nowire2.jpg



How’s it been working out?

A Failed Strategy: 
“Resisting from Within” the Novus Ordo Church

checkmate1.jpg

[Taken from In Veritate Blog]

…Now that fifty years have transpired since Vatican II, can we really say that the movement from within has succeeded? After a half a century of resisting from within, has the tidal wave of Vatican II receded? Has the Catholic faith become stronger in the souls of baptized Catholics? As we look around at the vineyard of the Church, is it flourishing with deep faith and obedience to the commandments of God? Are the sheep of Christ in good hands? Are they confirmed in the doctrines of the Catholic Faith?

   Is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the central act of worship of the Catholic Church, in good order? Has progress been made to turn back the tide of the devastating liturgical reform of Vatican II?

   The answer is, of course, no. What words can we muster to describe the state of the Catholic Church today: Disaster? Ashes? Hiroshima? Great Apostasy? Is there, indeed, a word that could adequately describe the collapse of an institution which has taken place in the past fifty years?

If our numbers are not strong, it is because for the past half-century the “workers from within” have reviled and scorned us as renegades. If they had joined us, tremendous pressure could have been put upon the Modernists to abandon their program.

   Time has told that working from within is a failed strategy.

   Nor for a single moment should anyone think that I concede that we have been working outside the Catholic Church. What sets you outside the Church is heresy. It is those who have embraced the Modernist heresy that are working outside the Church. Those who have resisted the heresy are inside. It is adherence to Catholic doctrine which keeps you inside the Church; it is adherence to heresy that sets you outside….

>>> CONTINUE TO FULL ARTICLE


See Also:


Bursting a Beloved Bubble

Benedict XVI and the
“Prophetic Mission of Fatima”


Every so often, someone with a soft spot for the old Modernist Joseph Ratzinger (“Pope” Benedict XVI) digs up a quote from a homily he gave in 2010 (see video above) in which he speaks somewhat cryptically about the apparitions of our Lady at Fatima and the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary:

We would be mistaken to think that Fatima’s prophetic mission is complete. Here there takes on new life the plan of God which asks humanity from the beginning: “Where is your brother Abel […] Your brother’s blood is crying out to me from the ground!” (Gen 4:9). Mankind has succeeded in unleashing a cycle of death and terror, but failed in bringing it to an end… In sacred Scripture we often find that God seeks righteous men and women in order to save the city of man and he does the same here, in Fatima, when Our Lady asks: “Do you want to offer yourselves to God, to endure all the sufferings which he will send you, in an act of reparation for the sins by which he is offended and of supplication for the conversion of sinners?” (Memoirs of Sister Lúcia, I, 162).

At a time when the human family was ready to sacrifice all that was most sacred on the altar of the petty and selfish interests of nations, races, ideologies, groups and individuals, our Blessed Mother came from heaven, offering to implant in the hearts of all those who trust in her the Love of God burning in her own heart. At that time it was only to three children, yet the example of their lives spread and multiplied, especially as a result of the travels of the Pilgrim Virgin, in countless groups throughout the world dedicated to the cause of fraternal solidarity. May the seven years which separate us from the centenary of the apparitions hasten the fulfilment of the prophecy of the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, to the glory of the Most Holy Trinity.

(Benedict XVI, Homily of May 13, 2010 at Fatima, Portugal; bold print added.)


The parts in bold print are what is usually emphasized and interpreted as Benedict XVI trying to signal to all who are devoted to Our Lady that he is convinced that the Fatima prophecies have not yet been completely fulfilled, specifically that the conversion of Russia asked for by our Lady has not yet taken place and still lies in the future, which is when the Immaculate Heart of the Blessed Mother will finally triumph.

Even though when viewed in the context of the entire homily, there is really nothing that would lead one to believe that Ratzinger holds to this “Gruner-Vennari-Matt-Ferrara” line on Fatima, nevertheless it is indeed true that these words of his — the ones in bold — are obscure enough to allow one to suspect he might be indicating that he believes the conversion of Russia has not yet taken place, and that the triumph of the Immaculate Heart is still to come in the future. 

The problem, however, is that Benedict XVI has since clarified these cryptic remarks of his, and totally burst the bubble of all who were putting their hopes in Ratzinger believing in a future consecration of Russia or some similar version of the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. For some reason, these clarifying remarks have gone widely under-reported, so we’ll be glad to help out in this regard.

To let the cat out of the bag right away, the cold, stark reality is simply this: Benedict XVI’s statement that the prophetic mission of Fatima is not yet concluded means nothing more than that since there are still evil, suffering, and danger in the world, there must still continue to be a conversion of hearts through faith, hope, love, and repentance, which are the only answer to evil, suffering, and danger.

That’s it — no great mystery, no climax, no consecration or conversion of Russia, no triumph of the Immaculate Heart as traditional Catholics have always envisioned it. Benedict gave these clarifying remarks to interviewer Peter Seewald, when the latter asked him to elaborate on what he meant in his homily of May 13, 2010, when he said that the prophetic mission of Fatima was not yet over.

Benedict’s anti-climactic answer was published in Seewald’s book Light of the World:

[Interviewer:] . . . You said: “Whoever believes that the prophetic mission of Fatima is concluded, is wrong.” What is meant by this? Does the message of Fatima in truth still need to be fulfilled?

[Benedict XVI:] It is necessary to distinguish two things when it comes to the message of Fatima: on the one hand, a particular event which is represented in visionary forms; on the other hand, the essential matter under discussion. It wasn’t a matter of satisfying curiosity, after all. For then we would have had to publish the text much earlier. No, the issue is one of pointing to a crux, a critical moment in history, namely, all the forces of evil coming to the fore in the great dictatorships of the 20th century – and which, in other ways, are still active today.

The other issue was [sic] the answer to this challenge. This answer doesn’t consist of great political action, but, at the end of the day, it can only come from a transformation of hearts – through faith, hope, love, and repentance. In this sense, the message is precisely not finished, even though the two great dictatorships have disappeared. The suffering of the Church remains, and the threat which man faces remains, and with them the question for the answer remains as well; with them, the pointer given us by Mary remains. Even now there is affliction. Even now the forces [of evil] threaten to crush the faith in all possible ways. Even now, therefore, we need the answer of which the Mother of God has spoken to the children.

(Benedict XVI, Licht der Welt: Der Papst, die Kirche und die Zeichen der Zeit [Freiburg: Herder, 2010], pp. 193-194; italics added.)


This excerpt is taken directly from the
German original (via our translation) to ensure that no one will be able to say we just relied on an unverified, faulty translation (the page references refer to the original German edition; we are in the process of obtaining the equivalents in the English edition).

So, let’s set the record straight once and for all here: Benedict XVI does not believe there is still some major event to come: not the consecration of Russia, notr the conversion of Russia, not the triumph of the Immaculate Heart in any sense in which traditional Catholics typically understand these terms. Rather, he is on the record clarifying that for him the message of Fatima is only “not finished” “in this sense”, namely, that “a transformation of hearts — through faith, hope, love, and repentance” is still needed today in response to the great “forces of evil” which are “still active today” and cause the “suffering of the Church, and the threat which man faces.”

That’s all there is to it. This nonsense about some mystifying signal Ratzinger supposedly gave about a future Fatima-related event, most recently insinuated by Rorate Caeli, needs to stop. It simply doesn’t correspond to the facts. True devotion to our Lady of Fatima and to the Immaculate Heart of Mary — which we certainly cultivate and encourage — can never be promoted by lies or wishful thinking.

May Our Lady of Fatima intercede for us and hasten the day of her genuine triumph, when the false Vatican II Church will finally be but a distant memory and the true Catholic Church once again shine forth gloriously with a true Pope as the legitimate shepherd of all Catholics.

Related:


Sedevacantist Conference Oct. 8-12, 2014

“Fatima and the Great Apostasy”
Register Now for Traditional Catholic Conference in the U.S.

fatima-conf2014.jpg


2014 Annual Fatima Conference
at Mount St. Michael in Spokane, Washington
October 8 - 12, 2014
Topic: “Fatima and the Great Apostasy”

A gathering of Traditional Catholics for five days of Latin Masses, spiritual
exercises, inspiring lectures and sermons, in the beautiful Pacific Northwest.

Sponsored by the Religious Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen

Registration is required by October 1, 2014!

For full program schedule, further details and registration,
please click here and/or download this flyer (PDF)


Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.

Related:


Catholic Church vs. Vatican II Church

Time to Wake Up!

When CATHOLICS build a church…

holytrinity-boston.jpg

Holy Trinity Catholic Church in Boston, Massachusetts (1877)


When MODERNISTS build a church…

divinemercy-mesquite.jpg

Divine Mercy of our Lord “Catholic” Church in Mesquite, Texas (2007)


Guess which one of these is considered by the Vatican to represent a “New Springtime” in the Faith!

