Several weeks after the publication of Amoris Laetitia, Fr. Linus Clovis, spiritual director and chairman of Family Life International NZ, published a brief, and rather anemic, response wherein he stated:
“It seems that AL has departed from the Church’s clear bimillennial teaching as found in Scripture and Tradition…”
Fr. Clovis went on to say that the “nuances, implications and applications” of the document “will require time, study and prayerful reflection in order to unravel all of its implications.”
Well, it would appear that he has unraveled at least some of its implications and the scales are beginning to fall from his eyes.
In a talk given at the Rome Life Forum on May 18th, Fr. Clovis issued a scathing assessment, not only of the text of Amoris Laetitia, but of its author as well.
Some of his comments are very bold; among the most straight-forward a high-profile cleric has ever delivered in these dark Bergoglian days. Others, unfortunately, are misleading and even dangerously so.
Here, we will address both the good and the bad.
As I suggested in my last post, I am pleased to applaud that which is true when it is proclaimed, but I also intend to call attention to those things that are untrue.
Let’s begin with an example of the latter.
In his presentation, Fr. Clovis touches on Fatima, Amoris Laetitia and the antics of Francis; all in relation to the “anti-Church” about which Cardinal Karol Wojtyla forewarned in 1976. Fr. Clovis quoted the future Pope John Paul II as saying:
“We are now facing the final confrontation between the Church and the anti-Church, of the Gospel versus the anti-Gospel.”
From our vantage point some forty-one years later, it is clear that the cardinal was correct. It is also quite clear on which side he, as pope, served – it was the “anti-Church” – that conciliar bastion of humanism, ecumenism and indifferentism that gives no quarter to Christ the King, the mission that He gave to His Church, much less the message delivered by His mother at Fatima.
Even so, Fr. Clovis opened his talk by saying:
“Pope St John Paul II’s first words, on appearing on the loggia of St Peter’s Basilica, on 16th October, 1978, the day of his election, were “Be not afraid”. Now, thirty-nine years later, in light of the events that have overtaken contemporary Catholicism, his first words seem to be, not only prophetic but more, a clarion call in preparation for battle.
Whenever the pendulum of human and salvation history swings through a period of encroaching darkness and turmoil, God often inspires prophets to speak so that some light may be cast to dispel the darkness and, that the turmoil may be assuaged with hope. These prophets appealed for more trust in God’s active and caring concern for His people.”
The idea that John Paul the Great Ecumenist was a prophet sent by God to prepare the faithful for battle is not only absurd; it’s dangerous.
This pope was without question one of the men most responsible for sending “the pendulum of human and salvation history” hurtling toward the present period of darkness and turmoil.
As for him encouraging “more trust in God,” this is the same pope who over a reign of more than a quarter-century couldn’t muster up enough trust to do as the Lord asked through Our Lady at Fatima.
Later in his talk, Fr. Clovis practically admits as much, saying:
“In 1929, Our Lady specifically promised a period of world peace if the Pope, in union with the bishops of the world, would consecrate Russia to Her Immaculate Heart. This specific consecration has not yet been done and, I believe, that, this has contributed to the present crisis … At present we are experiencing recurring afflictions and uncertainties causing fear which can be attributed to the willful neglect of the Virgin’s warning.”
God bless Fr. Clovis for stating plainly that the consecration has not yet been done. Bravo!
That said, we must not forget that John Paul II, rather than carrying out this simple request, crafted the Assisi abominations for the purpose of achieving the world peace that Our Lady promised.
Any discussion of Fatima and John Paul II must include the fact that this is the pope on whose watch the Vatican’s magnificent Third Secret deception took place, as well as the campaign to promote the outright lie that the consecration of Russia was done in 1984 according to Our Lady’s satisfaction (as if her promise of peace was itself a lie).
Heaven forbid the naïve should look to John Paul II and his disastrous pontificate as inspired by God!
Moving on to a brighter note, Fr. Clovis outlined any number of ways in which Francis oppresses the faithful; even going so far as to quote the insults that he has hurled at priests.
