it. “Before 1960” or “in 1960” was the common understanding.
–
https://traditioninaction.org/Questions/F039_Secret1960.html
–
Pius XII brought in Bugnini and promoted Montini. He was a sly wolf dressed as a sheep because his encyclicals were orthodox. It is what he did and allowed for progressivism mainly through changes in the liturgy. The very well documented series of articles by Dr. Carol Byrne on the Tradition in Action website explain this in detail –https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f083_Dialogue_10.htm
–
And this makes sense because if the Third Secret was released in 1960, before Vatican II, it would be understood in terms of what was happening at the time, i.e. the progressivism movement blessed by Pius XII. By their fruits you shall know them.
John314: “Pius XII brought in Bugnini and promoted Montini. He was a sly wolf dressed as a sheep because his encyclicals were orthodox. ”
Pius XII was mentored at the foot of a reputed OTO master, Cardinal Mariano Rampolla. https://www.returntofatima.org/2018/04/the-judas-pope/
Here is my take on Fatima. If the real 3rd secret can ever be truly known and the cover up exposed about the two Sr Lucia’s, it would not change one mind about R&R or sede or NO. The third secret could absolutely and unambigiously confirm one of those three positions but no one would really change their minds except for maybe a few. Most will spin it to their own preconceived narrative or dismiss the veracity of the message. So all this speculation about 1960 and envelopes and two Sr Lucia’s (which I happen to agree with based on those photos), is a colassal waste of time and effort. Vatican 2 speaks for itself. It is modernism and it is heretical as defined by Pope St Pius X and others. Draw your own conclusion.
When I was in grade school, I volunteered to help out in the kitchen during my lunch time. I always felt I was entering the vestibule of Heaven. Years later, I visited the old neighborhood. The convent had been purchased by the local Gas Company and later turned into high end apartments for yuppies. They joked that they heard the footsteps of the nuns walking the halls. Perhaps, they weren’t imagining this. My heart breaks to think of this devastation. The Modernists had to destroy the nuns. They were the backbone of the Church.
I agree. Pius XII was the first Pope to introduce and to promote publicly to the Catholic Church the heresy of NFP and he also was the first to implemented serious changes to the Liturgy beginning with the Easter Liturgy. I can’t help but believe this was the beginning of an exterior affirmation of the beginnings of the underground modernists coming above ground for the first time to implement their false doctrines to the Catholic Church and to the sacrament of marriage. This attempt to change Catholic doctrine was seriously stewing and gathering organized forces since the late 1800s. We were very blessed to have Saint Pius X lay it all out for us in his encyclical Pascendi by giving us a clear warning. What more do we want to be given to us in order for us to wake up?
I think RadTradThomist’s endeavour could be of major importance.
If it were proven that the later SL was not the earlier SL, it would mean that a substitute had been deliberately put in place, which obviously could not have been done without the knowledge of the highest authorities.
The next obvious question would be: why would they do this?
Suppose SL had died naturally before 1960, surely her death would have been announced in some normal way. But if SL was still alive after PJXXIII refused to reveal the Third Secret, and if the Secret speaks of apostasy from the top, or even a bad council, would SL not then become an extremely dangerous individual to the entire Modernist project. She would only need to reveal it herself, or to a credible third party, to utterly wreck the credibility of NO hierarchy.
There would be a strong reason to silence her, but what is not clear to me is:
i) why they would go to the trouble and risk of bringing in a substitute;
ii) how none of her family, or others who knew her, could not have noticed the substitute.
You have spoken many times of your acquaintance with Malachi Martin and I would be very interested to know if you, like me, see a similarity between this case and MM’s sudden demise in 1999.
In his last interview on the Art Bell Show in 1998, MM was asked directly if there was any circumstance in which he would reveal the Third Secret, which he claimed to have read. He said he would reveal it “if there was a total collapse of the centre”. He died in unusual circumstances the next year and the official revelation of the secret took place less than 12 months later on 26 June 2000.
It seems to me that if MM had been alive then and saw the Vatican, Pope et al, reveal an incomplete Third Secret, he may well have concluded that the centre had collapsed.
He would have been one of the few people alive who could have credibly contradicted the official line, and therefore he, like Sister Lucy, represented an existential threat to the Modernist project.
Perhaps it is a crazy conspiracy theory, but I find the timing of his death between that interview and the June 2000 announcement to be extremely suspicious.
Does anyone remember the Sr Lucy that Evaristo marched up to the podium in tears for a photo op to meet P Paul 6th?
Those were NOT tears of joy.
My 2 Cents, I did the same recruited to help dust all the woodwork in the mansion the poor old nuns lived in.
There was one nun well into her eighties and suffering from dementia nut they still had her teaching . Mine was very sweet but old and always fell asleep during Spelling contests.
Boys lined up on one side of the room, girls on the other and the boys were armed with sling shots and wads of paper and paperclips ready for her to doze off and pick off the girls from across the room.
The Church got relatively free labor from these nuns and made good money off of the tuition and when they were gone the Diocese had the properties to sell.
Catholics need to realize that financial rip offs in slave wage labor and any other practices that common sense dictates in the secular business world as being wrong or verging on criminal is not a feasible case for the secular courts. Judges will not rule on what they consider internal policy religious institution cases UNLESS it is considered a crime like rape or personal physical abuse .
Many of the nuns also figured out how they were being exploited and used for decades.
Keep in mind Mother Celine gave an interview after the Lucia died. In that interview she stated the nuns in the convent had been Opus Dei Cooperators for decades.
Escriva claimed in his book that he visited Lucia as a Dorothean in Tuy ( happy there for 23 years) and she was the one whom he claimed urged her to open the first OD House outside of Spain in Coimbre. He claimed she said she would handle all the necessary governmental papers for him ,visas etc. ( all this right after she was ordered to put the Third Secret to paper and give it to her Bishop for the Pope).
Then in Escriva’s former Secretary’s book ,Carmen del Tapia recounts how when he returned to the OD House in Spain they asked him about Lucia he said, “She is a good but silly woman” and “I do not want any of my Opus Dei women to be like the silly nuns.”
Then oddly a Lucia leaves her old Order in which she was allegedly happy for over two decades and joins a Carmelite convent in Coimbre despite having stated she could go out of the convent in Tuy and go unrecognized by the locals.
Something does not quite add up.
Also after this last Lucia died Cdl Bertone ( linked to OD like Sodano) sealed off her room and went through it with a fine tooth comb. I recall seeing the pictures of her room taped off on the online news articles. Now if there was nothing more to be said , why didn’t the nuns just clean out her room?
Malachi has said at that Borders book signing for “Windswept House” that he felt so sorry for Catholic parents who would be raising their children in the next millenium ( he looked at a couple from the SSPX chapel with babies in their arms) .
He said it would be very hard to bring them up in the Faith but he added he probably would not live to see how bad it was going get. He had already had a minor stroke. He asked me for my address and said he would like to chat . ( a friend who knew him to be a womanizer asked if he was flirting which made me laugh)
#1 He was about thirty more years my senior.
#2 I was about 5’11” and he a very short little Irishman.
He wrote to me a week later in a card and asked for my phone number saying his friend and driver Joe could arrange for us to all get together and talk. The subjects he was interested in were Opus Dei and the Legion of Christ which I knew quite a bit about since I started the first Catholic home school group in my state. Actually one of the first anywhere.
