Pope Francis: Man Must Obey the U.N.

Guest Post By David Martin

2000 years ago, Christ instituted the Roman Catholic Church with the commission that it enlighten all peoples on the path of salvation and provide a sure means of attaining it. As Christ sees it, the Roman Catholic Church is the one central world authority to which all peoples should be subjugated.

In 1945, the archenemies of Christianity founded the United Nations with the objective of destroying Christianity and submerging the world’s peoples under the tyranny of communistic one-world government. The U.N. today is that central world force that is generating the present day revolt against the Faith, with special emphasis on children’s rights, feminist rights, abortion rights, LGBT rights, and all the Masonic rights that were created to separate man from God. The U.N. asserts that these “rights” are to be respected everywhere by all peoples.

Pope Francis agrees. During a September 10 press conference on route to Rome from Madagascar, the pope insisted that when the United Nations speaks, man must listen.

“When we acknowledge international organizations and we recognize their capacity to give judgment, on a global scale—for example the international tribunal in The Hague, or the United Nations—If we consider ourselves humanity, when they make statements, our duty is to obey … We must obey international institutions. That is why the United Nations were created.” 

So according to Francis, when the U.N. says that homosexuals must be free to express their sexual orientation and that women must be guaranteed their right to abortion, the world must obey. Hard to believe? Let us not forget that the pope on several occasions has invited U.N. abortion advocates like Jeffery Sachs and Ban Ki moon to speak at the Vatican concerning their Sustainable Development Goals of making “mother earth” a safer place through population control.

On April 29, 2015, the Vatican officially endorsed their United Nations Goals (SDGs), which include contraception, abortion, and euthanasia. Moreover, the pope in May 2019 was calling for a supranational, legally constituted body to enforce these U.N. Sustainable Development Goals.

Since his election, Francis has advocated that we look to this global elite for our instruction, as expressed in his encyclical Laudato Si: “There is urgent need of a true world political authority.” Wasn’t the authority of the King of kings good enough? The U.N. is the infamous brood of vipers that is perverting the nations and bringing them to a collision course, so why is Francis commending the flock of Christ to them?

Francis Executing Internationalist Plan

It is no secret that the U.N. was founded in 1945 by the CFR members of the Illuminati, a satanic secret society that works conjointly with the Freemasons. What these internationalists advocate is a universal break from the past and a merger of all peoples into an ecumenical one-world government/religion, which the Second Vatican Council was instrumental in advancing. Pope Francis advocates this departure from the past and merger with other religions, which has elicited praise from globalists and Freemasons the world over.

For instance, In July 2013, commemorating his friend and late Cardinal Ersilio Tonini, the Masonic Grand Master Gustavo Raffi (Grand Orient of Italy) launched this tribute to Pope Francis:

“Humanity today is poorer and poorer, as is also the Catholic Church. But the one of Pope Francis is a church that promises to be respectful of the otherness and to share the idea that the secular state promotes peace and coexistence of different religions.”

On September 21, 2013, during the celebrations by the Freemasons of the Grand Orient of Italy, Grand Master Gustavo Raffi also stated, inter alia:

“Pope Francis launches messages of humanity that are in tune with what we have been saying for years….This is a living Masonry, talking to people [in dialogue].” [One Peter Five]

On and on the praises go, the reason being that this pope from the beginning has done the bidding of Freemasons to down-talk Church tradition, even dubbing “schismatic” those who hold tenaciously to the old teachings, while continually emphasizing that we move forward with this Masonic plan to unite the Catholic Church with the world. 

Pope Calling for “Global Pact” for a “New Humanism”

And now the pope acting as a U.N. pawn has announced he is hosting an initiative for a “global pact” to create a “new humanism.”

“A global educational pact is needed to educate us in universal solidarity and a new humanism,” Francis said in a recent video message to launch the initiative. Pope Francis invites religious, political leaders to sign ‘Global Pact’ for ‘new humanism’  As if Christ didn’t already give us the solution for world peace and unity! The implication is that Christ’s instruction through tradition is ineffective so that this new humanism is now needed.

What is needed is a universal return to God and His Divine Laws, which means a universal rejection of the secular humanism that Francis is peddling for his global masters. He cannot bow to Jesus Christ and to globalists at the same time. He cannot advocate a new church of man and be truly Catholic at the same time. For our unity is with Christ, not with the world.

What Christ requires of the hierarchy is that they reject humanism and restore His Church to its former position of honor as it stood before Vatican II. For the Freemasons infiltrated Vatican II and engendered the new order of change that is fast coming to a head under Francis, so our duty as Catholics is to resist this new order of temptation and to remain ever faithful under siege, remembering the exhortation of St. Paul for withstanding these days of Antichrist:

“Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.” (2 Thessalonians 2:14)

Read more >>

Holy Week Reflection

Guest Post by David Martin

Each year on Palm Sunday we commemorate Christ’s triumphant entry into Jerusalem when He cleansed the temple of the money changers and those who had sought to profane the temple with their worldly ways.

This pivotal Lent of 2019 is the appropriate time to bring it home and to reflect on how we can assist Christ in cleansing His temple, especially, on how we might encourage the good bishops to take the whip to those clerical clowns in the Eternal City that have sought to profane the temple with their perfidious errors and changes.

Unfortunately, the cult of Freemasonry exerts great control over the Church at this time, which accounts for the widely held error that the Church is an ongoing, evolutionary process that goes through phases of change over time. As these modernists see it, anything the Church holds to at any given point of its history is the result of a general consensus or “collective conscience,“ as if the Church were a democracy to decide doctrine, when in fact the matter of doctrine has already been decided for us from above.

That is to say, the Church is a Divine Monarchy ruled by the King of kings, “with whom there is no change, nor shadow of alteration.” (James: 1:17) As such, the doctrines of the Faith are not something that can change or develop but are eternally set in stone for our instruction. (Matthew 24: 35)
Lent is a time to cleanse ourselves and to return to the tradition of the Faith, but this applies especially to today’s Vatican hierarchy. It is high time that the Church’s ruling body clean house and take the whip to those money-changes, homosexuals, and heretics that are polluting the temple with their antics and doctrinal germs. It is time they go upon their knees and declare that we as Church have sinned in God’s eyes for allowing humanism, modernism, and change to defile Christ’s legacy.

Without this done, where is their Lenten penance? Their Holy Week solemnity is then reduced to an empty formality, and it is anticipated that this year’s ceremonies in Rome will be another farcical tool to advance Islam and political LGBT agenda. What next, will the pope wash the feet of gays and transgenders? Will the bishops stand by and watch the show or will they finally speak up to correct a situation that is offensive to God and destructive to His people?

Each year at the Easter Vigil we are asked, “Do you renounce Satan and all his pomps and all his works,” as we say, “I do.” Let Francis and his bishops live up to that this year by rejecting all that Satan has given them, i.e. Vatican II ecumenism, modernism, change, lest this year’s observance again be filled with empty pomp void of the work of God.

Read more >>

Pope Francis: “Diversity of Religions” is “Willed by God”

Image Copyright Holy See Press Office

Guest Post By David Martin

Pope Francis has incited more controversy by signing a joint statement with the head of Egypt’s al-Azhar Mosque, which states that "diversity of religions" is "willed by God." 

The Pope signed the “Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together,” with Ahmad el-Tayeb, during an interreligious meeting in Abu Dhabi on February 4. The event marked the high point of the pope’s three-day apostolic visit to the United Arab Emirates.

The document calls upon “all persons who have faith in God and faith in human fraternity to unite and work together so that it may serve as a guide for future generations.”

By "human fraternity," the proponents of the document mean fraternity in the flesh. The only true fraternity is to extend the riches of the Catholic Faith to all peoples, outside of which there is no real fraternity. For it is only through conversion to the One True Church that we become brothers and sisters in Christ.

However, the passage inciting controversy reads:

Freedom is a right of every person: each individual enjoys the freedom of belief, thought, expression and action. The pluralism and the diversity of religions, colour, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings. This divine wisdom is the source from which the right to freedom of belief and the freedom to be different derives. Therefore, the fact that people are forced to adhere to a certain religion or culture must be rejected, as too the imposition of a cultural way of life that others do not accept.

