The Third Secret of Fatima and Corruption in the Church.

Discussion in 'Church Critique' started by padraig, Sep 15, 2018.

  1. DeGaulle

    DeGaulle Powers

    An interesting post today, the 14th, by Father Hunwicke, in which he reminds us that those who are preoccupied with the Second Vatican Council are living in the 'increasingly distant past'. I have no Latin, but he appears to be saying that an awareness of the Council's temporary nature is built into its constitution. It is long past its sell-by date and the intervening decades have taught us irrefutibly that any attempt by the Eternal Church to hitch itself onto the zeitgeist is futile and self-defeating. After all, the zeitgeist of the 'Swinging Sixties' is deader than any dodo.
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2020
  2. Jason Fernando

    Jason Fernando Archangels

  3. Jason Fernando

    Jason Fernando Archangels

    A lot of people are expecting a lot of things on the year 2029 because it would be the 100 year anniversary of the vision of Sister Lucia at Tuy.

    This made me think what it is about the number 29. As God's favorite number is 13 because it represents the 1 in 3 Holy Trinity, does anybody here also knows a hidden meaning for 29?
     
  4. Jason Fernando

    Jason Fernando Archangels

    By the way the Great Depression began with the Stock market crash on October 29, 1929. Wow two 29s here!
     
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2020
  5. SgCatholic

    SgCatholic Maranatha

    Viganò: Vatican II Marked The Beginning of a False, Parallel Church
    Steve Skojec June 10, 2020
    https://onepeterfive.com/vigano-vatican-ii-marked-the-beginning-of-a-false-parallel-church/

    [....]

    In today’s text, we see the calmest, most succinct, most direct acknowledgment of what the Second Vatican Council has wrought that I have ever read from a member of the episcopacy. Traditionalists have often lamented that even our “heroes” within the Church are conciliar apologists, almost to a man. Here, in one serene and carefully considered text, Viganò shrugs that off and makes clear that in order for us to address what we are facing, we must all do the same:

    There comes a moment in our life when, through the disposition of Providence, we are faced with a decisive choice for the future of the Church and for our eternal salvation. I speak of the choice between understanding the error into which practically all of us have fallen, almost always without evil intentions, and wanting to continue to look the other way or justify ourselves.

    In only 4,000 words, Viganò addresses ecumenism, the Assisi events, Pachamama, the liturgy, the Abu Dhabi statement, the attempted change to the death penalty teaching, Bergoglio’s election as a triumph of revolution, the failed dubia attempt, and even the long-disputed question of subsistit in!

    In one of the most powerful paragraphs of the text, he lays the origins of the problems we face at the feet of the Council itself:

    t is surprising that people persist in not wanting to investigate the root causes of the present crisis, limiting themselves to deploring the present excesses as if they were not the logical and inevitable consequence of a plan orchestrated decades ago. If the pachamama could be adored in a church, we owe it to Dignitatis Humanae. If we have a liturgy that is Protestantized and at times even paganized, we owe it to the revolutionary action of Msgr. Annibale Bugnini and to the post-conciliar reforms. If the Abu Dhabi Declaration was signed, we owe it to Nostra Aetate. If we have come to the point of delegating decisions to the Bishops’ Conferences – even in grave violation of the Concordat, as happened in Italy – we owe it to collegiality, and to its updated version, synodality. Thanks to synodality, we found ourselves with Amoris Laetitia having to look for a way to prevent what was obvious to everyone from appearing: that this document, prepared by an impressive organizational machine, intended to legitimize Communion for the divorced and cohabiting, just as Querida Amazonia will be used to legitimize women priests (as in the recent case of an “episcopal vicaress” in Freiburg) and the abolition of Sacred Celibacy. The Prelates who sent the Dubia to Francis, in my opinion, demonstrated the same pious ingenuousness: thinking that Bergoglio, when confronted with the reasonably argued contestation of the error, would understand, correct the heterodox points, and ask for forgiveness.

    Viganò acknowledges, in clear and unequivocal language, how “disconcerting” it is that we are in a “race towards the abyss” in which those at “the highest levels of the Church” have responsibility for “supporting these anti-Christian ideologies.”

    This is, I believe, an historic text. I had the sense as I was reading it that it could signal a turning point — a lifting of the veil. We all know — we can all feel — that the pre- and post-conciliar variants of Catholicism are not the same religion. Viganò, rather than admonishing us to attempt to rationalize and reconcile these differences, gives us permission to call a spade a spade (emphasis added):

    It is no accident: what these men affirm with impunity, scandalizing moderates, is what Catholics also believe, namely: that despite all the efforts of the hermeneutic of continuity which shipwrecked miserably at the first confrontation with the reality of the present crisis, it is undeniable that from Vatican II onwards a parallel church was built, superimposed over and diametrically opposed to the true Church of Christ.

