nowire2.jpg

“Reveal to the faithful the wolves which are demolishing the Lord's vineyard.”
—Pope Clement XIII, Encyclical
Christianae Reipublicae (1766)

——————————————

Ongoing Amoris Laetitia Fallout: CHAOS WATCH (click)

——————————————


Sandro Magister makes discovery...

The Jorge Whisperer: Key Texts in Amoris Laetitia found in “Abp.” Fernandez’s Theological Articles from 10 Years Ago 

jorge-whisperer.jpg

Our apologies to Robert Redford, “The Horse Whisperer”



What do you know… We’ve been
saying all along that the ghostwriter of Francis’ latest magisterial disaster — the “Apostolic Exhortation” Amoris Laetitia — is Argentinian “Archbishop” Victor Manuel Fernandez (aka “Smoochie”), but we had no idea how right we were:

The Italian Vaticanist Sandro Magister has now uncovered that key passages in the exhortation bear striking resemblance to what Fernandez had written in a theological journal ten years ago. In and of itself, this would not be a big deal — but it does raise the question to what purpose Francis held two “Synods on the Family” in Rome (in 2014 and 2015), if in the end he was going to simply repeat the “solution” proposed by Smoochie Fernandez ten years before.

Here is some of Magister’s introductory commentary to his findings:

They are the key paragraphs of the post-synodal exhortation “Amoris Laetitia.” And they are also the most intentionally ambiguous, as proven by the multiple and contrasting interpretations and practical applications that they immediately received.

They are the paragraphs of chapter eight that in point of fact give the go-ahead for communion for the divorced and remarried.

That this is where Pope Francis would like to arrive is by now evident to all. And besides, he was already doing it when he was archbishop of Buenos Aires.

But now it is being discovered that some key formulations of “Amoris Laetitia” also have an Argentine prehistory, based as they are on a pair of articles from 2005 and 2006 by Víctor Manuel Fernández, already back then and even more today a thinker of reference for Pope Francis and the ghostwriter of his major texts.

During those years Fernández was professor of theology at the Universidad Católica Argentina in Buenos Aires.

...

Partly on account of those two articles, the congregation for Catholic education blocked the candidacy of Fernández as rector of the Universidad Católica Argentina, only to have to give in later, in 2009, to then-archbishop of Buenos Aires Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who fought tooth and nail to clear the way for the promotion of his protege.

In 2013, just after he was elected pope, Bergoglio even bestowed episcopal ordination upon Fernández, with the title of the extinct metropolitan see of Teurnia. While he confined to the Vatican Apostolic Library the chief culprit of the rejection, Dominican theologian Jean-Louis Bruguès, without making him a cardinal, as instead is the tradition for all the librarians of the Holy Roman Church.

(Sandro Magister, “‘Amoris Laetitia’ Has a Ghostwriter. His Name Is Víctor Manuel Fernández”Chiesa, May 25, 2016)



Magister then lists a number of passages in Amoris Laetitia and the corresponding parallel texts in Fernandez’s essays published in the journal Teología in 2005 and 2006:


Comparison between Amoris Laetitia and Two Articles
by Víctor Manuel Fernández from ten years ago (CLICK)
 


For those who do not know yet or may have forgotten, “Archbishop” Fernandez authored the 1995 book,
Heal Me With Your Mouth: The Art of Kissing — hence our moniker “Smoochie” for him — a book we suspect Francis himself has read, since he places so much emphasis on tenderness, caressing, and kissing, and indeed himself seems obsessed with bestowing the most tender and gentle kisses — no, not just on babies and little children, but on confirmands, altar boys, heads of state, the feet of infidels, and so forth.

Ah yes, kissing. Judas liked it too.

If you have not yet done so, we invite you to listen to our informative and entertaining 2.5-hour podcast examining Amoris Laetitia, where we show how it contradicts Catholic teaching and review some of the reactions to the document from various sources:


Magister’s excellent investigate work here is to be commended, demonstrating once more, as it does, that the Vatican II Sect is a big circus with lots of actors, especially the one that can now call himself the “active member” of the two-headed “expanded papacy”:


francis-actor.jpg


Someone call “Fr.” Federico Lombardi at the Vatican press office. Surely it is time to once again revoke Sandro Magister’s press credentials!

See Also:


Benedict XVI’s secretary speaks

Vatican “Abp.” Gänswein: Since Benedict XVI’s Abdication, there is now a Two-Member “Expanded Papacy”

benedict-francis-zucchetto.jpg

Apparently, one Modernist Antipope was not enough...


The craziness in the Novus Ordo Sect just doesn’t stop.

georg-ganswein.jpg

On May 20, 2016, the Gregorian Pontifical University in Rome introduced “Fr.” Roberto Regoli’s new book, Oltre la crisi della Chiesa (“Beyond the Crisis of the Church”), a history of the “pontificate” of Benedict XVI (2005-2013). The book presentation was augmented by a talk given by the Vatican’s “Archbishop” Georg Gänswein, who is both the prefect of the “papal” household under Francis (and was formerly under Benedict XVI) as well as the private secretary of the “Pope Emeritus”, Benedict XVI.

Ganswein’s speech, which included some explosive commentary on the 2013 resignation of “Pope” Ratzinger, already has Italian journalist Antonio Socci in a tizzy and will revive plenty of hopes, fears, and suspicions among the people we call “Resignationists”, that is, those who believe that Benedict XVI was a true Pope and still is; that is, they hold that for one reason or another, his resignation was invalid and so Francis is an impostor while the true Pope sits a few hundred feet away from him in Vatican City and just plays along.

Ganswein’s speech was delivered in Italian but apparently originally written in German. It can be read in full in the original language here. The Italian translation is available here. The following are the most important excerpts translated into English from the original German:

...

Since [February 11, 2013] we’ve lived through a historic epoch, unprecedented in the Church’s 2,000-year history. As in the days of St. Peter, so even today the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church knows of only one lawful Pope [at a time]; however, for the last three years we’ve lived with two living successors of St. Peter among us — both of them not competing with each other, yet both of them having an extraordinary presence! We may add that before then, the spirit of Joseph Ratzinger had already shaped the long pontificate of St. John Paul II in a decisive way, whom he had served faithfully as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for almost a quarter of a century. Today many still experience this new situation as a kind of divine state of emergency.

…I was present when he decided not to renounce his name [Benedict XVI]. He did not return to being Joseph Ratzinger, as Pope Celestine V did, who after a pontificate of a few months once again became Pietro di Morrone on December 13, 1294.

Since February 11, 2013, therefore, the papacy is no longer what it was before. It will remain the Catholic Church’s foundation. However, Benedict XVI has altered this foundation in a permanent way by means of his “anomalous pontificate” (Ausnahmepontifikat), about which in a first reaction the levelheaded Cardinal Sodano declared, right after the surprising declaration of resignation, that the news had struck the assembled cardinals “like a bolt of lightning out of the blue”. That was in the morning of the very day on which in the evening a kilometer-long lightning bolt, accompanied by incredible roaring, truly struck the tip of the dome of St. Peter’s Basilica, above the grave of the prince of the Apostles. Rarely has there been a more dramatic cosmic accompaniment for a historical turning point, one may presume. Yet, the morning of this very February 11, the Dean of the College of Cardinals, Angelo Sodano, concluded his response to Benedict XVI’s declaration with a first and similarly cosmic evaluation of his pontificate, closing with these words: “Certainly, the stars of Heaven will always keep twinkling, and in like manner the star of your pontificate will always shine among us.” Certo, le stelle nel cielo continuano sempre a brillare e così brillerà sempre in mezzo a noi la stella del suo pontificato.”