The contrast between the true Catholic Faith and the Modernist Vatican II religion is strikingly visible: 

Modernist church architecture is hideous, cold, banal, stupid, barren, dull, earthly, irreverent, and profane. It is therefore also a perfect fit for the Novus Ordo Missae, which “Pope” Paul VI imposed in 1969. Notice that oftentimes the tabernacle has been banned completely from the sanctuary, which is essentially telling us: “Get God out of the way, we don’t want Him here, he’s interfering with our celebration of ourselves!” The Novus Ordo sanctuary pictured above is actually not even too bad for Modernist standards, considering other examples we could have used, such as this “worship space” at St. John Neumann “Catholic” church in Miami, Florida, this “sanctuary” at St. John Vianney “Catholic” church in Bettendorf, Iowa, or this awful architecture inside St. Hilaire church in Meile, France.

On the other hand, genuine Roman Catholic architecture is beautiful, majestic, reverent, awe-inspiring, sacred — and always raises the mind to heavenly things, for which reason alone it refreshes many a soul. Real Catholic churches are designed to be a worthy house for the Lord, who dwells truly and physically in their tabernacles.

Thus the difference between the Catholic Church and the Novus Ordo Vatican II Sect can be seen not only in their contradictory teachings and disciplines, but also in the very architecture that gives expression to their respective beliefs. This lends even more credence to the fact that there is a substantial difference between the two religions, and any talk of “continuity” is foolish and ultimately deceptive.

The hideous Modernist churches, together with the awful “New Mass” of Paul VI, proved to be the perfect mix to catapult the New Religion into the souls of every church-going Catholic in the 1960s and beyond. Few people ever read the conciliar documents or the new catechisms — it was the new liturgy and terrifying church architecture, more than anything else, that made the Novus Ordo religion so successful.

Lex orandi, lex credendi — how we pray shows what we believe. Compare what today’s “Catholics” believe with what the Catholics under Pope Pius XII and his predecessors believed, and you will find two essentially different religions, as we prove time and again on this web site.

See Also: 


news-digest2.jpg

     Published August 26, 2014
    Novus Ordo Watch Tip: Too much to read? Can't keep up? Use Readability!


Video: “How to Draw Se Pope”


Cleaning up Francis’ latest mess...

francis-scary.jpg

FRANCIS WATCH:
Bergoglio and the Ten Suggestions


Listen On Demand Any Time:

CLICK HERE TO STREAM OR DOWNLOAD


Restoration Radio
 returns from its summer break with another episode of the “Francis Watch” series, a monthly show dedicated exclusively to all things Bergoglio. Tune in live each month or listen on demand at your convenience for a truly Catholic perspective on Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the Anti-Catholic Modernist who falsely claims to be the Pope of the Catholic Church.

In this month's episode, guest host Stephen Heiner discusses two main topics with Bp. Donald Sanborn:


Other subjects discussed include the situation in the Ukraine, whether the Catholic Church ever has anything to apologize for, the Catholic understanding of suicide (in the wake of Robin Williams’ recent death), and more.

Novus Ordo Watch is pleased to be the sponsor of this Francis Watch season on Restoration Radio.

N.B.: Be sure also to listen to “Moving Forward”, Restoration Radio’s broadcast explaining what is changing in its programming and some exciting things to come in the future!

Other select Restoration Radio Broadcasts and Related Links:


It’s a Francis idea, that explains it...

Goals for Peace:
Soccer against War & Genocide

francis-soccer.jpg

The Official Invitation - click to enlarge


You’d think this is straight from a comedy show, but it’s not: It’s the cold, sad truth. While Christian men, women, and children in Iraq are systematically being massacred in the most barbaric ways, such as by being beheaded, buried alive, or torn in half by members of the Islamic “Religion of Peace”, the world’s most beloved Modernist, Jorge Bergoglio (“Pope Francis”), who is supposedly the Supreme Shepherd of the world’s 1 billion Catholics, will be hosting an international-interreligious “Soccer Match for Peace”, to be held on September 1, 2014, in Rome’s Olympic Stadium.

The graphic above shows the official invitation sent out by the Vatican to various celebrity soccer (football) players and coaches, such as Ronaldinho, Roberto Baggio, Diego Maradona, Gianluigi Buffon, Zinedine Zidane, and Lionel Messi. The purpose of the match is to unite people of various nationalities and religions in the promotion of “peace.” No doubt it will terrify the warring parties in Israel and Gaza and the genocidal ISIS terrorists in Iraq — and bring great consolation to the victims — to know that in Rome a soccer game is being played to put an end to violence and promote instead a “culture of dialogue and encounter.”

isis-terrorists.jpg

ISIS Terorists in Iraq: They rape, enslave, torture, behead, bury alive anyone who won’t convert to the Satanic Muslim religion — Francis’ solution? Dialogue and soccer! What could embolden these savages more?


The Italian blog Chiesa e Post Concilio published a brief but excellent commentary on this ludicrous madness by Alessandro Gnocchi, which you can read in Italian here.

Francis is once again demonstating that he is a naturalist: He believes it is possible to obtain peace in this world if everyone just finds a way to get along, if we all just “encounter” one another in “dialogue” and “mutual understanding.” He clearly has no clue about — or simply disbelieves — the true human condition and the consequences of original sin. A “Pope” who calls for a soccer game to help peace efforts cannot — and will not — be taken seriously by anyone. This cannot help but embolden the evil we are up against.

Regarding the absolutely barbaric atrocities committed against Christians, Yezidis and others in Iraq by Islamists trying to establish a caliphate in the region, Francis kept silent for a long time and, when asked about it in an interview, said the following:

In cases where there is unjust aggression, all I can say is that it is right to “stop” an unjust aggressor. I must emphasise the verb “stop”, by this I do not mean dropping bombs and declaring war, but stopping it. Careful consideration needs to go into how it is stopped. Stopping an unjust aggressor is right. But we must bear in mind how many times the excuse of stopping an unjust aggressor has been used by powers to take control of populations and gone to war in order to conquer. One nation alone cannot judge how an unjust aggressor should be stopped. After World War Two, the idea of the United Nations came about; this is where discussion needs to take place, asking: is this an unjust aggressor? It seems so, so how do we stop him? Nothing more than this. Secondly there are the minorities. Thank you for using this term. Because people talk to me about Christians, about the suffering, about martyrs. And yes, there are many martyrs. But here there are men and women, religious minorities; not all of them are Christians but all of them are equal in God’s eyes. Stopping the unjust aggressor is humanity’s right but it is also the aggressor’s right to be stopped so he does not cause any harm.”


(Andrea Tornielli, “Francis on Iraq: It’s up to the UN to decide how the aggressor will be stopped”, La Stampa, Aug. 18, 2014)


This sorry response by the supposed “Vicar of Christ” to the unbelievably horrific genocide going on in Iraq is an absolute scandal. He will not even mention that the “unjust aggressors” are Muslims, probably for fear of offending other Muslims or of hurting his interreligious dialogues. Yet the reality of the atrocities being committed is so horrendous that only few will be able to stomach the evidence. The following link is extremely disturbing, with graphic images of a 5-year-old boy being cut in half by these Muslim monsters. We provide it only to drive home the contrast between the reality of the evil and Francis’ outrageously insipid and heartless response (WARNING: EXTREMELY GRAPHIC & DISTURBING IMAGES: CLICK HERE).

Yes, Bergoglio’s response to this is: “It is licit to stop an unjust aggressor”! And he will not even say how the aggressor is to be stopped (gee — what options might there be when a machete-wielding Muslim wants to cut off your head or bury you alive?!). Instead, he outrageously claims that one country “alone” cannot decide how to stop Muslim terrorists (in reality, this can and often must be decided by each individual affected, if he has the means to stop the aggressor), and deflects the responsibility to guide people in right morals and the principles of just war by pointing to the United Nations instead. (In other words, the message is: “Don’t look to the Pope for moral guidance; go to the United Nations! Who am I to judge?!”)

Words fail in the face of such outrageous virtual indifference to such atrocious evil!

But then again, he’s got his soccer game scheduled, so peace can’t be far off:

soccer-for-peace.jpg


Let us recall that Francis’ last “brilliant” idea for peace in the Middle East was an interfaith prayer event between “Catholics”, Jews, and Muslims, right at the Vatican. (At first, it was supposed to be held in St. Peter’s Basilica but was moved to the Vatican Gardens at the last minute, only because the Jews were offended at having to look at the crucifixes inside St. Peter’s!)

It was at this very interreligious prayer event, which is an extreme offense against God (much worse than sins like fornication, theft, or perjury, as bad as they are), that a Muslim imam spontaneously prayed in Arabic for “victory over the infidels” — and did so with complete impunity! 