Since when does God grant anyone the "freedom" to resist the truth and "do whatever thou wilt?" The Church has always admonished mankind "to adhere to a certain religion," i.e. the Catholic Church. This is not an "imposition" but a profession of the absolute truth that must be adhered to if man wishes to be saved. To say that this preaching "must be rejected" is to say that the Church for 2000 years was wrong.

Moreover, saying that “the diversity of religions” is “willed by God” has every appearance of heresy. The mission of the Church from the beginning is to bring the knowledge of God to the world and "teach all nations" (Matt. 28:19), that all peoples might leave their particular idols and creeds and be converted to the Catholic Church. The Church infallibly teaches that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church (extra ecclesiam nulla salus), so unless Francis means that this diversity of religion is permissively willed by God to elicit the Church's response to reach out and convert other religions, he is negating dogma and dignifying the errors of fake religion.

For to say that God willed diversity of religions in the ordained sense is to say that God engendered these religions, which is heresy. And since Francis obviously means that diversity of "color, sex, race and language are willed by God" in the ordained sense (which they are), we can only assume he means "diversity of religions" the same way.

Even if other religions agreed with Catholic teaching they could not coexist with the Catholic Church for the simple reason that Christ did not found them—they’re invalid and operate out of grace. The fact is that every world religion exists in opposition to the Roman Catholic Church, which means the Catholic Church may never unite with them.

Francis has consistently urged the Church to ecumenically unite with other religions, so by “diversity of religions” we can safely infer that he is advocating post-Vatican II ecumenism, which is all about unity with man and not with God. Should the pope be using his position to advance this secular humanism?


Note: Cardinal Müller issues Manifesto of Faith: A quasi correction of Pope Francis’ pontificate

Read more >>

Christ to the Hierarchy: “Unto Whomsoever Much is Given, of Him Much Shall be Required”

Guest Post by David Martin

The 25th chapter of St. Matthew’s Gospel contains a valuable lesson concerning Christ’s judgment upon the negligent when he returns. The famous Parable of the Talents speaks of the man who delivered to his three servants talents of money with the commission that they trade them and reap profits for him while he was away. The servants were given 5, 2, and 1 talents respectively, the first two of whom traded and doubled their gains, while the third servant fearfully hid his talent in the earth without gaining anything for his lord.

The talents and their return signify the account we will have to make according to what we have received.  When it came time for the servants to reckon with their master, the first two presented their gains to him, for which they were rewarded with promotions. “But he that had received the one talent, came and said: Lord, I know that thou art a hard man; thou reapest where thou hast not sown, and gatherest where thou hast not strewed. And being afraid I went and hid thy talent in the earth: behold here thou hast that which is thine.” (Mt: 25: 24,25)

“And his lord answering, said to him: Wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sow not, and gather where I have not strewed: Thou oughtest therefore to have committed my money to the bankers, and at my coming I should have received my own with usury. Take ye away therefore the talent from him, and give it to him that hath ten talents…. And the unprofitable servant cast ye out into the exterior darkness. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Matthew 25: 26-30)

The lord in this parable represents Christ Himself. What He is saying is that when we have been given the ability (talent) to do good in the Kingdom through our endowments of grace, nature, or otherwise, and then we slothfully waste it away and don't use it for our salvation and that of others, we will be accountable.

This warning applies especially to the Catholic hierarchy. The bishops and priests have been given a tremendous talent, yea, push-button power to effectively steer the Church and the world onto a safer course, but instead they have used their talent to betray the Faith and pacify the Church's enemies for worldly gain. The Son of Man is truly sold out again for 30 pieces of silver.

Before the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections, the United States Catholic Bishops (USCCB) could have prevented Obama’s election by using their position (talent) to admonish the Church in America not to vote for the pro-abortion candidate under the pain of sin. They could have easily mandated that an admonition be read at all the Sunday Masses across America before the elections, but no, they timidly "buried their talent in the *earth" and said nothing for fear of offending murderers. Because of this negligence, over fifty percent of America's Catholics voted for pro-abortion Obama in both elections, thus empowering him to advance his culture of death throughout the U.S. and beyond.

Worse yet, the bishops have used their God-given talent to help empower treasonous causes like Obamacare, Soros-funded open-border "immigration reform," and LGBT political agenda, not to mention that they have spent their days hacking away at tradition and implementing perfidious changes aimed at destroying the Church and uniting it with the world. As in Christ’s time, the high-priests go about stirring up the people against Jesus’ doctrine and parading themselves as ministers of "mercy" just to advance their humanist "tradition of men." (Mk 7:8)

Fatima Ignored by the Hierarchy

Looking at this a little deeper, the culture of death has its roots in Communism, which explains why abortion is so rampant in America—the agents of Communism are now entrenched in our government. Our Lady at Fatima asked that the pope and bishops join on one day to Consecrate Russia to Her Immaculate Heart in order to avert this spread of Communism. She warned that if Her requests were not heeded the errors of Russia would spread throughout the world and even into the Church.

Unfortunately, Our Lady’s requests were not heeded and thus, Russia did not convert, and as such, the deceptive influence of Communism is alive and at work today in the Church and throughout the world. The dark cloud of Socialism continues to lower upon the west and has now brought us to an unprecedented red eclipse that portends to the gruesome events foretold in the Fatima message.

The Consecration of Russia would bring Our Lady's crushing heel upon the Marxist red dragon and reverse everything that Communism is generating, i.e. the culture of death, terrorism, the desecration of the Mass and Eucharist, etc., but unfortunately, the bishops are too busy pacifying the Communists, with much help from Pope Francis who has repeatedly used his talent to say that “it is the communists who think like Christians.”

Worse yet, Francis through a “provisional agreement” on September 22 gave non-ordained Communist “bishops” of the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association official jurisdiction over the underground Church in China. The bishops of the CCPA are Communist agents, men of the state, who were “consecrated” by the Chinese Party-State and who deceptively wear the bishops’ miter to strengthen their mission to oppress the underground Church in China.

Cardinal Joseph Zen of Hong Kong, a fierce critic of the deal with Communist Beijing said, “They’re giving the flock into the mouths of wolves,” adding that “The consequences will be tragic and long-lasting, not only for the church in China but for the whole Church because it damages the credibility.” (LifeSiteNews, September 22, 2018) 

The hierarchy will have to stand before Christ and account for its negligence and abuse of power. The pope and bishops need to repent of their collusion and repatriate themselves to Christ, or else we will soon see the fulfillment of Our Lady's prophecy that "Various nations will be annihilated." Let the bishops consider the following scriptural warning to all princes and religious leaders, lest they too be cast “into the exterior darkness.”

“For power is given you by the Lord, and strength by the Most High, who will examine your works, and search out your thoughts: Because being ministers of his kingdom, you have not judged rightly, nor kept the law of justice, nor walked according to the will of God. Horribly and speedily will he appear to you: for a most severe judgment shall be for them that bear rule.” (Wisdom 6:4-6)

*According to the late Bible scholar Fr. George Leo Haydock (1774-1849), placing talents in the earth “represents all those who, having received any good quality, whether mental or corporal, employ it only on earthly things.”

Read more >>

Francis: The Lord's Prayer "Induces Temptation"

Prayer Vigil with Pope Francis ahead of Synod © Mazur/catholicnews.org.uk, October 4, 2014

Guest Post By David Martin

Pope Francis is again advocating that the Our Father be changed. It was reported last month that the pope is expected to approve a change in the translation of the Lord’s Prayer, the famous biblical petition that has been recited by Christians for 2000 years. 

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/dec/11/pope-francis-redo-lords-prayer-translation/

The Italian Episcopal Conference [CEI] has submitted the proposed change to the Vatican for approval, changing the line "lead us not into temptation" to "abandon us not when in temptation," reported the Italian newswire service Ansa and the U.K. Express.

It was in December 2017 that Francis first proposed that the Lord's Prayer be changed, arguing that the translation used for centuries in many parts of the world, including the Italian and English versions, go against the teachings of the Church and Bible.

