In a recent Fatima Perspectives rant (addressed HERE), an unhinged Christopher Ferrara lambasted unnamed “grandstanding Catholic bloggers” who, in his opinion, “contribute nothing but useless controversy aimed at promoting one-man enterprises under the guise of ‘defending the truth.’”
“They are, at best,” he concluded, “Johnnies-come-lately.”
This invective cannot but call to mind the parable of the workers in the vineyard, who having been invited to join in the effort at a later hour inspired outrage on the part of those who had been toiling longer.
Unlike the parable, however, the real-life events that inspired so much outrage on the part of Mr. Ferrara are still unfolding; in fact, they have progressed, at least in part, toward a somewhat happy, and magnificently ironic, end.
Specifically, it appears as though Mr. Ferrara may be coming to terms with the fact that the issues raised on these pages are far more than just “useless controversy.”
In the latest edition of Catholic Family News, in an article that appears to have been hastily written, Mr. Ferrara finally got around to addressing Cardinal Burke’s endorsement of the fake letter attributed to Sr. Lucia (in his August 7th interview with the Wanderer that we discussed HERE).
Mr. Ferrara writes:
With all due respect to the Cardinal, while confirming what is obvious — that a consecration of Russia needs to mention Russia rather than deliberately failing to mention it — he appears to be trying to have it both ways. That John Paul’s intention to consecrate Russia sufficed, according to the alleged remark by Sr. Lucia (contradicted by her own published testimony), but that Russia should nonetheless be consecrated by name.
Speaking of Johnny come-lately!
In all sincerity, I’m absolutely delighted that Mr. Ferrara has at long last decided to call attention to at least some of Cardinal Burke’s dangerous ideas. It is without a doubt a step in the right direction.
This happy turn of events does, however, raise a few questions:
For one, if certain “grandstanding Catholic bloggers” had not first been willing to condemn the errors being put forth by Cardinal Burke; calling Mr. Ferrara to account for his duty to do likewise, would he ever have written as much?
I don’t know the answer to that question, but either way; let me be the first to welcome Mr. Ferrara to the vineyard, or back to the vineyard, as the case may be.
That said, it’s not payday just yet.
And this leads me to wonder how much longer it will take Mr. Ferrara to raise his voice along with ours to point out the grave danger that exists in Cardinal Burke’s attempts to wed the message of Fatima to the Second Vatican Council, the New Evangelization and the pontificate of John Paul II.
It has been nearly four months since His Eminence (who I still believe owes Fr. Nicholas Gruner a public apology) did just this in a widely celebrated speech given at the Roman Life Forum.
As Cornelia Ferreira pointed out in her inaugural article at akaCatholic, that speech was praised by Fr. Gruner’s detractors at the WAF (formerly, the Blue Army), and for very good reason.
Even so, within a matter of days, Mr. Ferrara and the Fatima Center also expressed nothing but unqualified praise for Cardinal Burke and his speech.
As of this writing, that praise still stands.
And yet, as Mr. Ferrara’s latest article for Catholic Family News suggests, there may be reason to believe that certain “grandstanding Catholic bloggers” are helping him to regain a bit of “Fatima Perspective,” so maybe that praise will soon be amended or withdrawn.
Let’s hope so.
“His Eminence”, “Father”, and “Bishop”, as Raymond Burke, remains as the ontological impossibility which it can only ever be, in “reality as Reality”, which must be utterly understood in and from the implacable contradistinction of “reality as deception”. You see, in Reality, that which Almighty God brings forth ex nihilo into time and space, we have ontological certitude, as He gave the Angelic Doctor these intellective gifts to share with Holy Mother Church, such that we would “know”, not “opine about”, those truths which flow from Truth Himself, in Unity as One God in the Triune Godhead, and as distinguished from Himself in Relatio alone, holding One Intellect and One Will as God and in Himself. As it relates the scholastic metaphysics of Saint Thomas Aquinas, Saint Pope Pius X had this to say:
“For just as the opinion of certain ancients is to be rejected which maintains that it makes no difference to the truth of the Faith what any man thinks about the nature of creation, provided his opinions on the nature of God be sound, because error with regard to the nature of creation begets a false knowledge of God; so the principles of philosophy laid down by St. Thomas Aquinas are to be religiously and inviolably observed, because they are the means of acquiring such a knowledge of creation as is most congruent with the Faith; of refuting all the errors of all the ages, and of enabling man to distinguish clearly what things are to be attributed to God and to God alone.” (Pius X, Doctoris Angelici).
