Tuesday, September 17, 2019

Francis is in SCHISM from ALL Valid Popes in History who Reject his Sacrilege of Communion for Adulterers

Remember when Francis and his collaborators cry "SCHISM" it means they are AFRAID!

What are they afraid of?

They are AFRAID that it will finally get through the cowardly and apparently not too bright heads of the few faithful bishops that:

Zero valid popes in the history of the Catholic Church have committed the sacrilege of instituting as the Vatican's official teaching that unrepentant adulterous couples can profane the Holy of Holy Jesus Christ who is true God by having unrepentant sinners receive Him in the Most Holy Eucharist.

Nor have any of ALL the valid popes in history even come close to ambiguously teaching such a blasphemy which could be taken in either a orthodox or heretical way (for all the conservative and traditionalist Francis apologists).

Next to this sacrilege against the Most Holy Eucharist, the proposed Amazonian Synod heresy of women's ordination is a minor sacrilege.

Maybe these cowardly and apparently not too bright bishops might, finally, realize:

Francis is in SCHISM from ALL valid popes in the history of the Catholic Church.

Maybe they will, finally, join Bishop René Gracida and investigate if the Francis conclave was invalid which even Cardinal Raymond Burke says is a valid possibly.

Or, maybe because it is their infallible belief that there can never be a invalid pope or antipope then they will do what Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales said:

"The Pope... when he is explicitly a heretic... the Church must either deprive him or as some say declare him deprived of his Apostolic See."
(The Catholic Controversy by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.

Note:

-  LifeSiteNews, "Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers," December 4, 2017:

The AAS guidelines explicitly allows "sexually active adulterous couples facing 'complex circumstances' to 'access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'"

-  On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:

"The AAS statement... establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense."

- On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:

"Francis' heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents."

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church by the bishops by the grace of God.

Monday, September 16, 2019

You are in Reality between Heaven and Hell

St. Francis de Sales:

"[Y]ou are in reality between Heaven and hell... according to your choice, one or the other will be your final end."

"... Jesus Christ looks down... 'Come, My child, My beloved, come... enjoy the everlasting happiness... of My Love.'"

"... I renounce hell and all it torments... I turn myself heart and soul towards Heaven... O Jesus... Thy Love, which purchased for me my place in Heaven by the shedding of Thy Precious Blood upon the Holy Cross... I desire nothing else but to love Thee and bless Thee forever."

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church and the conversion of all sinners.

Holy Mary Mother of God pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death.

Amen.

Sunday, September 15, 2019

Bp. Gracida & Bp. Fellay Must Issue "a Canonical Warning to" Francis for the Amoris Laetitia Heresy

The future heretical Amazon Synod is a unprecedented crisis which means the faithful bishops must forcefully act to forestall it.

The best way to preempt this disaster is to act now. We already know beyond a shadow of a doubt that "Amoris laetitia contains propositions that are heretical" according to Bishop Rene Henry Gracida and Bishops Bernard Fellay as Catholic theologian Dr. John R. T. Lamont, Pd. D. shows:

"The AAS statement thus settles an important and much-debated question. It establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense... In the AAS statement, he [Francis] has required Catholics to give religious assent of mind and will to the assertion that Amoris laetitia contains propositions that are heretical... It would be sufficient to take the lesser step of simply addressing the faithful to condemn Amoris laetitia as heretical. Aside from Bishops Bernard Fellay and Henry Gracida, no Catholic bishops have done this."
 [https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2018/02/important-guest-essay-meaning-of-amoris.html?m=1]

Indeed, as Bishop Gracida said even Cardinal Raymond Burke is not condemning Francis's heretical teaching that allows and promotes the sacrilege of Communion for adulterers, but is only "saying... the truth." Furthermore, the Bishop gave marching orders to the Catholic lay Resistance:

"Cardinal Burke is saying... the truth. What is more important... is for people in the pew to say:

No, that is not true!"

"It's more important for people in the pew to raise up and say in print, in letters, in phone calls, in email, in person, in interviews... for the laity to say no that is not true... than for a Burke to say this is the truth...."

"We don't need people to say this is the truth. What we need in the present moment is for the laity to say that is not true..."

"Just like in the fourth century when those people shouted down Arius. No, you're wrong. He is Divine... That is what we have to do today... We have to have people stand up to the homilist, priests and bishops... No, you're wrong."

"You cannot give Holy Communion to the abortionists, to the abortion promoters and providers, to the divorce and remarried. You cannot do it. St. Paul said you do not feed the Eucharist to dogs..."

"Right now they [the laity] are suffering in silence. They need to object. The laity, the sensus fidelium, is that common sense among the laity who have accepted the magisterial teaching of the Church which is the foundation of their faith."

"Having accepted that when they hear something that is contradictory to the magisterial teaching of the Church, the sensus fidelium is a impulse that causes them to speak out and say no:

That is not true. Don't say that. Stop! That is the sensus fidelium in action!"

"Not to sit and suffer in silence. That's crazy. That's weird. That's wrong. Speak up! Resist! Object!"
(Church Militant video, "Laity, Rise Up!," April 4, 2017)

Moreover, Bishop Gracida led by example when on December 2, 2017 on his official website he declared Francis is teaching heresy:

"Francis' heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents."


All the faithful Catholic bishops and cardinals, it appears, are too cowardly to join the sensus fidilium lay Resistance against the heresy of sacrilege Communion to adulterous couples promoted by Amoris Laetitia except without a doubt Bishop Rene Henry Gracida and possibly Bishop Bernard Fellay.

Catholic theologian Dr. Lamont, Pd. D. shows us what to do to resist the Amoris Laetitia heresy. Lamont gives an overview of the crisis, presents what needs to be done and points to Gracida as one of two bishop leaders in the Catholic Resistance:

"The AAS statement thus settles an important and much-debated question. It establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense; that is, propositions that contradict truths that are divinely revealed and that must be believed with the assent of faith."

"It has not only established this; it has made it a religious duty for Catholics to believe that this is the case. Pope Francis is the Pope, and as such he has the power to exercise the papal teaching authority within the limits set to that authority by divine law. In the AAS statement, he has required Catholics to give religious assent of mind and will to the assertion that Amoris laetitia contains propositions that are heretical..."

"...It would be wrong however to think that Pope Francis is the worst scourge afflicting the Church. The election of a bad man as Pope can never be entirely ruled out. In a healthy Church the problem of a heretical Pope can and will be dealt with by the Catholic bishops, just as the immune system of a healthy body will react to disease and eradicate it. The immune system of the Church at the present is not operating. The bishops of the Catholic Church have remained silent about the heresy in Amoris laetitia, and have thereby abandoned the faithful."

"The heretical statements of Amoris laetitia have not been presented to the faithful as something that they can take or leave. Pope Francis has stated in official magisterial documents that they are papal teachings that they must accept. He has been supported in this by a large number of bishops. Pope Francis has thereby put pressure on all the Catholic faithful to reject divinely revealed truth."

"The faithful are not protected against this pressure by the bishops of Kazakhstan, or elsewhere, issuing a statement upholding the truths that Francis is denying. When encountering a difference of opinion between a papal document and a letter from a handful of Kazakh bishops, the faithful will naturally take the papal statement to be of higher authority."

