By: Cornelia R. Ferreira
It would seem that my previous article, Fatima Through the Lens of Vatican II: As Illustrated by Raymond Cardinal Burke, has ruffled quite a few feathers amongst the standard-bearers of the once-militant Traditionalist camp. The reaction exposes a synthesis between many traditionalists and conservatives taking place in front of our eyes. A new entity has arisen: Conservative-Traditionalism.
Prominent traditionalists who have recently been collaborating with conservatives for the sake of a “common good” (the Consecration of Russia, in this case) have effectively opened the windows to errors and heretical ideas.
The result? These conservative-traditionalists are swiftly becoming as numb to error as their conservative counterparts.
My article had pointed out the revolutionary errors of John Paul II, Paul VI, and Vatican II promoted in Cardinal Burke’s speech on Fatima at the Rome Life Forum in May. Louie’s blog of July 18th cites an interlocutor’s comment that perfectly illustrates the “con-trad” position on the Cardinal’s talk:
“You and I might recognize the Council, the New Mass, and the New Evangelization as dangerous, but we both know that this is a very difficult reality for most conservative Catholics to accept. They’ve been lied to for so long that they have no idea what to believe. So rather than alienating them from Fatima even further, wouldn’t it make more sense to set those arguments aside for now and to treat Cardinal Burke, a man admired by many, as an ally in calling for the Consecration? I mean, this is what all of us want, isn’t it?”
This is the alarming new conservative-traditionalist mindset that I personally have encountered amongst those supposed to be defending the Catholic Faith and the true message of Fatima.
It’s a position far removed from Catholicism, which brooks no compromise with error. Pope Leo XIII tells us why in his encyclical Satis Cognitum (no. 9): “There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).”
It is the serious duty of those who teach, preach, write, or speak about the Faith to be one hundred percent free of error. Why? Because souls depend on their words. To lead even a single soul astray through negligence or human respect can land one in hellfire.
Above all, every member of the hierarchy, from the Pope down to the parish priest, is obliged to pass on the Faith “whole and undefiled” because, as mandated by the Athanasian Creed, all the faithful must hold to the Catholic Faith in this manner or else “perish everlastingly.”
However, Cardinal Burke’s speech did not pass on the Faith undefiled. Instead, it upheld the programs of two Modernist Popes responsible for the promulgation of heresies and the blasphemous ecumenical movement. The Holy Office of pre-conciliar times would have, objectively, considered the speech a danger to the faith.
But what of the rather incoherent stance of our con-trad interlocutor?
First, he (or she) “recognizes the Council, the New Mass, and the New Evangelization as dangerous, … but this is a very difficult reality for most conservative Catholics to accept. They’ve been lied to for so long that they have no idea what to believe.”
Actually, all Catholics have been lied to; but only the conservatives accepted the lies.
So, should we enlighten them? Yes, says the traditionalist, that is our charitable duty. But, no, says the conservative-traditionalist, let us ignore our differences and work together for a common good.
This, dear reader, is ecumenism – within the Catholic Church. The ecumenical mindset seeks what unites, rather than what divides, and works for some common good such as peace. (Note: ecumenism goes hand in hand with the “new evangelization,” which is opposed to conversion and salvation.)
So just as John Paul II sold out the true Faith for the sake of an elusive world peace, the con-trad is happy to sell out the Truth for the world peace which will result from the Consecration of Russia. As Interlocutor says, “… this [the Consecration] is what all of us want, isn’t it?” And so, “wouldn’t it make more sense to set those arguments aside for now…?” Ecumenism in a nutshell!
Further, Interlocutor implies traditionalists have alienated conservatives from Fatima; and if traditionalists try to point out the errors of post-conciliar Churchmen, they will alienate conservatives further. How warped!
First of all, Fatima is approved by the Church and its message has been open to all for a hundred years. Traditionalists don’t have a monopoly on Fatima and cannot alienate anyone from it.
Secondly, what conservatives have been alienated from is Father Nicholas Gruner, the main voice proclaiming worldwide the full truth about Fatima.
