Blog arhiva

Fr. Edmund James O’Reilly, S.J.: On the Idea of a Long-Term Vacancy of the Holy See

Fr. Edmund James O’Reilly, S.J.: On the Idea of a Long-Term Vacancy of the Holy See

By John Daly

Revised and edited by John Lane, October 1999

In 1882 a book was published in England called The Relations of the Church to Society — Theological Essays, comprising 29 essays by Fr. Edmund James O’Reilly S.J., one of the leading theologians of his time. The book expresses with wonderful clarity and succinctness many important theological truths and insights on subjects indirectly as well as directly related to its main theme. For our purposes the book has in one respect an even greater relevance than it did at the time of publication, for in it Fr. O’Reilly asserts with the full weight of such authority as he possesses, the following opinions:

  1. that a vacancy of the Holy See lasting for an extended period of time cannot be pronounced to be incompatible with the promises of Christ as to the indefectibility of the Church; and
  2. that it would be exceedingly rash to set any prejudged limits as to what God will be prepared to allow to happen to the Holy See (other, of course, than that a true pope will never fall into heresy, nor in any way err).

Of course Fr. O’Reilly does not have the status of pope or Doctor of the Church; but, that said, he was certainly no negligible authority. Some idea of the esteem in which he was held can be obtained from the following facts:

  • Cardinal Cullen, then Bishop of Armagh, chose him as his theologian at the Synod of Thurles in 1850. Dr. Brown, bishop of Shrewsbury, chose him as his theologian at the Synod of Shrewsbury.
  • Dr. Furlong, bishop of Ferns and his former colleague as professor of theology at Maynooth, chose him as his theologian at the Synod of Maynooth.
  • He was named professor of theology at the Catholic University in Dublin on its foundation. The General of the Society of Jesus, Fr. Beckx, proposed to appoint him professor of theology at the Roman College in Rome, though as it turned out circumstances unrelated to Fr. O’Reilly intervened to prevent that appointment.
  • At a conference held regarding the philosophical and theological studies in the Society of Jesus, he was chosen to represent all the English-speaking “provinces” of the Society — that is, Ireland, England, Maryland, and the other divisions of the United States.

In short Fr. O’Reilly was widely recognized as one of the most erudite and important theologians of his time.

Finally, the following quotation by Dr. Ward in the justly renowned Dublin Review (January 1876 issue) is worth quoting (emphasis added):

“Whatever is written by so able and solidly learned a theologian — one so docile to the Church and so fixed in the ancient theological paths — cannot but be of signal benefit to the Catholic reader in these anxious and perilous times.”

Dr. Ward thought his times were anxious and perilous! Well, let us now see what “signal benefit” we, a little more than a century later, can derive from some of Fr. O’Reilly’s writing.

We open with a brief passage from an early chapter of the book, called “The Pastoral Office of the Church”. On page 33 Fr. O’Reilly says this (emphases added):

“If we inquire how ecclesiastical jurisdiction… has been continued, the answer is that… it in part came and comes immediately from God on the fulfillment of certain conditions regarding the persons. Priests having jurisdiction derive it from bishops or the pope. The pope has it immediately from God, on his legitimate election. The legitimacy of his election depends on the observance of the rules established by previous popes regarding such election.”

Thus, if papal jurisdiction depends on a person’s legitimate election, which certainly is not verified in the case of the purported election of a formal heretic to the Chair of Peter, it follows that, in the absence of legitimate election, no jurisdiction whatever is granted, neither “de jure” nor, despite what some have tried to maintain, “de facto.”

Fr. O’Reilly makes the following remark later in his book (page 287 — our emphases added):

“A doubtful pope may be really invested with the requisite power; but he has not practically in relation to the Church the same right as a certain pope — he is not entitled to be acknowledged as Head of the Church, and may be legitimately compelled to desist from his claim.”

This extract comes from one of two chapters devoted by Fr. O’Reilly to the Council of Constance of 1414. It may be remembered that the Council of Constance was held to put an end to the disastrous schism which had begun thirty-six years earlier, and which by that time involved no fewer than three claimants to the Papacy, each of whom had a considerable following.

Back to Fr. O’Reilly:

“The Council assembled in 1414…

“We may here stop to inquire what is to be said of the position, at that time, of the three claimants, and their rights with regard to the Papacy. In the first place, there was all through, from the death of Gregory XI in 1378, a Pope — with the exception, of course, of the intervals between deaths and elections to fill up the vacancies thereby created. There was, I say, at every given time a Pope, really invested with the dignity of Vicar of Christ and Head of the Church, whatever opinions might exist among many as to his genuineness; not that an interregnum covering the whole period would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ, for this is by no means manifest, but that, as a matter of fact, there was not such an interregnum.”

Thus one of the great theologians of the nineteenth century, writing subsequently to the 1870 Vatican Council, tells us that it is “by no means manifest” that a thirty-six year interregnum would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ. And we can therefore legitimately ask: at what stage, if any, would such be manifest? After thirty-seven years? Or forty-seven years? Clearly, once it is established in principle that a long interregnum is not incompatible with the promises of Christ, the question of degree — how long — cannot enter into the question. That is up to God to decide, and who can know what astonishing things He may in fact decide.

And, indeed, as Fr. O’Reilly proceeds further in this remarkable chapter, written over a hundred years ago but surely fashioned by Divine Providence much more expressly for our day than for his, he makes this very point about what it can and cannot be assumed that God will permit. From page 287 (all emphases added):

“There had been anti-popes before from time to time, but never for such a continuance… nor ever with such a following…

“The great schism of the West suggests to me a reflection which I take the liberty of expressing here. If this schism had not occurred, the hypothesis of such a thing happening would appear to many chimerical. They would say it could not be; God would not permit the Church to come into so unhappy a situation. Heresies might spring up and spread and last painfully long, through the fault and to the perdition of their authors and abettors, to the great distress too of the faithful, increased by actual persecution in many places where the heretics were dominant. But that the true Church should remain between thirty and forty years without a thoroughly ascertained Head, and representative of Christ on earth, this would not be. Yet it has been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently hope otherwise. What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit. We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfil His promises; not allow anything to occur at variance with them; that He will sustain His Church and enable her to triumph over all enemies and difficulties; that He will give to each of the faithful those graces which are needed for each one’s service of Him and attainment of salvation, as He did during the great schism we have been considering, and in all the sufferings and trials which the Church has passed through from the beginning. We may also trust He will do a great deal more than what He has bound Himself to by His promises. We may look forward with a cheering probability to exemption for the future from some of the troubles and misfortunes that have befallen in the past. But we, or our successors in future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of that great winding up of all things on earth that will precede the day of judgment. I am not setting up for a prophet, nor pretending to see unhappy wonders, of which I have no knowledge whatever. All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree.

While Fr. O’Reilly himself disclaims any status as a prophet, nevertheless a true prophecy is clearly exactly what this passage amounts to. Moreover it is the kind of prophecy which, provided it is advancedconditionally, as in this case, both can and should be made in the light of the evidence on which he is concentrating his gaze. In respect of much that lies in the future there is no need for special revelations in order that we may know it. As Fr. O’Reilly indicates, except where God has specifically told us that something will not occur, any assumptions concerning what He will not permit are rash; and of course such assumptions will have the disastrous result that people will be misled if the events in question dooccur. “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord.” (Isaias 55:8)


Francis Accused: Open Letter to World’s Novus Ordo Bishops seeks Remedy to ‘Heretical Pope’

Bergoglio accused of heresy and pertinacity…

Francis Accused: Open Letter to World’s Novus Ordo Bishops seeks Remedy to ‘Heretical Pope’

The internet is abuzz again after the latest attempt by conservative Novus Ordos to do something about the pink elephant in St. Peter’s Basilica: Their “Pope” is a blatant pertinacious heretic.

Yesterday, April 30, the feast of St. Catherine of Siena (in the traditional Roman calendar), a document entitled “Open Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church” was released simultaneously in six different languages:

The English version was introduced by Maike Hickson at LifeSite, and its release is accompanied by a one-and-a-half-page summary and a select bibliography for further reading. In addition, an online petition has been started that seeks public support for the letter.

The contents of the letter can be outlined as follows:

  • Introductory comments
  • Listing of seven heretical propositions Francis is accused of holding, and their condemnation by the Magisterium
  • Evidence that Francis holds these heresies
    • Listing of public heretical statements
    • Listing of public heretical actions
  • Evidence that Francis is pertinacious (=aware of and obstinate) in these heresies
  • Specific request made of “bishops”
  • Appendix: theological justification for request

In her piece for Life Site, Hickson refers to the 19 signatories as “prominent clergymen and scholars”, though just how prominent each one of them is, may be disputed. Most of the names will not be familiar to even the average conservative Novus Ordo who is interested in theology. Here is a list of the names together with each person’s academic credentials, in alphabetical order:

  • Georges Buscemi, President of Campagne Québec-Vie, member of the John-Paul II Academy for Human Life and Family
  • Robert Cassidy, STL
  • Fr Thomas Crean, OP
  • Matteo d’Amico, Professor of History and Philosophy, Senior High School of Ancona
  • Deacon Nick Donnelly, MA
  • Maria Guarini STB, Pontificia Università Seraphicum, Rome; editor of the website Chiesa e postconcilio
  • Prof. Robert Hickson, PhD, Retired Professor of Literature and of Strategic-Cultural Studies
  • Fr John Hunwicke, former Senior Research Fellow, Pusey House, Oxford
  • Peter Kwasniewski, PhD
  • John Lamont, DPhil (Oxon.)
  • Brian M. McCall, Orpha and Maurice Merrill Professor in Law; Editor-in-Chief of Catholic Family News
  • Fr Cor Mennen, JCL, diocese of ‘s-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands), canon of the cathedral Chapter. lecturer at de diocesan Seminary of ‘s-Hertogenbosch
  • Stéphane Mercier, STB, PhD, Former Lecturer at the Catholic University of Louvain
  • Fr Aidan Nichols, OP
  • Paolo Pasqualucci, Professor of Philosophy (retired), University of Perugia
  • Dr. Claudio Pierantoni, Professor of Medieval Philosophy, University of Chile; former Professor of Church History and Patrology at the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile
  • Professor John Rist
  • Dr. Anna Silvas, Adjunct Senior Research Fellow, Faculty of Humanities, Arts, Social Sciences and Education, University of New England
  • Prof. dr. W.J. Witteman, physicist, emeritus professor, University of Twente

The only names that will jump out at most people are probably those of Nick Donnelly, John Hunwicke, Peter Kwasniewski, John Lamont, Brian McCall, and perhaps Aidan Nichols. We note the complete absence of any Novus Ordo clergy of higher rank than priest, and even the ubiquitous Prof. Roberto de Mattei did not sign this letter. How “Fr.” John Hunwicke‘s academic claim to fame — having once been, in his Anglican days, a researcher at a heretical house of studies — is helpful in lending credible support to accusing the “Pope” of heresy, is not immediately clear.