I was also a referral person for a large Catholic full service curriculum company. I heard from Catholics families all over the country on a daily basis.
On the telephone when we last spoke, Malachi told me he finished his last book and sent it to his publisher several months before which would be in Dec because he called in March. Shortly afterwards I participated in a three way phone conversation with a Catholic writer who owned a magazine for which Fr Fiore was he Spiritual Director. The other person on the line was Suzanne Rini who cautioned me for getting involved with Fr Fiore as he was Martin’s good friend. Fiore was a member of the CNP and she sent me the proof. The other speaker on the phone had reservations concerning Fiore also. it was enough for me to cancel the luncheon. I told Malachi it was because I did not trust his connection to a certain priest who supported the LoC. He asked me who and i sent a note back naming Fiore.
Shortly afterwards Martin passed away. But I had follow up conversations with his driver friend.
Imagine my surprise when I read Fiore’s article on his friend whom he said never finished his book ,”Primacy” because he, Fiore, had not finished editing it !!
I think Joe has passed by now since he was in his mid eighties when we last spoke over fifteen years ago now.
he recounted while driving Malachi to a radio interview in Trenton ,N.J. ,that he probed him on the Third Secret and Malachi said he would only nod if he mentioned a correct element. Joe said he asked about the Three Days of Darkness and Martin nodded. Take that for what it’s worth.
Year later around 2011 a researcher with a PhD in Forensic Psychology spoke to me and said she would call Lyla Karph Martin’s Publicist and ask her outright what happened to that last book. She called me back and told me it was obviously a hot button since Ms Karph sounded panicked while denying it was ever finished and repeating ,”It was just as Fiore said,He never finished it !”……….recall Fr Alfred Kunz was murdered shortly before Malachi died. Fr Fiore was the last to see the priest alive. Fr Fiore left the bulk of his estate to the tiny private Magdalen College which was started by business people who were part of the Regnum Christi , Legion of Christ. The college was sold shortly thereafter.
It was a Magdelen College Grad who Fiore placed with Fr Kunz as a Catechist teacher and he was the one who found his body.
Fr Wickens whom Malachi was very fond of , celebrated Malachi’s Requiem Mass. I always wondered why not his “good friend” Fr Fiore?
That’s about all I can say in a public space. I hope I answered your questions.
Do you have any census data on how big the flock is worldwide among Sede Trads (Obviously this would exclude SSPX and Motu Trads)?
No idea.
I agree Tom .I think we are living the Third Secret and have been for quite some time. I also believe there will have to be a turn around event that will force the Consecration.
It is an educated guess here that Fr Malachi Martin was married.
Reading , “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Catholic Church” by Martin in 1983 and having been in an Eastern Catholic Rite for decades, has convinced me roman Catholics are basically clueless about the Eastern Church , including the Orthodox.
Martin shares a grave marker with the widow Mrs Lavanos who was his landlady and a wealthy woman. She set up writer salons so Malachi could meet other authors publicists and publishers.
He arrived in NY after leaving the Jesuits and worked as a taxi cab driver. He introduced Mrs Lavanos as his wife to an wealthy upstate NY Catholic friend. I believe when laicized the vow he kept was chastity not celibacy . There is a difference .
The rest is up for speculation but I do know this. Robert Kaiser ,his media detractor , kept silent until after his death and had spent time in a mental institution. I put little stock in what he has to say.
Also, while first hospitalized Malachi told Joe that the FBI had come to see him there and asked if he knew why Cardinal Bea traveled on falsified identity papers.
Father Davide Pagliarini has been elected Superior General of the SSPX. What does this mean for the SSPX? Time will tell.
Please do your homework before slandering Pope Pius XII. He went right to the heart of Nazi Germany and told them exactly what he thought of their movement and ethics for which they hated him.
He also – on the advice from Padre Pio appointed Father Luigi Villa to step into Padre Pio’s own shoes because of his failing health. Father Villa took on the fight against freemasonry, communism and the Illuminati . All “modernists” and all intent on infiltrating the Catholic Church and destroying it from within.
Father Villa who withstood 7 [ possibly 8] attempts on his life but succeeded in ‘outing’ the top eschelons of freemasonry.
Father Villa also stated that he thought Pius XII was killed because he WAS going to reveal the full secrets of Fatima.
Please don’t mention conspiracy theories bearing in mind that Pius XII “conveniently’ died and John XXIII the freemason – was waiting in the wings! Actually Cardinal Siri was elected but he, his family and the Church were threatened if he didn’t back off and let John XXIII steal the Papacy.
When John XXIII inconveniently contracted cancer Paul VI – yet ANOTHER freemason – was lurking in the wings ready to make his debut…………………………….then came Vatican II at the command of the freemasons ………………….and the rest is history.
Please, in the name of all good Catholics do not try to besmirch the last good Pope.
John, you do realize that Vatican II was never mentioned and certainly not planned until AFTER John XXIII was falsely elected and sprung it on the Church on the orders of the Freemasons of which HE was a member?
Stalin – you’re BACK! How good is that. And this post proves you’re right on form! Thank you.
It’s a pit of crazy snakes here GSF. We have our work cut out!
Le Figaro reported the following about the election of Pagliarani: “Moreover, it was learned in the evening that Bishop de Galarreta and Father Christian Bouchacourt – French and superior of the District of France – were elected “assistants” of the new superior. The orientation of this new team suggests that the issue of rapprochement with Rome could slow down or even cease.”
What rapprochement? There’s nothing on the table.
SOTF writes a good post above about the destruction of the convents in the 1960s.
Sigmund Freud and Carl Rogers are the reason why.
Here are a couple of good articles detailing the work Rogers did across the USA – he later claimed (while apologising for what he had done) that the destruction was done within a year of his first visit to a convent.
http://www.culturewars.com/CultureWars/1999/rogers.html
http://www.returnofkings.com/70990/how-psychology-destroyed-a-catholic-convent
According to Jean Marie Guenois of Le Figaro: “Finally, Rome had prepared a measure of “Personal Prelature” status, on the model of Opus Dei, to accommodate the Priestly Fraternity. It would have given a certain autonomy of action, the superior responding only to the Pope and not to local bishops. But the Society Superior General would have to be appointed for life. A proprosal that may have played against Bishop Fellay, who had already served two terms of twelve years. Even if, in this case, there are doctrinal, considerations relating to the evolution of the Catholic Church under the pontificate of Francis in a direction that incensed the Lefebvrists, who were decisive.”
Tom A., I have often thought, and don’t you find it strange, that the Pope and Bishops, before 1960 or after, just don’t go ahead and release the secret and perform the consecration of Russia, to the satisfaction of all. It would seem eminently easy to do and it would be the best way to put Fatima in the past and out of the picture, that is, if they truly did not believe in it. In my opinion, they do believe in it, and men of good will are diabolically prevented from doing what is necessary, and evil men are fighting against it at all costs.
GSF: “Please, in the name of all good Catholics do not try to besmirch the last good Pope.”
How about just last Pope of the PreConciliar Church? I agree Pius XII committed good acts but he was also prone to political miscalculations of the “Judas Complex:”
“One notable example was Cardinal Mariano Rampolla, the Secretary of State under that brave Lion of the Faith, Pope Leo XIII. Pope Leo XIII was a fierce defender of the Faith and staunch opponent of Freemasonry; however, as Randy Engel noted in her monumental source book about homoheresy in the Church, “The Rite of Sodomy”, in the last 16 years of his papacy, that is, the years in which Rampolla guided him, Pope Leo ceased speaking out officially on Freemasonry and made several blunders which aided Masonic/progressive agenda at the expense of faithful Catholics.