And that alienation was effected by the hierarchy’s relentless campaign of defamation against Father Gruner – including by Cardinal Burke himself. In 2013, whilst Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, he said:
“… there is much confusion about the message of Our Lady of Fatima, caused especially by Fr. Nicholas Gruner, a priest who is not in good standing in the Church, and … this confusion is harmful to many good people who are being led astray about the important message of Our Lady of Fatima.”
Coming from the head of the Church’s Supreme Tribunal, this statement added clout to the censoring of Fr. Gruner’s attempts to spread the genuine Fatima message. So instead of becoming acquainted with the truth about Fatima, conservatives swallowed the official distortions fed them by Churchmen and Church-approved organizations.
Cardinal Burke’s speech itself was a skewed version of the Fatima message (see my article). It includes his astounding claim that Our Lady of Fatima called for the new evangelization. But as Interlocutor intimates, conservatives have been deluded for so long, why disturb them with the truth about Fatima now?
And, illustrating a widespread con-trad position, Interlocutor believes in overlooking the Cardinal’s errors, just because he called for the Consecration of Russia to be done – once again, mind you, as Our Lady allegedly asked for it to be repeated in every generation.
Conservative-traditionalists now consider they have won an important “ally” to Our Lady’s cause. But how could they ever feasibly regard as an ally someone (a) so openly opposed to Fr. Gruner’s work; and (b) who has re-written Our Lady of Fatima’s message?
Another point in favor of the Cardinal, says Interlocutor, is that he’s “a man admired by many.” So what? Since when does someone’s popularity justify our putting on blinders? A defender of the truth must be dead to human respect.
The message of Fatima is above all about the salvation of souls. One hardly imagines Our Lady could approve the un-Catholic idea of condoning falsehoods and endangering souls in order to secure the Consecration She requested.
St. Paul exhorted us to love the truth in order to be saved. He warned that otherwise God will “send [us] the operation of error, to believe lying” (cf. 2 Thess. 2:10). This is the unfolding tragedy Sr. Lucia termed the “diabolical disorientation,” in which “souls are letting themselves be deceived.”
Finally, in answer to Interlocutor’s burning question regarding the Consecration of Russia, “This is what all of us want, isn’t it?”, the uncompromised traditionalist’s response is No! Never at the expense of truth and the salvation of souls.
In the words of Sr. Lucia, “We must defend souls against the errors which can make them stray from the good road.”
Louie, you could easily substitute “Having a Pope” …at the expense of saving souls. The same compromises the Fatimists are making with error to achieve their consecration of Russia goal are the same compromises with error that resisters are making to have a Pope. This is the problem when the focus is moved from The Person who is Truth. I particularly like your quote that to defend the truth one must be dead to human respect.
A “true” Pope is responsible for this mess, Pius XI.
This explains why Cardinal Burke is not moving forward on the Dubia to the next step. For him, he still believes that Vatican II is an authentic expression (if not teaching of the Church) of Catholicism. So sad for him. It is prelates and clerics such as Burke who remain silent in the face of this mass apostasy that keeps the post-conciliar movement going. They cannot possibly fathom having to go public to say that Vatican II and the Novus Ordo crowd will remain in heresy if they continue believing the charade of the Council- including the post-Conciliar popes. These prelates FEAR making the current schism in the Church formal. They also do not want to lose their haughty titles, paychecks, pensions, and the praise of men- so full of themselves. What is the solution? I wish I knew. However, I am happy to remain in my sacramentally married state in life. I will continue to pass along the Faith to my son (and continue to attend only the TLM) until my dying breath.
Pius XII made many more blunders too. Like changing Holy Week and listening to Bugnini. Popes are capable of poor judgment. What they are not capable of is heresy.