In essence, the epochal resignation of the “Pope of theologians” was therefore a step forward, when on February 11, 2013, speaking in Latin, he established in front of the surprised cardinals the new institution of the “Pope emeritus” in the Catholic Church, on the grounds that, as he put it, his strength was no longer sufficient “to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry [munus Petrinum].” The key word in this declaration is the term munus Petrinum, which was translated as “Petrine ministry” here, as it usually is. However, the Latin munus has many meanings. It can mean service, task, direction, or gift — even miracle. Benedict understands his mission as a participation in such a “Petrine ministry”, both before and after his resignation, even today still.

He vacated his chair, but he did not renounce this ministry [service] with the step he took on February 11, 2013. Instead, he augmented the personal office with a collegial and synodal dimension, as a shared ministry so to speak (als einen quasi gemeinsamen Dienst), as though he wanted to repeat once more the invitation inherent in the motto which Joseph Ratzinger had given himself as Archbishop of Munich and Freising and of course retained as Bishop of Rome: “cooperatores veritatis”. That is in German, “Mitarbeiter der Wahrheit” [in English, “coworkers of the truth”]. For it is not a singular but a plural form, taken from 3 John, where it says in verse 8: “We therefore ought to receive such, that we may be fellow helpers [coworkers] of the truth.”

Thus, there have not been two Popes since the election of his successor Francis on March 13, 2013, but there is de facto an expanded ministry — with an active and a contemplative member. That’s why Benedict XVI did not take off his white cassock, nor did he give up his name. That’s why even today the correct way to address him is, “Holy Father” (in Italian: Santità [Holiness]), and that is why he did not retire to a secluded monastery but to the inside of the Vatican — as though he had only stepped aside in order to make room for his successor and for a new stage in the history of the papacy, which, by means of this step, he enriched by the power of his prayers and his shared suffering (Mitleidens) in the Vatican Gardens.

As [Roberto] Regoli writes, this was “the step least expected in contemporary Catholicism”; [it was] a possibility, however, which Cardinal Ratzinger had publicly pondered as far back as August 10, 1978, in Munich in a sermon on the occasion of the death of Paul VI. Thirty-five years later, then, he himself did not flee from the Petrine ministry, which would have been entirely impossible for him after his irreversible acceptance of the office in April 2005. Instead he renewed this ministry and, in an act of extraordinary courage (even against well-meaning and thoroughly-competent advisors), and with his last strength, multiplied it, it is my hope. Only history can prove this, though. But this will remain in Church history, in which the world-renowned theologian on the Chair of Peter became the first “Papa emeritus” in history. Since then his role has — once again — been completely different from the one of, say, Pope St. Celestine V, who after his resignation in 1294 wanted to return to being a hermit and instead became prisoner of his successor Boniface VIII (to whom we are indebted today for the introduction of jubilee years into the Church). A step like that of Benedict XVI had just never been taken before. That’s why it is no surprise that for this reason some perceived it as revolutionary or as being in exceeding conformity with the Gospel, whereas others see the papacy secularized as never before and thus [made] more collegial and more functional or simply more human and less sacred. Others still are of the opinion that with this step Benedict XVI has — speaking in theological and historical-critical terms — demythologized the office, so to speak.

(“Archbishop” Georg Ganswein, in “Das Ende eines Alten und der Beginn eines Neuen, kath.net, May 23, 2016; our translation.)


And there we go. As Modernist “Pope”, Joseph Ratzinger gets to invent new doctrine as he pleases. Hopefully this latest Novus Ordo hogwash does not need any commentary.

A brief clip by ‘Rome Reports’ covering Ganswein’s presentation


Ganswein’s speech is just more proof that Modernists have always had a gift for dressing up the most dangerous nonsense in high-sounding academic terms in order to make their listeners think they are putting forth incredibly learned and deep theology. Well, since Vatican II, the world has been able to see just how profound and spiritual all these hollow phrases really are — just the
changes in the Sacred Liturgy tell you all there is to know.

So, apparently the Novus Ordo Sect now believes in a two-member papacy, in which there is an “active” Pope, and a contemplative Pope-in-retirement, whose “ministry” can never be revoked once accepted, but which he supports, complements, and enriches with his prayers and sighs as he strolls through the Vatican Gardens. You can’t make this stuff up!

two-pope-monster2.jpg

A two-headed monster in the Vatican!


By the way, aside from all the pseudo-theological nuances and gratuitous justifications, the end result of this “collegial and synodal dimension” of the papacy — i.e., that which the common man will take away from this — is that there are and can be two Popes in the Catholic Church. But wait! 
Maybe Francis can resign too, and then there will be three — why stop at two, after all? The more, the merrier!

Get out of this hellish sect while you still have time, and become a real Catholic now.


See Also:



Third Secret of Fatima Controversy

Fr. Döllinger Testimony?

card ratzinger.jpg


—Ratzinger Denies


[UPDATE 21-MAY-2016 23:41 UTC: Fr. Dollinger stands by his account, One Peter Five reports]


Although he first revealed this well over a decade ago, Fr. Ingo Dollinger’s recent re-affirmation — and its subsequent publication on the internet — that “Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger (later “Pope” Benedict XVI) had told him personally in 2000 that there was still a part of the Third Secret of Fatima that had not yet been disclosed, a part that speaks of a “bad council and a bad Mass”, has made waves so large that they have reached all the way into Vatican City.

Fr. Dollinger’s recent confirmation of his original testimony was first published on the One Peter Five blog, to which we provided some coverage and extensive commentary here:


The Dollinger testimony was shared on many blogs and social media. As a result, on May 21, 2016, the Vatican press office issued the following statement:


Several articles have appeared recently, including declarations attributed to Professor Ingo Dollinger according to which Cardinal Ratzinger, after the publication of the Third Secret of Fatima (which took place in June 2000), had confided to him that the publication was not complete.

In this regard, Pope emeritus Benedict XVI declares “never to have spoken with Professor Dollinger about Fatima”, clearly affirming that the remarks attributed to Professor Dollinger on the matter “are pure inventions, absolutely untrue”, and he confirms decisively that “the publication of the Third Secret of Fatima is complete”.

(“Communiqué: on various articles regarding the ‘Third Secret of Fatima’”, vatican.va, May 21, 2016)


It doesn’t take an advanced degree in minor logic to figure out that someone is lying here: either Fr. Dollinger, Benedict XVI, or the Vatican press office.

And it probably isn’t Fr. Dollinger.

[UPDATE 21-MAY-2016 23:41 UTC: Fr. Dollinger stands by his account, One Peter Five reports]


Related:



That sums it up...

SSPX Bp. Fellay: Francis considers us Catholics — Doctrine is not that important to him

fellay-laughing.jpg

Almost there: Bp. Fellay was interviewed on Reconciliation with Rome by Edward Pentin on May 13, 2016


The Society of St. Pius X’s Superior General Bishop Bernard Fellay was back in his comfort zone when Novus Ordo journalist Edward Pentin questioned him on May 13 in a new exclusive interview for the National Catholic Register published on May 18. It was friendly fire only, and this is how he likes it, quite in contrast to his epic fail when interrogated by Tim Sebastian on the aptly-named Conflict Zone program in February — a performance so embarrassing that the SSPX never alerted its adherents to the interview’s existence.

Speaking of interviews… “Pope” Francis recently dumped his latest truckload of Modernist bilge in a Q&A session with the French La Croix paper. Asked about the SSPX, Francis said: 


Bishop Fellay is a man with whom one can dialogue. That is not the case for other elements who are a little strange, such as Bishop Williamson or others who have been radicalized. Leaving this aside, I believe, as I said in Argentina, that they are Catholics on the way to full communion.

(Guillaume Goubert & Sébastien Maillard, “Interview Pope Francis”La Croix, May 17, 2016; trans. by Stefan Gigacz; underlining added.)


Francis’ frank admission confirms all the recent developments between Rome and the SSPX we have reported on and makes it clear that the SSPX’s full recognition by Rome is imminent. Pentin himself, in a companion article to the interview, states that “sources say [that regularization] could happen in a matter of weeks or months.” (Perhaps this is also why John Salza and Robert Siscoe published their intimidating-looking but theologically inept manifesto against Sedevacantism just at this time, to ensure there will be as few defections from the SSPX into Sedevacantism as possible when the day comes.)