In any case, the seven specific heresies the authors are accusing Francis of are very well researched, well argued, and well presented, and there is no question that he is guilty as sin of pertinaciously holding and spreading these denials of dogma. That part of the Open Letter is commendable. As far as the theological justification for “bishops” declaring the “Pope” a heretic so he will lose his office, and related issues — that is an absolute disaster. However, our commentary on that will have to wait for a separate post.

Meanwhile, you can get our initial reaction to the letter in a brief podcast we put together last night:

What will this latest effort, this “measure [taken] as a last resort to respond to the accumulating harm caused by Pope Francis’s words and actions over several years” accomplish? We predict that it will accomplish absolutley nothing in terms of real, long-term effect. It will simply generate headlines for the next few days, keep journalists and bloggers busy, (re-)trigger theological discussions, and ultimately have no effect whatsoever on Francis or his pseudo-Catholic hierarchy.

We’ve seen this all before, and more than once. Remember?


in Novus Ordo Wire     0

Five Sorrowful Decades: Fifty Years of Paul VI’s “New Mass”

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Novus Ordo Missae at 50…

Five Sorrowful Decades:
Fifty Years of Paul VI’s “New Mass”

by Francis del Sarto

“Truly, if one of the devils in C. S. Lewis’s The Screwtape Letters had been entrusted with the ruin of the liturgy, he could not have done it better.” –Dietrich von Hildebrand

“Every sectarian who wishes to introduce a new doctrine finds himself, unfailingly, face to face with the Liturgy, which is Tradition at its strongest and best, and he cannot rest until he has silenced this voice, until he has torn up these pages which recall the faith of past centuries.” –Dom Prosper Guéranger, O.S.B.

“Let those who like myself have known and sung a Latin-Gregorian High Mass remember it if they can. Let them compare it with the Mass that we now have. Not only the words, the melodies, and some of the gestures are different. To tell the truth, it is a different liturgy of the Mass. This needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists. It has been destroyed.” –Fr. Joseph Gelineau

“The reform of the liturgy is irreversible.” –“Pope” Francis

For the past half-century the vast majority of the 1.2 billion people identifying as Roman Catholic around the world have had as their “ordinary” form of worship a rite that would have seemed utterly alien to most of the faithful who lived in the nearly two millennia leading up to it. These forebears certainly would not have seen it as the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass which they knew and so cherished, once described by Fr. Frederick Faber as “the most beautiful thing this side of Heaven”. Only knowledgeable Catholics who had lived in the past 500 years would recognize it at all, but even then only as something resembling the false form of the worship services concocted by Protestant “Reformers” as a direct rival to the Mass, a veritable anti-Mass.

It was on Holy Thursday, April 3, 1969, that “Pope” Paul VI (Giovanni Battista Montini)promulgated the “Apostolic Constitution” Missale Romanum as part of a liturgical “renewal” he said had begun with Pope Pius XII’s restoration of Holy Week services as “the first step toward adapting the Roman Missal to the contemporary mentality”. We are permitted to be highly skeptical of Montini’s assertion that a return to antiquated forms may somehow be more relevant to contemporary worshippers after centuries of disuse than those that have developed organically. In fact, it was Pope Pius XII who explicitly rejected “the zeal of one who in matters liturgical would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, discarding the new patterns introduced by disposition of divine Providence to meet the changes of circumstances and situation” (Encyclical Mediator Dei, n. 63).

Paul VI’s “Promulgation of the Roman Missal” was in reality the announcement of a non-Catholic, pseudo-Roman Missal meant to supplant the true Roman rite as promulgated by Pope St. Pius V in the 1570 Apostolic Constitution Quo Primum. Of course, we know now that the unstated goal of this new worship service was the ushering in of a new religion — the replacing of the Catholic lex orandi, lex credendi for a crypto-Modernist counterfeit. It was to eliminate the true Mass once and forever, and replace it with a fake “revised” version.

The fact that April 3, 1969, was not only Holy Thursday that year but also the first day of the Jewish Passover, is surely more than simple coincidence; for the New Mass is the Modernist repudiation of the Sacrifice of the Mass, much as observing Passover after the institution of the New Covenant is intended to reject the Sacrifice of Calvary, which is its fulfillment.

From Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to Memorial Meal

Despite a few red flags in the language of Paul VI’s Missale Romanum — vocabulary such as “[t]he words Mysterium fidei [mystery of Faith] have been removed from the context of Christ’s own words and are spoken by the priest as an introduction to the faithful’s acclamation” — it would be three days later that the full heterodox orientation of Montini’s changes became patently obvious. On April 6, the official rubrics of the “new order of the Mass” (novus ordo Missae as it was called) were published along with an accompanying General Instruction of the Roman Missal (sometimes abbreviated GIRM). This new order of Mass has since become known as the “New Mass”, the “Pauline Mass”, the “Mass of Paul VI,” or simply the “Novus Ordo.”

The following links highlight the stark differences between the Roman Mass of the ages and the Novus Ordo Missae of Paul VI:

The publication of this “revised” Roman rite led to a prompt counterattack by Catholics, principally in the form of the justly celebrated Critical Study of the New Order of Mass (aka The Ottaviani Intervention because its principal author was Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani), which argued, among other things, that the revised liturgy constituted “a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent” and “has much to gladden the heart of even the most modernist Protestant”.

This was by no means an exaggeration, as the Critical Study copiously demonstrated. Indeed, even Paul VI’s very definition of what the Holy Catholic Mass is was a blatant surrender to Protestantism. The first edition of the GIRM defined the Mass as follows:

The Lord’s Supper, or Mass, is the sacred meeting or congregation of the people of God assembled, the priest presiding, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. For this reason, Christ’s promise applies eminently to such a local gathering of holy Church: “Where two or three come together in my name, there am I in their midst” (Mt. 18:20).

(“General Instruction of the Roman Missal”Missale Romanum: Ordo Missae Editio Typica [Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1969], n. 7)

Martin Luther could not have said it better himself!

When contrasted with the true and traditional Catholic definition of the Holy Mass, such as can be found in any pre-Vatican II catechism, the departure from orthodoxy appears most striking: “The Mass is the true and especial Sacrifice of the New Law; in it Jesus Christ, by the ministry of the priest, offers His Body and Blood to God the Father, under the appearances of bread and wine, by a mystical immolation in an unbloody manner” (Cardinal Peter Gasparri, The Catholic Catechism [Toronto: Longmans, Green and Co., 1932], n. 385). That’s the Catholic definition.

In his Intervention, Cardinal Ottaviani chastised Paul VI for his overtly Protestant definition, charging:

The definition of the Mass is thus reduced to a “supper,” a term which the General Instruction constantly repeats. The Instruction further characterizes this “supper” as an assembly, presided over by a priest and held as a memorial of the Lord to recall what He did on Holy Thursday. None of this in the very least implies:

– The Real Presence – The reality of the Sacrifice – The sacramental function of the priest who consecrates – The intrinsic value of the Eucharistic Sacrifice independent of the presence of the “assembly.”

In a word, the Instruction’s definition implies none of the dogmatic values which are essential to the Mass and which, taken together, provide its true definition. Here, deliberately omitting these dogmatic values by “going beyond them” amounts, at least in practice, to denying them.

(Cardinals Alfredo Ottaviani, Antonio Bacci, et al., Critical Study of the New Order of Mass, Sept. 25, 1969)

On March 26, 1970, the Vatican released a second edition of the GIRM, in which the original definition was revised. The result was visibly little more than damage control: “At Mass that is, the Lord’s Supper, the People of God is called together, with a priest presiding and acting in the person of Christ, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord, the Eucharistic Sacrifice” (n. 27).

“Pope” Montini had cited the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, as providing the impetus for his revision butchering of the Roman rite of Mass. And fittingly it was during deliberations over that document that Cardinal Ottaviani was in the midst of heated exchanges that ultimately led to the highly symbolic moment at the Council when this great voice of Tradition was literally silenced. A review of The Liturgical Movement by Fr. Didier Bonneterre notes:

During the first session of the Second Vatican Council, in the debate on the Liturgy Constitution, Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani asked: “Are these Fathers planning a revolution?” The Cardinal was old and partly blind. He spoke from the heart without a text about a subject which moved him deeply, and continued:

Are we seeking to stir up wonder, or perhaps scandal among the Christian people, by introducing changes in so venerable a rite, that has been approved for so many centuries and is now so familiar? The rite of Holy Mass should not be treated as if it were a piece of cloth to be refashioned according to the whim of each generation.

So concerned was he at the revolutionary potential of the Constitution, and having no prepared text, the elderly Cardinal exceeded the ten-minute time limit for speeches. At a signal from Cardinal Alfrink, who was presiding at the session, a technician switched off the microphone, and Cardinal Ottaviani stumbled back to his seat in humiliation.

The Council Fathers clapped with glee, and the journalists to whose dictatorship Father Louis Bouyer claimed the Council had surrendered itself, were even more gleeful when they wrote their reports that night and when they wrote their books at the end of the session…

(Michael Davies, “The Liturgical Movement”The Remnant, n.d.)

Paul VI knew very well what detrimental effects this “New Mass” would have upon the people. During the last General Audience before its universal use became mandatory, “Pope” Montini prophesied:

We may notice that pious persons will be the ones most disturbed, because, having their respectable way of listening to Mass, they will feel distracted from their customary thoughts and forced to follow those of others.

