Pope is Disturbed over Contraceptive Scandal?

Order of Malta leader Fra' Matthew Festing talks to Pope Francis (AP)

Guest Post by David Martin

Cardinal Raymond Burke who serves as patron to the Knights of the Order of Malta met with Pope Francis at the Vatican on November 10, 2016, and told him how the organization has been distributing contraceptives in Burma and other countries. The pope was "deeply disturbed" by what the cardinal told him and he ordered Burke to clean out the Freemasons from the Knights of the Order of Malta.

To recap, the Order of Malta through the years has been distributing contraceptives and abortifacient drugs through Malteser International (MI), the humanitarian arm of the order. Included in this distribution has been over a half million condoms. Edward Pentin has provided details of MI’s programs in his comprehensive article on the subject. An investigation by the Lepanto Institute provides further information about MI’s work promoting condoms and abortifacient drugs worldwide.

Throughout this period Malteser International was headed by Albrecht Freiherr von Boeselager. An investigation by the Order of Malta found that von Boeselager was responsible for the programs involving the distribution of condoms and abortifacient drugs. This led to his dismissal by the Grand Master, Fra Matthew Festing, on December 6, 2016, who was acting on the advice of his spiritual advisor Cardinal Burke.

Von Boeselager then appealed to the Vatican. A commission was appointed to investigate his dismissal, though Edward Pentin provides extensive and disturbing information about the make-up of this commission, which seems to have consisted largely of von Boeselager’s friends and associates. The Military Order of Malta refused to accept the Vatican's interference into their internal affairs.

On January 24, Fra Matthew Festing was then asked by Pope Francis to resign, which he did. The next day it was announced by the Vatican Secretary of State that Pope Francis was declaring null and void all of Fra Festing’s acts since December 6, thus nullifying the dismissal of von Boeselager. Fra Festing’s resignation was accepted by the Sovereign Council of the Order of Malta on January 28 and it was announced that von Boeselager was restored to his position as Grand Chancellor of the Order.

In short, Pope Francis restored to office a man ultimately responsible for the distribution of condoms and abortifacient drugs, while removing from office the man who tried to ensure that Malteser International remained faithful to Catholic teaching.

The report says that the pope was "deeply disturbed" by MI's distribution of contraceptives. If this is truly the case, why did the pope fire Fra Matthew Festing for dismissing Albrecht von Boeselager for his distributing abortaficient drugs and contraceptives? The pope told Cardinal Burke that he wanted the Freemasons cleansed out of Malta, so why is he upset that Fra Festing removed an agent who works for the Freemasons?

And too, why is the pope allowing Freemasons and U.N. anti-life agents to use his Vatican to advance population control? It is no secret that pro-abortion advocate Paul Ehrlich, father of the modern population control movement and author of the 1968 best-seller "The Population Bomb," has been invited to speak at the Vatican during a February 27-March 1 conference that will discuss "how to save the natural world."

This is deplorable when we consider the possible millions of deaths globally that he and his ideas may have indirectly been responsible for over the past five decades and how he has repeatedly slammed the Catholic Church for its anti-abortion policy. Is the Vatican deliberately seeking to put the unborn to death?

The Stanford biologist, who advocates forced abortion for population control along with every kind of contraception, will be given a platform to lecture the Church on how it should conform to the United Nations "Sustainable Development Goals" of making the planet a safer place through population control.

Hence the pope's "disturbance" over the contraceptive scandal in the Knights of the Order of Malta raises some serious eyebrows. Why isn't he disturbed about Ehrlich's upcoming speaking engagement at the Vatican or about the Vatican's collusion with pro-abortion advocate Jeffrey Sachs who has spoken now at 19 Vatican conferences?

Read more >>

Will Pope Francis Receive his Epiphany?

Guest Post by David Martin

A longing for God means a longing for the Ancient of Days who knows no change. True Catholics are content with God and seek no change, and consider it a great honor to continue in this usual fare of keeping his Commandments. Being led by the Spirit of God, they keep their eye on the Messiah without veering to the left or the right, being ever rooted in His Law. This is what we call fidelity.

This sharply contrasts the mindset of the modernist, who is characterized by a restless need for change. In the same way adulterous spouses get antsy and run after new lovers, so these infidels develop itching ears and cast aside the true and lasting gold of Heaven, and run after the cheap desires of their heart. This is what we call temptation. 

On the Feast of the Epiphany, we reflected on the Three Wise Men who were privileged to come behold the new-born Messiah in the manger. They are called "wise" because they sought only God, and because of this God deigned to reward them by guiding them in a miraculous way to come behold the glory of the God made-man who had been the source of their peace all along.

Now at the Mass in honor of the Epiphany that was celebrated at St. Peter's Basilica on January 6, Pope Francis said: "The Magi experienced longing; they were tired of the usual fare. They were all too familiar with, and weary of, the Herods of their own day."

The Herods of our day are those who advocate adultery and who furiously lash out against the John the Baptists who censure their adultery and who refuse to grant their blessing thereto. The four cardinals who are in dubia of the pope's new policy of granting Communion to adulterers are certainly among the victims of today's Herodian persecution.

The pope continued his discourse on the Magi, saying, "Their hearts were open to the horizon.... They were guided by an inner restlessness, they were open to something new." He hinted that rules and regulations are a form of "tyranny," and said, "Longing for God draws us out of our iron-clad isolation, which makes us think that nothing can change."

The pope's homily is an indirect slap in the face to the saints of history who refused to change and who held tenaciously to the laws and traditions of Christ. But it's also an insult to the Magi themselves by saying that "they were guided by an inner restlessness" in quest of "something new." The implication is that the Magi were looking for change.

Nay, the Magi were holy men who were established in the law and spirit of God, and who sought no change. Being established in peace, God found them worthy to be first-hand witnesses of the newly born Prince of Peace who had been the Author of their peace all along. These wise men were not "tired of the usual fare," but were earnestly in search of its source.

Francis recounts how the Magi in their quest for the Christ Child were first led to "Herod's Palace," which being "iron-clad" and decked with all manner of "outward appearance and superiority," did not offer guiding light for the sojourners in their search, thus forcing them to move on. The implication is that expensive marble palaces that hold to "iron-clad" rules do not lead us to the sight of Christ.

This calls to mind the thinking of Martin Luther, who alleged that the Catholic Church is a man-made "palace" bound by its own iron-clad "traditions and rules" and which offers no guiding light for mankind. Luther's definition of "repent" was to forever leave the Catholic Church and seek Christ in "freedom."

How is it that the Vatican now officially recognizes Martin Luther—a condemned heretic—as a "witness to the Gospel," and is calling upon all Catholic dioceses of the world to commemorate Luther this upcoming January 18-25 as part of the 500th anniversary celebration of the Protestant Reformation? A statue of Luther has even been set up in the Vatican. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/vatican-catholics-now-recognize-martin-luther-as-a-witness-to-the-gospel

Is it any wonder why Francis is now echoing the heretical anti-church mentality of Luther by prodding Catholics to leave Church tradition and flow with the change of our times? The pope himself recently said that "resistance" to change that "takes refuge in traditions" is of "the devil" Pope Francis says that ‘malicious resistance’ to his reforms that ‘takes refuge in traditions’ is from the devil  Has Francis apostatized from the Faith? 

Let us pray that Pope Francis will receive his own Epiphany, wherein the light of holy tradition can permeate his heart and lead him back to the foot of the Cross, so that the Masses he says are not just empty pomp of a new order, but meaningful acts of reparation in acknowledgment of the fact that Christ today is being recrucified by his own Vatican hierarchy.

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2017/01/06/the-magi-embody-all-those-who-long-for-god-says-pope-francis/

Read more >>

Communion in The Hand Undermining the Faith

Guest Post by David Martin

With the crisis of faith ever intensifying, it somehow has evaded the Catholic hierarchy that the crux of the problem has been our casual and disparaging regard for the Holy Eucharist, reflected most especially by today’s errant practice of receiving Communion in the hand.

This is a Protestant practice that was introduced in the late-sixties by renegade bishops to detract from Christ’s divinity and to foment a false empowerment among the laity.

However, the faithful are not empowered to touch the Body of Christ as if they were priests. And whereas this is allowed today as common law, no pope to date has formally approved Communion in the hand. Lay people simply are not consecrated to handle the Blessed Sacrament, so that should they do so, a sacrilege is committed.