We surmise that both the Vatican and the SSPX will try hard to get the reunification completed by November 20 of this year, which is the end of the “Year of Mercy”, as long as they can sufficiently “sell” the deal to their adherents without causing too much of a ruckus. However, at the very latest — and let this be our prediction now for the record — the Vatican will recognize the Lefebvrist Society absolutely no later than 2018, which is when Bp. Fellay’s term as Superior General ends. Having been in this position since 1994, surely he would not be re-elected to a third 12-year term, so time is of the essence for both sides.

Ed Pentin’s interview of Bp. Fellay is available on video. The clips embedded below are from the National Catholic Register’s page here. We will offer some commentary below.





There is a lot that could be said about His Excellency’s remarks but much of it would just be a repetition of what has been said before, so we will comment only on a select few highlights.

Bp. Fellay says the following:


The problems which we denounce are worsening in the Church — in general, I say in the Church — while a certain part, especially in Rome, is starting to say or to recognize that something must be done. And so on the side of the Congregation of the Faith there is a new perspective on us which claims that, thanks to these discussions once again, it appears that the Society [of St. Pius X] is not schismatic.

(Bp. Fellay, Clip 1, @ 6:54-7:30)


We have heard this kind of talk for a long, long time. For example, in a conference given on March 5, 2002 — that’s over 14 years ago! — the same Bishop Fellay, commenting once again on relations with the Vatican, said the following:


We pray for the day when Rome will not only say that the fruits of the Society are good, but will also say, “It’s the way we have to go.” In the meantime, the Society will do its work; it will not be inactive. It will help priests to understand the problems within the Church. I have assigned several of our priests to conduct some theological studies and prepare some publications. You may call them missiles, if you want. We hope Rome will finally say, “It’s true, there is a problem.” I tell you, people inside Rome ask the Society for this, people who say to us, “Please, don’t give in. Continue. Insist on your prerequisites!”

(Bp. Bernard Fellay, “Rome, the Society of Saint Pius X, Campos, Assisi, etc. - Part 2”Mar. 5, 2002; underlining added. )


So, it seems that the SSPX Superior is essentially saying that nothing has really changed since 2002. Sure, there are now more people saying there are problems and something needs to be done, but that’s probably just because “the problems which we denounce are worsening in the Church”. In other words, Rome is making the problems worse and worse, and so as a result more and more people in Rome are turning towards the SSPX. Now that is a development one might call curious but not exactly positive. One might as well conclude that the solution is to make things worse because it is in getting worse that they are, somehow, getting better. Ouch.

Anyway, in the second video clip, His Excellency continues as follows:


First, we have always, repeatedly, and constantly said, “We are not outside of the Church.” And so, we maintain that — you may say — we have all the elements which are necessary to what was understood in former times of being the communion [sic], so to be in communion with the Church.

(Bp. Fellay, Clip 2, @ 0:17-0:40)


Bp. Fellay is a native French-speaking Swiss and so sometimes struggles with English, hence some of his remarks are a bit difficult to understand. Still, it seems clear that he means here that the SSPX is in communion with the Church according to the traditional understanding. That’s very nice of him to say, but there are a few problems: (1) It isn’t true; and (2) the entity he calls “the Church” disagrees with him — which is precisely why they’re having negotiations and why Antipope John Paul II referred to a “schism” in his 1988 motu proprio Ecclesia Dei. It is not given to the heretic or schismatic to pronounce himself inside the Church — that is the prerogative of the Holy See. Pope Pius IX — who also knew a little bit about traditional Catholic doctrine — had the following to say about this:


For any man to be able to prove his Catholic faith and affirm that he is truly a Catholic, he must be able to convince the Apostolic See of this. For this See is predominant and with it the faithful of the whole Church should agree. And the man who abandons the See of Peter can only be falsely confident that he is in the Church. As a result, that man is already a schismatic and a sinner who establishes a see in opposition to the unique See of the blessed Peter from which the rights of sacred communion derive for all men.

(Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Quartus Supra, n. 8; underlining added.)


Indeed one simple way to keep men professing Catholic truth is to maintain their communion with and obedience to the Roman Pontiff. For it is impossible for a man ever to reject any portion of the Catholic faith without abandoning the authority of the Roman Church. In this authority, the unalterable teaching office of this faith lives on. It was set up by the divine Redeemer and, consequently, the tradition from the Apostles has always been preserved. So it has been a common characteristic both of the ancient heretics and of the more recent Protestants — whose disunity in all their other tenets is so great -- to attack the authority of the Apostolic See. But never at any time were they able by any artifice or exertion to make this See tolerate even a single one of their errors. 

(Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Nostis et Nobiscum, nn. 16-17; underlining added.)


Fellay then goes on to criticize the Novus Ordo idea, invented at Vatican II, of “full” vs. “partial” communion, which he rightly rejects. But then one may be allowed to wonder just why he is negotiating to be recognized by a “Pope” who himself says that the end goal of these negotiations is that of “full communion” for the SSPX, towards which Fellay & Co. are well “on the way.” This is the very same “full communion” that Fellay alternately claims he either (1) doesn’t need, or (2) already has, or that (3) doesn’t exist because the whole concept of full vs. partial communion is not a Catholic concept. Welcome to the jungle!

Beginning at 8:10 in the second clip, Fellay then recycles the old “the Pope is an enigma” thesis, which was already used as far back as Paul VI and John Paul II. This time he applies it to Francis, claiming that from his actions one cannot infer what he believes because he constantly contradicts himself — a rather curious position to take for someone who styles himself a devotee of Saint Pius X, for it was this sainted Pontiff who exposed the Modernists for precisely this, that they contradict themselves in order to deceive:


This will appear more clearly to anybody who studies the conduct of Modernists, which is in perfect harmony with their teachings. In their writings and addresses they seem not unfrequently to advocate doctrines which are contrary one to the other, so that one would be disposed to regard their attitude as double and doubtful. But this is done deliberately and advisedly, and the reason of it is to be found in their opinion as to the mutual separation of science and faith. Thus in their books one finds some things which might well be approved by a Catholic, but on turning over the page one is confronted by other things which might well have been dictated by a rationalist. 

(Pope St. Pius X, Encyclical Pascendi, n. 18; underlining added.)

 

Add to this the fact that in October 2013 Bp. Fellay himself recognized that Francis is a “genuine Modernist.”

In 1794, Pope Pius VI denounced the innovators of his time — we may call them Proto-Modernists, for their robber synod of Pistoia was a sort of archetype of Vatican II — in similar fashion:


[This behavior] cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done, under the erroneous pretext that the seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statement, or of leaving it up to the personal inclinations of the individual – such has always been the fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error. It allows for both the possibility of promoting error and of excusing it.

[The heretic Nestorius] expressed himself in a plethora of words, mixing true things with others that were obscure; mixing at times one with the other in such a way that he was also able to confess those things which were denied while at the same time possessing a basis for denying those very sentences which he confessed.

(Pope Pius VI, Bull Auctorem Fidei; underlining added.)


So, no, there is no enigma whatsoever here concerning garrulous Francis. Once you stop assuming that the man is a Catholic and even the Pope and instead posit that he is an anti-Catholic impostor trying to destroy Catholicism, all of his actions make perfect sense. 

The superior of a fraternity that claims St. Pius X as its patron, should know all this.

Next, we come to what is probably the best part of the entire interview with the head of the Lefebvrists:


But for him [Francis], as the doctrine is not so important — man, the people, are important — and there we have given enough proof that we are Catholics. So you see, that’s the approach he has.

…He just sees that we are genuine, period. And so he certainly sees things he disagrees with in us and would probably want to see us to change but for him that’s not the important [thing], the important [thing] is to love Jesus.