Not Latin, but the spoken language, will be the main language of the Mass. To those who know the beauty, the power, the expressive sacrality of Latin, its replacement by the vulgar language is a great sacrifice: we lose the discourse of the Christian centuries, we become almost intruders and desecrators [intrusi e profani] in the literary space of sacred expression, and we will thus lose a great portion of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and spiritual fact that is the Gregorian Chant. We will thus have, indeed, reason for being sad, and almost for feeling lost: with what will we replace this angelic language? It is a sacrifice of inestimable price.

(Paul VI, General Audience, Nov. 26, 1969. English translation taken from “40 years of Missale Romanum and the new Roman Rite – II: a Requiem, by Paul VI”Rorate Caeli, Nov. 29, 2009; underlining added.)

More than anything else in the post-conciliar epoch, it was Paul VI’s Novus Ordo Missae that catapulted the new religion of Vatican II into the souls of unsuspecting Catholics throughout the world. Montini was a spiritual terrorist of the worst possible sort.

How Missale Romanum Aided the Devil’s War against the Mass

In the March-April 1993 issue of the sedevacantist journal Catholic Restoration, there appeared an article entitled “The Bugnini File: A Study in Ecclesial Subversion” by John Kenneth Weiskittel. The theme of the article was to examine accusations that “Archbishop” Annibale Bugnini, who had presided over the fateful “reform” of the liturgy, had been a Freemason whose goal was to de-Catholicize the worship of the Church. While it’s not been proven beyond doubt that he was a Lodge brother, circumstantial evidence points strongly in that direction. The recent biography Annibale Bugnini: Reformer of the Liturgy by Yves Chiron devotes a few pages to this question (pp. 171-175) but does not reach a definitive conclusion either way.

Certainly, the effects of the Novus Ordo rite on souls could not have been any more deleterious if the rite had been concocted by a Freemason. Bugnini, the architect of the post-conciliar liturgy, was in truth what many called him, namely, the “gravedigger of the Mass” and the “evil spirit of the liturgical reform”. (And, may we suggest, he would make an excellent addition to the rogue’s gallery of Novus Ordo Modernist “saints” who best exemplify the “ideals” of Vatican II.)

Bugnini was Paul VI’s Secretary of the Council for the Implementation of the Constitution on the Liturgy, and would be appointed Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship in May of 1969. Mr. Weiskittel, in a section aptly titled “The War Against the Mass”, shows how the new liturgy of Montini and Bugnini worked to the advantage of occult forces bent on the Church’s destruction:

“Justly,” writes Saint Alphonsus de Liguori, “has St. Bonaventure called the Mass a compendium of all God’s love and of all his benefits to men. Hence the devil has always sought to deprive the world of the Mass by means of heretics, constituting them precursors of Antichrist, whose first efforts shall be to abolish the holy sacrifice of the altar, and according to the prophet Daniel, in punishment of the sins of men, his efforts shall be successful: And strength was given him against the continual sacrifice because of sins” [Dan 8:12].

For many Catholics the prophecy of Daniel was fulfilled in 1969, when Paul VI promulgated the publication of a “new order of the Mass.” There can be no question that with the introduction of the new “Mass” the Conciliar revolution shifted into a higher gear. All of the errors of the Council now more quickly became apparent and spread with greater ease; the Novus Ordo Missae constituting their very embodiment. Whereas the [traditional] Latin Mass is a sacramental action aimed at giving glory to God, the object of the new “Mass” is a social action centered around the congregation.

The Latin Mass is one thing, and one thing only, the perfect mode of divine worship. For the “reformers,” however, this was precisely the problem with it. Oh, they pushed the idea that the Mass had to be made more “relevant” and “understandable” to the man in the pew, and that a “return to ancient liturgical forms” was the way to accomplish this. But, in truth, there was only one real reason for eliminating the Tridentine Mass: Its continued survival constituted a major obstacle to the imposition of a new belief system on Catholics; hence, it had to go. Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy summed this up well, when he wrote:

One final problem remained. The Reformers feared that “nothing would come out of the Council.” Even though they had managed to insert into the “official” Documents of the Council their false ideas, they knew that this alone was insufficient…. Change would occur far too slowly for the impatient innovators. The greater majority of the faithful had never asked for the Council (the Curia had opposed it also), and were perfectly content with the way the Church had always been. Even John XXIII had acknowledged and praised it as being “vibrant with vitality.” For most people things would have gone on much as before. It was absolutely necessary to introduce into the fabric of the everyday life of the Christian, all these new ideas, the “new economy of the Gospel.” How then to achieve this? The answer was obvious. One had to “reform” the Liturgy. [Rama P. Coomaraswamy, The Destruction of the Christian Tradition(London: Perennial Books, 1981), p. 137.]

This is in line with the apostate [priest and occultist Paul] Roca’s thinking, who, along with calling for “the scientific, economic, and social transfiguration of our … sacraments,” writes [in his book Glorious Centennial]:

As long as Christian ideas remained in a state of sacramental incubation, in our hands and under the veil of liturgy, they were unable to exert any efficacious and scientifically decisive social effect upon the organic and public government of human societies. [Quoted in Fr. Joaquin Saenz y Arriaga, The New Montinian Church, p. 191]

The new “Mass,” likewise, would need to reflect the “ecumenical,” “humanistic,” “universalist,” “socially relevant” activism of the Conciliar Church — abominations like the civil rights “Mass,” the farm workers’ “Mass,” the Marxist “Mass,” the feminist “Mass,” the homosexual “Mass,” which removed the focus from God to “special interest groups” [that] required a fitting service for their “social gospel” messages. And they got just that with the “reformed” rite. While these are extreme manifestations, to be sure, they are accepted extremes in the Conciliar religion and serve to underscore the doctrinal gulf that separates the true Catholic faith from the new “Catholic” faith.

(John K. Weiskittel, “The Bugnini File: A Study in Ecclesial Subversion”; italics added and some formatting adjusted.)

Theory aside, the last 50 years are proof positive of the destructive nature of the Novus Ordo Missae, for, with very few exceptions, the generations raised with that liturgy have no concept whatsoever of the true Roman Catholic religion.

The apostate priest Paul Roca [1830-1893], quoted above, also had a rather remarkable prediction to make, one that must have seemed absurd in the 19th century but which, in the 21st, is basically just a recap of historical fact:

[T]he divine cult in the form directed by the liturgy, ceremonial, ritual and regulations of the Roman Church will shortly undergo a transformation at an Ecumenical Council, which will restore it to the veritable simplicity of the golden age of the Apostles in accordance with the dictates of conscience and modern civilization.

(Paul Roca, qtd. in Bp. Rudolf Graber, Athanasius and the Church of Our Time, trans. by Susan Johnson [Gerrards Cross: Van Duren C. P., Ltd., 1974], p. 35)

What are we to make of Roca’s prescient vision of the Church being radically transformed by a council in the not-too-distant future? It could be just idle boasting, or it could be something more sinister. Did he have insider knowledge of what the secret societies were planning against the Church? In any case, we notice the striking similarities between Roca’s prophecy and Paul VI’s fulfillment:

  • Roca: Liturgy to be transformed at an Ecumenical Council
    Vatican II: Sacrosanctum Concilium calls for a revision of the liturgy
  • Roca: Said change will “restore it to the veritable simplicity of the golden age of the Apostles in accordance with the dictates of conscience and modern civilization.”
    Paul VI in Missale Romanum: The revision is based on “ancient sources”, the “doctrinal and spiritual riches” of which must be brought to light in order to adapt “the Roman Missal to the contemporary mentality”

How appropriate for Montini to choose “Paul” — Roca’s first name — as his “papal” name!

Francis Speaks Out in Favor of Missale Romanum and against “Nostalgic Past Tendencies”

The usually loquacious Jorge Bergoglio (“Pope Francis”) somehow managed not to bring up the topic of his predecessor’s paradigm-smashing document this April 3, though he had already brought it up earlier in the year. Speaking to the Plenary Assembly of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments in the Vatican on February 14, 2019, in typical fashion he made some Catholic-sounding noises, only to abruptly take a hard left turn in his discourse: “We must rediscover the reality of the sacred liturgy, and not reduce it”, he declared; but by no means was he making an appeal to restore the traditional Latin Mass to its rightful place in once-Catholic churches.

On the contrary — after all, this is Francis we’re talking about. The Vatican II “liturgical renewal”, he told those gathered, was greatly furthered in 1969 by the actions of Montini:

In the first months of that year the first fruits of the reform accomplished by the Apostolic See flourished for the benefit of the People of God. On precisely this date the Motu proprio Mysterii paschalis was promulgated regarding the Roman calendar and the liturgical year (14 February 1969); then, the important Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum (3 April 1969), with which the Holy Pope [sic] promulgated the Roman Missal. In the same year the Ordo Missae and various other Ordo were issued….

(Francis, Address to Plenary Meeting of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the SacramentsZenit, Feb. 14, 2019; italics given.)

The entire address provides many insights into Bergoglio’s mindset, which shows a determined revolutionary bent, as reflected in the following passage, where he contrasts the “irreversible” revised liturgy of Paul VI with what went before:

The liturgy is not “the field of do-it-yourself”, but the epiphany of ecclesial communion. Therefore, “we”, and not “I”, resounds in prayers and gestures; the real community, not the ideal subject. When we look back to nostalgic past tendencies or wish to impose them again, there is the risk of placing the part before the whole, the “I” before the People of God, the abstract before the concrete, ideology before communion and, fundamentally, the worldly before the spiritual.

In this sense, the title of your assembly is valuable: The liturgical formation of the People of God. The task that awaits us is indeed essentially that of spreading among the People of God the splendour of the living mystery of the Lord, Who makes Himself manifest in the liturgy.

