The Errors of Russia Spread in the Catholic Church Before the "Second" Vatican Council
Note: Not an endorsement for sedevacantism
As
we know from the testimony of "Anti Apostle 1025," agents of Josef
Stalin made a determined effort to infiltrate the Catholic Church in the
1930s. Where better to start than in the seminaries and universities?
"AA-1025" provided some of the details in the memoirs that he left
behind:
“It
was during those days that I launched on the market (we could almost
say) the programme that would allow Catholics to be accepted by
Protestants …. Catholics had hoped too much for the return of
Protestantism to the fold of the Mother Church. It was time that they
should lose their arrogance. Charity made it a duty for them. When
charity is at stake, I pretended, laughing up my sleeve, nothing wrong
can happen.”
“I
prophesied with assurance, so that this would be repeated in the same
tones, the suppression of Latin, of priestly ornaments, of statues and
images, of candles and prie-dieu (so that they could kneel no more) ….
And I also started a very active campaign for the suppression of the
Sign of the Cross.”
“I
also prophesied, and we were then in 1940, the disappearance of altars,
replaced by a table completely bare, and also of all the crucifixes, in
order that Christ be considered as a man, not as a God. I insisted that
Mass be only a community meal to which all would be invited, even
unbelievers. And came to the following prophecy: Baptism, for the modern
man has become ridiculously magical. Whether given by immersion or not
Baptism must be abandoned in favor of an Adult Religion.”
“Moreover,
all that is permitted among Protestants, even if only in one sect, must
be authorized among Catholics, that is the remarriage of divorcees,
polygamy, contraception and euthanasia.” . . . .
Michael
[AA-1025] encouraged Protestants to go to Catholic Mass and receive
Holy Communion. This is because: “When Catholics will see Protestants
receive Communion at their masses, without having been converted, they
will longer have confidence in their antique ‘Real Presence.’ It will be
explained to them that this Presence only exists in so far as it is
believed. Thus they will feel themselves to be creators of all their
religion and the most intelligent all them will know how to draw the
required conclusions.”
“To
weaken more the notion of ‘Real Presence’ of Christ, all decorum will
have to be set aside. No more costly embroidered vestments, no more
music called sacred, especially no more Gregorian chant, but a music in
jazz style, no more sign of the Cross, no more genuflections, but only
dignified stern attitudes …. Moreover the faithful will have to break
themselves the habit of kneeling, and this will be absolutely forbidden
when receiving Communion …. Very soon, the Host will be laid in the hand
in order that all notion of the Sacred be erased.”
“In
order to destroy all sacredness in the cult, the priest will be invited
to say the whole Mass in vernacular and especially to recite the words
of the Consecration as a narration, which they are in reality. He must
not, above all, pronounce the following words: ‘This is my Body, this is
my Blood,’ as if he really took the place of Christ Who pronounced
them.”
“Let
everyone feel that the priest is reading a narration. Furthermore,
there must never be question of a Sacrifice, that is, a Mass-Sacrifice, a
non-bloody renovation of the Sacrifice of the Cross. No Protestant
accepts this formula. Mass must only be a community meal for the
greatest welfare of human fraternity.”
On Marian Cult and Cult of The Saints “At
that time, I showed great energy to destroy the Marian cult. I insisted
greatly upon the grief that Catholics and Orthodoxes caused to
Protestants by keeping up their numerous devotions to the Virgin Mary. I
pointed out that the dear separated brethren were more logical and
wiser. This human creature about whom we know almost nothing becomes, in
our Church, in some way, more powerful than God (or, at least, more
gentle )…. I stressed upon the fact that many Protestants believe that
Mary had other children after Jesus… Human oddness has no limit. All
this strengthens my conviction, that to deny the virginity of Mary is
the safest way to transform Christians into disciples of a man who would
not at all be God. Who does not see how useful it is to kill Jesus of
Nazareth before killing God?”
“I
therefore advocated the suppression of the Rosary and of the numerous
feast days reserved to Mary… As for all other things, it will be
necessary to make a those who keep on reciting the Rosary feel guilty.”
“Afterwards,
to bluntly suppress the cult of the Saints. The Saints must disappear
before God, although it is much easier to kill God than His Saints…
Then, we will proceed to suppress Judgement, Heaven, Purgatory and Hell.
This is all very easy… Many are well disposed to believe that the
Goodness of God surpasses all crimes. All we have to do is to insist on
this Goodness. A God Whom no one fears, quickly becomes a God about whom
no one thinks. Such was the end to be reached. ”
“Such is the compendium of the orders which I sent throughout the world.” (As found at The Confessions of a Communist Agent On The Attempt to Destroy the Catholic Church.)
Although
there were plenty of just plain, ordinary run-of-mill Modernists the
pre-Vatican II era who, though they had to take The Oath Against
Modernism, were attempting to advance such an agenda all on their very
own, the testimony provided by "AA-1025" provides a pretty accurate
description of what was to transpire at the "Second" Vatican Council and
during its aftermath in the "magisterium" of the conciliar
"popes." Pope Pius XII, so preoccupied with World War II and the
subsequent rebuilding of the destroyed Catholic Church building in
Europe thereafter, concerned as well about the rise of the Cold War,
permitted this all to occur even when he was presented with evidence
about the ties of Monsignor Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria
Montini to agents of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics:
An
elderly gentleman from Paris who worked as an official interpreter for
high-level clerics at the Vatican in the early 1950s told this writer
that the Soviets blackmailed Montini into revealing the names of priests
whom the Vatican had clandestinely sent behind the Iron Curtain to
minister to Catholics in the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The
Soviet secret police were on hand as soon as the priests crossed over
the Russian border and the priest infiltrators were either shot or sent
to the gulag.
The extent to which Pope Paul the Sick was subject to blackmail by the enemies of the Church will probably never be known. It may be that, in so far as the Communists and the Socialists were concerned, blackmail was entirely unnecessary given Montini's cradle to grave fascination and affinity for the Left. On the other hand, the Italian Freemasons, M16, the OSS and later the CIA and the Mafia were likely to have used blackmail and extortion against Montini beginning early in his career as a junior diplomat, then as Archbishop of Milan and finally as Pope Paul VI. (Randy Engel, The Rite of Sodomy, p.1156.)
What did Pope Pius XII do after he discovered Montini's betrayal?
Made
him Archbishop of the Milan, the chief industrial city in Italy and a
hotbed of Communism. This was supposedly a "demotion" to take Montini
out of the papal pipeline.
One
of the first things Angelo Roncalli did, however, was to promote
Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Pau the Sick to the
College of Cardinals.
Who made Roncalli a cardinal?
You got it.
Pope Pius XII, the Pastor Angelicus.
These are the mysteries of iniquity.
There
were equivalents of "AA-1025" in Western universities and professional
schools, waiting to climb up the ranks in order to poison the minds of
the young and to shape a veritable "new world order" that has given us
the likes of those who trained Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro and
his claque of handlers, especially Valerie Jarrett. That the "mainstream
media" is composed mostly of kindred spirits to our reigning caesar and
his toadies is no accident, nor is it any accident that between
two-fifths and one-half of Americans of voting age are imbued with some
kind of bent, however ill-defined and inchoate, in the direction of the
false opposite of "naturalism." The ranks of chancery offices and of the
administrative offices of the so-called United States Conference of
Catholic Bishops is filled to the rafters with such kindred spirits, who
are, of course, also to be found in conciliar universities and
seminaries and schools and and "religious education" programs that are
replete with various offshoots of the errors of Russia.
This did not happen overnight. Indeed, as noted in Remember, the Queen of the Most Holy Rosary Does Not Act On Her Own,
the errors of Russia did not start with Bolshevism. They started with
the errors of Photius, that is, of Orthodoxy, of the overthrow of the
Church in favor of making her the servant of the civil state, a
rejection of Papal Primary and of many other doctrines contained in the
Deposit of Faith that would lead five hundred years later to Martin
Luther's own revolution against the Catholic Church that unleashed the
forces of hell in the world. The ironic part of what Luther wrought,
though, is that the forces of hell he released unwittingly gave impetus
to the naturalism that began to surface during certain phases of the
Renaissance that are being used by the devil today to destroy all false
religions, including his own and that of the conciliar church that has
sought to "reconcile" itself with it, for the rise of Antichrist
himself. Even Judeo-Masonry and Marxism will give way in turn to
Antichrist, who had plenty of assistance at the "Second" Vatican Council
and has had great assistance thereafter from the "magisterium"of the
counterfeit church of conciliarism.
Negotiating With Evil
The
counterfeit church of conciliarism wasted no time in turning a policy
of failed diplomacy into one of outright surrender to the forces of
Soviet Communism.
Angelo
Roncalli/John XXIII, long a friend of Italian Communists and Socialists
assisted by another friend of the Communists and Socialists, the
Archbishop of Milan, the aforementioned Giovanni Montini, agreed to
exchange absolute silence about evil of Communism at the "Second"
Vatican Council in exchange for the presence of "observers" from the
Russian Orthodox Church:
In
preparation for the Council, Catholic bishops around the world were
polled by mail by the Office of the Secretariat to learn their opinions
on topics to be considered at the Council. Communism topped the list.
However, as documented in the previous chapter, at the instigation of Cardinal Montini, two months before the opening of the Council, Pope John XXIII approved the signing of the Metz Accord with Moscow officials, whereby the Soviets would permit two representatives from the Russian State Church to attend the Council in exchange for absolute and total silence at the Council on the subject of Communism/Marxism.
With the exceptions of Cardinal Montini, who instructed Pope John to enter into negotiations with the Soviets, Cardinal Eugene Tisserant, who signed the Accord, and Bishop Jan Willebrands, who made the final contacts with the representatives of the Russian State Church, the Church Fathers at the Council were ignorant of the existence and nature of the Metz Agreement and the horrendous betrayal that it represented. (Mrs. Randy Engel, The Rite of Sodomy, pp. 1135-1136)
Why didn’t the last Ecumenical Council condemn Communism? A secret accord made at Metz supplies an answer.
Those
who pass by the convent of the Little Sisters of the Poor in Borny - on
the outskirts of the French city of Metz - never imagine that something
of transcendental importance occurred in the residence of Fr. Lagarde,
the convent’s chaplain. In a hall of this religious residence in August
1962 - two months before Vatican Council II opened - a secret meeting of
the greatest importance between two high-ranking personalities took
place.
One
dignitary was a Cardinal of the Curia, Eugène Tisserant, representing
Pope John XXIII; the other was metropolitan Nikodin, who spoke in the
name of the Russian Schismatic Church.
This encounter had consequences that changed the direction of Council, which was already prepared to open. In effect, the meeting at Metz determined a change in the trajectory of the very History of the Church in the 20th century.
What was the matter of such great importance that was resolved at his meeting? Based on the documents that are known today, there it was established that Communism would not be condemned by Vatican Council II. In 1962, The Vatican and the Schismatic Russian Church came to an agreement. According to its terms, the Russian “Orthodox Church” agreed to send observers to Vatican II under the condition that no condemnation whatsoever of communism should be made there (1). 1. Ulysses Floridi, Moscou et le Vatican, Paris: France-Empire, Paris, 1979, pp. 147-48; Romano Amerio, Iota Unum, K.C., MO: Sarto House, 1996, pp. 75-76; Ricardo de la Cierva, Oscura rebelion en la Iglesia, Barcelona: Plaza & Janes, 1987, pp. 580-81. And why were the consequences of such a pact so far-reaching and important?
Because in the 20th century a principal enemy of the Catholic Church was Communism. As such, until Vatican II it had been condemned numerous times by the Magisterium. Moreover, in the early ’60s a new condemnation would have been quite damaging, since Communism was passing through a serious crisis, both internally and externally. On one hand, it was losing credibility inside the USSR since the people were becoming increasingly discontent with the horrendous administrative results of 45 years of Communist demagogy. On the other hand, outside the USSR Communism had not been able to persuade the workers and poor of free countries to take up its banner. In fact, up until that time it had never won a free election. Therefore, the leaders of international Communism decided that it was time to begin to change the appearances of the regime in order to retain the power they had and to experiment with new methods of conquest. So in the ‘60s President Nikita Khrushchev suddenly began to smile and talk about dialogue (2). 2. Plinio Correa de Oliveira, Unperceived Ideological Transshipment and Dialogue, New York: Crusade for a Christian Civilization, 1982, pp. 8-15. This would have been a particularly inopportune moment for the Pope or the Council to issue a formal condemnation, which could have either seriously damaged or possibly even destroyed the Communist regime..