(Bp. Fellay, Clip 2, @ 12:04-12:46)


One can only face-palm at these observations coming from a supposed traditional Catholic bishop. For weeks, if not months, Fellay has been shouting from the rooftops that “the Pope considers us Catholics!” and now he adds as a caveat the reason why: Doctrine is not that important to him. Minor detail. But apparently, this does not faze the “traditionalist hero” from Menzingen. He acts like it’s a wonderful thing that “the Pope” recognizes him and his Lefebvrist group as Catholic, when he basically does the same thing with Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, and in a somewhat modified way also with Jews, Muslims, and virtually everyone else who has a pulse, except the Mafia, arms dealers, and those who aren’t buying his bunk about the “god of surprises”

Let us recall a few milestones from the Francis “pontificate”:


Indeed, doctrine is not that important to Francis!

Back in 2002, Bp. Fellay seemed to be a lot more level-headed when he criticized the accord between the Vatican and the Resisters in the diocese of Campos, Brazil (who had been with Bp. Antonio de Castro Mayer), who were neutralized by the Modernist Sect by being turned into the NovusOrdo-approved “Personal Apostolic Administration of Saint John Mary Vianney”:


What kind of Rome do we have when it can sign an agreement with Campos and in the same week can do something like Assisi II? They definitely will not say "We recognize Tradition" in any universal sense. But Campos is contented because Rome has recognized Tradition in Campos. But has it, really? If Rome truly recognized Tradition anywhere it wouldn’t be able to have an Assisi II, the very contrary of Tradition. It is impossible to see in the recognition of Campos a recognition of Tradition.

On the contrary, Assisi II was extended to include Tradition! Rome is saying: "We have a place for the Zoroastrians, for Jews, for Moslems, for animists, Buddhists, Hindus, ...and we have a place for you!" That’s it. Rome has a place in the zoo for Tradition.

But that’s not the position of the Society of St. Pius X. Our position is that there is only one truth, the eternal truth. This truth is exclusive. Truth will not allow its contradiction to be made equal to it. In mathematics, it’s clear. Any student who would say, "Two plus two equals five," would fail, but ecumenism says, "It is whatever figure you like." We say, "No, it is four, period." Only one number is the true one. We say all the other religions are wrong, only one is true. This truth is exclusive. It is the only one by which we can be saved. All the others are just cheating the people. They cannot lead to God. And, I may say, just looking at Assisi II helps us to see the enormous problem in the Church today. The Society is not the problem; the problem is in Rome.

(Bp. Bernard Fellay, “Rome, the Society of Saint Pius X, Campos, Assisi, etc. - Part 2”Mar. 5, 2002; underlining added. )


As Bp. Fellay has acknowledged, the problems have only gotten worse since 2002. And yet, the SSPX has never been closer to “full communion” with the Vatican than now. We have summed things up in the following meme, which you are encouraged to share:


francis-fellay-join.jpg

(click to enlarge)


But, the head of the Lefebvrist club tells us, things are different now because now “the Pope” no longer requires adherence to Vatican II and acknowledges SSPX followers as “Catholics.” Ah yes, but that is only half the story, as Fellay himself acknowledges: The reason why Francis considers them Catholics is that he doesn’t give a hoot about what they — or anyone else, for that matter — believe, and besides, they “love Jesus”, just like the Monophysites, like the Lutheran lay “exorcist”, like Tony Palmer, etc., and even the Jews, Muslims, and Pagans, although they don’t “love Jesus”, they love Him anyway because they love the poor and, as the Argentinian impostor likes to say, the poor are “the flesh of Christ”. And it’s not like the Protestants, Orthodox, Jews, Muslims, and Pagans accept Vatican II either, so there! Congratulations, Bp. Fellay — it took 14 years but you have been granted admission to the “zoo” now after all!

The whole reason why the SSPX promotes such bizarre, convoluted, and inconsistent ideas is that by saying Francis is Pope they are still trying to force the square peg of Modernism into the round hole of the Papacy — but it cannot be done. The Catholic doctrine on the Papacy is incompatible with the idea that a heretic could validly be Pope. It makes no sense. But because the SSPX absolutely refuses to admit the reality that Francis is not the Pope, they must twist, distort, ignore, and reinterpret Church teaching to whatever extent necessary to keep the irrational idea of a “non-Catholic Pope” afloat. This error is at the origin of it all. What we are witnessing in the SSPX is the practical application of this non-Catholic and totally irrational notion. As we demonstrate in this video, if you try to apply the Catholic doctrine on the Papacy to Jorge Bergoglio, you get absurdity. And that is why the SSPX is now in an absurd situation, a situation in which they cannot answer these twelve straightforward questions.

In 2002, Bp. Fellay made the following outrageous remark:


And the first principle of belonging to the Church is the Faith. All other issues, such as, for instance, union with the pope, etc. — all definitely very important — come afterwards.

(Bp. Bernard Fellay, “Rome, the Society of Saint Pius X, Campos, Assisi, etc. - Part 1”Mar. 5, 2002; underlining added. )


This is exactly what we mean when we say the SSPX twists and distorts or ignores altogether the traditional doctrine for the sake of their pet position that the “Popes” since 1958 have been valid Popes.

Union with the Holy See is the ultimate criterion of being a Catholic, as Pope Leo XIII taught, and this union can never come at the expense of the Faith, nor can the Faith ever come at the expense of union with the Holy See. To this fact is attached a divine promise, a heavenly guarantee — and this goes to show that these people, not only the SSPX itself but also all similar “Resisters” — do not in fact believe in the Papacy. They do not believe that the Holy See cannot fail, cannot defect, cannot ever lead the faithful astray. But this is the traditional Catholic teaching:


To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teach-ing, 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.

(Pope Leo XIII, Letter Epistola Tua to Cardinal Guibert, June 17, 1885; excerpted in Papal Teachings: The Church, p. 263; underlining added.)


Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

(Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302; underlining added.)


Union with the Roman See of Peter is ... always the public criterion of a Catholic.... “You are not to be looked upon as holding the true Catholic faith if you do not teach that the faith of Rome is to be held.”

(Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Satis Cognitum, par. 13; underlining added.)


Now you know well that the most deadly foes of the Catholic religion have always waged a fierce war, but without success, against this Chair [of St. Peter]; they are by no means ignorant of the fact that religion itself can never totter and fall while this Chair remains intact, the Chair which rests on the rock which the proud gates of hell cannot overthrow and in which there is the whole and perfect solidity of the Christian religion.

(Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Inter Multiplices, n. 7)


All who defend the faith should aim to implant deeply in your faithful people the virtues of piety, veneration, and respect for this supreme See of Peter. Let the faithful recall the fact that Peter, Prince of Apostles is alive here and rules in his successors, and that his office does not fail even in an unworthy heir. Let them recall that Christ the Lord placed the impregnable foundation of his Church on this See of Peter [Mt 16:18] and gave to Peter himself the keys of the kingdom of Heaven [Mt 16:19]. Christ then prayed that his faith would not fail, and commanded Peter to strengthen his brothers in the faith [Lk 27:32]. Consequently the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, holds a primacy over the whole world and is the true Vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christians.

Indeed one simple way to keep men professing Catholic truth is to maintain their communion with and obedience to the Roman Pontiff. For it is impossible for a man ever to reject any portion of the Catholic faith without abandoning the authority of the Roman Church. In this authority, the unalterable teaching office of this faith lives on. It was set up by the divine Redeemer and, consequently, the tradition from the Apostles has always been preserved. So it has been a common characteristic both of the ancient heretics and of the more recent Protestants -- whose disunity in all their other tenets is so great -- to attack the authority of the Apostolic See. But never at any time were they able by any artifice or exertion to make this See tolerate even a single one of their errors

(Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Nostis et Nobiscum, nn. 16-17; underlining added.)


the Church has received from on high a promise which guarantees her against every human weakness. What does it matter that the helm of the symbolic barque has been entrusted to feeble hands, when the Divine Pilot stands on the bridge, where, though invisible, He is watching and ruling? Blessed be the strength of his arm and the multitude of his mercies!