(italics given)

Just beneath the surface of his words we can see the conflict between the worship services of two opposing religious belief systems: Catholic vs. Novus Ordo. Francis condemns the Catholic conception of the liturgy every step of the way:

  • Stressing the “we” over the “I” is coded language for saying that the priest has no unique role as the alter Christus (“another Christ”), the one who offers the Mass in the person of Christ Himself; now it’s all about a community offering “praise and thanksgiving” (but not the sin-atoning Sacrifice of Calvary)
  • He restates the same when he condemns those “placing the part before the whole, the ‘I’ before the ‘People of God’”, and this criticism is also directed against whom Paul VI referred to as “pious persons … having their respectable way of listening to Mass, [who] will [now] feel distracted from their customary thoughts and forced to follow those of others” (that is, their interior prayers are now interrupted by the humanistic spectacle of the “People of God”, including an often even irreverent “presider” who acts more as entertainer or assembly leader than as sacrificing priest)
  • Bergoglio’s warning against putting “the abstract before the concrete” may be an unspoken denial of the doctrines of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence, which he possibly regards as abstract and unreal, not to mention unimportant, especially when the concrete — community — is to be preferred
  • His criticism of putting “ideology before communion and, fundamentally, the worldly before the spiritual” is absurd: The traditional Latin Mass is worldly and ideological?Really? This is yet another astounding Bergoglian black is white, white is black inversion of truth. If anything, it is the “New Mass” that is worldly, first of all because of its invalidity, but also because of its focus moved away from God and onto the congregation, and the systemic and ubiquitous liturgical “abuses” that are always focused away from the Divine, including a pastor riding a bull down the center aisle of a church, a tango in the “sanctuary” before the watchful gaze of Bergoglio, the utter chaos of “Cardinal” Christoph Schonborn’s youth liturgies, a monstrance delivered by drone, and a Super-Soaker water pistol used for sprinkling the people with holy water, and untold other liturgical and spiritual abominations, all of which can be excused by the rubric of “mak[ing] the liturgy relevant to the modern mind”, so fundamental to Montini’s justification for the changes
  • And of course one would be hard-pressed to find a bigger ideologue than Bergoglio, who reads his political and Naturalist ideology into just about every Scripture passage he preaches on; and his one-foot-in/one-foot-out-of-the-closet Marxism is by definition materialist and mundane

So, as comes as no surprise, Francis’ presentation is quite congruent with the raison d’être of the Pauline “Mass”. Fifty years later, Missale Romanum is still a foundation stone to the whole rotten Novus Ordo superstructure.

Rejecting the Conciliar Church Means First Rejecting the New “Mass”

As shown above, the Novus Ordo Missae is the most crucial “reform” of the Modernists, because by its very nature it first compromises and then utterly destroys the Faith of those who attend it. In 2002, a Patrick Buchanan column entitled “An Index of Catholicism’s Decline” included the following statistic: “By one New York Times poll, 70 percent of all Catholics in the age group 18 to 44 believe the Eucharist is merely a ‘symbolic reminder’ of Jesus.”

There is a bit of an error there, for it should read, “70 percent of all Novus Ordos”. This is the grim legacy of the Montini-Bugnini liturgy: a dissolving of even the most rudimentary Catholic beliefs. An amusing irony, however, must not escape us: In the case of Paul VI’s invalid New Mass and its equally invalid “priests”, those 70% of people who do not believe in the Real Presence happen to be unintentionally correct, for in their “Mass”, Christ is truly not present!

But some much-needed levity aside, the unhappy anniversary of the promulgation of the Novus Ordo liturgy is one to be bemoaned, not celebrated. The “New Mass” is a destroyer of souls. We must work tirelessly to bring benighted people into the light, so that they may see that it is not Catholic, is not a Mass, does not please God, and is frightfully harmful to souls.

By the way, an anagram of Novus Ordo Missae is, “a dubious norm S.O.S.”.

How very appropriate.

Does “Universal Acceptance” Guarantee a True Pope?

When the Argentinian apostate, Jorge Bergoglio, became “Pope” Francis just over six years ago, all Hell broke loose (both figuratively and literally). The heresies and blasphemies that came forth from his mouth (Proselytism is solemn nonsense, there is no Catholic God, who am I to judge, etc.) even had some Vatican II sect “conservatives” (e.g., Society of St Peter) starting to wonder if sedevacantism might not be true after all. Bergoglio’s actions, even before his “election,” lead some prominent sedevacantists (e.g., Fr. Anthony Cekada) to change the direction of Traditionalist arguments. It is not only Catholic teaching that if a pope falls into heresy as a private teacher he loses his authority, it is equally true that a heretic cannot attain the papal office in the first place. The unanimous consent of pre-Vatican II canonists teach that the invalidating prohibition against electing a heretic is a matter of Divine Law, which admits of no exceptions or dispensation.

According to canonist Badius, “c) The law now in force for the election of the Roman Pontiff is reduced to these points… Barred as incapable of being validly elected are all women, children who have not reached the age of reason; also, those afflicted with habitual insanity, the unbaptized, heretics and schismatics…” That pretty much does away with having to argue about “trials to depose a pope” because the heretic never became pope. In order to prevent the “recognize and resist” (R&R) camp from seeing the light, along came former (?) Freemason John Salza and his buddy Robert Siscoe with a duplicitous argument to keep things nice and dark. They assured the Society of St Pius X (SSPX) and all other R&R adherents that “peaceful and universal acceptance” of someone elected pope is a dogmatic fact which assures us the person so elected must be pope. The full article can be read here: In this post I will expose some of the purposeful misrepresentations, and omissions of fact, that were necessary to make their phony case for a “true pope.”
A Half-Truth is a Bigger Lie
Those who tell half-truths are twice as deceitful, because they employ a truth to make a falsehood easier to accept. This will become apparent with Salza and Siscoe soon enough. They begin their article thus:
The legitimacy of a Pope, who has been elected peacefully and accepted by at least a moral unanimity of Catholics, is infallibly certain.  His legitimacy falls into the category of a dogmatic fact, which is a secondary object of the Church’s infallibility. This is the unanimous teaching of the Church’s theologians.
In support of this contention, they cite to theologians Berry and Van Noort. I will turn to their citation of Van Noort first.

In the following quotation, Msgr. Van Noort further explains the infallibility of dogmatic facts. He also explains that the infallibility of dogmatic facts is qualified as “theologically certain.”  Those who depart from tradition by rejecting a doctrine that is qualified as theologically certain are guilty of a mortal sin

“Assertion 2: The Church’s infallibility extends to dogmatic facts. This proposition is theologically certain. A dogmatic fact is a fact not contained in the sources of revelation, [but] on the admission of which depends the knowledge or certainty of a dogma or of a revealed truth. The following questions are concerned with dogmatic facts: ‘Was the [First] Vatican Council a legitimate ecumenical council? Is the Latin Vulgate a substantially faithful translation of the original books of the Bible? Was [past tense] Pius XII legitimately elected Bishop of Rome? One can readily see that on these facts hang the questions of whether the decrees of the [First] Vatican Council are infallible, whether the Vulgate is truly Sacred Scripture, whether Pius XII is to be [present tense] recognized as supreme ruler of the universal Church.” (Christ’s Church, p. 112)

What they omit two pages later is telling. From Van Noort, “Of course whatever the Church declares directly must be maintained by everyone, e.g., that the Vulgate contains the Word of God; that Pius XII is the head of the Church;that the doctrine of this or that book is heretical. It arrived at these decisions in the following manner: every faithful translation of the inspired books contains the words of God; but the Vulgate is a faithful translation; therefore…Anyone legitimately elected bishop of Rome is the head of the Church; but Pius XII was legitimately elected; therefore…Any book containing this doctrine is heretical; but such and such a book contains this doctrine; therefore…” (See Christ’s Church, pg. 114; Ellipses in original).  The dogmatic fact is deduced through a true reasoning process.

There is a true revealed major premise: “Anyone legitimately elected bishop of Rome is the head of the Church.” The minor premise is conditional. Hence, “but Francis was NOT legitimately elected; therefore…”
That is why theologian Szal tells us, “Nor is there any schism if one merely transgresses a Papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.” (See The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, [1948], pg. 3; Emphasis mine).   How could someone suspect the validity of a putative pope’s election and not incur the sin of schism if all it takes to assure his validity is a group of heretical “cardinals” to declare one of their own “elected pope”? Note also that Szal is talking about all members of the Church having the excuse of suspecting the validity of a pope’s election, not only Cardinals or other clerics.

It’s also ironic that Van Noort states on pages 114-115, “The Church’s infallibility also extends to the general discipline of the Church. This proposition is theologically certain. By the term “general discipline of the Church” are meant those ecclesiastical laws passed for the universal Church for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living...[the Church] can never sanction a universal law which would be at odds with faith or morality or would be by its very nature conducive to the injury of souls. (Emphasis in original) Let’s get this straight. Salza and Siscoe want us to accept the heretical pretenders since Roncalli up to Bergoglio as “pope.” Yet, they then proceed to reject their pope’s ecclesiastical laws for the direction of Christian worship. Do they not reject the Novus Bogus “mass” because it is conducive to the injury of souls? However, the very theologian they cite (as well as the unanimous consent of all other theologians) teaches this is an impossibility. Nor can they escape the charge of a schismatic mentality, in choosing what laws to obey and which to toss aside. Consistency, wherefore art thou? It’s not to be found among the R&R.

Now, I turn to their citation of theologian Berry:
The following, taken from Fr. Sylvester Berry’s Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise, The Church of Christ, further explains these principles:

…”DOGMATIC FACTS. A dogmatic fact is one that has not been revealed, yet is so intimately connected with a doctrine of faith that without certain knowledge of the fact there can be no certain knowledge of the doctrine. For example, was the [First] Vatican Council truly ecumenical? Was Pius IX a legitimate pope? Was the election of Pius XI valid? Such questions must be decided with certainty before decrees issued by any council or pope can be accepted as infallibly true or binding on the Church. It is evident, then, that the Church must be infallible in judging of such facts, and since the Church is infallible in believing as well as in teaching, it follows that the practically unanimous consent of the bishops and faithful in accepting a council as ecumenical, or a Roman Pontiff as legitimately elected, gives absolute and infallible certainty of the fact.” (The Church of Christ, pp. 288, 289, 290)

Notice the term “practically unanimous,” which is distinct from “mathematically unanimous.” A practically unanimous acceptance does not require acceptance by 100 percent of professing Catholics; it is rather a morally unanimous acceptance, which represents the “one mind” of the Church. As we will see later, the fact that individual Catholics reject the legitimacy of a Pope does not mean he has not been accepted by a morally unanimous consent.