Rampolla was reputed to be a member of a secret society, the Ordo Templis Orientalis (OTO) which used sodomy as part of its initiation at its highest levels. Engel identifies powerful churchmen who were part of Rampolla’s close inner circle: Cardinal Piero Gasparri, who negotiated the Lateran Treaty and served as the powerful Secretary of State for both the aged Benedict XV and for Pius XI. In addition to the Lateran Treaty we see Gasparri’s hand in Pope Benedict XV’s destruction of the anti-modernist Sodalitium Pianum put in place by Pope Saint Pius X.
Others who were part of the Rampolla faction were: Giacomo della Chiesa, who had been Rampolla’s private secretary and became Benedict XV, Eugenio Pacelli who served under Rampolla and was his protege. The two popes who followed him, Roncalli (John XXIII) and Montini (Paul VI) were also allies of Rampolla. All of these prelates are marked with the sign of worldly compromise, engaging in compacts with world leaders and in one way or another allowing into the Church the smoke of Satan. Many were noteworthy for their excellent and orthodox magisterial actions and teachings, but all carried within their work the subtle hand of the Judas Complex, which is the compromise necessary for evil to enter and eventually thrive in the Church. Father Martin explains in his passage on the Judas Complex that this is plainly malfeasance, described as “the doing by a public official, under color of authority of his office, of something that is unwarranted, that he contracted not to do, and that is legally unjustified and positively wrongful or contrary to law,”
https://www.returntofatima.org/2018/04/the-judas-pope/
Noticed you read ROK as you recommended this link: http://www.returnofkings.com/70990/how-psychology-destroyed-a-catholic-convent
Then you should be should be familiar with the term “Gamma.” Your reply to GSF is CLASSIC Gamma.
http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2015/02/are-you-gamma-1-of-2.html
Interesting. I wonder why the provision that the SG would have to be a lifetime appointment. Any ideas?
That last sentence of Guenois’ is a poor translation – doesn’t make much sense.
Your patronizing is definitely Delta!
Stalin is a great thinker; I suspect that’s why you’re trying to undermine him! You’re no alpha male, Pet!
As for myself – the first thing I did after I was married was post a caption above my cooker. It said “There are 2 sides to every argument and I don’t have the time or inclination to agree with yours!” Go figure, little man. My husband got it – that’s why we were so happy for decades! 🙂
Thanks GS. I look forward to it.
No problem GS. I taught for 30 years and talking to some of these people takes me right back! It’s a bit like wading through molasses wearing fluffy mules!
Yes Rogerian Psychology was diabolical .
“Convents will become the breeding grounds of Asmodeus and the like” OL of Lasalette.
Rang true when a friend searched for a late vocation convent. She stayed for 2 weeks in a cloistered convent somewhere near DC. When she came back she was a little hesitant wondering if she just imagined the eagerness of one nun who excitedly told her they would share a room if she joined. She thought she maybe a lesbian. I advised her to meet with the General Superior of the Order in Philadelphia and ask outright what their policy was concerning homosexuality. This was in the early nineties.
Then the next week she called me around noon asking me to hurry up and give her all the quotes in the Bible condemning the behavior.
When i asked her why she said they broke for lunch and she had asked the Mother General just that .She responded, “Do you have a problem with homosexuality ? Because we do not.”
My advice was to forget even going back after lunch.
I see your point Tom, but I think you err in underplaying the importance of Fatima.
The Miracle of the Sun was the greatest manifestation of divine power since apostolic times and its purpose was to vouch for the authenticity of the message conveyed to the seers (or “prophets of doom” as JXXIII called them).
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think you previously expressed doubt about whether Lucia accurately reported what she saw and heard. I think we must assume, as we do with the Gospels, that she was assisted in her recollection by the Holy Ghost. We believe that St John accurately reported the words of Christ, but would human memory alone have been able to account for that? Either he had some help or was making some of it up. The same goes for Sister Lucy, who, of course, without the Miracle of the Sun would have zero credibility.
You say that few would change their minds if it were proven that there were two Sister Lucys. I disagree. It would pose an unavoidable challenge to NO Catholics, who would be forced to admit that their precious Council and “mass” was in fact instigated and perpetrated by people guilty of the most diabolical subterfuge.
I think this is really important, Tom. Most NO Catholics who are uninterested in the doctrinal contradictions would find this a lot more difficult to ignore.
Is not possible that the whole prior disclosure of the need to reveal the secret in 1960 is in fact a crucial point in God’s plan? By failing to carry out Our Lady’s wishes, the Modernists have been forced into a cover-up and it may be this cover-up that is the key to their downfall.
It could – let us dream – force a significant body of Catholics to demand a re-examination of VII and of the real content of the Third Secret.
The cover-up is their weak point, Tom. Let’s stop arguing with each other and go on the counterattack.
And should, perchance, RadTradThomist suffer some unfortunate fatal injury in the very near future, I for one would support any effort to continue his investigation.
A Personal Prelature was another
invention of Vat 2.
Unless of course if the Third Secret directly condemned the Hierarchy in some way.
Thanks, Sweepoutthefilth. It’s always interesting to hear your stories.
Can an “anti-prophet” or a “false prophet” (whatever terminology you guys want to use) become/and or remain a valid Catholic Pope?
Our Faith teaches that all revelation from God ended with the death of the last Apostle. We know with certitude that the writings of St John and the other Evangelists are inspired. There is no such certitude for the recollections of any other human being no matter how saintly or not. The miracle of the sun does not guarantee anything about the message that Sr Lucia relayed to us. Too many people are assigning an air of infaillability around Fatima and other apparitions because it somehow plays into their narratives. I do hope the investigation shows a cover up for two Sr Lucias and somehow the real secret is released. But if it doesn’t, it simply changes nothing about the heresies of Vatican 2 and the NO. They speak for themselves.
I’ve been thinking that this facial recognition test on the alleged two sister Lucys is going to result in a draw (no pun intended). Scarce are the details about the expertise of the people who are doing the alleged testing. Does it occur to anyone that this could be a money making scam? i hope not but the possibility exists. Would the business hosting the service want to put its reputation at stake against the whole current RC edifice? My skeptical mind says they won’t do it and will rule it too inconclusive to make a definitive statement. My belief is it’s going to be that – or a ruling that they are one and the same person.
Fast Ferrari, I hate to say that I had a similar thought when I read that the results would take more time and require more funds. I think plenty of folks would love to take a shot at the RC edifice but whether they’d want to cross whoever might be brazen enough to engage in such a fraud as person replacing is something else. They might be afraid.
I don’t think you can lump Fatima in with other apparitions and revelations. It was sui generis, seen by tens of thousands, believers and non-believers. Its purpose, according to the seers, was to confirm the authenticity of their private revelation. Either it was from Hell or Heaven. If the former, we are all deceived beyond hope; if the latter, then it should be taken with the utmost seriousness, not with the attitude of “move along, nothing to see here”.
Perhaps it is a scam, but subjecting the SL photographs to an independent facial recognition test is still a logical step and I’m amazed no one hasn’t done it before.