(Pope Leo XIII, Allocution to Cardinals, March 20, 1900; excerpted in Papal Teachings: The Church, p. 349; underlining added.)


But notice also the contradiction. As discussed earlier, in the May 13 interview Fellay says that the SSPX has always maintained that they never left the Church, that they are “in communion with the Church” in the way this was traditionally understood. Yet in the 2002 quote above, he says that union with the Pope is not of primary importance and, by implication, need not be had as long as the Faith is had. So, which is it? Is he saying that the traditional understanding of union with the Church does not include union with the Pope? We’d love to see that in a traditional Catholic magisterial document!

The fact of the matter is simply, as already mentioned, that these people do not believe in the Papacy as traditionally taught and understood. What is the cause of their lack of Faith, yes, their heresy? At the root of it is the stubborn refusal to concede that the Chair of St. Peter has been vacant since Pius XII died in 1958. Their de facto dogma of “Francis and his five predecessors were valid Popes” governs everything else they believe. For this reason, they are not afraid to either reduce the notion of union with the Pope to a meaningless lipservice, or else maintain that union with the Pope is not an essential requirement to be Catholic but rather merely a “nice-to-have”, a luxury add-on, which one should strive to have but which one must refuse if the Faith is in danger — as though God had not established the Papacy as the rock and guarantee of the Faith (cf. Mt 16:18) but individual self-appointed Swiss bishops who pop up from time to time to keep the Holy See from going to hell.

Thank you, Bishop Fellay, for once again demonstrating that neither your Society of St. Pius X nor the Modernist occupiers of the Vatican have anything to do with the traditional Roman Catholic Faith.

fellay-india.jpg

Bp. Fellay visiting the SSPX in India (2016)

See Also:



Time for a Reality Check

The Novus Ordo Church and Fatima:
Separating Fact from Fiction

OLoFatima.jpg


May 13 of this year marked the 99th anniversary of the first apparition of Our Lady of Fatima in 1917. The Blessed Virgin Mary chose to appear to three shepherd children in a field called the Cova da Iria in Fatima, Portugal, on the very day the future Pope Pius XII, Eugenio Pacelli, was consecrated a bishop by Pope Benedict XV in the Sistine Chapel in Rome. It was Pius XII who would later become known as the “Fatima Pope”, establishing the Feast of the Immaculate Heart of Mary in 1944 (feast day: Aug. 22), and consecrating “the peoples of Russia” to the Immaculate Heart in his Apostolic Letter Sacro Vergente Anno of July 7, 1952. The bishop of Leiria, the diocese in which Fatima is located, Mgr. José Correia da Silva, had declared the apparitions at Fatima as worthy of belief in 1930 with the approval of Pope Pius XI.

The famous “Third Secret” of Fatima was the third part of a warning for the world given by the Blessed Mother to the children to whom she had been appearing, Jacinta and Francisco Marto and their cousin, Lucia dos Santos, on July 13, 1917. To emphasize the importance and urgency of the message and the authenticity of the apparitions, the Holy Virgin worked the Miracle of the Sun in the presence of 70,000 witnesses, on October 13 of the same year. In 1950, Pope Pius XII was privileged to witness the Miracle of the Sun himself, repeated in Rome, reportedly on four separate occasions (Oct. 30 and 31, and Nov. 1 and 8).

The first two parts of the Fatima Secret consisted of a vision of hell “where poor sinners go” if they do not repent, as well as a prophecy of the outbreak of World War II as a punishment for people’s refusal to do penance. At the request of the Virgin of Fatima, the third part of the heavenly message was to be kept hidden from the world until, at the very latest, 1960, because by then, she said, it would “become clearer”. In 1943, Bp. da Silva ordered Sr. Lucy to confide the Third Secret to paper, but she found herself unable to do so until January of 1944. The text was written on a single sheet of paper, placed in a sealed envelope, and given to the bishop. In 1957, Mgr. da Silva transferred the envelope to the Vatican at the order of Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani. It is not completely certain whether Pope Pius XII ever read the Third Secret, but it is likely that he did not do so. Presumably, the Pope wanted to wait until 1960, but alas, died in 1958. When “Pope” John XXIII usurped the papal throne after Pius XII’s death and founded the Novus Ordo Sect, when 1960 came, he refused to reveal the Third Secret, which the Vatican has kept under lock and key ever since.

fatima-miracle2.jpg

Photos of people witnessing the miracle of the sun at Fatima on Oct. 13, 1917
(click to enlarge)


On June 26, 2000, the Modernist Vatican
purported to reveal the Third Secret of Fatima in its entirety. To make a very long story short, it is amply documented and morally certain that the text published by the Vatican as the “Third Secret” is not in fact the Third Secret of Fatima. As an “interpretation” of the text, the Vatican claimed that the Virgin of Fatima was prophesying the assassination of “Pope” John Paul II on May 13, 1981, in St. Peter’s Square, a plot that was foiled only, so the Modernist Church asserts, by the special intervention of the Blessed Mother, as the Polish antipope was severely wounded but survived.

Once the 2000 “Third Secret” was released, it became evident rather quickly that there were serious problems with the text. Those who claimed the Vatican’s relase was a hoax and that the true Third Secret was still not revealed, were termed “Fatimists”, and at the forefront of those were the Semi-Traditionalists at the Fatima Center of the Rev. Nicholas Gruner, headquartered in Canada. Although Novus Ordo Watch has serious theological differences with the Fatima Center and its chief personalities — names like Kramer, Ferrara, Salza, and Vennari come to mind — the fact is that, overall, their research on the Third Secret and the Vatican’s attempts to suppress it has been outstanding.

Intrigued by the controversy, the Italian Novus Ordo journalist Antonio Socci set out to prove the “Fatimists” wrong. In the course of his research, however, he came to the undeniable conclusion that the Vatican’s “Third Secret” was indeed not the genuine Third Secret of Fatima — in other words, the “Fatimists” had been right all along. Socci published his findings in a very interesting book entitled The Fourth Secret of Fatima (2006). The page-turner proved so devastating and embarrassing to the Vatican that “Cardinal” Tarcisio Bertone, then the Vatican Secretary of State, felt compelled to address Socci’s claims. In 2007, Bertone published his response, The Last Secret of Fatima, and also appeared on the Italian television program Porta a Porta for an interview in which he purported to show the original sheet of paper on which Sr. Lucy recorded the Third Secret. Unfortunately for Bertone, his defense of the 2000 text made things worse for his side and unwittingly corroborated the Fatimists’ contention that the Vatican was still hiding the real secret, as Christopher Ferrara demonstrated in his 2008 work, The Secret Still Hidden.