    The full text of Viganò’s essay is given in the rest of the article.

    (some of the emphases are mine -SgC)
    +
     
    Don_D and AED like this.
  6. SgCatholic

    SgCatholic Maranatha

    VIGANÒ on REVOLUTION in the CHURCH: “From Vatican II onwards, a parallel church was built...”

    [​IMG]

    Introduction by Michael J. Matt: Over the past half century of crisis in the Catholic Church, one of the main points of division among Tradition-minded Catholics centered around the question of whether there was something inherently contrary to Tradition about the Second Vatican Council itself, or was it merely the Modernist interpretations of the Council that flowed abundantly into the lifeblood of the Church after the close of the Council in 1965.

    Over the past few decades, many conservative commentators were ready to admit that the so-called “Spirit of the Council” had led to much devastation in the Church. But they parted company with those of us who felt obliged in conscience to point out that at least some of the sixteen documents themselves were inherently at odds with the constant magisterial teaching of the Church.

    In essence, this has been at the heart of the debate for over fifty years. It divided my own family, in fact, and eventually left my father with no choice but to leave The Wanderer and found The Remnant in 1967. In his mind, it was not merely a question of abuse—either of doctrine or liturgy—but rather that Vatican II represented a fundamental and orchestrated reorientation of the Church in the spirit of the modern world.

    For many good Catholics (who knew something had gone terribly wrong), it seemed the more prudent course of action to hope and pray that faulty interpretations of the Council would eventually work themselves into a hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition and all would end well. For fifty years, this kept them largely silent in the face of radical novelty never before seen in the history of the Church.[​IMG]

    Pope Benedict XVI himself—recognizing the growing contradiction between the novelties of the Council and what had been taught for 2000 years—wrestled with this dilemma throughout his pontificate. In his last address to the Roman curia on February 14, 2013, he assigned responsibility for the chaos in the Church, not to the Council itself, but rather to what he called the “Council of the Media” or the “Virtual Council” which, according to His Holiness, had “created many calamities, so many problems, so much misery, in reality: seminaries closed, convents closed liturgy trivialized... and the true Council has struggled to materialize, to be realized: the virtual Council was stronger than the real Council.”

    In other words, the pontiff believed he could rescue the Council by referring it back to the original intentions of the Council Fathers. But it was too late for that, since the world and the Church could only deal with the one Council that in reality was the Council.

    In the end, Pope Benedict abdicated before discovering that illusive “hermeneutic of continuity” from the Council to Tradition. Why? Because it doesn’t exist.


    In more recent times, many Catholics have abandoned hope in the Vatican II Rescue Effort. I myself initiated the hashtag “ToHellWithVaticanII”, which garnered criticisms from good friends who were not prepared to face the ramifications of such a bold statement. But as a layman, it seemed abundantly obvious to me that the “misery” and “calamities” and “many problems” that had resulted from Vatican II far outweigh whatever good may have come from it. Whatever the documents of Vatican said or failed to say, it had become obvious to many of us that the event itself was nothing less than revolution.

    Given all we’ve seen since 1965—from a crisis in the priesthood, to closed churches, to widespread apostasy, to the breakup of the family and virtual disappearance of religious orders—it is nearly impossible to understand the dogged defense of Vatican II on the part of so many good bishops and priests who, ironically, must now spend their days heroically trying to save souls in the ruins of the post-conciliar Church.

    I’m not a theologian, but I am a Catholic father to seven children. And it is the first obligation of every Catholic father to hand the Faith down to his children. But in order to do that, I (like so many other fathers) am obliged to drive 45 minutes to find a Mass that will not scandalize my children. I’ve long since left the parish of my childhood, where I was baptized, in search of a priest who has kept the faith I was taught in the Catholic schools of my childhood. My wife and I have to educate our children at home because, statistically speaking, post-conciliar Catholic schools are where children go to lose the Faith.

    The Revolution of Vatican II has torn the Church in half, as shepherd after shepherd flees the flock out of fear of the approaching wolves.

    [​IMG]Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò

    The following manifesto, if you will, from Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, rises like a candle in the darkness, confirming that God is still with His Church, that not all shepherds are hirelings and that maybe—just maybe—the pioneer traditional Catholics of yesterday such as Lefevre, Davies, von Hildebrand and Matt, were not renegades but rather loyal sons of the Church, as is Archbishop Viganò himself.

    I believe this document is truly historic, in that it is written by one whose life’s calling was to work in the very heart of the post-conciliar Church and at the highest levels. Its author knows of what he speaks. In fact, it could be said that he knows too much, which is why he remains in hiding, not out of fear, but so as to continue his defense of the true Church to which he’s dedicated his entire life and which is now under siege from within.