A half secret act
Speaking about the liberty at Vatican II to deal with diverse topics, Professor Romano Amerio revealed some previously unpublished facts. “The salient and half secret point that should be noted,” he stated, “is the restriction on the Council’s liberty to which John XXIII had agreed a few months earlier, in making an accord with the Orthodox Church by which the patriarchate of Moscow accepted the papal invitation to send observers to the Council, while the Pope for his part guaranteed the Council would refrain from condemning Communism. The negotiations took place at Metz in August 1962, and all the details of time and place were given at a press conference by Mgr. Paul Joseph Schmitt, the Bishop of that Diocese [newspaper Le Lorrain, 2/9/63]. The negotiations ended in an agreement signed by metropolitan Nikodim for the Orthodox Church and Cardinal Tisserant, the Dean of the Sacred College of Cardinals, for the Holy See.
“News of the agreement was given in the France Nouvelle, the central bulletin of the French communist party in the edition of January 16-22, 1963 in these terms: ‘Because the world socialist system is showing its superiority in an uncontestable fashion, and is strong through the support of hundreds and hundreds of millions of men, the Church can no longer be content with a crude anti-communism. As part of its dialogue with the Russian Orthodox Church, it has even promised there will be no direct attack on the Communist system at the Council.’ On the Catholic side, the daily La Croix of February 15, 1963 gave notice of the agreement, concluding: “‘As a consequence of this conversation, Msgr. Nikodim agreed that someone should go to Moscow carrying an invitation, on condition that guarantees were given concerning the apolitical attitude of the Council.’
“Moscow’s condition, namely that the Council should say nothing about Communism, was not, therefore, a secret, but the isolated publication of it made no impression on general opinion, as it was not taken up by the press at large and circulated, either because of the apathetic and anaesthetized attitude to Communism common in clerical circles or because the Pope took action to impose silence in the matter. Nonetheless, the agreement had a powerful, albeit silent, effect on the course of the Council when requests for a renewal of the condemnation of Communism were rejected in order to observe this agreement to say nothing about it” (3). 3. Romano Amerio, Iota Unum, pp. 65-66. Thus the Council, which made statements on capitalism and colonialism, said nothing specific about the greatest evil of the age, Communism. While the Vatican Monsignors were smiling at the Russian Schismatic representatives, many Bishops were in prison and innumerable faithful were either persecuted or driven underground for their fidelity to the Holy Roman Catholic Church.
The Kremlin-Vatican negotiations
This important information about Vatican-Kremlin negotiations is confirmed in an article ‘The mystery of the Rome-Moscow pact’ published in the October 1989 issue of 30 Dias, which quotes statements made by the Bishop of Metz, Paul Joseph Schmitt. In a February 9, 1963 interview with the newspaper Republicain Lorrain, Mgr. Schmitt said:
This encounter had consequences that changed the direction of Council, which was already prepared to open. In effect, the meeting at Metz determined a change in the trajectory of the very History of the Church in the 20th century.
What was the matter of such great importance that was resolved at his meeting? Based on the documents that are known today, there it was established that Communism would not be condemned by Vatican Council II. In 1962, The Vatican and the Schismatic Russian Church came to an agreement. According to its terms, the Russian “Orthodox Church” agreed to send observers to Vatican II under the condition that no condemnation whatsoever of communism should be made there (1). 1. Ulysses Floridi, Moscou et le Vatican, Paris: France-Empire, Paris, 1979, pp. 147-48; Romano Amerio, Iota Unum, K.C., MO: Sarto House, 1996, pp. 75-76; Ricardo de la Cierva, Oscura rebelion en la Iglesia, Barcelona: Plaza & Janes, 1987, pp. 580-81. And why were the consequences of such a pact so far-reaching and important?
Because in the 20th century a principal enemy of the Catholic Church was Communism. As such, until Vatican II it had been condemned numerous times by the Magisterium. Moreover, in the early ’60s a new condemnation would have been quite damaging, since Communism was passing through a serious crisis, both internally and externally. On one hand, it was losing credibility inside the USSR since the people were becoming increasingly discontent with the horrendous administrative results of 45 years of Communist demagogy. On the other hand, outside the USSR Communism had not been able to persuade the workers and poor of free countries to take up its banner. In fact, up until that time it had never won a free election. Therefore, the leaders of international Communism decided that it was time to begin to change the appearances of the regime in order to retain the power they had and to experiment with new methods of conquest. So in the ‘60s President Nikita Khrushchev suddenly began to smile and talk about dialogue (2). 2. Plinio Correa de Oliveira, Unperceived Ideological Transshipment and Dialogue, New York: Crusade for a Christian Civilization, 1982, pp. 8-15. This would have been a particularly inopportune moment for the Pope or the Council to issue a formal condemnation, which could have either seriously damaged or possibly even destroyed the Communist regime..
A half secret act
Speaking about the liberty at Vatican II to deal with diverse topics, Professor Romano Amerio revealed some previously unpublished facts. “The salient and half secret point that should be noted,” he stated, “is the restriction on the Council’s liberty to which John XXIII had agreed a few months earlier, in making an accord with the Orthodox Church by which the patriarchate of Moscow accepted the papal invitation to send observers to the Council, while the Pope for his part guaranteed the Council would refrain from condemning Communism. The negotiations took place at Metz in August 1962, and all the details of time and place were given at a press conference by Mgr. Paul Joseph Schmitt, the Bishop of that Diocese [newspaper Le Lorrain, 2/9/63]. The negotiations ended in an agreement signed by metropolitan Nikodim for the Orthodox Church and Cardinal Tisserant, the Dean of the Sacred College of Cardinals, for the Holy See.
“News of the agreement was given in the France Nouvelle, the central bulletin of the French communist party in the edition of January 16-22, 1963 in these terms: ‘Because the world socialist system is showing its superiority in an uncontestable fashion, and is strong through the support of hundreds and hundreds of millions of men, the Church can no longer be content with a crude anti-communism. As part of its dialogue with the Russian Orthodox Church, it has even promised there will be no direct attack on the Communist system at the Council.’ On the Catholic side, the daily La Croix of February 15, 1963 gave notice of the agreement, concluding: “‘As a consequence of this conversation, Msgr. Nikodim agreed that someone should go to Moscow carrying an invitation, on condition that guarantees were given concerning the apolitical attitude of the Council.’
“Moscow’s condition, namely that the Council should say nothing about Communism, was not, therefore, a secret, but the isolated publication of it made no impression on general opinion, as it was not taken up by the press at large and circulated, either because of the apathetic and anaesthetized attitude to Communism common in clerical circles or because the Pope took action to impose silence in the matter. Nonetheless, the agreement had a powerful, albeit silent, effect on the course of the Council when requests for a renewal of the condemnation of Communism were rejected in order to observe this agreement to say nothing about it” (3). 3. Romano Amerio, Iota Unum, pp. 65-66. Thus the Council, which made statements on capitalism and colonialism, said nothing specific about the greatest evil of the age, Communism. While the Vatican Monsignors were smiling at the Russian Schismatic representatives, many Bishops were in prison and innumerable faithful were either persecuted or driven underground for their fidelity to the Holy Roman Catholic Church.
The Kremlin-Vatican negotiations
This important information about Vatican-Kremlin negotiations is confirmed in an article ‘The mystery of the Rome-Moscow pact’ published in the October 1989 issue of 30 Dias, which quotes statements made by the Bishop of Metz, Paul Joseph Schmitt. In a February 9, 1963 interview with the newspaper Republicain Lorrain, Mgr. Schmitt said:
It
was in our region that the ‘secret’ meeting of Cardinal Tisserant with
archbishop Nikodin occurred. The exact place was the residence of Fr.
Lagarde, chaplain for the Little Sister of the Poor in Borny
[on the outskirts of Metz]. Here for the first time the arrival of the
prelates of the Russian Church was mentioned. After this meeting, the
conditions for the presence of the Russian church’s observers were
established by Cardinal Willebrands, an assistant of Cardinal Bea.
Archbishop Nikodin agreed that an official invitation should be sent to
Moscow, with the guarantee of the apolitical character of the Council”
(4). 4. 30 Dias, October 1988, pp. 55-56.
The same source also transcribed a letter of Bishop Georges Roches regarding the Pact of Metz: “That accord was negotiated between the Kremlin and the
Vatican
at the highest level .… But I can assure you …. that the decision to
invite Russian Orthodox observers to Vatican Council II was made
personally by His Holiness John XXIII with the encouragement of Cardinal
Montini, who was counselor to the Patriarch of Venice when he was
Archbishop of Milan…. Cardinal Tisserant received formal orders to
negotiate the accord and to make sure that it would be observed during
the Council” (5). 5. Ibid. p. 57
In
a book published some time after this, German theologian Fr. Bernard
Häring - who was secretary-coordinator at the Council for the redaction
of Gaudium et Spes - revealed the more profound reason for the
‘pigeon-holing’ of apetition that many conciliar Fathers signed asking
Paul the Sick and the Council to condemn Communism: “When around two
dozen Bishops requested a solemn condemnation of Communism,” stated Fr.
Häring, “Msgr. Glorieux …. and I were blamed like scapegoats. I have no
reason to deny that I did everything possible to avoid this
condemnation, which rang out clearly like a political condemnation. I
knew that John XXIII had promised Moscow authorities that the Council
would not condemn communism in order to assure the participation of
observers of the Russian Orthodox church” (6). . . .
1.
Catholic doctrine has always emphatically condemned Communism. It would
be possible, should it be necessary, to publish a small book composed
exclusively of anti-communist pontifical documents.
2. It would have been natural, therefore, for Vatican Council II, which met in Rome from 1962 to 1965, to have confirmed these condemnations against the greatest enemy of the Church and Christian Civilization in the 20th century.
3. In addition to this, 213 Cardinals, Archbishops, and Bishop solicited Paul the Sick to have the Council make such a condemnation. Later, 435 Conciliar Fathers repeated the same request. The two petitions were duly delivered within the time limits established by the Internal Guidelines of the Council. Nonetheless, inexplicably, neither petition ever came up for debate. The first was not taken into consideration. As for the second, after the Council had closed, it was alleged that it had been “lost” by Mgr. Achille Glorieux, secretary of the commission that would have been entrusted with the request.
4. The Council closed without making any express censure of Communism. Why was no censure made? The matter seemed wrapped in an enigmatic fog. Only later did these significant facts on the topic appear. The point of my article is to gather and present information from several different sources for the consideration of my reader. How can the actions of the Catholic Prelates who inspired, ordered, followed and maintained the decisions of the Pact of Metz be explained? I leave the answer to my reader. (The Council of Metz)
2. It would have been natural, therefore, for Vatican Council II, which met in Rome from 1962 to 1965, to have confirmed these condemnations against the greatest enemy of the Church and Christian Civilization in the 20th century.
3. In addition to this, 213 Cardinals, Archbishops, and Bishop solicited Paul the Sick to have the Council make such a condemnation. Later, 435 Conciliar Fathers repeated the same request. The two petitions were duly delivered within the time limits established by the Internal Guidelines of the Council. Nonetheless, inexplicably, neither petition ever came up for debate. The first was not taken into consideration. As for the second, after the Council had closed, it was alleged that it had been “lost” by Mgr. Achille Glorieux, secretary of the commission that would have been entrusted with the request.
