Monday, March 29, 2010

Antipope Pius XII: "Infidels are our brothers in Christ"

Pius XII, in his "encyclical" Mystici Corporis Christi, inserted a few heresies, showing himself to have been working to the same end as the other heretic infiltrators of the Vatican, namely the complete overhaul of Catholic theology.

Below are some of his heresies and the dogmatic definitions that they are in clear violation of.

Antipope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi, #96:
"And first of all let us imitate the breadth of His love. For the Church, the Bride of Christ, is one; and yet so vast is the love of the divine Spouse that it embraces in His Bride the whole human race without exception. Our Savior shed His Blood precisely in order that He might reconcile men to God through the Cross, and might constrain them to unite in one body, however widely they may differ in nationality and race. True love of the Church, therefore, requires not only that we should be mutually solicitous one for another as members and sharing in their suffering but likewise that we should recognize in other men, although they are not yet joined to us in the body of the Church, our brothers in Christ according to the flesh, called, together with us, to the same eternal salvation."

WHOA!!! Okay did everyone catch that? Are you still going to tell me that the Apostasy started with Vatican II? Malarkey!

Antipope Pius XII stated that the Catholic Church embraces the whole human race without exception. Well this statement is actually ambiguous and not explicitly heretical on its own, since it can be understood to mean that the Church embraces every nation. That is quite true, the Church does, though not every individual will come to enjoy this embrace, many being excluded by their own free will, given over to sin.

But Antipope Pius XII provides us the very context we need in order to know his heretical designs in making this statement when he says: "we should recognize in other men, although they are not yet joined to us in the body of the Church, our brothers in Christ,"

This is heresy in direct opposition to the following dogmatic decree:

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session 3, Chapter 3, #9-10, 1870, ex cathedra: "Since, then, without faith it is impossible to please God and reach the fellowship of his sons and daughters, it follows that no one can ever achieve justification without it, neither can anyone attain eternal life unless he or she perseveres in it to the end.  So that we could fulfill our duty of embracing the true faith and of persevering unwaveringly in it, God, through his only begotten Son, founded the Church, and he endowed his institution with clear notes to the end that she might be recognized by all as the guardian and teacher of the revealed word."

Quite simply, if a person is not the son or daughter of God, it is because he does not have the true Faith. As such he CANNOT be called a brother in Christ, who has not the true Faith. Plain and simple.

Heretics might argue that his insertion of the words "according to the flesh" might render his teaching not heretical.  That line of argument, however, is completely contrary to the revealed doctrine about the sacrament of Baptism, which regenerates and redeems a man, both soul AND BODY.

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 5, Decree Concerning Original Sin, #1, ex cathedra: "If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted; and that he incurred, through the offence of that prevarication, the wrath and indignation of God, and consequently death, with which God had previously threatened him, and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil, and that the entire Adam, through that offence of prevarication, was changed, IN BODY and soul, for the worse; let him be anathema."

St. Thomas, whose posthumous influence on the Council of Trent was great taught the following concerning the effects of original sin:

Summa Theologiae, First Part of the Second Part, Question 82. Original sin, as to its essence, Article 4. Whether original sin is equally in all: "I answer that, There are two things in original sin: one is the privation of original justice; the other is the relation of this privation to the sin of our first parent, from whom it is transmitted to man through his corrupt origin."

Therefore, infidels cannot be called "brothers in Christ", neither spiritually, nor according to the flesh.

But the modern antipopes seem to do everything they can to undermine the notion that only those who come to the Catholic Church can be saved.

Antipope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi, #103: "As you know, Venerable Brethren, from the very beginning of Our Pontificate, We have committed to the protection and guidance of heaven those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church, solemnly declaring that after the example of the Good Shepherd We desire nothing more ardently than that they may have life and have it more abundantly. Imploring the prayers of the whole Church We wish to repeat this solemn declaration in this Encyclical Letter in which We have proclaimed the praises of the 'great and glorious Body of Christ' and from a heart overflowing with love We ask each and every one of them to correspond to the interior movements of grace, and to seek to withdraw from that state in which they cannot be sure of their salvation."

It is not merely a state in which thy cannot be sure of salvation, it is a state in which they are INCAPABLE of being saved, as has been repeated throughout Church history in such infallible and dogmatic bulls as Unam Sanctam of Pope Boniface VIII and Cantate Domino of Pope Eugene IV.

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, 1302, ex cathedra: "Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins,"

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, 1439, ex cathedra: "Whoever wills to be saved, before all things it is necessary that he holds the catholic faith. Unless a person keeps this faith whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish eternally. The Catholic faith is this... [Athanasian Creed] ...This is the Catholic faith. Unless a person believes it faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved."

It doesn't get any more clear and explicit than that. Believe the Catholic Faith FAITHFULLY and FIRMLY (which you cannot do if you have never heard of it or reject some portion of it, OBVIOUSLY), or you will go to hell. Period.  It's your choice.

Antipope Pius XII continues: "For even though by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church. Therefore may they enter into Catholic unity and, joined with Us in the one, organic Body of Jesus Christ, may they together with us run on to the one Head in the Society of glorious love. Persevering in prayer to the Spirit of love and truth, We wait for them with open and outstretched arms to come not to a stranger's house, but to their own, their father's home."

Wrong. They have not God for a father but the devil.

St. John 8:43-45: "Why do you not know my speech? Because you cannot hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof. But if I say the truth, you believe me not. "

Remember, it is a dogma that none are able to reach the fellowship of the sons and daughters of God without the Faith. This is attested to also by other authorities in the Church:

St. Cyprian of Carthage, Treatise 1: "The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterous; she is uncorrupted and pure. She knows one home; she guards with chaste modesty the sanctity of one couch. She keeps us for God. She appoints the sons whom she has born for the kingdom. Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is an enemy. He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother."

Not only that but did you notice that such people are said by the antipope to have an UNCONSCIOUS desire and longing? Ridiculous! That means that any pagan or idolater who is "sincere" in his idolatry could have an unconscious desire to be united to Christ and doesn't have to know Christ at all, but we can still call him a brother in Christ!

To the heretic Freemason antipope Pius XII, anathema!  Following you and your evil teaching is contrary to the Gospel.

Galatians 1:8: "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema."

What Must You Do To Get to Heaven?

Living and working with heretics, infidels and blasphemers

We have few choices these days about the company we keep at all times. It is IMPOSSIBLE for all but very few people to avoid all contact with heretics and other infidels, since we either have to work with them, buy from them, sell to them, or in the cases of young people or men and women with infirm relatives or who live in tenements, even live among them or care for them.

I'm sure most of us have either sinned by omission when in the presence of these godless people, or have gone overboard in our zeal for the honour of God. We should not be too passive when the good Name of out Lord is being dishonoured, but nor should we be eager to punch out every heretic and blasphemer we meet.

Of course we are to be cordial and polite to these people and even to suffer unjust rebukes and reproaches at their hands with patience and meekness, being solicitous not of honor or esteem for our own sakes, but only charitably correcting those who sin and blaspheme against God.

Romans 12:19: "Revenge not yourselves, my dearly beloved; but give place unto wrath, for it is written: Revenge is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord."