With that as the very basic foundation of knowing Truth as Truth Himself is infinitely knowable Louie, we do know with ontological certitude, that Holy Mother Church cannot both “be” Holy Mother Church and “not be” Holy Mother Church, at the same time, and under the same respect as Holy Mother Church. To be as clear as possible, Truth, as He Is a divine Person, is both “infinitely knowable”, while at once He is NOT “infinitely known”, except unto Himself.
And now on to Lumen Gentium, which the “conciliar church”, as it proclaims itself to be– the “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church”– as established by the Son of God made man, for the sole purpose of our salvation, and outside of which there is no salvation (deFide), as “conciliar church”, fully embraces error by placing an affront to the One True Faith in L.G.-16. The “conciliar church” speaks of “Lumen Gentium” (aka. L.G.) as the “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church”. Roncalli, as “John XXIII”, opened this “council” (sm. case intended) as NOT being “dogmatic” rather “pastoral” and yet we have L. G. described as the, “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church”, and therefore the first affront placed to God’s law of non-contradiction is placed in that very internal contradiction of what Roncalli proclaimed about the diabolical council, versus what its language actually attempts to edify. The “council” cannot both “be pastoral” and “not be pastoral” at the same time and under the same respect as “Council” (lg. case intended). Roncalli was a deceiver as he was a liar, which speaks as res ipsa loquitur. A true Pope as Pope simple cannot mince the lie with the truth, as Christ commanded, “Let your yea be yea and your no be no, anything else is from the Evil One.” That which is from the “Evil One” as a lie, cannot be taught from Christ’s Church. A Pope as Pope in union with his Bishops, is protected from teaching the lie as the truth, by the charism of Ecclesiastical infallibility, such that when we bear witness to a man, Roncalli in this case, actually doing so, we know with metaphysical certitude that “he” as “Roncalli” simply cannot be the “Pope as Pope”, because if he was, the Son of God erred when He commanded His Church to prevail against the gates of hell until the end of time. A “pope”, whether Roncalli or Montini, cannot first proclaim there to be nothing new as dogmatic, hence the “council” being proclaimed as pastoral, and then use language which objectively proclaims “dogmatic” in the nomenclature of its “constitution” on the “church”.
On to L.G.–16 which states:
“Finally those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways. There is, first, that people to which the covenants and promises were made, and from which Christ was born according to the flesh (cf. Rom. 9: 4-5): in view of the divine choice, they are a people most dear for the sake of the fathers, for the gifts of God are without repentance (cf. Rom. 11:29-29) (sic). But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Moslems: these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and TOGETHER WITH US THEY ADORE THE ONE, MERCIFUL GOD, mankind’s judge on the last day…” (emphasis mine)
Here, as noted by the emphasis in the above quote from L.G. 16, “that church” as the “conciliar church”, which proclaims to be the Church, simply CANNOT BE the Church of Christ Jesus, as the “Moslems” do not “together with us…” “adore the one, merciful God…”, as if they did, the “Moslem god” would be the Triune Godhead as the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as Christ Jesus commanded that, he who denies Me denies the One Who sent Me. Thus, with divine certitude, we know that the “Moslem god” is not the God of Abraham, nor can the “Moslems” then, be “together with us” in adoring the same God as God. Lastly, as L.G. 16 also proclaims, “But the PLAN OF SALVATION ALSO INCLUDES… the Moslems…”, L.G. 16 there also places an implacable affront to the deFide teaching that there is no salvation outside the Church, as extra ecclesium nulla salus. It must be clearly understood that there is no application here of “invincible ignorance” for the “Moslems”, rather the diabolical council proclaims that the “plan of salvation” includes the “Moslems as Moslems”, which places an affront to the Faith as this in opposition to the Faith. Otherwise stated, the diabolical council proclaims that the “Moslems” can be saved as “Moslems”, therefore not requiring conversion to the Faith. In order for “invincible ignorance” to apply, the person must be receiving the “divine Light and grace”. A person cannot both be a “Moslem as Moslem” and at the same time be receiving divine Light and grace, as the person receiving divine Light and grace would, as he only could in the reception of divine Light and grace, reject all that Islam teaches in the internal forum. The diabolical council teaches objectively (no internal forum required) that the “Moslem as Moslem” is contained within God’s plan of salvation.