Is it any wonder that the current chaos in the Middle East broke out right after the Vatican interfaith peace prayer? God will not be mocked (see Gal 6:7) — he will punish the world for such grave sins against the First Commandment, as He always has. We must make reparation for these horrible affronts to the Most Holy Trinity, and petition God to grant us true peace, which can only come from our Lord Jesus Christ, not from Jews, not from Muslims, not from secularists, pagans, Protestants, or agnostics. 

“[T]he peace of Christ … is the only true peace”, Pope Pius XI taught in his 1922 encyclical Ubi Arcano (no. 37). Three years later, the same Pope again taught that the peace of Christ is only possible through the kingdom of Christ on earth, when all submit to the sweet yoke of His gentle rule: “When once men recognize, both in private and in public life, that Christ is King, society will at last receive the great blessings of real liberty, well-ordered discipline, peace and harmony” (Pius XI, Encyclical Quas Primas, n. 19). Bergoglio should try that for a change — he’s obviously never tried it before.

Our Lady of Victory, pray for us!

Long live Christ the King!


Must-See Video!

Francis’ Address on the 100th Anniversary
of the Passing of Pope Saint Pius X


Video: Francis on Paul VI and on St. Pius X


As we reported in a
blog post yesterday, August 20, 2014 marked the 100th anniversary of the day Pope St. Pius X (Giuseppe Sarto) passed from this earth, received his judgment, and was rewarded with a blessed eternity. Pius X, of course, was the great scourge of the Modernists, fully exposing, systematically refuting, and relentlessly fighting this terrible apostasy at its roots. Unlike his successors, Pope Pius X possessed the right amount of prudence in dealing with this “synthesis of all heresies”, as he called it, ensuring not only that Modernism was refuted, but also that those who held it or were sympathetic to it would be identified, properly punished, and/or effectively prevented from rising to any positions of influence in the church. Our Tribute to St. Pius X gives more details on that.

The whole purpose of our web site and mission is to expose the Vatican II Church — the strange new “Novus Ordo” church that came into being, at least de facto, after the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958 and especially at the Second Vatican Council — as a product and purveyor of the Modernist heresy, and we document constantly that the people in its hierarchy, most especially its false “Popes”, are not Catholics but Modernists. (None of them — six in total so far — more obviously so than Jorge Bergoglio aka Francis.)

pius10-3.jpg

Officially, of course, the Novus Ordo Church venerates the incorrupt Pius X as a saint (feast day August 21), since it claims to be the true Catholic Church and in full continuity with Pius XII and all Popes back to St. Peter. We were, therefore, very eager to see how the Vatican would deal with the 100th anniversary of the death of this wonderful Saint Pope, since recalling Pius X and with him his condemnation of Modernism, would not exactly be in the best interests of the Vatican II Sect, as Modernism is its theological foundation, as it were, and permeates everything it does.

Still, when August 20, 2014 came around, we were rather surprised: We had expected that Francis would at least pay lip service to St. Pius X and at least briefly mention him for the sake of politeness and not being able to be accused of snubbing him — but no. Nothing but defeaning silence regarding this great anniversary! No festivities, no special address, no commemorative document, no special prayers, not even a single mention, even in passing, at his General Audience.

This speaks volumes and only corroborates what we’ve been saying: the Vatican II Church is Modernist, not Catholic. The “Pope” and Vatican, you see, do not “forget” anniversaries, and certainly nothing as significant as the centennial (100th anniversary) of a decased Pope who was declared a saint!

The Modernist Vatican’s selective commemorations of significant anniversaries is very glaring especially this year, as August 20 fell on a Wendesday, meaning it is a day when the “Pope” gives his traditional general audience, giving him ample opportunity to speak to the public from a prepared text and also add anything off-the-cuff he considers to be of special importance. Likewise, August 6 of this year fell on a Wednesday, and Aug. 6 is the day of the death of “Pope” Paul VI (Giovanni Battista Montini), the Modernist antipope who died in 1978 after giving the world the new Conciliar religion: Vatican II, the New “Mass”, Ecumenism, religious liberty, collegiality, and all the rest. 

Not surprisingly, even though this year marked only a 36-year anniversary since Paul VI’s passing (rather insignificant compared to a 100-year anniversary, and of a saint), Francis found glowing words of praise for the deceased Modernist, as shown in the video above. Yet when it came to the centenary of Saint Pius X, Francis skipped over the event entirely, thus showing his true colors: He, Francis, is a Modernist, and he will not praise or call to memory the Catholic Church’s greatest Anti-Modernist, Pope St. Pius X.

By acting in this way, Francis merely continued the policy of his predecessor, “Pope” Benedict XVI, who was entirely mum about the 100th anniversary of St. Pius’ great anti-Modernist encyclical, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, which occurred on September 8, 2007. The Vatican is typically very quick to commemorate anniversaries of encyclicals, even more obscure ones, as seen in the following examples:


Who in the Vatican commemorates Pope St. Pius X’s centennial or the 100th anniversary of his landmark encyclical against Modernism? Why, no one of course — they are all Modernists!

paul6-pius10.jpg

Paul VI and St. Pius X - guess which one Francis admires


It is occasions like this that underscore and give further weight to what we have been saying about the Vatican II Church and its disdain for, and contradiction with, the Catholic Church of all time. It also goes to show that Novus Ordo apologists’ claims that the New Church
is likewise anti-Modernist and that today’s teachings are all in “continuity” with the past, are nothing but hogwash. (Here we think of people such as Michael Voris, Tim Haines, Tim Staples, Jimmy Akin, Karl Keating, Dave Armstrong, and the rest of the gang.)

Let’s be clear: We’re not saying that this glaring omission by the Vatican regarding St. Pius X proves anything by itself, strictly speaking. However, it does lend further credence to the proof we’ve been giving for years. If we view this omission in the context of all the rest, it becomes obvious that it was no mistake, no oversight. After all, it makes perfect sense that an institution which is founded on the principles and ideas condemned by St. Pius X wouldn’t exactly celebrate his heavenly birthday.

When we pointed out on Twitter yesterday that Francis had “forgotten” or was “too busy” to mention St. Pius X’s centennial in his general audience, we immediately caught flak from the Novus Ordo crowd. “Pope Francis has just suffered a terrible family bereavement. Don't score points today”, said an associate editor at The Spectator in response to us, and another Twitter user echoed that sentiment.

Yet, this was not a fair criticism at all, because it simply did not square with the facts (and part of the modus operandi of those who defend the New Church, we have noticed, is to find a quick excuse that suffices for the moment, simply to win an argument, without ever bothering to see first whether it actually corresponds to the facts). The tragic death of three of Francis’ relatives, which we bewailed on August 19 in a separate blog post, has absolutely nothing to do with what we’re talking about here. It’s not like the Vatican had scheduled festivities for the centennial of St. Pius X and called them off for a wake or a bereavement ceremony or period of mourning or anything of the kind. Instead, Francis showed himself quite jovial at his general audience and had time for a meeting with Argentinian soccer players afterwards:


There was simply no reason why Francis couldn’t have mentioned — at least mentioned! — the glorious anniversary of the day St. Pius X went to Heaven. We’re talking about a sainted Pope, for crying out loud! Nothing, not one word — unlike for Paul VI, who received special mention and veneration from Francis in his audience just two weeks earlier, as shown in the video at the top of this post.

But Francis and the Vatican were not alone. It’s hard to find any mention of Pius’ great anniversary anywhere on most Novus Ordo sites. A Google News search on “Pius X” brings up almost zero relevant stories. In Germany, even the leftist anti-Catholic rag Der Spiegel did something to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Pope Saint — although they did so, of course, in a negative light, falsely accusing him of supporting World War I, and passing over his heroic virtue — but that’s irrelevant to the point we’re making, which is that the anniversary of Pius X’s death did not even slip by anti-Catholics unnoticed.

The TV News Agency Rome Reports did a two-minute video clip on St. Pius X, without, of course, mentioning anything at all about his condemnation of Modernism, the one thing that he is most known for among real Catholics.

The ultra-Novus Ordo Catholic Culture site put up a small post on St. Pius X, likewise neglecting to mention Modernism at all, though they will probably say it’s because the post was specifically on liturgical matters (no reason to mention Modernism in connection with liturgy today at all, eh?).

Finally, Vatican Radio did in fact publish a miniscule snippet on St. Pius X — though none, of course, which makes any reference whatsoever to his stern fight against the Modernists. Instead, they focus on other things relating to Pius’ 11-year pontificate and even outrageously try to cast him somewhat as a forerunner of the liturgical “reforms” of the Vatican II Church.

Those who have eyes to see, let them see! The Novus Ordo Sect’s snubbing of such a great anniversary speaks volumes.