Seems like a pretty air-tight argument they’ve got going, right? Here’s what theologian Berry tells us on page 229 of the exact same theology manual (and conveniently omitted by Salza and Siscoe):

“A DOUBTFUL POPE. When there is a prudent doubt about the validity of an election to any official position, there is also a similar doubt whether the person so elected really has authority or not. In such a case, no one is bound to believe him, for it is an axiom that a doubtful law begets no obligation—lex dubia non obligat. But a superior whom no one is bound to obey is in reality no superior at all. Hence the saying of Bellarmine: a doubtful pope is no pope at all.‘Therefore,’ continues the Cardinal, ‘if a papal election is really doubtful for any reason, the one elected should resign, so that a new election may be held. But if he refuses to resign, it becomes the duty of the bishops to adjust the matter, for although the bishops without the pope cannot define dogmas nor make laws for the universal Church, they can and ought to decide, when occasion demands, who is the legitimate pope; and if the matter be doubtful, they should provide for the Church by having a legitimate and undoubted pastor elected. That is what the Council of Constance rightly did.” (Emphasis mine)

How can there be a doubtful pope if he is peacefully and universally accepted? Didn’t theologian Berry know what he was writing in his own manual? I can hear the objection of Salza already, “Berry was talking about a case where there was not practically unanimous consent.” Objection overruled.

1. At no point does theologian Berry explain exactly, or in what manner, “practically unanimous consent” is achieved. The majority of Cardinals and members of the Church accepted Antipope Anacletus II, and a minority of cardinals and members of the Church accepted Pope Innocent II until St. Bernard of Clairvaux convinced the majority to change position (which he did on his own initiative). Again, what constitutes the “practical unanimous consent”? Salza counters that the election was “contested” and therefore did not acquire “peaceful and universal acceptance.” He defines the concept as:  The ‘peaceful’ aspect refers to the election not at once being contested; the ‘universal’ aspect refers to the entire Church learning of the election and not at once contesting it. Says who? Salza and Siscoe!  Citing to theologian Billot, they extrapolate the principle that: The universal acceptance is considered to exist when the election becomes known and is not contested by the Church, and is accepted by the prelates. It continues: In John of St. Thomas’ day, such acceptance would happen gradually as the news spread throughout the Church and the word.  But in our day, when news spreads throughout the world almost immediately, the universal acceptance would be manifest very quickly. This means (it is alleged) that if the legitimacy of someone declared as elected to the papacy is not contested almost immediately, his legitimacy is infallibly certain. So if you’re not quick to protest the “papacy” of one who celebrates Chanukah and participates in Protestant false worship by immediately posting something on Instagram and Twitter, he’s the “pope”–to whom you must submit (but only when you feel like it).

Theologian Doyle explains: “The Church is a visible society with a visible Ruler. If there can be any doubt about who that visible Ruler is, he is not visible, and hence, where there is any doubt about whether a person has been legitimately elected Pope, that doubt must be removed before he can become the visible head of Christ’s Church. Blessed Bellarmine, S.J., says: ‘A doubtful Pope must be considered as not Pope’; and Suarez, S.J., says: ‘At the time of the Council of Constance there were three men claiming to be Pope…. Hence, it could have been that not one of them was the true Pope, and in that case, there was no Pope at all….” (See The Defense of the Catholic Church, [1927], pg. 124) It is therefore possible that the entire membership of the Church could have accepted one of those men who was not pope, as the Vicar of Christ.

Ad arguendo, if this manufactured definition regarding “peaceful and universal acceptance”of Salza and Siscoe were accepted, there is also the problem of who must contest this election, and how quickly.Salza and Siscoe would have us believe that the moment a group of heretical “Cardinals” elects one of their own, he immediately achieves “peaceful and universal acceptance.” This is their own made up definition, as there is no unanimous consent of the theologians, nor official Church decree declaring such to be the case. If Siscoe and Salza’s version of the “facts” is accepted: Who needs to contest the election? Cardinals? Bishops? How many Cardinals or bishops would have to “contest” the election? If one sufficient? At what numerical point does the “contesting” become enough? How is this contesting to be done? In writing? Publicly? Privately to the one elected in the prescience of witnesses?

Another big problem for them: Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio. This is the decree of Pope Paul IV of 1559. The pontiff decreed that if ever it should ever appear that someone who was elected Roman Pontiff had beforehand “deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into any heresy,” his election, even with the agreement and unanimous consent of all the cardinals would be “null, legally invalid and void.” Salza and Siscoe respond with four points:

  • The decree is “manifestly unjust and problematic.” No. It’s simply restating the Divine Law which Canon Law states and all canonists teach; “For the validity of the election as regards the person elected, it suffices only that he not be barred from the office by divine law — that is, any male Christian, even a layman. The following are therefore excluded: women, those who lack the use of reason, infidels, and those who are at least public non-Catholics.” ( See theologian Cocchi, Commentarium in C.J.C, 2:151)
  • Cum ex Apostolatus has been derogated and hence is no longer in force. No need to rebut that contention as the decree simply reiterates DIVINE LAW, which admits no exceptions
  • It can be merely hypothetical that the situation of a heretic being universally accepted could happen. Yeah. Right. Sure. Popes don’t make decrees for hypothetical situations incapable of being fulfilled. It’s analogous to a papal decree declaring what to do should the pope fall into error when speaking ex cathedra.  It can’t happen, so no pope would waste his time writing such nonsense
  • Lastly, the legitimacy of a Pope who has been universally accepted is qualified as “theologically certain.”  This would not be the case if the Church interpreted the aforementioned teaching of the problematic, and now obrogated, papal bull, Cum ex Apostolatus, as meaning an illegitimate Pope can be universally accepted as Pope by the Church. It is also theologically certain that Divine Law prevents heretics from obtaining the papacy, so it’s Sicoe and Salza who get “universal acceptance” wrong. Re-read theologian Van Noort in context; it’s theologically certain if and only if the election comports with Divine Law. We have moral certainty that the sacraments we receive are valid if they are performed with the requirements of Divine Law, unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary, making it dubious because, e.g., the priest was heard leaving out essential words of the form. So too, we can have moral certainty that the pope is legitimately elected unless we have proof to the contrary, which we do

2. There is strong evidence that theologian Berry was discussing the Church in normal times, not during the Great Apostasy, of which he writes in the same manual cited:  “The prophesies of the Apocalypse show that Satan will imitate the Church of Christ to deceive mankind; he will set up a church of Satan in opposition of the Church of Christ. Antichrist will assume the role of Messias; his prophet will act the part of pope, and there will be imitations of the Sacraments of the Church. There will also be lying wonders in imitation of the miracles wrought in the Church…there seems to be no reason why a false Church might not become universal, even more universal than the true one, at least for a time.” (See Berry,  The Church of Christ: An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise, [1927], pgs.65-66; Emphasis in original). A Church of Satan with false sacraments and the false prophet playing the part of the pope, with “more universality” than the True Church? How could there be such a false pope if he had “practically unanimous consent”? Its obvious that the term is not concretely applied by theologian Berry, and in any case, would not apply in the time of Great Apostasy. Are we to expect apostates from the Vatican II sect to try and sort things out for us?

3. Finally, theologian Berry does not give a different definition to dogmatic facts than theologian Van Noort.
Hence, we argue, “Anyone legitimately elected bishop of Rome is the head of the Church.” The minor premise is conditional. Hence, “but Francis was NOT legitimately elected; therefore…”

Disposing of Some Other Falsehoods
To go through all the other points of Salza’s article in detail would require several posts. Nevertheless, I will briefly point out their inherent flaws. Should anyone want to challenge me on any point they think I did not address, I will be happy to debate them in a neutral forum.
  • Appeals to authorities before 1870. Salza and Siscoe are fond of citing theologians prior to the Vatican Council (1869-1870). That’s when there was a lot of Catholic doctrine settled regarding the papacy  and made it untenable to hold a number of theories that had still been permissible to hold up until that time. Citations to theologians Cajetan, Suarez, and John of St. Thomas are therefore plentiful. citations to post-1870 theologians and canonists are conspicuously absent or twisted out of context as demonstrated above with Van Noort and Berry
  • False definition of a public heretic. They claim that a “public heretic” was not, and could not be elected by the Church, since a public heretic is “a public member of a heretical sect (e.g. a member of the Baptist Church), not a Catholic…who is guilty of the sin of heresy.” Wrong.  According to theologian McDevitt, “A cleric, then, if he is to occasion the tacit renunciation of his office, must have defected from the faith by heresy or apostasy in a public manner…” Further, “It is to be noted immediately that adherence to or inscription in a non-Catholic sect is not required to constitute the publicity that the canon [188] demands.” Finally, “..even if only a few loquacious persons witnessed the defection from the Faith…the delict would be public in the sense of canon 2197, n. 1” (The Renunciation of An Ecclesiastical Office: An Historical Synopsis and Commentary, [1946], pgs. 136-140; Emphasis mine).
  • An incredible implication. Do members of the R&R celebrate Chanukah with Jews? Do they participate in false worship with Protestants and kneel before a so-called “bishop” to receive a “blessing”? To do so would be the mortal sin of communicatio in sacris and a denial of the One True Church. Consider also, ” As archbishop of Buenos Aires, he authorized the “curas villeros,” the priests sent to the peripheries, to give communion to all, although four fifths of the couples were not even married. And as pope, by telephone or letter he is not afraid of encouraging some of the faithful who have remarried to receive communion without worrying about it, right away, even without those ‘penitential paths under the guidance of the diocesan bishop’ projected by some at the synod, and without issuing any denials when the news of his actions comes out.” (See Participating in these ecumenical services with Protestants and Jews is, in the words of Pope Pius XI, “altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.” (See Mortalium Animos para. #2) Yet, somehow if such a “cardinal” is pronounced “pope” without public abjuration of heresy, how does he attain the papacy? Does the “universal acceptance” somehow “undo” his heresy? Or does it mean his actions, contrary to all Church teaching pre-Vatican II, was not heretical? No attempt at an explanation of this is made.
The disingenuous duo, Salza and Siscoe, would have us believe that an impediment of Divine Law which prevents a man from attaining the papacy is somehow “cured” by a fanciful definition of “peaceful and universal acceptance.” They twist and misrepresent theologians Van Noort and Berry. They give a false definition of “public heretic.” Finally, they show themselves as the ultimate hypocrites, for we must accept Francis as pope because it is a “dogmatic fact,” yet they do not accept the dogmatic fact that the Church is infallible in matters pertaining to the general discipline of the Church, such as the Novus Bogus “mass.” They pick and choose what decrees of their “pope” and dogmatic facts they will obey. Isn’t that the very etymology of heretic–“able to choose”? What they refuse to accept is the proposition, “What’s wrong is wrong, even if everyone is wrong, and what’s right is right, even if no one is right.”