Fr. Clovis states:
“In regard to their [faithful priests] persons, they are labelled as little monsters throwing stones at poor sinners, or who reduce the sacrament of reconciliation to a torture chamber or, hide behind the Church’s teachings, sitting on the chair of Moses and judging at times with superiority and superficiality.
As clerical sons, they see themselves as less deserving of a papal embrace than Italy’s arch-abortionist Emma Bonino and even less worthy of rehabilitation than renowned false prophet and global population and abortion advocate, Paul Ehrlich.
As priests, they are told they owe an apology to gays and that the “great majority” of Catholic marriages they would have blessed are invalid; in addition, they are called sayers of prayers and, for considering Mass attendance and frequent confession as important, are branded Pelagians.”
Fr. Clovis went on to call Francis out (albeit not by name) for his blasphemies against Our Lady:
“As Catholics, knowing that the Five First Saturdays were requested in reparation for blasphemy against our most Blessed Lady, they are personally affronted by the scurrilous musings that, on Calvary, where She became the Mother of all those redeemed by Christ, the Holy Virgin of Fatima perhaps, desired in Her heart to say to the Lord “Lies! Lies! I was deceived.” As “trees of the forest shake before the wind,” so clerical hearts quake with fear at the possibility that they could actually be more Catholic than the Pope!”
He even suggested that people like me, who do not see in Francis a member of the Body of Christ much less her Head, are justified in drawing such a conclusion:
“One can hardly be blamed for judging like Isaac, mutatis mutandis that ‘Although the voice is Jacob’s, the hands are Esau’s.'”
Fr. Clovis publicly stated, in Rome no less, that we very well may have in Francis a deceiver and an imposter!
These are strong words for which I suspect Fr. Clovis will be repaid. We must pray for him.
Fr. Clovis continued:
“The advent of Pope Francis has, in the divine order of things, proved a great and true blessing. A hidden conflict has been raging in the Church for over one hundred years: a conflict explicitly revealed to Pope Leo XIII, partially contained by St. Pius X, unleashed at Vatican II.”
Lest there be any confusion as to what Fr. Clovis is saying, he elaborated a bit later:
“St. Pius X was the first to clearly identify Modernism, that subversive rebellion against fixed moral norms and religious belief, as the synthesis of all heresies and as the hidden enemy within the Church.”
Taken as a whole, these comments are remarkable. Fr. Clovis is daring to go where very few other “full communion” clerics will. He is plainly acknowledging that the Church’s enemies and the synthesis of all heresies were “unleashed at Vatican II.”
While even the best and brightest of the cardinals continue to look to the Council as an answer to the present crisis; Fr. Clovis rightly identifies it as part of the problem.
He went on to say that modernism “has metastasised into the anti-Church,” and even went so far as to define “the conciliar Church” albeit without using the phrase:
“It is self-evident that the Catholic Church and the anti-Church currently co-exist in the same sacramental, liturgical and juridical space. The latter, having grown stronger, is now attempting to pass itself off as the true Church, all the better to induct, or coerce, the faithful into becoming adherents, promoters and defenders of a secular ideology (44). Should the anti-Church succeed in commandeering all the space of the true Church, the rights of man will supplant the rights of God through the desecration of the sacraments, the sacrilege of the sanctuary, and the abuse of apostolic power.”
Here he sounds very much like Bishop Tissier de Mallerais.
Fr. Clovis hasn’t yet entirely connected the dots, but it is obvious:
The Council is indeed that event wherein the anti-Church, like a cancerous tumor, took hold in the Body of Christ, and the entirety of the pontificate of John Paul II was ordered toward, and succeeded in, “implementing Vatican II;” i.e., making the disease spread.
It occurs to me that one of the reasons men like Fr. Clovis and Cardinal Burke are blind to this reality, or at the very least are unwilling to address it, may lie in the fact that he is now called “Saint” – the same title by which we address the Apostles and Martyrs.
In other words, to plainly acknowledge the damage that John Paul II has done necessarily exposes his farcical canonization for what it always was; a propaganda tool used to further advance the anti-Church.
Apparently, shedding light on this reality is a bridge too far for them; at least for now.