The old canard, still used by some Novus Ordo apologists, that Francis, the Vatican, and all this is still being terribly “misunderstood” is about as credible as people saying that Islam is a religion of peace and those diabolically cruel terrorists who behead, split in half, and crucify children have just “misunderstood” the Koran. (Details here — WARNING: EXTREMELY GRAPHIC & DISTURBING IMAGES!

You can believe it if you so choose — but you will do so to your own detriment, and that of others. (By the way, have you seen any Muslims demonstrating against the barbaric crimes of ISIS in Iraq? Didn’t think so.)

Sancte Pie Decime, ora pro nobis.

St. Pius X's Most Important Doctrinal Papal Documents:



True Catholic, True Pope, True Saint

SAINT PIUS X:
Giuseppe Sarto Died in Heroic Sanctity
100 Years Ago Today

pius10-in-state.jpg

Off to Receive his Eternal Reward:
Pope St. Pius X died Aug. 20, 1914


Today commemorates a most joyous occasion for all true Catholics: Giuseppe Melchiorre Sarto, better known as Pope Pius X, gave up his beautiful soul to God exactly 100 years ago today, on August 20, 1914. Despised by the world and by the Modernists, and many a supposed “Catholic”, St. Giuseppe Sarto was eminently pleasing to His Creator. He cared not for the opinion of this world, but only to do the will of God. For this, he received a merciful judgment and heard from the Just Judge these words: “Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world” (Mt 25:34).

pius10-death.jpg

A true Saint, dying an exemplary death: Pius X


Pius X was beatified in 1951 and declared a Saint of the Catholic Church on May 29, 1954, by Pope Pius XII. The canonization came less than 40 years after the death of the holy Pontiff, and to this day he remains the only true Catholic Pope to be officially recognized as a saint since St. Pius V in the 16th century.

To celebrate this wonderful 100th Anniversary of the passing of Pope Sarto, we are once again sharing various video clips relating to St. Pius X, his life, and his canonization:


Saint Pius X walking through the Vatican Gardens



The Canonization of Saint Pius X (Giuseppe Sarto)





In addition to these videos, we also highly recommend the Pius X Canonization Photo Collection.

The Rorate Caeli blog has published a beautiful, lengthy post on the passing of St. Pius X in 1914. (Earlier this year, they had also made available an English translation of the Address of Pope Pius XII for the Canonization of Saint Pius X.) See also Tom Droleskey’s A Century of Heavenly Help from Papa Sarto. and Fr. Vili Lehtoranta’s post on Pius X’s refutation of the erroneous idea that a Catholic can “recognize but resist” the Pope on matters of faith, morals, or discipline, when he thinks it necessary.

You may not be aware, but St. Pius X’s body was found incorrupt when they opened his casket in the 1940s as part of the beatification process. Here are two images — the first one is the last photo taken of the body of St. Pius X before the casket was closed; the second one shows the casket being reopened 30 years later:

piusx-burial-last-photo.jpg

The last photo of St. Pius X before burial


pius10-exhumed.jpg

The incorrupt body of Pope St. Pius X, 30 years after his death


The following is a wonderful close-up of the incorrupt body of Saint Sarto (in which, however, a bronze mask is seen over his face), though ironically being displayed in the presence of the Modernist Angelo Roncalli (“Pope Saint” John XXIII):

pius10-incorrupt.jpg


To learn more about the great St. Pius X, his importance for the Church at a critical time in her life, his extraordinary sanctity, and his unyielding zeal for the purity of the Catholic Faith, see our Tribute to Saint Pius X, Scourge of the Modernists, as well as the many links at the end of this post. It is abundantly clear that the religion of Pope Pius X is not the religion of “Pope” Francis.

Speaking of “Pope” Francis, a “genuine Modernist”, as Bp. Bernard Fellay rightly called him, he is not exactly celebrating the centenary of the death of the Anti-Modernist St. Pius X. In his general audience of August 20, Francis did not speak one word about the anniversary of the passing of this great and glorious Pontiff, a true defender of the Faith (big surprise face now, please). (Contrast that with Francis’ glowing praise of Paul VI in his audience of Aug. 6, commemorating a mere 36-year anniversary of the apostate pseudo-pope Montini.)

Finally, here is a picture of the festivities currently taking place at the Vatican for the 100th anniversary of the passing of the great Pope St. Pius X:

vatican-piazza.jpg


Oops...


Pius X's Most Important Doctrinal Papal Documents:


Videos & Tidbits on St. Pius X:


Tragic News:

Three of Francis’ Relatives Die in Traffic Accident in Argentina, including 2 Children

bergoglio-horacio-accident.jpg


We are sorry to report of a traffic accident in Argentina that killed three of Francis’ relatives, including a baby, a toddler, and their 39-year-old mother Valeria Carmona, and left another adult — Francis’ newphew Emanuel Horacio Bergoglio — in critical condition. Here are various reports, some of them with more photos:


Related:



Explosive Background on Vatican II

fenton.jpg


The Personal Diaries of
Mgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton
(1906-1969)


Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton was a priest of the diocese of Springfield, Massachusetts, ordained in 1930. He taught at the Catholic University of America and served as editor of the
American Ecclesiastical Review from 1943-1963. In 1931, he received his doctorate degree in Sacred Theology from the Angelicum in Rome. His dissertation was written under the direction of Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. (d. 1964) and was published in expanded form ten years later as The Concept of Sacred Theology (Bruce Publishing).

Under Pope Pius XII, Fenton was named monsignor and received various papal honors (source). He published numerous books and distinguished himself as a gifted, competent, and orthodox Catholic theologian entirely loyal to the Magisterium of the Church. Over the years, Fenton battled many Modernist errors and engaged in heated polemics with their proponents. In particular, he forcefully refuted the error of religious liberty promoted by Jesuit Fr. John Courtney Murray, which later became Novus Ordo doctrineAt the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), Fenton was a theological expert (peritus) for Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, the then-Secretary of the Holy Office, who was also a personal friend of Fenton’s.

A number of Mgr. Fenton’s personal diaries have been preserved in an archive of the Catholic University of America. Now, for the first time ever, these journals have been scanned and made available online for worldwide public perusal. We are pleased to share the links with you in an effort to further a greater and more accurate understanding of the true history of the Second Vatican Council and the theological struggles that occurred between Catholics and Modernists before, during, and after the council.

What follows is a list of links to the individual diaries available — numerous explosive quotes from the various journals are found further below in this post.

Mgr. Fenton’s Diaries Online 
(in chronological order — titles are Fenton’s own)

Please Note: Each link leads to a downloadable PDF file; these files are large (anywhere from 20 to 150 MB each), so keep this in mind as you try to download or open them.


These diaries, which also provide unique insight into the mind of the competent and zealous anti-Modernist Fenton and make known interesting details about other theologians, are sometimes quoted and cited in various scholarly publications, such as the multi-volume History of Vatican II by Giuseppe Alberigo/Joseph Komonchak.

fenton-diary.jpg

We have had photocopies of a number of these diaries in our possession for a while, and were eventually going to scan and publish them, but we are delighted to see that this work has now already been done for us by the Washington Research Library Consortium.

Of greatest interest to most, of course, will be what Fenton wrote about his struggles against the Modernists during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII, when a lot of errors were being fought that later resurfaced at Vatican II, and about the council itself and the theological discussions that took place behind the scenes. Fenton had a direct connection with Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani at the Vatican, which gave him much more influence than other theologians had, and also more inside information. 

For example, Fenton knew that the Holy Office under Pope Pius XII was preparing to condemn Fr. John Courtney Murray, S.J., and also Jacques Maritain for various doctrinal errors — a condemnation which, however, came to an abrupt halt when Pius XII died on October 9, 1958 (see “The Censuring of John Courtney Murray”, Part II [PDF], by Robert Nugent in The Catholic World [Mar/Apr 2008]) and didn’t materialize after the Modernist Angelo Roncalli (“Pope” and now “Saint” John XXIII) usurped the papal throne later that same month. In fact, Roncalli made Murray a theological expert at the council, and his successor, Giovanni Battista Montini (“Pope” Paul VI), later elevated Murray’s error on religious liberty to official conciliar teaching.

Though Fenton assisted Ottaviani with drafting various preliminary documents (schemata) for the council to be debated on the floor, at the order of John XXIII all of them were discarded after the council began, and entirely new texts were drawn up in which the Modernist “New Theologians” had the greatest influence (names like Rahner, Ratzinger, von Balthasar, Congar, Chenu, Murray, and de Lubac come to mind). Good Mgr. Fenton was hospitalized several times during the council for heart problems, so he was not able to participate in the pre-conciliar and conciliar discussions and sessions at all times.