    All the evil around us right now—from the riots, to the burning cities, to the slaughtered unborn, the desecrated altars, the broken families, the abused children, the empty convents and seminaries—can be understood by a careful and humble reading of the words that follow.

    The human element of the Church is neither sinless nor free from error, even as the spotless Bride of Christ, in Her divinity, is pure and inviolate. This is not a moment to lose hope, but rather a sign from Heaven that God is preparing the way for the restoration of His Church and to bring an end to forty years wandering in the desert. God is speaking to the world through the words of this faithful shepherd. Read on, dear friends, and pray for him. MJM

    (The letter of Abp Vigano follows from there)
    https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/in...atican-ii-onwards-a-parallel-church-was-built

    (some of the emphases are mine -SgC)
    +
     
    Don_D likes this.
  7. SgCatholic

    SgCatholic Maranatha

    Of course, Archbishop Fulton Sheen had already prophesied this.

    “[Satan] will set up a counterchurch which will be the ape of the [Catholic] Church … It will have all the notes and characteristics of the Church, but in reverse and emptied of its divine content.”

    We are living in the days of the Apocalypse, the last days of our era. The two great forces – the Mystical Body of Christ and the Mystical Body of the anti-Christ – are beginning to draw battle lines for the catastrophic contest.

    The False prophet will have a religion without a cross. A religion without a world to come. A religion to destroy religions. There will be a counterfeit Church.

    Christ’s Church the Catholic Church will be one; and the false Prophet will create the other.

    The False Church will be worldly, ecumenical, and global. It will be a loose federation of churches and religions, forming some type of global association.

    A world parliament of Churches. It will be emptied of all Divine content, it will be the mystical body of the anti-christ. The Mystical Body on earth today will have its Judas Iscariot, and he will be the false prophet. Satan will recruit him from our Bishops.

    The Antichrist will not be so called; otherwise he would have no followers. He will not wear red tights, nor vomit sulphur, nor carry a trident nor wave an arrowed tail as Mephistopheles in Faust. This masquerade has helped the Devil convince men that he does not exist. When no man recognizes, the more power he exercises. God has defined Himself as “I am Who am,” and the Devil as “I am who am not.”

    Nowhere in Sacred Scripture do we find warrant for the popular myth of the Devil as a buffoon who is dressed like the first “red.” Rather is he described as an angel fallen from heaven, as “the Prince of this world,” whose business it is to tell us that there is no other world. His logic is simple: if there is no heaven there is no hell; if there is no hell, then there is no sin; if there is no sin, then there is no judge, and if there is no judgment then evil is good and good is evil. But above all these descriptions, Our Lord tells us that he will be so much like Himself that he would deceive even the elect–and certainly no devil ever seen in picture books could deceive even the elect. How will he come in this new age to win followers to his religion?

    The pre-Communist Russian belief is that he will come disguised as the Great Humanitarian; he will talk peace, prosperity and plenty not as means to lead us to God, but as ends in themselves …

    The third temptation in which Satan asked Christ to adore him and all the kingdoms of the world would be His, will become the temptation to have a new religion without a Cross, a liturgy without a world to come, a religion to destroy a religion, or a politics which is a religion–one that renders unto Caesar even the things that are God’s.

    In the midst of all his seeming love for humanity and his glib talk of freedom and equality, he will have one great secret which he will tell to no one: he will not believe in God. Because his religion will be brotherhood without the fatherhood of God, he will deceive even the elect. He will set up a counterchurch which will be the ape of the Church, because he, the Devil, is the ape of God. It will have all the notes and characteristics of the Church, but in reverse and emptied of its divine content. It will be a mystical body of the Antichrist that will in all externals resemble the mystical body of Christ …

    But the twentieth century will join the counterchurch because it claims to be infallible when its visible head speaks ex cathedra from Moscow on the subject of economics and politics, and as chief shepherd of world communism.”

    (Fulton J. Sheen, Communism and the Conscience of the West [Bobbs-Merril Company, Indianapolis, 1948], pp. 24-25)

    https://www.romancatholicman.com/archbishop-fulton-sheen-prophesy-condition-church-today-2/

    +
     
    Don_D likes this.
  8. AED

    AED Powers

    Wow. Straight talk. Truly prophetic. Yet they wont declare him a blessed. Scratching my head.....not.
     
  9. SgCatholic

    SgCatholic Maranatha

    French priest and liturgist: Abp. Viganò can help other prelates talk about ‘defective points of Vatican II’
    There has been an ongoing discussion between Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò and Bishop Athanasius Schneider about the Second Vatican Council.
    Mon Jun 22, 2020

    Excerpt from the article:

    "On June 15, the Italian prelate (Abp Vigano) followed up on his first intervention, coming out even stronger by stating that those “heretical propositions or those which favor heresy” of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) “should be condemned, and we can only hope that this will happen as soon as possible.” He added that the Council should then be altogether “dropped” and “be forgotten.