1 St. Peter 3:14-17: "But if also you suffer any thing for justice' sake, blessed are ye. And be not afraid of their fear, and be not troubled. But sanctify the Lord Christ in your hearts, being ready always to satisfy every one that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you. But with modesty and fear, having a good conscience: that whereas they speak evil of you, they may be ashamed who falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ. For it is better doing well (if such be the will of God) to suffer, than doing ill."

Now it stands to reason that the manner in which we correct such people is not always going to be the same. The closer our relationship to the person we are correcting certainly means that out words will have greater credibility, and therefore we can be more explicit in our correction.

For example, it would be imprudent at your new job to vehemently tear a strip off of your pagan boss who has just taken God's name in vain, especially if you have children at home relying on you to bring home the bread.

However if you be sure to NOTICEABLY cross yourself on such occasions, even making eye contact with your boss when he does so, he will eventually feel shame in continually causing offence to you (too bad for him if he doesn't feel shame for offending God) and will perhaps lay off the blasphemy.

If he does not, then since he already knows how you feel by observing your behaviour, it then is not a surprise to him when you approach him and say something like: "Look, Mr. So-and-so, God's name is holy, and not a cuss-word."

Now do you have to do this every single time he blasphemes God? The logical conclusion of that line of thinking is that we must chase sinners around, rebuking them every time they sin. That is assuredly not what God wants from us, since we would then have no time left to accomplish the duties of our state in life.

The principle to follow should be simply this: NEVER give sinners the impression that we APPROVE of what they have done, and if in some case or another our silence would give this impression, that is when we risk sinning by omission. If your blaspheming boss already knows how you feel and does it just to spite you, then you have done your duty by admonishing him.

Naturally, just as with co-workers and others we come into contact with, when we are dealing with our children, parents, etc. We should maintain a polite and tranquil disposition, never giving in to excessive anger, but we can be much more explicit about WHY they are being rebuked, and the CONSEQUENCES of ignoring our admonition.

"Look, Uncle So-and-so, you know I love you, but if you are going to insist on going to hell by keeping yourself separated from Christ's body the Church by your belief in such and such a heresy, or your schismatic adherence to such and such a group, or your outright rejection of God, then at the very least you could cut out the blasphemy and not heap up to yourself even greater eternal punishment than you already have. Is it any wonder why I, who love the Lord that made us both, will not keep social company with you any longer?"

What Must You Do To Get to Heaven?

Friday, March 19, 2010

Feast Day of the great St. Joseph

The chief sources of information on the life of St. Joseph are the first chapters of our first and third Gospels; they are practically also the only reliable sources, for, whilst, on the holy patriarch's life, as on many other points connected with the Saviour's history which are left untouched by the canonical writings, the apocryphal literature is full of details, the non-admittance of these works into the Canon of the Sacred Books casts a strong suspicion upon their contents; and, even granted that some of the facts recorded by them may be founded on trustworthy traditions, it is in most instances next to impossible to discern and sift these particles of true history from the fancies with which they are associated.

Nevertheless, there are some certain points of pious belief that will remain essentially undisputed, and for which cause it is expedient to have special devotion to this divinely elected foster father of the Lord of Heaven and Earth.

St. Joseph was a holy, just and diligent man, not only ready to fulfill the law in all things, but even to go above and beyond duty. In this he serves as a perfect model for husbands, workers, truly all men should be imitators of the hard working St. Joseph, who likely never uttered a complain in his life. Let us, therefore, invoke his intercession for the increasing of diligence and discipline in both our temporal and spiritual duties.

Possessed of the virtues of chastity and purity to the highest degree, he serves yet more as a role model for husbands, who ought to be chaste, pure and free from the yoke of lust and immoderation in their marital lives, as well as to all men so greatly afflicted by temptations of the flesh in this wicked world.

It should not cause any wonder if after this mortal life we should chance to learn that the intercession of St. Joseph has been the most powerful of that of all the saints, save his chaste spouse, the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, who we know is exalted above all creation.

Here is a prayer that is fitting for Catholics to say each morning along with their morning offering and other devotions.


Oh, St. Joseph, whose protection is so great, so strong, so prompt before the throne of God, I place in you all my interest and desires. Oh, St. Joseph, do assist me by your powerful intercession, and obtain for me from your Divine Son all spiritual blessings, through JESUS Christ, our LORD. So that, having engaged here below your heavenly power, I may offer my thanksgiving and homage to the most Loving of Fathers. Oh, St. Joseph, I never weary contemplating you, and JESUS asleep in your arms; I dare not approach while He reposes near your heart. Press Him in my name and kiss His fine head for me and ask Him to return the kiss when I draw my dying breath. St. Joseph, Patron of departing souls, pray for us.

What Must You Do To Get to Heaven?

Friday in the Fourth Week of Lent

The following is not from a Missal, but is taken from a book by Fr. Leonard Goffine.

Epistle (3 Kings 17:17-24)

In those days the son of the woman, the mistress of the house, fell sick, and the sickness was very grievous, so that there was no breath left in him. And she said to Elias: What have I to do with thee, thou man of God? Art thou come to me that my iniquities should be remembered, and that thou shouldst kill my son? And Elias said to her Give me thy son. And he took him out of her bosom, and carried him into the upper chamber where he abode, and laid him upon his own bed. And he cried to the Lord, and said: Lord my God, hast thou afflicted also the widow, with whom I am after a sort maintained, so as to kill her son? And he stretched, and measured himself upon the child three times, and cried to the Lord, and said: O Lord my God, let the soul of this child, I beseech thee, return into his body. And the Lord heard the voice of Elias: and the soul of the child returned into him, and he revived. And Elias took the child, and brought him down from the upper chamber to the house below, and delivered him to his mother, and said to her: Behold thy son liveth. And the woman said to Elias: Now, by this I know that thou art a man of God, and the word of the Lord in thy mouth is true.


We can make the same meditation on this epistle as on that of yesterday. In book we see now the hospitality shown to the servants of God is rewarded with the greatest miracles. The Eternal Truth, therefore, says, Give, and it shall be given to you. We observe, further, how the two prophets both stretched and measured themselves upon the children whom they restored to life. Thus also did St. Paul, when he brought back to life the young man Eutyches, who had fallen down from a high window. In like manner, according to the testimony of St. Gregory, did St. Benedict when he restored a child to life. The mystery of this action points to the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, who took a body like ours, in order to impart life to our souls, which were dead through sin, and to make our bodies like his in glory and majesty. Jesus Christ, therefore, being the reality to which these figures referred, does not observe such formalities. As Lord, he commands, and the dead arise.

The prophets stretched themselves upon the children several times, whereby we learn to be persevering in prayer.

To the humility and the spirit of Penance with which this widow accuses herself as the cause of her child’s death, St. Theodoret ascribes the grace of his restoration to life by the prophet Elias. Remember that God despises not an humble and contrite heart, bear the afflictions with which he visits you, in humble patience and in the spirit of penance, until it please Him to take them from you.