"In order to protect the faithful from the attack on their belief and salvation that is being made through Amoris laetitia, it is necessary to address the falsehoods in that document itself, and to condemn them by appealing to an authority that justifies the rejection of a non-infallible papal letter; the authority of divine revelation expressed in the Scriptures and repeated by the magisterium of the Church."

"This appeal does not have to be a canonical warning to Pope Francis that could serve as the first step in his deposition. Such a canonical warning would have to be addressed to the Pope himself, and warn him of the nature of his crime and the consequences of persisting in it. It would be sufficient to take the lesser step of simply addressing the faithful to condemn Amoris laetitia as heretical. Aside from Bishops Bernard Fellay and Henry Gracida, no Catholic bishops have done this." [https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2018/02/important-guest-essay-meaning-of-amoris.html?m=1]

But, this is not "sufficient" anymore as the Church under Francis is under its greatest crisis in history with the up coming heretical Amazon Synod nearing.

I respectfully ask Bishop Fellay and Bishop Gracida, since is appears that no other bishops in the world are even willing to call Amoris laetitia heretical that God in His providence has left it in the hands of you two Successors of the Apostles, to issue "a canonical warning to" Francis for heresy "as the first step in his deposition."

I respectfully ask that you two Successors of the Apostles following in the footsteps of St. Paul when he corrected St. Peter to correct Francis by issuing a "canonical warning."

Pray an Our Father now that God gives Bishop Fellay and Bishop Gracida the grace to issue "a canonical warning to" Francis for the Amoris laetitia heresy. Also, include this intention in your Masses, prayers especially the Rosary, acts of reparation, fasting and sufferings.


5 Dubia Questions for Taylor Marshall

- Vatican I expert Fr. Chad Ripperger, PhD, in his book "Magister Authority" shows that almost all Francis apologists be they liberal, conservative or traditionalist are "proximate to heresy":

"[T]reating ALL papal statements as if they are infallible... is proximate to heresy because it rejects the precise formulation of the conditions of infallibility as laid out in Vatican I... by essentially saying the pope is infallible regardless of conditions..."

"... Worse still, those who were to follow a pope who was in error in a non-infallible teaching which is taught contrary to something that is infallible is not, therefore, excused."
(Magisterial Authority, Pages 5-14)

- Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) in "Si Papa":

"'Let no mortal being have the audacity to reprimand a Pope on account of faults, for he whose duty it is to judge all men cannot be judged by anybody, unless he should be called to the task of having deviated from the faith. (Si Papa)'"

"Pope Innocent III: 'For me the faith is so necessary that, whereas for other sins my only judge is God, for the slightest sin in the matter of the faith I could be judged by the Church.' (propter solum peccatum quod in fide commititur possem ab Ecclesia judican)"
(The Remnant, "Answering a Sedevacantist Critic," March 18, 2015)


"Bishop Schneider tells Raymond Arroyo that the [the Open Letter] signatories were wrong to accuse Francis of heresy because he hasn't made a formal, universal declaration of heresy. Though he admits he has allowed wrong teaching Very disappointing hair splitting."

In responding to Donnelly's statement, Marshall apparently is implicitly saying Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales is promoting "sedevacantis[m]":

"I agree w Bishop Schneider. If you condemn Francis as “heretical pope” one must break communion with him. This is why I called the doc “practically sedevacantist”. It’s not formally sede but the natural conclusion [what it ultimately promotes] is."
[https://mobile.twitter.com/TaylorRMarshall/status/1129334902153986050]

Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales wrote:

"Thus we do not say that the Pope cannot err in his private opinion, as did John XXIL.; or be altogether a heretic, as perhaps Honorius was. Now when he is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See, and must say as S. Peter did: 'Let another take his bishopric.'"
(The Catholic Controversy by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)

Marshall appears to be saying by inference that the Doctor of the Church is promoting "sedevacantis[m]" by "natural conclusion" when he wrote:

"[T]he  Pope... when he is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See."

Do Marshall and Schneider think they are greater theologians than St. Francis de Sales?

Do Marshall and Schneider think that the Church can't depose a pope contradicting a Doctor of the Church or possibly that magically the Church doesn't have to "condemn Francis as [a] 'heretical pope'" before it "either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See"?

According to Donnelly, Bishop Athanasius Schneider said "the signatories were wrong to accuse Francis of heresy because he hasn't made a formal, universal declaration of heresy."

Marshall agreed with this statement.

Are Schneider and Marshall waiting for "a formal, universal declaration of heresy" such as this:

Not privately, but Pope Francis officially acting as the pope explicitly contradicted traditional Catholic teaching on divorce and remarriage when he in a "official act as the pope" placed the Argentine letter in the the Acts of the Apostolic See (AAS) in which he said of the Buenos Aires region episcopal guidelines:

"There is no other interpretations."

The guidelines explicitly allows according to LifeSiteNews "sexuality active adulterous couples facing 'complex circumstances' to 'access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'"
(LifeSiteNews, "Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers, December 4, 2017)

In a article on OnePeterFive, specialist in Magisterial authority Dr. John Joy said "It means that it is an official act of the pope." 

Moreover, the article said:

"Dr. Joy pointed out that adding the letter to the AAS could, in fact, damage the credibility of Amoris Laetitia by potentially removing the possibility that it could be intercepted in an orthodox way, via its publication in the official acts of the Apostolic See, that the unorthodox interpretation is the official one."
(OnePeterFive, "Pope's Letter on Argentinian Communion Guidelines for Remarriage Given Official Status," December 2, 2017)
The "official act of" Francis is a "unorthodox interpretation."

It is not just a private contradiction of traditional Catholic teaching.
The "official act of the pope" is a "unorthodox interpretation" which means it contradicts traditional Catholic teaching which is just another way of saying by "official act the pope" is teaching heresy.

Now, let us quote philosopher Ed Feser:

"(1) Adulterous sexual acts are in some special circumstances morally permissible... these propositions flatly contradict irreformable Catholic teaching. Proposition (1) contradicts not only the perennial moral teaching of the Church, but the teaching of scripture itself."
(Edwardfeser.blogspot, "Denial flows into the Tiber," December 18, 2016)

How's that for an understatement?

Marshall and Schneider might have heard that God commanded in one of the Ten Commandments:

"Thou shalt not commit adultery."

But, just in case they never heard of the Ten Commandments, Dubia Cardinal Walter Brandmuller said:

"Whoever thinks that persistent adultery and reception of Holy Communion are compatible is a heretic and promotes schism."
(LifeSiteNews, "Dubia Cardinal: Anyone who Opens Communion to Adulterers a Heretic and Promotes Schism," December 23, 2016)

Does this mean because Cardinal Brandmuller said that if a pope "open[ed] Communion to adulterers" he is "a heretic and promotes schism" that according to Marshall by inference he is a "sede" by "natural conclusion"?