And so, to this very day the true Third Secret of Fatima has never been revealed, despite that fact that Our Lady wanted it to be revealed no later than 1960. What event took place “by 1960” that would make the secret clearer so that it would be better understood?

roncalli8.jpg

By 1960, the “pontificate” of Angelo Roncalli (“Pope John XXIII”) had begun to take shape, and preparations for the Second Vatican Council were underway. Antipope John had announced his intention to call an ecumenical council on January 25, 1959, thereby startling the world. It was this council that proved to be “ground zero”, so to speak, of the strange new Modernist religion, the very foundation on which all of the changes that we have witnessed since actually rest. The Catholic Church — or that which outwardly appears to be the Catholic Church — has never been the same since the election of John XXIII. Since that fateful day of October 28, 1958, when the conclave to elect Pius XII’s successor ended, nothing has been as it once was. What the world once knew as the glorious Catholic Church has since become a ludicrous, irrelevant, and impious travesty which, while retaining some outward appearances of Catholicism, has been promoting the doctrines of Freemasonry and gradually eclipsed traditional Roman Catholicism. The false church predicted in Holy Scripture as the “operation of error” (2 Thess 2:10) had come into existence in order “to deceive (if possible) even the elect” (Mt 24:24) as a punishment for people’s rejection of or indifference to truth (2 Thess 2:10). The scriptural prophecies about the “mystery of iniquity” that was being held back until the appointed time (2 Thess 2:6-7), once masterfully outlined and expounded by Cardinal Henry Edward Manning, were starting to be fulfilled:


While we do not know for sure what the actual text of the Third Secret of Fatima is, it seems clear that, keeping in mind what has happened since 1960, it must contain a warning of the false church that would appear with the election of John XXIII and all his wicked successors. Vatican II, the “New Mass”, and the whole new Modernist religion — surely we have been living through the Third Secret ever since. It would make perfect sense that, considering the enormity of what Almighty God knew would happen after the death of Pope Pius XII, He would deign to send His Blessed Mother to give a last warning to mankind that if people do not amend their wicked ways, not only would they go to hell and be punished with another world war, they would even leave to their future generations the mystery of iniquity, the operation of error, an entire false church that would almost succeed in stamping out the holy Catholic Church and bring upon the world untold spiritual ruin and destruction. No wonder our Lord asked His disciples rhetorically, “But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?” (Lk 18:8).

Indeed it would make sense that to underscore the importance and urgency of such a terrible warning, God would work the Miracle of the Sun to wake people from their slumbers. By contrast, it is downright frivolous to suggest that the revelations of our Lady at Fatima would culminate in the prediction of a failed assassination attempt on a future Pope (pretending for a minute that John Paul II was a true Pope). How many Popes have been killed or died under suspicious circumstances over the centuries! Why should God send our Lady to “warn” the world of this, especially since the “Pope” in question actually survived?! And what significance could the year 1960 possibly have for this? No, the Vatican simply hijacked Fatima to promote and gain sympathy for the false pontificate of John Paul II.

Over the years following 1960, a number of texts have appeared claiming to contain the true Third Secret of Fatima. For example, Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani (1890-1979), who indeed read the Third Secret, allegedly confirmed that a text originally published in 1963 contained all of the sentences of the true message:


In 1994, a French priest by the name of Fr. Raymond Arnette (1923-2004) claimed to have received a locution that revealed the exact text of the Third Secret. According to Fr. Arnette, the secret is the following:

There will be a wicked council planned and prepared that will change the countenance of the Church. Many will lose the Faith; confusion will reign everywhere. The sheep will search for their shepherds in vain. 

A schism will tear apart the holy tunic of My Son. This will be the end of times, foretold in the Holy Scriptures and recalled to memory by Me in many places. The abomination of abominations will reach its peak and it will bring the chastisement announced at La Salette. My Son's arm, which I will not be able to hold back anymore, will punish this poor world, which must expiate its crimes.

One will only speak about wars and revolutions. The elements of nature will be unchained and will cause anguish even among the best [the most courageous]. The Church will bleed from all Her wounds. Happy are they who will persevere and search for refuge in My Heart, because in the end My Immaculate Heart will triumph.

(Source and further information)


Of course, we do not
know whether this is the true Third Secret of Fatima, but it definitely sounds a lot more believable than what the Vatican revealed in 2000. The phrase “the Church will bleed from all her wounds” seems to be an accurate description of what we have been witnessing, and it would fit perfectly with the idea that the Church is currently undergoing her own Mystical Passion, as explained by Cardinal Manning. Needless to say, we have all witnessed a “wicked council” indeed as well as its consequent apostasy. 

What’s interesting is that this purported secret prophesies that the sheep’s search for their shepherds will be “in vain”. Why in vain? Because the people claiming to be the rightful Catholic shepherds are not in fact what they pretend to be. Sedevacantism is hinted at, underscored by the mention of a schism, because the Modernist usurpers are false shepherds and have set up a false counterchurch to oppose the true Church. The “abomination of abominations” could very well be a reference to the abominable false liturgy of Paul VI, also known as the “New Mass” or Novus Ordo Missae. In Holy Scripture, there are prophecies regarding the “abomination of desolation” that is found in the holy place, that is, in the sanctuary: 


And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall defile the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the continual sacrifice, and they shall place there the abomination unto desolation.

(Dan 11:31)

And from the time when the continual sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination unto desolation shall be set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred ninety days…

(Dan 12:11)

And many false prophets shall rise, and shall seduce many. And because iniquity hath abounded, the charity of many shall grow cold. But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom, shall be preached in the whole world, for a testimony to all nations, and then shall the consummation come. When therefore you shall see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place: he that readeth let him understand. For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Behold I have told it to you, beforehand.

(Mt 24:11-15,24-25)


Does Paul VI’s “New Mass” not perfectly fit the label “abomination of desolation”? The magnificent offertory prayers of the Catholic Mass were replaced with a Jewish table blessing; the Holy Sacrifice was turned into a liturgical happy meal; “Holy Communion” came to be distributed and treated like popcorn. The Faith of hundreds of millions of Catholics was ruined.

fatima-miracle.jpg

70,000 people witness the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima on Oct. 13, 1917 (click to enlarge)


Interestingly enough, speculation about the true Third Secret of Fatima has received some renewed attention as of late.

The semi-traditionalist One Peter Five web site recently shared an anecdote of Dr. Alice von Hildebrand about what her husband Dietrich was told about the Third Secret in 1965. The testimony resembles that given by “Cardinal” Luigi Ciappi (1909-1996), according to whom it is foretold in the heavenly message that “the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top”.

In addition, the same internet site posted a report of Dr. Maike Hickson relating the testimony of one Fr. Ingo Dollinger, to whom then-“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger reportedly revealed in 2000 that the full — or real — Third Secret had still not been disclosed, and that it actually warns of a “bad council and a bad Mass” — something that would corroborate the text published by Fr. Arnette in 1994:


This revelation about Ratzinger’s testimony is actually not new. “Fr.” Paul Kramer of the Fatima Center had already mentioned it in a speech given in Glendale, California, on September 24, 2004, which was transcribed and published in the Fatima Crusader, vol. 80 (Summer 2005). Kramer said:

Those who have studied Fatima know that what was published five years ago, on the 26th of June, is not the whole Secret; it simply is not. The night before, I should say the early morning of the 26th of June, I went to bed; I left the instruction: it doesn’t matter how early it is, as soon as that Secret is published, bring it to me — wake me up if you have to.

The Secret was brought to me, I looked at it, and the first thing I said is, "This is not the Secret!" I was not alone in making that judgment. A seminary professor, who is a close friend of Pope John Paul II, and who also knows personally Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, has the same impression — this is not the Third Secret.

It cannot be.

And so when he went to the Vatican, he visited Cardinal Ratzinger, and he confronted him. He did not mince his words. He said, "This is impossible! This cannot possibly be the entire Third Secret!" And he insisted that Ratzinger answer him yes or no. "Is this the whole thing? Is this the whole thing, or isn’t it? It cannot be; now you tell me!" Ratzinger admitted "Truly, that was not all of it."

The Third Secret is About Vatican II

This professor is a priest that I know personally, and a number of people that I know, know this priest personally. He pressed on further for an answer, he would not back off. And he demanded, "What is in the Secret? If that’s not all of it, well, what is there?" Ratzinger’s answer makes it clear. There’s no longer any mystery why they have kept it hidden for so many years. And why the Vatican officials, during the pontificate of Pope John XXIII, said in their press release that, "It may never be published," it may not ever be released. Ratzinger said that in the Third Secret, Our Lady warns that there will be an evil council. And She warned against the changes: She warned against making changes in the liturgy; changes in the Mass. This is explicitly set forth in the Third Secret.

(Rev. Paul Kramer, “The Imminent Chastisement for Not Fulfilling Our Lady’s Request”, Fatima Crusader 80, Summer 2005; underlining added.)