Gospel (St. John 11:1-45)

At that time there was a certain man sick named Lazarus, of Bethania, of the town of Mary and of Martha her sister. (And Mary was she that anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair: whose brother Lazarus was sick.) His sisters therefore sent to him, saying: Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick. And Jesus hearing it, said to them: This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God: that the son of God may be glorified by it. Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister Mary, and Lazarus. When he had heard therefore that he was sick, he still remained in the same place two days: then after that he said to his disciples: Let us go into Judea again. The disciples say to him : Rabbi, the Jews but now sought to stone thee : and goest thou thither again ? Jesus answered: Are there not twelve hours of the day? If a man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because lie seeth the light of this world: but if lie walk in the night he stumbleth, because the light is not in him. These things he said; and after that he said to them: Lazarus our friend sleepeth: but I go that I may awake him out of sleep. His disciples therefore said: Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well. But Jesus spoke of his death; and they thought that he spoke of the repose of sleep. Then therefore Jesus said to them plainly: Lazarus is dead; and I am glad for your sakes, that I was not there, that you may believe: but let us go to him. Thomas therefore, who is called Didymus, said to his fellow disciples: Let us also go, that we may die with him. Jesus therefore came and found that he had been four days already in the grave. (Now Bethania was near Jerusalem, about fifteen furlongs off.) And many of the Jews were come to Martha and Mary, to comfort them concerning their brother. Martha therefore, as soon as she heard that Jesus was come, went to meet him; but Mary sat at home. Martha therefore said to Jesus: Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother hath not died. But now also I know that whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will give it thee. Jesus saith to her; Thy brother shall rise again. Martha saith to him: I know that he rise again in the resurrection at the last day. Jesus said to her: I am the resurrection and the life: he that believeth in me although he be dead, shall live: and every one that liveth and believeth in me, shall not die forever. Believest thou this?

She saith to him: Yea, Lord, I have believed that thou art Christ the Son of the living God, who art come into this world. And when she had said these things, she went, and called her sister Mary secretly, saying: The master is come and calleth for thee. She, as soon as she heard this, riseth quickly and cometh to him. For Jesus was not yet come into the town: but he was still in that place where Martha had met him. The Jews therefore, who were with her in the house and comforted her, when they saw Mary that she rose up speedily and went out, followed her, saying: She goeth to the grave, to weep there. When Mary therefore was come where Jesus was, seeing him she fell down at his feet, and saith to him: Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died. Jesus therefore, when he saw her weeping, and the Jews that were come with her, weeping, groaned in the spirit, and troubled himself, and said : Where have you laid him ? They say to him: Lord, come and see. And Jesus wept. The Jews therefore said: Behold how he loved him. But some of them said: Could not he that opened the eyes of the man born blind, have caused that this man should not die?

Jesus therefore again groaning in himself cometh to the sepulchre: now it was a cave; and a stone was laid over it. Jesus saith: Take away the stone. Martha, the sister of him that was dead, saith to him: Lord, by this time he stinketh, for lie is now of four days.

Jesus saith to her: Did not I say to thee, that if thou wilt believe, thou shalt see the glory of God ? They took therefore the stone away. And Jesus lifting up his eyes said: Father, I give thee thanks that thou hast heard me. And I knew that thou nearest me always, but liecanse of the people who stand about have I said it : that they may believe that thou hast sent me. When he had said these things, he cried with a loud voice : Lazarus, come forth. And presently he that had been dead came forth, bound feet and hands with winding-bands and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus said to them: Loose him and let him go. Many therefore of the Jews who were come to Mary and Martha, and had seen the things that Jesus did, believed in him.


By the marvelous raising of Lazarus, Christ shows His divinity and strengthens our belief in a future resurrection of the body, as St. Ambrose writes: “Why did Jesus go to the grave and cry out in a loud voice: Lazarus, come forth, if He did not wish to give testimony of the future resurrection?” The Holy Fathers also regard the raising of Lazarus as a type of the resurrection of the sinner from the sleep of sin, which takes place when he confesses his sins with contrition and is loosed by the priests from their bonds. Beseech the Lord that with a loud voice He may cry to you and all sinners (and that you will obey): “Come forth, awake from the sleep of sin, confess your sins and live forever!”

Jesus restores to life Lazarus, whose sickness and death he had known beforehand, the sickness being allowed as chastisement for sin and in order that God’s goodness and glory might be made known. Behold the all-knowing God, Lord over life and death. Adore Him, and seek assistance from Him in your spiritual and temporal need.

The sisters address to Him prayers, short, indeed, but full of faith. “Thy brother shall rise again”, said Jesus, and he arose. We also may have His assistance, to be saved from the death of the soul, we may also one day rise again to life, teaches the Son of God.

What Must You Do To Get to Heaven?

Saturday, March 13, 2010

Humility and works

Dialogues of St. Gregory, Book 1, Chapter 9

PETER: Because fit occasion is now offered, desirous I am to know what the reason was, that when our Saviour restored sight unto two blind men, and commanded them to tell nobody; yet they, after their departure, made him known throughout all that country. For had the only-begotten Son of God, who is co-eternal to his Father and the Holy Ghost, a desire herein to do that which he could not perform: to wit, that the miracle which he would have kept secret, could not yet be concealed?

GREGORY: All that which our blessed Saviour wrought in his mortal body, he did it for our example and instruction, to the end that, following his steps, according to our poor ability, we might without offence pass over this present life: and therefore, when he did that miracle, he both commanded them to conceal it, and yet it could not be kept in, and all this to teach his elect servants to follow his doctrine; to wit, that when they do any notable thing whereof glory may arise to themselves, that they should have a desire not to be spoken of, and yet for the good of others, contrary to their own mind, they should be laid open and known: so that it proceed of their great humility to desire that their works may be buried with silence, and yet, for the profit of others, it should fall so out, that they can not be concealed. Wherefore our Lord would not have any thing done which he could not effect: but what his servants ought to desire, and what also, contrary to their minds, was convenient to be done, like a good master he taught us by his own example.

PETER: I am very well satisfied with this your answer.

What Must You Do To Get to Heaven?

Friday, March 12, 2010

Fatima Supplement, "An evil and adulterous generation seeketh a sign"

I cannot take credit for the following insight regarding prophecies of Scripture as they relate to Fatima. It was brought to my attention by a man I know, but it is altogether too interesting not to mention here.

Before getting into the details, however, let it first be said that the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, is to be held in the highest veneration above all creatures. It is my opinion that without recourse to the Blessed Virgin through true devotion to her, especially through the Most Holy Rosary, a soul can hardly be saved, if at all.

The Fatima events, considering their manifold internal inconsistencies, and the confusion that has ensued, fit the bill to fulfill the following prophecies of Scripture:

St. Matthew 12:38-40: "Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying: Master we would see a sign from thee. Who answering said to them: An evil and adulterous generation seeketh a sign: and a sign shall not be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet. For as Jonas was in the whale's belly three days and three nights: so shall the Son of man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights."

How does the above prophecy of Christ relate to Fatima and to our times? Certainly there is no dispute that in our age the world has become more perverse than in any other Christian age. All manner of carnal sins and disorders are not only tolerated, but even protected by secular authorities in nearly all the world's nations. To make matters worse, spiritual adultery is taking place on a massive level with the various manifestations of the so-called "Ecumenical movement". Truly our generation is the very epitome of "an evil and adulterous generation".