Since Marshall wants to claim everyone who demonstrates that the Francis teaching that Communion for adulterers is heresy or anyone who calls for an investigation into the validity of the Francis conclave is a schismatic or a Sedevacantist or a Benevacantist, here are five really short and easy to answer dubia questions which hopefully aren't too complicated for Marshall to answer to prove he is not a heretic who believes it is impossible for a supposed pope to be a antipope or is not proximate to heresy in treating "ALL papal statements as if they are infallible... [which] is proximate to heresy."

To make it really easy for him it has been formatted so that he only has to answer: yes or no.

1. Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales said "The Pope... when he is explicitly a heretic... the Church must either deprive him or as some say declare him deprived of his Apostolic See." Was St. Francis de Sales a Sedevacantist or a Benevacantist? Answer: yes or no.

2. "Universal Acceptance" theologian John of St. Thomas said "This man in particular lawfully elected and accepted by the Church is the supreme pontiff." Was John of St. Thomas for saying "the supreme pontiff" must be BOTH "lawfully elected and accepted by the Church" a Sedevacantist or a Benevacantist? Answer: yes or no.

3. Do you think that a "supreme pontiff" if "universally accepted" is still Pope if, to quote papal validity expert Arnaldo Xavier de Silveira on "dubious election[s]", that he is "a woman... a child... a demented person... a heretic... a apostate... [which] would [thus] be invalid[ed] by divine law"? Answer: yes or no.

4. Renowned Catholic historian Warren Carroll agreed with Bishop René Gracida on the determining factor for discerning a valid conclave for a valid papal election besides divine law. Carroll pronounced:

"But each Pope, having unlimited sovereign power as head of the Church, can prescribe any method for the election of his successor(s) that he chooses... A papal claimant not following these methods is also an Antipope."

Are renowned historian Carroll and Bishop Gracida for saying this Sedevacantists or Benevacantists? Answer: yes or no.

5. Is Bishop Gracida really only a pawn of the legendary and notorious "Sedevacantist and Benevacantist" mastermind Ann Barnhardt for convincingly demonstrating that there is valid evidence that Pope John Paul II's conclave constitution "Universi Dominici Gregis" which "prescribe[d].. [the] method for the election of his successor(s)" was violated and must be investigated by Cardinals? Answer: yes or no.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.

Our Chastisement, Our Blessing

 http://rosarytotheinterior.com/


By James Larson

                             Woe to you who build the monuments of the prophets: and your fathers killed them….That the blood of all the prophetswhich was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation. (Luke 11: 47-50)

While reading the Gospels, it might often appear that the Pharisees present themselves to us as proverbial “deer in the headlights”. Much of the time, their subterranean betrayal and malice were hidden behind real incomprehension. Theirs was the “What have we done wrong? – we have only been faithful to God’s tradition” look. Their unconscious betrayal was the result of building centuries of “monuments” (both physical and spiritual) that appeared God-like, but which in reality dulled, obscured, and finally profoundly falsified the Spirit of God’s Truth and Life. In so doing – in not having kept careful “watch” over their own spiritual integrity – their failure to understand was truly culpable, and therefore the blood of all the Old Testament prophets was upon their generation.

We are now experiencing a chastisement, come to fruition in the Papacy of Francis, which might leave us in a similar “what have we done to deserve this” bewilderment and confusion. We stand on thin ice if we attempt to claim that this is not a deserved punishment from God. The necessary question therefore is: Is it conceivable that we have been so whittled down through a long historical betrayal of the Gospel that we now stand, uncomprehending, in the face of a severe chastisement which we deserve, and which is a necessary blessing inflicted for our return?

Jesus’ words condemning the “monument-building” Jews occurred at a dinner to which he was invited by a Pharisee, who had earlier heard the following words spoken by Jesus:
“The light of thy body is thy eye. If thy eye be single, thy whole body will be lightsome: but if it be evil, thy body also will be darksome. Take heed therefore, that the light which is in thee, be not darkness. If then thy whole body be lightsome, having no part of darkness; the whole shall be lightsome; and as a bright lamp, shall enlighten thee.”

This passage speaks of a unity of spirit and flesh, each dependent upon one another for integrity, which is single in intention. The nature of this singleness of intention is more fully elaborated in a parallel passage in Matthew 6:

Lay not up to yourselves treasures on earth: where the rust, and moth consume, and where thieves break through and steal. But lay up to yourselves treasures of heaven: where neither the rust nor moth doth consume, and where thieves do not break through, nor steal. For where thy treasure is, there is thy heart also. The light of thy body is thy eye. If thy eye be single, thy whole body shall be lightsome. But if thy eye be evil thy whole body shall be darksome. If then the light that is in thee, be darkness: the darkness itself how great shall it be! No man can serve two masters. For either he will hate the one, and love the other: or he will sustain the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.”

After these words of Jesus comes the “Lilies of the Field” passage, which ends with the equally famous: “Seek ye therefore first the kingdom of God, and his justice, and all these things shall be added unto you.”

In the light of the above scriptures, we would like to pose, and attempt to answer, three questions: First, was there a “single eye” present in the first Christians (and not excluding other individuals and groups down through the centuries), but which has now been almost universally abandoned, and which has become virtually incomprehensible to the modern Catholic consciousness? Second, as the fruits of this betrayal, have we built monuments to Christianity at the expense of living it? And, finally, is it the Blood of Jesus that may be required of this generation because of this betrayal?
If we seek an absolutely reliable account of how the first Christians lived, we inevitably are pointed to the Book of Acts, and to the two passages which are brief, but most telling, in this regard:

“They therefore that received his word, were baptized; and there were added in that day about three thousand souls. And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers. And fear came upon every soul: many wonders also and signs were done by the apostles in Jerusalem, and there was great fear in all. And all they that believed, were together, and had all things common. Their possessions and goods they sold, and divided them to all, according as every one had need. And continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they took their meat with gladness and simplicity of heart; praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord increased daily together such as should be saved.” (2: 42-47).

“And the multitude of believers had but one heart and one soul: neither did any one say that aught of the things which he possessed was his own; but all things were common unto them. And with great power did the apostles give testimony of the resurrection of Jesus Christ our Lord; and great grace was in them all. For neither was there any one needy among them. For as many as were owners of lands or houses, sold them, and brought the price of the things they sold, and laid it down before the feet of the apostles. And distribution was made to every one, according as he had need. (Acts 4: 32-35).

We ask the reader to consider whether he has ever heard or read any contemporary preacher or writer offer an analysis of these passages, or take them seriously in any way. It is as though they are incomprehensible – a conclusion which must certainly be false, given the specificities offered in St. Luke’s description.

In the first place, these first Christians were baptized into the Faith, and were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles. There can be here no de-emphasis of doctrine at the price of a false mercy. Twice, in fact, it is said that holy Fear was upon them all. To culpably transgress the faith which they had received was impossible as long as this fear of the Lord was operative in their hearts.
Second, there was a bond of unity, founded upon true poverty and the rejection of worldly possessions, which St. Luke describes as “having all things in common” – they sold their possessions, and laid the money which they received at the feet of the apostles, so that distribution could be made where needed. It is this particular “specificity”, of course, which is the primary reason these two passages of scripture are virtually totally ignored. As St. John Chrysostom pointed out in his commentary on Acts, it is this “having all things in common” that we fear above all, and avoid taking seriously. We must therefore look more closely.