Dear Cornelia,
The critical intellective link, which can only include the suppression of any and all “human respect”, as in the saintly understanding of “perfect creaturely detachment”, is the reality that the “Churchmen”, all the way to and including the purported occupier of the Chair of Saint Peter, are simply not “Churchmen” of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, as they cannot be, as being cannot both be and not be, at the same time, and under the same respect. In the proper understanding of the law of non-contradiction, these purported “Churchmen” cannot both be “Churchmen” of the One true Church and as such freely submit into the Gift of the charism of ecclesial infallibility (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm ) and not be “Churchmen”, as they indeed hold beliefs as made manifest existentially from them, which are objectively heretical and they teach them from the false VCII council (http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/fetzen-fliegen/item/3306-the-revolution-of-vatican-ii-was-misinterpreted) and forward into the here and now, as you demonstrate. Any attempt to somehow conform these mercenaries of Lucifer into men of the Church, creates a metaphysical absurdity the likes of which might make the excommunicated priest and Freemason, Canon Roca, blush. This metaphysical absurdity induces scandal, as it only can, the likes of which would cause Lucifer to experience joy, if such a reality were possible.
I implore you to revisit 2 Thessalonians 2, verses 3-11, with particular attention to verses 6-8. The mysterious proclamation of Saint Paul there, as he refers to “he”, as the third person, singular, and masculine pronoun which the word he is, can only refer to “one man”, as that man did “holdeth” over 2,000 years of Church history, the mystery of iniquity from bringing forth the person of the Antichrist, until “he may be revealed in his time.”, as “he” has now been, “…taken out of the way.”. Saint Paul prophetically and mysteriously revealed in his Apostolic time, that the day would come when the Vicar of Christ in the Chair of Saint Peter, would be “taken out of the way”, and only then, “And then that the wicked one shall be revealed…”. This revelation of the very singular person of the Antichrist could only occur, according to the inerrant words of Saint Paul, in the midst of the Great Apostasy, aka “a revolt”.
Saint Paul said this in verses 10-11:
“10 And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying:
11 That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity.”
This “operation of error” or “deceiving influence” is God acting in His Infinite mercy as Caritas Himself, allowing for the utterly and completely free act of our “free will” assent into Him as Truth Himself, or away from Him and into the lie as the Truth, which is the singular consequence of embracing sin in our lives, and as thus freely rejecting His grace, and then receiving the “operation of error” in lieu of His grace. This reception of the “operation of error” writ large by baptized Catholics throughout the world, is the only means by which the Great Apostasy has occurred. What this ultimately means, is that the overwhelming majority of baptized Catholics in the world are now in apostasy, either by virtue of their active participation in the church of the Antichrist, formulated and occupied by Roncalli, et al, or by their having left the true Faith and then following a false religion or no religion, and although they are blinded to this understanding as the existential reality that it is, they remain as do we all, fully culpable as having received the operation of error, which then allows them to believe the lie as Truth.
In closing, what Lucifer through his useful idiot human mercenaries has accomplished, with an unutterably stunning completion, is to juxtapose with utter and stark opposition, as if such an act could be possible in Truth, the dogmatic realities of “ecclesial infallibility” and “papal infallibility”, placing each as an affront to the other, as an utter metaphysical absurdity. This is how Lucifer operates as he can only distort God’s Truth in deception. His minions, either knowingly or unknowingly but in each case fully culpable, in this instance approach one dogmatic reality as “papal infallibility” and develop it and apply it to the conciliar “Popes” and their errors, making the claim that since they haven’t proclaimed anything “ex cathedra”, they have not attempted to “teach heresy” formally and while under the charism of “papal infallibility”. While they posit this argument, they completely ignore and suppress either wittingly or unwittingly, the dogmatic reality of “ecclesial infallibility”, as in their arguments they correctly proffer that as long as a “Pope” doesn’t attempt to pronounce a teaching “ex cathedra”, he hasn’t attempted to “teach” heresy, while being protected himself from doing so, with the dogmatic charism of “papal infallibility”. In reality, the true Holy Roman Pontiff can never proclaim anything to the Church by way of “encyclical”, “Apostolic Constitution”, etc., which would in anyway place an affront to the holy Ecclesial Tradition, which carries its own dogmatically defined charism of infallibility, as our Blessed Lord, Jesus the Christ Himself taught, that a house divided against itself can only fall. We know with infinite certitude that this “house” as Christ’s Church cannot fall until the end of time, as He Himself commanded in Matthew 16:18. I pray this hard truth helps. In caritas.