And what sign is it that this evil and adulterous generation seeks? The number one "Catholic apparition" that men in the 20th century and today have had recourse to is Fatima. Yet this apparition bears all the marks of a false prophecy and stands only on the testimony of one untrustworthy witness.

The wicked and adulterous generation seeks signs rather than holding firmly to the Faith. Modernism was on a steady march at the same time as Catholic monarchies had been almost totally extinguished. At the turn of the 20th century, the world was ripe for fulfillment of a prophecy of St. Paul.

2nd Thessalonians 2:9-10: "Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying"

This false apparition of Fatima, which condemned the errors of Russia, left the world in fear of what Russia was capable of, worried that she would be the cause of great calamities in the world. And that was JUST FINE as far as Judeo-Masonry was concerned, for they had their eyes firmly set on the United States of America as the platform from which they would wage their war on the morals of humanity. Russian Communism was a red herring as far as they were concerned.

The heresy of Americanism (freedom of religion, including false ones, separation of Church and state) spread throughout the world like a wildfire. Surely this heresy would have been the first and foremost threat that the Blessed Virgin Mary would have warned against, had she indeed appeared to men in the 20th century; it is only by the authority of the Catholic Church as it influences the secular authority that secular laws are truly able to please God and prohibit men from the sins of the flesh, about which the alleged apparition was so concerned.

But in every nation on earth Church and State are so divorced that Catholic faith and morality is invariably compromised on one point of 'law' or another. Add to this the fact that the Vatican, which enforces a false religion, having been usurped by heretics, has completely relaxed any and all severity against these malicious 'legislators'.

How can Fatima be likened to the "sign of Jonas the prophet"?

Christ is hidden "in the heart of the earth"

Christ, who said that the gates of hell would never prevail against His Church, certainly has not failed on His promise. That is impossible. He will never turn His back on the Church. But that does not mean that He will not allow the Church to be persecuted and dwindled, as it were, to almost nothing, as has happened in the past and can happen again. Certainly in punishment for the widespread and gross sins of humanity, it has at times appeared that the Church has been all but wiped out (Arian Crisis, for example, about which St. Jerome wrote, "the whole world groaned and marvelled to find itself Arian"). As such, Christ is hidden (but not far from those who would seek Him truly and sincerely, with an earnest and selfless yearning).

Jonas is hidden "in the belly of the whale"

Who is "Jonas" that is now in the "belly of the whale"? St. Matthew's Gospel has the answer:

St. Matthew, 16:16-18: "Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Simon Peter, the son of Jona, or Jonas, is now in the belly of the whale, that is, the Church awaits the day when a Pontiff will once again occupy the chair of St. Peter, the son of Jonas. She has been awaiting this day ever since the antipontificate of Leo XIII, during which time that supposed "sign from heaven" appeared and which is now held as a dogma by so many apostates from the true Christian Faith.

Update:  I have recently been directed to a centuries old sermon of St. Vincent Ferrer, which foretells of the Fatima deception and the end of the world shortly to follow it.

What Must You Do To Get to Heaven?

Thursday, March 11, 2010

Fatima Supplement, inconsistencies galore

More reasons, above and beyond those already mentioned, why Fatima was a bogus 'apparition'. The irony in all this is that I came across much of the below information as it was presented by atheists who felt that if they could refute Fatima, they could refute the supernatural in general. Little did they know that their research would only serve to help cast light onto what was in fact a diabolical deception against the one true religion.

Before getting into the details, let it first be said that the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, is to be held in the highest veneration above all creatures. It is my opinion that without recourse to the Blessed Virgin through true devotion to her through the Most Holy Rosary, a soul can hardly be saved.

The angels at Fatima

A "lady", supposedly the Virgin Mary,  allegedly appeared to three young children, Jacinta born 1910, Lucia born 1907 and Francisco born 1908 in Fatima Portugal in 1917. The visions of Mary were not the only ones that Lucia and other children supposedly saw.

Lucia saw a shapeless ghost three times before she joined forces with Jacinta and Francisco which was when she started having clear visions of an angel which was visible to them as well. Initially, the angelic apparitions took the form of a shapeless being wrapped up in sheets which Lucia and her other companions reported (page 7, What Happened at Fatima?). This suggests that the children could have seen a shape and imagined it was an angel and talked to them. The lady has a strange choice of witnesses for her apparitions doesn’t she? Lucia saw the figure three times. This looks like some psychic force within her trying to have decent apparitions or it looks as if her imagination was haywire. The Church and society disbelieve anybody that says they see ghostly figures and take what they claim to see as evidence that the witness is unreliable but not in this case which is so unfair. If she had had these hallucinations she would have developed a desire and an interest to make it look like she was having decent and intelligent apparitions from Heaven. She had been ridiculed and mocked because of the shapeless being visions (page 8, What Happened at Fatima?) so did she decide to get her own back and rise above the scoffers? Surely she would have. She decided to make her apparition stories better and she did.

The year previous to the visions of Mary, Lucia, Jacinta and Francisco met the Guardian Angel of Portugal. When guardian angels get their power and orders for God to protect it is plain that there is no need for them and God wastes time and energy making and appointing them. Catholics say God does no irrational miracles but a guardian angel is an unnecessary miracle. We are told that when the angel was appearing the children said nothing to anyone and no one noticed anything out of the ordinary with them (page 12, What Happened at Fatima?). Probably because since this tale was told by Lucia years after the event it was untrue!

Much later the angel gave them communion saying: “Take and drink the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, horribly outraged by ungrateful men” (Is this the Third Secret? page 8). With this it is astonishing that the Vatican approved of Fatima at all. Private visions are not equal in value to the sacraments but point the way to them in Catholic theology. The visions are for directing you to the faith and the legitimate authority of the bishops who succeed the apostles and to their sacraments. A vision giving communion is going outside the system because it is only a vision and only the experts in the Church have the right to make a judgment if it was real or not and even then they say it is only their opinion. So considering the position that visions have in the Roman Catholic system it is unthinkable that you should even think about taking communion from a being that may be a hallucination – natural or psychic, or even a demon. Satan would love to give communion that was not really communion for the Catholic Eucharist is the most noble of sacrifices God can be offered.

But here an angel gives these kids their first communion! This stands in stark opposition to the principle. Communion in a vision must be equal to the communion on an altar. The angel stressed that it was real communion. The Church has recognized some people like St Catherine of Siena who reported similar miracles as being real saints and believed in the miracle. But it remains true that to hold that the communion you get in a vision should not be made equal to the communion you get from a priest if the Church rule that visions are not equal to the revelation of God given in the Bible and preserved by the Church’s infallibility in tradition that has not been added to since the apostles is right. Any apparition that treats the communion as equal is a false apparition. Can we trust the apparitions of Mary when the children were prone to false visions? Of course not!

Since communion must be consecrated by a priest the angel must have stolen it from a church! The Church will say it is okay if God permits it for communion belongs to him but if I may approve an apparition snatching communion then what is to stop me doing it if I think I have God’s permission? The visionaries get communion in a vision but they still don’t know if it is material communion or if it is just an experience of receiving unreal or immaterial communion. What we met before in the last paragraph still stands for this reason.

The angel told Jacinta who was only six at the time to make reparation for sinners. But she was only a child and it is believed that children cannot become capable of merit until at least seven years of age. That is why Catholics only accept children of seven or over for Holy Communion and confession.

An angel told the children to pray, “O Most Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, I offer you the most precious body and blood and soul and divinity of Jesus Christ present in all the tabernacles of the world in reparation for the outrages, sacrileges and indifference with which he himself is offended. And through the infinite merits of his most sacred heart and the immaculate heart of Mary I beg of you the conversion of poor sinners”.

This prayer would not likely have been taught to children for it contains material too advanced for children such as the body and blood and soul and divinity of Jesus being present in the Eucharist and the concepts of infinite merits or deservings. Lucia made the prayer up from existing prayers or much later.

Plus it is not the communion wafer which is kept in the worlds tabernacles that is considered a sacrifice in the Roman Catholic Church. The sacrifice happens when bread and then wine are consecrated at Mass. The problem with the prayer is the fact that Jesus Risen and Jesus Glorified is officially held to be in the tabernacles of the world and not the suffering and atoning Jesus as the prayer implies. This is a serious inconsistency with Catholic doctrine and it in itself should sufficiently prove that Fatima was a hoax.
Plus Jesus seems to be spoken of as if He is not God the Son in the prayer. How could you offer Jesus to God the Son when Jesus is God the Son according to Catholic doctrine? Read the prayer again and notice that God the Son is being offered to God the Son. Nonsense!

A note on page 99 of Lucia’s memoirs, admits that theologians have problems with this prayer. One excuse is that it is not necessary to think the prayer is word for word what the angel gave. So Lucia probably made a mistake in the wording. Lucia stood by the prayer in spite of their criticisms. She said that it was right when she first gave it; it should be taken as the definitive version. Plus the children had the job of teaching each other the prayer so the angel would have made sure that they were able to get it right.

The other excuse is that the prayer was influenced by other popular prayers! If so then there was an element of imagination in Lucia’s visions.

It is significant that the encounters with the angel were not mentioned until years after the event even though they are basically a call for repentance and reparation. It seems only a dishonest person would hide such a heavenly appeal even if it was repeated by the lady.

In Fatima Revealed and Discarded page 151, it is stated that the angel’s appearances were talked about when they happened and that the anti-Fatima myth man, Fr Dhanis was wrong to say they were imagined long after they happened. A Canon Formigao was allegedly told about what the people had heard in 1917. No documents are given in support of this; just hearsay.

A person who is reluctant to accuse Lucia of deception such as the author of that book would have to make such claims.

Canon Barthas who said the Canon said this to him claimed that the parents knew the children were in the habit of reciting what they said was the prayer of the angel but they didn’t know who taught it to them. But the children at the time they saw the lady used to say the first few words of the Our Father and the Hail Mary to get the Rosary over with quickly when they prayed together. This is hardly consistent with them having seen an angel. Why did nobody venerate the site of the angelic appearances? Why did the children not tell their parents? Did they lie when their devout parents asked them about the origin of the prayer? Probably not for they had no lie to tell for they saw no angel. The parents would have been interested in the prayer when the children said it so often and they would have asked.

And we are told the people knew about the angel and the parents were puzzled by the prayer. Does this not show that the people were not talking at all about the angel for the parents would have known from the angel story that they must have got the prayer from the angel? The children would have told them. Jacinta was the loose tongued one and certainly would have told. Later Jacinta according to Lucia told about the lady for she couldn’t keep it in despite her promise not to tell. Jacinta was younger than Lucia so she would have been less mature and discreet about the angel than she was with the lady when she got a bit older. Barthas lied about Formigao.

The authorities would not have tolerated the angel story. They tried to stop the children speaking of the lady the following year and they would have been easier to silence the year before with the angel tale.

More errors that disprove divine origin
This examination of the lady's appearances to Lucia, Jacinta and Francisco in Fatima is based on Lucia’s memoirs. The white lady told her that she would take the other two children to Heaven soon but that Lucia would have to stay on earth longer and she would go to Heaven (page 73, Fatima In Lucia’s Own Words). The children died. But we cannot prove that Lucia revealed this prediction before the event so if the apparitions were from God we would be able to for He would not make a prophecy and withhold evidence for it. Lucia confessed that this was not told until she wrote her memoirs after the event (page 29).

The lady promised a strange light would appear to show that the next world war was near (page 136, The Thunder of Justice). The light never appeared but Lucia had to make do with an Aurora Boralis – a natural event! The lady meant something supernatural for natural strange lights have been with us all the time. Lucia was not telling the truth.

The lady showed the children a vision of the fire of Hell with fire and demons with horns (page 162, Fatima In Lucia’s own words). Children could only take it literally therefore she wanted that. The children believed that the lady was not the devil for she went up and not down into the ground where Hell was (page 69, Fatima In Lucia’s own words).

The lady said that most people who go to Hell go because of sins of the flesh.  Well according to St. Paul, pretty much every sin is a work of the flesh, so the lady was not really revealing anything new there.

Galatians 5:19-21: " Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, luxury, Idolatry, witchcrafts, enmities, contentions, emulations, wraths, quarrels, dissensions, sects, envies, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like. Of the which I foretell you, as I have foretold to you, that they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God."

Lucia’s memoirs examined
The book, Fatima In Lucia’s own words, is a must for the person who ventures to expose Fatima for the malignant fraud it really is. The book was edited by Fr. Louis Kondor and published by the Postulation Center of Fatima, Portugal. 'Approval' for the book was given by the Vatican II Bishop of Leira in 1976, although this is not to say that the Vatican II hierarchy can make authoritative pronouncements on an apparition. It merely shows what Lucia is on record as having said.

Page 5 tells us that the book is made up of the original manuscripts in which Lucia recorded her alleged experiences.

Lucia claimed that everything to do with the apparitions of the lady was clear in her head and unforgettable to her (page 13, page 99).

The children agreed to be discreet about the first apparition. However, Jacinta broke this promise (page 29). Lucia tries to convince us that it was because her joy was so intense that she could not restrain herself from telling. The reason for silence would have been in case they were stopped from seeing the lady again by the grown-ups, so Lucia lied about Jacinta’s motives.

Lucia and Francisco contradicted each other over whether or not the lady had gold edges on her dress. Lucia said it was a trick of the light that make him think there were gold edges on it (page 175). She said it was caused by the glowing of the dress. That cannot be true for she would have thought there were lines too if the boy saw them. And the trick of the light would not have had the same effect on everything the lady wore. When the lady moved it would have been evident that the gold edges were not there.

How could something that God causes and which is not like natural light lead to tricks of the light? God causing miraculous tricks of the light? No that is too much, accusing God of being the author of deception and confusion!

Lucia contradicted herself about the lady’s earrings (page 175). She had said the lady was wearing earrings because of a momentary illusion caused by the light bathing the lady. Is that really believable? You don’t say a brown coat is green because the light made it go green for a second.

Lucia forbade Jacinta to even say that the lady asked them to make sacrifices for sinners for people would then ask what kind of sacrifices they were making (page 34). This stuff about the need for reparation is a late addition to the story and this is merely an excuse for it being unheard of in the early days. The children knew they could have refused to answer. And when people were given to believe the children were seeing the Virgin Mary they would have expected a request from her to the children to do penance for that was commonly requested in apparitions. The children hypocritically told one another their sacrifices (page 42). In Catholic theology that would be the sin of boasting - God is not the author of pride, and by the fruits, know ye the tree!

Jacinta knew that dirty water which clothes were even washed in could make her very ill yet she drank it as a penance (page 86). She wasn’t thinking about the people who would have to look after her.  She risked making herself a burden on others in the name of penance, which is sin.  Penance is not to detract from our duties or chores of state in life, let alone take others away from their duties.

Lucia was a good teller of religious stories (page 24). She could have invented her experiences. Lucia did actually decide to say that the story of the apparitions was a lie (page 69). This is as destructive of her evidence as it would be if she had lied. She could not have thought that the lie would make her life easier for it would not and would in fact get her into bigger trouble and the other two would contradict her were the retraction a lie. Her parents would have warned her what would happen to her and them if she lied. Mark this well, here is a child who would lie no matter how much bother or scandal it would stir up. Even Fr. Joseph Ratzinger declared on June 29th 2000 that Lucia might have read too many devotional books and these led her imagination astray and coloured the reports of her vision. Lucia has been guilty of driving people into savage and terrible penance through letting them think that the third secret was about an apocalypse that only the penitent could escape. A friar who knows her well said that she suffered from religious hallucinations and false memories. His name is Mario de Oliveira.

Jacinta and Francisco could not have seen a lady at all when they believed that Lucia would be killed (page 72, 77) even though Lucia later claimed that the lady had promised them that she would outlive them. Lucia thought her end was nigh on one occasion though the other pair were alive (page 79, 89).

The idea to make the people see the sun spinning would have been suggested to Lucia by the fact that over a month before that miracle many people were claiming to have spotted signs in the sun (page 76). The child knew that some would insist they had seen the sun spin if she prompted them just before the famous miracle of the sun of October 13.

Lucia admitted that there were things about the lady and her sayings that she never revealed until 1941. The idea of a girl claiming that she seen the Virgin Mary and keeping things back during the investigation directed by the Church some years previous which resulted in the visions being accepted by the Church as authentic is strange unless she is lying. It was deceit for everything has to be looked at to see if the vision was real or not. What else did she lie about? There was nothing in her visions that should have been hidden until then.

Lucia says she was mistaken when she said that the lady promised that the war would end on the day of the solar miracle, October 13th. That was the very first thing she said on the matter and it is more likely to be what she was told than what she now says: that the lady did not say that. The only reason it is denied now is because it turned out to be wrong. Lucia said she was trying hard to remember what the lady said about graces so that she forgot what was actually said about the war (page 170). Yet she boasts of her memory – in the next line! (as well as on page 99. She says that supernatural events cannot be forgotten and it is no wonder – forgetful visionaries of Medjugorje take note!) – and how could she forget something that is more interesting than promises about grace? And worse, what the lady said that day about grace and reparation was brief and repeated the content of the earlier messages. Lucia is certainly telling a big lie. The visions of Fatima were not supernatural.

Lucia claimed that the aurora borealis that she said was a sign from God was probably not an aurora borealis but a miracle (page 109). That was dishonest. Science did not support her in this and so it was not a real sign. The lady said the sign would be an unknown light (page 162). This means a supernatural one. The obscurantist Lucia claimed that science did not bother investigating it to find out that it was not an aurora borealis (page 25, Queen of Peace, Fall 1995). Can we trust Lucia with her visions and her whirling sun? She is the only witness left; the others died before they could convince anybody. I wouldn’t trust her.

Other Troubles for the Vision
The parish priest’s interviews with the visionaries were made into a report. This was their first interview by the Vatican and it can be read in the book, Os Mouros Fatimidas e as Aparicoes de Fatima. The report says that during the first vision Francisco only saw the lady just as she was leaving though he was there all the time. That suggests that he wanted to see her like the rest did and he forced himself to hallucinate or imagine the vision. The real Virgin would be careful to eliminate psychological explanations. The extraordinary thing about the first version of the first vision is that the children said that the Virgin wore a skirt down to her knees and wore white socks unlike the Virgin had ever done before. She wore a necklace with a medal on it. She wore earrings and was of medium height and her eyes were black which must mean she had eyes like an alien. This description prompted some to insist that the lady was really the daughter of Muhammad, Fatimah (yes you read that right!), and not the VirginMary.

The Flop of the Century
In October, a crowd of 70,000 had gathered. At the end of the visions, the lady who had identified herself as the Lady of the Rosary, let the children see Jesus and Joseph and herself in the sun. Lucia shouted for the crowd to look at it and then many of them but not all (page 77, The Evidence for Visions of the Virgin Mary) saw the sun spinning or changing colour or both but the accounts do not agree (ibid 78, 80). Now, for the lady to want the crowd to look at the sun which is very dangerous over visions that might have been hoaxes shows that she was not the Virgin Mary but something else. Despite all the photographers who were present there are no photos of the changes in the sky or any physical evidence. The best the defender can do is produce photos of eclipses in far away lands! (page 78, The Evidence for Visions of the Virgin Mary). When a miracle is given for unbelievers one would expect the Virgin to have done a better job of seeing to it being authenticated.

Many people would have said they saw something though they did not. The Virgin had said the miracle was for unbelievers and those who saw nothing might have been accused of being so stubborn in unbelief that doing a miracle to convince them would not work.

The Virgin had vowed at Valinhos to convince all that her apparitions were true and from God by performing a great miracle (The Thunder of Justice, page 137). But all in the Cova did not see the miracle of the sun so she lied. The Vatican says that the 70,000 saw the miracle (page 54, What Happened at Fatima?) but then we are told that no two people seem to have seen the same thing (page 55, What Happened at Fatima?). “It is clear that only a proportion of the crowd, probably less than half, actually witnessed the miracle. There is some evidence to the effect that only those who were standing in a broad band across the centre of the Cova saw the vision; but the truth of this is now impossible to establish” (page 78, The Evidence for Visions of the Virgin Mary). The Cova was a natural amphitheatre which may mean that the event was a natural illusion caused by the way the sun’s rays were focused by the landscape. This would explain the broad band. The children might have seen it before when they were looking after sheep and planned to have the crowd there that day to see it. Remember Lucia did not roar at the people to look at the sun until she saw the “miracle”.

In a Fortean Picture Library photo in The Book of Miracles some of the people are not looking up at the solar miracle evidently because they have seen nothing and all of the faces looking up are not amazed. There are no open mouths or hands to the mouth. There is nobody showing any sign of fear. This picture tells a lot of the real truth about the solar miracle. It says Lucia herself did not see the miracle (page 54, What Happened at Fatima?). So the only one who could prove that the Virgin was appearing did not see the super-miracle. Again, the lady she saw did not care about proving the apparition authentic.