In the centuries-old recited prayer, followers of the Christian Faith call upon God to "lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil." 

Speaking to Italian broadcasters on December 7, 2017, Francis argued this was incorrect, saying, "It is not a good translation because it speaks of a God who induces temptation." 

"A father doesn’t do that, a father helps you to get up immediately," Francis said in an interview on Italian television. "It's Satan who leads us into temptation, that’s his department."

So Christ taught us to invoke a God who leads us into temptation? To think that the Messiah's instruction to mankind on how to pray—as penned by the Evangelists as the infallible Word of God and as followed for 2000 years by all the Saints and members of Christ—is now incorrect! It appears that it is the pope who is leading us into temptation.

To say that the proposed "reform" of the Our Father warrants respect is to say that Catholics for 2000 years have been misled by the Our Father. Moreover, it instigates doubts about the whole of Sacred Scripture and the age-old direction of the Church. It appears that it is Pope Francis who is leading us into temptation.

Francis purports to criticize the English and Italian translations of the Our Father, when he knows full well that it is the original manuscript he is criticizing. The original text from the Lord's Prayer, as taken from the Latin Vulgate, reads: et ne nos inducas in tentationem, sed libera nos a malo, which translated is: "lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil." (Matthew 6:13). This is also the same in the Greek: καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν, ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ.

Hence, this is not a translation issue, but a scriptural issue. The English translations of the Our Father as recited today are correct, because they are taken from the Vulgate, which is the official version of Holy Scripture, the source from which all authentic translations must directly or indirectly be taken. 

The pope's initiative is entirely uncalled for. Never in the 2000-year history of the Church has it occurred to any pope or saint that the Lord's Prayer stood in need of change, so why is Francis calling into question something so central to the Faith—the "perfect prayer" given to us by Christ Himself on the Mount—and at a time when the Church is undergoing the worst debacle of its 2000-year history? What is needed today is that rock-solid stability of old to offset the new order of change that has misled the Church since Vatican II, so why is Francis leading us into the temptation of change?

It appears he is upset over the idea of being led away from temptation, since he is led by the temptation of globalism and change. The Bible threatens him to give up his change, so instead of humbly admitting that scripture is correct he judges that it is "incorrect, in the same way he has denied the miracle of the loaves and has judged that evangelization is "solemn nonsense." 

The Church's mission is precisely to evangelize and lead us away from the temptation of this world that we may arrive at the shores of everlasting peace. God in His mercy wants us all to know that this world is not our common home, but rather a quagmire of temptation, and that our true home is in Heaven with God and the Saints who said the un-revised Our Father during their lives. 

Therefore, as children of God who obey the Father's commands, we take the Father's hand and ask Him to lead us not into temptation, but away from all evil, because if we chase after temptation—especially the temptation to change the Bible and the doctrines of the Faith—God will let go of our hand, and in His permissive will He will lead us, not only into temptation, but into the very fires of hell. And by the way, Papa, this condemnation is forever.

Christ warns of the dire consequences of changing but one word of Holy Scripture. He says to St. John in the Apocalypse: "If any man shall add to these things, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this book." (Apoc. 22:18) 

Let us therefore reverence the words of Christ in the Gospel, remembering that all Scripture is "inspired of God." (2 Timothy 3:16) "Neither let us tempt Christ: as some of them tempted, and perished by the serpents." (1 Cor. 10:9)

https://www.foxnews.com/world/pope-francis-wants-to-change-line-of-our-father

Read more >>

The Inseparable Bond between the Annunciation and Christmas

Guest Post By David Martin

The Feast of Christmas is a sublime mystery that radiates throughout the earth each year unto the edification of many. To think that the Creator of all things was born into the world as man!

Yet there is still a greater mystery, and that is that the Creator assumed human flesh and became man. This occurred, not when Christ was born, but upon the Blessed Virgin's “fiat” after the angel Gabriel announced to her that she was to be the Mother of God. It was then that the Holy Ghost miraculously engendered Christ in the womb of Mary, who had never nor would ever know man corporeally.

The Mystical City of God by Venerable Mary of Agreda, which has the backing of five centuries of popes, provides a beautiful insight as to what occurred in Mary's soul immediately after the Archangel entered her chamber and announced that she would bring the Son of God into the world.

Her most pure heart, as it were by natural consequence, was contracted and compressed with such force, that it distilled three drops of her most pure blood, and these, finding their way to the natural place for the act of conception, were formed by the power of the Divine and Holy Spirit, into the Body of Christ Our Lord. Thus the matter, from which the most holy humanity of the Word for our Redemption is composed, was furnished and administered by the most pure heart of Mary and through the sheer force of her true love. At the same moment, with a humility never sufficiently to be extolled, inclining slightly her head and joining her hands, She pronounced these words, which were the beginning of our salvation: "Fiat mihi secundum verbum tuum" (Luke 1:31).  

At the pronouncing of this "fiat," so sweet to the hearing of God and so fortunate for us, in one instant, four things happened. First, the most holy Body of Christ Our Lord was formed from the three drops of blood furnished by the heart of most holy Mary. Secondly, the most holy Soul of the same Lord was created, just as the other souls. Thirdly, the Soul and the Body united in order to compose His perfect humanity. Fourthly, the Divinity united Itself in the Person of the Word with the humanity, which together became one composite being in hypostatic union; and thus was formed Christ true God and Man, Our Lord and Redeemer. This happened in springtime on the twenty-fifth of March, at break or dawning of the day, in the same hour, in which our first father Adam was made.

One has to wonder if maybe the Feast of the Annunciation will one day be raised to the same solemnity as Christmas, whereupon it too would be a holy day of obligation. At a time when pro-life vs. pro-death is becoming the big issue on earth, this would serve mightily to remind people that life begins when we are conceived, not when we are born.

And too, it would add another star in Our Lady's crown in that it would cause people to take a closer look at this infallible Church teaching concerning how Holy Ghost engendered Christ in the Blessed Virgin without the aid of man. It would place the spotlight right on the miracle!

This no doubt would shed increased light on why Catholics Hail Mary, since it was through the Archangel's salutation to Mary—"Hail, full of grace" (Luke 1:28)—that God opened up the story of man's redemption. This plan for man’s redemption would have never been fulfilled had Mary not consented to God’s proposal.

For she was preordained from the beginning of time to be that spotless receptacle through whom the Messiah was to be channeled into the world. Her predestined role was set in motion when she said "Fiat mihi secundum verbum tuum."

It is an error to think that God would have chosen another woman to birth the Messiah had Mary said no to God. In the same way that God did not choose another Eve after her fall, neither would He have chosen another Mary had she declined from assisting the Almighty. Mary was the second Eve who reversed the mistake of the first Eve, thus opening the way for man's salvation. And how interesting to note that Ave providentially is Eva spelled backwards!

Hence we are indebted to Mary. Like the shepherds who "came with haste" and "found Mary and Joseph, and the infant lying in the manger" (Luke 2:16), we too must approach Our Lady if we ever expect to see her Son. For it is Mary who brings Christ to man, without whom we will never know Christ. For God has given her complete custody over the children of earth. If Mary doesn't show us her Son, who will?

Our reflection on the mystery of the Annunciation should serve to deepen our reflection on the mystery of Christmas, whereby we understand that it concerns Mary's divine motherhood. After all, who do we congratulate at a baby shower, the mother or the child? And whereas we indeed congratulate and prostrate ourselves before the Christ Child at Christmas, we may not leave the mother out of the picture, for it is her Son Whom we celebrate at Christmas. Like the shepherds who came in haste, we too must ask Mary's permission to see her Son, which if we do, we will be given the necessary grace to know who Christ truly is. 

Read more >>

Youth Synod 2018: Spiritual Child Abuse

Guest Post by David Martin

The critics of Pope Francis’ Administration have been vindicated big time! The latest profanation spewing forth from the bowels of Rome clearly demonstrates that the abuse of our Catholic youth is being orchestrated right from Vatican headquarters. This video clip of the pope and bishops rocking out to pelvic-thrusting teenage dancers on stage is quite telling. https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/4128-rockin-the-scandal-the-synod-on-young-people

This pagan dancing promoted by the Synodal architects can best be described as “spiritual child abuse.” When Church leaders use their rank to advance designs that are sensual and devilish, it scandalizes the young by warping their conception of the Faith.

