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 >>

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 >>

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 >>

The Detestable and Abominable Practice of Cremation

A fitting reminder in this sermon on cremation.  For my past article on cremation, see Why Cremation is Not Permitted for Catholics

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 >>

Bishop of Rockford Attempts to Return Church to the Chaos of the 70s

 

The following is taken from EWTN.  I would encourage our readers to not only pray for the Bishop in his misguided efforts but to contact the Ecclesia Dei Commission in Rome. Simply put, what the Bishop is attempting to "forbid" and "require" is illegal and contrary to the law of the Church.  As such, it is no law at all.

Bishop David J. Malloy has doubled down against our Catholic liturgical tradition under the false banner of unity. As noted today by Fr. Z at his site:

In this letter, a follow up to their diocesan “Presbytery Day” (where he spoke to them about “challenges”), the bishop writes:

“Following that talk, I write now to ask for your cooperation on several matters that have since been referred to me in connection with my comments last September:

First, as I noted at that time, we are all aware of the on-going discussion surrounding the celebration of the Mass “ad orientem”. However, for the reasons I discussed at that time, and in order to underscore our unity in prayer and to avoid differences between and even within parishes on this point, I ask that no Masses be celebrated “ad orientem” without my permission.”

Of course this move, which runs contrary to the liturgical tradition of the Roman Rite, contrary to the recent recommendations of Cardinal Sarah (prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship), and contrary to the GIRM itself, is the heavy handed modernist tactics of the Seventies and Eighties revisited.

Additionally, the bishop has forbidden…yes FORBIDDEN…his priests from offering Mass in the Extraordinary Form without his permission, specifically citing Articles 5 & 2 of Summorum Pontificum. As Fr. Z correctly notes:

The Bishop of Rockford wrote “with due regard to Art. 2” and then he completely ignored it and wrote something that precisely contradicted it. According to Art. 2, priests of that diocese – or any other diocese in the world for that matter – do not need his permission.

So now, for the faithful of Rockford, they are being returned to a time in the Church when self-loathing Catholicism ruled the day. Back to the days when one need look no further than the chancery to find anti-Catholicism; for that’s what any attack against our liturgical heritage is. Against our past. Against tradition. It’s anti-Catholicism.

But wait; there’s more.

In his letter Bishop Malloy has also advised his priests that “any modifications being carried out in the sacred space of parish churches” requires diocesan approval. Specifically cited are the moving of altars, tabernacles, or “questions involving altar rails.”

In the Diocese of Rockford, Illinois it would seem that the groovy Seventies have indeed returned; at least liturgically.

Those who oppose our Catholic tradition, who oppose the Latin Mass, and who (apparently) believe that mercy and accompaniment do not apply to traditionalists, are feeling quite emboldened these days.

It’s going to get worse before it gets better. Trust me.

And pray for Rockford.

Published with permission of Brian Williams, Liturgy Guy

Source: EWTN

Read more >>

Graduates of Jesuit Colleges in Congress Overwhelmingly Pro-Abortion

Image Copyright 2013 by A Catholic Life Blog

The Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities recently celebrated the fact that 56 members of the new 115th U.S. Congress (a full 10 percent) attended a Jesuit college or university.

AJCU President Father Michael Sheeran, S.J., said, “A hallmark of Jesuit education is service to others, and we are proud to see that commitment represented by the alumni of Jesuit institutions who serve in the House and Senate. We appreciate their leadership and look forward to working with them during the 115th Congress.”

As boastful as the AJCU seems about this (it’s on the banner of their home page), I’m not sure a celebration is in order as among those legislators there are precious few who are reliably pro-life.

I searched their voting records and found that out of the 12 Jesuit-educated Senators, there are only two reliably pro-life legislators. Two! The rest are either reliably pro-abortion or have mixed voting records.

Out of the 44 congressmen who attended a Jesuit college or university there are only 12 reliably pro-life legislators while there are 32 legislators with pro-abortion or mixed records.