This in turn brings on spiritual repercussions and draws the plague of the devil upon the church, so that what is nurtured is an adulterated mindset (evidenced by all the profanation and display of indecency in church), as well as heretical notions about the Sacrament and the Holy Sacrifice (i.e. the Eucharist is holy bread, the Mass is a meal, the Mass is a community gathering, etc.) If Catholics today no longer believe that the Eucharist is the Creator Himself in person, it is because of this diabolical practice that has cheapened their religion and nurtured this apostate mentality.

It was for reason that Pope Paul VI in his instruction Memoriale Domini (May 29, 1969), warned that Communion in the hand “carries certain dangers with it… the danger of a loss of reverence for the August Sacrament of the altar, of profanation, of adulterating the true doctrine."

The late Fr. John Hardon, speaking at the Call to Holiness Conference in Detroit, Michigan, on November 1, 1997, told his audience: “Behind Communion in the hand—I wish to repeat and make as plain as I can—is a weakening, a conscious, deliberate weakening of faith in the Real Presence…. Whatever you can do to stop Communion in the hand will be blessed by God.”

Communion in the hand indeed caters to human pride and warps our conception of Jesus Christ. It serves no other purpose than to nourish contempt for Christ in the Eucharist. It promotes personal uncleanness and fosters the general mentality of transgressing into forbidden realms (touching that which we ought not), which calls to mind the transgression of Eve when she rose up in her pride and partook of the forbidden fruit.

However, the author of both is the devil, who is given great strength to work among us in the Church through this practice. His objective is to destroy the monarchical concept of the Church where Christ is no longer seen as the King of kings in His palace. The ancient serpent seeks to cast mockery on Christ’s divinity where he is reduced to a mere man, “symbolized” by bread and wine, and Communion in the hand has been an effective tool in hand to advance this heresy.

Hence, Pope Paul in his 1969 pastoral letter reaffirmed the Church’s teaching on the reception of Communion, stating, “This method [on the tongue] must be retained.” This was in response to the Dutch bishops who were clamoring for Communion in the hand against his wishes and in defiance of the centuries-old prohibition against it.

The prohibitions against Communion in the hand go back to the early Church. Pope St. Sixtus I (115-125) issued the following decree: "It is prohibited for the faithful to even touch the sacred vessels, or receive in the hand.”

Communion in the hand has in fact received several ecclesiastical condemnations. The Council of Saragossa (380 AD) excommunicated anyone who dared continue receiving Communion in the hand. This was confirmed by the Synod of Toledo (589), known for its staunch defense of Christ’s divinity.

The Sixth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (680-81) likewise forbade the faithful from taking the Host in their hand, even threatening transgressors with excommunication.

The Synod of Rouen (650) condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred through this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege. The Council decreed:

“Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywoman, but only in their mouths.”

The foregoing prohibitions have never been legally overturned. Communion in the hand is simply carried on today as “common law,” and has served no other purpose than to nurture contempt for Christ in the Eucharist. It is no wonder that St. Basil the Great regarded Communion in the hand as “a grave fault.” (Letter 93)

Communion in the hand indeed reflects a lamentable blindness of spirit in not acknowledging the physical and supernatural presence of the Son of God under the species of bread and wine. The light of holy dogma is urgently needed today to dispel this ignorance which is alienating the faithful from their Eucharistic King.

During the Consecration of Holy Mass, the Sacrifice of Christ is reenacted on the altar through the commemorative formula commanded by Christ to his Apostles—This is My Body, This is My Blood—so that upon pronouncing these words during the elevation of the bread and chalice, the substance of bread and wine is changed into the very substance of Jesus Christ, whereby the substance of bread and wine ceases to exist. It is now the substance of Jesus Christ, only and entirely, without any other substance mingling with it.

The acknowledgment of this supernatural Mystery is the first and foremost requirement placed on us by the Church to receive Holy Communion, without which one may not receive. To this end, the Church has always taught that communicants not touch the Host, since it is the very substance of the Creator Himself which only the consecrated hands of a priest may touch.

Hence by allowing lay persons to handle the Host, it tends to erase this dogmatic fact from mind and suggests mightily that Holy Communion is just a formality, i.e. a holy meal, a community gathering, where people can come up in cafeteria fashion to have their “blessed bread.” Yea, it promotes all manner of disrespect, i.e. women coming up in promiscuous attire with holes in their jeans.

Gallop surveys indicate that a mere 30 percent of America’s Catholics believe in the True Presence. And whereas Pope Francis may see the tenacious adherence to dogma as “idolatry,” he needs to understand that his failure to teach dogma is causing his church to fall into the idolatry of human worship where the people at Mass turn to each other instead of to their God in the Eucharist. It’s now become a “peace be with you” church, instead of a place of adoration.

The faithful would do well to consider the conduct of Moses when he approached the burning bush in the mount. The Lord ordered him to put off his sandals because he was on holy ground. And "Moses hid his face: for he durst not look at God." (Exodus 3:6) And to think that this was only a manifestation of God's presence, not an actual physical presence.

With how much greater reverence must we approach the altar where the Creator Himself dwells day and night in full Body and Spirit? Shall we mock Him and do a little dance (guitar Mass), and then stick our dirty hands out and try to make the Lord of Hosts our pet wafer? God forbid!

Thanks to Communion in the hand, members of satanic cults are given easy access to enter     the Church and take the Host, so that they bring it back to their covens where it is abused and brutalized in the ritualistic Black Mass to Satan. They defecate on the Host and crush it under their shoes as a mockery to the living God, and we do nothing to stop this? Among themselves satanists declare that Communion in the hand is the greatest thing that ever happened to them, and we assist them with our casual practice?

Mike Warnke, a former satanic high priest who converted to Christianity, warned the U.S. bishops that allowing Communion in the hand was a mistake, pointing out how this allows satanists easy access in procuring the host, which they desecrate in their satanic rituals.

This is confirmed by Fr. Andrew Trapp of South Carolina, who posted a web-story about a former satanist in his prayer group [Nicholas] who revealed to him how they steal consecrated Hosts from Catholic Churches for the purpose of desecrating them in the satanic Black Mass.

It was for reason that Benedict XVI attempted to reverse this practice during his pontificate.
Cardinal Llovera, the former Prefect for the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, stated in 2009, “It is the mission of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Sacraments to work to promote Pope Benedict’s emphasis on the traditional practices of liturgy, such as reception of Communion on the tongue while kneeling.”

The pope was clear that he did not want Catholics receiving Communion in the hand, nor did he want them standing to receive, for which reason the faithful at his Masses were required to kneel and receive on the tongue. Benedict’s objective was to foster renewed love for the Eucharist and to offset the various trends of our time (guitar liturgy, altar girls, lay ministers, Communion in the hand) that have worked together to destroy our regard for the Sacred Mysteries.

The centuries-old ordinance allowing only the consecrated hands of a priest to handle the Body of Christ rules out lay “Eucharistic Ministers” as well. The Council of Trent puts to shame today’s burlesque practice of allowing lay people to distribute Communion.

“To priests alone has been given power to consecrate and administer to the faithful, the Holy Eucharist.” (The Council of Trent)

Pope John Paul II, lenient as he was in enforcing the rule, made it clear that the Sacred Host is not something that lay persons can touch. “To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained.” (Dominicae Cenae, Feb. 1980)

This stems from the fact that lay people’s hands are not anointed to touch the Eucharist, unlike the hands of a priest. St. Thomas Aquinas beautifully articulates this point in his Summa Theologica.

“Because out of reverence towards this Sacrament, nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this Sacrament.”

It suffices to say that Communion in the hand is illicit, despite the flippant approbation of today’s wayward bishops. Father John Hardon explains: “Communion in the hand began with the publication of the Dutch Catechism with nobody's permission except the bishops—in effect, in principle separated themselves from the Holy See.  One country after another began then to ask for permission, which the Dutch bishops never asked for.” (Speaking at the Call to Holiness Conference, Nov. 1, 1997)

Communion in the hand, more specifically, is tied to the late Cardinal Suenens of Belgium, a known heretic and initiated Freemason (initiated 6-15-67, code-name “LESU”) who introduced this practice to the Dutch bishops in the mid-sixties. Suenens, who oversaw the implementation of the worldwide charismatic “renewal” in the Catholic Church and who advocated married priests, was all about defaming the Eucharist and the priesthood.

However, Communion in the hand goes back to the heretical Arians of the third century who introduced this practice as a means of expressing their belief that Christ was not divine. Unfortunately, it has served to express the same in our time and has been at the very heart of the present heresy and desecration that is rampant throughout the universal Church. If we have “abuse” problems today, it is because we're abusing the sacrament—it’s backfiring on us!

Hence Pope Benedict did his part to try to purge the Church of this abuse, seeing how it has contributed mightily to the loss of the awareness of the supernatural presence of Christ in his tabernacle. We might say that a form of Eucharistic atheism has set in. Poor liturgical discipline has given way to apostasy, so the remedy is to return to our knees and receive the Eucharist on the tongue. Without this basic humility before the Eucharist, our efforts at restoring the Church are vain.

Those who approach the Eucharist in a casual, nonchalant manner would do well to consider this warning from St. Paul in Holy Scripture:

“Whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the Body and of the Blood of the Lord... For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the Body of the Lord.” (1 Corinthians 11:27, 28) 

Comment by A Catholic Life - For more information, please see my prior post entitled Mission: Restore Eucharistic Reverence

Read more >>

The Heel of Our Lady of Guadalupe upon the Global Serpent

 Our Lady of Guadalupe being carried by St Francis while being glorified by the Holy Trinity

Guest Post by David Martin

The first and perhaps greatest prophecy given after the fall of our first parents is contained in Genesis 3:15, where God speaks to the serpent: "She shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel." This verse of scripture references the Virgin Mary's Immaculate Conception and the great power she would exert over the devil, especially in the latter times.

The Virgin's appearance at Guadalupe is certainly no exception to this. The word "Guadalupe," derived from the Aztecan word quatlasupe, providentially means "to crush the head of the serpent," which was precisely the work of the Blessed Virgin in her apparition to St. Juan Diego on December 9, 1531. She appeared on the hill called Tepeyac outside of Mexico City, which formerly was the site of the Aztec temple dedicated to the idol Tonotzin. Her mission was to dispel the magic and indigenous practice that had bewitched that part of the world, and bring the One True Universal Faith to the people. Some 9,000,000 Mexican Indians were converted to the Catholic Faith through her intercession, assisted by the clergy of Mexico. She truly stood upon the hill and conquered the serpent!

The clergy of our time are also called to assist Our Lady in this mission to convert the masses and put down the dark forces that presently bewitch the faithful. Unfortunately, these dark forces today are operating under the guises of reform and renewal, evidenced especially by today's ecumenical escapades and the so-called Charismatic Renewal. As with the ancient sorcerers, these false prophets boast of their work in the spirit, but their spirit is the devil, and what they bring is a new religion not connected with the religion of the Apostles. (so-called renewal)

The problem today is that this false spirit is being promoted through the channels of the Church, which gives it credibility in the eyes of the people, so Our Lady's intercession is needed all the more to squelch this revolt and revive the Church in a true renewal where the faithful can glory in their Catholicity, and not in things indigenous or pseudo.

Yea, the Church stands in dire need of a universal renewal of the Traditional Latin Mass, of which Mary is Queen. She is the Mother of the Church and Tabernacle of the Most High!  The rays of eternity streaming from her sacred hands are needed to dispel the darkness of the global serpent, which today is tempting the faithful with a new-found ecological precept that we cleave to "our common home," and not to things eternal.

The argument that it is the clergy and not Our Lady who have the key role in Christianizing the people holds little water when we consider that it was Our Lady who had the key role in converting Mexico, and this being at a time when the Church was in good shape. How much more should this "Queen of Christians" take the lead when the Church is in the worst crisis of its history! The ancient serpent is paganizing the faithful anew, so the same Virgin Mary who nursed the early Church in its infancy is ready to revive the Church in its final battle. Her day has truly come for the final crushing of the serpent's head.

Let us call upon her then and pray that the Americas be united, not under a godless North American Union, but under her protective mantle, that the people of this hemisphere might cut the pagan dancing and Marxist theology, and learn to be truly Christian in the Apostolic sense, fearing God, and reverencing the Queen in the spirit of St. Juan Diego. What the Blessed Virgin wants is consecrated soldiers who can dismiss the pettiness of ethnicity and culture and embrace that which is universal, so that they can rise above themselves and assist the Queen in dispelling the present-day "operation of error to believe lying" (2 Thess 2:10), as it is being advanced by today's Vatican hierarchy.

Yes, the Blessed Virgin is all about restoration, and returning the Church to its former position of honor as it stood before Vatican II. She calls upon the inhabitants of the Americas to assist her in vanquishing the head of the global serpent, that globalism might finally die, and the true Apostolic Faith may persevere.

Note: The Aztec Nahuatl word of coatlaxopeuh which is pronounced "quatlasupe" sounds remarkably like the Spanish word Guadalupe. Coa meaning serpent, tla being the noun ending which can be interpreted as "the", while xopeuh means to crush or stamp out. It is believed Our Lady wanted to be called the one "who crushes the serpent."

Read more >>

To The U.S. Catholic Bishops

Guest Post by David Martin


To The U.S. Catholic Bishops:


As you may recall, fifty-five percent of America's Catholics voted for Barack Obama in 2012, knowing full well that he was radically pro-abortion. This happened because very few Catholics were admonished that a vote for Obama would make them complicit in the murder of the unborn and would place their immortal souls in jeopardy. A unanimous pro-life vote from the Church would have more than swung the vote away from Obama, but fears of progressivist ridicule and the prospect of losing tax-exempt status prevented the Church from being an effective voice in the election.

This time around circumstances make it much easier for the Church to witness for life, because there is no question as to who the pro-life and pro-death candidates are. And too, one candidate is a woman, so it makes it easy to identify the candidates without mentioning their names.

We urge you to mandate that all priests remind their parishioners at the Sunday Masses before elections that they cannot vote for the pro-abortion candidate and be Catholic at the same time. Remind them that they have it within their power to halt the pro-death bureaucracy in D.C. if they will simply act with one mind to dissuade support for the candidate who aims to make "reproductive rights" the focus of her administration.

May we recommend that priests read the attached letter to their congregation if you are not able to provide them with a statement of your own. The bottom line is that the Church in America has an obligation to witness for life at this time, without which we could cease to exist as a free nation. Christ's injunction to "let your light shine before men" applies now more than ever. More than ever the Church must make its influence felt, for we stand at a historic crossroads, and without faith and charity guiding our actions on November 8, the religious liberty we have enjoyed since 1776 will likely become a thing of the past.

May the Church Militant live up to its title by giving it its best shot for life! We beseech you, spur the troops!



Sincerely in Christ and His Holy Mother,



David Martin

Read more >>

Clinton Campaign Plotting Against the Catholic Church

Guest Article By David Martin

The Clinton campaign is openly discussing how the Catholic Church needs to be further infiltrated with progressive ideology to "foment revolution" that will advance their radical agenda. A newly leaked email shows Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, discussing this infiltration with left-wing activist Sandy Newman. http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/wikileaks-podesta-left-wing-activist-plot-catholic-spring/

"There needs to be a Catholic Spring, in which Catholics themselves demand the end of a Middle-Ages dictatorship and the beginning of a little democracy and respect for gender equality in the Catholic Church," Sandy Newman, president and founder of Voices for Progress, writes to Podesta in an email titled "Opening for a Catholic Spring?"

In response, Podesta assured Newman that he and his progressive cronies have already created organizations explicitly designed to infiltrate the Catholic Church with progressivist ideology. "We created Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good to organize for a moment like this," he said. Note that Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good is funded by left-wing socialist George Soros who is known for funding civil violence aimed at bringing down America.

This report about Hillary's campaign plans to incite revolution among Catholics reveals all the more the contempt that globalists have for the Catholic Church. It is a centuries-old battle between Lucifer and God which is coming to a head, and providence has it that America is to be the stage-set for the final dramatic act. It is hoped that the Church in America can rise up at this time to assist its prospective leader in making America great again.

The powers that be that are warring against Trump and America are the members of the Illuminati, a satanic secret society founded by Talmudists Adam Weishaupt and Mayer Rothschild in 1776. Unbeknownst to the general public, the members of this cabal labor secretly for Lucifer under the pain of death, and as such, are known among themselves as Luciferians. Their objective from the beginning is to abolish Christianity and to enslave man under the tyranny of a communistic one-world government run by a small financial elite.

Hillary, Obama, and Soros are pawns of this cult. It is no secret that Hillary from her early years was enamored with the late Saul Alinsky, whose famous book Rules for Radicals—a favorite of Hillary's—was dedicated to the devil.

Hillary is also a member of the inner sanctum of the infamous Rothschild cabal wherein she and Lynn Forester de Rothschild have a long history of "adoring" Satan together. Wikileaks Reveal Clinton Ties To Rothschilds And Occult Cabal

Their assignment for the elite masters is to crumble America through moral and economic collapse, since they know the U.S. is the only nation left on earth that can act as a mighty dam to hold back the rising tide of globalism. They know that when America the Beautiful finally caves in with moral decay—most especially through the rampant abortions and LGBT agenda that Hillary is pushing—America the Beautiful will fall. The plan is to ignite the fuse of revolution and bring about a state of emergency that will provide U.N. "Peace Keeping Forces" with an excuse to step in with martial law—a plan that Putin has been watching closely.

Already news has leaked that the Kremlin has issued an order requiring all Russian students studying abroad to return to Russia immediately, even if it means cutting their education short. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-11/russian-government-officials-told-immediately-bring-back-children-studying-abroad  Commentators have questioned what this could mean, but when we consider Hillary's long-time alliance with Putin and how she and President Clinton used their positions to supply Russia with $billions and top secret military information, the picture begins to clear up. Russia may want to spare their young-blood from what is about to break out in the west.

It is no secret that Hillary is a Putin lackey who has been executing his design to bring revolution to America. If Putin plays the "Christian" and publicly "laments" America's fall to corruption and revolutionary attitudes, it's because he is concealing his own fingerprints.

Needless to say, America is about to enter upon a pivotal moment of its history when religious leaders need to act decisively to get the right man into office. Guiding America onto a better path is not a political issue, but a moral one. If the bishops of America are not bold enough to admonish Catholics to vote for Donald Trump, they can at least sound the horn about Hillary's pro-death agenda and her work to corrupt Catholic teaching and morals.

If Pius XII ordered German Catholics not to vote for Nazi officials, why can't Francis and his bishops order Americans not to vote for the Feminazi among us? If the American bishops are against Hillary and the American Holocaust she advocates, let them prove it. We have an outstanding pro-life candidate who is ready to go to bat for America, so let the Church in America endorse him, lest his enemy take office and put the Church and the people in chains.

http://www.mrctv.org/blog/released-emails-show-clinton-allies-plotting-catholic-spring

Read more >>

Lay Eucharistic Ministry Born of Communist Infiltration

Guest Article By David Martin

On June 29, 1972, on the occasion of the ninth anniversary of his coronation, Pope Paul VI declared to the world, "From some fissure the smoke of satan entered into the temple of God."

The pope was referencing the diabolical forces that had infiltrated the Church through the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965).

Now a key objective of Vatican II was the empowerment of the laity, in keeping with its theme of "active participation of the faithful." With the Council came the new definition of priesthood as The people of God. It saw whole Church as one hierarchy or priesthood, but in different ranks, with the ordained ministerial priesthood being only one rank of this priesthood. What was proposed was the fallacy that we are all priests of one hierarchy.

"The common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial priesthood are nonetheless ordered one to another; each in its own proper way shares in the one priesthood of Christ." (Lumen Gentium 10)

It is a well known and documented fact that the agents of Communism began entering our Catholic seminaries as far back as the 30s for the purpose of destroying the Church from within. Over a thousand such agents had infiltrated the seminaries prior to 1940. The testimonies of ex-communists like Bella Dodd and Manning Johnson who had testified before the House Un-American Activities Committee more than confirm that these agents of the sickle and hammer had been building their forces against the Church with the intention of breaking in and indoctrinating the faithful with anti-church principles.

Their plan was to first absorb Catholic philosophy and teaching in the seminaries so as to give them inside access to masterfully communicate and pull the Catholic hierarchy away from their traditional roots, so that they in turn would embrace revolutionary ideas and become pawns of ecclesial subversion. The Leninist "clenched fist" ideal would now be applied in a spiritual way where the "empowerment of the laity" would be a means of overthrowing the Church's monarchical structure, so that a new sense of democracy and religious liberty would take precedence over the established rule of religion issuing from the Seat of Peter.

Hence we have the modern-day role of lay Eucharistic ministers that are supposedly empowered to perform the priestly function of giving Communion. Eucharistic ministers indeed have been empowered, but their empowerment is from the dark forces. What we’re seeing today is Marxism in full swing. The insidious efforts of communists to infiltrate the Church are now manifest through this and other like practices, e.g. women lectors, lay liturgists.

It was a well orchestrated plan to undermine the priesthood so that spiritual revolution would later ensue under the pretext of a "renewal."

Bella Dodd said in the early 50s: "In the 1930s we put eleven-hundred men into the priesthood in order to destroy the Church from within." Twelve years before Vatican II, she said, "Right now they are in the highest places in the Church." She predicted that the changes they would implement would be so drastic that "you will not recognize the Catholic Church."

Dodd explained that of all the world's religions, the Catholic Church was the only one feared by communists. Her work as a communist was to give the Church a complex about its heritage by labeling "the Church of the past as being oppressive, authoritarian, full of prejudices, arrogant in claiming to be the sole possessor of truth, and responsible for the divisions of religious bodies throughout the centuries."

The focal point of attack would be the Holy Eucharist, as we read in the memoirs of communist agent AA 1025, whose briefcase was discovered after being killed in an auto accident in the mid-sixties. "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 from 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."

Again AA 1025 says, "In the Mass, the words 'Real Presence' and 'Transubstantiation' must be deleted. We shall speak of ‘Meal’ and ‘Eucharist’ instead. We shall destroy the Offertory and play down the Consecration and, at the same time, we shall stress the part played by the people. In the Mass, as it is today, the priest turns his back to the people and fills a sacrificial function which is intolerable. He appears to offer his Mass to the great Crucifix hanging over the ornate altar. We shall pull down the Crucifix, substitute a table for the altar, and turn it around so that the priest may assume a presidential function. The priest will speak to the people much more than before. In this manner the Mass will gradually cease to be regarded as an act of adoration to God, and will become a gathering and an act of human brotherhood."

The foregoing coincides with leaked plans of the Masonic P2 Lodge in Italy that were issued just before Vatican II. Consider this excerpt from their 34 guidelines that were made effective March 1962.

"Get women and laity to give Communion, say that this is the Age of the Laity. Start giving Communion in the hand like the Protestants, instead of on the tongue, say that Christ did it this way. Collect some for Satan Masses."

Can we understand now why the Church today has been virtually overthrown by the post-conciliar revolution? Vatican II opened its doors and invited these agents of Satan to sit in on the Council and participate in the drafting of its documents. Or hadn't it occurred to us why the 1964 Vatican II Instruction Inter Oecumenici commanded that the traditional prayer to St. Michael at the end of Mass be "suppressed?" (Article 48) Obviously the old devil didn't want the faithful praying against him.

The same document states: "The main altar should preferably be freestanding, to permit walking around it and celebration facing the people." (Article 91) This coincides with the memoirs of the above mentioned agent who said, "We shall stress the part played by the people" and who complained that "the priest turns his back to the people and fills a sacrificial function which is intolerable."

There is no arguing that the faithful are called to have "active participation" in Christ, but this participation will consist in silent meditation on the Passion and contemplation on the Sacred Mysteries, not in assuming priestly functions or engaging in liturgical busy-body activity. We are called to sanctify our souls and to work out our salvation "with fear and trembling" (Philippians 2:12), which means we must respect Christ's monarchical authority and not attempt to assume functions which we are not authorized to perform.

If the Catholic hierarchy would simply follow rules and regulations and keep with the Church’s 2000-year tradition of having only consecrated priests administer Communion, their household wouldn’t be in such a shambles today. If heresy and apostasy now abound, it's because the hierarchy has lost confidence in the rule of tradition, fulfilling St. Paul's prophecy: "There shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but... will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears." (2 Timothy 4:3)

If priests would dump their modernist inventions and let down their nets the traditional way, they would again bring up a marvelous catch for Christ, but if they continue on their present path of change and "renewal," they will continue laboring all night in the dark as they have since the Council.

If the church today is largely ignorant of the physical and supernatural presence of Christ in his sanctuary, it is because of these socialist lay-empowerment movements through which the Eucharist has been profaned. The Eucharist is the very heart of the Mystical Body around which the entire Church must revolve, therefore the members of Christ are dead members if they will not adore His True Body in the manner commanded by Christ, namely, by receiving on the tongue and from a priest only.

It was not without reason that St. Basil declared Communion in the hand to be "a great fault." St. Thomas Aquinas taught: "Because out of reverence towards this Sacrament, nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this Sacrament." (Summa Theologica)

The Council of Trent reaffirmed the Church's continuous teaching forbidding lay people from administering Communion. "It must be taught, then, that to priests alone has been given power to consecrate and administer to the faithful, the Holy Eucharist. That this has been the unvarying practice of the Church... as having proceeded from Apostolic tradition, is to be religiously retained." - The Catechism of the Council of Trent

St. Paul warns that "whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the Body and of the Blood of the Lord... For he that eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Body of the Lord." (1 Corinthians 11: 27,29)

Hence it would be better never to receive Communion than to go up everyday in cafeteria fashion and receive from people who are not empowered to administer the Body of Christ. Though it has become a widely accepted "common-law" practice today, the use of Eucharistic ministers at Mass is illicit in that it radically breaks with the Church's 2000-year tradition.