In any case, Fr. Clovis did not hesitate to identify Amoris Laetitia with the anti-Church, saying:
“At this point, if Amoris Laetitia is interpreted “in continuity with the doctrine of the Magisterum” the conflict will continue surreptitiously as anti-Church not only flourishes best in double speak, ambiguities and uncertainties but also fears the sensus catholicus.”
So far so good, but then he added:
“On the other hand, should it be interpreted as actually contrary to the perennial Magisterum, it is difficult to conceptualise how an open break can be avoided and even more difficult to predict the fall out.”
Here, Fr. Clovis is posing questions of “interpretation” where none exist. The objective sense of the text is perfectly plain; one need only read it in order to discover that it is blasphemous and heretical.
As for “the fall out” that might proceed from declaring as much, we are not called to predict the future; we simply have a duty to remain faithful in the present no matter the challenge:
“Be not therefore solicitous for tomorrow; for the morrow will be solicitous for itself. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof.” (Mt 6:34)
Be that as it may, Fr. Clovis provided the following answer:
“It falls to Pope Francis, whose charism is to confirm his brethren, to resolve the doubts rising in the wake of Amoris Laetitia…”
In contrast to his boldness in other areas, this is a cop out.
It is patently obvious at this point that Francis, in spite of failing to provide a formal response to the dubia, has already “resolved the doubts” in more ways than one can count. (Remember “there are no other interpretations”?)
Fr. Clovis concluded his talk, saying:
“We will not give in where we must not give in. We will fight, not hesitantly but, with courage; not in secret but, in public; not behind closed doors but, in the open. Audemus fidem nostram defendere! Non timemus!”
All in all, Fr. Clovis has come a long way. And yet, he still has a way to go.
Let us pray for this priest; that he will be granted the grace to complete the journey.
I believe you are correct when you suggest that the title Saint before the name of Pope JPII places a severe barrier for our prelates & religious to cross in order to spiritually deal with VII, which they will have to one day. It is the source of all this false ecumenism – wrecking the Liturgy of Ages, dumbing down of the Sacraments, disposing of catechesis, pandering to NWO governments & institutions, forcing us into the same compartment as infidels & pro-abort populations controllers, etc. These tyrants deliberately canonized in haste Popes JXXIII & JPII in order to give their reign some sign of legitimacy, which it hasn’t to those of us who well remember the days prior to VII taking place.
Fr. Clovis & Cardinal Burke are men of VII along with most of the present Hierarchy & to some extent carry the scars of its implementation by NWO prelates who only hold their seats of power to wreck the CC from the inside out & will leave no stone unturned in their efforts to do so. Even at this late stage it is good to see the scales begin to drop from the eyes of those who have been indoctrinated with a false concept of obedience to the Papal Office (PB spoke about this in The Spirit of the Liturgy) & it will be interesting to see if the ‘hidden’ support of the four Cardinals will emerge from their cubby holes to stop the rampage of satanic attacks on faithful Catholics who only want to adhere to the True Faith of our fathers before us who gave their lives in many incidents for it.
Speaking of courageous, Louie, have you ever considered sending what you’ve written here for us, to Fr. Linus Clovis. After all it could only help and would be a very charitable act. He seems to have ears to hear. Maybe he just needs a little help. I could tell you, that I have benefited greatly from your life’s work. What you have written here is very clear and simple enough for someone like me to understand (funny how Truth can be that way), yet it contains much information, and can potentially have a profound impact on the reader. Much of what you have written over the past couple of years has helped in allowing the scales fall from my eyes, while at the same time has comforted me in the knowledge of Truth. This priest is only human and is a brother of ours in Christ. It seems to me that perhaps in these strange times, it may be your duty, to specifically instruct this ignorant. After all, God has given you many gifts in your ability to communicate with those who do have ears. You have already dedicated yoursef to this life’s work.
Cortez.Count me in!I agree with you.
“The Council is indeed that event wherein the anti-Church, like a cancerous tumor, took hold in the Body of Christ.”
Dear Louie, I know I go on about this often, and I am not alone in this, but if this quote is true, and it is, then why would anyone trust the validity of the novus ordo mass, or the new rite of Orders that Paul VI established in 1968?