Finally, and in closing then, Raymond Burke cannot be a priest, nor a Bishop, nor Cardinal, because Montini as “Pope Paul VI” who “ordained” him, was not even Catholic yet alone the Pope as Pope. Any human person who not only embraces the heretical teachings of the diabolical council known as “Vatican II”, but in this particular case also in his pose as “Pope Paul VI” (Montini), is as objectively understood, an heretic and as thus outside the Catholic Church. Any person receiving the “operation of error” of which Saint Paul speaks in 2 Thess 2, can only believe the lie as the truth with certitude, as from the inerrant Holy Writ, because they have no zeal, as love for the Truth. While doing this, they are fully culpable without even knowing that it is the lie which they are embracing as the truth, as God’s grace is rejected in their receipt of the “operation of error”. A Pope as Pope cannot teach heresy which as “Paul VI”, Montini objectively did. He taught as he believed the diabolical council of so called “Vatican II”, that which objectively teaches heresy. Since Holy Mother Church is protected with the charism of Ecclesiastical infallibility when the (true) Pope as Pope is teaching in union with his bishops, as “Paul VI, Montini” taught heresy in union with his bishops, neither he can be Pope as Pope, nor can they be “Bishops as Bishops” of the One, True, Church of Jesus the Christ, Son of the Living God. All the “popes” from Roncalli as John XXIII and unto Bergoglio as Francis, are indeed popes, but they are the popes of the church of the Antichrist, not the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, His Mystical Body and spotless Bride. I pray this helps. In caritas.
“The visibility of the Church is too necessary to it’s existence FOR IT TO BE POSSIBLE THAT GOD WOULD ALLOW that visibility to dissappear for decades. The reasoning of those who deny that we have a Pope puts the Church in an inextricable situation.” ~ Archbishop Marcel LeFebvre
Uh, point goes to Archbishop Lefebvre.
I apologize to Louie and friends for introducing something which may be off topic.
On 9/3/17, Bergoglio issued a new Motu Propio “Magnum Principum” which means “Great Beginning”. It really should be called “FINAL END”. What do you think?
Sorry, I forgot to add the link.
As I understand it, in the absence of a true Pope in Rome, St Peter steps in and guides the Church. As we see now – the Church is in schism with the Bergoglio faction on one side and the Remnant of the one, true, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church led by St Peter on the other. As soon as the split is made official we can prepare for persecution and the underground Church of the catacombs. Luckily, the reign of the anti-Christ won’t last long; Our Blessed Lady will wrap us in he mantle. May God, the Holy Spirit, Our Blessed Mother and St. Michael guide and protect us.
my2cents – I just read it and I went cold. This monstrosity clears the way for him to change the rubrics of the Holy Mass including the Consecration. Can it be true that credible rumors say that the plan is to have the Sanctus………. then silence in place of the Consecration ……… right up to the Our Father? That would then make the Mass acceptable to Anglicans and Lutherans? During the silence apparently we can all put our own connotations on the subsequently meaningless bread and wine. God help us. We need to watch for the new Sunday parish missals in November.
A change in degree does not affect the principle.
Since we all agree that the Church is visible yet when a pope dies it does not change the nature of the Church, then we must conclude that a change in longevity (degree) of such a vacancy does not affect the nature of the Church (visibility).
Unfortunately, Archbishop Marcel LeFebvre was mistaken when he made this comment and it is my understanding that he accepted the very possibility of a vacant See later in his life. He never ruled it.
Correction: …He never ruled it out.
The NO is not a Holy Mass. It is an affront to God because it celebrates Man and does not give God His due worship. Nor is it a Holy Sacrifice. It is a meal, not pleasing to the Lord just like Cain’s unpleasing sacrifice.
But the alleged new plan for the Holy Mass and Consecration will also apply to the FSSP Latin Mass since they come under the auspices of Rome! What would we do then?