Those who defend and promote the abhorrent evil of abortion are not deserving of praise for “leadership” nor of “service to others.” One would think that the rejection of fundamental Catholic teachings on the dignity of life by alumni might cause Jesuits to reconsider how they’re educating their students.

Source: Cardinal Newman Society

Read more >>

Cupich: Rotten Fruit for the Church

 Let us pray for an end of this scourge on the Catholics of the Archdiocese of Chicago before Chicago - home to the most Latin Masses of any American city - sees the Ancient Liturgy removed steadily from the Faithful.  Kyrie eleison!

From the SSPX website:

Archbishop Blase Cupich has been one of the rising figures in the Catholic Church, and will be made even more prominent this fall.

Chicago Archbishop and Cardinal-elect Blase Cupich encouraged his fellow bishops to respond with courage and vigor “for what the Church is called to be!” The following statement was reported by Vatican Insider (Oct. 12, 2012):

The Holy Father’s visit a year ago [in USA] provided him with an opportunity to see first-hand the vitality and vibrancy of the Church in the US. At the same time, he offered a challenging vision of what the Church is called to be and so it is now up to all of us, the bishops of the US, to respond with courage and vigor."

Chosen by the Pope himself to participate to the 2015 Synod on the Family, Cupich supported the proposal of Cardinal Walter Kasper to provide a path for civilly remarried persons to receive Holy Communion while respecting the decision that such persons, along with homosexuals in relationships, “make about their spiritual lives” (Chicago Tribune, Oct. 17, 2015). Cupich was one of the bishops scandalizing the world by endorsing Kasper’s proposal during the Synod and highlighting the importance of conscience.

It comes therefore to no surprise that Cupich reiterated his support for giving Communion to divorced remarried in an interview last week. But this time, he presents himself as faithful to the Pope’s position!

My position is the same as that of Pope Francis, who has indicated that the proper interpretation of 'Amoris Laetitia' was given by Cardinal Christoph Schönborn and then again by the bishops of Argentina, for which the Pope noted ‘no further interpretation is needed.’ So if people want to know what I think, they should refer to those sources.”

Cupich is well-known for his liberal stance on numerous issues.

On Prolife Issues

Despite reminders on the sacredness of life, Cupich has a history of downplaying the urgency of the question by calling for balance, dialogue, and respect or other approaches.

As Sandro Magister put it in the Chiesa News (Sept. 30, 2014):

Cupich’s voice - as noted both by conservative Catholics, with distress, and by progressives, with satisfaction - always rings out loud and clear when the talk is of immigration or the death penalty, but he seems to get laryngitis every time there is a discussion of abortion, euthanasia, and religious freedom, or criticism of the Obama administration over health care reform."

In August 2015, in the wake of the Center for Medical Progress videos exposing Planned Parenthood’s baby body parts trafficking scandal, Cupich wrote on in the Chicago Tribune (Oct. 26, 2015) that unemployment and hunger are just as appalling as killing children in the womb.

Cupich has been constant in requesting that priests and seminarians of his successive dioceses (Spokane, WA and Rapid City, SD) not participate in 40 Days for Life prayer vigils outside of abortion facilities.

Back in November 2014, Cupich stated that giving Holy Communion to pro-abortion politicians was a positive move. Asked on CBS’s Face the Nation if he would give Communion to pro-abortion politicians, the archbishop said he hoped the grace that comes to people from the Eucharist would bring them to the truth.

Ten years before, during the 2004 presidential election, he refused to join those bishops condemning pro-abortion Catholic politicians and holding that they should not receive Communion. "We cannot cherry-pick particular issues. We have to be willing to talk about all issues. Our position begins with protecting the unborn, but it doesn't end there," he told the Rapid City Journal (May 2, 2004).

When most bishops refused to let Catholic Charities employees serve as navigators for the Affordable Care Act, Cupich bucked the trend: whatever problems the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) had with “Obamacare” and its contraception mandate, he was committed to using the infrastructure of the Church to help poor people access health insurance. He was the second-to-last bishop to join the fight against the contraceptive mandate.