    He makes his own the following words of an Italian Law Professor, Paolo Pasqualucci: “If the Council has deviated from the Faith, the Pope has the power to invalidate it. Indeed, it is his duty.”

    It is here that Abbé Barthe's own intervention comes in. For this French priest, this last June 15 statement by Archbishop Viganò is of “great interest for the Church.” He then sums up the prelate's own analysis of the Vatican Council, which has to be done in light of what the “preceding doctrine” of the Church has been. Here, especially the conciliar texts Dignitatis Humanae (religious freedom) and Nostra Aetate (new relationship with non-Christian religions) come to mind.

    Abbé Barthe also discusses Archbishop Viganò’s statement that Vatican II, due to its deviations and ambiguities, should be annulled altogether. For this to be done, explains the priest, one needs to confirm Vatican II was pastoral, not doctrinal, in nature. Here, he is able to show that “the organs of the Council itself (Dz 4351) and all of its successive interpretations held that this Council was of a merely ‘pastoral’ nature, that is, not dogmatic.”

    For him, it would be a way out of our current crisis by insisting again on dogmatic teachings, away from the pastoral ones. He states: “In fact, the great way out of the present magisterial crisis is to come out of what is called the 'pastoral' and to enter once again into dogmatics: that the Pope alone or the pope and the bishops united to him express themselves magisterially and no longer ‘pastorally.’” The pastoral approach, as we might add, has shown to be much more prone to doctrinal heterodoxies, as Amoris Laetitia has shown us clearly.

    It is here that Abbé Barthe echoes Archbishop Viganò’s call for other prelates to join Bishop Schneider and him in an honest debate about the problems of Vatican II, for the sake of the Church and the salvation of souls.

    A duty of conscience therefore weighs on the prelates of the Church who are aware of this situation,” the French priest writes, summing up Viganò and adding that his words could be an encouragement for others. As Viganò recently told Dr. Robert Moynihan, “I tried to go further down to understand why we have reached this situation...I am just trying to follow my conscience.”

    As Moynihan presented Viganò's position, he explained about the Second Vatican Council that “sometimes that interpretation was not keeping with the perennial tradition of the Church. In arguing this, Vigano is agreeing with the work of another bishop, Athanasius Schneider of Kazakhstan, who has been presenting this thesis on a number of occasions in recent years.”

    And then comes the important statement from Archbishop Viganò: “Schneider was before me in realizing this. I have come to agree with him.”

    It is to be hoped that other prelates and priests will now join this debate, and we thank Abbé Barthe for his own intervention."

    For the full article and the full statement of Abbé Barthe, go to the link:
    https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/...tes-talk-about-defective-points-of-vatican-ii


    (emphasis in red is mine - SgC)
    +
     
    AED likes this.
  10. Jason Fernando

    Jason Fernando Archangels

  11. Don_D

    Don_D ¡Viva Cristo Rey!

    I am so grateful for those priests and bishops who are courageously standing up and warning the people of God to the times we are in. God is good. I do believe that there are more good than lukewarm and I also believe that as the battle goes on more and more will come forward to join in proclaiming the truth.

    Father Ripperger two years back spoke about the times to come and also encouraged that we prepare ourselves to let go of the things of this world and embrace God. We can help to prepare ourselves by fasting and small acts of self sacrifice.



     
    garabandal and AED like this.
  12. HeavenlyHosts

    HeavenlyHosts Powers

    I hope this is more effective than the Dubia.
     
  13. SgCatholic

    SgCatholic Maranatha

    55 YEARS LATER: Bishop Athanasius Schneider’s Appraisal of Vatican II
    ROME, June 24, 2020
    Written by Diane Montagna

    A few excerpts:


    Some reflections on the Second Vatican Council and the current crisis in the Church
    by Bishop Athanasius Schneider

    In recent decades, not only declared modernists, but also theologians and faithful who love the Church, have displayed an attitude that resembles a kind of blind defense of everything said by the Second Vatican Council. Such an attitude seemed sometimes to require real mental acrobatics and a “squaring of the circle.” Even now, the general mentality of good Catholics corresponds with a de facto total infallibilization of everything that the Second Vatican Council said, or that the current Pontiff says or does. This kind of unhealthy papal-centralism had already been present for several generations in Catholics over the last two centuries. And yet respectful criticism and serene theological debate have always been present and allowed within the Church’s great tradition, since it is truth and faithfulness to divine revelation and to the constant tradition of the Church that we should seek, which in itself implies the use of reason and rationality, and avoiding mental acrobatics. Some explanations of certain obviously ambiguous and misleading expressions contained in the Council’s texts seem artificial and unconvincing, especially when one reflects upon them in a more intellectually honest
    manner, in the light of the unbroken and constant doctrine of the Church.