There is, of course, the question of whether the forces behind the cover-up would be able to prevent such verification, whether by attacking the initiator or somehow getting at the verification process. It would be better to arrange the verification privately and then announce the results, not giving the bastards a chance step in.
As I wrote above, I think the Modernists are really vulnerable on this point. It is often the case that the cover-up reveals the crime, and if this “crime” were revealed, it would, I believe, open an awful lot of eyes and could lead to a significant return to Tradition.
The term ‘false prophet’ needs to defined, doesn’t it? The Gospels and the Fathers of the Church used the term liberally to mean anyone who led the faithful astray in any way.
Thus, I will ask you Mr. Sedevacantist, would you consider that Alexander VI (for example) who famously threatened to excommunicate his mistress if she would not continue to sleep with him after he was elected Pope, not a false prophet? What about the occasional medieval Pope who used black magic and other paganistic rites? What about any Pope who was notoriously sinful?
Answer your own question for yourself, and for us if you really must, but maybe it would be better to stop plaguing the readers here with your dreary, one-dimensional, stuck-record, boring yet at the same time insidious sedevacantist fantasies.
I totally agree with you Pacendi on both points. Discretion may have been the safer approach and yeah when men commit crimes and cover them up, they leave a trail of evidence. It does seem that sometimes people are powerful enough that it doesn’t matter but God helps those who help themselves. Something very bad happened to our Church and it would be awfully helpful if we start uncovering what that was. We had almost 2,000 yrs to totally trash this Church; we could have done it in 100. We didn’t. So what happened after Pope Pius XII?
So many of them are not even Christians, let alone nuns.
I remember when I was a teenager the family lived in Cromer in north Norfolk. We used to go to Mass at the parish church, a small out-of-the-way church whose parish priest was a simple man whose rustic nature was emphasised by his thick Norfolk country accent. Yet he was orthodox and I think a holy man.
He had horrendous problems with the (few remaining) nuns at a local convent. Liberated types, they hated him. It got to the stage that he denounced them from the pulpit and they stood up and screamed at him, all during Mass. I remember the congregation’s shock when it happened. He was so upset he could hardly continue Mass.
He suffered horribly from those awful harridans and in the end I think it killed him.
Mt 18:3
Amen I say to you, unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Why would Christ allow so much confusion if we are to be as little children regarding our Faith?
I believe fully that our Doctors of the Church were not so much put here to explain the Faith so much as they were put here to defend the Faith against the errors. Why should we need a PhD in order to understand our Catholic Faith? Its simple as far as I can see. The complication comes when people try to justify sin by making it try to mesh with what is right.
Bergoglio is a heretic…obvious. Why do we (not me but so many trads) try to mesh what he (and the v2 church) says with Catholicism? It doesnt mesh…let it go. Stop trying to defend the indefensible.
TGS
You arent a dummy. You know full well the difference between a mortally sinful person (who doesnt deny an article of the Catholic Faith) and a heretic. Yes, both are damned to Hell if they dont make amends with God, but one is not the same as the other. The differentiation between the two is of paramount importance when we argue about a “bad” Pope vs a heretical “pope”.
BTW, Ive been here since 2012-2013, you havent. If LV wants me gone, he will ban me from from posting.
Yes , I was close friend with a Pallotine priest who was a pastor in our Diocese. Prior to that he traveled up and down the East Coast preaching the Rosary and Fatima in Catholic schools wherever they would allow him in.
He wanted the children in his parish school to receive on the tongue kneeling for their First Holy Communion .The nun principal called Bishop James McHugh and complained and my friend told me the Bishop called him and ordered him to keep his nose out of the school’s business. He had terrible diabetes but accompanied the local First Aide squad out on runs because ,as he told me, “There just might be an accident victim who needs Extreme Unction.”
He was one of the last of a dying breed of real priests I knew.
We’ll see how we get on. As for me, yes I took a long break from posting after being banned from both the Remnant and IP5, despite having had articles published by both.
AKACatholic is a much better place for us. Despite the sedevacantist mould growing on all the walls here, Louie isn’t afraid of logic and uses it to identify where we are and where we’re going with this gargoyle Bergoglio in the Vatican, while Skojec (for instance) is just a prat: it’s all about him at the end of the day, the terrible lethargy that comes down on him as a result of the vital work he’s doing for us all, his mental state and oh by the way send me $20,000 a month. As a Mission Statement – and how I hate those! – his “Rebuilding Catholic Culture, Restoring Catholic Tradition” is a joke. He does neither.
The Remnant is a more difficult question. Michael Matt has done some supper work down the years, and still speaks with passion and knowledge, but the website is awful, tired, stale, boring. There is occasionally an important article posted there, but not often. Matt himself, for me anyway, seems tired and dispirited, a cheerleader as much for Trump and Putin as his publication is for Tradition; and of course he aims his work now not at Traditional Catholics but at the very conservative Catholics who have gone along, traitorously, with every single aspect of the Revolution. Insofar as he has done that, he’s lost touch with his core readership and is chasing windmills.
So here I am!
One thing I see in the photos that TIA posted is the difference in the chin. I assisted a plastic surgeon in the OR while he was repairing the gash in a lawyers chin post car accident. We discussed chin repair as he inserted a prosthetic chin implant. I remember he told me that originally the man had a receding chin and since he made his living with his mouth, aside from repairing the gash that went clean though ,he was going to enhance the definition of his chin too. He said as the man ages his receding chin would become more prominent.
The younger Lucia seemed to have a receding chin and
very crooked teeth. The older Lucia had a very prominent chin and perfectly aligned teeth. Whether or not she got false teeth or not I don’t know and she may have had orthodontic work involving breaking the lower jaw and sliding it forward on itself which they do sometimes.
Fr. Malachi Martin was NEVER laicised. He was removed ONLY from the vow of poverty at his own request but from nothing else. The Jesuits, a vengeful lot, spread the lie that he had been laicised but a few years ago admitted that it was a lie and that Martin had been a priest in good standing – who said Mass every day – until his death.
Pascendi, sedevacantists do not like Fatima, because a Pope is needed to consecrate Russia in the way that Our Lady requested, which has not been done to this day (as JPII publicly admitted the afternoon after his 1984 consecration of the world). It undermines their theories and so most of them seek to undermine Fatima as much as they can.
Sedevacantist Tom is right to say that Revelation was complete with the death of the last Apostle, and most Catholics reading here will know that we are not bound to accept even those apparitions which have been approved.
However, Our Lady has been so insistent in her warnings – Quito, La Salette, Fatima, Akita – that to ignore these is, frankly, not only stupid but to display a markedly un-Catholic spirit.
One of the things about the alleged Third Secret that made zero sense was that they tried to say it was about PJP2’s failed assassination attempt .So it was all in the past.
The vision claimed he was shot dead. So are we to believe Our Lady did not know he would survive when she showed the children this vision?
Apparently Heaven did not get that News flash?
As I noted, dreary, a stuck record, boring and insidious.
Your questions are posed simply to allow you to trot out the same thing time and time again. Do you work in sales? You are certainly determined.
No, I don’t read ROK. It was just a link.
You are certainly a condescending lad. I was a Newark NJ cop for 22 years. I last worked in “sales” at a paint store when I was 20. Long time ago.
I do trot out the same thing continuously, just as you do. How are we different? Easily, I reject heresy and speak out against it, you dont. I agree with the author of this blog who rejects Bergoglio as Pope, you dont. See how simple that was?