The Fenton diaries are of great import also because they give a glimpse into how this anti-modernist theologian tried to cope afterwards with the doctrinal, pastoral, and liturgical disorder the council had produced. Although, from all we have been able to ascertain, there is no evidence that Fenton was ever a sedevacantist, he also knew that the novel “recognize-and-resist” position, so popular among traditionalists (especially the Society of St. Pius X) today, was not an option. The idea of each individual believer sifting church teaching and then “resisting” conciliar errors, while still recognizing the council and the hierarchy as legitimate, was certainly foreign to him.

From what can be gleaned from his diaries, Fenton attempted — as did most priests at the time, of course — to reconcile the teachings of Vatican II with the prior, Catholic magisterium. We must keep in mind, however, that documents and other information back then were not as readily available as they are to us now, and certainly Fenton did not have the benefit of 50 years’ hindsight as we do today with regard to the Novus Ordo Church’s magisterial explanations, clarifications, and developments after the council, which have clearly resolved any ambiguity contained in the conciliar documents themselves in favor of error, not orthodoxy (religious liberty being a case in point). 

In any case, Fenton’s journals are an incredibly valuable resource for the historical study of Vatican II, the Modernist errors, and the usurpation of the papal throne in 1958. We share the links to these diaries in order to allow the objective historical record to speak for itself, not to spin the post-Vatican II Fenton in any particular direction.

Mgr. Joseph Fenton died of a heart attack in his sleep on July 7, 1969, less than 5 months before Paul VI’s imposition of the Novus Ordo Missae as the liturgical norm in the Latin rite. The last diary entry is dated March 27, 1969. May he rest in peace.

We now proceed to present to you a select few striking and revealing quotes found in the Fenton diaries.


Highlights from the Fenton Diaries
Before, During, and After Vatican II:


fenton2.jpg

If I did not believe God, I would be convinced that the Catholic Church was about to end.” 
—Mgr. Joseph C. Fenton on Vatican II, Nov. 23, 1962


1960

  • “Our Maltese friend (who was born in Alexandria) told us that he saw Spelly [Cardinal Francis Spellman] coming out of the [1958] conclave looking white and shaken.” (Nov. 2, 1960)
  • “To me the condition here in Rome is an evidence of the existence of the Church as a miracle of the social order.  In general it is being run by men who have no concern whatsoever for the purity or the integrity of the Catholic doctrine. And yet, when the chips are down, the doctrine of Christ always comes through.” (Nov. 5, 1960)
  • “The council will not be allowed to fail. This trip has taught me one thing: I definitely am a believer. It has also shown me that some of the leaders in the Church appear not to believe.” (Nov. 5, 1960)


1962

  • “These are four propositions handed to me under the SHO by the then Laodicea in Phrygia 11/28/54. They were also delivered to [Fr.] Frank Connell… There has never been anything less effective in the Church than a secret condemnation of an error.” (Mar. 16, 1962)
  • “He [Cardinal Ottaviani] remarked that we were on the eve of the Council, and that no one knew who the Council’s theologians were to be.” (Sept. 28, 1962)
  • It is a crime that we did not take the Anti-Modernist Oath. Poor O[ttaviani] must have failed to have our own profession passed by the central commission. It contained his condemnation of [Fr. John Courtney] Murray.” (Oct. 9, 1962)
  • I had always thought that this council was dangerous. It was started for no sufficient reason. There was too much talk about what it was supposed to accomplish. Now I am afraid that real trouble is on the way.” (Oct. 13, 1962)
  • “I started to read the material on the Liturgy, and I was shocked at the bad theology. They actually have been stupid enough [to say] that the Church is ‘simul humanam et divininam, visibilem et invisibilem’ [at the same time human and divine, visible and invisible]. And they speak of the Church working ‘quousque unum ovile fiat et unus pastor’ [until there be one fold and one shepherd], as if that condition were not already achieved.” (Oct. 19, 1962)
  • I do not think that any little work on our part is going to bring good to the Church. We should, I believe, face the facts. Since the death of [Pope] St. Pius X the Church has been directed by weak and liberal popes, who have flooded the hierarchy with unworthy and stupid men. This present conciliar set-up makes this all the more apparent. [Fr.] Ed Hanahoe, the only intelligent and faithful member of [Cardinal] Bea’s secretariat has been left off the list of the periti. Such idiots as [Mgr. John S.] Quinn and the sneak [Fr. Frederick] McManus have been put on. [Fr. George] Tavard is there as an American, God help us. From surface appearance it would seem that the Lord Christ is abandoning His Church. The thoughts of many are being revealed. As one priest used to say, to excuse his own liberalism, which, in the bottom of his heart he knew was wrong, ‘for the last few decades the tendency in Rome has been to favor the liberals.’ That is the policy now. We can only do what we can to overt an ever more complete disloyalty to Christ.” (Oct. 19, 1962)
  • “As far as I can see the Church is going to be very badly hurt by this council. The opposition between the liberals and the loyal Catholics has been brought out into the open. Yesterday a Dutch (Holland) bishop gave a nasty talk in which he claimed to be speaking for all of his countrymen. He charged that the claims (really statements of fact) about theological imperfection in the schema were ‘exaggerated.’ The poor fellow seemed to imagine that a little lack of precision is all right in a conciliar document. I am disgusted with talk of this kind.” (Oct. 27, 1962)
  • The sense or feeling of this gathering seems to be entirely liberal. I am anxious to get home. I am afraid that there is nothing at all that I can do here. Being in the council is, of course, the great experience of my life. But, at the same time, it has been a frightful disappointment. I never thought that the episcopate was so liberal. This is going to mark the end of the Catholic religion as we have known it. There will be vernacular Masses, and, worse still, there will be some wretched theology in the constitutions.” (Oct. 31, 1962)
  • “[Fr. Sebastiaan] Tromp has just pointed out that a pastoral council should not be non-doctrinal. Tromp is being very good. He is defending the schemata. He definitely is not giving a break to the opposition. We are hearing history. What is the theological note of what is contained in the theological or doctrinal constitution? Absolutely certain — at least.” (Nov. 13, 1962)
  • At the Pope’s own order the rules were changed and the schema was thrown out. A new commission was set up including Cardinal Meyer, Alfrink, and Lienart.” (Nov. 23, 1962)
  • “They plan to leave off this television nonsense in a day or two, and then take up the Church Unity then. That will be a disaster. If I did not believe God, I would be convinced that the Catholic Church was about to end.” (Nov. 23, 1962)
  • “...some other people believe what I have thought for several months, namely, that John XXIII is definitely a lefty. This nonsense to the effect that he is ‘deceived’ or ‘mal servite’ is disgraceful. He is the boss.” (Nov. 25, 1962)
  • “The articles in the Milan Corriere della Sera tell of the Pope’s connection with [the excommunicated Modernist priest Fr. Ernesto] Buonaiuti, and they make him look like a real Modernist, at heart. He probably is.” (Nov. 26, 1962)


1963

  • “I am afraid that they are going to foist a lot of nonsense on the poor Catholic people.” (Mar. 6, 1963)
  • “Liberal Catholicism as understood by these men was and is the system of thought by which the teaching of the Catholic Church were represented as compatible with the maxim that guided the French Revolution.” (May 11, 1963)
  • “The statement of the Council is not a theological text book. At the same time, however, a declaration by a council can cause confusion or finally can actually be harmful when even though there is no error about faith or morals in it, the statement passes over Truths which are, and which have long been generally been recognized as, assertions of Catholic doctrine.” (May 11, 1963)
  • “[Fr.] Ed Hanahoe gave me two books on Modernism. In one of them I found evidence that the teaching in the first chapter of the new schema on the Church [the one that became the Vatican II dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium] and the language are those of [the excommunicated Modernist Fr. George] Tyrrell. May God preserve His Church from that chapter. If it passes, it will be a great evil. I must pray and act.” (Sept. 24, 1963)


1964

  • “There is nothing erroneous in the material [in the schema on divine revelation] we have passed. But there is a great deal that is incomplete and misleading.” (June 4, 1964)
  • “M [Fr. John Courtney Murray] has just come in to see the triumph of his false doctrine [of religious liberty].” (Sept. 21, 1964)
  • “[Cardinal] Lienart is speaking. He is insisting that all Christians have the Jews as a common source. He ignores the fact that the religion of Israel and Juda before the public life [of Christ] was one thing, and past. Christian Judaism is quite another. The center of Jewish religion after Christ is and has been the denial of Christ.” (Sept. 28, 1964)
  • “The more I hear of the speeches and of the progressiveness, the more I am aware of the fact that this council is one of the most important events in all the history of the Church.” (Oct. 9, 1964)
  • [Fr.] Charles Davis has inherited [Fr. Hans] Kung’s position as king of the nuts.” (Nov. 16, 1964)
  • “Of course I realize that I did a stupid thing in asking for the parish and that Chris [Bp. Christopher Weldon] did a stupid and mean thing in giving me [St. Patrick’s church in] Chicopee Falls.” (Nov. 16, 1964)
  • “[Mgr.] Joseph Quinn just told me that the H.O. [Holy Office] is being abolished and that Card. Ottaviani will not be the head of the new, non-supreme, congregation which will take its place. The old man is being humiliated. He is a saint.” (Nov. 21, 1964)