What, exactly is the guarantee that these new rites come from the Church? If there is none, and there isn’t, then why trust them? There’s a lot at stake.
Apart from the “political” turmoil that surrounds them, (all of which comes from Rome) the SSPX are a safe refuge in this crisis, and apart from a few sede orgainisations, they are the only ones whose Sacraments I can be certain of.
Its human nature. Just like we all complain about politics and politicians but we keep re-electing them because we like our guy, its just those other ones we dont like. Well the same with Catholics, we complain about all the problems but we like our parish because they do the NO reverently or we like our Bishop because he is pro life or pro TLM. The fact that their own beloved pastor is a modernist heretic is too much for them to handle. Yea sure, that guy in Rome is a scoundrel but my pastor is a great guy. I hear it all the time. Some folks just won’t remove their blinders.
Those who have subordinated truth to their own desires have allowed their minds to become darkened, and so doctrine is plastic. When such people occupy Church offices, they naturally become subversive wreckers of the Church, as sure as water flows downhill. Slavish, non-critical quiet obedience to those people is ineffective against the onslaught, and actively encourages the subversion.
This priest is going to get crushed by the flotsam of the wrecked Church. Let’s hope he is strong enough to take it.
Michael F Poulin
I don’t know if I heard it right, it seems Fr. Paul Kramer is saying that if Pope Francis is an anti Pope then according to history of the Church the time to resolve it is now not future Popes and Councils. It seems he is theologically correct.
What do we do about Paul VI? He caused more damage to the Church than anyone in history.
Is (Fr?) Kramer saying Bergoglio is not the pope because Benedict Ratzinger is?
Or is he saying that Bergoglio is not the pope because he either lost the Papacy after his election due to public heresy, or never attained it in the first place due to public heresy?
I agree with The Papal Subject, but will the SSPX still be a refuge if they cave in and agree to be “regularized”. If you read (or listen) to Bishop Fellay’s interview (sspx.org), it sounds like the SSPX is capitulating to the “procedures” regarding the Sacrament of Matrimony. If Bishop Fellay accepts “the deal”, how much more will they surrender. The SSPX will be another branch of the Novus Ordo. Then what????
Here is link to interview referenced above:
Fr Paul Kramer
The following is an email sent by my Spiritual Director/Priest to Mr. Verrecchio. “Before you once again commit sacrilege, calumniating against HH Pope Saint John Paul II, be sure to get a dictionary and look up ecumenism and evangelization, and then read Jonathan Kwitny’s account in “The Man of the Century”, Henry Holt and Co., Inc., 1997 Po 551-553 on what truly the incident at Assisi was all about and the accommodations for the other religions, as well as the actual setting of the final meeting…an outdoor venue. The other religions never prayed in the basilica!!! If we take into consideration the number of trips that he took to evangelize in other nations, he, Pope Saint John Paul II is only appropriately called the “Great Evangelist” of our time. He is the one who called for “a New Evangelization” of Catholics, then Benedict formalized it and promulgated it. Sacrilegious calumny is a VERY serious sin, Mr. Verrecchio!!!”
I would get another director, and I’m not trying to be funny or smart. That anyone would or could defend Assisi is beyond me, but I suppose it is good to be reminded that there are people who do.
Why don’t you go and pray in a synagogue, mosque, temple or protestant service? Will you kiss a Koran?
We will have to wait and see about that! I don’t know the answer.
Fr Clovis may not tick every single one of our checkboxes, but he is apparently one of the most honest and courageous priests in the world today. Kudos to him.
There’s an interesting article on that subject: “Did the Pope (John Paul II) REALLY kiss the Koran?” by dangus, http://www.freerepublic.com
I don’t know about you, but I carry my Traditional Triune God within my heart. So, He’s with me wherever I go and if He inspires me with a prayer, I don’t care where I am, or with whom. I will pray to Him within my heart. Do you have to wait till you are in Catholic space before you can pray, and will you not pray for those around you? Do you never share your faith/evangelize anyone who is not Catholic? If you have a visitor come to your house and have a meal, will you not say Grace because he’s not a Catholic? Would you never invite him to Mass so that he can be touched by the awesomeness of our God?! The word Catholic means Universal. It’s up to us to make it that way and set the example as Pope St. John Paul II did.