The Rev. Kramer’s account of the testimony of his professor friend more or less matches what Dr. Hickson reported in the
One Peter Five article. Whether the professor and the priest who passed on what Ratzinger had told him are the same person, i.e. Fr. Ingo Dollinger, we do not know, but it is quite likely, since presumably “Cardinal” Ratzinger would have spilled the beans on the real Third Secret only to a very select few individuals, if any. [UPDATE: Yes, it is the same individual — see Fatima Crusader 92 here.]

Unfortunately, like Mr. Kramer’s speech in 2004, so too Dr. Hickson’s One Peter Five article contains several elements of wishful thinking, because Ratzinger (later “Pope” Benedict XVI) is once again gratuitously being painted as the “good guy”, an illusion that is surely emotionally comforting and reassuring to many, but dangerously false nonetheless.

Let’s think about this: If Ratzinger knows that Our Lady warned of an evil council and an evil rite of Mass, and that she wanted this warning to be disclosed to the public no later than 1960 because then it would become clearer, then he has absolutely no excuse to go along with Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Missae anyway! Yet, Ratzinger has been one of the main theological forces and drivers behind the council from the very beginning, serving at Vatican II as suit-and-tie expert theological adviser (peritus) to Cardinal Josef Frings.

Rev. Kramer’s disingenuous dismissals of Ratzinger’s guilt on the grounds that he allegedly used a “mental reservation” — as though such would have been morally permissible under the circumstances — and simply “cannot believe that there was any evil in the Council” are not particularly convincing and a great disservice to the truth. Unjustified and unrealistic excuses have no place in the pursuit of truth regarding such an important matter.

Like Kramer, Hickson too reinforced a number of fantasies that are prevalent among Ratzinger fans: She gave credence to the popular idea that as “Pope”, Benedict XVI

...tried to undo some of the injustices that are directly related with this Dollinger revelation, namely: he freed the Traditional Mass from its suppression; he removed the excommunication of the bishops of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX); and lastly, he publicly declared in 2010 in Fatima: “We would be mistaken to think that Fatima’s prophetic mission is complete.”

(Maike Hickson, “Cardinal Ratzinger: We Have Not Published the Whole Third Secret of Fatima, One Peter Five, May 15, 2016)


These may be commonly-held ideas but, as we said, they are fanciful, and this we will now demonstrate.

First, regarding the “freeing” of the Traditional Latin Mass, a close analysis of the text of Benedict XVI’s decree reveals that the Antipope’s intention was anything but benevolent:


Second, regarding the idea that by rescinding the “excommunications” against the SSPX bishops, Benedict tried to move in the direction of Sacred Tradition, the following article dispels that misconception:


And lastly, the truth about Benedict XVI’s cryptic “prophetic mission” remark and his airplane comments about Fatima will likewise be disappointing to Ratzinger fans:


Thus we see that the real Joseph Ratzinger is quite a bit different from the one many people imagine. It is the same Ratzinger who once wrote: “We must be on guard against minimizing these [Traditionalist] movements. Without a doubt, they represent a sectarian zealotry that is the antithesis of Catholicity. We cannot resist them too firmly” (Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology [Ignatius Press, 1987], pp. 389-90). Does this surprise you? It shouldn’t. We are, after all, talking about a man who denies that Jesus Christ physically rose from the dead. Minor detail.

fatima-crowd.jpg

Fatima, Portugal, on October 13, 1917


One final comment is in order. 

Since this essay is dedicated to separating fact from fiction, we cannot pass over an anecdote Dr. Hickson recounts in her post on One Peter Five. She writes:

In this context, it might be worth mentioning that my husband and I were both together told by a priest who had met privately with Pope Benedict XVI that Pope Benedict himself considers Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre “to be the greatest theologian of the 20th century.” My  husband and I both vouch for having heard these exact words directly from this priest — words which were allegedly spoken by Pope Benedict in the context of the pope’s proposal to re-introduce Marcel Lefebvre’s teaching more widely into the Catholic Church.

(Maike Hickson, “Cardinal Ratzinger: We Have Not Published the Whole Third Secret of Fatima, One Peter Five, May 15, 2016)


Whether or not it actually came from Benedict XVI, the claim that Abp. Lefebvre was the “greatest theologian of the 20th century” is absurd. This has nothing to do with whether or not one agrees with Lefebvre’s theological position — the claim simply cannot be taken seriously, and if Benedict XVI truly made this assertion, then he was either being deliberately deceptive or else he was joking, speaking ironically.

marcel-lefebvre.jpg

Marcel Lefebvre, whatever his other merits may have been, was simply not a theologian of note, much less the greatest of the last century. Lefebvre never taught at a pontifical university and, to our knowledge, never wrote a single strictly theological work that would have particularly distinguished him from other Catholic bishops. We are not trying to discredit him — we are just trying to put things into perspective. Lefebvre’s main work before Vatican II was that of a missionary: He was a priest of the Holy Ghost Fathers and eventually became Archbishop of Dakar, Senegal. It stands to reason that his contributions in the field of Sacred Theology would be rather limited.

If there is one name that would definitely rank high for the position of greatest theologian of the 20th century, it would be that of Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. (1877-1964). Other serious candidates might include Cardinal Louis Billot, Mgr. Joseph C. Fenton, Fr. Édouard Hugon, Fr. Santiago Ramirez, and Fr. Ambroise Gardeil. Without intending any disrespect, it would be fair to say that the name of Abp. Marcel Lefebvre would probably not even show up in a footnote — simply because he was not a theologian of note.

Consider also that for Fr. Ratzinger, a Modernist, none of the people just mentioned would be considered great theologians, nor would Abp. Lefebvre. For Ratzinger, great theologians were the proponents of the Nouvelle Theologie, the Neo-Modernists — names like Edward Schillebeeckx, Karl Rahner, Henri de Lubac, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Yves Congar, and Marie-Dominique Chenu. Together with Ratzinger himself, those are considered the giants of the Second Vatican Council; in the words of the Modernist Jurgen Mettepenningen, they are the “inheritors of Modernism and precursors of Vatican II”.

So, it is inconceivable that Ratzinger would have pointed to Abp. Lefebvre as the greatest theologian of the 20th century without being either deceptive or facetious. This is not to cast doubt upon the veracity of Dr. Hickson — she merely reported what an alleged witness told her — but simply to reject the claim as lacking all credibility. When fanciful notions like this are put forth, the best remedy is always to go strictly by the facts, because reality is always the best cure for fantasy.

Speaking of reality: It is quite possible that the entire solution to what has happened to our beloved Catholic Church since the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958 is found in the Third Secret of Fatima. Let us, then, trustingly and lovingly consecrate ourselves and our loved ones to our Lady’s Immaculate Heart, so that we may be protected from the calamities justly inflicted upon this world, keep the Faith, and obtain from Heaven the grace of final perseverance.

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!

Related:



news-digest2.jpg

     Published May 15, 2016

Wake Up! The Vatican II Church is a counterfeit!



Commission announced...

Francis agrees to Study
Possibility of Women Deacons 

women-priests-deacons.jpg

Coming soon, to a worship space near you?
The masquerade party is on!


With people like “Fr.” James Martin“Mgr.” Battista Ricca, and “Cardinal” Donald Wuerl, and with “Pope” Francis’ never-ending drivel about “tenderness” and “caressing”, one might wonder what need there is for female clergy in the Novus Ordo Church. Yet, this doesn’t stop Chaos Frank from opening up to the next anti-Catholic cause: female deacons.

As several news services are reporting this morning, at a meeting with his LCWR New-Age “nuns”, Francis has agreed to set up a commission to study the possibility of ordaining women as deacons. Perhaps he forgot that the so-called International Theological Commission in his own sect already did this back in 2002, or maybe he just wants to add some “fresh insights” that will open the door to female clergy in some ambiguous footnote he can later claim he doesn’t remember.