Name names. Who exactly are these former traditionalists who have descended to “conservative-traditionalism”? For the good of souls, we should be told exactly who they are so we can avoid them. For example, is the The Remnent newspaper part of this new camp?
*Remnant
Do not fail to include Benedict XV with Pius XI and Pius XII. In fact, he actually started the ball rolling after the death of St Pope Pius X by proclaiming that it was necessary for the Church to “calm” what he believed were the “excesses of the anti-Modernist campaign” that had been waged within the Church by St Pope Pius X and some earlier popes.
Agree
From Christ’s Church by Van Noort ” Peter and his successors clearly received the task and the full power to feed the entire flock of Christ. Before anything else then, he is bound to nourish the entire flock, both bishops and the ordinary faithful on healthy doctrine and to keep them away from poisonous pasture. This task necessarily implies infallibility on the part of the pope… Suppose a pope were to make a mistake in defining Christian doctrine. What would happen? Either the entire Church would accept the pope’s decision- and that would be the end of the infallibility and indestructibility of the Church; or the Church would rebel against the pope’s decision and would correct his doctrine- and that would be the end of the arrangement set up by Christ Himself, for the flock would be feeding the shepherd!”
Even a child can see that since the recent “popes” have neither nourished the flock nor protected the flock. It is logical to conclude they are imposters bent on destroying the Church. Either that or God has failed- and that is an impious and blasphemous thought.
Dear Rand Miller,
Amen. Our Blessed Dominus Deus Sabbaoth and Savior commanded that only those with the faith of a child will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. It is true that an as yet innocent child who had just attained the age of reason, would indeed understand just who these emissaries of Lucifer are, as they have posed and are posing as to be in the occupancy of the Chair of Saint Peter since 1958. They would not know the scholastic law of non-contradiction and yet they would intuit it. God bless and keep you and yours’. In caritas.
I am sorry I am getting increasingly confused with this discussion. Should we now be conservatives or traditionalists or con-trad or NOT-con-trad or neither-nor?
How, according to your Definition, should a True to the blood, real, faithful, orthodox Catholic be? Follow my Version of the Roman Catholic Church? Reject all Popes after St. Pius X as being “not-kosher-enough”? Say my own Mass because the TLM could be said by a priest who is not “kosher” enough in your sight like Card. Burke? And the NO is …? Should I visit a Catholic Church only when no Mass is being said? Not to forget that the visiting is certainly to be avoided during an “innovative NO” which I do anyway.
By the way, Cardinal Burke will be saying Mass (to wit, a TLM) for a German speaking Pilgrimagegroup to Fatima sponsored by the Institue Christus König (which celebrates the Liturgy and the Mass in TL Rite) from the 2nd Nov. – 8th Nov 2017. Should one attend?
Further, has anyone read this article about “Whatever happened to Sr. Lucia?”
https://wegwahrheitleben.wordpress.com/2010/10/13/die-geheimnisse von Fatima III: Was geschah mit Schwester Lucia?
The article is in German, but you can look at the photos through the years and start thinking.
Also by the way, I personally do not believe Russia was consecrated in the manner Maria had requested. But Sr. Lucia said the affirmative. So, am I wrong not to believe Sr. Lucia?
I think I will just be a QTBGL Catholic following the Fashion of Deacon Jim Russell.
Check out the following article in Crisis Magazine.
Orthophobia and the Marginalized QTBGL Catholic .
Our Lady made the formal request for the Consecration of Russia on June 13, 1929. Our Lady said, “The Time Has Come”. That is more than poor judgement on Pius XI’s part. That is a refusal to save the Church from universal apostasy and avert a second world war!
What heresy is worse than that???
It’s not a public denial of something in the Deposti of Faith. It’s like St Peter in Galatians 2.