We don’t ” … try to mesh what (Bergoglio) … says with Catholicism?” We are well aware of the differences between the teachings of the Church and the teachings of Anti-Church. Unlike you, we understand that these two things are antithetical, they are different.
Also unlike you, we are aware that we have to obey the canons of Oecumenical Councils. My question is, why don’t you?
Council of Constantinople, Canon 10:
“As divine scripture clearly proclaims, ‘Do not find fault before you investigate, and understand first and then find fault,’ and does our law judge a person without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does? Consequently THIS HOLY AND UNIVERSAL SYNOD JUSTLY AND FITTINGLY DECLARES AND LAYS DOWN THAT NO LAY PERSON OR MONK OR CLERIC SHOULD SEPARATE HIMSELF FROM COMMUNION WITH HIS OWN PATRIARCH BEFORE A CAREFUL INQUIRY AND JUDGEMENT IN SYNOD, EVEN IF HE ALLEGES THAT HE KNOWS OF SOME CRIME PERPETRATED BY HIS PATRIARCH, AND HE MUST NOT REFUSE TO INCLUDE HIS PATRIARCH’S NAME DURING THE DIVINE MYSTERIES OR OFFICES. (…) If anyone shall be found defying this holy synod, he is to be debarred from all priestly functions and status if he is a bishop or cleric; if a monk or lay person, he must be cut off from all communion and meetings of the church until he is converted by repentance and reconciled.”
I have a question I would like an answer to.
A friend recently told me when she brings up the clerical homosexual situation in the Church she wished she had a dime for every time someone said ,”Don’t worry the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church.”
As an Eastern Rite Catholic we have an ancient icon of Jesus standing on broken doors or gates. The Biblical reference to Christ descending into hell prior to His Resurrection to tell the righteous the good news that they could now ascend to Heaven due to His sacrificial death on the cross and could enjoy the Beatific Vision. As we say in the Nicene Creed.
Now if we take it literally, gates do not attack since they are inanimate objects .Is it the Church that must attack these gates? Or, did Jesus Christ already prevail against these gates before He Resurrected? I think the latter therefore, hell will not destroy His followers , yet we know Christians have committed unrepentant mortal sins. By His followers I assume this is the Mystical Body of Christ on earth (or in other words, the Church Militant) not necessarily the visible institutional Church .
So how do we conclude that phrase means the visible church in Rome? How do we know for sure the visible institution will not appear to disappear under the weight of it’s own clerical apostasy ?
Who can judge a Pope on earth? What are we to do when a supposed Pope has no earthly judge?
Obviously what you quoted above is directed at a specific happenstance. All true councils were called to address a specific heresy or heresies, as Im sure this one did. I dont even know what they were talking about, and I already know that you have taken it out of context to defend Mr Bergoglio. Do better than that.
Another thought that has often crossed my mind. Why when we pray the ‘Glory Be’ do we end by saying ,”World without end” when the Scriptures clearly state the world will end and be replaced by a new heaven and a new earth? I once read that monks at an Italian monastery said this was a mis translation and it should be said ,”Thy Kingdom without end.” Any thought? Anyone.
I also was told by a priest one time that the Eastern Church blesses itself from the right to the left because Jesus sits on the right hand of the Father and that Italians just mirrored the Pope’s blessing when facing him and started to bless themselves from left to right.
Just some random thoughts that I would like to understand .
Apologies, I did not mean to insert my posts into a brewing argument here.
Sweep
I long ago stopped thinking about the visible Church in the true visible sense (“I can see it with my eyes in Rome”). The Church is visible for those who wish to see it where it resides. The true Church is still clearly visible to me. Christ never said that His Church in ROME would never fail, he simply said His Church would never fail.
We all know that Rome is not Catholic at this point. So, why worry about Rome? Peter established the seat for our Faith there, but when did Christ ever say that if would be forever Catholic? He didnt.
No apologies necessary Sweep. TGS and I arent arguing, we’re simply discussing things.
Sweepoutthefilth, I’m not able to answer your questions, but I’d like to add another to the list. It concerns the differences in the wording of Genesis 3:15 between the Orthodox Study Bible, which you recently recommended in this space, and the Douay Rheims Bible:
DR:
I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.
OSB:
I will put enmity between you and the woman and between your seed and her seed. He shall bruise your head, and you shall be on guard for his heel.
How can one say “she” and the other “he”? And as I recall, but may be wrong, the New Jerusalem Bible says “It”.
What’s going on?
And as for “you shall be on guard for his heel”, I may be a bit thick but I don’t even know what that is supposed to mean.
Altogether, it doesn’t inspire confidence.
BTW, Sweepoutthefilth, you say you are Eastern Rite. Could you recommend any resources in English for a beginner in the Byzantine Catholic Church? I live in Slovakia where there is no SSPX and one rather distant TLM said by NO priests. I therefore go to a local Greek Catholic Divine Liturgy and obviously would like to understand it in greater depth.
An important distinction: The canon is not referring to manifest heresy, a sin against God. It speaks of ecclesiastical crimes.
That makes total sense. Thanks 2VT.
You want me to do better than the straight-forward, very clearly-written canon of an Ecumenical Council. Oh, I see.
“I reject heresy and speak out against it, you don’t. I agree with the author of this blog who rejects Bergoglio as Pope, you don’t.”
Oh, but I do both. I do believe that Bergoglio is a heretic, just like you. But I know I cannot declare him deposed, as you do. Once again: when he teaches the orthodox faith, I am bound to follow him. When he doesn’t, Scripture commands me not to listen.
So I reject him when he teaches error. I cannot reject him as Pope, or I am outside the Church. Which of our two views is the one Louie holds I don’t know. Maybe he has constructed a third way for himself. Whatever – it’s his affair.
So, yes – it really IS simple, but you sedevacantists have actually made it not so: you have put yourselves outside the Church; you’ve gone too far too soon. Neither you nor I has any authority to judge him nor to depose him. Even if he has deposed himself, it still takes the Church to ratify his self-deposition. Why do you insist on arrogating that authority to yourself?
Your position is plain nonsense but you will not change, I know. Thus the power of error – of whatever type.
You need someone trained in theology to answer this question. No-one commenting on this site is. A good priest is the one to ask.
TGS: “So I reject him when he teaches error. I cannot reject him as Pope, or I am outside the Church. Which of our two views is the one Louie holds I don’t know.”
Here is Louie’s own words from the blog piece I have posted a number of times:
“There is no question in my mind whatsoever that he is precisely this – a formal, notorious, pertinacious heretic; a man who has severed his relationship with the Mystical Body of Christ – and such a one simply cannot be the head of said Body.” – LV
So, TGS, is Louie out of the Church?
I have been invited to agree with the sedevacantist position by proxy.
Vermont quotes me thus, “So I reject him when he teaches error. I cannot reject him as Pope, or I am outside the Church. Which of our two views is the one Louie holds I don’t know”, then he quotes Louie Verrecchio:
“Here is (sic) Louie’s own words from the blog piece I have posted a number of times:
‘There is no question in my mind whatsoever that he is precisely this – a formal, notorious, pertinacious heretic; a man who has severed his relationship with the Mystical Body of Christ – and such a one simply cannot be the head of said Body.’
and finally asks me “So, TGS, is Louie out of the Church?”
I answer as follows – you are asking the wrong person the wrong question.