    Instinctively, every reasonable argument has been repressed which could, even in the slightest, call into question any expression or word in the Council texts. However, such an attitude is not healthy and contradicts the great tradition of the Church, as we observe in the Fathers, the Doctors, and great theologians of the Church over the course of two thousand years.

    [...]

    Several expressions in the texts of the Second Vatican Council cannot be so easily reconciled with the Church’s constant doctrinal tradition. Examples include certain expressions of the Council on the topic of religious freedom (understood as a natural right, and therefore positively willed by God, to practice and spread a false religion, which may also include idolatry or even worse); its distinction between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church (the problem of “subsistit in” gives the impression that two realities exist: on the one side, the Church of Christ, and on the other, the Catholic Church); and its stance towards non-Christian religions and the contemporary world. Although the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its Responses to some questions regarding certain aspects of the doctrine on the Church (29 June 2007), offered an explanation of the expression “subsistit in,” it unfortunately avoided saying clearly that the Church of Christ is truly the Catholic Church. That is, it avoided explicitly declaring the identity between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church. Indeed, there remains a nuance of vagueness.

    There is also an attitude that rejects a priori all possible objections to the aforementioned questionable statements in the Council texts. Instead, the only solution presented is the method called “hermeneutic of continuity.” Unfortunately, doubts about the theological problems inherent in these Council statements are not taken seriously. We have to always bear in mind the fact that the chief end of the Council was pastoral in character, and that the Council did not intend to propose its own definitive teachings.

    [...]

    However, from the point of view of the facts, of the evidence, from a global perspective, Vatican II did not bring a real spiritual flowering in the life of the Church. And even if there were already problems in the clergy before the Council, for the sake of honesty and justice, we have to acknowledge that the moral, spiritual and doctrinal problems of the clergy prior to the Council were not as widespread, or so vast in scale and present with such intensity, as they have been in post-conciliar times until today. Bearing in mind that there were already problems before the Council, the first aim of the Second Vatican Council should have been precisely to issue the clearest possible, even demanding, norms and doctrines that were free of any ambiguity, as all the reform Councils did in the past. The plan and intentions of the Second Vatican Council were primarily pastoral, yet, despite its pastoral aim, there followed disastrous consequences that we still see today. Of course, the Council had many beautiful and valuable texts. But the negative consequences and the abuses committed in the name of the Council were so strong that they overshadowed the positive elements which are there.

    [...]

    Within this context, it was Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in particular (although he was not the only one to do so) who began, on a larger scale and with a frankness similar to that of some of the great Church Fathers, to protest the watering down and dilution of the Catholic faith, especially regarding the sacrificial and sublime character of the rite of Holy Mass, that was occurring in the Church, and being supported or at least tolerated, even by the high-ranking authorities in the Holy See. In a letter addressed to Pope John Paul II at the beginning of his pontificate, Archbishop Lefebvre realistically and aptly described in a brief synopsis the true extent of the crisis in the Church. I am continually impressed by the clear-sightedness and prophetic character of the following affirmations:

    The flood of novelties in the Church, accepted and encouraged by the Episcopate, a flood that ravages everything on its path — faith, morals, the Church’s institutions — could not tolerate the presence of an obstacle, a resistance. We then had the choice of letting ourselves be carried away by the devastating current and adding to the disaster, or of resisting wind and wave to safeguard our Catholic faith and the Catholic priesthood. We could not hesitate. The ruins of the Church are mounting: atheism, immorality, the abandonment of churches, the disappearance of religious and priestly vocations are such that the bishops are beginning to be roused” (Letter from December 24, 1978).

    We are now witnessing the climax of the spiritual disaster in the life of the Church to which Archbishop Lefebvre pointed so vigorously already forty years ago.

    In approaching matters related to the Second Vatican Council and its documents, one has to avoid forced interpretations and the method of “squaring the circle,” while of course keeping all due respect and the ecclesiastical sense (sentire cum ecclesia). The application of the principle of the “hermeneutic of continuity” cannot be used blindly in order to eliminate unquestioningly any evidently existing problems, or to create an image of harmony, while there remain shadows of vagueness in the hermeneutic of continuity. Indeed, such an approach would transmit artificially and unconvincingly the message that every word of the Second Vatican Council is inspired by God, infallible and in perfect doctrinal continuity with the previous magisterium. Such a method would violate reason, evidence, and honesty, and would not do honor to the Church, for sooner or later (maybe after a hundred years) the truth will be stated as it really is.

    To read the full article, go to the link:
    https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/in...thanasius-schneider-s-appraisal-of-vatican-ii

    (emphasis in red and bold are mine - SgC)

    +
     
  14. SgCatholic

    SgCatholic Maranatha

    Bp. Schneider composes prayer begging Mary for consecration of Russia so there will be peace
    Our goal is, by means of this daily rosary and by embracing and living out the message given by the Virgin Mary at Fatima, the triumph of Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart.
    By LifeSiteNews staff
    Wed Jun 24, 2020 - 11:06 am EST
    https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/b...consecration-of-russia-so-there-will-be-peace

    [​IMG]
    shutterstock.com
    PETITION: Tell politicians not to discriminate against churches when reopening society! Sign the petition here.

    June 24, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – In response to the crisis unfolding in our world and in the Church, LifeSite is offering Catholics throughout the world a chance to be united daily in prayer, in the Our Lady of Fatima Rosary Crusade.

    Catholics from all over the world—from Israel, Uganda, Italy, France, Germany, Ireland, Pakistan, Singapore, the Philippines, India, Indonesia, Australia, New Zealand, Thailand, the United Kingdom, the U.S., Canada, Brazil, and other countries—are gathering daily to pray the rosary, led by Father Anthony Pillari, J.C.L., an American priest currently studying in Italy.

    Our goal is, by means of this daily rosary and by embracing and living out the message given by the Virgin Mary at Fatima, the triumph of Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart. To help obtain that goal, Bishop Athanasius Schneider graciously composed the following prayer for this worldwide rosary crusade:

    O Immaculate Heart of Mary, you are the holy Mother of God and our tender Mother. Look upon the distress in which the Church and the whole of humanity are living because of the spread of materialism and the persecution of the Church. In Fatima, you warned against these errors, as you spoke about the errors of Russia. You are the Mediatrix of all graces. Implore your Divine Son to grant this special grace for the Pope: that he might consecrate Russia to your Immaculate Heart, so that Russia will be converted, a period of peace will be granted to the world, and your Immaculate Heart will triumph, through an authentic renewal of the Church in the splendor of the purity of the Catholic Faith, of the sacredness of Divine worship and of the holiness of the Christian life. O Queen of the Holy Rosary and our sweet Mother, turn your merciful eyes to us and graciously hear this our trusting prayer. Amen.

    + Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of the archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana

    To learn more about the urgency of responding to Our Lady’s message at Fatima, and about what you can do, please read Cardinal Burke’s 2017 address at the Rome Life Forum.

    As St. Padre Pio once said, “The rosary is the weapon for these times.” Through prayer, God can shape history, change the world, and bring about a great time of renewal and peace for the Church and for the world, through the triumph of Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart. Join us today!

    +
     
    Sam, Frank Markus, ESanti and 3 others like this.
  15. ESanti

    ESanti Angels

    "The Most Holy Virgin in these last times in which we live has given new efficacy in the recitation of the Holy Rosary. She has given this efficacy to such an extent that there is no problem, no matter how difficult it is, whether temporal or above all spiritual, in the personal life of each one of us, of our families … that cannot be solved by the Rosary. There is no problem, I tell you, no matter how difficult it is, that we cannot resolve by the prayer of the Holy Rosary." Sister Lucia of Fatima.
     
  16. HeavenlyHosts

    HeavenlyHosts Powers

    Blessed Assurance
     
  17. Jason Fernando

    Jason Fernando Archangels




    Era of Peace, I can't wait!
     
  18. HeavenlyHosts

    HeavenlyHosts Powers

    Beautiful, Jason, thank you.
     
    Jason Fernando and Mary's child like this.
  19. SgCatholic

    SgCatholic Maranatha

    In the following, Abp Vigano further clarifies his view of Vatican II.

    https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=12379
    Interview with Phil Lawler
    by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò

    Description
    In June 2020, Phil Lawler, the editor of Catholic World News, contacted Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, the former apostolic nuncio to the United States, to question him about his outspoken views on the authority of Vatican II. The following is the text of the interview.

    Larger Work
    Original

    Publisher & Date
    Trinity Communications, 2020

    Lawler: First, what are you saying about Vatican II? That things have gone downhill fast since then is certainly true. But if the whole Council is a problem, how did that happen? How do we reconcile that with what we believe about the inerrancy of the magisterium? How were all the Council fathers deceived? Even if only some parts of the Council (e.g. Nostra Aetate, Dignitatis Humanae) are problematical, we still face the same questions. Many of us have been saying for years that the “spirit of Vatican II” is in error. Are you now saying that this phony liberal “spirit” does accurately reflect the work of the Council?