Here is some of the initial coverage of this latest Vatican development:


As a quick reality check for how things are looking in the Catholic Church by contrast, we recall that Pope Benedict XIV had something to say about the issue of women even so much as serving at the altar:

Pope Gelasius in his ninth letter (chap. 26) to the bishops of Lucania condemned the evil practice which had been introduced of women serving the priest at the celebration of Mass. Since this abuse had spread to the Greeks, Innocent IV strictly forbade it in his letter to the bishop of Tusculum: “Women should not dare to serve at the altar; they should be altogether refused this ministry.” We too have forbidden this practice in the same words in Our oft-repeated constitution Etsi Pastoralis, sect. 6, no. 21.

(Pope Benedict XIV, Encyclical Allatae Sunt, n. 29)


Clearly, the “Great Renewal” of Vatican II enlightenment hadn’t hit yet. Blessed were the days!

As we have seen in the last 3 years, with Francis, anything is possible, so those who are tempted now to rashly declare that “this will never happen”, had better think again. Too much of what many thought “could never happen” has already happened. The laundry list of Francis’ scandals, heresies, errors, and related chaos is getting longer and longer, but we’re trying to keep up:


No word yet on what impact Francis’ decision about studying the issue of women deacons may have for transgenders or transsexuals in the New Church. Maybe “Cardinal” Raymond Burke would care to comment.

feminist-nuns.jpg

They can’t figure out why no girl wants to be a nun anymore...

See Also:


Hebe de Bonafini gets VIP treatment

Francis offers Private Audience to Ultra-Leftist Activist who once Defecated behind Altar at Buenos Aires Cathedral

hebe-de-bonafini.jpg

Anti-Catholic Argentine Activist Hebe de Bonafini


The family of Asia Bibi, a Christian who is on death row in Pakistan for having “blasphemed” after drinking water from the same cup as Muslim women, could not get a private audience with Francis in the Vatican. For them he only had a few seconds before he rushed to greet more of his fans. On May 8, which was Mother’s Day this year, the March for Life took place in Rome, and many of its participants attended the
Regina Caeli audience in St. Peter’s. Not only did the ever-talkative “Pope”, who has something to say about every mudslide in Bolivia, not have a message of encouragement for the anti-abortion fighters, he did not even give them his “blessing” or endorsement. A mere half-sentence “salute” is all they got, which was entirely consistent with his defeaning silence on abortion and homosexuality whenever speaking out could actually make a difference. For example:


Against this background, we are disgusted to report that “Pope” Francis has invited the left-wing extremist Hebe de Bonafini, 87, to a private audience at the Vatican on May 27. Bonafini, who once confessed to having relieved herself behind the altar of the metropolitan cathedral of Buenos Aires, is the head of the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo. She has agreed to the meeting as long as her doctors clear her for travel.

The Argentinian La Nacion reported on this development, of which we are offering a translation below:


Six moments in the relationship between Hebe de Bonafini and Pope Francis

The head of Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo once linked Jorge Bergoglio to "fascism" and the last military dictatorship; they will meet in Rome on May 27.

Pope Francis and Hebe de Bonafini will meet face-to-face in the Vatican on May 27. After years of disagreements, criticisms and denunciations, the head of Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo, in a surprising turnaround, has accepted an invitation from the Supreme Pontiff to a private audience in Rome.

Below is a summary of moments in the relationship between the director, who is close to Kirchnerism, and Jorge Bergoglio.

1) “Macri, Bendini and Bergoglio are fascism; they are the return of the dictatorship.”

In June of 2007, the director harshly criticized Bergoglio and linked him with the last military dictatorship. In an open letter, the head of Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo demanded that the government of Néstor Kirchner dismiss the Chief of the Army, Lt. General Roberto Bendidni, who had called for a “healing of wounds”. Days earlier, the then-Archbishop of Buenos Aires criticized those who “spend their time cursing the past” in order to “benefit in the present and in the future.”

In her text, Bonafini targeted everyone: “Macri, Bendini and Bergoglio — all garbage goes together. They are of the same breed and of the same ilk. They are fascism; they are the return of the dictatorship.”

She added: “Neither the church nor the justice system condemned any of the bishops for what they did. Not those who gave blessings while our sons were thrown into rivers alive, nor those who beat them while they were being tortured. Now they say, ‘Enough, let it end’ because they need this to be forgotten. But this cannot be erased. The bishops received salaries from the judges. Priests were in charge of the police and some of them even carried weapons.”

2) The protest in the cathedral and the bathroom “behind the altar”

In January of 2008, the president of Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo led a protest inside the Metropolitan Cathedral [of Buenos Aires], demanding that the then-Chief of Government of Buenos Aires, Mauricio Macri, release funds destined for the construction of housing in Villa 20 of Lugano [a shantytown].

During the protest, Bonafini made a statement that caused outrage and unrest in the Church: “We will stay here until Macri returns the money that does not belong to him.They closed the cathedral bathrooms to us and so we had to make an improvised one behind the altar,” she said.

3) “About this Pope all we have to say is: Amen.”

In March of 2013, Bonafini had misgivings about Begoglio’s election as the new head of the Church. When asked about Francis, the president of Mothers did not hesitate to say: “The official church is oppressive, but the Third World one is liberating. We continue having relations only with Third World priests. About this Pope whom they elected yesterday all we have to say is: Amen.” 

4) A letter full of praises and apologies

On March 21, 2013, the director sent a letter to the Supreme Pontiff in which she apologized and showed herself hopeful by his arrival at the Vatican. She also said that she had not known about his “pastoral work” in the slums of Buenos Aires.

“Don Francisco, I did not know about your pastoral work. I only knew that the leader of the Church in Argentina lived in the cathedral; that same cathedral we marched past chanting, ‘You remained silent when they took them away’”, she wrote.  

“Today, to my surprise, I hear many colleagues explain your work and dedication in the slums. I am extremely glad to find out about your work and I am hopeful for change inside the Vatican. We have suffered a lot in Latin America; this same Latin America that today stands upright thanks to its leaders.”

Days later, the Pope expressed his “gratitude”, by letter, to the head of Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo.

5) Demands and conditions for a visit

In May of last year, Bonafini established the conditions necessary in order to accept the Pope's invitations to the Vatican. “Bergoglio is always inviting me to go. I asked him for several things which, if he does them, I will go”, she said. The head of Mothers said that she had asked Francis to recognize that the Church “had much involvement in the repression” during the last military dictatorship and that it celebrate “a Mass for all the priests and nuns of the Third World who ‘disappeared’”.

Months later, she sent him another letter in which she transmitted to the Pope her desire for the Argentinian Church to ask for pardon and reconciliation. “I am in despair and I keep asking myself: Where was God when our sons were tossed into the sea from laden airplanes? I will remind you that those who armed and flew those planes, upon their return to the ground were absolved by priests who justified everything by telling themselves that it was to save the nation.”

6) Confirming the meeting at the Vatican

Bonafini confirmed today that she will meet with Pope Francis on May 27 if her doctors let her travel to Rome. “I am going for a checkup to determine whether I am able to go or not. Most people think the trip is certain but I have to wait and see what the doctors tell me”, she told Télam radio in an interview.

While not giving details about what she will ask the Pope during their meeting at the Vatican, the head of Mothers gave a sneak peek: “It will be a private matter and all I can say is that I will not ask for anything personal. As always, it will be like the work we do as Mothers: that which benefits each and everyone.”

(“Seis momentos en la relación de Hebe de Bonafini con el papa Francisco, La Nacion, May 10, 2016; our translation.)


Further commentary should not be necessary. No doubt Francis will be happy to have another anti-Catholic admirer to give him marching orders.

For more on the defecation desecration, go here (Spanish).

Related:


Looking for More? We only keep the 10 most recent blog posts on this page. For more, check the monthly Wire Archive...

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.