These passages have been employed as an argument for Communism. This is ludicrous. Communism totally rejects God, and any communal living involved in its system is founded upon the elevation of collective man, and the state, over God, the rejection of individual dignity and freedom, and the rejection of the right to private property itself. Any communal living proposed by the Gospel or the Church, on the other hand, involves voluntary giving of the members of the Mystical Body of Christ. It is not in any way a tyranny.

It is equally false to exaggerate the degree to which this “having all things in common” was external. There could be endless, useless speculation in this regard. It is clear, however, that these first Christians broke bread “from house to house”, and therefore probably possessed their own homes. We in fact need speculate no further in this regard than did the writer of the Epistle to Diognetes, writing almost 100 years later (130 A.D.): “They have a common table, but not a common bed.” It was the spirit that mattered – the externals obviously had their limits. As the passage from Acts 4 states, “Neither did any one say that aught of the things which he possessed was his own”. Their physical poverty was real, but not absolute. Their “spirit of poverty”, on the other hand, was quite absolute indeed. This Christian heart in which this spirit was operative was aptly described in the following passage from St. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians (7: 29-31):

This therefore I say, brethren; the time is short; it remaineth, that they also who have wives, be as if they had none; and they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice as if they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not; and they that use this world, as if they used it not: for the fashion of this world passeth away.”

And what makes this spirit possible?

In our article on St. Francis (St. Francis of Assisi: They Pretended to Love You So That They Might Leave You), we quoted the above passages from Acts in order to exemplify the simplicity and poverty which was the core charism of St. Francis. But these passages also expose to our vision something deeper within the human heart, which makes such simplicity and poverty both possible and necessary. There would seem to be one word which best expresses this “something”: Immediacy. It is immediacy – defined as “the quality of bringing one into direct and instant involvement with something, giving rise to a sense of urgency or excitement” – which most characterizes the heart of these first Christians, and their relationship to Christ and the Gospel. And this immediacy is at the same time always present – it penetrated into all that these first Christians did, and every moment and part of their existence.

Interestingly, God’s demand that man recognize the immediacy of His presence, and be constantly preoccupied with his presence, is not something which only became possible after the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. Possibly the greatest passage in all of scripture depicting this “spirit” is to be found in Deuteronomy:

Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole strength.
“And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thy heart: and thou shalt tell them to thy children, and thou shalt meditate upon them sitting in thy house, and walking on thy journey, sleeping and rising. And thou shalt bind them as a sign on thy hand, and they shall be and shall move between the eyes.” Deut 6:4-8).

This image of the constant presence of God “moving between the eyes” is possibly the greatest mystical image in all of Christian literature. We are dealing here with human hearts and minds possessed by God in all their thoughts and activities.

It is this immediacy of the human heart among these first Christians which made possible the “single eye” which directed everything towards Christ. Further, this immediacy made possible not only this singular relationship with Christ, but with others who were members of His Body, and it also enabled true charity towards all other human beings (both friends and enemies) simply because they were all created “by Him, and in Him” (Colossians 1:16).
This profoundly “common” union of hearts with Christ and one another merited the grace that “the Lord increased daily such as should be saved”. This is why we see so many miracles among the early Christians, why we see the fulfillment of Our Lord’s words that “you shall ask whatever you will, and it shall be done unto you” (John 15:7), why 3,000 would be converted one day, and 5,000 another, and that there could be such astonishingly rapid conversions of whole people and nations to Christ.
It is not at all necessary to be utopian in order to understand the unique spirit of these first Christians. Where there is human nature, there is always sin. We see these sins in the story of Ananias and Saphira, who sold land, gave part while hypocritically pretending to give all, and were punished by God. We see it present in the various churches as revealed in the letters of St. Paul, especially those to the Corinthians, in regard to the unseemly behavior indulged in at Agape Feasts, the adulterous behavior of a son with his Father’s wife, the competition of various factions who claimed to be followers of one teacher in opposition to others, etc. We explore the lives of these early Christians not because the perfection of human beings was across-the board accomplished, but because it was indeed present and visible in a way which it is not now – present to such an extent as to merit all sorts of extraordinary graces from God, and in a way which can clearly be contrasted with our present nakedness in this regard.
And so, we are compelled to ask the inevitable question: What happened within the depths of the souls of Catholics during the early decades and centuries of the Christian era which compromised this immediacy of Christ presence within the followers of Christ, and profoundly diminished the visible evidence of the power of God’s grace operative through them? Again, the answer is to be found in scripture – this time most aptly expressed in the Letter of St. James:
You ask, and receive not; because you ask amiss: that you may consume it on your concupiscences.” (4:3).
Everything we have is a gift from God. To see the life of Christ which is “the light of men” (John 1: 4), and to follow this life and light with an upright heart is to remain in the immediacy and presence of God’s Truth and Life. Sin, both original and personal, is the turning aside the gifts of God in order to possess and use them as our own possessions: “All we like sheep have gone astray, every one hath turned aside into his own way….” (Isaiah 53: 6). We all tend to do it. The extent to which we do it, corresponds to the degree to which God’s immediacy and presence is lost to us, and we become immersed in hypocrisy and duplicity. At a certain point such hypocrisy almost inevitably leads to spiritual death through mortal sin. But even short of mortal sin, it has the effect of depriving both individual Catholics and the Church as a whole of the power of the Holy Spirit necessary, not only for the conversion of the world, but also for the protection of the Church itself from invasion by the spirit of Antichrist.
The “turning aside into their own way” of the truth and light which God had given through the prophets is therefore perfectly expressed in the reality of the Pharisees having built their “monuments”, but denying the spirit of God present in their teachings: “This people honoureth me with their lips but their heart is far from me.” (Mat. 15: 8).The word “monument” is also properly translated as “tomb” or “sepulchre”. The Pharisees themselves were therefore described by Jesus as being “whited sepulchres”, appearing just to men, but inwardly full of hypocrisy and iniquity (Mat. 23-27-28). The “building of monuments” is therefore the pre-eminent metaphor employed by Jesus for the falsification of the true spirit of religion while retaining its appearance – beauty on the surface, spiritual death within.
This is the deepest tendency within fallen human nature – that point where “turning aside” begins. We must not conceive of it as always being fully developed, or accompanied by intense malice as exhibited by the Pharisees. It is most often an evolutionary progression with small but deadly beginnings initiating a process of growing compromise and falsification. Many events and persons – sinners and saints – contribute to this process. Because persons may have contributed in some way to this decay does not mean that they are in Hell, does not entail that they were evil men, and does not contradict the fact that they may even be canonized saints. All men fall short in certain areas, Satan is able to add all these failures to his conspiratorial mix, the world waxes old and more deceitful in the web which it spins, and Christianity decays. What we have now is the product of a long historical process, with many twists and turns, progressions and regressions, but with an overall trend of deepening falsification and obscuration of God’s immanence to the human heart.
In our article on St. Francis, we discussed the Portiuncula of St. Francis as an “icon of betrayal”. It seems appropriate to mention it again here.
Four kilometers from Assisi is the Basilica of Santa Maria degli Angeli, the seventh largest church in Christendom, built over and around the original home of the Franciscan Order. Within this magnificent and massive structure, and directly under the cupola, stands a tiny church (only 22’ X 13’6”) called the Portiuncula (the word translates as “little portion of land” – it is also called “Mary of the Angels”). The Portiuncula is the singular place on this earth most beloved to St. Francis; it is where he founded his Order, and where he passionately desired the most perfect preservation of his ideal.
Because St. Francis considered the Portiuncula to be “holy, beloved, and chosen before all others by Christ and the glorious Virgin” (Mirror of Perfection, 55), and because he intensely desired that the Portiuncula be the example and model for all the rest of the order, he gave minute instructions before his death for the preservation of this ideal. These instructions applied first of all to all those practices which cultivate the interior life of holiness – silence, prayer, holy conversation, physical labor, fasting and other forms of physical mortification. Especially, he sought to keep this place free from worldly conversation and news, and free from all that is not edifying. He gave specific instructions as to the qualities needed in the clergy and friars who were to reside and serve here, and he stated, “I do not wish anyone else, whether layfolk or friars, to enter this place, except the Minister General and the lay-brothers who serve them.” (Ibid.).
The Portiuncula is now entombed within the grandiosity of the Basilica of Santa Maria degli Angeli, and is a prominent tourist site with all the noise, commotion, irreverence, etc. which this entails.
Many Popes have born witness to the fact that St. Francis was an extraordinary gift of God sent in order to turn mankind away from a long immersion in the concupiscenses of this world, and back towards Christ and the living of His Gospel. He has been called by at least two Popes “the Second Christ”. And yet it was a canonized Saint, Pope Pius V, who ordered that the Portiuncula, and all that it meant to Francis and his ideal, be entombed within the Basilica of Santa Maria degli Angeli. The Basilica, as beautiful as it is, therefore represents a monument to the killing of the spirit of St. Francis – the culmination, as it were, of many betrayals of Francis’ ideal of Gospel poverty by saints (including St. Bonaventure) and sinners alike (all of this is discussed extensively in our article on Francis). Again, this does not make Saint Pius V (or Bonaventure) into evil men. It makes them out to have been human, with certain actions, unbeknownst to them, playing into the hands of all that wages against Christ’s presence and immanence in the heart of man.
Little escapes from such decay. Even the development of the forms in which the Mass is offered may be mentioned in this regard.
The early Christians, whose intimacy with Christ we have examined, “broke bread from house to house”. It is almost certain that there was no incensing, ornate vestments, elaborate altars, statuary, developed chant, magnificent architectural monuments, etc. There certainly was a distinct order, comprised by scripture readings, sermon, prayers for the people, kiss of peace, offering of bread and wine and thanksgiving, consecration of the bread and wine, intercessions, etc., all very much reflected in our Mass. But as Adrian Fortescue (highly respected in Traditionalist circles) states in his article on the Liturgy in the Catholic Encyclopedia (1910), even as late as the fourth century the Roman Rite “had practically no ritual beyond the most necessary actions”.
And yet it was the “breaking of bread…in simplicity of heart”, and the “great grace” which was received in the hearts of these first Christians, which produced the charity, massive conversions, and miracles which confront our own poverty in this regard. The question needs to be asked as to what extent the evolution of the form of the Mass into “the most beautiful thing this side of heaven” masked an historical process in which the collective Christian heart (with many exceptions) drew further and further away from the immediacy and simplicity of Christ, and in so doing violated the deepest reality of Christ’s Sacrifice. The deep divisions which now exist in the Traditionalist movement would seem ample evidence of this decay, to say nothing of all the banalities, irreverence, and extraordinary lack of unity in truth which exists under the reign of the New Mass.
We realize that in writing about the spirituality of the early Church, and casting it in a light more favorable than those later developments in Christian spirituality which built the monuments of Christendom, we might be accused of Modernist leanings. Anyone who has read the rest of our writings should be able to understand the unfairness of such an accusation. It is certainly true that Modernism is often accompanied by a resourcement theology which rejects scholasticism (especially St. Thomas), undermines the development of dogma, and promotes a return to the early Fathers and a “simpler”, much less-developed and confrontational intellectual tradition. We, on the other hand, believe in the absolute necessity of both Thomism and defined dogma in order to counter Modernist errors in the Church and in the world. The simplicity and immediacy of which we speak in this article is a return of the heart to living the immediacy of God, and is in no way constituted by retreat of the mind away from the Deposit of Faith or the grace of Thomism.
Another icon of our times comes to mind. At the beginning of the pontificate of Pope Francis a prominent, traditional Catholic website offered two photographs in opposition to one another. The one was of Francis in his simple white vestments, the other of Cardinal Burke processing down the aisle in his red cappa magna vestment with its forty-foot train. The message, of course was that we had a choice – either the “phony” simplicity of Pope Francis or the magnificence of the traditional characterized by Cardinal Burke in his cappa magna. However, irrespective of whether Francis’ motivations were phony or not, there is much to be said for a beauty and nobility in worship which is reflected by simplicity rather than such opulence and grandiosity Further, and again irrespective of Francis’ sincerity or lack of it, there is much to be said for the idea that we need a poor Church, and a Church of the poor, which journeys out to the peripheries and seeks out souls who are “outside the camp”. That we tend to view almsgiving and the other temporal and spiritual works of mercy as a sort of minimalist duty which accompanies our pursuit of the “good life”, rather than a real passion, might be a pre-eminent sign of the loss of the immediacy of Christ’s Truth and Mercy in our own hearts.
In other words, the Papacy of Francis might just be a message, and chastisement, from God. The fact that he uses these concepts to undermine doctrine, deny the Church’s mission to convert all these peoples, and to promote pastoral practices which represent a false mercy and charity, and which at least implicitly violate dogma and encourage sacrilege, does not mean that we should entrench ourselves in a kind of pharisaism embodied in a “monumental” traditionalism which masks the loss of the simplicity and urgency of the Gospel. We might well consider that something like the cappa magna is a very worldly effort (the garb of kings) to imitate an unworldly majesty. God’s majesty on this earth is most adequately mirrored and represented by the union of human hearts with His Truth, Love, and Mercy. Beautiful things are of course appropriate to the worship of God, but they too should reflect the sanctity and majesty of Christ through a holy modesty and simplicity, rather than through a Renaissance-inspired, or even pagan, garishness.
Again, we find it necessary to repeat that all of this criticism of “Traditionalism” does not mean that we do not recognize the horror of things which Pope Francis says and does. The whole point of this analysis is that “the center will not hold”; falsification and duplicity seem to reign “on all sides”; and the temptation towards taking refuge in one or more extremes seems almost overwhelming.
The conversion of Emperor Constantine and embrace of Christianity by the Roman Empire in the fourth century was accompanied by a vast expansion in the building of the monuments of Christian civilization – the building of Churches, spinning of a complex legal system, ritualization of the Liturgy, creation of a complex organization within the Church itself with all the various gradations of rights and privileges of various Sees, the establishment of the Church as a political, diplomatic, and economic power, etc. All of this tends to speak of a Christ Who, while not having abandoned us, is yet no longer the object of a single-minded immediacy and presence to the human mind and heart.
Running parallel to these developments within the Church, all Christians were now free to engage fully with the world in all aspects of its evolutionary progression towards what we now have with us. And what we now have with us is an extraordinarily complex web of both intellectual and physical structures which seem almost perfectly designed to sap any consciousness of Christ’s presence out of our lives. As recent polls indicate, at least in this country, Catholics appear to be just as immersed in these structures and their pagan roots as is the general public.
We would like to propose three qualities of human life that must be present in order for the mind and heart of man to adequately respond to the immediate presence of Christ to his soul: mystery, simplicity, and insecurity.
We have written much in other articles about what is necessary in order that the quality of mystery be present to our consciousness, and we have also analyzed the scientific reductionism which has made the perception of such mystery virtually impossible for modern man. Suffice to say here that once we understand that science is totally impotent to penetrate to the substantial nature or essence of any created thing, and that the substantial reality of any created thing is simply what it is because God has created it out of nothing and sustains it in being every instant of its existence, then we become intellectually capable of understanding the presence of this mystery. But this does not mean that the apprehension of the mystery of all of creation is fully restored to our daily lives. Almost inevitably, our perception has been so blunted by the effect of scientific thinking that we have been largely sapped of the ability to fully experience this mystery. God has effectively and affectively been billeted outside of creation.
In regard to simplicity, this quality of life has virtually been destroyed for the vast majority of human beings, especially those living in developed countries. God, in a sense, “incarnated” all sorts of values and truths in nature and in the simple life of toil and craftsmanship. Much of this has been obliterated in a world of concrete, factories and offices, contrived recreation, passive entertainment through all the various forms of media, and a host of other things which constitute the unnatural pulsations of modern life (especially of city life). It has been said that there are a great many people in cities that have never seen a cow. It is even more likely that they have never seen anyone born or die.
Finally, in order that God be effectively present to the human heart, there must be a great insecurity present in our lives. After all, there can be no Christian spirituality where there is not prayer; and the most fundamental form of prayer is asking. If we feel secure in this world, there is little motivation for asking of God. And since insecurity in regard to the things of this world is considered a deficiency, it is almost inevitable that any prayer that we do offer for such things will be directed towards “consuming them in our concupiscences”.
It is astounding the degree to which we have surrounded ourselves with institutions which generate a false sense of security in regard to the things of this world. We only need to consider, as an example, the omnipresence of insurance policies in all the areas of our lives: life, liability, damage, health, car, home, business, etc. There is no area or activity of our lives that cannot be, and often must be, insured. There is even an Alien Abduction Insurance. One company in England alone has sold 30,000 of these policies. Why should we ask of God if we are already “covered” by man?
There is no escape from all of this except in spiritual childhood: “Unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” (Mt. 18: 3). Herein lies the “foolishness” that overcomes the world.
There is one great advantage which the present generation possesses over all previous generations. All the monuments of man are now being rent asunder, and the rottenness within revealed. The chaos which the world now experiences reaches more deeply into souls than anything previously experienced by mankind. It is not primarily the brutality of war, the terror of plague or other sicknesses, or the agonies of torture (although all these things certainly exist). Rather, it is an overwhelming insecurity as to whether life has any meaning at all. It is in the depth of this total insecurity – this nakedness – that the cry of a child may still come forth. With such a cry, God can work: “Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned into mourning, and your joy to sorrow. Be humbled in the sight of the Lord, and he will exalt you.” (James 4: 9-10).
For those who weep and cry already, their nakedness is a blessing and a way that can lead them to God. A path has been prepared: “My Immaculate Heart will be your refuge, and the way that will lead you to God.” We must, however, treat this prophesy not as something we own because we are Catholics and “possess” the Faith, but as a passion to be lived in the simplicity of a child’s cry. Our Lady has in fact given us the words and grace of this cry in the Hail Mary and the Rosary. It must be prayed with the immediacy of a child’s heart, and not the automated rapidity and rhythms of hearts grown cold and remote.
Please read our article The Rosary: The Way of Perfection.
Please also read our article The Third Glorious Mystery: The Descent of the Holy Spirit. We consider it a companion-piece to the above article in understanding why the power of the Holy Spirit seems to be so inoperative in the contemporary Church. It is especially necessary for those who in any way might be tempted to feel that Christ has abandoned His Church.
———————————————————