Proroštvo iz 1869.: “Sotona će voditi najgore napade kako bi pokušao uništiti Crkvu”

Upozoreni smo …

Proroštvo iz 1869 .: “Sotona će voditi najgore napade kako bi pokušao uništiti Crkvu”

Katolici se moraju čuvati privatnih objava: svakako onih koje Crkva nije odobrila, a koje treba izbjegavati, ali čak i onih objava koje su odobrene kako ne bi izostankom duhovnog vodstva svećenika došlo do zastranjenja nepoučene nejačadi, te ih one zamijenile umjesto Nauka Katoličke Crkve. Iako je Crkva proglasila kako su privatne objave koje su priznate od nje slobodne od hereza i zabluda u vjeri ili moralu i stoga sigurne da se s njima upozna, važno je da se ne vezujemo za ovu vrstu objave jer ona nije potrebna za naše spasenje i daje se samo određenim osobama, u određenom trenutku, za određenu svrhu.

Stoga rijetko zagovaramo ili promoviramo privatnu objavu na ovoj web stranici. Međutim, na ovom mjestu ćemo to učiniti jer postoji većinom nepoznato proroštvo koje potvrđuje ono što već znamo kroz proučavanje katoličke vjere i iskustva posljednjih 60 godina.

Godine 1928. sestre iz samostana u Chambéryju, Francuska, objavile su knjigu o vrlo posebnom članu njihovog reda, sestri Mary-Martha Chambon, koja je umrla prije 21 godinu. Naslov knjige bio je  Soeur Marie-Marthe Chambon: Religieuse de la Visitation Sainte-Marie de Chambéry, 1841.-1907 .prvi put još jednom (izvorni prijevod, bili smo obaviješteni, bio je neadekvatan i dugo je bio izvan tiska).

Prema službenom opisu knjige izdavača:

Sestra Mary Martha Chambon (1841.-1907.) bila je redovnica Reda Pohođenja u Chambéryju, u Francuskoj, kojem je Isus Krist otkrio moćna blaga predanosti Njegovim Svetim ranama. Nju je Gospodin podučio dvije molitve zaziva Svetim ranama koje je Katolička Crkva naknadno odobrila za molitvu vjernicima. Iako su izvanredni darovi milosti sestre Marije bile nepoznati, dok su bile žive vanjskom svijetu, pa čak i većini sestara u njezinoj zajednici, život ove duše žrtve bio je uronjen u nadnaravno: stalna ukazanja i poruke od Isusa, Blažene Djevice Marije i Svetaca Nebeskih; komunikacija sa svetim dušama u čistilištu; nositeljica stigmi; hranila se samo Euharistijom godinama; napadi od đavla; čudesni odgovori na molitvu; infundirano znanje o skrivenim i dalekim događajima; i proroštva koja se vjerojatno odnose na krizu bez presedana koju danas svjedočimo u Crkvi.

U poslušnosti svećenicima koji su služili kao duhovni voditelji u posjetu Chambéryu, te u skladu s izričitim željama samog Gospodina, Majka poglavarica nepismene sestre Marije Marte marljivo je zapisala božanske poruke prenesene njihovoj kćeri i čudesne događaje zaokružujući njezinu osobu. Pojedinosti koje su sastavili čine osnovu za ovu knjigu i nastoje ispuniti sljedeće riječi koje je Isus uputio sestri Mariji Marti: “Tvoj je put da me učini poznatim i voljenim, osobito u budućnosti.”

Velika je milost da je ova knjiga sada dostupna na engleskom jeziku. Može se naručiti izravno s Amazona ovdje:

Izvorno francusko izdanje ovog djela dolazi s potrebnim crkvenim odobrenjem: nosi nihil obstat (fr. Francois Bouchage, C.S.R.) i imprimatur ( Abp. Dominique Castellan ).

Sljedeća anegdota u knjizi ističe se kao vrlo relevantna za naše vrijeme. Sadrži proroštva koja su dana sestri Mariji Marti 1869. godine, koja je bila godina otvaranja I. vatikanskog sabora tijekom vladavine pape Pija IX. (1846-1878):

26. travnja 1869., tijekom zaziva Svetim ranama koje je Zajednica svakodnevno molila za potrebe Crkve, raspeti Isus se otkrio svojoj zaručnici. Božanska Krv izlivena je u velikom izobilju iz Njegovih Svetih Rana: “Ovo je za Mog vikara Pija IX.”, rekao je. I dok je Krv Spasitelja nastavila teći, dodao je: “Ovo je za moje svećenstvo!… Za sve, čak i za one koji ne traže svjetlo.

“Sotona će najžešće napasti da pokuša uništiti Crkvu.”

“Nekoliko će svjetala izgubiti svjetlost, a broj onih koji izgledaju kao stupovi će pasti.”

Početkom prosinca 1869. naš Gospodin je opet ponovio: “Kćeri moja, moraš se moliti za [Prvi Vatikanski] Sabor! … Moraš udvostručiti svoju gorljivost, jer kroz Sabor mora se dati svjetlo.”

(Sestre za posjete u Chambéryju, Mistik Svetih rana: Život i otkrivenje sestre Marije Chambon , prevedeno od Ryan P. Plummera [St. Louis, MO: Lambfount, 2019], str. 222)

Može li netko sumnjati da je proročanstvo Sotoninih “najžešćih napada pokušati uništiti Crkvu” ispunjeno u naše vrijeme, posebno nakon smrti pape Pija XII. 9. listopada 1958.?

Đavolski najokrutniji progon Crkve do kraja vremena nije nešto što se može naći samo u privatnom otkrivenju – ono je također dio Depozita [Pologa] Vjere, sadržanog u suštini u Novom zavjetu i objašnjeno u Svetoj tradiciji i crkvenoj doktrini. To su iznijeli teolozi prije II. Vatikanskog ‘sabora’ kao što su kardinal Henry Manning i Fr. Sylvester Berry:

Pape su također stalno iznova upozoravali na paklenu urotu protiv Crkve koja je stremila srušiti papinstvo:

Primjećujemo da u proroštvu za Mariju Martu naš Blaženi Gospodin posebno spominje (Prvi Vatikanski) Sabor kao sredstvo s kojim se mora dati “svjetlo”. Iako ne pretpostavljamo da možemo protumačiti ovo božansko proroštvo, jednostavno ćemo istaknuti da je Prvi Vatikanski sabor najpoznatiji po svom učenju o papinstvu, koje ni na koji način nije ograničeno samo na definiciju papinske nezabludivosti. Čak je i pitanje mogućnosti “heretičnog pape” došlo tijekom rasprave na I. Vatikanskom saboru, a na njega je odgovorila doktrinarna komisija .

Između ostalog, doktrina I. Vatikanskog sabora o Papi dokazuje da su Novus Ordo ‘pape’ bili varalice, osobito sadašnji Franjo. To se lako može vidjeti zamjenom izraza “rimski papa” s “papom Franjom” u eksperimentu koji smo ovdje proveli . Rezultati su groteskni.

Ostale relevantne poveznice na ovoj web stranici vezane uz temu progona Crkve uključuju sljedeće:

Isus je obećao da vrata pakla neće pobijediti Njegovu Crkvu i da je u tu svrhu ustanovio papinstvo . Ali dio Božanskog otkrivenja je da će Papa na kraju vremena biti “uklonjen s puta” kako bi se ispunio Božanski plan, baš kao što je Židovima bilo dopušteno, na kratko vrijeme, da prevladaju protiv našeg Gospodina. Sveti Pavao je o tome govorio Solunjanima:

Neka vas nitko ne zavede ni na koji način. Jer ako prije ne dođe onaj otpad pobune i ne otkrije se Čovjek bezakonja, Sin propasti, Protivnik, onaj koji uzdiže sebe protiv svega što se zove Bog ili svetinja, dotle da i u Božji hram zasjedne gradeći se Bogom, pokazujući se kao Bog. Ne sjećate li se, to sam vam govorio dok sam sam još bio među vama? I sada znate što ga zadržava da bi se pojavio tek u svoje vrijeme. Doista, otajstvo bezakonja već je na djelu, samo ima tko da ga sada zadržava dok ne bude uklonjen. Tada će se otkriti Bezakonik. Njega će Gospodin Isus pogubiti dahom usta i uništiti pojavkom Dolaska svoga — njega koji djelovanjem Sotoninim dolazi sa svom silom, lažnim znamenjima i čudesima i sa svim nepravednim zavaravanjem onih koji propadaju poradi toga što ne prihvatiše ljubavi prema istini kako bi se spasili. I zato im Bog šalje djelovanje zavodničko da povjeruju laži te budu osuđeni svi koji nisu povjerovali istini, nego su se odlučili na nepravednost.

(2. Solunjanima 2: 3-12)

Kardinal Manning je vrlo dobro objasnio ovaj odlomak u svom izlaganju o posljednjim vremenima .

Dakle, jasno je da vrata pakla ne mogu prevladati protiv Katoličke Crkve sve dok postoji Papa, a mi to potvrđujemo u crkvenoj doktrini:

Sada dobro znate da su najsmrtonosniji neprijatelji katoličke religije oduvijek vodili žestoki rat, ali bez uspjeha, protiv ove učiteljice; ni u kom slučaju ne poznaju činjenicu da sama religija nikada ne može zakazati i pasti dok ova Stolica ostaje netaknuta, Stolica koja počiva na stijeni koju ponosna vrata pakla ne mogu srušiti i u kojoj postoji cjelovita i savršena čistoća Kršćanske religije.

(Papa Pio IX,  enciklika  Inter Multiplices , br. 7)

Što se događa kada je istinski papa odsutan i kada je Stolica sv. Petra dugo prazna , upravo je ono čemu svjedočimo od 9. listopada 1958. godine.

Neka nam Bog da istinskog papu i ubrza punu i slavnu obnovu Svete Majke Crkve.