Sorrowfully, it does not matter what Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre says, when he posits an internal contradiction into Holy Mother Church, where internal contradiction cannot ever be, as commanded by the Son of God, as God Himself, Christ the King. Holy Mother Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, His spotless Bride, is visible wherever a baptized Catholic in the state of grace, free of the reception of the “operation of error” rests, until the end of time. Our Blessed Lord as our God, Jesus the Christ, could not have commanded that when the Son of Man returns again, will He find any faith left on the earth?, if in the end of time the Faith found, in its human persons as faith–the Sensus Fidelis– was going to be flourishing. That implodes under its own weight of absurdity, as the idea that the Faith would flourish in the end of time, is contravened by Jesus the Christ Himself.
What Archbishop Lefebvre says as you quote him, places an affront to the Holy Writ in 2 Thess 2, for all those with eyes that see. In verses 5-8, Saint Paul proclaimed:
“5 Remember you not, that when I was yet with you, I told you these things?6 And now you know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time.7 For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way.8 And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth; and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming, him,…”.
Here, Saint Paul is warning the brethren that the day will come, as it is not in their time, when the Holy Roman Pontiff will be, “taken out of the way”, and then the “wicked one” shall be revealed, to be understood as the very person of the Antichrist. Further, the proper as actual read of the authentic Vatican Council I, infallibly proclaimed that Christ commanded that the Holy Roman Pontiff “SHOULD” remain until the end of time, not that he “WILL” remain until the end of time. The understanding of the language as it is and not how we might like it to be, remains essential for the literal salvation of our souls. You see johnjobilbee, the word “should”, as the Council used, is not “definitive”, rather it is “suggestive”. The words, “will” or “shall” are “definitive”, but these are NOT the words the Council used, nor could they have in truth. Why? Because God cannot, as He has deemed so, coerce us by forcing His Will upon us. That idea is perfectly contrary to authentic Catholic teaching, as it is perfectly contrary to God as Deus Caritas Est. These bombastic and bellicose minstrels, Siscoe and Salza, literally replaced the infallible word of the Council, “SHOULD” with the word, “WILL”, on page 19 of their book as published by the SSPX publishing arm, “The Angelis Press”. That exchange of those two words causes their entire 700 page diatribe, “True Pope or False Pope”, to utterly implode under its own weight of error as deception. Their tome is not therefore based in “reality as reality”, rather it is based in “reality as deception”. That said, what was written above takes precedent, as it occurred 58 years ago, at which time the church which was proclaimed to be the “Catholic Church”, no longer was as it could not be, as properly understood ontologically, and as thus with metaphysical certitude. I pray this helps. In caritas.
As there is a perpetual working of this mystery of iniquity, so there is a perpetual hindrance or barrier to its full manifestation, which will continue until it be removed; and there a fixed time when it shall be taken out of the way…. Now, inasmuch as this wicked one shall be a lawless person, who shall introduce disorder, sedition, tumult, and revolution, both in the temporal and spiritual order of the world, so that which shall hinder his development, and shall be his direct antagonist after his manifestation, must necessarily be the principle of order, the law of submission, the authority of truth and of right….
We have now come nearly to a solution of that which I stated in the beginning, namely, how it is that the power which hinders the revelation of the lawless one is not only a person but a system, and not only a system but a person. In one word, it is Christendom and its head; and, therefore, in the person of the Vicar of Jesus Christ, and in that twofold authority with which, by Divine Providence he has been invested, we see the direct antagonist to the principle of disorder….
The history of the Church, and the history of our Lord on earth, run as it were in parallel. For three-and-thirty years the Son of God incarnate was in the world, and no man could lay hand upon Him. No man could take Him, because His “hour was not yet come.” There was an hour foreordained when the Son of God would be delivered into the hand of sinners. He foreknew it; He foretold it. He held it in his own hand, for He surrounded His person with a circle of His own Divine power. No man could break through that circle of omnipotence until the hour came, when by His own will He opened the way for the powers of evil….
In like manner with His Church. Until the hour is come when the barrier shall, by the Divine will, be taken out of the way, no one has power to lay a hand upon it. The gates of hell may war against it; they may strive and wrestle, as they struggle now with the Vicar of our Lord; but no one has the power to move Him one step, until the hour shall come when the Son of God shall permit, for a time, the powers of evil to prevail. That He will permit it for a time stands in the book of prophecy. When the hindrance is taken away, the man of sin will be revealed; then will come the persecution of three years and a half, short, but terrible, during which the Church of God will return into its state of suffering, as in the beginning; and the imperishable Church of God, by its inextinguishable life derived from the pierced side of Jesus, which for three hundred years lived on through blood, will live on still through the fires of the times of Antichrist.