4. The Council closed without making any express censure of Communism. Why was no censure made? The matter seemed wrapped in an enigmatic fog. Only later did these significant facts on the topic appear. The point of my article is to gather and present information from several different sources for the consideration of my reader. How can the actions of the Catholic Prelates who inspired, ordered, followed and maintained the decisions of the Pact of Metz be explained? I leave the answer to my reader. (The Council of Metz)
Giovanni Montini/Paul the Sick engaged in a policy of Communist surrender known as Ostpolik (East
politics) wherein he appointed men as "bishops" in Communist countries
behind the Iron Curtain who were friendly to, if not actual agents of,
the Communist authorities in those countries. These "bishops" had a
perverse "apostolic mandate," if you will, given then sub secreto by
Montini: never criticize Communism or any Communist officials. In other
words, be good stooges for various "people's" and "democratic" republics
in exchange for promoting the false "gospel" of conciliarism.
It
was also Montini/Paul the Sick who sold out the courageous Jozsef
Cardinal Mindszenty, the Primate of Hungary and the Archbishop of
Budapest, Josef Cardinal Mindszenty when the latter, after taking refuge
in the American Embassy in Budapest for a decade following the
Hungarian Revolution in October of 1956, was forced out of the American
Embassy as a result of Vatican pressure and then, after being told by
Montini/Paul the Sick that he remained as the Archbishop of Budapest,
has his primatial see declared vacant by the theologically, liturgically
and morally corrupt Montini.
This
scenario is described by an sedeplenist, Dr. Steve O'Brien, in a review
of two motion pictures about the life of Jozsef Cardinal Mindszenty:
The Prisoner, as it happened, was wrapped too soon because Mindszenty's story, which had seemed to be fini,
had scarcely begun. By 1956 Stalin was dead and Khrushchev was making
some unusual noises. In October the Hungarians rose in revolt.
Mindszenty had no clue of what was happening on the street; his guards
told him that the rabble outside the prison was shouting for his blood. A
few days later he was released and indeed a mob of locals set upon him.
But instead of ripping his flesh they grabbed at the liberated hero to
kiss his clothes. When he returned to Budapest the deposed Reds quivered
over this ghost who would not stay buried, but in a radio broadcast he
counseled against revenge. The Soviets were not so forgiving, and tanks
rumbled to crush this unpleasant incident. A marked man, Mindszenty
sought asylum in the American embassy as his last resort. Now a second
long Purgatory had begun. Pius spoke out repeatedly against this latest
example of Soviet terror but the West, heedless of its own liberation
rhetoric, was deaf.
When The Prisoner was
released, the Church was still the implacable foe of communism. Frail
Pius stood as a Colossus against both right and left totalitarianism.
When Pius departed this world there ensued a moral void in the Vatican
that has never been filled. By the early 1960s both the Western
governments and the Novus Ordo popes decided that accommodation with the
Communists was preferable to the archaic notions of Pius and
Mindszenty. John XXIII and successor Paul the Sick welcomed a breath of
fresh air into the Church, and that odor included cooperation with the
Reds. The new Ostpolitik, managed by Paul's Secretary
of State Agostino Casaroli, hadn't room for Christian warriors of
Mindszenty's stamp. The position of the Hungarian government was
strengthened when Casaroli entered negotiations with the appalling
regime of Janos Kadar. As the Cold War thawed, the freeze was put on
Mindszenty. The American government made it understood that he was no
longer welcome at the embassy. Worse still, Paul sent a functionary to
persuade Mindszenty to leave, but only after signing a document full of
stipulations that favored the Reds and essentially blaming himself for
his ordeal. The confession that the Communists could not torture out of
him was being forced on him by the Pope!
Driven
from his native land against his wishes, Mindszenty celebrated Mass in
Rome with Paul on October 23, 1971. The Pope told him, "You are and
remain archbishop of Esztergom and primate of Hungary." It was the Judas
kiss. For two years Mindszenty traveled, a living testament to truth, a
man who had been scourged, humiliated, imprisoned and finally banished
for the Church's sake. In the fall of 1973, as he prepared to publish
his Memoirs, revealing the entire story to the world, he
suffered the final betrayal. Paul, fearful that the truth would upset
the new spirit of coexistence with the Marxists, "asked" Mindszenty to
resign his office. When Mindszenty refused, Paul declared his See
vacant, handing the Communists a smashing victory.
If
Mindszenty's story is that of the rise and fall of the West's
resistance to communism it is also the chronicle of Catholicism's
self-emasculation. In the 1950s a man such as Mindszenty could be
portrayed as a hero of Western culture even though both American and
English history is rife with hatred toward the Church. When the
political mood changed to one of coexistence and detente rather
than containment, Mindszenty became an albatross to the appeasers and
so the Pilates of government were desperate to wash their hands of him.
Still, politicians are not expected to act on principle, and therefore
the Church's role in Mindszenty's agony is far more damning.
Since
movies, for good or ill, have a pervasive influence on American
culture, perhaps a serious film that told Mindszenty's whole story could
have some effect on the somnolent Catholics in the West. Guilty of Treason and The Prisoner are
artifacts of their day. An updated film that follows the prelate
through his embassy exile and his pathetic end would be a
heart-wrenching drama. But knowing what we know now, the Communists,
despicable as they are, would no longer be the primary villains. (Shooting the Cardinal: Film and Betrayal in the Mindszenty Case)
As we know, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI continued this program as he sold out the underground Catholics in Red China (see Red Army Inside The Vatican).
Jorge Mario Bergoglio is actually taking this all to the next level by
embracing Communists murderers such as Fidel and Raul Castro (see "Respect and Consideration" for Fidel Castro?).
There
can be no room for the consecration of Russia with all of the bishops
of the world for those who are immersed in the errors of Russia, which
are nothing other than the twin, inter-related errors of Modernity and
Modernism. Miraculous consecrations? The minds of rationalists cannot
accept the miraculous. The minds of agnostics must try to "explain"
everything and to discount the miraculous as little more "interior
sentiments," which is precisely the method that the now retired Joseph
Ratzinger/Benedict XVI used to express, although in his typically opaque
manner, disbelief in the actual, physical apparitions of Our Lady in
the Cova da Iria in Fatima, Portugal, ninety-five years ago.
Doing His Modernist Work Right In Portugal Itself
Joseph
Ratzinger/Benedict XVI described himself in 2011 as a "rationalist,"
that is, a person who believes that it is necessary to reason things out
on his own in light of alleged new verities (new truths) that man
encounters as "progress" takes him to newer visions of himself and the
world around him over the course of time.
Rationalism
is of the essence of the Protestant Revolution as it was only logical
for men, having rejected the teaching authority of the true Church that
Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ founded upon the rock of
Peter, the Pope, to trust in their own "abilities" to interpret Sacred
Scripture by explaining it anew with "insights" of their very own.
Rationalism
is, of course, at the very foundation of the so-called "Age of Reason"
or "Enlightenment" that spawned so many variations of what are, when all
of the complexities and intricacies are stripped away, the same
naturalist theme: that God, if He exists at all, has revealed nothing
definitively binding upon all men at all times and that it is therefore
necessary for men to "rethink" basic presuppositions in order to
"discover" the meaning of life and ways of improving man's lot here on
earth.
Modernism
has its proximate antecedent roots in the rationalism of the Protestant
Revolution, replete with all of its own complex variations that
mutations, and the rationalism of the "Enlightenment" that led to reign
of the "rights of man" in the place of the the rights of the Social
Reign of Christ the King.
Although not described by Pope Pius IX as Modernism, the rationalism he condemned in his first encyclical letter, Qui Pluribus,
November 9, 1846, is one of the essential building-blocks of Modernism
as defined, analyzed and condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907:
5.
In order to easily mislead the people into making errors, deceiving
particularly the imprudent and the inexperienced, they pretend that they
alone know the ways to prosperity. They claim for themselves without
hesitation the name of "philosophers." They feel as if philosophy, which
is wholly concerned with the search for truth in nature, ought to
reject those truths which God Himself, the supreme and merciful creator
of nature, has deigned to make plain to men as a special gift. With
these truths, mankind can gain true happiness and salvation. So,
by means of an obviously ridiculous and extremely specious kind of
argumentation, these enemies never stop invoking the power and
excellence of human reason; they raise it up against the most holy faith
of Christ, and they blather with great foolhardiness that this faith is
opposed to human reason.
6.
Without doubt, nothing more insane than such a doctrine, nothing more
impious or more opposed to reason itself could be devised. For although
faith is above reason, no real disagreement or opposition can ever be
found between them; this is because both of them come from the same
greatest source of unchanging and eternal truth, God. They give
such reciprocal help to each other that true reason shows, maintains and
protects the truth of the faith, while faith frees reason from all
errors and wondrously enlightens, strengthens and perfects reason with
the knowledge of divine matters.
7. It
is with no less deceit, venerable brothers, that other enemies of
divine revelation, with reckless and sacrilegious effrontery, want to
import the doctrine of human progress into the Catholic religion. They
extol it with the highest praise, as if religion itself were not of God
but the work of men, or a philosophical discovery which can be perfected
by human means. The charge which Tertullian justly made against the
philosophers of his own time "who brought forward a Stoic and a Platonic
and a Dialectical Christianity"[2] can very aptly apply to those men
who rave so pitiably. Our holy religion was not invented by
human reason, but was most mercifully revealed by God; therefore, one
can quite easily understand that religion itself acquires all its power
from the authority of God who made the revelation, and that it can never
be arrived at or perfected by human reason. In order not to be deceived
and go astray in a matter of such great importance, human reason should
indeed carefully investigate the fact of divine revelation. Having
done this, one would be definitely convinced that God has spoken and
therefore would show Him rational obedience, as the Apostle very wisely
teaches.[3] For who can possibly not know that all faith should be given
to the words of God and that it is in the fullest agreement with reason
itself to accept and strongly support doctrines which it has determined
to have been revealed by God, who can neither deceive nor be deceived? (Pope Pius IX, Qui Pluribus, November 9, 1846.)
Rationalism
is opposed to rationality. That is, rationalism, trusting in man's
ability to "figure everything out for himself," leads to skepticism of
the past and skepticism of most supernatural truths that rationalists
believe can only be accepted if they are made "accessible" to "modern
men" by adapting their expression to the exigencies of a given period in
history.
We
have been eyewitnesses to the endless, tireless, ceaseless efforts on
the part of the conciliar "popes," including Jorge Mario
Bergoglio/Francis, to do precisely this without almost every facet of
the Holy Faith.
The
conciliar "popes," puffed up with overweening pride and oozing with
hubris, have told us that they know better than the true popes of the
Catholic Church.
The conciliar "popes" have known better than anyone else how to re-read Sacred Scripture.
The conciliar "popes" have found the "true way" to re-read the Fathers of the Church.
The
conciliar "popes," including Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and Jorge
Mario Bergoglio/Francis, have twisted the words of various saints and
doctors to attempt to make them witnesses in behalf of the apostasies,
blasphemies and sacrileges of his false religion, conciliarism,
rejecting entirely the official philosophy of the Catholic Church,
Scholasticism, going so far as to refer the philosophy employed by Saint
Thomas Aquinas and endorsed by numerous popes and the fathers of the
Council of Trent as "the philosophical school" of the Angelic Doctor's
time.
Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI knows better than Pope Eugene IV and the fathers of the Council of Florence under whom Cantate Domino was issued on February 4, 1442.
The
conciliar "popes" have known better than Popes Benedict XIII and Saint
Pius V and Clement XII and Blessed Urban V and Innocent VI and Leo XIII,
each of whom endorsed the Scholasticism of Saint Thomas Aquinas as the
true way by which Faith and reason work together as the creature uses
the rational faculties God gave him to to see all things through the
light of the Faith and to accept that we must accept that the
supernatural truths revealed by Him and taught in His Holy Name by the
Catholic Church can never be contradicted or understood in any other
way.
The
Modernist, inebriated by rationalism and the agnosticism that it
breeds, stands the true use of human reason on its head, believing that
contraries can be true, believing that God the Holy Ghost did not direct
the work of the fathers of Holy Mother Church's twenty general councils
and/or that the language employed in the decrees promulgated by those
councils were but temporary dispositions of the truth as it was
understood in the context of the particular age in which those councils
meant, that it is possible and every necessary to revisit matters that
have been considered closed. This is rationalism, and it was condemned
by Pope Pius IX in The Syllabus of Errors, December 8, 1864:
II. MODERATE RATIONALISM
8.