The argument that Pope John Paul II sanctioned the use of Eucharistic ministers holds no water, since he was very much against this practice. The following is from his Redemptionis Sacramentum, issued March 25, 2004.

"If there is usually present a sufficient number of sacred ministers [priests] for the distribution of Holy Communion, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion may not be appointed. Indeed, in such circumstances, those who may have already been appointed to this ministry should not exercise it. The practice of those Priests is reprobated who, even though present at the celebration, abstain from distributing Communion and hand this function over to laypersons." (Article 157)

How is it that most Catholic parishes today are embroiled in this lay ministry program in spite of this and other like prohibitions? It's because the tumor of communism continues to spread its cancerous errors throughout the Church. The ugly hand of communism has truly reached in to desecrate the Holy Eucharist.

Let us pray that the pope will finally consecrate Russia to the Blessed Virgin, so that the red tumor can be eradicated and health can be restored to Christ's Mystical Body

Read more >>

German Bishops Hail Arch-Heretic Luther as "Teacher of the Faith"

Guest Article By David Martin

The Catholic bishops of Germany are praising Martin Luther, calling him a "Gospel witness and teacher of the Faith" and lamenting that the Church hasn't given him an "adequate hearing."

In a report released August 9th by the German Bishops' Conference, Bishop Gerhard Feige, chairman of the German Bishops' Ecumenical Commission, says the "history of the Reformation has encountered a changeable reception in the Catholic Church, where its event and protagonists were long seen in a negative, derogatory light." The report asserts that theological differences have been "re-evaluated," and that "the Catholic Church may recognize today what was important in the Reformation."

Are the German bishops daring to question the Church's denunciation of Martin Luther? Are they accusing the Council of Trent of having been "derogatory" after it rightfully refuted Luther's errors for the greater liberty of God's people? If there is one person of history who could be called derogatory, it is Martin Luther. Consider his own words about the Catholic Church:

"We too were formerly stuck in the behind of this hellish whore, the new church of the pope... so that we regret having spent so much time and energy in that vile h***. But God be praised and thanked that he rescued us from the scarlet whore." (Luther's Works, Vol. 41, p. 206)

Again Luther says: "I can with good conscience consider the pope a fart-ass and an enemy of God. He cannot consider me an ass, for he knows that I am more learned in the Scriptures than he and all his asses are." (p. 344) "The papal ass wants to be lord of the church, although he is not a Christian, believes nothing, and can no longer do anything but fart like an ass." (p. 358)

We seem to forget that Luther was a raving heretic who was driven by the devil to tear the Faith asunder in Europe. His definition of "repentance" was to reject Catholicism, evidenced by his hateful words against the Mass: "It is indeed upon the Mass as on a rock that the whole papal system is built, with its monasteries, its bishoprics, its collegiate churches, its altars, its ministries, its doctrine, i.e., with all its guts. All these cannot fail to crumble once their sacrilegious and abominable Mass falls." (Martin Luther, Against Henry, King of England, 1522, Werke, Vol. X, p. 220.)

Luther also contributed mightily to the mass murder of 70,000-100,000 peasants during the German Peasant War (1524-1525), which his Reformation helped to spark. Consider the following from Luther: "To kill a peasant is not murder; it is helping to extinguish the conflagration. Therefore let whoever can, smite, slay, and stab them secretly or openly, remembering that nothing can be more poisonous, hurtful or devilish than a rebel…. On the obstinate, hardened, blinded peasants let no one have mercy, but let whoever is able, hew, stab, and slay them like mad dogs." (Erlangen Edition of Luther’s Works, Vol. 24)

In 1526 Luther justified his killing of the peasants, saying, "I, Martin Luther, have during the rebellion slain all the peasants, for it was I who ordered them to be struck dead." (Erlangen LW, Vol. 59, p. 284)

Luther furthermore blasphemed Christ, thus revealing his deficit of faith. For instance he said, "Christ committed adultery first of all with the woman at the well… Secondly with Mary Magdalene, and thirdly with the woman taken in adultery." (Luther’s Works, American Edition, Volume 54, p. 154, Concordia Publishing House)

As for his teaching on salvation and justification, the man was a theological crackpot who called humble contrition "hypocrisy" and who insisted that Jesus died on the cross so that we may sin freely without the fear of eternal punishment. Consider Luther’s own words:

“Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly... No sin will separate us from the Christ, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day.” (From Luther’s letter to Philip Melanchthon, August 1, 1521, LW Vol. 48, pp. 281-282)

Each one of Luther’s charges against the Catholic Church were irrational and false. For instance he accused the clergy of "selling indulgences" in the confessional, which is not true. When penitents came to confession it was common at that time for priests to administer a penance in the form of having them place money in the Church’s treasury, because funds were needed to complete the Basilica of St. Peters in Rome. We might say a Peter’s pence was being raised, which should have excited praise, but this infuriated Luther because he couldn’t tolerate the idea of funding the "papal pig" and his palace.

If Luther had all the classic markings of a Freemason, it was precisely because he was an honorary member of the Rosicrucian Freemasons, which would explain why he rejected six books of the Bible and why he spearheaded his heinous revolt against Christ which led half of Europe away from the Christian Faith.
     
Had it not occurred to the German bishops that Luther was possessed by Satan? Certainly he was Lucifer's pawn, tearing and breaking, and ripping the Church to pieces, because he disagreed with Christ. It was for reason that Pope Leo X dubbed Luther "the wild boar loose in the vineyard." He was the classic hypocrite and Pharisee, constantly "justifying" himself and accusing everyone of what he himself was guilty of. What could be said of the worst pagans and infidels of history would especially apply to Luther: he had no "faith" or "grace."

The Catholic Church committed no fault in its response to the so-called Reformation five centuries ago, which means there must be no apologies made. The papal condemnation of Luther in 1521 was truly the work of the Holy Spirit, and remains binding upon the faithful to this day. Any attempts to exonerate or "reevaluate" Martin Luther incurs the guilt of serious sin. Shall we exonerate Hitler too?

http://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/german-catholic-bishops-praise-arch-heretic-martin-luther

Read more >>

Pope Francis: "The World is At War." But With Whom?

Guest Article by David Martin

The pope said Wednesday that the "world is at war," but denied that religion is to blame. Does he not realize that the war within the Church is what has incited a spirit of war throughout the world? If the Church is "attacking itself" from within (Pope Paul VI), how do we expect the world to be at peace from without?

If the world is at war, it's because of the war against tradition that rages within the Church. If the world is in darkness, it is because the Church is in darkness, fulfilling the prophecy of Our Lady at La Salette: "The Church will be in eclipse, the world will be in dismay." (1846)

Hence, the pope holds a measure of responsibility. The present papal administration has served to divide the Universal Church, while strengthening the unity of the global synagogue—the fomenter of all the wars. While Francis sets up barriers against ecclesial unity by forbidding religious of one country to take up residence in another, he declares it a sin to set up barriers against the jihad refugees that want to break into our western countries. The bloodshed in Europe, including the beheading of the good priest in France, is in fact a religious war. Fr. Hamel was martyred by one who deliberately sought to defame the name of the Catholic Church, yet the pope exonerates the Muslims by saying the attacks are not "a war of religion."

Let us pray for Pope Francis, but with true purpose. 

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2016/07/27/fr-hamel-was-martyred-in-odium-fidei-says-archbishop-fisher/

Read more >>

Francis Open to Women Deacons?

Guest Article by David Martin

In an interview with journalists on June 26, Pope Francis feigned anger and surprise over two-month-old reports that he has opened the door to allowing women deacons in the Catholic Church.

"The first to be surprised by this news was me," the Pope said on June 26 during an in-flight press briefing en route to Rome following his three-day visit to Armenia. "They said: 'The Church opens the door to deaconesses.' Really? I am a bit angry because this is not telling the truth of things."

Nice try, but his speech in fact indicates he is open to the idea, since he admitted to journalists that he agreed to study the question of women deacons. "We had heard that in the first centuries there were deaconesses, the pope said. "One could study this and one could make a commission. Nothing more has been requested."