(Cardinal Henry Edward Manning, Lecture III, “Who or What Restrains the Manifestation of the Antichrist?”, in The Present Crisis of the Holy See Tested by Prophecy [London, 1861], pp. 36-56; see The Pope and the Antichrist: The Great Apostasy Foretold)
There is no onthological certitude that FSSP priests are validly ordained since many of them are “ordained” by “bishops” who were “ordained” with the new rite or ordination promulgated by arch heretic Montini. Their status is so questionable that I would avoid them as well. If SSPX keeps letting in NO “priests” without conditionally ordaining them, then it at some point they too will need to be avoided. Ordination is not a subject to take lightly. There must be certitude. While the Church supplies jurisdiction (licitness) in extraordinary circumstances, it does not supply validity in similar situations.
This latest ridiculous pronouncement of “King” Bergoglio demonstrates why it is so important for aka Catholics to unite against the fake church of Vatican 2. Personally, I don’t care what the N.O. “church” does. What I do care about are innocent souls who are the victims like sheep led to slaughter by those who pose as shepherds. Why does Bergoglio continue his vile destruction? Because he can. Who is stopping him?
Take cover, everyone. The Italians are going to the mattresses.
If a new priest turns up at your chapel, just politely ask him how Providence brought him here. His seminary and Ordination will be woven in to his background. Then you’ll learn who ordained him. That’s what I do. The number of novus-ordained priests in the Society is a very small percentage overall, but still, anything more than zero is not right.
Well, it was true that Paul VI approved the removal of the Mysterium Fidei and the use of “for you and for all men” in place of “pro multis” from the consecration. It is also true that he abolished the Offertory – the offering of the Divine Victim – and replaced it with a victimless offering of bread and wine by the people, not the Priest.
There are already enough problems in this alone to introduce grave doubts regarding defect of form and defect of intention.
Anything Bergoglio does is simply carrying on along the same lines that Paul VI introduced decades ago.
You have recognised the crisis and have sought to protect yourself from the most obvious threat – the new mass – by going to the FSSP. May God bless you. Well done for acting upon it.
But the revolutionaries did as much damage to the new rites of Orders as they did to the Mass. We just see the Mass week after week, but rarely see the sacrament of Orders. If you take on a study of the changes, and compare them with the way the Church treats the Anglican rite of orders in Leo XIII’s Apostolicae Curae, you may well end up avoiding the FSSP, as I did.
I now go to the SSPX exclusively, because I don’t trust the new mass, and don’t trust the new rites of Orders. The Society have tampered with neither. The FSSP use new bishops to ordain their priests in the old rite, but if the line got cut at the Bishop’s new consecration, then he is not capable of ordaining a priest in either the new or the old rite.
There’s no stopping him. All we can do is avoid him by recognising that he could not possibly be considered even to be a Catholic, a member of the Mystical Body, let alone the questions regarding the papacy.
Just when we thought it could not get any worse…this came out yesterday from Francis…
Bergoglio, the Barbarian! Bergoglio, the Destroyer! Why? Because he can.
Very good article and excellent points Louis! I’d also like to know the answers to the questions that you posed in your article as well.
You were right to say that Cardinal Burke owes Fr. Gruner a public apology. But I add to that: I think Christopher Ferrara owes you a public apology as well. Even if he were to claim, “Well, I don’t owe him an apology for the sin of calumny (or detraction [if he can objectively demonstrate evidence that his accusations are true]) because I didn’t name him in my article,” that argument would no longer be valid at the present time because Louis Verrechio has written public articles where he publicly manifests that he has the impression that he might have been targeted in Mr. Ferrara’s article. As such, if Mr. Ferrara did not truly intend to refer to Mr. Verrechio in his article, then not only should he have no problem, but he has an obligation in Christian charity to confirm this to Louis, at least privately (but ideally publicly, because many others – I among them – have the distinct impression that Mr. Ferrara was targeting Louis Verrechio in a particular way in his article and we have good objective reasons and surrounding context for coming to that conclusion). And we do know that the Fatima Center is aware of Louis’s recent articles about this situation on account of communications sent to them informing them.