How can young people ever conceive the Majesty of Christ in his sanctuary when they're being taught by their elders that the Church is a place for sex-oriented fun? This in turn opens the door for abuses of a more ‘tangible’ nature if in fact it doesn't reflect these abuses already occurring among the hierarchy.

What is especially absurd is that several of the gay-sympathizers implicated in Archbishop Vigano’s expose of the sexual abuse and cover-ups—clerics like Archbishop Maradiaga, Cardinal Cupich, Cardinal Parolin and Archbishop Paglia—are participants in this Youth Synod. What are they doing there? Recommending our Catholic youth to them for guidance makes as much sense as trying to put out a fire with gasoline. What next, shall Nazi’s be featured at a Vatican-sponsored pro-life conference?

What is worse is that Instrumentum Laboris, the working document for Youth Synod 2018 explicitly supports homosexual agenda as seen in paragraph 197:

“Some LGBT youth, through various contributions that came to the Secretariat of the Synod, wish to “benefit from a greater closeness” and experience greater care on the part of the Church, while some ECs [Episcopal Conferences] ask what to propose “to young people who instead of forming a heterosexual couple decide to form a homosexual couple and, above all, wish to be close to the Church.”

Consistent with this is the fact that of all the youth chosen to represent Canada in the Youth Synod, Pope Francis chose four members from Salt and Light Media, a pro-gay organization headed by pro-homosexual priest Fr. Thomas Rosica, who is also on the Synod’s Information Commission.

“It is a great sign of affirmation from Pope Francis and the Church’s recognition of Salt and Light’s mission of bringing the flavour of the Gospel and the light of Christ to the world,” wrote Rosica. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-selects-only-fr.-rosicas-salt-light-team-as-canadas-youth-at-synod

The bottom line is that the abuse of our Catholic youth is being fostered by the corrupt teachings and agenda of many in the Catholic hierarchy. Yea, it is being fostered by heretics and homosexuals. That Francis should place this stumbling block before the youth defies logic.
“Woe to the world because of scandals.” (Matt. 18:7)

The transparency and general house-cleaning called for by Archbishop Viganò is long overdue. Kudos to him for his action. May the hierarchy follow his lead and get to work at cleaning house.

Read more >>

Vatican II Engendered Today’s “Religious Liberty”

Guest Post By David Martin

There has been much published this past year in refutation of Pope Francis’ repeated use of distorted or ambiguous wording to advance licentious behavior in the name of “conscience.”

These publications are warranted. For instance, Amoris Laetitia says that those living in adultery may at times continue thus in good conscience: "Conscience can do more than recognize that a given situation does not correspond objectively to the overall demands of the Gospel. It can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God, and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal." (Amoris Laetitia 303)

So according to Amoris Laetitia, conscience can recognize that "the most generous response" we can give to God is to break his commandments. How can this be when Christ said, "If you love me keep my commandments?" (John 14:15) Sin crucifies the Savior, so how can it be a "generous response” to him?

In an adulterous situation with a fornicator, the only thing that conscience recognizes is that he is offending God. The finger of conscience is pointing at him and telling him he must leave his shameful vice if he wishes to be saved, but pride comes along and closes his heart to the voice of conscience. Like a Pharisee, he resists the Holy Spirit and seeks continued escape in his sin, yet Amoris Laetitia says this "is what God himself is asking" of him.

This false understanding of conscience is becoming problematic in a way never before seen in Church history. More and more we see Catholics entertaining a false religious liberty that advocates the selfish rights of man, as if modern man is now a little god who can think for himself without the guidance of a divine chaperone.   

Sadly, the groundwork for this arrogance was laid at the Second Vatican Council fifty-three years ago. Consider the opening paragraph of Dignitatis Humanae, which is the Vatican II document on Religious Liberty:

“A sense of the dignity of the human person has been impressing itself more and more deeply on the consciousness of contemporary man, and the demand is increasingly made that men should act on their own judgment.” [1] 

Again, we read:

“God has regard for the dignity of the human person whom He Himself created and man is to be guided by his own judgment and he is to enjoy freedom.” [11]

Here we see the Council honoring man’s prerogative to be his own guide, which is contrary to the Creator. “For God will not except any man’s person, neither will He stand in awe of any man’s greatness: for He made the little and the great, and he has equally care for all.”   (Wisdom 6:8)

Man’s true dignity consists in his being made to the image of God, but this dignity is preserved by keeping one’s innocence and yielding his judgment up to God, so that he makes God’s judgment his own in matters of faith and morals. What God requires of us is a childlike submission to doctrine and Tradition as taught by the Savior Himself: “Unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.” (Matthew 18:3)

According to Vatican II, the Church may not infringe upon one’s personal rights by laying down the law as to what they must do to be saved. It affirms the natural rights of man in matters of religion (Masonic freedoms), which is contrary to the previous papal teachings which deny any such rights. Pope Pius IX in his Encyclical “Quanta Cura”, Leo XIII in his Encyclicals “Libertas Praestantissimum” and “Immortale Dei” and Pius XII in his allocution “Ci Riesce” all affirm that there is no logical or scriptural basis for this humanist notion of human dignity, yet Vatican II seems to assert it as dogma.

However, we have to make a clear distinction between moral conscience and temptation. Conscience will always compel one to fear God and keep his Commandments which are already engraved “in the fleshy tablets of the heart” (2 Cor. 3:3), whereas temptation will always lead one to depart the Commandments and follow his own will or sense of liberty where he doesn’t allow the Divine Monarch to hold the reins in his life. Such liberty offends God and chains us to the shackles of guilt, which is no liberty. (John 8:34) There is no such thing as “my moral conscience told me to sin and be a rebel,” for such is the manifestation of a guilty conscience, not a moral conscience.

It is true that man is given a free will to choose between good and evil, which God does not interfere with, since our eternal friendship with God must be a free will offering which is grounded in charity, and not coercion. However, the abuse of our free will to choose evil is not honored by God nor is it permitted in the Church, nor is it a form of religious liberty.

With every liberal proposal in the Vatican II document(s) there is an apparent conservatism (ambiguous double meaning) to cover its tracks so that, under the pretext of honoring the rights of every human to freely adore his Creator, the document advocates that man has the liberty to follow his own licentious will:

“In all his activity a man is bound to follow his Conscience… It follows that he is not to be forced to act in manner contrary to his conscience. Nor, on the other hand, is he to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience, especially in matters religious. The reason is that the exercise of religion, of its very nature, consists before all else in those internal, voluntary and free acts whereby man sets the course of his life directly to God.” [3]

Here conscience is used interchangeably with self-will so that on the surface it looks very honorable and says the truth that no man or religious authority may infringe on the God-given rights of men to direct themselves to God. But what the document is really saying is that the Church must honor the judgment of man to choose and decide for himself what course he is going to take, even if it means denying Christ. We might almost see the document as a pro-choice document, since what is honored is not the right choice but the “right” or “freedom” to choose, so that whatever choice is made is automatically honored by the Council.

What is absurd is how Vatican II cites our “human dignity” as the justification for this religious liberty. “The declaration of this Vatican Council on the right of man to religious freedom has its foundation in the dignity of the person, whose exigencies have come to be fully known to human reason through centuries of experience.” [9] Since when is man’s ‘dignity’ flaunted before the throne of God?

True religious liberty is that special endowment we all have to freely serve God without the interference of tyrannies or world councils that coerce us into adopting anything contrary to Church tradition. Such was the way of the saints who freely abandoned themselves to God with complete immunity to all things so that they were answerable only to God without respect to persons. (Ephesians 6:6)

The same liberty applies to Christian governments. It is not only the right but duty of government to enforce Christian morality as the law of the land, and to openly advocate it for the good of all, but according to Vatican II our U.S. government does not have that right.

“It follows that a wrong is done when government imposes upon its people, by force or fear or other means, the profession or repudiation of any religion.” [6]

Government indeed cannot force its people to profess a certain denomination, but it most certainly can profess Christianity to be the law of the land where the people at least are required to profess it in action through their compliance. But according to the Council, the U.S. Supreme Court did wrong in 1892 by declaring the United States to be “A Christian nation” in which “Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind.” The U.S. traditionally imposes the rule of Christianity as the law of the land to be obeyed by its citizens, namely, thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not rape, fornicate or abuse little children, etc., yet the Council seems to regard this mandatory compliance as ‘coercion.’ Does government not have a right and duty to enforce law and order?

According to the document, religious zealots and terrorists should be free from such government coercion. “The freedom or immunity from coercion in matters religious which is the endowment of persons as individuals is also to be recognized as their right.” [4] Since when do people have a right to offend? If a person’s religion dictates that he can murder Christians for Allah and crash his jet into the local skyscraper, shall he now be immune from government censure or coercion? God forbid!

The fact that someone has a religious conviction doesn’t make it right. With great liberty and conviction, the Jews condemned Jesus to death, even in the name of “God their father,” but Jesus told them who their father was, the devil, just as the devil is the father of those who suggest we may break the laws of God in view of religious liberty.

Perhaps the most passionate opponent of the Religious Liberty document was Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who warned of its detrimental consequences for the future, citing that it advocated “the right to cause scandal.” He warned that with this document “a civil society endowed with Catholic legislation shall no longer exist” and said it would bring about “the disappearance in the Church of the missionary spirit for the conversion of souls.” (Bernard Tissiers, The Biography of Marcel Lefebvre)

On June 29, 1976, the Archbishop also had this to say: “This right to religious freedom is blasphemous, for it attributes to God purposes that destroy His Majesty, His Glory, His Kingship. This right implies freedom of conscience, freedom of thought, and all the Masonic freedoms.”

According to Lefebvre, the most incriminating evidence against the Religious Liberty of Vatican II was the enthusiastic support it received from the synagogue of satan. Consider the following from the Archbishop:

“This very year [1965], Yves Marsaudon, the Freemason, has published the book L’ oecumenisme vu par un franc-macon de tradition (Ecumenism as Seen by a Traditional Freemason). In it the author expresses the hope of Freemasons that our Council will solemnly proclaim religious liberty… What further evidence do we need?”

If Pope Francis is so impassioned about honoring the rights of man, he should honor our right to resist him, otherwise he discriminates. If adulterers have a right to continue in adultery, then we certainly have a right to censure their adultery, because “men should act on their own judgment” [1] and “man is to be guided by his own judgment.” [11]

With God as our guide we will do just that!

Read more >>

Cardinal Sarah’s Indictment of Communion in the Hand Stands with Tradition

Guest Post by David Martin

Cardinal Robert Sarah who heads the Vatican’s Congregation for Divine Worship has decried Communion in the hand and is summoning the Catholic faithful to return to receiving Communion on the tongue while kneeling.

In the preface to a new book on the subject, Cardinal Sarah warns that lack of reverence for the Blessed Sacrament is the major disorder undermining the Faith today and that Communion in the hand was deliberately sown by the devil for this very end.

“The most insidious diabolical attack consists in trying to extinguish faith in the Eucharist, sowing errors and favoring an unsuitable manner of receiving it," the cardinal wrote. "Truly the war between Michael and his Angels on one side, and Lucifer on the other, continues in the heart of the faithful: Satan’s target is the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Real Presence of Jesus in the consecrated Host."

“Why do we insist on receiving Communion standing and on the hand?,” the cardinal asks. According to Sarah, the manner in which the Holy Eucharist is distributed and received "is an important question on which the Church today must reflect." Cardinal Sarah: Widespread Communion in the hand is part of Satan’s attack on the Eucharist

Sarah hits the nail on the head, since the major crisis facing the Church today is the loss of the awareness of the supernatural presence of Christ in his tabernacle. With the crisis ever intensifying, it somehow has evaded the hierarchy that the crux of the problem has been our denigrating regard for the Holy Eucharist, encouraged most especially by this errant practice of receiving Communion in the hand. This is a Protestant practice that was introduced in the sixties by renegade bishops to detract from Christ’s divinity and foment disbelief in the Real Presence. 

However, the faithful are not empowered to touch the Body of Christ as in the priesthood, which is why Communion in the hand was never *promulgated as a universal practice for the Church. And whereas it is allowed today as common law, lay people 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 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 in the Church through this practice. His objective is to destroy the monarchical concept of the Church so that Christ is now seen as mere man, “symbolized” by bread and wine, and Communion in the hand has been an effective tool in hand to advance this heresy.

Pope Paul VI 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 been a major deterrent in the spiritual advance of the faithful. It is no wonder that St. Basil the Great regarded Communion in the hand as “a grave fault.” (Letter 93)

A grave fault it is that bishops through poor liturgical discipline have allowed the faithful to fall into the lamentable blindness of not acknowledging the physical and supernatural presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Because of Communion in the hand and other like shams, many today do not understand what the Mass is.

During the Consecration of Holy Mass, the Sacrifice of Christ is reenacted through the commemorative formula commanded by Christ to his Apostles—This is My Body, This is My Blood—so that upon consecration, the substance of bread and wine is changed into the very substance of Jesus Christ. It is no longer the substance of bread and wine, but the substance of Christ, only and entirely, without any other substance mingling with it. Only the accidents or physical properties of bread and wine remain.

The acknowledgment of this supernatural Mystery is the first and foremost requirement placed on the faithful 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 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 that Holy Communion is just a formality, i.e. a holy meal, a community gathering, in which people can come up in cafeteria fashion to have their “blessed bread.” It promotes all manner of disrespect, e.g. women coming up in promiscuous attire, tattooed, etc.

Gallop surveys indicate that a mere 30 percent of America’s Catholics believe in the True Presence. And whereas Pope Francis may see strict adherence to dogma as “idolatry,” he needs to understand that without preserving dogma through traditional discipline, people will fall into the idolatry of human worship where they turn to each other at Mass instead of to God.

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 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. Satanism & the Eucharist | Saint Factory

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, said 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.

The centuries-old ordinance allowing only the consecrated hands of a priest to handle the Body of Christ also rules out lay “Eucharistic Ministers.” 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 teaching in his Summa Theologiae.

“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 notorious for 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!

Pope Benedict XVI 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 Mystery of Faith. We might say that a form of ‘Eucharistic atheism’ has set in. Poor liturgical discipline has contributed mightily 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 futile.

Those who approach the Eucharist in a casual, nonchalant manner would do well to consider the 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)

* In 1969, Pope Paul VI made an exception for the bishops of Holland by leaving it up to them to decide whether to adopt this practice, though he very much dissuaded it. Unfortunately, it spread rapidly from Holland to other countries with no formal sanction from Rome. 

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2018/02/23/cardinal-sarah-communion-in-the-hand-part-of-diabolical-attack-on-eucharist/

Read more >>

Vatican II: Revolution Under the Guise of Reform

Guest Post By David Martin

Perhaps the greatest curse of our time has been the misguidance of the flock of Christ under the illusion of divine guidance, a treacherous path that was set in motion at Vatican II. Cardinal Ratzinger even told his friend Fr. Ingo Dollinger—a close friend and spiritual child of St. Padre Pio—that the Third Secret of Fatima spoke of "a bad council and a bad Mass," presumably referencing the Second Vatican Council. https://onepeterfive.com/cardinal-ratzinger-not-published-whole-third-secret-fatima/

But some will lash out at this, arguing that a dogmatic council cannot err because it is guided by the Holy Spirit. But who ever said Vatican II was dogmatic? The fact is that there was no dogma defined at the Council. Benedict XVI while a cardinal even pointed out the non-infallible status of Vatican II, as we see in his address to the bishops of Chile in 1988:

"The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of super-dogma which takes away the importance of all the rest." (Cardinal Ratzinger on Vatican II)

Pope Paul VI also cited the non-infallible status of Vatican II when he said that the Council "avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church’s infallible teaching authority." (General Audience, December 1, 1966)

The Holy Father also said in 1970: "In many areas the Council has not so far given us peace but rather stirred up troubles and problems that in no way serve to strengthen the Kingdom of God within the Church or within its souls."