1965

  • “Since coming here I have been obsessed with the idea of writing a book ‘To Be a Priest.’ Then, the night before last (during which I did not sleep at all) I had the inspiration to write what would really be ‘To be a Priest in the Church after Vat. II.’ I think I have something. It will give me the chance to comment on some of the schemata.” (Oct. 26, 1965)
  • “The part on ecumenism [in the text of the commission] is a joke. It reads like a 19th century text, or a second-rate article in a leftist magazine.” (Oct. 28, 1965)
  • “The day before yesterday I had dinner with O [Cardinal Ottaviani]. On the way back I found that the Pope had written to O about [schema no.] 13. I saw the letter. It was a great mistake to let that one, the one on religious liberty [which became Dignitatis Humanae], and the one on non-Christian religions [which became Nostra Aetate] get by the council.” (Nov. 26, 1965)


1966-69

  • “This afternoon John McCarthy called. He is a believer, and he has some confidence in Montini [Paul VI]. He told me that O[ttaviani] has written some articles entirely revising his old position. It must have been under pressure from Montini.” (Sept. 24, 1966)
  • “The Pope [Paul VI] was extremely kind to me. He said over and over again ‘This man is my friend.’ He told those around him to give me anything I wanted. He spoke of our friendship as going back 30 years. Actually it dates back to 1948.” (Nov. 22, 1968, referring to an occurrence on Oct. 16, 1968)
  • I have just about made up my mind to start a new book. I shall write on the notion of the Church. Nothing like this has appeared since the Council. Within the book I hope to have quite a bit to say about the Council. I must be very careful. If a sincere Catholic writes a book it’s either ignored or brutally attacked. I must make no mistakes. My main thesis will have to be that the Catholic theology on the Church has been improved but in no way changed by the Council. I must start with the basic notion of the Church, which is that of a people ‘transferred’ from the kingdom of darkness into the realm of light. The Council left out the background of the Church. It minimized or glossed over the fact that the Church faces opposition, not just from hostile individuals, but from the ‘world.’” (Nov. 23, 1968)
  • “Thoughts for writing: 1) The ‘for all men’ [as an English translation of pro multis in the canon of the Mass]; 2) Perjury & the Anti-Modernist Oath; 3) Only the historian can judge heresy – a statement by a pretender in the field of theology.” (Mar. 27, 1969)


Please share this information with anyone you know who loves the holy Catholic Church and is concerned about what has happened since the death of Pope Pius XII and the Second Vatican Council.

fenton-signature.jpg


See Also:


Good Luck with that...

remnant.jpg

The Remnant Launches Petition Drive to Stop Francis’ Synod on the Family


It’s already mid-August, and the Neo-Traditionalists at The Remnant know very well that the writing is on the wall: The synod of “bishops” planned for October in Rome, in which the Vatican II Sect will, among other things, try to find a “pastoral solution” to the problem of public adulterers wanting to receive the Novus Ordo sacraments, is most likely going to unleash a doctrinal and moral earthquake that will make Francis’ absurd “pontificate” up until now look like the Medieval Inquisition. There has even been talk of changing the “language” of the natural moral law, which is a clear pretext for changing or abolishing the concept entirely.

If Francis’ glowing endorsement of the apostate “cardinal” Walter Kasper’s outline for permitting adulterers to receive the sacraments is any indication, Novus Ordo Traditionalists are in for some real trouble. The Remnant knows it and is now seriously trying to stop the synod, by means of a petition to the Vatican, which they have made available also online:


The accompanying text, written by Christopher A. Ferrara, is right on the money, of course, in terms of pointing out what is wrong with the Modernist Vatican’s planned October Revolution and the false theology behind it, and how everyone who calls himself a Catholic must vigorously oppose it. Yet, Ferrara & Co. really have no cause to complain: You get the “Pope” you are willing to accept. They accept a public non-Catholic as their Pope, so now they have to face the consequences: They must now deal with a man who also practices the non-Catholic religion he professes. Don’t like it? Too bad: False principles have consequences.

Of course, for an American lay-run “Catholic” newspaper to collect signatures to present to the “Holy Father” to convince him to call off the synod he has scheduled for October (and at the end of which the wicked Paul VI will be “beatified”), is downright laughable. Surely the editor of the paper (Michael Matt) and its columnists must know this, but we suspect that their determination to launch this silly petition drive anyway is a testimony to the utter desperation that has begun to set in in their camp. (Though of course this will also have a welcome advertising effect for the paper, which seems to be struggling financially.)

Just how do they envision their petition being successful? Do they really think that one fine morning, Francis will be presented with, say, 124,000 signatures on a “Why we oppose the Synod” document, and he will then say, “You know what, I hadn’t thought of that — these good people at The Remnant have a point…. We better not have the synod after all; it’s too dangerous and not really needed. Oscar, call off the synod!”

Seriously? This is the same Jorge Bergoglio who calls people like Matt & Ferrara “self-absorbed Promethean neo-pelagians” (see Evangelii Gaudium, n. 94), so what’s the point of this ludicrous idea of a tiny minority of “Catholics” petitioning the Vatican not to go ahead with this highly-anticipated event? And isn’t it ironic that The Remnant is seeking clergy and laity to sign and support a petition to the Vatican, while in the same breath denouncing the idea of a church run by the democratic “will of the people of God”? How is what they are doing any different from what Ferrara here criticizes the Vatican and Novus Ordo bishops for doing, that is, mobilizing the people to effect change in Rome?

Needless to say, the petition will fail. The synod will continue as planned, and it will be disastrous. 

But to many Novus Ordo Trads — the people to whom we sometimes refer as Semi-Traditionalists, Neo-Traditionalists, or Pseudo-Traditionalists — even a synod-gone-wild won’t matter ultimately, because they’ve long stopped submitting to what they claim is the Holy See anyway. That is, subjectively they have long become genuine schismatics, because they are refusing submission to the man they believe to be the rightful successor of St. Peter, and this certainly constitutes the grave sin of schism (even if it technically does not fulfill the ecclesiastical crime of schism, inasmuch as Francis is not in fact the Roman Pontiff).

Among the most vociferous proponents of this schismatic position we find people like Bp. Richard Williamson, Fr. Peter Scott (SSPX), John Vennari, the people running the Traditio site, and the late “Fr.” Gregory Hesse (Matt and Ferrara are a bit more nuanced and less radical in their endorsement of this position). Other than affirming the legitimacy of the Vatican papal claimants since 1958, there is really nothing these people believe or do that could be characterized as “submitting” to them. They ignore, reject, and explain away the teachings, disciplinary norms, canonizations, and other acts of these “Popes” whenever they deem them to be in contradiction to pre-Vatican II papal teaching. In other words, they submit to some Popes and magisterial acts but not others. The ultimate criterion for truth and error is not the Holy See, but themselves.

The practical result of this is that they habitually ignore the “Pope” and the “Magisterium” and simply do “their own thing on the side,” yet always insisting, of course, that the Vatican II Church’s hierarchy is legitimate (all the evil gets blamed on some nebulous “human element” of the Church that remains conveniently undefined) and that anyone who says otherwise is expressing a “patent absurdity” or “attacking the papacy.” We have written extensively about this in the past, and there is no need to repeat it all in this post — instead, please see the following links:


While we totally understand why they ignore and reject the “Popes” and “magisterial” acts since 1958, we must remind people that a Catholic cannot act in this way with regard to the true Church and a true Pope. In other words, what these Semi-Traditionalists are doing is at grave odds with traditional Catholic teaching and practice (hence we call them “Semi-Traditionalists”, as they follow Catholic Tradition only in part), and it is obviously a contradiction to say one is promoting traditional Catholicism but then holds beliefs and engages in practices so manifestly anti-traditional. 