As voters faced a November 2012 referendum on the legalization of same-sex marriage in Washington state, Cupich wrote a pastoral letter calling for "a substantial public debate . . . carried on with respect, honesty and conviction" and asked for "careful consideration" of the church's position on the referendum. In that referendum, voters approved the law by a 54%-46% margin.

On the Liturgy

Cupich has a constant record of hostility toward the traditional liturgy. It is said that in his first Mass as pastor of St. Mary in Omaha, NE his hometown, he reprimanded a young parishioner for attempting to receive the Communion on her knees.

In 2002, as Bishop of Rapid City, SD, Cupich prohibited children to make the first Communion or to be confirmed in the traditional Latin Rite. That same year, according to the Rapid City Journal (May 27, 2002), he prohibited a traditional Latin Mass community from celebrating the Paschal Triduum liturgies according to the 1962 Missal by locking the doors of Immaculate Conception Church during the Easter Triduum. The Good Friday liturgies took place on the sidewalk.

In 2011, then still Bishop in Spokane, WA, Cupich wrote The New Roman Missal: A Time of Renewal, a historical overview on liturgical renewal to introduce the new English translation of the Roman Missal.

Cupich’s vision is the same one which caused the liturgical revolution of the 1970s. Pope Benedict XVI’s motu proprio had no effect on him. He considers the traditional Latin Mass as dreadful and incomprehensible to the people. Its rites, according to Cupich, inspires church architecture such as altar rails which he claims have kept people far from the altar and impeded "full and active participation." By Cupich’s logic, the “old” Mass definitely belongs to a time long ago to which today’s Catholics are unable to relate. Lamenting those who did not accept the changes of the Novus Ordo Missae, Cupich holds that Catholics have to understand that the reform of the Second Vatican Council was, in fact, an improvement. And so he praises Communion under both species, Mass in the vernacular, lay participation in the liturgy, and the simplification of the rubrics.

Role of the women in the Church

For his Installation Mass on the Archdiocese of Chicago on November 2015, Bishop Cupich specifically requested both men and women altar servers. There were therefore four women and four seminarians.

Here is his vision of the role of the woman in the Church, as reported in Origin (Sept. 2013):

It would be a very great mistake to reduce the whole issue of women to the question of ordination. The church must engage the larger issue of women and begin by listening to women themselves. The failure of the church to attend to the concerns of women themselves is a very serious problem. . . . This is a very big knot that needs attention and it will not be untied lec­turing women, and it will not be solved unless men in authority in the church clearly and deeply understand that there is a very great difference between the way women approach things and the way men approach things."

Ecumenism

In 2011, Cupich started a new annual ecumenical service at Our Lady of Lourdes Cathedral of Spokane by inviting Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Lutheran, and Methodist ministers on Good Friday.

In April 2012, he supported the decision of Roman Catholic Gonzaga University of Spokane to invite Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu to speak at its graduation ceremony and receive an honorary degree.

Beginning January 2017, Archbishop Blase J. Cupich of Chicago is supposed to serve as the first Catholic co-chair of a new National Catholic-Muslim Dialogue, sponsored by the Committee on Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs of the USCCB.

Summary

Cupich is clearly a favorite of Pope Francis. In a two-year period, he has been the Pope’s personal candidate—against numerous objections—for four crucial roles: Archbishop of Chicago, participating in the 2015 Synod on the Family, becoming a member of the Congregation for Bishops, and now being elevated to the College of Cardinals. Cupich will now exercise one of the most prominent roles in deciding who to appoint as new bishops in the United States.

It stands to reason that Cupich will use his new-found influence and power to impose his liberal vision on the Church. Let us pray fervently for the Church and our pastors!

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 >>

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 >>

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 >>

Pope Francis: We must have dialogue among religions

Guest Post by David Martin

Pope Francis' ecumenical prayer intention for January 2016 is that all religions will collaborate and be one. In his monthly address delivered on January 6, the feast of the Epiphany, the pope said that the diversity of religious groupings on earth "should lead to a dialogue among religions" and stressed that "We should not stop praying for it and collaborating with those who think differently."

The pope's January prayer intentions was released via video and has scandalized Catholics and non-Catholics the world over. In the spirit of Vatican II the pontiff makes use of highly ambiguous wording to make his point seem irrefutable, saying, "Many think differently, feel differently, seeking God or meeting God in different ways. In this crowd, in this range of religions, there is only one certainty that we have for all: we are all children of God."

This is another attempt to use ambiguous language to advance the so-called validity of all religions. Naturally the members of all religions are the "children of God" in that they are created by God, but they are not the "adopted" children of God through baptism, the sacrament which Jesus told Nicodemus was indispensable for salvation. (John 3:5) The implication here is that non-Catholics are all the "members of God's universal Church," which is not true. Without explicitly committing heresy, the pope strongly insinuates that all religions are blessed and guided from above, which blatantly opposes the Church's dogmatic teaching that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true religion on earth, outside of which there exists no salvation. (extra ecclesiam nulla salus) While heresy is promoted, the advocates of ecumenism hide behind his slippery wording and say, "he didn't preach explicit heresy."

Actions will best prove this. If the pope says that members of other faiths are the "children of God," then he is obliged to help them and not deprive them the riches of the Catholic Faith, lest contempt be shown for the Church's mission to Catholicize the nations. The Church's divinely instituted mission is to convert Jews, Gentiles, and members of other religions, but now Rome is denying Christ's commission to "teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" and to "teach them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." (Mt. 28:19) A pope's duty is to reach out and convert the outsiders so that they too can possess Christ, and not shrink out of fear and deny the Church's mission just so outsiders will praise him. Under the guise of mercy humanity is being deprived of the Kingdom of Heaven, which is what the Year of Mercy really boils down to.

We give the Holy Father the benefit of the doubt, however, as rumors continue to circulate about his melancholia and his suspected use of anti-depressants to keep it in check. Sadly, the pope is being used as an instrument to spread these ecumenical ideas abroad, and it appears it's beginning to catch up with him. Many have noted that his speech these days is sometimes slurred, as can be heard in the Jan. 6 video.

We can only pray that Pope Francis will stand his ground and state forth the truth and nothing but the truth for good of humanity, remembering that he is the visible representative of He who is "the way, and the truth, and the life." (John 14:6) The world today is treading in fetters and chains, but the truth of the Catholic Faith is what will "make them free." (John 8:32) 

Read more >>

Profanation and Apostasy

Guest Article written by David Martin

The holiday season with all its feasting and merry-making is an appropriate time to reflect on the profanation of the temple, which is the major issue facing the Church today. Desecration is rampant throughout the universal Church through the present frenzy of secular activity that is tearing the Church asunder.

Today’s “contemporary” pop liturgy, the use of lay Eucharistic ministers at Mass, and the widespread practice of receiving Communion in the hand are among the many abuses that are destroying the Faith. The Church has become a meeting place for heretics and a stomping ground for ecumenicists that are trying to merge the Catholic Church with other world religions, fulfilling St. John’s prophecy that the Holy City will be overrun by the Gentiles for a symbolic time of forty-two months. (Apocalypse 11:2)

The primary difference between the Church of yesteryear and that of today is that the former demonstrated a healthy cognition of the divine presence in the sanctuary. The Church before Vatican II conducted itself with reverence and respect, evidenced especially by the way Catholics were more observant of God’s laws and ordinances, both in their personal lives, and in the context of divine worship. The Church before the Council was more focused on the presence of Christ in the tabernacle, which in turn was reflected in the true charity and selfless giving that existed among the faithful.

Whereas the church in our time has largely turned its back on the divine presence and is taken up with  a new-found encounter with its “environmental” surroundings. Yea, the church today is abuzz with all manner of socialist, busy-body activity, only because the new makeshift procedures since the Council have brought about this unprecedented shift of focus where the emphasis today is on the community.

We might say that a new order of distraction prevails. The post-conciliar church is bent on appeasing itself with change, as opposed to the Church of old which labored to appease God with sacrifice. Divine worship has become cheap, superficial, and mechanical, where the congregation is wound up in robotic fashion to sit down, stand up, shake hands, and utter pre-constructed “psalms and responses,“ while the minds and hearts are blank! Very little heart and soul goes into today’s Sunday Mass worship.