It was this same pope who lamented the outcome of Vatican II on the ninth anniversary of his coronation, when he declared: "From some fissure the smoke of Satan entered into the temple of God." (June 29, 1972)

The fact is that Vatican II in many ways dissented from Church teaching. For instance, the Council teaches that "it is allowable, indeed desirable that Catholics should join in prayer with their separated brethren" on the grounds that "The Holy Spirit does not refuse to make use of other religions as a means of salvation." (Unitatis Redintegratio)

This radically contradicts the Church's infallible teaching that the Holy Spirit works only through the Catholic Church, outside of which there exists no salvation (extra ecclesiam nulla salus). Pope Pius IX in his Syllabus of Errors condemned the Protestant notion that "Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation."
 
The Syllabus of Errors also warned against attempts to revolutionize the Church, yet the conciliar document Gaudium et Spes (in conjunction with the documents on Religious Liberty and Ecumenism) was intended to counteract the Syllabus of Errors and to revive the rebellious principles of the French Revolution of 1789. Cardinal Ratzinger attested to this in his 1982 book, Principles of Catholic Theology:

"We might say that it [Gaudium et Spes] is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of counter-syllabus... Let us be content to say that the text serves as a counter-syllabus and, as such, represents, on the part of the Church, an attempt at an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789." (Cardinal Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, pp. 381-382, Ignatius Press, 1987)

Hence, we see Vatican II conniving with the French Revolution of 1789, which was Masonically generated to instigate rebellion against the Faith, just as the Council connived with Luther's Reformation which was generated for this same purpose. But as with the Reformation, the Vatican II revolution was waged under the pretext of a reform so that people would see it as "magisterial."

What we are witnessing today is the Magisterium vs. the counter-magisterium, which is precisely what Pope John Paul II while a cardinal was trying to alert us to in his prophetic warning about the rise of an "anti-Church" that would preach an "anti-Gospel." During his visit to America in 1976, Cardinal Karol Wojtyla delivered this prophetic message in Philadelphia, on the occasion of the bicentennial anniversary of American Independence.

"We are now standing in the face of the greatest historical confrontation humanity has gone through. I do not think that wide circles of American society or wide circles of the Christian community realize this fully. We are now facing the final confrontation between the Church and the anti-Church, of the Gospel versus the anti-Gospel. We must be prepared to undergo great trials in the not-too-distant future; trials that will require us to be ready to give up even our lives.... How many times has the renewal of the Church been brought about in blood! It will not be different this time."

A true renewal would mean restoring the Church to its former position of honor as it stood before Vatican II. Such efforts will inevitably bring great persecution and even "blood" upon those who push for this, so great is the modern-day addiction to the conciliar idol of change.

Let's face it, the new church of man stemming from of Vatican II promises confused Catholics that they can now dispense with 'archaic' rules and regulations, assuring them that God accepts them as they are, and that they can even live in adultery knowing that "no one can be condemned forever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel." (Amoris Laetitia, 297)

What we're really looking at today is a revival of Martin Luther, the culprit who first generated this crack-pot theology. Consider Luther's famous advice to his disciple-companion Philip Melanchthon:

"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)

Reviving the cause of Luther in fact was a key objective of the Second Vatican Council, as affirmed by Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx, a prominent figure of the Council who said: "The accusation of connivance with the Reformation is therefore not without foundation."

Conniving with the Reformation is something the post-conciliar church officially recognizes, as we read in the 1980 Joint Catholic-Lutheran Commission which grew out of Vatican II: "Among the ideas of the Second Vatican Council, we can see gathered together much of what Luther asked for, such as the following: description of the Church as ‘The People of God’ (a democratic and non-hierarchical idea); accent on the priesthood of all baptized; the right of the individual to freedom of religion."

Unfortunately, this connivance has now reached the point that the Vatican on October 31 issued a postage stamp on which Martin Luther is depicted kneeling with St. John before Jesus. Shall the Vatican also issue a stamp with Hitler kneeling before Jesus?

The point being that Luther was a heretic and notorious enemy of God, who taught that Jesus was an adulterer, who rejected six books of the Bible, who dubbed the Sacrifice of the Mass "sacrilegious and abominable," and who utterly cursed the papacy. Should Rome be commemorating Luther and praising him as "a witness to the Gospel?"

It was for reason that Luther was excommunicated in 1521, whereupon the Council of Trent later condemned his Reformation, decreeing that those who hold to its errors are an anathema. How is it then that Rome is now praising a heretic who the Church officially holds to be an enemy of the Christian Faith?

The answer: Vatican II had a key role in infecting the Church with this heresy. There were six known Protestant delegates at the Second Vatican Council who played a significant role in shaping the Council documents. Michael Davies confirms this in his book on the New Mass where he states that "six Protestant observers were invited to advise this Consilium. They played an active part in the preparation of the New Mass." Their names for the record were: Canon Jasper, Dr. McAfee Brown, Professor George Lindbeck, Professor Oscar Cullmann, Pastor Rodger Schutz, and Archdeacon Pawley.

Cardinal Augustine Bea, who headed the Secretariat for the Promotion of Christian Unity, boasted of the contribution made by these Protestant delegates in formulating the Decree on Ecumenism, when he said: "I do not hesitate to assert that they have contributed in a decisive way to bringing about this result."

Professor B. Mondin, of the Pontifical Propaganda College for the Missions, stated that delegates such as Dr. Cullmann made "a valid contribution" to drawing up the Council documents.

This is not to mention people like Gregory Baum, the ex-priest and gay advocate who drafted the conciliar document Nostra Aetate for the Second Vatican Council, or Annibale Bugnini, the suspected Freemason who was the principal architect of Sacrosanctum Concilium, which laid out the design for the new Mass.

Hence Vatican II in the final analysis was neither dogmatic, nor was it magisterial in the ordinary sense, but was a carefully contrived revolution to instigate departure from Church tradition, but in such a way that this is seen as the work of the Holy Spirit.

This is why the Third Secret of Fatima urgently needs to be released, because only then will it shed light on what really happened at Vatican II and how it has caused the Church in our time to degenerate under the illusion of progress.

Read more >>

Pastoral Care Commands a Return of the Old Mass

 

Guest Post by David Martin

With the ensuing eclipse of the Faith ever enshrouding the Church in darkness, enough cannot be done to push for a return of the Traditional Latin Mass, since this is the eternal torch that led the way through the centuries with generation after generation of sanctified fruits. (Mt. 7:20)

Unfortunately, some today see the old Mass as a specialty item or nostalgia piece, forgetting that it was the essential center-piece that Christ gave his Church for the preservation of its doctrine and unity. God's vision for the Church was that it be One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, and that it be bonded by one universal language and rite.

Hence a universal return of the Latin Mass would be a powerful means of restoring unity to the Church against the influence of the new Mass which has divided the Church since Vatican II. For with the Mass said today in the language of each country (vernacular), this has fostered the idea that the Church is something that is secular and divided, as opposed to holy and universal, so a return of Latin is needed to help bring about a true unity as it existed before the Council.

However, the tables will never completely be turned back in the right direction unless Rome reverses what was the single most destructive innovation implemented after Vatican II, and that was when they turned the priest around so that he says the Mass facing the people with his back to the tabernacle. (versus populum) What has ensued is a historic shift of focus such that the emphasis today is on the community instead of on God.

This detriment is cited by acclaimed liturgist Monsignor Klaus Gamber, whom Pope Benedict while a cardinal proclaimed as a prophet for our time: "We must draw the necessary conclusion and admit that the celebration facing the people is, in fact, an error. In the final analysis, celebration facing the people is a turning towards man, and away from God."  (The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, 1993)

Fr. Gamber speaks a pure sentence. The Faithful today have been taken up with all manner of distraction and adulterated teachings (e.g. Amoris Laetita), the reason being Christ is no longer central before the public eye, so the old Mass is needed to pull the faithful back into focus. Christ needs to be lifted up in center-view before the Church so that the Mystical Body can be healed of the many serpentine bites that now afflict it. (Numbers 21:9, John 3:14)

Such a renewal is only Magisterial. The offering of Mass facing the altar (ad orientem) has its roots in the Old Testament and has been the universal norm for the entire span of the New Testament. The Old Testament offerings facing the tabernacle were a figure of Christ’s Sacrifice that would continue perpetually in this manner through the priests, so that since the time of Christ there is no evidence of the Church having deviated from this pattern.