As human reason is placed on a level with religion itself, so
theological must be treated in the same manner as philosophical
sciences. -- Allocution "Singulari quadam," Dec. 9, 1854.
9.
All the dogmas of the Christian religion are indiscriminately the
object of natural science or philosophy, and human reason, enlightened
solely in an historical way, is able, by its own natural strength and
principles, to attain to the true science of even the most abstruse
dogmas; provided only that such dogmas be proposed to reason itself as
its object. -- Letters to the Archbishop of Munich, "Gravissimas inter,"
Dec. 11, 1862, and "Tuas libenter," Dec. 21, 1863.
10.
As the philosopher is one thing, and philosophy another, so it is the
right and duty of the philosopher to subject himself to the authority
which he shall have proved to be true; but philosophy neither can nor
ought to submit to any such authority. -- Ibid., Dec. 11, 1862.
11.
The Church not only ought never to pass judgment on philosophy, but
ought to tolerate the errors of philosophy, leaving it to correct
itself. -- Ibid., Dec. 21, 1863.
12. The decrees of the Apostolic See and of the Roman congregations impede the true progress of science. -- Ibid.
13.
The method and principles by which the old scholastic doctors
cultivated theology are no longer suitable to the demands of our times
and to the progress of the sciences. -- Ibid.
14. Philosophy is to be treated without taking any account of supernatural revelation. -- Ibid. (Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus of Errors, December 8, 1864.)
Propositions
twelve and thirteen apply particularly to the lifelong work of the
immediate past universal public face of apostasy, Joseph
Ratzinger/Benedict XVI (see Sixty Years of Priestly Apostasy and Mister Asteroid Is Looking Pretty Good Right About Now),
and, of course, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who loves every religion except
Catholicism--and who desconstructed Our Lady's Fatima Message but good
during his visit to Fatima five months ago (see Bergoglio the Blaspheming Heretic Lives Down to Expectations at Fatima, part one and Bergoglio the Blaspheming Heretic Lives Down to Expectations at Fatima, part two).
Moreover,
Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's rationalism made it impossible for him
to believe in the miraculous, which is why his denials of the doctrine
of Transubstantiation and of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus
Christ's actual, bodily Resurrection on Easter Sunday had to be cloaked
with layers upon layers of his rationalistic "search for the truth." He
is an incredulous man, which is why he could not accept the fact of Our
Lady's actual, physical presence atop the holm oak in the Cova da
Iria near Fatima, Portugal, ninety-five years ago, and it is why he
found the actual Third Secret of Fatima to be as much "rubbish" as did
Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII when he read it in 1960.
The
now retired "Petrine Minister" sought to explain his disbelief in Our
Lady's actual, physical presence in Fatima in various ways, doing so in
2000 as a false version of the Third Secret was released and reiterating
in no uncertain terms ten years later when he visited Portugal.
Consider
these words, spoken by Ratzinger/Benedict on May 13, 2010, Ascension
Thursday, on the Esplanade in front of the Shrine of the Most Holy
Trinity in Fatima, Portugal:
Brothers and sisters, in listening to these innocent and profound mystical confidences of the shepherd children,
one might look at them with a touch of envy for what they were able to
see, or with the disappointed resignation of someone who was not so
fortunate, yet still demands to see. To such persons, the Pope says, as
does Jesus: “Is not this the reason you are wrong, that you know neither
the Scriptures nor the power of God?” (Mk 12:24). The Scriptures invite
us to believe: “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come
to believe” (Jn 20:29), but God, who is more deeply present to me than I
am to myself (cf. Saint Augustine, Confessions, III, 6, 11) – has
the power to come to us, particularly through our inner senses, so that
the soul can receive the gentle touch of a reality which is beyond the
senses and which enables us to reach what is not accessible or visible
to the senses. For this to happen, we must cultivate an
interior watchfulness of the heart which, for most of the time, we do
not possess on account of the powerful pressure exerted by outside
realities and the images and concerns which fill our soul (cf.
Theological Commentary on The Message of Fatima, 2000). Yes! God can
come to us, and show himself to the eyes of our heart.
Moreover,
that Light deep within the shepherd children, which comes from the
future of God, is the same Light which was manifested in the fullness of
time and came for us all: the Son of God made man. (Homily at the Purported Mass on the Esplanade of the Shrine of Our Lady of Fátima.)
It is very significant that the former "pontiff" cited his own Theological Commentary on the Fatima Message from
ten years previously as he meant to convey, albeit in the obscurantist
manner of a Modernist, that the Faith is purely a matter of the senses
(no room for the intellect here) and that the three shepherd children
had a "Light deep within them" that caused them to "see" Our Lady
interiorly, meaning, of course, that she was not truly physically
visible to the eyes of their bodies. And that is leaving aside the
phrase "the future of God" as no true pope has ever spoken in such a
absurd manner. A Catholic can speak about the future possession of the
glory of the Beatific Vision of God the Father, God the Son, and God the
Holy Ghost. One possessed of a Catholic mind does speak of the "future
of God" as He is without beginning or end.
How did the Theological Commentary on the Fatima Message connect
with Ratzinger/Benedict's words in 2010 to justify a conclusion that he
does not believe that Our Lady really appeared physically before the
eyes of Jacinta and Francisco Marto and Lucia dos Santos? Consider this
passage from that Theological Commentary on the Fatima Message:
Before
undertaking an interpretation of the message of Fatima, we must still
attempt briefly to offer some clarification of their anthropological
(psychological) character. In this field, theological anthropology
distinguishes three forms of perception or “vision”: vision with the
senses, and hence exterior bodily perception, interior perception, and
spiritual vision (visio sensibilis - imaginativa - intellectualis). It
is clear that in the visions of Lourdes, Fatima and other places it is
not a question of normal exterior perception of the senses: the images
and forms which are seen are not located spatially, as is the case for
example with a tree or a house. This is perfectly obvious, for instance,
as regards the vision of hell (described in the first part of the
Fatima “secret”) or even the vision described in the third part of the
“secret”. But the same can be very easily shown with regard to other
visions, especially since not everybody present saw them, but only the
“visionaries”. It is also clear that it is not a matter of a
“vision” in the mind, without images, as occurs at the higher levels of
mysticism. Therefore we are dealing with the middle category,
interior perception. For the visionary, this perception certainly has
the force of a presence, equivalent for that person to an external
manifestation to the senses.
Interior vision does not mean fantasy, which would be no more than an expression of the subjective imagination. It
means rather that the soul is touched by something real, even if beyond
the senses. It is rendered capable of seeing that which is beyond the
senses, that which cannot be seen—seeing by means of the “interior
senses”. It involves true “objects”, which touch the soul, even if these
“objects” do not belong to our habitual sensory world. This is why
there is a need for an interior vigilance of the heart, which is usually
precluded by the intense pressure of external reality and of the images
and thoughts which fill the soul. The person is led beyond pure exteriority and is touched by deeper dimensions of reality, which become visible to him. Perhaps
this explains why children tend to be the ones to receive these
apparitions: their souls are as yet little disturbed, their interior
powers of perception are still not impaired. “On the lips of
children and of babes you have found praise”, replies Jesus with a
phrase of Psalm 8 (v. 3) to the criticism of the High Priests and
elders, who had judged the children's cries of “hosanna” inappropriate
(cf. Mt 21:16).
“Interior
vision” is not fantasy but, as we have said, a true and valid means of
verification. But it also has its limitations. Even in exterior vision
the subjective element is always present. We do not see the pure
object, but it comes to us through the filter of our senses, which
carry out a work of translation. This is still more evident in the case
of interior vision, especially when it involves realities which in
themselves transcend our horizon. The subject, the visionary, is still
more powerfully involved. He sees insofar as he is able, in the
modes of representation and consciousness available to him. In the case
of interior vision, the process of translation is even more extensive
than in exterior vision, for the subject shares in an essential way in
the formation of the image of what appears. He can arrive at the image
only within the bounds of his capacities and possibilities. Such
visions therefore are never simple “photographs” of the other world,
but are influenced by the potentialities and limitations of the
perceiving subject. (Theological Commentary on the Fatima Message.)
In
other words, just as Modernists contend that Faith itself is a matter
of interior consciousness that comes from within so do they believe that
seers such as Saint Bernadette Soubirous and Jacinta and Francisco
Marto and Lucia dos Santos have had real but necessarily "subjective"
experiences that have no actual visible, spatial reality with the eyes
of the body.
It is important to examine the connection between the Theological Commentary on the Fatima Message of twelve years ago and the "homily" given on the Esplanade of the Shrine of Our Lady of Fátima on May 13, 2010.
First,
Ratzinger/Benedict made the point in 2010 that the three shepherd
children of Fatima were able to "see" Our Lady because they had "these innocent and profound mystical confidences,"
meaning that the children had to have pure, innocent souls to see
interiorly what they thought they had seen with their eyes. This
corresponds exactly to what he wrote ten years ago, that "this
explains why children tend to be the ones to receive these apparitions:
their souls are as yet little disturbed, their interior powers of
perception are still not impaired."
My
friends, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI did not believe that Our Lady
physically appeared before the physical eyes of Jacinta, Francisco, and
Lucia. He has dismissed the Fatima apparitions as an "interior vision"
that are designed to move us closer to Our Blessed Lord and Saviour
Jesus Christ and have nothing at all to do with apostasy in the ranks of
those who believe themselves to be Catholics or, Heaven forfend, the
consecration of Russia to Our Lady's Immaculate Heart by a true pope
with all of the world's bishops.
Ratzinger/Benedict
did not believe triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary that he
referred to gratuitously in 2010 has anything at all to do with the
consecration of Russia or the conversion of souls to the true Faith,
Catholicism. Why did Ratzinger/Benedict make reference to that triumph,
therefore? Because it makes life easier for those in the Motu
communities and for Bishop Fellay of the Society of Saint Pius X as they
bask in the false reassurance that their false "pontiff" is a partisan
of the Fatima Message. One cannot believe in a request of a message that
conflicts with good relations with those in Russia, whether it be the
Communists of yore (and the present day, of course) or the Orthodox at
the present time.
If
what happened at Fatima was but a mere "interior vision," then why did
each of the children, when being examined by ecclesiastical authorities,
give identical testimony as to what they saw with the physical eyes of
their bodies? Each had the identical "inner vision"? Logic has never
been Ratzinger/Benedict's long suit as his rejection of Thomism (both
Thomistic Philosophy and Thomistic Theology) has opened up to grow from
young adulthood into an old man, who is now a "retired" antipope, who
has lived in a world of contradiction, paradox and ambiguity which makes
it almost impossible for to him to see the fallacies in what he
presents as "explanations" of the Faith and the events associated with
It.
Second, Ratzinger/Benedict said in 2010 that God "has
the power to come to us, particularly through our inner senses, so that
the soul can receive the gentle touch of a reality which is beyond the
senses and which enables us to reach what is not accessible or visible
to the senses." This corresponds with his statement of ten years previously:
It
is clear that in the visions of Lourdes, Fatima and other places it is
not a question of normal exterior perception of the senses: the images
and forms which are seen are not located spatially, as is the case for
example with a tree or a house. This is perfectly obvious, for instance,
as regards the vision of hell (described in the first part of the
Fatima “secret”) or even the vision described in the third part of the
“secret”. . . .
It
means rather that the soul is touched by something real, even if beyond
the senses. It is rendered capable of seeing that which is beyond the
senses, that which cannot be seen—seeing by means of the “interior
senses”. It involves true “objects”, which touch the soul, even if these
“objects” do not belong to our habitual sensory world. This is why
there is a need for an interior vigilance of the heart, which is usually
precluded by the intense pressure of external reality and of the images
and thoughts which fill the soul. (Theological Commentary on the Fatima Message.)
Why
is it "perfectly obvious" that the images and forms seen, to cite the
false "pope's own example, by the fourteen year-old Bernadette Soubirous
and Jacinta, Francisco, and Lucia "are not located spatially"?
Our
Lady did not actually part the earth and show Jacinta, Francisco, and
Lucia a vision of Hell that they saw with their own eyes? This was
merely an "interior" vision vision of theirs that did not really happen
in time and space?
The
the buds on holm oak tree over which Our Lady hovered as she physically
appeared to Jacinta, Francisco, and Lucia did not change their
appearance as seen by eyewitnesses who came to watch them? They were all
suffering from mass delusion when they saw the following things?
The second apparition - June 13, 1917
Preceding the second apparition, the seers once again saw a great brilliance, which they called lightning, but which was really the glare of the approaching light. Some of the approximately fifty spectators who had come to the place noticed that the light of the sun became dimmer during the first few minutes of the conversation. Others said that the top of the budding holm oak bent down, as if under the weight of something, a moment before Lucia spoke. During Our Lady's conversation with the seers, some of the bystanders heard a whispering, like the humming of a bee.
When
this vision ceased, the Lady, still surrounded by the light that she
radiated, rose from the little tree and glided toward the east until she
disappeared completely. Several persons who were closer noticed
that the buds at the top of the holm oak were bent in the same
direction, as if they had been drawn by the Lady's clothes. They returned to their usual position only some hours later.
The third apparition - July 13, 1917
Mr. Marto, father of Jacinta and Francisco, says that when the third apparition began, a little grayish cloud hovered over the holm oak, the sunlight diminished, and a cool breeze blew over the mountain range, even though it was the height of summer. He also heard something that sounded like flies inside an empty jug.
The fourth apparition - August 19, 1917
On 13 August, the day the fourth apparition was to take place, the seers could not go to Cova da Iria, as they had been abducted by the mayor of Vila Nova de Ourém, who wanted to force the secret from them. The children held fast.
At Cova da Iria, thunder
followed by lightning was heard at the usual time. The spectators
noticed a small white cloud that hovered over the holm oak for a few
minutes. Phenomena of coloration were observed on the faces of the
people, the clothing, the trees, and the ground. Our Lady had certainly come, but she had not found the seers.
The fifth apparition – September 13, 1917
A crowd estimated at twenty thousand observed atmospheric phenomena similar to those of the previous apparitions: the sudden cooling of the air, a dimming of the sun to the point where the stars could be seen, and a rain resembling iridescent petals or snowflakes that disappeared before touching the ground. This time, a luminous globe was noticed which moved slowly and majestically through the sky from east to west and, at the end of the apparition, in the opposite direction. The seers saw a light, and, immediately following this, they saw Our Lady over the holm oak.
All of this did not happen? The crowd did not see what they reported? Were they having "interior visions"? Preposterous.
What about the Miracle of the Sun on October 13, 1917, ninety-eight years ago today?
Was the following report from a reporter for O Seculo, Avelino de Almeida, who had written pieces that were scathing in their criticism of the children's claims to have seen Our Lady,
making up the following story that he wrote about what happened in the
Cova da Iria near Fatima, Portugal, on October 13, 1917?
One
could see the immense multitude turn towards the sun, which appeared
free from clouds and at its zenith. It looked like a plaque of dull
silver and it was possible to look at it without the least discomfort.
It might have been an eclipse which was taking place. But at that moment
a great shout went up and one could hear the spectators nearest at hand
shouting: "A miracle! A miracle!" Before the astonished eyes of the
crowd, whose aspect was Biblical as they stood bareheaded, eagerly
searching the sky, the sun trembled, made sudden incredible movements
outside all cosmic laws - the sun "danced" according to the typical
expression of the people.
People
then began to ask each other what they had seen. The great majority
admitted to having seen the trembling and dancing of the sun; others
affirmed that they saw the face of the Blessed Virgin; others, again,
swore that the sun whirled on itself like a giant Catherine wheel and
that it lowered itself to the earth as if to burn it with its rays. Some
said they saw it change colors successively. (The Miracle of the Sun.)
Is the testimony below about what happened on October 13, 1917, bogus?
From
dawn, our reporter relates, visibly impressed by that calm courage,
groups looming up again, intrepid individuals who pass through, without
stopping for a moment, the small town, whose silence is broken by the
chant of hymns intoned by feminine voices in harmony which contrasts
with the roughness of the men... The sun rises, but the aspect of the
sky is threatening. Some black clouds accumulate, precisely from the
Fatima side. Nothing however holds back the pilgrims who, from all roads
and by all means of locomotion, flock in that direction... Some small
bells on a chain tinkle; we see here and there a cart decorated with
palms. However, the festive atmosphere is discreet; the general manner
is grave, the order perfect ... Towards ten o’clock, the sky is
covered completely and a heavy rain begins to fall. The downpour,
whipped by a bitter wind, beating against the face, inundates the gravel
roads, and pierces to the bone those who did not take the precaution of
carrying an umbrella or some other means of protection from the bad
weather. But no one becomes impatient nor gives up following the road
Whereas
«the low and heavy sky had a very dark color, laden with moisture,
released an abundant and long lasting rain,» during the time of the
apparition, the rain stopped totally. Abruptly the sky cleared: «The sun
triumphantly pierced the thick bed of clouds hiding it until then, and
shone intensely.» (Dr. Almeida Garrett).
This
abrupt change of weather took all the eyewitnesses by surprise: «It was
a day of heavy and continuous rain. But a few minutes before the
miracle, it stopped raining.» (Alfredo da Silva Santos)
«Suddenly
I heard the uproar of thousands of voices, and I saw the whole
multitude spread out in that vast space at my feet ... turn their backs
to that spot where, until then, all their expectations focused, and look
at the sun on the other side ... I turned around, too, toward the point
commanding their gazes, and I could see the sun, like a very clear
disc, with its sharp edge, which gleamed without hurting the sight ...
It could not be confused with the sun seen through a fog (there was no
fog at that moment), for it was neither veiled, nor dim. At
Fatima, it kept its light and heat, and stood out clearly in the sky,
with a sharp edge, like a large gaming table. The most astonishing thing
was to be able to stare at the solar disc for a long time, brilliant
with light and heat, without hurting the eyes, or damaging the retina.» (Dr. Almeida Garrett).
«And
then we witnessed a unique spectacle, the reporter of "O Seculo"
remarked in similar vein, an incredible spectacle, unbelievable if you
did not witness it. From above the road ... We see the immense crowd
turn towards the sun, which appeared at its zenith, clear of the clouds.
It looked like a plate of dull silver, and it was possible to stare at
it without the least discomfort. It did not burn the eyes. It did not
blind. One might say that an eclipse had occurred.» (Article of October
15, 1917) «The people could look at the sun as we look at the moon.»
(Maria do Carmo)
Suddenly,
the heavenly body began to tremble, to shake with abrupt movements, and
finally to turn on itself at a dizzying speed while throwing out rays
of light, all colors of the rainbow: «The sun turned like a fire wheel,
taking on all the colors of the rainbow.» (Maria do Carmo) «It appeared
like a globe of snow turning on itself.» (Father Lourenço) «The
pearl-like disc had a giddy motion. This was not the twinkling of a
star in all its brilliance. It turned on itself with impetuous speed.»
(Dr. Almeida Garrett) «At a certain moment, the sun stopped and then
began again to dance, to spin; it stopped again, and began again to
dance.» (Ti Marto) It is indeed therefore a triple "dance of the sun"
which thousands of witnesses affirm, having contemplated it for several
minutes.
«The sun took on all the colors of the rainbow. Everything assumed
those same colors: our faces, our clothes, the earth itself.» (Maria do
Carmo) «A light, whose colors changed from one moment to the next, was
reflected on the people and on things», notes Dr. Pereira Gens.
«We suddenly heard a clamor, relates Almeida Garrett, like a cry of anguish of that entire crowd. The
sun, in fact, keeping its rapid movement of rotation, seemed to free
itself from the firmament and blood-red, to plunge towards the earth,
threatening to crush us with its fiery mass. Those were some terrifying
seconds.» «I saw the sun turn and it seemed to descend. It was like a
bicycle wheel.» (John Carreira) «The sun began to dance and, at a
certain moment, it appeared to detach itself from the firmament and to
rush forward on us, like a fire wheel.» (Alfredo da Silva
Santos) «I saw it perfectly descending as if it came to crash on the
earth. It seemed to detach itself from the sky and rush toward us. It
maintained itself at a short distance above our heads; but that sort of
attack was of very short duration ... It seemed very near the people and
it continued to turn in the opposite direction.» (Maria do Carmo) «From
those thousands of mouths, relates the engineer Mario Godinho, I heard
shouts of joy and love to the Most Holy Virgin. And then I believed. I
had the certainty of not having been the victim of a suggestion. I had
seen the sun as I would never see it again.»
Everyone Had Dry Clothes
A
last astonishing fact: all those people, who were for the most part
soaked to the bone, verified with joy and amazement that they were dry.
The fact is attested to in the canonical process.
The Vision of the Solar Prodigy at a Distance
A
marvelous thing, the phenomenon could be admired from beyond Fatima.
And even, some perfectly credible witnesses, who were very far away from
the Cova da Iria, related having seen the unprecedented spectacle of
the dance of the sun, exactly like the thousands of pilgrims gathered
around the holm-oak.
observing the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima on October 13, 1917.
In
the small village of Alburitel, situated eighteen or nineteen
kilometers from Fatima, the whole town was able to enjoy the vision of
the solar prodigy. The testimony frequently quoted is that of Father
Inacio Lourenço, because it is the most detailed. But what he relates
having seen, all the good villagers, questioned by the investigators,
confirmed seeing it in exactly the same way.
«In October, I will perform a miracle,» Our Lady had sovereignly
declared on July 13. And on October 13, it was at Her efficacious
gesture that the marvelous "dance of the sun" began: «Then, opening Her
hands, She made them reflect on the sun, and as She rose, the reflection
of Her own light continued to be projected on the sun itself.»
Thus,
the magnificent miracle, it is She Who promised it, Who announced it
three months in advance, and at Her gesture the miracle was fulfilled.
That is the reply of the Queen of Heaven to the instant supplication of
Her shepherd: «I would like to ask You to tell us Who You are, and to
perform a miracle so that all may believe that You are appearing to us.»
A response surpassing all expectations and one of such magnitude, of
such splendor, that no one would dare to dream it possible.
The
witnesses of the event were indeed innumerable, their testimonies agree
and we are flooded with the documents they have left us.
In
the first place, the numerous accounts conveyed appeared at once in the
Portuguese press. It is noteworthy that the first to provide testimony
were the anticlerical reporters. The three articles of Avelino de
Almeida, the one of October 13, immediately before the event, the other
of October 15, edited at Vila Nova de Ourem on the evening of the 13th,
and a third article of October 29, merit a special mention. In spite of
the jeering tone and Voltarian irony which inspire in part the first
article, in spite of the expected anticlerical tones which still appear
in the article of the 15th. These texts from a reporter of talent, one
who besides, is honest and conscientious, are historical documents of
prime importance5. But he was not the only one to relate the facts, for
other reporters were present at the Cova da Iria.
Next
there were the official investigations. In November, 1917, at the
request of Bishop de Lima Vidal, who was then directing the diocese of
Lisbon, the Parish Priest of Fatima led his investigation and questioned
several witnesses of the parish. Unfortunately, he transcribed only...
four depositions!
The
investigations of the historians fortunately compensated for those
negligences of the official investigators. Since Father Formigao, who
obtained from Dr. José Maria de Almeida Garrett, professor at the
Faculty of Sciences of Coimbra, a very thorough account, the most
scientific report in our possession6, all the top historians went to
question the witnesses. Father da Fonseca, in order to verify the points
disputed by Father Dhanis; Father De Marchi, Canon Barthas, Father Dias
Coelho and Father Richard.
In
1977, to commemorate the sixtieth anniversary of the last apparition,
it was still possible to assemble in Fatima more than thirty persons who
had been present at the solar prodigy and who could reveal their
memories.
Thanks
to those numerous testimonies, it is possible to reconstruct a precise
running commentary, allowing us to relive, hour by hour and minute by
minute, this decisive day, assuredly one of the most important in the
history of the world. (The Miracle of the Sun.)
Did it not actually rain?
Were not the thousands of people assembled soaked to the bone with rain water?
Was not the ground beneath them muddy with puddles of water aplenty?
Were not the clothes of those people made completely try in an instant after the Miracle of the Sun?
Was not the ground beneath made them dry as though it had never rained?
For
the retired Ratzinger/Benedict XVI to have contended that the Fatima
seers had a "interior vision" of the "senses" that were not "located
spatially" is to discount all of this evidence as so much nonsense,
unworthy of even being mentioned during his first pilgrimage to Fatima
five years ago as what he believed himself to be, a true and legitimate
Successor of Saint Peter, the very Vicar of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour
Jesus Christ on earth. It is he who is deluded, not the people who
reported as one, with once voice, if you will, the experiences recounted
above.
The
conciliarists have made war upon Our Lady's Fatima Message and her
Third Secret, seeking to turn Our Lady into a witness in behalf of
concilairism, precisely because they do not want to admit that that
Third Secret deals with their own very apostasy as they deceive souls
and blaspheme Our Lady and her own chosen souls such as Jacinta and
Francisco Marto and Lucia dos Santos. It is that simple.
Admitting
that I am agnostic as to whether the following account of the Third
Secret is real and legitimate, I would like to pose the following
question to my readers? What if the account below, as has been reported
on the anti-sedevacantist Tradition in Action website, accurate? Would
this not explain the antipathy of the unholy trio--Joseph
Ratzinger-Angelo Sodano-Tarcisio Bertone--who worked so mightily to
"reinvent" the Fatima Message and to misrepresent its Third Secret?
Tuy September 1, 1944 or April 1, 1944
JMJ
Now I am going to reveal the third fragment of the secret: This part is the apostasy in the Church!
Our Lady showed us the individual who I describe as the 'holy Father' in front of a multitude that was cheering him.
But there was a difference from a true holy Father, his devilish gaze, this one had the gaze of evil.
Then, after some moments we saw the same Pope entering a Church, but this Church was the Church of hell; there is no way to describe the ugliness of that place. It looked like a gray cement fortress with broken angles and windows similar to eyes; it had a beak in the roof of the building.
Next, we raised our eyes to Our Lady who said to us: You saw the apostasy in the Church; this letter can be opened by the holy Father, but it must be announced after Pius XII and before 1960.
In the kingdom of John Paul II the cornerstone of Peter’s grave must be removed and transferred to Fatima.
Because the dogma of the faith is not conserved in Rome, its authority will be removed and delivered to Fatima.
The cathedral of Rome must be destroyed and a new one built in Fatima.
If 69 weeks after this order is announced, Rome continues its abomination, the city will be destroyed.
Our Lady told us that this is written,[in] Daniel 9:24-25 and Matthew 21:42-44 (Alleged Third Secret of Fatima.)
JMJ
Now I am going to reveal the third fragment of the secret: This part is the apostasy in the Church!
Our Lady showed us the individual who I describe as the 'holy Father' in front of a multitude that was cheering him.
But there was a difference from a true holy Father, his devilish gaze, this one had the gaze of evil.
Then, after some moments we saw the same Pope entering a Church, but this Church was the Church of hell; there is no way to describe the ugliness of that place. It looked like a gray cement fortress with broken angles and windows similar to eyes; it had a beak in the roof of the building.
Next, we raised our eyes to Our Lady who said to us: You saw the apostasy in the Church; this letter can be opened by the holy Father, but it must be announced after Pius XII and before 1960.
In the kingdom of John Paul II the cornerstone of Peter’s grave must be removed and transferred to Fatima.
Because the dogma of the faith is not conserved in Rome, its authority will be removed and delivered to Fatima.
The cathedral of Rome must be destroyed and a new one built in Fatima.
If 69 weeks after this order is announced, Rome continues its abomination, the city will be destroyed.
Our Lady told us that this is written,[in] Daniel 9:24-25 and Matthew 21:42-44 (Alleged Third Secret of Fatima.)
I
do not know whether this is the true Third Secret. All I do know with
certainty is that there are some, including the late Mario Luigi
"Cardinal" Ciappi, O.P., who had read the Third Secret and stated that
it did indeed deal with apostasy:
[Journalist
Antonio] Socci also notes that Cardinal Ratzinger had said in 2000 that
the Vatican interpretation was merely hypothesis and not the official
interpretation, but now Cardinal Bertone “demands to impose it as the
official version.”
Socci
goes on to note various facts that support the thesis of two texts of
the Secret: one published in 2000 and another yet unpublished:
• the evidence that the Secret was written on one sheet of paper;
• the evidence that the size of the paper was about 9x14 cm contained in an envelope about 12x18 cm;
• the evidence that the Secret consists of only 20–25 lines of text;
•
the evidence from Paris Match magazine, from Sister Pasqualina, the
confidential assistant of Pope Pius XII; and from Msgr. Capovilla,
personal secretary to Pope John XXIII who said the Secret was held in a
desk in the Pope’s apartment, which conflicts with the 2000 commentary
that claims it was stored at the Holy Office.
"Bertone does not answer these testimonies in his book”, says Socci. The Prelate merely says “the cinematographic reconstructions of the envelope hidden in the desk of the Pope are pure fantasies,” but provides no evidence except his own testimony.Bertone goes on to ridicule the idea that the Secret speaks of “apostasy” in the Church.Socci responds, “I don’t talk about apostasy, but Cardinal Ottaviani and Cardinal Ciappi did.” (“In the Third Secret, it is foretold, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top.” – Ciappi)More hints that the Third Secret speaks of an apostasy in the Church, notes Socci, are found in Sister Lucy’s 1957 interview with Father Fuentes, and in two statements of Cardinal Ratzinger. Bertone vs. Socci (Those who you who read the Italian language can access the May 12, 2007, article in Libero at: Enrico Baccarini - SUL "QUARTO SEGRETO" C'È ANCORA DA INDAGARE di ...)
What?
Ratzinger contradicted himself?
No, really?
Yes, really. He did it all of the time.
The
apostasy of conciliarism was on display in Portugal forty-one months
ago now as Ratzinger/Benedict not only endorsed the Portuguese
Revolution of 1910 and praised the "separation of Church and State"
despite the fact that Pope Saint Pius X had condemned both in Iamdudum, May 24, 1911 (see Mocking Pope Saint Pius X and Our Lady of Fatima)
and as he said once again that the Catholic Church had to "search for
truth," a false belief that is shared completely by Jorge Mario
Bergoglio/Francis:
Precisely
so as “to place the modern world in contact with the life-giving and
perennial energies of the Gospel” (John XXIII, Apostolic Constitution Humanae Salutis, 3), the Second Vatican Council was convened. There the Church, on
the basis of a renewed awareness of the Catholic tradition, took
seriously and discerned, transformed and overcame the fundamental
critiques that gave rise to the modern world, the Reformation and the
Enlightenment. In this way the Church herself accepted and refashioned
the best of the requirements of modernity by transcending them on the
one hand, and on the other by avoiding their errors and dead ends. The
Council laid the foundation for an authentic Catholic renewal and for a
new civilization – “the civilization of love” – as an evangelical
service to man and society.
Dear
friends, the Church considers that her most important mission in
today’s culture is to keep alive the search for truth, and consequently
for God; to bring people to look beyond penultimate realities and to
seek those that are ultimate. I invite you to deepen your
knowledge of God as he has revealed himself in Jesus Christ for our
complete fulfilment. Produce beautiful things, but above all make your
lives places of beauty. May Our Lady of Belém intercede for you, she who
has been venerated down through the centuries by navigators, and is
venerated today by the navigators of Goodness, Truth and Beauty. (Meeting with the world of culture in the Cultural Center of Belém.)
This is the talk of Antichrist.
Does the "Second" Vatican Council represent a "renewed awareness of the Catholic tradition"?
Did
it "accept and refashion the best of the requirements of modernity by
transcending them on the one hand, and on the other by avoiding their
errors and dead ends?
Did
the "Second" Vatican Council lay the "foundation for an authentic
Catholic renewal and for a new civilization--'the civilization of
love'--as an evangelical service to man and society"?
Is
not Modernity opposed to the Social Reign of Christ the King and the
separation of Church and State? So are the conciliarists.
Is
not Protestantism opposed to the Social Reign of Christ the King and
the separation of Church and State? So are the conciliarists.
Do not the lords of Modernity embrace religious liberty? So do the conciliarists.
Do not Protestants believe that it is necessary to "search for the truth"? So do the conciliarists.
While, as Pope Leo XIII noted in Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae,
January 22, 1899, Holy Mother Church rejects nothing that is good and
true in the world, she wants everyone in the world to subordinate all of
their activities to the Deposit of Faith and to undertake them for the
honor and glory of the Most Blessed Trinity, it is nevertheless true
that the Catholic Church does not have to "search for truth." (See Living In A World Of Needless Searches.) She is sacred repository of the Deposit of Faith.
This madness of "searching for truth" is quintessential Modernism as assessed and condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907:
The
chief stimulus of the evolution of worship consists in the need of
accommodation to the manners and customs of peoples, as well as the need
of availing itself of the value which certain acts have acquired by
usage. Finally, evolution in the Church itself is fed by the need of
adapting itself to historical conditions and of harmonizing itself with
existing forms of society. Such is their view with regard to
each. And here, before proceeding further, We wish to draw attention to
this whole theory of necessities or needs, for beyond all that we have
seen, it is, as it were, the base and foundation of that famous method
which they describe as historical.
27. Although
evolution is urged on by needs or necessities, yet, if controlled by
these alone, it would easily overstep the boundaries of tradition, and
thus, separated from its primitive vital principle, would make for ruin
instead of progress. Hence, by those who study more closely the ideas of
the Modernists, evolution is described as a resultant from the conflict
of two forces, one of them tending towards progress, the other towards
conservation. The conserving force exists in the Church and is
found in tradition; tradition is represented by religious authority,
and this both by right and in fact. By right, for it is in the very
nature of authority to protect tradition: and in fact, since authority,
raised as it is above the contingencies of life, feels hardly, or not at
all, the spurs of progress. The progressive force, on
the contrary, which responds to the inner needs, lies in the individual
consciences and works in them -- especially in such of them as are in
more close and intimate contact with life. Already we observe, Venerable
Brethren, the introduction of that most pernicious doctrine which would
make of the laity the factor of progress in the Church. Now it is by a
species of covenant and compromise between these two forces of
conservation and progress, that is to say between authority and
individual consciences, that changes and advances take place. The
individual consciences, or some of them, act on the collective
conscience, which brings pressure to bear on the depositories of
authority to make terms and to keep to them. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)
"By
right, for it is in the very nature of authority to protect tradition:
and in fact, since authority, raised as it is above the contingencies of
life, feels hardly, or not at all, the spurs of progress."
Does Jorge Mario believe this?
"Now
it is by a species of covenant and compromise between these two forces
of conservation and progress, that is to say between authority and
individual consciences, that changes and advances take place. The
individual consciences, or some of them, act on the collective
conscience, which brings pressure to bear on the depositories of
authority to make terms and to keep to them."
Is this an accurate description of what Ratzinger/Benedict called his "hermeneutic of continuity"?
Absolutely.
Indeed,
while warning the conciliar "bishops" of Portugal in 2010 that the
various "movements" (Cursillo, "Catholic Charismatic Renewal, Focolare,
Regnum Christi, Opus Dei, the Neocatechumenal Way, et al.) have tended
to stray away from the direction of the conciliar "hierarchy" when it is
offered to them, Ratzinger/Benedict also praised them for possessing a
"charism" that is identical to the Modernist spirit of "progress"
condemned by Pope Saint Pius X:
In
this regard, I confess to you the pleasant surprise that I had in
making contact with the movements and the new ecclesial communities.
Watching them, I had the joy and the grace to see how, at a moment of
weariness in the Church, at a time when we were hearing about "the
winter of the Church", the Holy Spirit was creating a new springtime,
awakening in young people and adults alike the joy of being Christian,
of living in the Church, which is the living Body of Christ. Thanks to
their charisms, the radicality of the Gospel, the objective contents of
the faith, the living flow of her tradition, are all being
communicated in a persuasive way and welcomed as a personal experience,
as adherence in freedom to the present event of Christ. (Benedict XVI's Address to Bishops.)
New springtime?
Personal experience?
Modernism.
Moreover,
Jorge Mario Bergoglio has given his unquestioned support for the
"movements," which he believes should be left alone by the Roman
dicasteries to let the "spirit" lead them according to their particular
"charisms."
In
the face of this effort to deconstruct the Fatima Message so as to
deflect attention from conciliarism's apostasies and errors we must be
ever steadfast in its promotion. Our Lady gave Saint Dominic de Guzman
her Most Holy Rosary in 1208 to be the chief weapon, after the offering
of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass itself, against the Albigenses heresy.
It remains Heaven's chief weapon to help us combat the power of the
world, the flesh, and the devil in our own lives as well as to win the
conversion of apostates and infidels and schismatics and heretics to the
true Faith.
We
are dealing with forces at present that are preternatural. We are not
going to "will" ourselves out of the apostasies of the moment. We are
not going to "vote" ourselves out of the present chastisement. While a
given article here and there might help one or two souls now and again,
we have to recognize that any and all efforts, whether spoken or
written, to combat the apostasies of the day, will come to nothing if
they are not undergirded by the rock solid foundation of assisting at
the daily offering of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition, offered by
priests who make no concessions to conciliarism or to its false
shepherds, profound Eucharistic piety, and deep, tender devotion to the
Mother of God by means of Total Consecration to her Divine Son through
her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart and by the reverent praying of
her Most Holy Rosary each and every day without fail.
Our
efforts to form our own families so as to keep them unspotted by the
world and unspotted by the apostasies of conciliarism will come to
nothing if we fail to remember the promises of Sacred Heart of Jesus
revealed to Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque and thus fail to keep the Nine
First Fridays.
Our
efforts to seek the restoration of the Social Reign of Christ the King
are fruitless if we do not keep the Five First Saturdays, spending at
least fifteen minutes in prayer before the Blessed Sacrament as we truly
meditate upon the mysteries contained in Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary.
Our
efforts to convince others that the "modern church" is not the Catholic
Church will be less effective if we do not accuse ourselves on a
regular (weekly) basis in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance, resolving
after we have received Absolution from an alter Christus acting in persona Christi to
live more penitentially, giving all of our sufferings and those of the
Church Militant on earth to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the
Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.
We
must, however, be people who are on fire for our love of the Rosary,
which Our Lady stressed in Fatima is a principal means to save our own
souls and to help to convert other poor sinners and thus to save them
from the fires of Hell that she had shown to Jacinta, Francisco and
Lucia on July 13, 1917. Our Lady told Francisco that he would have to
pray many Rosaries to get to Heaven. Francisco Marto, mind you! And we
must convince more and more of our friends and acquaintances to pray the
Rosary. Our Lady wants this. So does her Divine Son.
Consider these words of Saint Louis Grignion de Montfort, contained in The Secret of the Rosary:
Later
on, when these trials were over, thanks to the mercy of God, our Lady
told Blessed Alan[de la Roche] to revive the former Confraternity of the
Holy Rosary. Blessed Alan was one of the Dominican Fathers at the
monastery at Dinan, in Brittany. He was an eminent theologian and a
famous preacher. Our Lady chose him because, since the Confraternity had
originally been started in that province, it was fitting that a
Dominican from the same province should have the honour of
re-establishing it.
Blessed
Alan began this great work in 1460, after a special warning from our
Lord. This is how he received that urgent message, as he himself tells
it:
One
day when he was offering Mass, our Lord, who wished to spur him on to
preach the holy Rosary, spoke to him in the Sacred Host. "How can you
crucify me again so soon?" Jesus said. "What did you say, Lord?" asked
Blessed Alan, horrified. "You crucified me once before by your sins,"
answered Jesus, "and I would willingly be crucified again rather than
have my Father offended by the sins you used to commit. You are
crucifying me again now because you have all the learning and
understanding that you need to preach my Mother's Rosary, and you are
not doing it. If you only did that, you could teach many souls the right
path and lead them away from sin. But you are not doing it, and so you
yourself are guilty of the sins that they commit."
This terrible reproach made Blessed Alan solemnly resolve to preach the Rosary unceasingly.
Our
Lady also said to him one day to inspire him to preach the Rosary more
and more, "You were a great sinner in your youth, but I obtained the
grace of your conversion from my Son. Had such a thing been possible, I
would have liked to have gone through all kinds of suffering to save
you, because converted sinners are a glory to me. And I would have done
that also to make you worthy of preaching my Rosary far and wide."
Saint
Dominic appeared to Blessed Alan as well and told him of the great
results of his ministry: he had preached the Rosary unceasingly, his
sermons had borne great fruit and many people had been converted during
his missions.
He
said to Blessed Alan, "See what wonderful results I have had through
preaching the Rosary. You and all who love our Lady ought to do the same
so that, by means of this holy practice of the Rosary, you may draw all
people to the real science of the virtues."
Briefly,
then, this is the history of how Saint Dominic established the holy
Rosary and of how Blessed Alan de la Roche restored it.
From
the time Saint Dominic established the devotion to the holy Rosary up
to the time when Blessed Alan de la Roche reestablished it in 1460, it
has always been called the Psalter of Jesus and Mary. This is because it
has the same number of Hail Marys as there are psalms in the Book of
the Psalms of David. Since simple and uneducated people are not able to
say the Psalms of David, the Rosary is held to be just as fruitful for
them as David's Psalter is for others.
Ever
since Blessed Alan de la Roche re-established this devotion, the voice
of the people, which is the voice of God, gave it the name of the
Rosary, which means "crown of roses." That is to say that every time
people say the Rosary devoutly they place on the heads of Jesus and Mary
153 white roses and sixteen red roses. Being heavenly flowers, these
roses will never fade or lose their beauty.
Our Lady has approved and confirmed this name of the Rosary; she has revealed to several people that each time they say a Hail Mary they are giving her a beautiful rose, and that each complete Rosary makes her a crown of roses.
So the complete Rosary is a large crown of roses and each chaplet of five decades is a little wreath of flowers or a little crown of heavenly roses which we place on the heads of Jesus and Mary. The rose is the queen of flowers, and so the Rosary is the rose of devotions and the most important one. (The Secret of the Rosary.)
Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI mentioned the Rosary, including, of course, the "luminous mysteries," precisely once during
his pilgrimage to Portugal in 2010. Once. Even unlike his conciliar
predecessor, the very man who deconstructed the Rosary, Karol
Wojtyla/John Paul II, who did preach about the Rosary quite a lot,
Ratzinger/Benedict did not do so unceasingly. He rarely mentioned it at
all. He did so in only one talk during his visit to Portugal, after he
had led a recitation of the Rosary. His words were perfunctory, having
nothing of beauty or fervor of those found in Pope Leo XIII's many
encyclical letters on the Rosary (see Adiutricem, Augustissimae Virginis Mariae, Diuturni Temporis, Fidentem Piumque Animum, Iucunda Semper Expectatione, Laetitiae Sanctae, Magnae Dei Matris, Octobri Mense, Superiore Anno, Supremi Apostolatus Officio, and Vi E Ben Noto).
Bergoglio?
Please,
we don't need any more jokers out there right now as most of the jokers
in the counterfeit church of conciliarism are putting on a really "good
shew," to quote the late Edward Vincent Sullivan, in the Aula Paolo
Sicko now.
The
practice of praying the Rosary was lost between the time of the
Fourteenth and the Fifteenth Centuries. Our Lady gave the Rosary to
Saint Dominic, who used it to crush the Albigenses heresy. She told
Father Alan de la Roche to re-establish the Confraternity of the Holy
Rosary in the year 1460, just one hundred one years before the Battle of
Lepanto.
We
must use this great weapon to fight the errors of Russia today, among
which are quite indeed the errors of conciliarists that can trace many
of their roots to Orthodoxy and those of the "pro-Luther," if you will,
Photius.
What did Pope Leo XIII recommend to combat the evils of society?
Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary:
But
men of carnal mind, who love nothing but themselves, allow their
thoughts to grovel upon things of earth until they are unable to lift
them to that which is higher. For, far from using the goods of
time as a help towards securing those which are eternal, they lose sight
altogether of the world which is to come, and sink to the lowest depths
of degradation. We may doubt if God could inflict upon man a more
terrible punishment than to allow him to waste his whole life in the
pursuit of earthly pleasures, and in forgetfulness of the happiness
which alone lasts for ever.
It
is from this danger that they will be happily rescued, who, in the
pious practice of the Rosary, are wont, by frequent and fervent prayer,
to keep before their minds the glorious mysteries. These
mysteries are the means by which in the soul of a Christian a most clear
light is shed upon the good things, hidden to sense, but visible to
faith, "which God has prepared for those who love Him." From them we
learn that death is not an annihilation which ends all things, but
merely a migration and passage from life to life. By them we are taught
that the path to Heaven lies open to all men, and as we behold Christ
ascending thither, we recall the sweet words of His promise, "I go to
prepare a place for you." By them we are reminded that a time will come
when "God will wipe away every tear from our eyes," and that "neither
mourning, nor crying, nor sorrow, shall be any more," and that "We shall
be always with the Lord," and "like to the Lord, for we shall see Him
as He is," and "drink of the torrent of His delight," as
"fellow-citizens of the saints," in the blessed companionship of our
glorious Queen and Mother. Dwelling upon such a prospect, our hearts are
kindled with desire, and we exclaim, in the words of a great saint,
"How vile grows the earth when I look up to heaven!" Then, too, shall we
feel the solace of the assurance "that which is at present momentary
and light of our tribulation worketh for us above measure exceedingly an
eternal weight of glory" (2 Cor. iv., 17).
Here
alone we discover the true relation between time and eternity, between
our life on earth and our life in heaven; and it is thus alone that are
formed strong and noble characters. When such characters can be
counted in large numbers, the dignity and well-being of society are
assured. All that is beautiful, good, and true will flourish in the
measure of its conformity to Him who is of all beauty, goodness, and
truth the first Principle and the Eternal Source.
These
considerations will explain what We have already laid down concerning
the fruitful advantages which are to be derived from the use of the
Rosary, and the healing power which this devotion possesses for the
evils of the age and the fatal sores of society. These
advantages, as we may readily conceive, will be secured in a higher and
fuller measure by those who band themselves together in the sacred
Confraternity of the Rosary, and who are thus more than others united by
a special and brotherly bond of devotion to the Most Holy Virgin. In
this Confraternity, approved by the Roman Pontiffs, and enriched by them
with indulgences and privileges, they possess their own rule and
government, hold their meetings at stated times, and are provided with
ample means of leading a holy life and of laboring for the good of the
community. They are, are so to speak, the battalions who fight the
battle of Christ, armed with His Sacred Mysteries, and under the banner
and guidance of the Heavenly Queen. How faithfully her intercession is
exercised in response to their prayers, processions, and solemnities is
written in the whole experience of the Church not less than in the
splendor of the victory of Lepanto. (Pope Leo XIII, Laetitiae Sanctae, September 8, 1893.)
We
are in a figurative Battle of Lepanto at present, dealing with
preternatural forces that appear to vastly outnumber those who have
chosen, despite their own sins and failings, to remain faithful to the
authentic patrimony of the Catholic Church and have rejected such
abominations as the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical
service and the "luminous mysteries" (how do the 150 Psalms fit into
the the number 200? what, as a reader reminded me, is "one third" of a
Rosary consisting of 200 Hail Marys? Sixty-six point six; got it?) and
the new ecclesiology and ecumenism and religious liberty and separation
of Church and State. We are hated by our own former friends and
colleagues and by many of members of our own families. None of this
matters if we care to unite ourselves to the Mercies of the Most Sacred
Heart of Jesus through Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary, giving each Rosary
we pray to the Sacred Heart through the Immaculate Heart of Mary as her
consecrated slaves.
Although
we should note with sadness the ceaseless (and ceaselessly clumsy and
transparent) efforts of the conciliar revolutionaries to deconstruct Our
Lady's Fatima Message, we must never be discouraged or disconsolate.
Never. We are Catholics, not brooding or sappy sentimentalists. The
final victory belongs to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. We can plant the
seeds for this victory by our daily fidelity to Our Lady's Most Holy
Rosary. And, my friends, praying the Rosary is not being inert or
passive in the midst of our state of apostasy and betrayal!
We
must make sure not to be in league with the Mayor of Ourem, Portugal,
Artur de Oliveira Santos, who held the Fatima children captive in August
of 1913, and those who are in league with him in the counterfeit church
of conciliarism, who hold all truth captive, including that of the
Fatima Message, in order to promote their lies. As we seek refuge from
the conciliar revolutionaries in the catacombs with true bishops and
true priests, may we always prove ourselves to belong to God by praying
and propagating the Most Holy Rosary of His Most Blessed Mother.
Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?
Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!
Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us now and the hour of our death. Amen.
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.
Saint Joseph, pray for us.
Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.
Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.
Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.
Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.
Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.
Saint Edward the Confessor, pray for us.
Appendix
Material from The Devil's Final Battle on the Deconstruction of Our Lady's Fatima Message (a book that accepts the legitimacy of the conciliar officials)
It
is this part of the Third Secret that causes the conciliar
revolutionaries to undertake their clumsy and sometimes transparent
efforts to replicate within the walls of the Vatican, which is now
conciliar-occupied territory, what the Artur de Oliveira Santos did in
Ourem: silence the Fatima Message once and for all. Consider these
passage from The Devil's Fatima Battle, edited by Father Paul Kramer, published by Good Counsel Publications in 2002:
First, as Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Sodano is literally the most powerful figure in the Church today, given the reorganization of the Roman Curia under Pope Paul the Sick; and, as such, Cardinal Sodano is the de facto rule of the daily affairs of the Church, especially given the failing health of the Supreme Pontiff.Second, owing to the same curial reforms of Pope Paul the Sick, Cardinal Sodano stands at the head of every Vatican dicastery, including the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), which (when it was called the Holy Office) was formerly headed by the Pope.Third, it is Cardinal Sodano who has dictated what we have called the Party Line on Fatima: i.e., the falsehood that he Message of Fatima, including the Third Secret, belongs entirely to the past., and that no one may request any longer the Consecration of Russia. We know this because:
- it was Cardinal Sodano, not the Pope, who announced to the world on May 13, 2000 that the Third Secret would be revealed, but only after a "commentary" had been prepared by the CDF, which, again, is subordinated to him, and
- it was Cardinal Sodano's "interpretation" of the Third Secret that was cited no fewer than four times in the CDF's commentary The Message of Fatima (TMF).
Fourth, Cardinal Sodano, as the de facto ruler of daily Church affairs, has vigorously enforced the new orientation of the Church in the manner of Fatima We know this because,
- Cardinal Sodano took control of the "interpretation" of the Third Secret and its false reduction to a thing of the past, along with the rest of the Fatima Message.
- One day after the publication of TMF, Cardinal Sodano pointedly demonstrated his adherence to the new orientation by inviting Mikhail Gorbachev, the pro-abortion, ex-Soviet dictator, to the Vatican for a bogus "press conference" (no questions allowed), during which Cardinal Sodano, Gorbachev and Cardinal Silvestrini sat together to heap praise on a key element of the new orientation, developed by Cardinal Sodano's predecessor, Cardinal Cassaroli, namely, Ostpolitik, under which the Church "dialogues" with Communist regimes rather than opposing them, and observes diplomatic silence in the face of Communist persecution of the Church.
Cardinal
Sodano's representative, Cardinal Cassidy, negotiated the Balamand
Declaration (1993) which declares that the return of the Orthodox to
Rome is "outdated ecclesiology"--as is, therefore, (according to
Cardinal Sodano) the conversion of Russia to the Catholic Faith called
for by Our Lady of Fatima. . . .
The Devil's Final Battle also discussed the role played by Joseph Ratzinger in deconstructing and misinterpreting the Third Secret of Fatima:
First,
Cardinal Ratzinger, in his capacity as head of the CDF, has on
innumerable occasions stated his commitment to the new orientation of
the Church, which he described as "demolition of bastions" in a book
published after he had become head of the CDF.
Second,
in accordance with this "demolition of bastions", Cardinal Ratzinger
has openly declared his view that Blessed Pius IX and St. Pius X were
"one-sided" in their solemn, infallible condemnation of liberalism, and
that their teaching was "countered" by Vatican II. He further declares
that the Catholic Church no loner seeks to convert all the Protestants
and schismatics, and that it is no right to "absorb" their "churches and
ecclesial communities," but must make a place for them in a "unity of
diversity"--a view that is obviously irreconcilable with the
consecration and conversion of Russia to the Catholic Faith. Cardinal
Ratzinger's view is, to say the least, suspect of heresy.
Third,
one of the "bastions" Cardinal Ratzinger has sought to "demolish" is
the traditional Catholic understanding of the Message of Fatima.
Fourth,
Cardinal Ratzinger sought to demolish the bastion of Fatima in TMF,
which he published under the control of Cardinal Sodano.
Fifth, TMF attempts to destroy the authentic Catholic prophetic content of the Message by the following exegetical frauds:
- Cardinal Ratzinger removed the words "in the end" from the Virgin's prophecy "In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph."
- Cardinal Ratzinger also cropped the immediately following words from the Fatima prophecy: "The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to Me, and it will be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world.
- Having deliberately tampered with the words of the Mother of God, Cardinal Ratzinger then declared that the (predicted future) Triumph of the Immaculate Heart means only Mary's fiat, 2,000 years ago, in consenting to be the Mother of the Redeemer.
- Cardinal Ratzinger thus deliberately ignored the Virgin's prophecy of four future events surrounding the consecration and conversion of Russia, and deliberately reduced them all to one event--Her fiat in 1 B.C.
- Concerning devotion to the Immaculate Heart, which Our Lady of Fatima announced that God wills to establish in the world, Cardinal Ratzinger dared to say that devotion to the one and only Immaculate Heart of Mary means nothing more than following Mary's example by achieving an "immaculate heart" of one's own, through "interior unity" with God.
- By means of this grotesque and blasphemous "interpretation," Cardinal Ratzinger debases the Mother of God Herself in order to sever any link between devotion to the Immaculate Heart in the world, and Our Lady of Fatima's call for the conversion of Russia to the Catholic religion, which must precede true devotion to the Immaculate Heart in that nation since the Russian Orthodox religion does not recognize the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.
Sixth,
Cardinal Ratzinger, following Cardinal Sodano's Party Line, stated in
TMF that "we must affirm with Cardinal Sodano: ...the events to which
the third part of the 'secret' of Fatima refers now seem part of the
past", and (according to Cardinal Sodano's "interpretation") that the
Third Secret culminated with the failed assassination attempt in 1981.
Seventh,
in adopting the Sodano Party Line on the Third Secret, Cardinal
Ratzinger flatly contradicted his own testimony in 1984--three years
after the assassination attempt--that the Third Secret is a "religious
prophecy" concerning "dangers to the faith and the life of the
Christian, and therefore the world", on which occasion Cardinal
Ratzinger made no suggestion that the Secret pertained to the 1981
assassination attempt or any other past event.
Eighth,
in furtherance of the Party Line, Cardinal Ratzinger went out of his
way to criticize Father Nicholas Gruner at the press conference of June
26, 2000, advising the world press that Father Gruner "must be
submissive to the Magisterium" and accept the alleged 1984 consecration
of the world as a consecration of Russia. That is, according to Cardinal
Ratzinger, Father Gruner must submit to Cardinal Sodano's Party Line.
Cardinal Ratzinger's claim is false because there has been no binding,
authoritative pronouncement of the Magisterium--not the Pope, not a
Council, not the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.
Ninth,
in sum, Cardinal Ratzinger, carrying out the Party Line, deliberately
used his position as head of the CDF to lend the false appearance of
theological weight and validity to a shameless "deconstruction" of the
Message of Fatima--an effort so blatant that even the Los Angeles Times
sub-headlined its coverage of TMF and the June 26, 2000 press conference
as follows: "The Vatican's Top Theologian Gently Debunks a Nun's
Account of Her 1917 Vision that Fueled Decades of Speculation." (The Devil's Final Battle, pp. 230-233)
The Devil's Final Battle discusses additional questions about the conciliar Vatican's party line about the The Third Secret of Fatima on pp. 284-285:
June
26, 2000 - At a press conference, the Vatican publishes a text it
claims is the entire Third Secret. The text describes a vision in which
the Pope (a "bishop in white") is killed by a band of solders
who shoot him down while he is kneeling at the foot of a large wooden
cross atop a hill, after having traversed a half-ruined city filled with
corpses. The execution of the Pope is followed by the execution of many
bishops, priests and laity.
Questions abound. (See article by Andrew Cesanek in The Fatima Crusader,
Issue No. 64.) Among those questions is why the published vision
contains no words of Our Lady, even though, when it announced
suppression of the Secret in 1960, the Vatican itself referred to "the
words which Our Lady confided to the children as a secret." The vision
fails to mention the words which clearly follow. "In Portugal the dogma
of the Faith will always be preserved etc."--the phrase Sister Lucy
included in her fourth memoir as part of the integral text of the Third
Secret of Fatima. The phrase concerning the dogma of the Faith in
Portugal is mysteriously demoted to a footnote in the Vatican commentary
on the Secret, where it is ignored by both Cardinal Ratzinger and Msgr.
Bertone, the co-authors of the commentary.
Cardinal
Ratzinger's portion of the commentary specifically states that he and
Msgr. Bertone are following the "interpretation" given by Cardinal
Sodano: i.e., that the Message of Fatima, and the Third Secret in
Particular, relates entirely to events which now belong to the past.
Accordingly, Cardinal Ratzinger claims that the Pope's escape from death
in 1981 is what is depicted in the vision of the Pope being killed. Even the secular media recognize the falsity of this interpretation.
The
published text of the vision contains none of the elements described by
Cardinal Ratzinger in his mysteriously censored 1984 interview in Jesus magazine.
The published vision says nothing about "dangers threatening the Faith
and the life of the Christian and therefore of the world", nothing about
"the importance of end times", nothing about what is contained "in many
other Marian apparition" approved by the Church and nothing about
prophecies "announced in Scripture". Further, while Cardinal Ratzinger
said in 1984 that the Third Secret contains "religious prophecy:"--a
statement he made three years after the attempt on the Pope's
life--he will now claim that there is no prophecy, but only a
description of past events, culminating in the 1981 assassination
attempt.
Further,
Cardinal Ratzinger's commentary scandalizes the faithful by claiming
that the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary is nothing more than
love conquering bombs and guns, and that devotion to the Immaculate
Heart means nothing more than each person doing God's will and thus
acquiring an 'immaculate heart" of his or her own. The conversion of
Russia to Catholicism and the spreading of devotion to the one unique
Immaculate Heart of Mary throughout the world are not even mentioned in
Cardinal Ratzinger's commentary.
Dr. David Allen White summarized the contents of The Devil's Final Battle as follows in a 2002 book review that was published in Catholic Family News:
More
than the Vatican’s "top theologian" were involved in this public insult
to the Catholic faithful, and public insult to the Mother of God. One
of the glories of the new book is that it names and thoroughly explores
the roles played by each of the four prelates who are quite rightfully
lined up as an anti-Fatima cabal. They are Cardinal Angelo Sodano,
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone and Cardinal
Dario Castrillón Hoyos. These prelates have colluded to stifle the
Mother of God, to silence Sister Lucy, to obscure the Message of Fatima
and to promote a new Church that stands in opposition to all of Catholic
Tradition. They deserve to be exposed; they should be forced to answer
to the Catholic faithful even before they stand before their Maker and
are made to answer to Him. Their opposition puts both world peace and
millions of souls in peril.