Herein we see applied the typical modernist ploy of pretending a theological question is open for discussion when in fact it has already been decided by the Church for centuries. If Francis is open to studying the question of women deacons, then clearly he is open to allowing them. If he was truly against women deacons and was resolved never to allow such a thing, he would never consider a commission to study this.

Nor would he be open to feminists that are proposing this. It was their clamor for women deacons this past spring that led him to study this question. In a special audience on May 12, the pope addressed 800 members of the International Union of Superiors General (USIG) which largely focuses on the role of women in the Church, and obstacles "hindering" it. The question was raised as to whether or not there were ordained women deacons in the early Church, at which time one of the sisters asked the pope: "Why not construct an official commission that might study the question" of opening the diaconate to women.

"I believe yes," the pope said. "It would do good for the Church to clarify this point. I am in agreement. I will speak to do something like this," adding later that "it seems useful to me to have a commission that would clarify this well."
The pope's action indeed has opened the door to women deacons, which in turn has been a spur for feminists.

Of such women Francis said on June 26, "Woman's thought is important." Noting how women think differently from men, he said, "One cannot make a good decision without listening to women." Oh Really? Adam listened to Eve, and look what happened to the human race! Is Francis advocating that the clergy should do the same?

His aberration of seeing women as authorities is seen in his General Audience of April 15, 2015, in which he said that "more weight and more authority must be given to women," emphasizing that women should not only be heard, but be given a "recognized authority."

With this same frame of reference, the pope earlier this year sanctioned a special section of L'Osservatore Romano entitled "Women-Church-World," in which three writers have been calling for a reexamination of Church policy. Since March 1 the Vatican's official newspaper has been publishing essays suggesting that women now be allowed to give homilies at Mass.

Sister Catherine Aubin, a Dominican theologian, argues that women should be allowed to lead spiritual retreats and do homilies at Mass. She asks, "Why can’t women also preach in front of everyone during the celebration of Mass?"

Sister Madeleine Fredell who preaches to various ecumenical congregations including the Lutheran Church, says, "I believe that listening to the voice of women at the time of the homily would enrich our Catholic worship."

These are the very people—these and others like them—that have been clamoring for a commission to examine the question of women deacons. Unfortunately, the idea of women deacons, as with women homilists, lectors, speakers, and Eucharistic ministers, is a closed book, as it completely breaks with the Church's 2000 year tradition. According to Christ, His Apostles, and the saints, women have no business on the altar, nor is it their place to lecture in the Church.

St. Paul is to the point. "Let women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted them to speak, but to be subject, as also the law saith... For it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church." (1 Corinthians 14:34,35)

Francis should close his ears to feminists and be open only to the Holy Spirit. Has feminism not brought with it enough promiscuity, abuse, and abortion for the pope to not know it is sinful? Does he not realize that in the same way sin entered the world through Eve, it is now entering upon his church through the brazen followers of Eve? If Pope Pius XI rightfully condemned women's participation in ministry as "a grave disorder to eliminate at all cost" (Quadragesima Anno), why would Francis now applaud such a thing?

What we're seeing today in Rome is a distrust and contempt for the eternal ordinance which God in His goodness had established for His Church in the beginning. Somehow our "theologians" of today feel that tradition is outdated and is no longer effective in saving souls, despite the fact that it has so beautifully stood the test of time.

St. Paul offers the cure for this ill that would have us cast off the continuous guidance of the Holy Spirit. "Extinguish not the spirit. Despise not prophecies. But prove all things; hold fast that which is good." (1 Thessalonians 5:19-21)

Sources:

• http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-francis-angry-over-media-slant-on-women-deacons-55348/
• http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-francis-says-hes-open-to-studying-the-female-diaconate-94916/

1st Photo Source: Casa Rosada (Argentina Presidency of the Nation), 2013

Read more >>

Collegial Papacy Undermining Primacy of Pope

Guest Article By David Martin

In the wake of all the turmoil and confusion that has plagued the papacy since Benedict XVI resigned in February 2013, a Vatican Archbishop has inadvertently shed light on the situation, saying there was already a plan in the works to expand the Petrine ministry to something new.

In a revealing speech at a May 20 book launch in Rome, Archbishop Georg Gänswein who serves as prefect of the Pontifical Household reflected on what he saw as a new development of the papacy, and offered comments on Benedict’s resignation. "Before and after his resignation, Pope Benedict has viewed his task as participation in the papal ministry," Gänswein said.

News media quoted the archbishop as saying that Benedict never abandoned the Petrine ministry, but has now "built a personal office with a collegial and synodal dimension, almost a communal ministry." Gänswein explained the reformed papacy, saying there are "not two popes but de facto an expanded ministry, with an active member and a contemplative member."

Obviously this was never Pope Benedict's idea of the papacy before his election, nor did he ever show signs of wanting to abdicate the Papal Throne. Credible reports in the past year in fact indicate that Benedict XVI was coerced into resigning, and it appears his persecutors pressured him into accepting this idea of an "expanded" papacy, which now provides him with a skillful means of smoothing over what otherwise could be a very humiliating situation when asked why he fled the cross.

The scenario was already foreshadowed in the Holy Father's inaugural speech of April 24, 2005, when he said: "Pray for me, that I may not flee for fear of the wolves." Apparently not enough prayers were offered for the Holy Father, because Benedict XVI did flee for fear of the wolves.

We know from Cardinal Danneels of Brussels that he was part of a radical "mafia" reformist group opposed to Benedict XVI. Danneels, known for his support of abortion, LGBT rights, gay-marriage, and pornography said in a taped interview last September that he and several cardinals were part of this "mafia" club which bore the name of St. Gallen. He said the group was calling for drastic changes in the Church, to make it "much more modern," and that the plan all along was to have Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio [Francis] head it. http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/cardinal-danneels-part-of-mafia-club-opposed-to-benedict-xvi/#ixzz4ArrcdGGE

This infamous clique which is documented in Austen Ivereigh's biography of Pope Francis, The Great Reformer, comprised the key members of the Vatican "gay-lobby" which held the reigns and created so much chaos at the October 2014-2015 Synods on the Family. According to some reports, lobby members threatened Pope Benedict with extortion prior to his resignation.

Benedict now denies this conspiracy, because it's too embarrassing to speak of and he feels it will scandalize the Church, but clearly there was this plan in the works to "expand" the papacy to communal dimensions. Unfortunately, Gänswein sidesteps the conspiratorial element of the plan by presenting it as Benedict's design, and this unfortunately maximizes its credibility before the Church.  

With a "two-headed" papacy established, it opens the door to a four-headed papacy, and then a collegial papacy where the enemies of the Church can collectively be "pope." What we are seeing is the plan of the Freemasons to undermine the Primacy of Peter, a thread that started at Vatican II. There is no such thing as an "expanded" or "collegial" papacy with a "synodal dimension." Such a thing has never existed in the 2000-year history of the Church, nor is there any "God of surprises" who will come along to start such a heresy.

There have been anti-popes of the past when more than one claimant contended over the Chair of Peter, yes, but there was never a mutual consensus to a collegial papacy. There can only be one human representative of the Petrine Office, because Christ has only one Vicar upon earth, not two. (Matthew 16:18)  What we have today is a "pope of surprises" who has opened the door to this ecclesial twilight zone, but if Francis be the pope, what is Benedict XVI? Consider Pope Benedict's answer.

"Here, allow me to go back once again to 19 April 2005. The real gravity of the decision was also due to the fact that from that moment on I was engaged always and forever by the Lord. Always – anyone who accepts the Petrine ministry no longer has any privacy. He belongs always and completely to everyone, to the whole Church. In a manner of speaking, the private dimension of his life is completely eliminated." ... "The 'always' is also a "forever" – there can no longer be a return to the private sphere. My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this." (Pope Benedict XVI at the General Audience of February 27, 2013, on the eve of his resignation)

According to Benedict XVI, he is still pope. And whereas he assumes a "contemplative" and not "active" role in the Petrine ministry, he has not renounced his Petrine character, nor is that character diminished. He is still pope, wholly and entirely. Yet, there can only be one pope. So what is Francis? Has God through some mysterious decree deigned to momentarily sanction a two-headed pope in order to prevent the reign of an anti-pope?

In hindsight we can understand why lighting struck twice on the dome of St. Peter's Basilica just hours after Benedict XVI announced his resignation on February 10, 2013. Was God angry or what? Should the Lord be happy that His Palace on earth is being turned into a sodomite merry-go-round in the name of mercy? Benedict's resignation opened a can of toxic worms, so what can he do now to repair this?