This point is affirmed by Monsignor Gamber: "We can say and convincingly demonstrate that neither in the Eastern nor the Western Church was there ever a celebration facing the people." (The Reform of the Roman Liturgy) Even from the time of Abel to the time of Pope Paul VI, the sacrificial offering was always done facing God.

Vatican II marked the first time ever that priests were asked to depart from this age-old pattern. The September 26, 1964, Instruction on the Liturgy, Inter Oecumenici, now ruled that "The main altar should preferably be freestanding, to permit walking around it and celebration facing the people." (Article 91)

This one change alone served mightily to deflect the Barque from its chartered course. This was the hub that set into motion the new order of liturgical chaos that has caused a wide body of the church to turn its back on Christ. Though some initially thought the liturgical reform was inspired of God, 1 the Novus Ordo was born of an aversion for God's goodness and a desire to "turn towards man, and away from God."

It was for reason that Pope Paul VI, in recounting the destructive aftermath of Vatican II, declared to the world: "From some fissure the smoke of satan entered into the temple of God." (June 29, 1972) The adversary knew that if he could get his foot in the door, he could use the Church’s liturgical apparatus as a tiller to drive the Church shipwreck onto secular coasts.

Monsignor Gamber, whose work was highly praised by Cardinal Ratzinger, had this to say about the change of liturgy: "The liturgical reform welcomed with so much idealism and hope by many priests and lay people alike has turned out to be a liturgical destruction of startling proportions, a debacle worsening with each passing year. Instead of the hoped-for renewal of the Church and of Catholic life, we are now witnessing a dismantling of the traditional values and piety on which our faith rests."

Cardinal Ratzinger himself had this to say: "What happened after the Council was something else entirely: in place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over the centuries, and replaced it—as in a manufacturing process—with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product." (From his preface to The Reform of the Roman Liturgy)

Cardinal Ottaviani, who was special adviser to Pope Paul VI, refuted the New Mass in a letter to His Holiness on September 25, 1969, saying, "The Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass." (From his cover letter to his famous Ottaviani Intervention on the New Mass)

"The Catholic theology of the Mass" is a reference to the Sacred Mysteries. During the elevation of the Host and Chalice, the Sacrifice of Calvary is reenacted, whereby the substance of bread and wine is changed into the very substance of Jesus Christ, so that the substance of bread and wine ceases to be. It is now the substance of Jesus Christ, only and entirely, without any other substance mingling with it. Only the accidents or physical properties of bread and wine remain (e.g. taste, smell, touch), but the substance itself is now Christ, and only Christ. This Divine substance under the appearance of bread and wine is what we call The Mystery of Faith.

All care must be taken to preserve the integrity of the liturgical text as it was given to us by the holy men of God, that it might impart the proper light and understanding concerning this Mystery of Faith—the very heart of the Mass. The liturgy is supposed to enhance our awareness of this Mystery by rendering honor to our Eucharistic King on the altar, but today's liturgy has diverted the attention away from Christ and turned the Mass into an occasion of festive encounter between the congregation and priest.

During an international teleconference on August 30, 2016, Cardinal Raymond Burke, the former prefect of the Apostolic Signatura lamented the scandal of Mass versus populum, arguing that it turns the Mass into a performance or dialogue. "There’s the great temptation when the priest is facing the people to see him as some kind of a performer," the former St. Louis archbishop said. "Instead of the priest together with the people relating to God, somehow it becomes an interaction between the priest and the people."

This liturgical aberration, when combined with flippant liturgical text spiked with political agenda, make-shift Eucharistic prayers, and casual socializing before Communion with the hand shake of peace, have worked together to bring about what can be called the greatest crisis facing the Church today, namely, the loss of the awareness of the supernatural presence of Christ in his sanctuary. We might say that a form of Eucharistic atheism prevails today, thanks to the modern Mass.

It was for reason that St. Pope Pius V issued ex-cathedra his superlative papal bull Quo Primum (July 14, 1570), whereby he instituted a perpetual mandate that the Mass of the Council of Trent alone be said. "This present Constitution can never be revoked or modified, but shall ever remain valid and have the force of law." Therein he makes clear that any future efforts to alter or deviate from the Tridentine formula of the Mass will "incur the 2 wrath of  Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."

What is interesting is that Pope Paul VI, so often accused of imposing the new Mass, never forbade the old Mass. In 1986, a panel of nine Vatican cardinals concluded that Pope Paul VI never abrogated the Mass of Pius V, nor did he mandate the New Mass, nor did he grant bishops the right to forbid or restrict priests from saying the Tridentine Latin Mass. Pope John Paul II had commissioned the cardinals to look into the legal status of the old Mass, as it was his intention to bring its legality to light.

This laid the groundwork for Benedict XVI to continue the process of liberating the old rite, which he did via Summorum Pontificum (July 7, 2007), which reaffirmed the legality of the pre-conciliar Latin Mass. The Motu Proprio did not make the old Mass legal, but made official what already was the case, namely, that it always was the right of priests to say the old Mass without permission from their bishops. After all, if priests today do not need permission to say a Mass that was never mandated, they certainly don’t need permission to say the Mass that was. Do they need permission to keep the Ten Commandments too?

If Pope Paul VI had truly mandated the New Mass, he would have specified this, but this was never done. Nowhere in the 1969 Missale Romanum does it mandate that the New Mass has to be said. The document merely mandates the publication of the new missal, ordering that "the prescriptions of this Constitution go into effect [are validated] November 30th of this year" and that it "be firm and effective now and in the future." But there is no mention of its use. The document was issued as an indult for those that wanted the new Mass.

Pius V, on the contrary, laid down the law with his subjects, saying, "We order them in virtue of holy obedience to chant or to read the [Tridentine] Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herewith laid down by Us." He said: "Let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us" mandating that "This new rite alone is to be used."

THIS IS THE MASS that needs to be returned if the light of true faith is to be preserved. Monsignor Gamber says, "A real change in the contemporary perception of the purpose of the Mass and the Eucharist will occur only when the table altars are removed and Mass is again celebrated at the high altar; when the purpose of the Mass is again seen as an act of adoration and glorification of God... and as the mystical reenactment of the Lord’s sacrifice on the cross."

Returning the old Mass would show true pastoral care in that it would give the eternal riches of God back to his people and provide a true renewal in which the light of tradition can again shine through the liturgy and dispel the darkness of our time. Christ instituted his Church that it might be a light to the nations, signified by the Latin word Lumen Gentium. The eternal light emanating from the old Rite is that Lumen Gentium wherewith to attract the world to Christ, but by withholding this light it has deprived man of good things and wrought his alienation from God.

It is high time that Rome "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." (1 Thessalonians 5:21) Pope Benedict XVI, in speaking of the Tridentine Mass, accentuated this very point on April 30, 2011: "What was sacred for prior generations, remains sacred and great for us as well." (Universae Ecclesia)

Let us clamor then for the restoration of the main altar and that priests everywhere will begin offering the Mass facing the altar. The Vatican's chief liturgist Cardinal Robert Sarah is calling for a universal return of saying the Mass ad orientem, and said on September 7, 2017, that the world has "forgotten about God" because the priests "who are supposed to be 'the light of the world' (Mt 5:14) are not approaching the summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed."

In an interview published on September 21, Cardinal Burke was asked which of the liturgical reforms requested by Cardinal Sarah should come first. Burke answered, "Offering the Mass with everyone facing the Lord [ad orientem]." He said, "This will help so much to restore the sense of worship and to show that the Mass is not some kind of social event between the priest and parishioners or the parishioners among themselves."