Lažna crkva koja oponaša Katoličku Crkvu

Upozorili smo:

Otac E. Sylvester Berry o progonu Crkve u posljednjim danima (2. dio)

Lažna crkva koja oponaša pravu Crkvu

Strašne su nevolje koje je trebala izdržati Sveta Majka Crkva od smrti pape Pija XII.  Predviđene su i prorokovane u katoličkoj tradiciji, na ovaj ili onaj način. U prvom dijelu ove serije postova, pogledali smo objašnjenje 12. poglavlja Apokalipse E. Sylvestera Berryja i kako je to proročanstvo o sotoninom progonu papinstva. U ovom trenutnom postu pogledat ćemo što je isti Fr. Berry rekao u vezi s đavlovim pokušajem da obmani izabrane s pomoću lažne crkve.

Profesor apologetike na bogosloviji Svete Marije u Marylandu, fr. Berry je napisao apologetsku i dogmatsku raspravu o katoličkoj ekleziologiji, grani teologije koja se bavi Crkvom. Knjiga nosi naslov Kristova crkva i prvi put je objavljena 1927. godine.

Obraćajući se na temu lažnih čuda za koje je naš blaženi Gospodin upozorio da će Sotona činiti (vidi Mt 24,24), fr. Berry je istaknuo da će ti lažni znakovi i lažna čuda potjecati od đavla koji će stvoriti lažnu crkvu koja će se prerušavati u Katoličku Crkvu i oponašati je, ali zapravo je ona djelo zloga.

Proročanstva Apokalipse [knjiga Otkrivenja] pokazuju da će Sotona oponašati Kristovu Crkvu kako bi prevario čovječanstvo; on će postaviti crkvu Sotone u suprotnosti s Kristovom Crkvom. Antikrist će preuzeti ulogu Mesije; njegov će prorok djelovati kao papa; i zavladat će imitacija sakramenata Crkve.

(Rev. E. Sylvester Berry,  Crkva Kristova: Apologetska i dogmatska rasprava  [St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book Co., 1927], str. 119;

Da bismo dokazali da je ovaj citat autentičan, pružamo skeniranje stvarne stranice:

Godine 1955. Berryjeva je knjiga ponovno objavljena, ali koristeći drugačiji slog, što je rezultiralo značajnom promjenom u numeriranju stranica. Izdanje iz 1955. jedino je u tisku i može se naručiti ovdje:

Budući da je tekst ponovno sastavljen za novo izdanje, gornji citat nije pronađen na istoj stranici: citat pronađen na str. 119 od izdanja iz 1927. nalazi se na str. 65-66 u izdanju iz 1955. godine.

U svjetlu onoga što se dogodilo Katoličkoj Crkvi od smrti pape Pija XII., ovo proročanstvo lažne crkve, lažnog pape i lažnih sakramenta poprima sve veći značaj. Nema sumnje u to: svjedočimo ispunjenju proročanstva.

To bi nas sve trebalo ispuniti nadom i utjehom, podsjećajući da je sve što je Majka Crkva pretrpjela u ovoj svojoj najvećoj kušnji, u potpunosti unutar Božanskog Plana i na kraju značilo da nam pomogne u našem posvećenju.

“Kazao sam vam to sada, prije nego li se dogodi, da vjerujete kad se dogodi.” (Iv 14,29).

Vidi također:

Sylvester E. Berry o progonu Crkve u posljednjim danima

Upozorili smo:

Otac E. Sylvester Berry o progonu Crkve u posljednjim danima (3.dio)

Lažni papa i prazna Sveta Stolica  

Ne možemo dovoljno često naglašavati kolike su strašne nevolje koje je Majka Crkva trebala podnijeti od smrti pape Pija XII. Predviđene i prorokovane u katoličkoj tradiciji, na ovaj ili onaj način. U prošlosti smo imali mnogo postova o ovoj temi, a danas bismo željeli podsjetiti na određenu prognozu koju je napravio Fr. Elwood Sylvester Berry (1879-1954), profesor apologetike na Mt. Bogosloviji Svete Marije u Marylandu, kao dio njegova tumačenja poglavlja 13 knjige Apokalipse (Otkrivenje).

Godine 1921. Berry je objavio prekrasan komentar na posljednju knjigu Biblije, naslovljenu Apokalipsa sv. Ivana. Svojom velikom erudicijom i razumijevanjem teme, fr. Berry raščlanjuje i objašnjava mnoga tajanstvena poglavlja i stihove ove važne knjige u svjetlu katoličkog učenja. Iako ne želimo dobiti nekoga uhvaćenog u nepozvanu “maniju krajnjih vremena”, kao što to mnogi čine, mi otkrivamo pravu stvarnost. Želim naglasiti da je knjiga Apokalipse božanski nadahnuta i darovana od Boga za naše poučavanje (usp. 2 Tim 3: 16-17); i iako čovjek mora paziti vrlo pažljivo prilikom pisanja i razmišljanja o njoj, ne bi se trebala ni potpuno ignorirati. To je vidljivo i iz činjenice da je Fr. Berry objavio cijelu knjigu koja ispravno objašnjava Otkrivenje.

S obzirom na ono što se dogodilo u 20. stoljeću u Rimokatoličkoj Crkvi i krivotvorenoj “katoličkoj” crkvi koja je nastala nakon smrti pape Pija XII. 1958. (koju je fr. Berry predvidio 1927. ), zumirajući Odlomak iz njegove knjige  Apokalipsa sv. Ivana danas je od posebne važnosti za nas. Kako bismo uvažili potpuni prikaz ovog odlomka, potičemo vas da pročitate cijelo poglavlje u kontekstu (pogledajte vezu u nastavku):

Zvijer koja potječe iz zemlje lažni je prorok – Antikristov prorok. Naš božanski Spasitelj ima predstavnika na zemlji u osobi pape, na koju je prenio punu moć da podučava i vlada. Isto tako, Antikrist će imati svog predstavnika u lažnom proroku koji će biti obdaren mnoštvom sotonskih moći da obmani narode.

Ako Antikrist bude židovskog podrijetla, kao što će vjerojatno i potjecati, more iz kojeg on izlazi označava judaizam. Tada zemlja iz koje dolazi druga zvijer je simbol poganskih naroda koji se bune protiv Crkve. Dva roga označavaju dvostruku vlast – duhovnu i vremenitu. Kao što je ukazano na sličnost s janjetom, [lažni] prorok će se vjerojatno postaviti u Rimu kao neka vrsta antipape tijekom praznoga gore spomenutog papinskog prijestolja. Ali izabrani neće dopustiti da budu prevareni; oni će se sjetiti riječi našeg Gospodina: “Ako vam tko kaže: ‘Ovdje je Krist, ne vjerujte mu.’

(Rev. E. Sylvester Berry,  Apokalipsa sv. Ivana  [Columbus, OH: John W. Winterich, 1921], str. 135; podvlačenje dodano.)

Opet, za više detalja i potpuni kontekst, poželjet ćete pročitati cijelo poglavlje, koje nosi naslov “Antikrist i njegov Poslanik”, koji počinje na str. 129, kao i onoga što mu prethodi. Evo relevantnih veza:

U citiranom dijelu koji smo upravo pogledali, fr. Berry govori o “praznini gore spomenutog papinskog prijestolja”. Gore je njegov komentar na 12. poglavlje Apokalipse, od kojih smo istaknuli ovdje . Također smo sastavili video isječak koji možete podijeliti s prijateljima i obitelji kako bi bili svjesni onoga što se događa:

U ovim teškim vremenima, u kojima se tako mnogo dobronamjernih ljudi bori da budu autentični rimokatolici, možemo se utješiti činjenicom da praznina Apostolske Stolice i njezina uzurpacija “svojevrsnim antipapom” nije luda ideja koju je izmislilo nekoliko lukavih sedevakantista, ali je zapravo sastavni dio onoga što sadrži Božja objava za posljednja vremena. Drugim riječima: uznemirujuća situacija u kojoj se nalazi prava Crkva danas nije neka “nepredvidiva” situacija koja je osujetila Božje planove, već je bila dio Božje volje određene u vječnosti. Pritom slijedi Sveta muka našeg Blaženog Gospodina, koja također nije bila križanje Božanskog Plana, već njegovo najviše vjerno ispunjenje:

Otac me voli, jer život svoj polažem da ga opet uzmem. Nitko mi ga ne oduzima, nego ga ja od sebe polažem i imam moć da ga položim. I imam snagu da ga opet uzmem. Zapovijed primih od Oca svoga. (Iv 10,17-18)

Od toga trenutka Isus počne govoriti svojim učenicima da mora otići u Jeruzalem i mnogo toga pretrpjeti od starješina i pismoznanaca i velikih svećenika, i da će biti ubijen, a treći dan će uskrsnuti. A Petar ga uze i počne ukoriti: “Gospodine, neka ti to ne bude!” Okrenuvši se, reče Petru: “Odlazi od mene, sotono! Ti si za mene sablazan, jer ne živiš od onoga što je Božje, nego od ljudi.” (Mt 16,21-23)

Tada im reče: “O bezumni i spori u srcu da vjerujete u sve što su proroci govorili. Nije li Krist to pretrpio i tako ušao u svoju slavu? (Lk 24, 25-26)

Tako je važno zapamtiti ovo da ne budemo obeshrabreni, već da ostanemo postojani u vjeri, nadi i ljubavi.

Sjetite se da je Fr. Berry svoj komentar o Apokalipsi napisao 1921. godine, za vrijeme vladavine pape Benedikta XV, otprilike 40 godina prije početka revolucije II. Vatikanskog ‘sabora’. Uvidi koje on daje, dakle, potpuno su nepristrani s obzirom na ono što se dogodilo nakon smrti pape Pija XII. i ništa što je napisao ni na koji način nije bilo “zaraženo” ni u korist ili u suprotnosti sa Novus Ordo sljedbom ili sedevakantizmom. Knjiga nosi  nihil obstat  i  imprimatur!  Bp. James Hartley iz biskupije Columbus, Ohio, ukazuje na to da je djelo sigurno za čitanje katolicima i da ne sadrži pogreške u vjeri ili moralu.