 

Amazon Synod: What is Necessary for Our Lady’s Triumph

http://rosarytotheinterior.com/

By James Larson

The Amazonian Synod and Teilhardian Evolutionary Theology,

And What is Necessary for Our Lady’s Triumph.

 
Note: The following article is divided into three parts. The first part deals with the profound “operation of error” (2 Thess. 2: 10) which is now being orchestrated by means of the Amazonian Synod to wash over the universal Church and the minds and hearts of all believers through Teilhardian evolutionary theology. The second part proposes the only remedy in the intellectual realm as contained in the theology and metaphysics of St. Thomas Aquinas. The third part examines the only complete remedy: a united recourse to Mary and her Rosary, as the means by which each one of us, including the hierarchy, may be purified of our sins, infidelities, and prostitutions to the errors of this world. Over half of the voting-age Cardinals have now been appointed by Francis. And even among those appointed previous to Francis, virtually none possess either the understanding or fortitude which would enable them to resist what is now descending upon us. Our salvation is now completely dependent upon divine intervention.

We ask the reader to systematically and carefully read all that is recommended and linked below – just as one would for a college course. We believe it contains all that is required for understanding the depths of the evil that is now upon us, and what is necessary for victory over both the enemy both within and without.
 
The Depths of the Crisis
Much criticism has now issued forth from conservative and traditionalist Catholic circles concerning the upcoming Amazon Synod. These criticisms have focused on particular agendas: a married priesthood; ordination of women to the diaconate and priesthood; inculteration of indigenous pagan beliefs and practices into Catholic theology, moral praxis, and worship; and most especially, the fulfillment of Marxist-inspired Liberation Theology.

All of these agendas will of course play their part in this organized attempt to undermine and negate all that is truly of Christ and His Church. But we fail to understand the depths of the crisis which is now upon us if we fail to perceive that the ultimate program behind this Synod is not any of these partial agendas, but rather the subjection of all Catholic belief and praxis to Teilhardian evolutionary theology.

We must realize that the ultimate goal of Satan is not to make man into an atheist, a Marxist, a pagan, or even a Modernist. Rather, it is to convince him that he is destined under his own power to ascend to equality with God. The temptation of the Serpent to Adam and Eve was that “you shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil”. (Gen. 3: 5). Man thus fell through an intellectual pride that sought to ascend to “Godhood” by becoming the sole source and determiner of what is true and false, what is good and what is evil. Man’s Fall, in other words, was constituted by an act which was the supreme rejection of what St. James meant when he wrote: “Every best gift, and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no change, nor shadow of alteration.” (James 1: 17).

On the other hand, this fundamental pride (“the beginning of all sin”) on the part of man represented a prostitution to, and imaging of, the mind and heart of Lucifer who, in the Book of the Prophet Isaias, was addressed by God in the following words: “And thou saidst in thy heart, I will ascend into heaven. I will exalt my throne above the stars of God, I will sit in the mountain of the covenant, in the sides of the north. I will ascend above the height of the clouds, I will be like the most high. (Isaias 14: 13-14). It is precisely this desire to ascend to a “likeness with the most high” which is the penultimate sin which will be consummated in the final embrace of the Father of Lies, and which will usher in the Antichrist.

It is Teilhardian cosmic evolutionary ascent, disguised as integral theology and ecology, which is now being promoted for adaption by the universal Church through the upcoming Amazonian Synod. We therefore offer below a series of articles (previously published on our website) which represent a course of Study in regard to this agenda.

Article I. The Third Sorrowful Mystery: The Crowning with Thorns. This article contains our most detailed examination of the cosmic evolutionary theology of Teilhard de Chardin. It should be read first in order to understand the gravity of the present crisis. It also documents the embrace of this theology by Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI in his writings and public statements. Finally, it also reveals the Teilhardian agenda proposed in Pope Francis’ environmental encyclical Laudato Si, which is clearly the foundational document for what is planned for the Amazonian Synod.
Article II. The War Against the Human Soul: Teilhardian Evolution and the Amazonian Synod.

Teilhardian evolution is constituted not only as a war against God, but also as a total war against the substantial dignity and sacredness of the individual human soul. It conceives of the human person in terms of evolutionary becoming, as opposed to the Catholic doctrine which defines the individual soul in terms of possessing a fixed substantial nature, created in the image of God, and possessing a present and immediate call to perfection of that nature in the truth and love of Christ. This is why, in his writings, Teilhard clearly embraced eugenics, and the necessity to “try everything” in the effort to produce the “super-human”. Such eugenics constitutes the dark underbelly of the false mercy underlying both secular “integral ecology” and Teilhardian theology.
Article III: The Amazonian Synod and Teilhardian Evolution: A Journey into the Heart of Antichrist.

 This article explores Teilhardian evolution and the Amazonian Synod in reference to the final confrontation between the Gospel and the anti-Gospel, and between Christ and Antichrist.
Article IV. Teilhardian Evolution and the Amazonian Synod: The Nest of the Antichrist. Teilhardian evolution is the culmination of 2,000 years of infiltration of Gnostic thinking into the minds and hearts of Catholics. Gnosticism can be seen as the nest which has long been nurturing that Beast which is now taking flight on the wings of Cosmic Teilhardian Evolution, and will culminate in the Antichrist. This article traces its extraordinary, and often unexpected and little-known, history within the Church and Christian civilization.

The Philosophical and Theological Remedy
The coming Amazonian Synod (October 6 – 27, 2019), titled Amazonia: New Paths for the Church and for an Integral Ecology, is constituted as an agenda which has been long in preparation for a total inversion of the Catholic Faith. As the Synod’s Relator General Cardinal Emeritus Claudio Hummes (personally appointed by Pope Francis) said in an interview in La Civilita Catholica (May 13, 2019), “there is a need to rewrite Christology”. And further: “All theology and Christology, as well as the theology of the sacraments, are to be reread starting from this great light for which ‘all is interconnected, interrelated’.” As Nicaraguan Cardinal Madariaga, Coordinator of Pope Francis’ Council of Cardinal Advisors, said in a January 20, 2015 talk at Santa Clara University, “The Pope wants to take this Church renovation to the point where it becomes irreversible”.

It is clear that what is being planned for the Amazon Synod is an agenda which seeks eventual implementation in the Universal Church. It is centered upon belief in a false universal inclusiveness and mercy, which is in turn grounded in a belief in Cosmic Teilhardian Evolution. As such, it demands the rejection of the vertical dimension of our Faith which is founded upon the Absolute nature of objective Truth and God’s Revelation.

In several articles we have offered analysis of what is at the root of this complete inversion of the Catholic Faith: the surrender to reductive science, from which has ensued the rejection of Thomistic theology and the metaphysics of Being, and its replacement by Teilhardian Evolutionary theology.
Immediately below, we publish the link to a new article which represents a kind of primer on Thomistic Theology and Metaphysics. We believe it contains all that is necessary to establish the mind and heart firmly in the supremacy and immutability which is God’s Supreme Being and Truth, and also in the truly Catholic understanding of man created in His image and possessing a nature which must be defined in terms of substantial being rather than evolutionary becoming. As such, it contains all that is intellectually necessary to protect us from the flood of Teilhardian cosmic evolutionary thinking which now threatens to wash over Christ’s Church in the wake of the Amazonian Synod.
New Article:The Antidote to Teilhardian Theology: The Restoration of the Supernatural: In Accord with the Teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas.
 

The Supernatural Solution

Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity. (1 Thess. 2: 20-11).
The above passage from Paul’s Second Epistle to the Thessalonians speaks of an operation of error sent by God as a chastisement for our iniquities and infidelities. We must presume that we are now in the midst of such a chastisement. It is not only they who have sinned, but also we who have sinned and are deserving of our heavenly-inflicted impotency before the present onslaught of this world upon the Church.
Most important, we must realize that virtually all the major institutions and organs of power in this world – financial, economic, political, educational, and media – are now in the hands of the enemies of Christ and His Church who promote the agenda of Antichrist. The solution to the present crisis – by far the worst in the history of the Church – has been entrusted to Our Lady and her Rosary alone.
It is a clear lesson of the history of God’s dealings with man, and the terrible chastisements that have befallen peoples and nations because of their betrayal of Christ and His Truth, that any sort of restoration and triumph of the Gospel over the forces of evil requires a united effort. Just as a supernatural unity was established between all men in their creation, such that the effects of the sin of one man descended to all, so any sort of restoration can only be accomplished through a united effort in imploring God’s grace and power over all the evil that is upon us. It should be obvious, therefore, that any notion that our own personal salvation, and the salvation and protection of our families and friends, is now to be secured by retreating into a “hiddeness”, or spiritual isolation, is a destructive delusion.
The unity necessary for deliverance is of course never even close to universal. Nor does it necessarily require the involvement of a majority of those who might nominally call themselves “Catholic”. But God certainly does demand a unity at least among those who truly desire to be faithful to Christ and His Gospel – a unity not only of belief, but of intense prayer for deliverance. That this unity is now profoundly lacking even among those who would consider themselves “conservative”, “orthodox”, or “traditional” Catholics is profoundly evident. Because of this division, we are being relegated to the status of impotency in the face of Antichrist.
The entire purpose of the Rosary to the Interior: For the Purification of the Church is not just to convince faithful Catholics of the extraordinary gravity of our present crisis, but to effect this unity of prayer within the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and through the Rosary, for deliverance. It is also true, however, that we do not believe that such prayer will merit Our Lady’s supernatural Triumph unless it is established in honesty and free from duplicity. And this entails that it issue forth from hearts that first cry out, as did the Prophet Daniel in the Old Testament, “We have sinned”. The chastisement is upon Us, and we should not expect deliverance from without unless there is first purification within. In this respect we recommend reading the article: Our Chastisement, Our Blessing, and also our article St. Francis of Assisi: They Pretended to Love You so that They Might Leave You.
We therefore implore all readers to implement what is contained in our Original Proposal. If your pastors or bishops will not agree to implement this effort and event, then we ask that you gather at the doors of your Churches, at Shrines, or even in homes. Our victory can only come from above, and this only through that unity and purification established within the Immaculate Heart of Mary through her Rosary. It is only in the depths of such purification and unity that our prayers for the conversion, or defeat, of the enemy will be graced through Our Lady, and in the power of the Holy Spirit.