There is one thing that Pope Benedict can do to repair for the damage. He can disclose the Third Secret of Fatima in its entirety and admit openly, as he admitted privately in summer 2000, that the Secret was never released in June 2000. According to Fr. Ingo Dollinger, who was a personal acquaintance of the late St. Padre Pio, Cardinal Ratzinger [now Benedict XVI] told him in summer 2000 that the Third Secret mentioned "a bad council and a bad Mass."

The Vatican press office now denies this, but this only testifies to the truth of the Fatima Secret that the "father of liars" would reign in the Eternal City. The Blessed Virgin herself stated in her Secret at La Salette: "Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of Antichrist." (1846)

It behooves Benedict XVI to release the Third Secret in full, for this will alert the Church Militant to what it's truly up against. It will serve as a spiritual call to arms, whereby remiss Catholics can finally take the golden calf of Vatican II by the horns, and reject without scruple the idol of change that has meddled in the Church's affairs since the late-sixties. The pope has push-button power to blow-up the conciliar idol. Let us pray that he use it.

https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2016/06/04/communal-papacy-may-baby-step-toward-democracy/

Image Source: Photo Copyrighted by A Catholic Life Blog, 2016

Read more >>

The Third Secret Predicted a "Bad Council"

Guest Post by David Martin

On the Feast of Pentecost, 2016, Fr. Ingo Dollinger, a long-time friend of Pope Emeritus Benedict told Dr. Maike Hickson that Cardinal Ratzinger [now Benedict XVI] told him in late summer 2000 that the Third Secret of Fatima spoke of "a bad council and a bad Mass" that was to come in the future (after 1960).

Consider the writings of nineteenth century Freemason and excommunicated priest, Canon Roca (1830-1893), who predicted that "the liturgy of the Roman Church will shortly undergo a transformation at an ecumenical council" in a move "to deprive the Church of its supernatural character, to amalgamate it with the world, to interweave the denominations ecumenically instead of letting them run side by side as separate confessions, and thus to pave the way for a standard world religion in the centralized world state."

Canon Roca speaks of a New World Order to come (Novus Ordo Seclorum) which would countermand the order of Apostolic Tradition. Yea, he speaks of "a bad council and a bad Mass" that would materialize after 1960, through which a wide body of the church would be misled.

We can understand the significance of 1960 as the appointed year for disclosing the Third Secret, since it was only two years later that they would convene the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), setting into motion the so-called reform of the Mass that would advance the Church's unity with the world.

Bear in mind that Benedict XVI has read the Fatima Third Secret, and being of serious import, he does not speak idly on weighty topics of this nature. Therefore, this latest scoop on the Third Secret should encourage Catholics concerning the documented accounts of what actually took place at Vatican Council II.

COUNCIL INFILTRATED 

In a word, Vatican II was hijacked and controlled by the Church's enemies, though this hijacking was done under the guise of a renewal so that unsuspecting Catholics would think that the ensuing change was the work of the Holy Spirit.

There is no disputing the disaster wrought by Vatican II and how it set into motion an insidious departure from tradition that has left the Holy City "half in ruins." Even as we recall the conciliar tempest that first convened in 1962, its gale force continues to uproot the Faith, blow apart revered Catholic practices, topple the Church’s edifice, and spread doctrinal debris throughout the Church.

Does this mean that Pope John XXIII was guilty of convoking a conspiratorial council? Nay. His design in convening the Council was not to change the Church, but to restate sacred tradition, evidenced in his opening speech at Vatican II on October 11, 1962: "The major interest of the Ecumenical Council is this: that the sacred heritage of Christian truth be safeguarded and expounded with greater efficacy."

Without diluting the Faith, the pope was simply trying to adopt a more effective means of projecting the orthodox Faith to the modern world. His update did not include the watering down of doctrine or the alteration of liturgy, but consisted in utilizing state-of-the-art technology to better project the light of tradition to a spiritually darkened world.

For there were dangers threatening the Faith at that time. Apostasy was forthcoming and man was already on the eve of forgetting his Maker, so the pope was making a special effort to dispel the ensuing darkness and uphold the orthodox Faith "with greater efficacy."

To this end he and his best men worked arduously for almost three years to draft the outline for the Second Vatican Council, known as the 72 schemas. According to the most conservative thinkers of Rome, the preparatory schemata were orthodox and worthy of use, but modernists were enraged that the Holy Father had put together the outline without conferring with them beforehand. Hence a decision was made before the Council to block Pope John’s plan for Vatican II.

According to Michael Davies and many others, a number of "suspect theologians" hijacked the opening session of the Council by seizing control of its drafting commissions, thus enabling them to scrap Pope John’s plan and to draft a new plan of their own. A key instigator of the pack was Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx of the Netherlands, a known heretic who denied the historicity of the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, and the Eucharist (Transubstantiation), and who had drafted and disseminated a 480-page critique aimed at rallying the radical "Rhine bishops" to reject the original plan for Vatican II. The design of these progressivists was to revive Luther’s "Reformation" under the guise of a renewal, something that Schillebeeckx had openly confessed to.

Benedict XVI himself pointed out in 2013 how a "virtual council" had risen up to usurp the "real Council" at Vatican II, and lamented how "it created so many disasters, so many problems, so much suffering: seminaries closed, convents closed, banal liturgy." (Benedict XVI, addressing the parish churches of Rome, February 14, 2013) This echoes the words of Pope Paul VI who stated that the good efforts at Vatican II were hampered by "the devil" who came along "to suffocate the fruits of the Ecumenical Council." (June 29, 1972) Hence it is worth recounting the opening session, that we have a clearer perspective of what really took place at the Second Vatican Council.

A CLOSER LOOK AT THE COUNCIL 

At the center of this coup to overthrow Vatican II were Cardinals Alfrink, Frings, and Liénart of the Rhine Alliance. A crucial vote was to be taken to determine the members of the drafting commissions when Cardinal Liénart, a 30th degree Freemason, seized the microphone during a speech and demanded that the slate of 168 candidates be discarded and that a new slate of candidates be drawn up. His uncanny gesture was heeded by the Council and the election was postponed. Leinart’s action deflected the course of the Council and made history, and was hailed a victory in the press. The date was October 13, 1962, the 45th Anniversary of Our Lady’s last apparition at Fatima.    (Fr. Ralph Wiltgen, the Rhine Flows into the Tiber)

In his February 14, 2013, address to the clergy of Rome, Pope Benedict XVI brilliantly recounts this coup d’etat at Vatican II: "On the programme for this first day were the elections of the Commissions, and lists of names had been prepared, in what was intended to be an impartial manner, and these lists were put to the vote. But right away the Fathers said: 'No, we do not simply want to vote for pre-prepared lists. We are the subject.' Then, it was necessary to postpone the elections, because the Fathers themselves…wanted to prepare the lists themselves. And so it was. Cardinal Liénart of Lille and Cardinal Frings of Cologne had said publicly: no, not this way. We want to make our own lists and elect our own candidates."

The above statement is of no small significance. Herein Benedict confesses that Liénart and his clique rejected the list of candidates that John XXIII had approved in an "impartial manner," so that they could create their own list and elect their own candidates in a partial manner.

The preeminent Romano Amerio who had contributed significantly to the drafting of the original Vatican II outline cites the illegality of this move, saying, "This departure from the original plan" came about "by an act breaking the Council's legal framework" so that "the Council was self-created, atypical, and unforeseen." (Professor Romano Amerio, Iota Unum, 1985)

When the "election" resumed, a number of radical theologians were then appointed to chair the commissions, including Hans Kung, Karl Rahner, de Lubac, Schillebeeckx and others whose writings had been blacklisted under Pius XII. The liberals now occupied nearly 60% of the seats, giving them the needed power to steer the Council in their direction. Thereupon they proceeded to trash the pope’s carefully prepared agenda that had taken nearly three years to formulate.

Through deceitful promises and skillful use of the media, the Council approved their plan for a new Mass on December 7, 1962, known as the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. This in turn became the hub of the liturgical reform that was to set the Church on a new revolutionary path of change.

The Constitution was principally the work of the infamous Annibale Bugnini whom the pope had earlier removed from two posts because of sinister activity. The Constitution in fact was the outgrowth of the one schema drafted by Bugnini, which Vatican liberals had spared because of its designs for a new Mass. It is important to note that Monsignor Bugnini, and not the pope, was the author of the New Mass.