Stating that one believes Bergoglio to be a heretic and that “such a one simply cannot be the head of said body” does not suppose, as you obviously think, that Louie necessarily subscribes to the sedevacantist thesis. He MAY do, but it does not necessarily follow. It might equally imply an emotion or a sentiment in the same way that I might say, “I don’t believe it!” when I see a strange event or a wonderful try in a rugby match. The explanation for the event emoted about comes afterwards.
The quotation given certainly does beg several questions (about virtually each word of the citation you give) but these need to be directed to Louie, not to me. When he makes himself clear, one would be better able to answer your question.
SOTF asks if Christ’s words Matt. 16:18, “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” can be taken in a different way, which might explain her concerns about where is the visible Church today – concerns we all share given what we have faced this last sixty years.
Rich the sedevacantist then pooh-poohs the idea of the visible Church, saying in effect that he decides if and where the Church is visible.
What is the CATHOLIC way to see this?
Poster Ignatio has told us on a previous thread. He wrote:
The Church is a visible, hierarchical institution. It is NOT simply “those who are baptized and profess the true faith”. It is an infallible, indefectible and visible INSTITUTION with four marks. If the institution followed a series of false popes for 60 years and morphed into a new Church, the gates of hell would have prevailed against the Church, period. That’s all you need to know to have infallible certainty that the sedevacantist position is false.
By divine institution, the Church has and will always have a teaching office, which consists of bishops with divine authority. Because bishops only receive their authority when they are appointed by the pope, if the Chair of Peter has been empty since the death of Pius XII, it would mean none of the bishops today have authority. This would mean there is no longer a teaching office, which the Church must always possess.”
Therefore, the only possible answer, it seems to me, to the question of visibility is one I have tried to get across here.
The Church still exists and is visible to this day. There is a Pope, there are Bishops, the teaching office is extant (not extinct!). But both have become clouded, shadowed, occluded, by the smoke of Satan, by the Anti-Church spoken about by JPII in 1976. This is the only logical answer.
Another quick point. SOTF asks about the usage of the phrase “the gates of hell”, saying that gates protect rather than threaten.
This is a non-issue. In an older English usage, “the gates” of a place refer to the power, militarily, political or however, of the authority behind the gates.
Therefore, “the gates of Rome held out against the Germanic hordes until the later fifth century”. We aren’t talking here about the physical gates, but about the Roman power to withstand the attacks of the Goths and others.
In the same way for the Church. Christ’s promise is very clear: the power of the devil will never prevail entirely against the Church.
Dear Stalin, who decides between when he is teaching error (or professing heresy) and when he is teaching the orthodox Faith?
If you make an honest mistake on this point, and wrongly refuse him submission when submission is due, then you end up being the one putting yourself out of the Church.
Public heresy, by its very nature, automatically severs one’s bond of visible Faith, and causes the heretic to lose his membership in the body of the Church, without. He can also be tried for the crime of heresy and be punished and censured for the common good, but that is not necessary. He is already a non Catholic by Divine Law.
Do we need to wait for a group of professing heretics to declare that another heretic is not a Catholic?
If we can’t identify the Catholic Church as simply the body of men who are Baptised and profess the true Faith (whether clergy or laity), then the church we are dealing with is invisible and not the Catholic Church.
“Per omnia saecula saeculorum” is translated into English as “world without end”, but a Latin scholar told me years ago that it has more the meaning of “throughout the eternal age of eternal ages”. The Latin is better. Hope this helps.
Does not the crime of heresy need to be affirmed before even a Pope is deposed (whether it takes the form of a ratification of a self-deposition or otherwise)?
Yes.
That cannot be done by any layman. But that’s exactly what you have done.
TGS, wrong as usual. There are plenty of sedes who use the messages of Our Lady about “Rome losing the faith” or “a bad mass and a council” to bolster their case. Also, Russia can still be consecrated by true Pope someday. The sede thesis never claims that there will never be another Pope. It simply says that at this moment in time, there is no Pope. That is what all sedes agree on. It is true that most sedes believe that Pius XII was the last true Pope, but even that isnt necessary to be a sede. For their is no sede church or dogmas or doctrines. We are simply Catholics who dispute Bergolio’s claim to the Papacy. We do not need any authority to do so nor does anyone claim such. We are not deposing any sitting Pope, again we simply dispute Bergolio’s claim to the Papacy. That is sedevacantism is in a nutshell.
Great Stalin, I think the following questions need authoritative answers from the proper ecclesiastical authorities:
1. Can a known heretic (cardinal) licitly and validly get elected to the papacy? 2. Did Benedict offer a truly un-coerced and valid resignation? If not, we need to know. This is because it would nullify the papal conclave and subsequent election of Bergoglio. 3. Did the Cardinals violate the provisions of JPII’s Apostolic Constitution- Universi Dominici Gregis (left unchanged by Benedict) making Bergoglio’s election illicit and/or invalid? 4. Given what the Fathers, Doctors, and Saints have written, if a pope proclaims heresy (material, notorious, and pertinacious) even if by changing “pastoral” practice alone; and saying and/or doing nothing to correct the errors- does he lose the papacy? Under what circumstances and protocol? What if the College of Cardinals (even if but just one) refuses to conduct a canonical trial? Then what? All of these questions in light of the St. Gallen Mafia, the corroborated open source facts, and the violation of Universi Dominici Gregis before and during the conclave beg for an answer.
I just hope that in your twenty years down the Precinct, you took more notice of what the Criminal Law said than you do of the canons of an Ecumenical Council.
Not quite. If a priest is consecrated by a validly consecrated bishop, the consecration is valid- although the consecration is not canonically licit without the mandate of the pope. Otherwise, all of the priests consecrated as bishops by Archbishop Lefebvre do not possess valid consecrations- nor would the men he and his successors ordained to the priesthood. We need to make the distinction between validity and liceity.
Al the Silent One:
I completely agree. These are indeed some of the questions that beg for an answer.
We can speculate and that’s exactly what is done in Trad comboxes — vast amounts of speculation. But let’s pretend that we can answer them. We have neither the training, nor, crucially, the authority to so so. Not when the question involves giving up one’s faith in Divine constitution given to the Church by her Founder.
Would you stake your soul on your personal ability to decide the answer to that? I wouldn’t.
*not* pretend
Satan’s greatest weapon is Confusion. Bergoglio never fails to cause Confusion. Therefore, Bergoglio is an instrument of Satan. Keep in mind that Bergoglio is not the ultimate or only cause of Confusion. He is a product of Vatican II which was designed to be an instrument for Satan. Is it as simple as that? or am I being too simple. Whether Bergoglio is a valid Pope is a question I’ll leave to the more learned. However, if he is not publicly declared a non-Pope, the world will always see him as “The Pope”. Debating this question is necessary for our knowledge and understanding. Sadly, none of us here are in a position to make this public canonical declaration. Therefore, we are stuck with him. Let us rely on Divine Providence, stay close to Our Lady and be aka Catholics in our mind, our hearts and in our souls.