Please read our Original Proposal

 Pray an Our Father for the restoration of the Church.

 

 

Saturday, September 14, 2019

Why is Francis Against being Rigidly Upright & Erect?

In Mozambique, on September 7, Francis said:

"Young, rigid priests... take this attitude... from the museum."
(Church Militant, "Clergy and Laity offer Strong Response to Pope's 'Rigid' Comments," September 13, 2019)

Why is the old Francis so antagonistic and the archenemy of young priests who are rigidly upright and erect in upholding the infallible teachings of the Church?

Is it because he is against erecting or building up the Church on the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Ten Commandments?

Is it because he is not upright in position or posture on the infallible teachings of Jesus Christ and His Church?

Is it because he is evasive and is not straight, honest or moral in his allowing and promoting of the sacrilege of Communion for adulterer?

Is it because he is limp, sagging, floppy and nonrigid in following the God-man Jesus Christ in the virile and courageous hard "narrow... way, which leads unto life and few there are that find it"?
(Matthew 7:14)

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.

Friday, September 13, 2019

With Bernie Sanders calling Maduro a "Vicious Tyrant," Francis is alone in Supporting the Dictator

In last nights debate, even the far-left Socialist Bernie Sanders finally admitted that Nicholas Maduro is a "vicious tyrant."

It appears that Francis is the last Western leader to still support the dictator Maduro.

In June, the far-left National Catholic Reporter said "Maduro tried to claim he had the support of Pope Francis."
(National Catholic Reporter, "Vatican supports new elections to solve Venezuelan crisis," June 15, 219)

The leftist newspaper, like Sanders at the debate, appears to want to distance Francis from the "vicious tyrant," but Francis has never stated he doesn't support Maduro.

In fact, in January, Francis in classic Argentinean Peronist equivocation said he still supported Maduro:

"I support... the Venezuelan people... including those who are on one side [the Maduro tyranny] and the other [the freedom fighters]."
(Catholic News Agency, "In leaked letter to 'Mr. Maduro,' Pope Francis reiterates call for peace," February 13, 2019) German people

Imagine if Pope Pius XII during World War II had said:

"I support... the German people... including those on one side [the Hitler tyranny] and the other [the freedom fighters]."

It must be lonely for Francis to be the last major Western leader still supporting the Venezuelan "vicious tyrant."

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.




Thursday, September 12, 2019

Does Francis's Book "Dialogos" show that he is a Anti-American Communist?

Francis's book "Dialogos entre Juan Pablo II Y Fidel Castro" presents evidence that he is pro-Communist, anti-Capitalism and by inference Anti-American because the United States is the driving force behind the global free market system.

He wrote on page 23 that there apparently could be a "convergence" of "premises" between Communism and Catholicism:

"Fidel Castro offered a... convergence or points of connection between Catholicism and the premises (los postulados) of the [Cuban Communist] Revolution."

However, later in the his book he states there cannot be a convergence of premises between Capitalism and Catholicism:

You cannot hold the premises (los postulados) of "neoliberalismo" (Capitalism) and be considered a Christian. The failures of Marxism and Collectivism don't authorize the Capitalist system (al sistema capitalista)... we find in "neoliberalismo" (Capitalism) the opposite of the Gospel... because it empties man of the economic progressivism or economic progress (los progresos economicos)."
(Dialogos entre Juan Pablo II Y Fidel Castro, By Jorge Bergoglio, Copyright - Ciudad Argentina, Pages 48-49, Translation by Fred Martinez with the help of a Spanish to English dictionary)

In 2015, the Muslim global news source Al Jazeera in a article asked:

"Is Pope Francis some kind of Communist? Is he anti-American? Why is he so down on the wealth-creating engine that is global capitalism?"

The global news source answered those questions by saying "he [Francis] adhered to a diluted Argentine version of [Marxist] liberation theology."

Al Jazeera actually quoted from Francis's book without giving a source which is given above with my translation. It's translation is:

"No one can accept the precepts of neoliberalism and consider themselves Christian."

It appears that for Francis "neoliberalism" is a synonym for global Capitalism.

The global news source reported that Francis was anti-Capitalist and apparently anti-American since the driving force of global Capitalism is the United States.

Al Jazeera disclosed that in a disquieting screech, he reviled capitalism for "death and destruction" and having the "stench of the dung of the devil":

"During a trip to [Leftist Socialist] Bolivia this summer, Francis delivered his most ferocious denunciation to date. Behind all the 'pain, death and destruction' wrought by unrestrained global capitalism, there lurks 'the stench of the dung of the devil,' he told a gathering of activists. 'We want change, real change, structural change. This system is now intolerable.'"
(Aljazeera, "Liberation theology, once reviled by church, now embraced by pope," September 22, 2015)

Sadly, it appears in the unsound mental workings of Francis's mind it was not the Russian Communists and the Chinese Maoist Communists, who are still in power, that committed the holocaust of tens of millions of human "death[s] and destruction" in historical concrete reality, but instead apparently a "holocaust" was committed by global Capitalism in the imagination of the abstract brain of Francis.

Is this mania for "real change" to end "intolerable" American global Capitalism the reason Francis is allowing without a word of protest:

- the Communist Chinese regime to systematically attack the human rights of the Chinese Catholic underground Church, all the Christian denominations in China and even the Chinese Muslims?

- the human rights violations and starvation of the citizens of Venezuela by the Chinese Communist supported Venezuelan Leftist totalitarian regime?

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.




Tuesday, September 10, 2019

Francis's Book "Dialogos" appears to promote a "Convergence" between "Christianity and Marxism"

Francis in his Spanish language book "Dialogos entre Juan Pablo II Y Fidel Castro" in what looks like a propaganda piece for Cuban Marxist totalitarianism apparently claimed that the Cuban Dictator Fidel Castro offered Pope John Paul II a "convergencias" or convergence, that is a moving towards unity, between "Christianity and Marxism."

Francis, it seems, implies that a possible Marxist/Catholic convergence was what motivated John Paul to visit Cuba:

"From 1990 when Fidel Castro offered a strategic alliance between Christianity and Marxism he has not ceased in his attempts to find and show convergence or points of connection between Catholicism and the postulates (premises) of the Revolution [capitalized by Francis]."

"It was this eagerness that provoked the approach and motivated the historic visit of Pope John Paul II to the Caribbean island, President Castro expressed that both the Church and the Revolution of history have had many numerous martyrs."
(Dialogos Entre Juan Pablo Y Fidel Castro, by Jorge Bergoglio, Copyright 2015 - Ciudad Argentina, Page 23, Translation by Fred Martinez with help of Spanish to English dictionary)

It appears Francis in his book is promoting convergence between "Christianity and Marxism."

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.