The Catholic Church says divine miracles have good fruits. Fatima started the spinning sun trend in religious fanaticism and it has carried on – especially in Medjugorje – and has left many blind or with bad sight due to the damage that comes from looking at the sun or convinced of the truth of silly apparitions since. Plus some who thought at the time of Fatima that the sun was going to fall on top of them were evidently nearly driven to insanity and there could have been a stampede in which people had died for the normal instinct when you see that is to run away. The Christian religion says we must love God totally and our neighbour as ourselves meaning that it is best for all people to serve God alone and to do it by helping others and ourselves not for our sake but for His. This is so unnatural that few do it and so what is the point in Mary’s miracle for its attraction was the display of power and its strangeness. People like to feel that there is a God of power to look after them which is why they want to run after miracles. But that is quite contrary to the Christian religion which wants them to run after God and nothing else.
Let us finish with an important line in Mc Clure’s wonderful book, The Evidence for Visions of the Virgin Mary, “There are surprisingly few convincing accounts of the solar event at Fatima” (page 80). Yet this miracle is the reason for believing in Fatima and it is a weak one.

Fatima, a legend?
Kevin Mc Clure has stated that “very little was written about Fatima before the end of the Second World War” (page 72, 86, The Evidence for Visions of the Virgin Mary). This leaves considerable scope for exaggeration and outright invention.

Mc Clure also recognises that it is very difficult to be sure that the lady told Lucia that the other two children would die before her before they died (page 75).

To make her lies easier, Lucia claimed that Francisco could not hear the apparition. That was in case she would say one thing and he another. The Virgin treated Lucia as the leader prompting the others to do the same. You really just have one person witnessing to the message of Fatima. How do we know that she accurately reported what she heard? The fact that so many things were testified to by Lucia alone especially in the Fatima II stage tells against the apparitions having a divine origin. The Bible says that God said that at least two reliable witnesses were necessary. It is bad enough having one witness who is an adult but worse if it is a child. Children are not reliable witnesses.

Fatima happened during the time of Benedict XV. He had no devotion for it and neither did his successor Pius XI. Pius XII seems to have imagined that he saw the Virgin himself and probably was mainly responsible for the promotion of the cult of Fatima.

Yet he knew that Lucia was wrong when she said that the lady had told her that the war had just finished on the day of the solar miracle, the 13th of October, 1917. The Virgin would take no chances of a message being delivered wrong so Lucia must have been lied to by the Virgin or imagined her.

None of the early reports about the messages mention the lady’s emphasis on the danger of communism. This warning was dreamt up later. Did Lucia, who lived under an atheistic regime, keep it quiet in case there would be reprisals? If she really believed in the apparitions she would have went to another country and revealed the message from there. It did not need saying that the lady would have been against Russia and communism so telling all made no difference. Lucia had little faith in the lady’s protection because she never saw her and yet she took a worse risk in announcing the apparitions in the first place! The next paragraph will tell us that if Lucia would not tell it was not because she was afraid of trouble for others but because she hadn’t thought of it yet.

To reveal the dreadful and over-dramatized and hysterical things Heaven supposedly said about Russia in 1942, at the time of the Second World War was an unbelievably evil thing to do because it could have influenced Catholic leaders and countries to attack and be paranoid of Russia for the sake of the faith and the lives of the Catholics the Virgin said Russia would kill. Many were influenced but they could not say so for fear of discrediting their faith. The conversion of Russia was supposedly revealed in 1917 and not mentioned until 1942 when it could have been mentioned and prayed for before and gave an implicit blessing and approval to Nazi Germany as it geared to attack Stalingrad!
There is something terribly amiss when God let Jacinta and Francisco die before they could be questioned by the investigation commission of the Church. Why would God want us to be less sure that the lady was the Virgin and appeared? The answer must be that He does NOT want us to believe.

Their departures caused uncertainty about the visions and the messages.

Lucia’s mother allegedly said that Lucia had witnessed three times a most unusual being before the angel and Mary apparitions. It looked like a person wrapped up in a sheet and it would have approached her and then went away. Was she into ghost stories first? An angel would not behave like that or go about with a sheet over its head. The account gives credence to those who say that spiritualism and Satan produced the miracle of Fatima. Three children whose names were never revealed saw the vision with Lucia, Jacinta and Francisco (page 86, The Evidence for Visions of the Virgin Mary). Why were their names kept secret? Probably because they never existed. Yet pro-Fatima people alleged that these visions were freely talked about when they happened in 1915-6. Lucia never contradicted them. She was an untrustworthy person.

She had a flair for inventing religious stories (page 179, Looking for a Miracle) and Jacinta said she forgot things relating to the visions of Mary and needed Lucia to tell her what happened which shows that Lucia was manipulating her (page 180, Looking for a Miracle). Lucia had a magnetic influence over the nuns in her convent. Some nuns were so hypnotised by her that they copied her. Her observations on the rule made the nuns attain to greater sanctity (page 98, Fatimain Lucia’s own words). Lucia wondered if her power was supernatural. Lucia could manipulate vulnerable children more easily to even see a false apparition. The people who knew Lucia well, and especially her own mother, knew that she was well able to manipulate people into saying they were having visions (page 29, What Happened at Fatima?).

The Booklet: What Happened At Fatima?
We find much to object to in relation to the Fatima apparitions in the Catholic Truth Society booklet What Happened at Fatima? We are told that Portugal in 1917 was controlled by a government that sought to destroy the influence of the Church which it considered to be superstition by information and sometimes harsher means. The visions of Fatima led to the collapse of the regime (page 5). The visionaries and their supporters then had an ample motive then to lie and cover things up.

It was scandalous how the lady told the children they would go to Heaven before asking them if they were willing to offer all their sufferings in reparation for sinners. They could have refused on the basis that they were promised Heaven anyway (page 20). She should have asked them first. It is easy to resolve to suffer which was what the children did when you know the pie in the sky is hot and waiting for you.

The lady even showed the children God in the form of a light in which they saw themselves as they were in God (page 22). Strange that they were able to sin after that for seeing God is seeing infinite good and is therefore so attractive that we cannot sin afterwards. Lucia said she showed them God. The lady then offered them a fake God and not the real God for had they seen the real one and not her idol made of light and emotions they would have been impeccable forever.

The parish priest, Fr Ferreira, held that the apparitions were of Satan because they never told the three children to tell everything about the visions and what they said to an orthodox Roman Catholic priest in confession (page 30). The priest was absolutely right if the Roman Catholic Church is the truth. The fact that Jacinta later reassured Lucia that the lady was beautiful and went up to Heaven so the vision was not the Devil who is ugly and lives under the ground (page 31) proves that the children were prepared to ignore the lady’s mistakes in order to believe in her and they believed these superficial arguments -but the Devil would not be that obvious! The priest was certainly right to see that the visions were fake.

The lady told them to pray for help from Our Lady of the Rosary and said she had come to tell them to pray to her (page 32). As if they had not been praying to her already. This sounds like the vision is denying that it is the Virgin Mary. The lady could have brought an angel with her to relay this message or simply refer to herself in the first person (i.e. “pray to me”).

The lady promised to work a miracle for all to see and believe in, in October (page 33). But this is not true for many did not see the miracle she promised and many who said they did could have been mistaken or subject to illusions of the Devil.

The lady did not let Francisco hear what she said but then she permitted the third secret, that was only revealed recently, to be told to him (page 37). Strange!