This is lamentable when we consider that the Holy Eucharist is the very heartbeat of the Mystical Body, around which the entire church must revolve. Hence a true renewal is needed to place the church back into focus with its Head. Genuineness in worship means contrition and compunction of heart, and that the church go down on its knees before God in the Eucharist. Without this self-abasement before the King of kings, the mercy of God does not rest on His people. (Lk 1: 50)

Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem when He threw the money-changers out of the temple was significant in that it marked the only time in the Gospel when He became downright angry and even violent with the Jews. This was to serve as a lesson for all generations to come that the wrath of God is especially enkindled against those who abuse the House of God for their own selfish gain.

Christ indeed will come among us again to fling the wrongdoers from His House, but this time it won’t be just for matters of money, but for heresy and blatant betrayal of the Faith before the people. The Pharisees in purple hats will tremble and shake “because they have transgressed the laws, they have changed the ordinance, they have broken the everlasting covenant.” (Isaias 34:5)

Enough could not be done to sensitize ourselves to the horror of the present sacrilege and how it is re-crucifying Christ in His own House.  St. Padre Pio relates that when he was alone in the choir to pray, he observed a young monk who appeared to be dusting the candelabra near the altar. When he asked who he was, the monk answered: “I am a brother of yours that made the novitiate here. I was ordered to clean the altar during the year of the novitiate. Unfortunately many times I didn’t reverence Jesus while passing in front of the altar [didn’t genuflect], thus causing the Holy Sacrament that was preserved in the tabernacle to be disrespected. For this serious carelessness, I am still in Purgatory.”

If this was the verdict for a simple monk who wasn’t quite perfect, what can we expect for a church today that has been turned into a socialist merry-go-round with the use of churches for concerts, plays, meetings, rehearsals, heretical talks, kiddie Masses, charismatic séances, and all manner of sham religious activity that has overrun the sanctuary and made the Holy Place a shambles?! Christ today is an outcast and exile in His own Church, crushed and buried under the sins of His people who neither reverence nor take notice of His physical and supernatural presence on the altar. The people stream into the church talking, laughing, and swinging to the beat of a new gospel (guitar Mass), while women come in half-dressed exposing the indecency of their flesh for their own gratification!

The worst of it is that the present-day profanation of the temple is carried on in the name of God,   which shouldn’t surprise us. The Pharisees condemned and crucified their Savior 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 seek to turn the Church into a humanist meeting hall. The modern day “renovation” of the Church is done to placate the complaints of those who protest, thus making the renovators protestors in the process. Thereby they display contempt and mockery for the Holy Place, as did the Pharisees who saw the temple as a forum to advance their own egoistic designs.

Unfortunately the Church’s mission has taken the brunt of this latter-day revolt. Pope Francis has emphasized how the Church must reach out and reinstate souls to the friendship of God, but how shall this be done if the church is serving to repel souls? Very few parishes today have kept their traditional beauty so as to attract conversions and vocations. The Church has been so discredited by all the ridicule that outsiders no longer take her seriously as in former times. If clergy and laity no longer believe that the Creator Himself dwells in the tabernacle in full Body and Spirit, how will outsiders ever believe this? If the church is not first enlightened from within, how shall it enlighten those from without? The Church has truly lost its magnetism, and is presently not effective in drawing souls to Christ.

Yea, the post-conciliar revolution is driving souls from the Church and bringing the scourge of God upon His people! The Blessed Virgin at Fatima warned of the divine scourge that was to come in the latter days, but this scourge will not be of little knots on a rope, but of boots, tanks, guns, and nuclear warfare over mankind. The chastisement indeed is coming, but the most painful part of it will be the devastating knowledge that it was justly due to man’s sins. In the final analysis the world will have learned that it was the profanation of the temple that incited God’s wrath and set in motion the great chastisement through which billions were lost.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

Read more >>