Louie, I think this is the best article of yours that I’ve read so far. I bet Our Blessed Mother appreciates your efforts. You speak Truth unapologetically. I am grateful and for what it’s worth, unoffended.
Speaking for myself, I was born and bred Vatican 2. Charitably someone HAS enlightened me, and continues to do so. I am grateful to say the least. It is like I have found a hidden door to another demension: TRUTH. I am out of the matrix, for the most part, but am constantly being tripped up by my own shortcomings or by these horrible “glitches”, who continue to diabolically disorient. I COULD take the Truth and at this point, deserve nothing less. Is there persecution, heartwrenching sadness at times on this path? Of course. But still, it’s an honor and gift to have my eyes opened, through the Mercy of God.
I resent the interlocutor’s pompous and sickening mindset. God’s Truths are for the simple. He will decide to what degree we are capable of understanding. In these days of diabolical disorientation, there ARE many monopolies on truth and we are fed many warped versions, aka: (worse than) Protestantism. Where is the Catholic Church? We should pray to learn of it and all It’s treasures.
Thank you, Louie, for courageously delivering the simple Truth, your responsibility, and something almost impossible to find these days. I pray to have your type of courage and faith. It is always prudent to speak Truth. Painful at times, but prudent.
Also, may God Bless the efforts of Fr. Gruner, may he be close to Our Lady for all eternity!
I would say so. They have lost the plot, if they ever had it. Try posting something that is even 2 fifths of an inch outside of their party line –
just in the interests of discussion – and they will delete your comment and block you like that. (snaps fingers).
All they do is wring their hands for decades on end, saying “What in the world is going on, Chris? This isn’t the Catholic Church anymore!” But they never, ever allow anyone to go beyond that point and propose a few ideas that might help souls safely through this crisis.
I think it’s a very good article too, but no one seems to have noticed that Louie didn’t write it. The author is Cornelia R. Ferreira.
Hey, Cornelia R. Ferreira, you too. Sorry..just noticed that you wrote those fine words. You rock too, Louie. Seriously, Louie, thanks for all you do, and for recognizing the value of this guest contributor. O.K. may be NOT your best article, Louie. 🙂
The year is 2017–the 100th Anniversary of the Apparitions at Fatima–and all we hear or read in the media is “Russia, Russia, Russia”–Coincidence? or a not-so-gentle reminder (and warning) from Our Lady?
Good morning Papal Subject,
As it is deeply sorrowful, what you say about “The Remnant” rings true. At the root is both pride and cowardice, it would seem. The pride of “being in the trenches for 50 years” and yet as you opine Papal Subject, what is there to show for it now? The way in which they “delete and block” is much the same as “Church Militant”, in the end. May Almighty God allow them the reception of His Infinite plenitude of mercy and true perseverance. In caritas.
I feel much better now.
“Russia, Russia, Russia”–Coincidence? No.
Our Lady has warned us enough already. The media is simply helping in the effort to impeach Trump. The military/industrial complex (aka Deep State) is pushing for a war with Russia. They are backing Russia into a corner.
The conflict may be conventional at first, but Russia will not hesitate to use nukes. Or an EMP attack from North Korea would devastate the US. Russia might capitalize on the situation and go for a nuke first strike. Either way, “The Chastisement” is imminent and those who survive will envy the dead. Then when there are two to four SSPX Bishops left alive, the Consecration of Russia can take place.
Are you indicating that any Pope loses his ability to exercise his Free will once he is elected Pope? In other words the Holy Ghost will prevent him from using his Free Will to destroy the Church when he speaks.
Which Sr Lucia said affirmative? The pre v2 Sr Lucia or the post v2 Sr Lucia? The photos are quite convincing that there are two.
No, he’s not. Public heresy automatically severs one from the Church, because the Church is the congregation of the faithful. A heretic is not among the faithful.
It doesn’t matter whether he is among the teaching hierarchy, or the learning laity. Heresy is diametrically opposed to membership in the Church.