The following is something that Christopher Ferrara and those in charge of deciding what is published at the Fatima Center (who chose to publish his article “The Problem of the Grandstanding Catholic Blogger”) need to reflect upon:
As a preliminary background: for the reasons why evidence indicates that the author of the “The Problem of the Grandstanding Catholic Blogger” may be guilty of calumny, please see my comment under Louis’s article here: https://akacatholic.com/breaking-mystery-blogger-under-attack/
Calumny (from the 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia): “[…] In its more commonly accepted signification it means the unjust damaging of the good name of another by imputing to him a crime or fault of which he is not guilty. The sin thus committed is in a general sense mortal, just as is detraction. […] Just as in the instance of wrongful damage to person or estate, so the calumniator is bound to adequate reparation for the injury perpetrated by the blackening of another’s good name. He is obliged (1) to retract his false statements, and that even though his own reputation may necessarily as a consequence suffer. (2) He must also make good whatever other losses have been sustained by the innocent party as a result of his libelous utterances, provided these same have been in some measure (in confuso) foreseen by him.”
Those at the Fatima Center who approved of Mr. Ferrara’s article and published it participate in a possible sin of calumny and scandal. The more that individuals at the Fatima Center participate in calumny/detraction like this and the more the center approves of it (directly or indirectly), not only do they provide a scandal to Catholics, non-Catholics, and nations observing them, among whom there are those who might otherwise be interested in the Fatima message or in Catholicism, but they risk God withdrawing his graces from their work. We have seen throughout history that when God withdraws his grace from individuals entrusted with a mission, he oftentimes raises up others to replace them who are more humble, selfless, and worthy.
If I was Mr. Ferrara, I would offer a public apology to Louis and ask the Fatima Center to take down my article. But doing such a thing requires humility (one of the most important virtues). I imagine that Louis Verrechio would have the humility to do so.
Another noteworthy thing to consider is that it is truly a type of effeminacy to:
(1) Respond to criticism by falsely accusing others and denigrating them with ad hominem attacks
(2) Refuse to answer valid objections to your work when you have a duty to address those concerns so as not to mislead the innocent and those you have influence over. We can give Christopher Ferrara credit for finally addressing some of Louis’s valid objections, as Louis explained in his above article. But I think Christopher ought to address the remaining concerns of omission that Louis rightly pointed out, that he has yet to address.
I’d also like to ask readers: Did Christopher Ferrara display hypocrisy by accusing others of “purporting to be in the know about what is ‘really’ happening with [the Fatima Center]” while at the same time he purported to be in the know about what is “really” happening in the interior disposition and intentions of Louis Verrechio or other unnamed “grandstanding bloggers”?
The saints said that during/after a major Church crisis, the Catholic Church is going to be renewed by great saints. If we want to strive to be great saints, we need to get the fundamentals of charity down. Along with ourselves, let’s invite Christopher Ferrara and those in charge of publication at the Fatima Center to meditate upon these fundamentals of charity taught to the early Christians whom we need to imitate if we are going to help convert souls and help restore the Church and all things in Christ:
“Charity thinketh no evil.” (1 Corinthians 13:5) In writing my article or approving articles, did I think evil, falsely accuse, and presume the worst intentions of others?
“Charity is not puffed up.” (1 Corinthians 13:4) In writing my article, was I puffed up and condescending?
“Charity is kind.” (1 Corinthians 13:4) Was it possible that I could have expressed the same ideas I did, but in a much kinder way?
Have I failed to practice the virtues of mercy, meekness, and humility, and instead of manfully addressing the critic’s objections objectively or by charitably explaining why I won’t answer the objections, have I treated others in a way that I would want to be treated, something the One I strive to follow (Jesus) commanded us to do (see Matthew 7:12)?
Before considering these questions, we must all admit that we ourselves have most probably been guilty of sins at one time or another in our lives just as bad as any Mr. Ferrara and the Fatima Center have done. So we should not and cannot judge them as a person or persons. But I think we should encourage and invite them to offer a public apology to Louis and to change this type of behavior lest they provide scandal to those who would otherwise consider the Fatima message and movement and lest they continue down an increasingly disastrous path by committing such mistakes in the future.