I use every opportunity to promote the Faith, but I never recommend anyone to go to the local parish novus ordo nonsense. I’d be sending them straight into the lion’s jaws if I did. I only recommend the SSPX, in order to “hold fast to tradition”, as God commands us to do.
Ditto to your comment to me above.
If indeed it is ever proven that Francis is an antipope then the so-called canonizations he performed will be a great veil for the neocon establishment, since they are already pre-disposed to defend indiscriminately the legacy of the JPII years. Lefebvre has been vindicated a thousand times over. Only Catholic tradition and by extension obedience to Our Lady of Fatima will pull us out of this mess. We now need to face the likely scenario of a formalized schism and the banishment of the true Catholic faithful to the wilderness as Rome completely apostasises.
It’s three hours long!
On Liberalism And Religious Indifferentism
Encyclical Of Pope Gregory XVI
“13. Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the apostle that “there is one God, one faith, one baptism” may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that “those who are not with Christ are against Him,” and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate. …”
“There is only one God and He is God to all; therefore it is important that everyone is seen as equal before God. Ive always said that we should help a Hindu become a better Hindu, a Muslim become a better Muslim, a Catholic become a better Catholic.” Therese of Calcutta
See? Two different religions… Pope Gregory promotes authentic Catholicism, the Vatican II religion promotes indifferentism.
Simple use your search engine and type in Pope John Paul II kissed the Koran and you will see many pictures posted of him doing so.
Maybe we just need to stop playing games and see that v2 apostatized in its entirety. This hoop-jumping from one vatican 2 pope to the next is nuts. They are all the same people.
Yes, Fr. Clovis is beginning to connect the dots. Of course we should remember that in the past, many of us also failed to connect the dots at some point in our lives. Especially those who supported and promoted the Vatican ll Council.
As Bishop Williamson says, it would be a mistake to think that there is no faith left in the conciliar church. There are others like Fr, Clovis, though they have not yet vocalized their concerns.
And it would be a mistake, too, IMO, to think that Fr. Clovis will at some point in the future become a sedevacantist. Not gonna happen. You’ll realize this if you listen to his homilies.
“We charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received from us.” (2 Thes. 3:6)
Give Fr Clovis time. He was staggered to learn of Fr Villa’s works, and he now has many of those editions. He is slowly coming to terms with the rotten core of the modernists. One of majors in maths, and is not lost on the numerical anniversaries of events like 300 hundred years of masonry and so on. Some of his homilies are brilliant and he is very popular down under. He is coming to terms with the greatest con job foistered on the faithful, probably since the garden of Eden itself.
“yea shall be gods..” by the father of lies recall. Has that Bergoglioan ring it I suspect.
Am I too simple minded or is Fr Clovis mind too over populated, how can Fr Clovis not fully see what the documented history plainly spells out ? Is he afraid of prosecution from his fellow modernist to fully break out on himself?
If he is afraid then He needs to pay heed to the popes words “be not afraid ”
It seems to me, that JPII knew exactly what was going on. And I don’t believe he’s a Saint, how can he when he carried King Solomons( God anointed king ) blasphemous act to the next level at Assisi n kissed that horrible book? In my humble opinion concerning JPII a more fitting name as pope would of been Pope Solomon II instead.
As far as pope John XXIII is concerned, during his service as archbishop wasn’t he automatically included in…. during the reign of pope Pius and his declaration of excommunication on those who aided the communist labour unions ?
I’d like to see Fr Clovis or Cardinal Burke publicly speak about that, but when I looked at the church teachings regarding the pope, they have to be very careful in doing so, so it would seem that the Cardinals Dubia n Fathers statements are trying to find a way around it. With the Dubia being completely ignored by the pope, how can any catholic not see what this is implying? No different than what the previous conciliar popes propagated, only pope Francis all out vicious attack on the sacred priesthood n as well as the subservience to Kaspers theology on the knees against the sacred sacraments has brought us to a higher level in this crisis climax.
Good Almighty God in heaven pls rise up more crusader priest like Fr Hesse. Please Holy Mother, please ask the Good Lord on our behalf.