What is mind boggling is the dictatorial force wherewith the conciliar elite took the law into their own hands and were able to junk Pope John’s outline for Vatican II without rebuttal. With the procedural rules laid down by the pope, a mere one-third vote was needed to get the schemata passed, which in fact did pass by a 40% vote. But the Rhine fathers stirred up a ruckus and insisted that this minority vote not be honored in favor of the 60% vote against the schemata, even telling the pope, "This is inadmissible!" They abhorred the orthodoxy of the preparatory outline with its strict formulations and resented the idea of having it imposed on them by a pope who "clung to the old absolute traditions."

The pope, fearing a tumult, backed down and consented to let the Rhine fathers have their way against game rules. Though he had planned things differently, his strength failed him at this point, thus allowing the pirates of innovation to wrest the Council from his hands.

Hence the most meticulous and painstaking preparation ever undertaken for any council of Church history was suddenly dumped to the glee of this Council confederacy. Only the liturgical schema remained.

We gather that Cardinal Tisserant, the key draftsman of the 1962 Moscow-Vatican Treaty who presided at the opening session, was at the center of this coup to usurp the Vatican Council. According to Jean Guitton, the famous French academic, Tisserant had showed him a painting of himself and six others, and told him, "This picture is historic, or rather, symbolic. It shows the meeting we had before the opening of the Council when we decided to block the first session by refusing to accept the tyrannical rules laid down by John XXIII." (Vatican II in the Dock, 2003)

This story of what happened at Vatican II is well documented and has been told in great depth by the most qualified witnesses, including Father Ralph Wiltgen, Monsignor Bandas, Michael Davies, Cardinal Heenan and many others. Archbishop Lefebvre himself who was on the Central Preparatory Committee for checking and overseeing all the Council documents had this to say:

"From the very first days, the Council was besieged by the progressive forces. We experienced it, felt it…We had the impression that something abnormal was happening and this impression was rapidly confirmed; fifteen days after the opening session not one of the seventy-two schemas remained. All had been sent back, rejected, thrown into the waste- paper basket…The immense work that had been found accomplished was scrapped and the assembly found itself empty-handed, with nothing ready. What chairman of a board meeting, however small the company, would agree to carry on without an agenda and without documents? Yet that is how the Council commenced." (Archbishop Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics, 1986)

This is how the modern "reform" was born. Pope John’s agenda for Vatican II would never resurrect from that point, but would remain buried to this day. The rebellious "virtual council" would now proceed to put together the Vatican II we all know, including its sixteen documents and its reform of the Mass. The documents would contain elements of orthodoxy here and there, but this would only be for cosmetic purposes. Under the pretext of a restoration, the documents would apologize for tradition and would attempt to unite the Catholic Church with other world religions.

That is to say, the documents themselves, and not any misinterpretation thereof, would generate the problems ahead, since they would be penned by the pope’s enemies and not his friends. For instance, it was the Freemason Msgr. Bugnini who oversaw the drafting of the 1964 Vatican II instruction Inter Oecumenici, which outlined the new ruling for the Mass and sanctuary. The following from Article 91 laid the foundation for the Novus Ordo Mass:

"The main altar should preferably be freestanding, to permit walking around it and celebration facing the people"

The Mass of Vatican II was historic in that it marked the first time in history that the priest offered the Holy Sacrifice facing the people with his back to the tabernacle. This point is affirmed by acclaimed liturgist Monsignor Klaus Gamber, whom Pope Benedict while a cardinal proclaimed as a prophet for our time: "We can say and convincingly demonstrate that neither in the Eastern nor the Western Church was there ever a celebration facing the people."

Yea, we can say that the profanation of the Mass at Vatican II effectively served to bring about a shift of focus in which the emphasis today is on the community and not on God. The church today is all but alienated from the Faith, thanks to "a bad council and a bad Mass" that altered the Faith.

Before his election to the papacy as Pius XII, Cardinal Pacelli in 1931 gave his response to the Third Secret of Fatima, saying that the Secret of Our Lady was "a divine warning against the suicide of altering the Faith, in her liturgy." It goes to show just how closely the Faith is tied to the liturgy of Holy Mass.

We are grateful to Fr. Dollinger for truthfully relaying what Cardinal Ratzinger said about the Third Secret. His word is certainly credible when we consider that St. Padre Pio was his personal confessor for many years. This speaks volumes!

Fr. Dollinger relayed to Dr. Hickson yet another revelation from his in-depth conversation with Cardinal Ratzinger in 2000, namely, that there is still a part of the Third Secret that hasn't been released. "There is more than what we published," Ratzinger said. We pray that Fr. Dollinger might come forward with still more revelations of this kind.

But especially, we pray that Pope Emeritus Benedict will finally disclose the entire Third Secret of Fatima to the Church for its encouragement and edification. The good pope has no one to answer to but God Himself. If His Holiness feels remorse for having fled his post "for fear of the wolves," he can certainly make up for it by disclosing the truth to the Church, even if it has to be done in a private interview. The church today is bewitched by "the operation of error to believe lying" (2 Thess. 2:10), so the truth of the Fatima Secret is needed to liberate the church from this curse. "The truth will make you free." (John 8:32)

Read more >>

Pope Francis: Catholics who Hold to Tradition are Idolaters

Guest Post by: David Martin

Concerning the many "surprise" statements of Pope Francis that have stirred controversy throughout the Catholic world, we've heard the argument for months that the "media is twisting his words" or that "he is being misinterpreted." What it really boils down to is that his words are sometimes shocking and people are in denial about this.

It is true that the media will certainly do their part to stretch his words, but it's time that Catholics come to grips and understand that most of these reports do not misrepresent, but reflect his true position on many Church issues. His own writings and video-taped sermons leave no question as to what he is saying. If we can see and hear him on video, where is the mistake?

For instance, in his sermon at the Vatican Casa Santa Marta this past January, He all but gave the Church a beating for its "obstinate" adherence to tradition. The following is from his sermon on January 18, 2016, as reported by Vatican Radio.

"Christians who obstinately maintain ‘it’s always been done this way,' this is the path, this is the street—they sin: the sin of divination. It’s as if they went about by guessing: ‘What has been said and what doesn’t change is what’s important; what I hear—from myself and my closed heart—more than the Word of the Lord.’ Obstinacy is also the sin of idolatry: the Christian who is obstinate sins! The sin of idolatry. ‘And what is the way, Father?’ Open the heart to the Holy Spirit, discern what is the will of God."

An absurd notion this is that Christians who adore God and who refuse to bow to the idol of change are "obstinate idolaters," but if they bow to strange deities that tempt them with these changes, e.g. the charismatics, women preachers, Communion for adulterers, etc, then they are blessed. For months the pope has been lashing out against conservatives for not showing openness to proposed changes that would include gays and civilly remarried Catholics as regular members of the Church.

Another example of Francis' dissent from Church teaching is his Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetita issued on April 8, wherein he denies the Church's dogma on the reality of everlasting punishment for those who sin mortally. "No one can be condemned forever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel! Here I am not speaking only of the divorced and remarried, but of everyone, in whatever situation they find themselves." (AL 297)

Clearly this is his writing, so there is no doctoring of text. The message is quite clear and he puts his heart into what he is saying, so it's a disservice to him and to the Church to pretend he didn't say these things or that he meant something else.

But it's also a disservice to defend his position on these many issues. Melchior Cano, the great Dominican theologian from the Council of Trent, said: "Those who blindly and indiscriminately defend every decision of the supreme Pontiff are the very ones who do most to undermine the authority of the Holy See—they destroy instead of strengthening its foundations."

We can look to the example St. Catherine of Sienna to spur us in the right direction. In the summer of 1376 she went to France and urged Pope Gregory XI to get back to Rome. Through sinful and political manipulation, the residence of the papacy had momentarily been changed to Avignon, France, which proved to be a scandal. Weak and disloyal bishops were influencing the pope to adopt this change, which he did against the tradition of the Church.

Metaphorically, we too must urge Pope Francis to get back to Rome, from which he has dissented on a number of theological issues. His heart and mind belong in the Church, not in the secular world. He too must renounce the Cardinal Kaspers, the feminists, the gays, and the infamous U.N., and not allow these agents to dictate his policy and run his administration.

In a letter to Pope Gregory XI following her trip to France, St. Catherine exhorted the pope to stand up like a man against his advisors, saying, "Up, father, like a man! For I tell you that you have no need to fear."

We make St. Catherine's words our own, and we ask that Francis stand up against the modernists and come to the defense of God's children who at present are being misled and scandalized through his subverted Vatican hierarchy.

And may he consider the true "logic of the Gospel" concerning the everlasting punishment that awaits those who failed in their Christian duties, where Jesus says: "Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me... And these shall go into everlasting punishment." (Matthew 25:41-43,46) 

Read more >>