As long as the Pope, by his free will, does not become a public heretic, he retains his membership in the Church, as well as his office. He will be protected from teaching error. If he ceases to be a member of the Church, he therefore ceases to be the visible head of the Church.
I think some people confuse teaching ex-cathedra with public heresy. They are two different things. The former applies to the Pope alone, and the latter applies to every member of the Church, including the Pope.
Thanks, IC. The only hope they have now is Grace. They have stopped up their ears to everything else.
I had the side by side pictures of the two Sr Lucys on the screen with no text visible, and called my ten year old over to see.
“Is this the same nun, or two different nuns?”, I asked.
“Two different nuns” was the child’s answer. I agree.
Cardinal Burke and the four or five other Novus Order Bishops that aren’t Modernists, have simply given up in despair. The whole tree is dead, so the Dubia is irrelevant. Of course we know that one courageous Bishop can change the world.
@ Tom A and The Papal Subjet:
According to the article, Sr. Lucia was seen less and less, even by her own Sister-nuns starting 1960. The “Exchange” of the two Sr. Lucias seemed to have taken place between 1960 and 1967 when Pope Paul VI presented the “2nd Sr. Lucia” to the public in Fatima on 13.05.1967.
Pope John XXIII (1958-1963) decided not to publized the 3rd part of the Secret as Maria hat decreed perhaps because it refered to “a bad Council and a bad Mass”? That would thwart his Modernist Plan.
Shortly after the 3rd Part of the Secret was published on 26.06.2000 the then Card. Ratzinger confessed to Fr. Ingo Dollinger that it was not complete. After he as Pope Benedik XVI visited the sealed cell of Sr. Lucia shortly after her death in 2005, he seemed to be plaged by a bad conscience about the “Treatment” of the 3rd part of the Secret but said his “Hands are tied”.
Pope JP II attempted 4 times to consecrate Russia as Maria hat requested, each time insufficiant. The last time was on 25.03.1984 when he was under pressure NOT to name Russia explictly because it would be politically inexpedient (whatever that meant). Shortly afterwards, in 1984 that is, “Sr. Lucia” confirmed the consecraction as Maria hat requested was complete (meaning valid). That is why I don’t believe her.
And @Tom A: it was the post V2 Sr. Lucia = the 2nd Sr. Lucia who “confirmed” that.
And see also http://www.abyssum.org/2017/03/27 the Article
“Election of Francis Pursuant to Universi Dominici Gregis” UDG is the Apostolic Constitution of JP II regulating Papal Elections. The whole Background leading up to 13.03.2013 clearly demonstrates that the election of Bergoglio as Pope was invalid. It would put in doubt his Act which falls under the realm of Infallibily: that of canonization of J XXIII and JP II….. who many now are convinced that they are at least partially modernists. Bergoglio et al. attempted with this canonization to seal the “Spirit of V2”. And the V2 was of Course “hijacked” by the Modernist starting with the fist session. Please refer to The Remnant, 29.07.17: “The Revolution of Vatican II was Misinterpreted?” The answer is No, the Revolution was intended!
50 years later, there are more jigsaw puzzle piecies falling into place, don’t you think?
We are really like in a meltdown as a Reader put it. I just pray that Bergoglio would not succeed in “burying” Summorum Pontificum with PB XVI and through the restoration of the Liturgy the True Catholic Faith will grow and take root again.
Try to read the book “Noble Beauty, Transcendent Holiness” by Peter Kwasniewski.
It is breathtaking beautiful and will restore a Portion of the much needed tranquillity and trust in God in our battered souls at this time of history.
Sorry I am digressing too much from this post here. I will sign off now. God bless.
So let’s see…If a Pope is public heretic he becomes an anti-pope or maybe even the antichrist, and the internet commentators call him out and he’s got to go, but there is nothing they can do about it so he gets to stay and continue being pope. Got it.
John of St. Thomas said: “be he [the Pope] ever so manifestly heretical according to private judgment, he remains as far as we are concerned a member of the Church and consequently its head. Judgment is required by the Church. It is only then that he ceases to be Pope as far as we are concerned.”