Iz Svetog Pisma znamo da će u posljednjem razdoblju ratovanja protiv Bezgrešne Kristove nevjeste sotona izvesti vrlo veliku obmanu, tako veliku da, ako je moguće, i izabrani će biti prevareni: “Jer će ustati lažni Kristi i lažni proroci, i pokazat će velike znakove i čudesa, tako da zavaravaju (ako je moguće) i izabrane. Evo, ja sam vam to unaprijed rekao”, upozorio je Gospodin naš Isus Krist (Mt 24,24-25).

Sada moramo imati na umu da nešto što se lako može vidjeti kao prijevara i koju je većina identificirala, teško može predstavljati „veliku prijevaru“, jer tada gotovo nitko ne bi bio prevaren. Fr. Frederick Faber, u propovijedi danoj na Duhove u 1861., rekao nam je svima:

Moramo se sjetiti da, ako su svi očito dobri ljudi bili na jednoj strani i svi očito loši ljudi s druge strane, ne bi bilo opasnosti ni za koga, najmanje od svih izabranih, koji bi bili prevareni lažnim čudesima. Dobrim ljudima, dobronamjernima, moramo se nadati dobrim mirnim ljudima, koji će obavljati djelo Anti-Krista i tako nažalost ponovno razapeti Gospodina… Imajte na umu ovo obilježje posljednjih dana, da ta varka proizlazi iz dobrih ljudi koji su na pogrešnoj strani.

(Fra Frederick Faber, Propovijed za Duhove u nedjelju, 1861., u. O. Denis Fahey,  Mistično Kristovo tijelo u suvremenom svijetu )

Ključno je zapamtiti ovo: samo zato što netko ima dobre namjere ne znači da on radi Božje djelo. Molimo se da svi ljudi dobre volje budu oslobođeni velike obmane Vatikan II. Crkve.

Vidi također:

Izvor slike:
Licenca: Plaćena

Jorge Mario Bergoglio – Slobodni zidari u Vatikanu


Iluzija ili stvarnost: Jorge Mario Bergoglio u službi masonerije

Iluzija ili stvarnost: Jorge Mario Bergoglio u službi masonerije 


Vatikan je još od osnutka prve masonske lože pod konstantnim udarom slobodnih zidara. Pape su napisali enciklike u kojima se osuđuju ideje masonerije čiji su planovi nevjerojatno kompatibilni s planovima cionističkog svjetskog poretka koji se reflektira kroz bogohulnu koncepciju Talmuda koji se formirao nakon što su rimske legije okružile i razorile Jeruzalem 70. godine poslije Krista i zapalile židovski hram protjerujući narod iz zemlje u kojoj je nepravedno osudio Gospodina Isusa Krista na kaznu smrti.

Neobraćeni Židovi su se u progonstvu organizirali na specifičan način – obilježeni kompleksom mesijanizma – i nastavili u smjeru priprema za doček političko-religijskog mesije. Njihov specifikum je prepoznatljiv po rafiniranim stremljenjima za visokim pozicijama političke i bankarske moći, jer su uvjerenja kako su mesijanski narod iznad svih njima robovskih naroda, i zaslužuje mesiju koji će obnoviti veliku državu Izrael držeći se Mojsijevih zakona.

Po toj inerciji s vremenom su više ili manje pod vidom lažnog obraćenja uspješno se ubacili u Katoličku Crkvu. Bili su savjetnici mnogih vladara i svojim spletkarskim umijećem producirali teške konfliktne situacije koje su za posljedicu izazvale njihov progon iz mnogih država kroz dvotisućljetnu povijest.

Vatikan je pao na koljena nakon smrti posljednjeg pape Pija XII. 1958. godine. Židovske lože su kumovale slobodnozidarskim idejama koje su dobile zeleno svjetlo na II. Vatikanskom saboru za kojeg su slobodni zidari izjavili da je pobjeda masonerije.

Svi papinski uzurpatori Petrove Stolice su nakon 1958. godine propagirali ideje masonerije čije su doktrine odijevene u ruho modernističke ekleziologije u temeljima postavljenima 1962.-1965. kako bi se nazidala nova religija i uništila Katolička Crkva.

Novi obred poznat kao Novus Ordo Missae (Novi Red Mise) je znakoviti simbol masonske paradigme (Novus Ordo Seculorum) i kralježnica koju su 1969. ugradili Pavao VI. i Annibale Bugnini koji je u velikoj novinarskoj pompi javno optužen da je bio član masonerije. Mnogi visokopozicionirani prelati su bili članovi raznih masonskih loža.

Kako vrijeme prolazi vatikanska masonerija se odvažnije otkriva javnosti u današnjemu svijetu masovnih i raznovrsnih medija. Dakako, ona je zaslužna za stupnjevite promjene koje su umrtvile katoličku reakciju otupljujući njenu oštricu, jer je baza takve reakcije kontaminirana masonskim duhom i vjerskom podlogom čija je formacija postavljena po shemama slobodnih zidara.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio je školski primjer masonske formacije, kao i većina današnjih vjernika koji ga zdravo za gotovo smatraju papom. Plan masonerije je odavno ostvaren i Sveta Stolica je uzurpirana od slobodnih zidara. Previše je dokaza koje nije mudro ignorirati ako ne želite živjeti po doktrinama masonerije.



SSPX, “Otpor” i Sedevakantizam

Pravovjerni tradicionalni biskup msgr. Donald Sanborn je 21. prosinca 2013. održao predavanje na temu koja dubinski razotkriva ‘katolicizmom’ zamaskirano lice nove Crkve koja je nastala na II. vatikanskom saboru i doktrinarno nemogući položaj tzv. Otpora i SSPX-a (Svećeničkog bratstva sv. Pija X.).


Istinski ili lažni Papa?



John Salza i Robert Siscoe su autori knjige “True or false Pope?”. Novi ljubimci msgr. Bernarda Fellaya napisali su pseudo-teološki SF roman iskrivljavajući do bizarnosti učenje pravovjernih pretkoncilskih papa i teologa. Još je bizarnija činjenica da spomenuta dva autora nisu teolozi te da je njihovo monumentalno zbunjeno R&R djelo pregledao Fellay i dao dopuštenje za tiskanje kako bi pokušali srušiti sedevakantizam.

Promašili su metu koju su ciljali ali su zato zaradili veliki bonus kod Jorge Bergoglia.

Fr. Anthony Čekada je proučio R&R knjigu i teološkim objašnjenjima razmontirao njihove zablude s kojima su pokušali dati vjerodostojnost posljednjoj šestorici javnih heretika (a time i “prepoznati & oduprijeti – poziciji” koju zastupaju fellayevci) koji su uzurpirali Svetu Stolicu. 


Fr. Anthony Cekada: “Stuck in a Rut: Anti-Sedevacantism in the Age of Bergoglio”

o. Anthony Čekada

o. Anthony Čekada


Vlč. Anthony Čekada u video prilogu razotkriva zablude anti-sedevakantizma i lažnu teološku poziciju poznatih teologa 2VK-Crkve i ostalih kvazi-stručnjaka koji su proizvod heretičnoga II. vatikanskog sabora.


Sveta Stolica nije rezervirana za heretika



Javni heretik ne može biti zakonito izabran za Papu. Kardinali koji bi izabrali takvog kandidata bili bi osumnjičeni za herezu jer su podržali izbor heretika na konklavi. Takva je konklava nezakonita ili nevaljana.

Da maksimalno pojednostavimo: S kim si, takav si! 

Dakle, svi sudionici u tom slučaju automatski gube svoje crkvene službe i prestaju se smatrati zakonitim autoritetima te gube sva prava s kojima ih je ovlastila Katolička Crkva.

Takav je slučaj kod posljednjih šestorice javnih heretika, počevši od izbora Angela Roncallija za uzurpatora Svete Stolice pa do posljednjega – Jorge Bergoglija.

Drugi primjer:

Papa koji javno očituje herezu, ili potajice pa ga razotkriju te u slučajevima ako prešutno ili javno podržava heretika iz povjerene mu crkvene hijerarhije a koji je očitovao svoje krivovjerje, automatski je osumnjičen za pristajanje na herezu i njegova papinska služba je nezakonita.

Da maksimalno pojednostavimo: Heretik ne može ostati Papa. Sveta Stolica je u takvim slučajevima automatski upražnjena. 

Svaki katolik mora javno osuđivati heretike i boriti se protiv njih jer su oni vrata paklena.

Šutnja je ozbiljna zapreka osobnome spasenju i smrtni je grijeh dopustiti hereticima da truju duše odvodeći ih u pakao.

Spasenje duša je vrhovni zakon!

Bog traži račun za svaku izgubljenu dušu.

¿Quis ut Deus? Veritas Vincit

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

¿Quis ut Deus? Stat Veritas

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Traditional Catholic Education

A Traditional Catholic(Sedevacantist) Site.

Call Me Jorge...

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans


IGLESIA CATÓLICA igual en 2000 años hasta la muerte de Pío XII

Ecclesia Militans

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

St. Gertrude the Great

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Speray's Catholicism in a Nutshell

Apologia for Sedevacantism and Catholic Doctrine


Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

St. Anthony of Padua - Hammer of Heretics

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Introibo Ad Altare Dei

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

: Quidlibet :

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans Articles

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

TRADITIO.COM: The Traditional Roman Catholic Network

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

True Restoration

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans


homoseksualizacija društva - politička korektnost - totalitarizam - za roditelje: prevencija homoseksualnosti - svjedočanstva izlaska iz homoseksualnosti

¿Quis ut Deus? Veritas Vincit

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

¿Quis ut Deus? Stat Veritas

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Traditional Catholic Education

A Traditional Catholic(Sedevacantist) Site.

Call Me Jorge...

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans


IGLESIA CATÓLICA igual en 2000 años hasta la muerte de Pío XII

Ecclesia Militans

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

St. Gertrude the Great

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Speray's Catholicism in a Nutshell

Apologia for Sedevacantism and Catholic Doctrine


Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

St. Anthony of Padua - Hammer of Heretics

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Introibo Ad Altare Dei

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

: Quidlibet :

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans Articles

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

TRADITIO.COM: The Traditional Roman Catholic Network

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

True Restoration

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans


homoseksualizacija društva - politička korektnost - totalitarizam - za roditelje: prevencija homoseksualnosti - svjedočanstva izlaska iz homoseksualnosti

%d blogeri kao ovaj: