by
Thomas A. Droleskey
Today is the ninety-sixth anniversary of Our Lady's sixth and final apparition to Jacinta and Francisco Marto and Lucia dos Santos that began on May 13, 1917. The Church Militant on earth and the world-at-large continues to suffer greatly as the errors of Russia, exemplified in this country by the policies and beliefs of the false opposites of the naturalist "right" and the naturalist "left," prepare the way ever more for the ultimate battle between the forces of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and Antichrist, who has figures aplenty walking the earth at this time.
As noted over a year ago now in Finding Conciliarism's Irreducible Minimum At Long Last, part one, Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII examined the Third Secret of Fatima in 1960 and simply scoffed at it as "not for our times." He disobeyed the Mother of God, who had instructed that it be opened in 1960. An unremitting warfare has been waged by the conciliar revolutionaries from that time to the present in an effort to deconstruct, misrepresent and distort Our Lady's Fatima Message, which is nothing other than Heaven's Peace Plan. Why would these revolutionaries have waged such a relentless war if Our Lady's Fatima Message did not apply directly to their revolution against Catholic Faith, Worship and Morals? This war has been waged precisely because each of them is imbued with the spirit of Modernity, which is suffused with the errors of Russia that are catalogued in part one of today's republished articles, Our Lady Does Not Act on Her Own. The conciliar revolutionaries are the very agents of the errors of Russia, which the cloak in the language Modernism and its latter day "new theology."
Although there are some in fully traditional venues who either reject the Fatima Message outright or who believe that the consecration of Russia to Our Lady's Immaculate Heart has been effected by Pope Pius XII, who consecrated the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary in 1942 of Russia ten years later without the collegial consecration requested by Our Lady of Sister Lucia dos Santos on June 13, 1929, the fact remains that Our Lady's Fatima Message and the spread of the errors of Russia into the Church Militant and throughout the world has continued unabated. There has been no collegial consecration as requested by Our Lady. We are suffering a major chastisement as a direct consequence, part of which involves enduring spiritual robber barons posing as Catholic "popes" and "bishops" in this time of apostasy and betrayal as they continue to "evangelize" a false gospel and offend God greatly on a daily basis, starting with the daily
The Errors of Russia Spread in the Catholic Church Before the "Second" Vatican Council
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 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 this betrayal? Made him Archbishop of the Milan, the chief industrial city in Italy and a hotbed of Communism.
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. 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 Our Lady 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:
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)
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 has continued this program as he has sold out the underground Catholics in Red China (see Red Army Inside The Vatican).
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/Francis (see the appendix contained at the conclusion of Francis: Apostle of Antichrist, 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 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-six 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.
 |
A photograph of part of the 70,000 witnesses as they are actually
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 Ratzinger/Benedict XVI to believe 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 two years ago as what he believes 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.)
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 Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI believe this? No.
"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 calls his "hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity"? 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 does 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).
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.