In short: These people need to put their money where their mouth is. If Francis is such a valid Pope for them, then let them submit to him the way Catholic teaching requires them to submit to a true Pope — as explained precisely, for example, by Pope Leo XIII, who denounced the kind of thing The Remnant, Catholic Family News, The Angelus, and other Semi-Traditionalist publications do on a habitual basis, namely, criticizing their (supposed) lawful superiors and picking and choosing what to accept from what they believe to be the Catholic Church:


It is really important to read both papal letters in their entirety, but for those who can’t or won’t, we’d like to call attention to the following highlights. Pope Leo insisted:

  • "No, it cannot be permitted that laymen who profess to be Catholic should go so far as openly to arrogate to themselves in the columns of a newspaper, the right to denounce, and to find fault, with the greatest license and according to their own good pleasure, with every sort of person, not excepting bishops, and think that with the single exception of matters of faith they are allowed to entertain any opinion which may please them and exercise the right to judge everyone after their own fashion." (Est Sane Molestum)
  • "...to scrutinize the actions of a bishop, to criticize them, does not belong to individual Catholics, but concerns only those who, in the sacred hierarchy, have a superior power; above all, it concerns the Supreme Pontiff...." (Est Sane Molestum)
  • "That obligation, if it is generally incumbent on all, is, you may indeed say, especially pressing upon journalists.... The task pertaining to them ... is this: to be subject completely in mind and will, just as all the other faithful are, to their own bishops and to the Roman Pontiff; to follow and make known their teachings; to be fully and willingly subservient to their influence; and to reverence their precepts and assure that they are respected." (Epistola Tua)
  • "To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment, and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation. Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor." (Epistola Tua)
  • "...it is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them; and in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future council, or to a Pope who is better informed." (Epistola Tua)


Bam! This, ladies and gentlemen, is the traditional Catholic teaching regarding submission to the Pope and the lawful hierarchy, as explained by the Pope himself, Leo XIII, who reigned after the First Vatican Council, which spoke on papal authority, infallibility, and the required submission of the faithful. We guarantee you that you’re not going to find the semi-trads promoting this traditional teaching anytime soon, at least not without essentially explaining it away and rendering it meaningless.

In fact, Ferrara’s write-up, though brilliant in its style and its rhetoric, is filled with more of the typical argumentation we’ve come to expect from this lawyer, who is professionally trained in the art of persuasion. In place of sound reasoning based on Catholic theological principles, Ferrara likes to spin things in such a way as not to have to draw any undesirable conclusions, while at the same time allowing himself to powerfully blast the errors of the Modernist church.

For example, though explicitly condeming Kasper as a “blatant heretic”, Ferrara won’t draw the necessary conclusion that Kasper is not a member of the Catholic Church, nor will he put the same label on Francis, who has said and done things as bad as or worse than Kasper and has endorsed Kasper’s theology specifically in the context of the forthcoming synod on the family. (When talking about the “Pope”, Ferrara avoids explicit labels like “heretic” and “heretical” like the plague, instead preferring more neutral terms like “astonishing” to describe Francis’ Modernist claptrap — see an example here, where he refers to Francis’ condemnation of proselytism and his insinuation of the possibility of salvation for unrepentant atheists as merely “a series of astonishing pronouncements.” How convenient! In addition, what happened to the “official church judgment” Ferrara & Co. like to require when it comes to the question of whether we can say the “Pope” is a heretic — is it somehow not also needed for “Cardinal” Kasper?)

Likewise, Ferrara admits that Francis’ errors are not only confined to spontaneous, off-the-cuff remarks but are even found in “a formal papal document”, namely, the above-cited Evangelii Gaudium. However — and this is the lawyerly trick — he then insinuates that this “formal papal document” is of “dubious … authority”, though of course he does not at all explain why or how.

We hate to break it to Mr. Ferrara, but this isn’t Burger King, where you can have it “your way”: If Francis is Pope, then Evangelii Gaudium is exactly what it claims to be: an Apostolic Exhortation by the Successor of St. Peter, to whom all Catholics owe complete submission and to whose documents and teachings all must assent under pain of mortal sin (cf. Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Humani Generis, n. 20). We’re sorry if this doesn’t fit into Ferrara’s pseudo-Catholic resistance theology, but we don’t consider ourselves authorized to change traditional Catholic teaching just because we don’t want to conclude that Francis cannot be the Pope.

It is also quite amusing that Ferrara now bewails “the moment that Francis, emerging from the Conclave, referred to himself as merely ‘the Bishop of Rome’ on the balcony of St. Peter’s”, because when Ferrara covered the election of Jorge Bergoglio with “Fr.” Nicholas Gruner in March of 2013, we heard nothing but praise and joy from the professional pundit. Here is the video, in which Ferrara also gushes over Francis’ supposed “humility”:


For more Ferrara flip-flopping, see this post here, under “The Experts Speak.”

At the end of his article, and not unpredictably, Ferrara pulls the “joker”, the one-size-fits-all wildcard that forms the bedrock principle of the resistance theology: “diabolical disorientation.” This phrase was coined by a woman claiming to be (most likely falsely) Sr. Lucia of Fatima, and refers to a nebulous concept she never actually defined (nor, of course, is it found in any theological manual or catechism). However, it is such an appealing and easy-to-remember term that, due to its vagueness and rhetorical effect, lends itself perfectly to promoting the “recognize-but-resist” agenda of the Semi-Traditionalists. It allows them to junk anything in the Vatican II Church they oppose, while at the same time giving the impression that the idea is endorsed by the Mother of God, Our Lady of Fatima. Perfect for a lawyer whose job is to persuade!

This is the state of the Resistance position today: Catholic teaching is replaced or relativized by a vague and undefined concept, commandeered by laymen at odds with the “Pope”, that originates in the words of a nun whose identity cannot even be verified as being actually the woman to whom Our Lady appeared in 1917. You can probably imagine what a true Catholic Pope would say about this kind of theological concept, especially in light of Pope Leo XIII’s teaching quoted above.

Where will the petition go? Nowhere, of course.

And they know it.

michael-matt-vendee.jpg

Michael Matt out gathering signatures for his “Stop the Synod” petition?
(Taken from Michael Davies, For Altar and Throne, p. 47, Remnant Press, 1997)


Related Links:


“I can’t believe it’s not Catholic!”

Blasphemy in Concrete:
Holy Family Church in Salerno, Italy

holy-family-church-salerno2.jpg

A “church” building that cries to Heaven for vengeance


In the Catholic Church, religious doctrine is not only expressed in words but also communicated through liturgical rites and sacred architecture. 
When the Novus Ordo religion was introduced at Vatican II in the 1960s to gradually replace Catholicism, it was a given that this new theology needed not only a New Mass but also new church buildings to go along with it:

And nobody putteth a piece of raw cloth unto an old garment. For it taketh away the fullness thereof from the garment, and there is made a greater rent. Neither do they put new wine into old bottles. Otherwise the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish. But new wine they put into new bottles: and both are preserved.

(Matthew 9:16-17)


The new religion of the council could not fit into the traditional Catholic framework — not into its catechisms, not into its liturgy, and not into its church architecture. Therefore, all of it had to go — all
of it. Gradually but systematically, the Modernist ecclesiastical authorities overhauled every aspect of the Catholic religion and called it “renewal.”

Almost 50 years after the close of the council, the proof is in the pudding: A massive apostasy from the Catholic religion as it was known and practiced until the death of Pope Pius XII, swept the Catholic world. (Don’t believe it? Keep reading this blog.) Though some of the externals of Catholicism have been retained, what is officially known as “Catholicism” today is a completely different religion from what was known by the same label until Vatican II. Today’s “Catholicism” is in fact mostly a blend of Catholicism, Modernism, Protestantism, and Freemasonry, forcefully imposed upon the unsuspecting faithful by Giovanni Battista Montini, “Pope” Paul VI.

This is especially visible in the new churches that were built during and after Vatican II — there is virtually no resemblance to traditional Catholic churches anymore, and for good reason: they express a vastly different, novel theology.

A stellar example of the architecture of such Modernist churches is found in what is called “Holy Family Church” (Chiesa della Sacra Famiglia) in Salerno, Italy. The picture at the top of this post shows the outside — below you will find a video of the inside:

Click to play video


The most frightening and hideous place in the church is reserved, of course, for our Lord Himself (if not in fact at least in intent):

holy-family-church-salerno4.jpg

The “Tabernacle”


The architect of Holy Family Church is 
Paolo Portoghesi. Designed in 1968, the building was completed and dedicated in 1974, when the same architect began work on a mosque.

You can view many more images and read more about this “church” at these links:


Modernist church architecture embodies the Novus Ordo religion perfectly: It is hideous, cold, banal, stupid, barren, dull, earthly, irreverent, and profane. It is therefore also a perfect fit for the Novus Ordo Missae, which “Pope” Paul VI imposed in 1969.

By contrast, genuine Roman Catholic architecture is beautiful, majestic, reverent, awe-inspiring, sacred — and always raises the mind to heavenly things, for which reason alone it refreshes many a soul. Real Catholic churches are designed to be a worthy house for the Lord, such as this extremely goregous church in Canada:

notre-dame-montreal.jpg

Notre Dame Catholic Church in Montreal
(currently occupied by Modernists, but largely left intact)


Thus the difference between the Catholic Church and the Modernist Vatican II Sect can be seen not only in their contradictory teachings and disciplines, but also in the very architecture that gives expression to their respective beliefs.