My2cents, everyone keeps saying that nobody has the authority to declare Jorge isn’t the Pope. I don’t really understand what they’re getting at. I’m drinking a cup of coffee right now. I know this bc I just made it and I can taste it, it has the qualities of coffee. I have no authority anywhere in the world except my house. If I went to drink this coffee and it was a clear liquid that smelled like bleach and burned my eyes, I’d dump it. Even if I knew that I placed coffee grounds and fresh water in the coffee maker, I wouldn’t drink it and I’d prevent others from drinking what is bleach. I’d try and figure out WHO replaced my coffee with bleach but I wouldn’t pretend it was coffee until I figured it out. I have no authority whatsoever but I will tell anyone that I care about that Jorge is not the Pope, he’s an imposter. Popes are the Vicar of Christ on earth and Jorge has none of these qualities. He is the enemy of Christ on earth, I have the authority as a person living to point this out.
We do not need any authority because we are not deposing anyone. Based on what we see and hear we are disputing Bergolio’s claim to the Papacy. History has many examples of disputes as to the legitimate claim on the Papacy. But R&Rers never want to discuss the issue of legitimate claim, they simply like to scare others off with accusations of schism and heresy and leaving the Church.
Thank you, TGS, for clarifying against this gossip column style tabloid foment that issues daily from SweepINthefilth.
Thank you, Melanie and Tom A. As much as we know (or believe) that Bergoglio is NOT a valid pope, the world sees him as The Pope. There are some who believed that Obama was not a valid President because they believe he as born in Kenya. They could declare him an invalid President until the cows come home, yet he lived in the White House for 8 years and was address worldwide as “President”. Why? Because no one “officially” declared that he was not the rightful President. They had the authority to make their claim re Obama just as we have the authority regarding this false papacy. However, Bergoglio is still living in the Vatican and is addressed as The Pope even though he certainly is NOT Christ’s Vicar on Earth. He might be the world’s pope, but he is not my pope.
I understand why you’d make this analogy but it isn’t really the same. The Papacy is supernatural, it is a head provided for us by Christ Himself. Where the Pope is there is the Church and if Jorge isn’t the Pope than the Church has no Pope and that is very bad. I know I keep saying this but Catholics need to first admit there is no Pope and then elect a Pope. We are all in very grave danger without a Pope. So I will keep reiterating my very fervent plea to any valid Clergy that exist right now, please stop playing games and elect a Pope. We will follow the Pope, we’re Catholic. My babies need Confession, Holy Matrimony, maybe Holy Orders, grand babies will need Baptism, I really really want the Last Rites some day. Please, please, get us a Pope. I don’t care about winning any arguments or debates or having any authority, I just KNOW the Church needs Her head, we need a Pope. The world is not Catholic, they’ll happily follow Jorge but Catholics will follow the Pope.
I really like your analogy Melanie and I have to say the quote Rich gave from Scripture about being like little children is also something I really believe in. I do not believe God expects us to figure out the theological or church legalities as to whether Borgolio is the Pope or not. As long as we know the Truths of our Faith nothing he says can persuade us to disobey Our Lord Jesus Christ. As long as we do the best we can to know Him pray, give Him Honor and Glory and obey His Commandments and love Him nothing more is required because only Christ reads hearts.
But, but Tom, 60 years of False Claimants = Gates of Hell have prevailed cuz magic number of 60. And “Oh, but I do both. I do believe that Bergoglio is a heretic, just like you. But I know I cannot declare him deposed, as you do. Once again: when he teaches the orthodox faith, I am bound to follow him. When he doesn’t, Scripture commands me not to listen.” Don’t you see?? It’s sooo simple. I’m the arbiter of the Faith!!!! Aside from the fact he has one “groupie”, TomA , don’t you know that you just cannot withstand the ironclad logic of TGS. Who cares about the historical record of papal usurpation/antipopes? You’re just a filthy Sede! ,
So what would Louie *have* to say to make it clear to *you* that he doesn’t think Francis is the pope of the Catholic Church?
Pascendi and G S,
I did ask many priests about Genesis 3:15 in the past. Basically i wanted to know if the Greek translation had a differentiation in pronouns or was something missing ? The Bible I love and recommended says “woman” so since it was from the Greek and translated by those more fluent in the language , I’ll go with “she” and we know who that IS !
I love the Tridentine Mass but when along came the innovators and I had enough in simple Faith I looked up at the heavens walking while walking out of Church one Sunday ( in disgust) and asked the Lord to send me a good priest who would celebrate the Mass in such a way I knew I was giving Him all honor and glory ( not the local sports team or the guitarist and singer).
The following week I went to a evening Mass on Saturday.
Here was a priest who said the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom in English and I stood there and cried like a fool throughout the Liturgy. The five priests who resided steps away in the rectory allowed this priest from quite a distance away to do the evening Saturday services because , as we were told , they were too busy.
It went on until they noticed the parking lot was gradually filling up with cars and they gave him the boot.
I was lucky because the Byzantine Liturgy was in English , Carpatho Ruthyn. Surely Pascendi, living in Slovakia you should be able to find the same Catholic Rite in the native language? ( slovak ?) The Byzantine Catholic Churches should have literature for you and once you participate enough in the Divine Liturgy you will know what the priest is saying and the people are responding even if it is in another language.
TGS, thanks for you explanation concerning the gates below.
@The Great Stalin: How does this passage not convict you:
–
‘”For many seducers are gone out into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh: this is a seducer and an antichrist. Look to yourselves, that you lose not the things which you have wrought: but that you may receive a full reward. Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son. If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you. For he that saith unto him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works.”
–
2 John 1 : 7 – 11
–
You apparently accept Pope Francis to the extent that he does not teach error, even though you know him to be a heretic. How do you not “receive him”? How do you not communicate with his wicked works?
The only ordinations that have any doubt are NO ordinations.
Oh sorry , I just reread your question Pascendi,
In the Scriptures when speaking of the heel, it often means those who follow. i.e. your progeny.
As Christians we are His heel. Enmity meaning in opposition. The woman ,( BVM) is in opposition to Satan as are we, because as the Mother of God She is our Mother too , given to us by Christ on the Cross as He verbalized to St John. We are His brothers and sisters as Believing Christians .
Thank you .We say from the Greek , They Kingdom for ages and ages of ages Amen”
typo again…need some coffee and my glasses.
Papal Subj, i meant to type
not “They” , but “Thy” above…….
I am not making an ecclesiastical judgment here. I am making a logical, personal judgment which carries absolutely no authority. The fact of the matter is that publically corroborated facts and evidence point to Bergoglio’s pertinacious, notorious, material heresy- both before his “election” as “pope”, and after. What can we do when not a SINGLE cardinal is willing to call a spade a spade?
Except that you must prove it. The Church teaches that all sacraments received remain valid UNLESS proven- PROVEN otherwise in the proper ecclesiastical venue in accordance with Canon Law.
@The Great Stalin: You misrepresent the teachings of the Church, even after they are brought to your attention. I can demonstrate that claim, and will do so if you ask me to. Assuming that I am correct in this regard, don’t you think that you should stop participating in these discussions until you have properly educated yourself? If I am correct in my claim, aren’t you doing a positive disservice to the faithful by misrepresenting the teachings of the Church?
GS, I cannot argue your interpretation but prefer the even more ancient Scriptural one understood by the Early Church Fathers, in that Jesus broke open the gates of hell when he descended there prior to His Resurrection so that the righteous from the time of the Fall could now enter Heaven due to His Sacrifice.
Sometimes called the Resurrection Icon…..
http://www.imageandlikeness.com/the-meaning-of-icons/
Thanks, SOTL. Yes, the DL is in Slovak (or Old Church Slavonic), but I’m not Slovak.