    Archbishop Vigano: I do not think that it is necessary to demonstrate that the Council represents a problem: the simple fact that we are raising this question about Vatican II and not about Trent or Vatican I seems to me to confirm a fact that is obvious and recognized by everyone. In reality, even those who defend the Council with swords drawn find themselves doing so apart from all the other previous ecumenical councils, of which not even one was ever said to be a pastoral council. And note that they call it “the Council” par excellence, as if it was the one and only council in the entire history of the Church, or at least considering it as an unicumwhether because of the formulation of its doctrine or for the authority of its magisterium. It is a council that, differently from all those that preceded it, called itself a pastoral council, declaring that it did not want to propose any new doctrine, but which in fact created a distinction between before and after, between a dogmatic council and a pastoral council, between unequivocal canons and empty talk, between anathema sit and winking at the world.

    In this sense, I believe that the problem of the infallibility of the Magisterium (the inerrancy you mention is properly a quality of Sacred Scripture) does not even arise, because the Legislator, that is, the Roman Pontiff around whom the Council was convened, solemnly and clearly affirmed that he did not want to use the doctrinal authority which he could have exercised if he wanted. I would like to make the observation that nothing is more pastoral than what is proposed as dogmatic, because the exercise of the munus docendi in its highest form coincides with the order that the Lord gave to Peter to feed his sheep and lambs. And yet this opposition between dogmatic and pastoral was made precisely by the one who, in his discourse opening the Council, sought to give a severe meaning to dogma and a softer, more conciliatory meaning to pastoral care. We also find the same setting in the interventions of Bergoglio, where he identifies “pastoralism [pastoralità]”as a soft version of rigid Catholic teaching in matters of Faith and Morals, in the name of discernment. It is painful to recognize that the practice of having recourse to an equivocal lexicon, using Catholic terms understood in an improper way, invaded the Church starting with Vatican II, which is the first and most emblematic example of the so-called “circiterism,” the equivocating and intentionally imprecise use of the language. This happened because the Aggiornamento, a term in itself ideologically promoted by the Council as an absolute, held dialogue with the world to be its priority above all else.

    There is another equivocation that must be clarified. If on the one hand John XXIII and Paul VI declared that they did not want to commit the Council to the definition of new doctrines and wanted it to limit itself to being only pastoral, on the other hand it is true that externally—mediatically or in the media, we would say today—the emphasis given to its acts was enormous. This emphasis served to convey the idea of a presumed doctrinal authority, of an implicit magisterial infallibility, even though these were clearly excluded right from the beginning. If this emphasis occurred, it was in order to allow the more or less heterodox instances to be perceived as authoritative and thus to be accepted by the clergy and the faithful. But this would be enough to discredit those authors of a similar deception, who still cry out today if anyone touches Nostra Aetate, while they are silent even if someone denies the divinity of Our Lord or the perpetual virginity of Mary Most Holy. Let us recall that Catholics do not worship a Council, neither Vatican II nor Trent, but rather the Most Holy Trinity, the One True God; they do not venerate a conciliar declaration or a post-synodal exhortation, but rather the Truth that these acts of the Magisterium convey.

    You ask me: “How were all the Council fathers deceived?” I reply by drawing on my experience of those years and the words of my brothers with whom I engaged in discussion at that time. No one could have imagined that right in the heart of the ecclesial body there were hostile forces so powerful and organized that they could succeed in rejecting the perfectly orthodox preparatory schemas that had been prepared by Cardinals and Prelates with a reliable fidelity to the Church, replacing them with a bundle of cleverly disguised errors behind long-winded and deliberately equivocal speeches. No one could have believed that, right under the vaults of the Vatican Basilica, the estates-general could be convoked that would decree the abdication of the Catholic Church and the inauguration of the Revolution. (As I have already mentioned in a previous article, Cardinal Suenens called Vatican II “the 1789 of the Church”). The Council Fathers were the object of a sensational deception, of a fraud that was cleverly perpetrated by having recourse to the most subtle means: they found themselves in the minority in the linguistic groups, excluded from meetings convened at the last moment, pressured into giving their placet by making them believe that the Holy Father wanted it. And what the innovators did not succeed in obtaining in the Conciliar Aula, they achieved in the Commissions and Committees, thanks also to the activism of theologians and peritiwho were accredited and acclaimed by a powerful media machine. There is a vast array of studies and documents that testify to this systematic malicious mens [mentality] of some of the Council Fathers on the one hand, and the naïve optimism or carelessness of other well-intentioned Council Fathers on the other. The activity of the Coetus Internationalis Patrum [opposing the innovators] could do little or nothing, when the violations of the rules by the progressives were ratified at the Sacred Table itself [by the Pope].