The hideous Modernist churches, together with the awful “New Mass” of Paul VI, proved to be the perfect mix to catapult the New Religion into the souls of every church-going Catholic in the 1960s and beyond. Few people ever read the conciliar documents or the new catechisms — it was the new liturgy and terrifying church architecture, more than anything else, that made the Novus Ordo religion so successful.

Lex orandi, lex credendi — how we pray shows what we believe.

See Also:


“Chaos Frank” strikes again...

tony-palmer-francis.jpg


“Pope” Francis advised Tony Palmer NOT to Convert, ordered him buried as a Catholic Bishop!


The absurd circus that is the Jorge Bergoglio “Papacy” continues unabated. A very interesting article published by Austen Ivereigh in the
Boston Globe on August 7, 2014, gives a lot of background information on the friendship between “Pope” Francis and the Anglican-Evangelical “Bishop” Tony Palmer, and casts the latter’s deadly motorcycle accident in an even more significant light:

[The church communion Palmer was “ordained” in sees itself] as part of a “convergence” movement, seeking to combine evangelical Christianity with the liturgy and sacraments typical of Catholicism.

That convergence, Palmer told me, “is a precursor to full unity between the Protestant and Catholic Churches.”

Palmer and [his “Catholic” wife Emiliana] Calisi began doing joint missions around the world — which is what took him to Buenos Aires in 2006. Its archbishop, Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, had overcome his reservations about the charismatic renewal and enthusiastically backed a 6,000-strong joint Catholic-evangelical gathering that year in Buenos Aires’ Luna Park stadium. 

At one point, when Palmer was tired of living on the frontier and wanted to become Catholic, [then-Cardinal] Bergoglio advised him against conversion for the sake of the mission.

“We need to have bridge-builders”, the cardinal told him. 

On June 24 [2014], Palmer took a group of evangelical leaders who jointly reach more than 700 million people to meet and lunch with Francis, which he reported to me a few days later, as he left for two weeks in South Africa. The delegates included Copeland, the televangelist James Robison, as well as Geoff Tunnicliffe, head of the Worldwide Evangelical Alliance. They told Francis they wanted to accept his invitation to seek visible unity with the Bishop of Rome.

Palmer handed the pope a proposed Declaration of Faith in Unity for Mission the evangelicals had drawn up, which they proposed would be signed by both the Vatican and leaders of the major Protestant churches in Rome in 2017, on the 500th anniversary of the Reformation and the 50th anniversary of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal.

Palmer told me the draft Declaration has three elements: the Nicean-Constantinople Creed, which Catholics and evangelicals share; the core of the Catholic-Lutheran declaration of 1999 making clear there is no disagreement over justification by faith; as well as a final section asserting that Catholics and evangelicals are now “united in mission because we are declaring the same Gospel.”

The closing section speaks of the importance of freedom of conscience and the need for Catholics and evangelicals to respect each other’s mission fields and treat the other with respect, not as rivals. Francis had taken the draft and said he would think about it. Palmer and I agreed to speak again when Francis got back to him, but that was not to be.

Last Wednesday, in Bath, Palmer’s funeral was a Catholic Requiem Mass at which most of the congregation were evangelicals. He was buried in a Catholic cemetery, united at last with the Church he felt at home in. 


(Austen Ivereigh, “Pope’s Protestant friend dies, but push for unity lives, The Boston Globe, Aug. 7, 2014)


Palmer was buried in Bath, England (near Bristol), on August 6, and received a Novus Ordo (that is, “Catholic”) Requiem Mass at
St. John the Evangelist church, despite the fact that he was a public non-Catholic (even non-Novus Ordo).

One non-Catholic “clerical” participant at the funeral related that it was by order of “Pope” Francis himself that Palmer received not only a “Catholic” burial but even a burial for a Catholic bishop:

Fr. David our wonderful host led us out to greet Tony’s mortal remains as they arrived at the entrance to the Church. Fr. David told us he would like us as ministers to lead the procession up to the sanctuary and for us to remain at the front either side of the altar in the choir stalls. Fr David confessed that he would have loved us to be able to con-celebrate with him, but for now this was impossible. He found he had to remember his vow of obedience to the diocesan bishop and knew we would understand.

Fr. David told us that because Tony was not a Roman Catholic he had to ask his bishops permission to celebrate the requiem and though Tony’ s wife and children are Roman Catholics, permission still had to be given for the requiem. The bishop agreed but said that Tony could not be buried as a bishop as he was not a Roman Catholic bishop. However, Pope Francis said he should and could be buried as a bishop…and so that put an end to that little bit of ecclesiastical nonsense!


(Michael Daly, “A  few thoughts from the Requiem Mass Celebrating the Life of Rt Rev Anthony Palmer.  4th Feb 1966 – 20th July 2014”, Michael Daly CJ Blog, Aug. 8, 2014)


Why does this not come as a surprise? Because it fits perfectly with everything Francis has been saying and doing for years:


More on Francis and Palmer can be found here:


By allegedly telling Tony Palmer not to convert to Catholicism (Novus Ordoism, of course, but Catholicism in Palmer’s eyes), then-“Cardinal” Bergoglio was simply following the example of the former “Cardinal” Ratzinger, who also advised a Protestant — one who was working in the Vatican, no less — not to become a Catholic (see story here).

The Novus Ordo Church thus once again demonstrates beyond all doubt that it is not — cannot be — the Catholic Church of our Lord Jesus Christ, whose last known valid Roman Pontiff was Pius XII (d. 1958). Once more we recall the clear words of this last true Pope to date:

Even on the plea of promoting unity it is not allowed to dissemble one single dogma; for, as the Patriarch of Alexandria warns us, "although the desire of peace is a noble and excellent thing, yet we must not for its sake neglect the virtue of loyalty in Christ." Consequently, the much desired return of erring sons to true and genuine unity in Christ will not be furthered by exclusive concentration on those doctrines which all, or most, communities glorying in the Christian name accept in common. The only successful method will be that which bases harmony and agreement among Christ's faithful ones upon all the truths, and the whole of the truths, which God has revealed.

(Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Orientalis Ecclesiae [1944], n. 16)


The contrast between the Catholic religion and the Modernist Novus Ordo religion is becoming clearer and more pronounced by the day. For further reading on the true (traditional) Catholic position on ecumenism, interreligious dialogue, indifferentism, and the uniqueness of the Catholic Church as the only true religion revealed and willed by God, see the following links:


See Also:


Phoning Home...


Francis Interview on Argentine Radio Station:
The Usual (NGO, Gossip, etc.)

Click to play the actual interview in Spanish

caution-francis-tape.jpg


At 11:30 am ET today (August 8, 2014), “Pope” Francis hit the airwaves in Argentina via telephone for a spontaneous live interview with Novus Ordo parochial radio station LV 11 RADIOFUSORA Santiago del EsteroThe video above contains the entire interview proper, in Spanish. Simply click to play it. 

As news stories are published in English, we will add them to the list of links below — simply check back here.

Coverage of Francis’ Radio Interview:


For background information on this broadcast, click here. For more information on “Pope” Francis, click here.


Looking for More? We only keep the 15 most recent blog posts on this page. For more, check the monthly Wire Archive...


...as well as the News Archive, which we maintained before our Wire Blog:

2013: 01/1302/13
2012: 01-03/1204/1205/1206/1207/1208/1209/1210/1211/1212/12
2011: 02/1105/1108/1110/11
2010: 01/1002/1005/1006/1007/1008/1010/1012/10
2009: 01/0902/0903/0904/0905/0907/0911/09   
2008: 01/0802/0803/0804/0805/0806/0809/0810/0812/08

2007: 01/0706/0707/0708/0709/0710/0711/0712/07
2006: 01/0602/0603/0604/0605/0606/0607/0608/0609/0610/0611/0612/06
2005: 01/0502/0503/0504/0505/0506/0507/0508/0509/0510/0511/0512/05
2004: 01/0402/0403/0404/0405/0406/0407/0408/0409/0410/0411/0412/04
2003: 01-03/0304-05/0306/0307/0308/0309/0310/0311/0312/03

2002: 10-12/02

Disclaimer:
We are not responsible for the content of externally-linked web pages. We do not necessarily endorse the content linked, unless this is explicitly stated. When linked content is endorsed by Novus Ordo Watch, this endorsement does not necessarily extend to everything expressed by the organization, entity, editor, or author of said content.

Fair Use Notice:

This web site may contain copyrighted material the use of which may not always have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, human, religious, and social issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.