Sin of heresy is not the crime of heresy. The sin of heresy convicts by divine law, not ecclesiastical law.
“Gates of Hell.” When was the last time anyone ever saw “gates” attack anything. They are a defensive structure meant to deny transit. Satan had introduced sin and death into God’s creation and held man captive. Christ’s redemptive work on the Cross and Ressurection smashed those Gates in order that souls were no longer captive to death. Christ promised Peter that those gates will never again be able to hold souls captive. For a gate to prevail means it withstands the attack. Everyone hear presumably understands English and what purpose a gate serves. Something is attacking Holy Mother Church but I assure you it isnt a gate.
TGS, for the umpteeneth time, no earthly power can depose a Pope. A heretic anti-pope can be removed by the Vatican janitorial staff, but no church body or court can depose a sitting Pope. Any action to remove an anti-pope from the Vatican must start with the acknowledgment that one is dealing with an imposter and not a true Pope. We know that the heretical NO sect will never remove their imposter because they too are imposters. It will probably come down to brute force at some point in order to sweep out the filth. To expect the filth to clean up the filth is asinine and naive.
….an excerpt from an email of ‘soldier of Christ’….
My position on the Pope is the same it’s been since Paul VI – very bad pope, but without doubt he is the pope. This applies to every one of the V2 popes, including the worst of the bunch, Francis I.
We’ve been fighting a losing battle with sedes for 30+ years, as these popes got worse and worse. Now the tide has turned, or is turning, with Fr. Chazal’s brilliant book exposing the fraud of sedevacantism. It’s so great a book that it completely shuts down the whole clash over the pope. Only those that are hopelessly proud and therefore hopelessly intellectually blind, cannot see that sedevacantism has been built on a weak foundation of shifting sand, after reading Chazal’s book (Contra Cekadam).
From the pages of CONTRA CEKADAM: “In this current and confused situation of the Church, sedevacantism only adds to the confusion and scattering of sheep, which fall off the cliff for one false reasoning, for the omission of one theological distinction, or for the extrapolation of one text over the others… So I will not lead my sheep on that stray path…”
“You contend that the opinion stating ‘a heretical pope still retains his jurisdiction’ was abandoned’, nay, that all theologians rallied under St. Robert Bellarmine’s Fifth Opinion, which is the automatic fall from office vi haeresi. Moreover you contend that there is no sound theological base for any other opinion, that the opinion is now more or less obligatory, and you dare me to quote you ‘Theologians of equal stature.’”
“In my simplicity, I went to consult the most recent and renowned collection of Theologians, the massive Dictionnaire de Theologie Catholique (henceforth referred as DTC). Their conclusion is that ‘The opinion of Bellarmine is in no way [a aucun titre] guaranteed by the Church, nor adopted by the whole body of theologians’ (tome VII, col. 1714 to 1717, Infallibilite du Pape, last article on the specific question of the heretical Pope)…In all honesty I have not found any theologians, Popes or Fathers stating the theory of automated loss of office, except the wicked William of Ockham…and Coronata”
“Sedevacantism is antinomic to many laws of God, of the Church, but also of reason, of sanity.”
A non catholic being head of the catholic church is reasonable and sane? Its unbelievable the convoluted reasoning you propose just to keep your heretical pope.
HOLY SCRIPTURE TO DO THAT!
You mock Scripture! Sedevacantist mocker and scourger! Snake!
*commands us*
Oh, convict away. All you sede snakes can do is accuse people of heresy, convict them, cast them into hell. You are evil mockers of Christ’s Church, not its supporters.
That is interesting TGS ,because after he died the Jesuit Superior issued a statement contrary to what you just wrote.
Pascendi, Perhaps this might help.
https://www.amazon.com/Divine-Liturgy-St-John-Chrysostom/dp/1943133034#reader_1943133034
@The Great Stalin: Reading comprehension: I did not say “I convict you”, I said this scripture passage contains a teaching that should, given your position, be of great concern to you. Many participating in this thread, or reading it, would be interested in a reasoned reply presented by you regarding why the teaching in this scripture passage does not convict you. Instead, you call me a “sede snake”.
–
According to you, am I a schismatic, heretic, or both? If you consider me a heretic, what heresies do I have to abjure?
Stop getting the vapors, you sound like an old proddy who can dish it out but can’t take it. Although, a Sedeprivationist, I do have a big soft spot for my Trad brothers and sisters in the SSPX and in the Motu parishes. In fact, some of my best friends are Sedes who attend the TLM inside an old and beautiful NO parish with an 85 year old priest who is not in communion/no mention in the Canon of the Antipope or the Archdiocesan Bishop. In addition, after each Mass the Sacristan has turn the portrait of AntipopeFrank back around from facing the wall! I know it’s scary but Sedes are everywhere!
Truly, the patience of a saint and a scholar and a gentleman.
LOL LennyB.
That’s interesting to see how close they are in the original languages, unaffected by common usage of the vernacular.
Dear Stalin, you should give the laity, the sheep, more room to breathe and protect themselves.
If it wasn’t for the ravenous wolves, the Judas clergy, who have abandoned the Faith and imposed another gospel, there wouldn’t be all this confusion and turmoil.
Why not turn your guns at the wolves from whom we are commanded to flee?
Melanie your point is well taken. I really do think that the traditional clergy need to seriously re-think their role in the Church.
Dear Melanie, did In Caritas make you think you could not even receive Baptism without a Pope?
After the Great Western Schism got sorted out, did the Church command the Sacraments be given – whether conditionally or absolutely – to anyone who received them from the hierarchies who recognised one of the antipopes as the true pope? Of course not.
The Sacraments are “ex opere operato”, i.e, they work by their own working.
They are still all available by validly ordained clergy. And Baptism is valid no matter who administers it, provided the matter and form are right. Don’t deprive yourself of them because of some guy on the internet with fanatical tendencies.
Incaritas made me think that this is quite a serious situation. There is no antipope to follow. I understand that lots of crazy things have happened in the past but this situation seems quite unique. I see clergy holding on to Catholicism as if that doesn’t include obedience to the Pope and I don’t see they have any impetus to fix the situation w/some not acknowledging it and some waiting on divine intervention. I’m afraid to participate in that. I do realize that lacking a Priest anyone can Baptize but I still find the situation quite alarming.
Great, thanks SOTF.
It is alarming, quite right. However, the proper Catholic response to anything is moderation, not excess.
If a vicious attack dog is fastened to a ten foot long chain, you don’t need to go to Newfoundland or Peru to keep away from it. You only need to be ten and a half feet away to be safe.
We don’t know if this is the end times or just a very long inter-regnum, so we just keep doing what Catholics have always done until things are more clear.
Go to Mass and the Sacraments from validly ordained clergy. Keep the Faith, both inwardly and outwardly.
Working hard to fill the West with Muslims, while ignoring the cries of the besieged Christians. That is one of his most horrible acts as pope. If anybody should comprehend Islam, it should be a pope. For him to diligently ignore history and the obvious threat to Christendom is worse than irresponsible, it is to be complicit. For every woman or young girl sexually molested or raped, he is partly responsible. For every citizen attacked, harassed, stabbed, suffering an acid attack, maimed, traumatized, or killed, he is partly responsible. He is helping commit cultural genocide against the indigenous cultures of the West. He simply does not want Christendom to survive. His words and actions leave no other reasonable conclusion.