According to Cardinal Burke, priests effectively assume a pastoral role when they say the Traditional Latin Mass facing the altar. "The priest as our spiritual father is leading us in this worship to lift our minds and hearts to God." (August 30, 2016)

1 The principal architect of the new Mass was Msgr. Annibale Bugnini, a suspected Freemason who twice was expelled from the Vatican because of suspicious activity. https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/liturgical-time-bombs-in-vatican-ii-michael-davies/1114285164?ean=9781618904331

2 The wrath of Almighty God and SS. Peter and Paul is not incurred by priests who innocently comply with the Novus Ordo thinking it is the right thing to do, but by perpetrators such as those that authored the perfidious Vatican II document Sacrosanctum Concilium which, under the guise of restoration, proposed devious changes to the Mass in violation of the everlasting ordinance. Even so, the Mass today remains valid in that it reenacts the Sacrifice of Christ.

Read more >>

Francis Empowers Bishops to Lay Down Their own Liturgical Regulations

Pope Francis celebrates Mass in Villavicencio, Colombia, Friday, Sept. 8, 2017. (Credit: AP Photo/Andrew Medichini.)

 

Guest Post By David Martin

Pope Francis has issued a motu proprio Magnum Principium, a modification of Canon Law 838, which grants bishops’ conferences greater control over the translation of liturgical texts. This includes the power to make adaptations which the bishops deem appropriate for their regions. 

Until now, Canon 838 (§1) stated that "The direction of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, namely, that of the Apostolic See." Paragraph §2 said: "It is for the Apostolic See to order the liturgy of the universal Church," but now the Apostolic See has the task of "recognizing adaptations approved under the law of the Episcopal Conference." (§2) In other words, the power of the Curia is reduced from authorizing to approving texts that are generated by episcopal conferences.

Paragraph §4 makes it clear that the pope has now given bishops the power to determine much of the Church's liturgical direction. "Within the limits of his competence, it belongs to the diocesan bishop to lay down in the Church entrusted to his care, liturgical regulations which are binding on all."

This opens the door, not only to greater liberty in translating liturgical texts, but to creativity in drafting their own texts. What we are seeing is a further attempt to pull the Catholic world away from the Church's centralized authority and have a whimsical free-for-all.

Francis himself, on October 17, 2015, called for a "healthy decentralization" of power in the Roman Catholic Church, including changes in the papacy and greater decision-making authority for local bishops, so this latest motu proprio is part of his plan to execute this decentralization.

It calls to mind the subversive designs of Mgsr. Annibale Bugnini—the key liturgical planner of Vatican II and principal architect of Sacrosanctum Concilium—as he relayed them to Masonic Grand Master Licio Gelli in a *letter dated July 2, 1967: "The greatest liberty was given to choose between the various formulas, to individual creativity, and to chaos!"

Under the pretext of making the Faith more accessible to the laity, the enemies of the Church introduced vernacular at Vatican II for the purpose of rendering the Church secular and divided, as opposed to holy and universal. It appears that Rome is now going the full nine yards with this plan.

However, if holiness, unity, and crystal clear communication from God to man is what Francis aspires for, he will promptly scrap these modernist trappings and return the Mass to its original formula in the Latin Tridentine Rite—the formula which accomplished this perfectly through the centuries. This is what Pope Benedict XVI aspired for during his active pontificate, so why shouldn't Francis?

In speaking of the Traditional Latin Mass, Pope Benedict said on April 30, 2011: "What was sacred for prior generations, remains sacred and great for us as well." (Universae Ecclesia)

The irony of all this liturgical updating is that Latin—the very thing that modernists despise—is all too conveniently used as a tool to pull the faithful away from their Latin heritage. Perfidious documents such as the latest are published in Latin to make them appear "religious," but is this not Pharisaic? Vatican bureaucrats should at least have the decency to publish their revolution in their own Esperanto and reserve Latin for the holy things of God.

*This correspondence is taken from Andrea Tornielli's Dossie Liturgia Uma Babel Programada, that appeared in the June 1992 issue of 30 Days.

https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2017/09/breaking-motu-proprio-magnum-principium.html

Read more >>

Francis Apparently not Happy with Roman Posters

Image Source: CNN

Guest Post by David Martin

Pope Francis seems to have taken offense over an anonymous poster campaign which called into question his mercy. On February 4, Romans woke up to more than 200 posters of a stern-faced pope plastered all over the city, with a caption that asks, "But where is your mercy?"

The unidentified posters accused Francis of having "ignored cardinals" and "decapitated the Order of Malta" — references to a bitter dispute between the order and the Vatican that benched a conservative cardinal.

The day after the incident, the pope called on pilgrims during the Angelus prayer to stay far away from "the polluting germs of ego, envy, and slander."

The following Sunday he criticized the everyday use of "insults," an apparent reference to the anonymous posters, though it seems he was also alluding to a barrage of criticism he has received in recent months over his progressive Vatican reforms and his dissent from Church teaching and practice. In his weekly Angelus address, Francis highlighted Jesus' commandment, "Thou shalt not kill," saying the edict applied not only to actual homicide, "but also to those behaviors which offend the dignity of the human person, including insulting words." He added that he "who insults his brother kills that brother in his heart."

Insults indeed are grave sins against charity, especially insults against the Faith. However, the anonymous posters were not intended as insults to the pope, but were earnest inquiries as to where his mercy is at. After all, he has shown mercy for liberal U.N. anti-life agents who use his Vatican to promote a more "sustained" planet through population control (abortion), and he has exonerated people like Albrecht von Boseselager of the Knights of the Order of Malta after he was rightfully dismissed by his superior Fra' Matthew Festing for distributing $millions worth of contraceptives and abortifacient drugs, while Festing was asked by the pope to resign. Where is the pope's mercy?

He has shown his mercy to offenders like abortionist Emma Bonino whom he called "one of Italy's greats," and to Fidel Castro who lived by the firing squad, while demoting and showing disdain for outstanding Vatican prelates like Cardinals Burke and Sarah for their humble witness of the Catholic Faith.

Worse yet, he has made fun of young Catholics who prefer to attend the Traditional Latin Mass, and went so far as to say that the reason young people attend this more "rigid" form of the Mass is to "hide their evils." In an interview given by Pope Francis to his close confidant Fr. Antonio Spadaro SJ, who is Editor-in-Chief of Civiltà Cattolica, he expressed wonder over why young people, who were not raised with the Latin Mass, nonetheless prefer it.

"And I ask myself: Why so much rigidity? Dig, dig, this rigidity always hides something, insecurity or even something else. Rigidity is defensive. True love is not rigid."

Words like these are "the polluting germs of ego, envy, and slander" that need to be cleansed from the Church. When Christ said "Thou shalt not kill," it also meant not to kill the spirit of young people, who after much prayer, deliberation, and struggle, have decided to do something right in life to the delight of their Maker. A crime it is that they should be insulted this way for their fidelity.

If Francis were true of heart, he would cry tears of gratitude that these young people, who could be using their time to engage in pop culture and sin, have chosen rather to grow up and to attach themselves to God in the old Mass. And he would be instant to understand that it is Christ himself who gently draws these precious souls to himself in the Traditional Mass. Why should Francis Wonder!?

He seems to have a phobia about the goodness of God. This goodness was manifest through the ages by the glories of tradition wherewith God enriched his Church. In his mercy He extended to us the jewels of sacred tradition and the Latin Mass, that it might be a joy and cleansing to his people, so why does Francis scorn these treasures while adulterating the Church with change? Women deacons? Lay Eucharistic ministers? Communion to adulterers? Respect for "gay orientation?" Youth Mass on the beach with guitars, beachwear, and gay dancers? What kind of scandal is he pushing on the youth? He discards rules and regulations and then teases the flock with this socialist merry-making that he calls mercy! "Woe to the world because of scandals!" (Matthew 18:7)

Nay, the posters in Rome were not an insult to the pope, but were providentially arranged for his instruction. Let us pray that Francis will revisit this matter and learn by it. And let him "dig, dig," that he might discover his own "rigidity" which makes him "defensive" against tradition.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/pope-francis-speaks-against-insults-175811979.html?soc_src=mail&soc_trk=ma

Read more >>