    Those who have maintained that the “spirit of the Council” represented a heterodox or erroneous interpretation of Vatican II engaged in an unnecessary and harmful operation, even if they were driven to do so in good faith. It is understandable that a Cardinal or Bishop would want to defend the honor of the Church and desire that she would not be discredited before the faithful and the world, and so it was thought that what the progressives attributed to the Council was in reality an undue misrepresentation, an arbitrary forcing. But if at the time it could be difficult to think that a religious liberty condemned by Pius XI (Mortalium Animos) could be affirmed by Dignitatis Humanae, or that the Roman Pontiff could see his authority usurped by a phantom episcopal college, today we understand that what was cleverly concealed in Vatican II is today affirmed ore rotundo in papal documents precisely in the name of the coherent application of the Council.

    (Cont’d)

    +
     
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2020
  20. SgCatholic

    SgCatholic Maranatha

    On the other hand, when we commonly speak of the spirit of an event, we mean precisely that it constitutes the soul, the essence of that event. We can thus affirm that the spirit of the Council is the Council itself, that the errors of the post-conciliar period were contained in nuce in the Conciliar Acts, just as it is rightly said that the Novus Ordo is the Mass of the Council, even if in the presence of the Council Fathers the Mass was celebrated that the progressives significantly call pre-conciliar. And again: if Vatican II truly did not represent a point of rupture, what is the reason for speaking of a pre-conciliar Church and a post-conciliar church, as if these were two different entities, defined in their essence by the Council itself? And if the Council was truly in line with the uninterrupted infallible Magisterium of the Church, why is it the only Council that poses grave and serious problems of interpretation, demonstrating its ontological heterogeneity with respect to other Councils?

    Lawler: Second, what is the solution? Bishop Schneider proposes that a future Pontiff must repudiate errors; Archbishop Viganò finds that inadequate. But then how can the errors be corrected, in a way that maintains the authority of the teaching magisterium?

    Archbishop Vigano: The solution, in my opinion, lies above all in an act of humility that all of us, beginning with the Hierarchy and the Pope, must carry out: recognizing the infiltration of the enemy into the heart of the Church, the systematic occupation of key posts in the Roman Curia, seminaries, and ecclesiastical schools, the conspiracy of a group of rebels—including, in the front line, the deviated Society of Jesus—which has succeeded in giving the appearance of legitimacy and legality to a subversive and revolutionary act. We should also recognize the inadequacy of the response of the good, the naivety of many, the fearfulness of others, and the interests of those who have benefited thanks to that conspiracy. After his triple denial of Christ in the courtyard of the high priest, Peter “flevit amare,” he wept bitterly. Tradition tells us that the Prince of the Apostles had two furrows on his cheeks for the rest of his days, as a result of the tears which he copiously shed, repenting of his betrayal. It will be for one of his Successors, the Vicar of Christ, in the fullness of his apostolic power, to rejoin the thread of Tradition there where it was cut off. This will not be a defeat but an act of truth, humility, and courage. The authority and infallibility of the Successor of the Prince of the Apostles will emerge intact and reconfirmed. In fact, they were not deliberately called into question at Vatican II, but ironically they would be on a future day in which a Pontiff would correct the errors that that Council permitted, playing jests with the equivocation of an authority it officially denied having but that the faithful were surreptitiously allowed to understand that it did have by the entire Hierarchy, beginning right with the Popes of the Council.

    I wish to recall that for some people what is expressed above may sound excessive, because it would seem to call into question the authority of the Church and of the Roman Pontiffs. And yet, no scruple impeded the violation of Saint Pius V’s Bull Quo primum tempore, abolishing the entire Roman Liturgy from one day to the next, the venerable millenary treasure of the doctrine and spirituality of the traditional Mass, the immense patrimony of Gregorian chant and sacred music, the beauty of the rites and sacred vestments, disfiguring architectural harmony even in the most distinguished basilicas, removing balustrades, monumental altars, and tabernacles: everything was sacrificed on the conciliar renewal’s altar of coram populo, with the aggravating circumstance of having done it only because that Liturgy was admirably Catholic and irreconcilable with the spirit of Vatican II.

    The Church is a divine institution, and everything in her ought to start with God and return to Him. What is at stake is not the prestige of a ruling class, nor the image of a company or a party: what we are dealing with here is the glory of the Majesty of God, of not nullifying the Passion of Our Lord on the Cross, of the sufferings of His Most Holy Mother, of the blood of the Martyrs, of the testimony of the Saints, of the eternal salvation of souls. If out of pride or unfortunate obstinacy we do not know how to recognize the error and deception into which we have fallen, we will have to give an account to God, who is as merciful with his people when they repent as he is implacable in justice when they follow Lucifer in his non serviam.

    Dearest Doctor Lawler, to you and to your readers, I cordially send my greetings and the blessing of Our Lord, through the intercession of His and our Most Holy Mother.

    [Official translation by Giuseppe Pellegrino]

    (emphasis in red/bold are mine - SgC)
    +
     
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2020

Share This Page