Personally, I hope and pray that he tears down the NO structure to its rotten core, thus exposing the filth for the whole world to see. The more damage he does to the V2 sect the better. It was built on the lies of modernism. Let it fall and let the eyes of faithful Catholics open wide to see the filth.
Tom A–As I stated in a previous comment, I do not care what happens to the N.O.. establishment. I am concerned with the countless souls led astray by this enemy of Christ. I know that you feel the same way. Sadly, the N.O. establishment is perceived to be the Catholic Church as founded by Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Hopefully, the worse he gets the quicker people will wake up.
Oh my just read it, not good. There will be no more universal after that.
I too pray they wake up before its too late. If Bergolio doesn’t wake them up, I fear nothing will.
There hasn’t been universal in decades.
Yes this change in cannon law will certainly pave the way for pope Francis new world mass adaptions.
Reference to an “…alleged remark by Sr. Lucia (contradicted by her own published testimony)” calls to mind the photographic evidence of two Sr. Lucias. Given all the shenanigans surrounding the Vatican’s handling of Fatima, it’s not surprising they used the old body double trick.
Thanks for this comment, In Caritas! What convinced me ultimately that the sed position is correct was exactly this new doctrine proclaimed by the conciliar church that, basically, explicit faith in Christ is no longer needed for salvation by Jews, Moslems, or the sincere followers of the other major religions. If one simply focuses on what the conciliar church now teaches with regard to the Jews (let alone the Muslims) being able to be saved qua Jews is enough seal the deal, so to speak regarding the VII apostasy and all the conciliar “popes.” Totally contradicts St. Paul’s epistles at several points, particularly, Romans 1:16-17, or even St. Peter, in Acts 4:12, who proclaimed this to the Jewish people of his day.
This simply cannot be the true church proclaiming this garbage. If anyone has signed on to this, they are in heresy and are out of the Church. It’s so crystal clear to me now. Thanks for your added emphasis!
And my comment is made with all due regard to invincible ignorance and BOD or BOB. Cheers.
The sede position has been the common sense Catholic position for decades. Shame on me for not waking up until 2013-14.
Dear fast ferrari,
Thanks and praise be to Almighty God. The Grace and Peace of God the Father of our Blessed Dominus Deus Sabbaoth and Savior, Jesus the Christ, be with you and yours. Amen. In caritas.
You do what I did years ago. Find an SSPX parish/chapel…or move near one. Souls are at stake.
… In the latest edition of Catholic Family News, in an article that appears to have been hastily written, Mr. Ferrara finally got around to addressing Cardinal Burke’s endorsement of the fake letter attributed to Sr. Lucia (in his August 7th interview with the Wanderer that we discussed HERE).
Mr. Ferrara writes: …
Louie’s article 2 days later admits this was an error and proceeds from there.
It seems to me that if John Vennari were still alive a note would have appeared at the head of the article by Ferrara explaining that it was already a month old. So we might easily expect more of this kind of sloppiness in John’s absence.
If it’s of any interest, I was kind of excited when I had read this article first, on the 9th, then when I saw the correction article on Sept. 11th, before reading it I quizzed myself asking, “What is Louie going to say he was wrong about?”
I quickly reviewed the 9-9 piece and concluded that he might have been mistaken about Ferrara having been late to the topic, or that perhaps Louie had not noticed Ferrara had already addressed it previously. Needless to say, it was kind of like winning the door prize to discover that I was entirely correct. Thank you for the thrill!
Hey — Now’s the chance for Novus Ordo priests to read the Canonized Latin Mass Canon during the “silent time” consecration and have a valid Sacrament!
Except for the problem of the new rites of ordination.
Just remember when you’re dying, be sure to ask the priest who shows up to anoint you wasn’t ordained in the new rite–and if he was, try not to be too rude to him. That is, do you intend to treat him like he’s a Protestant minister and tell him to GET OUT OF HERE? Think about this: do you want him later to say when asked, that you “couldn’t have been less gracious?”
San Antone, please read side by side the new Rite of Anointing of the Sick and the proper Rite of Extreme Unction. Remember that when you are dying. Which one would you rather recieve? I do not approach Novus Ordo priests now for sacraments seeing as to how the new Rites of Ordination are doubtful. The only authority that has proclaimed the Rites valid are modernists who cannot be trusted. It is not very prudent to trust your eternal salvation to modernists who are consistently bashed on these forums as wanting to destroy the church.