Jacinta had a great fear of dying alone (page 68). How could she if she had seen God and Mary and Jesus? She always claimed to feel they were with her. This suggests an guilty child who was afraid to die because she had told lies.

When popular booklets like this one lie so much and twist the truth how can we trust the Modernist Rome when it says that its Inquiry has found that an apparition report is true?

The apparitions of Fatima were hoaxes and the Modernist counter-Church worked on them through faking evidence for them after it had happened.


Alexandrina The Agony and the Glory, Francis Johnson, TAN, Illinois, 1979

Celestial Secrets, The Hidden History Of The Fatima Incident, Anomalist Books, San Antonio, New York, 2007

Fatima – in Lucia’s own words, Sr Lucia, Postulation Centre Fatima, 1976

Fatima Revealed and Discarded, Bro Michael of the Holy Trinity, Augustine, Devon, 1988

Is This The Third Secret? IF Colquhoun, 45 Nicholas Court, Swansea, 1995

Looking for a Miracle, Joe Nickell, Prometheus Books, New York, 1993

New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Catholic University of America and the McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. Washington, District of Columbia, 1967

Os Mouros Fatimidas e as Aparicoes de Fatima

Queen of Peace (Newspaper), Fall 1995, Pittsburgh Center for Peace

Reason and Belief, Bland Blanschard, London, George Allen and Unwin Ltd, 1974

The Book of Miracles, Stuart Gordon, Headline, London, 1996

The Evidence for Visions of the Virgin Mary, Kevin McClure, Aquarian Press, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, 1985

The Rosary and the Crisis of Faith, Msgr. Joseph a. Cirrincione and Thomas A. Nelson, Tan, Illinois, 1986

The Third Secret of Fatima, Brother Michael of the Holy Trinity CRC, Tan, Illinois, 1991

The Thunder of Justice, Ted and Maureen Flynn, Maxcol Communications Inc. Sterling VA, 1993

What Happened at Fatima? Leo Madigan, Catholic Truth Society, London, 2000

Sunday, March 7, 2010

Mystical City of God, The humility of the Blessed Virgin

The miracles and doings of Christ our Lord and Savior were so new and unheard of in the world that great admiration and honor could not but have been the result for his most holy mother; for she was not only known to the Apostles and disciples, who acknowledged her as the true mother of the Redeemer, but by the new faithful, who all came to acknowledge her as the true mother of the Messias and many times congratulated her on account of the wonders wrought by her Son. All this, however, was for her a new occasion of humility; for she always humbled herself to the dust and debased herself in her own mind beyond all conception of created mind. Yet with all her humility she did not show herself slow and ungrateful in the acknowledgment of all the favors lavished upon her ; for in humiliating herself at sight of all the great works of Christ, she rendered worthy thanks to the eternal Father for each one of them and thus filled out the great void of ingratitude of the human race. And by means of the secret communication of her purest soul with that of the Savior, she sought to divert toward God, her Son, the honor attributed to her by his hearers.

This happened on some occasions which even the Evangelists mention. For instance, when the Jews attributed the healing of the deaf-mute to the devil, the Lord incited a woman to exclaim: "Blessed is the womb that bore Thee, and the paps that gave Thee suck," the humble and attentive mother, hearing these words of praise, begged her divine Son to divert this praise from her, and the Lord acceded to her request in such a way,

that He turned these words into a still greater, yet, at that time a hidden, praise. For the Lord answered:

"Yea rather, blessed are they who hear the word of God and keep it" (Luke 11, 27). By these words He neutralized the praise given to her as mother but enhanced it in application to her as a saint; directing the attention of his hearers to the essential of all virtue, in which his mother was distinguished above all others and most wonderful, though at the same time none of his hearers adverted to this hidden signification.

Another instance of this kind is mentioned by Saint Luke, when he says that someone interrupted the preaching of the Lord by the message that his mother and his brethren had arrived, and that they could not come near to Him on account of the press of the multitude. The most prudent Virgin, fearing lest those within hearing would break out in applause at seeing the mother of the Savior, asked her Son to prevent such an event.

The Lord again yielded, and said : "My mother and my brethren are they who hear the word of God and do it" (Luke 8, 21). In these words likewise the Lord did not deprive his mother of the honor due to her on account of her holiness; but referred it to her above all others; yet in such a way that the attention of the bystanders was diverted from her, and she, on her part, gained her object of seeing the Lord alone praised and acknowledged for His works.

What Must You Do To Get to Heaven?

Wednesday, March 3, 2010

Lent and Fast Days: What is the Church discipline?

Please also read:
Get Good at Fasting
Gluttony, And Why it is One of the Seven Deadly Sins

2 Peter 3:8-10: "But of this one thing be not ignorant, my beloved, that one day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord delayeth not his promise, as some imagine, but dealeth patiently for your sake, not willing that any should perish, but that all should return to penance. But the day of the Lord shall come as a thief, in which the heavens shall pass away with great violence, and the elements shall be melted with heat, and the earth and the works which are in it, shall be burnt up."

Luke 13:5: "...except you do penance, you shall all likewise perish."

The general rules for the Church discipline of fasting appear to be as follows
(if any readers have more information, please contact me):

All baptized persons between the ages of 21 and 60 are included in the precept of fasting.

On fast days, one meal alone is permitted, which must be taken no sooner than noon.  There is one smaller portion of food permitted in the evening, which must not exceed 8 ounces (collation).

On fast days outside of Lent, meat is permitted at the meal, so long as it does not fall on a Friday.

The days of fasting are these:

The Ember Days (that is the first Wednesday, Friday and Saturday of each of the four seasons)
The Vigils (the day preceding a Holy Day of obligation)

With the exception of Sundays in Lent, all the days of Lent, from Ash Wednesday to Holy Saturday, are days of fasting, as are the Fridays in Advent.

The days of Abstinence from fleshmeat are these:

All Fridays throughout the year and the Saturdays of Advent are days of abstinence from fleshmeat (this does not include eggs, fish or dairy products as it used to in previous centuries).

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Secunda Secundae Partis, Q. 147, Art. 6, Obj 2: "Fasting is of two kinds. One is the natural fast, which is requisite for receiving the Eucharist. This is broken by any kind of drink, even of water, after which it is not lawful to receive the Eucharist. The fast of the Church is another kind and is called the "fasting of the faster," and this is not broken save by such things as the Church intended to forbid in instituting the fast. Now the Church does not intend to command abstinence from drink, for this is taken more for bodily refreshment, and digestion of the food consumed, although it nourishes somewhat. It is, however, possible to sin and lose the merit of fasting, by partaking of too much drink: as also by eating immoderately at one meal."

In this article, we will examine the Church's discipline of fasting and determine its present constitution and how it ought to be observed, but first it is important to establish just how serious the precept of fasting is:

"He who breaks a fast of the Church to which he is bound, does not sin mortally, unless he does this out of contempt and disobedience." - CONDEMNED in decrees of Sept. 24, 1665, by Pope Alexander VII (Denzinger 1123)

In other words, failing to observe the Church's fasts, through weakness or even through culpable ignorance is not sufficient to exonerate one from mortal sin.  You MUST resolve to learn what the Church commands and then observe it or you are in mortal sin.

At the end of this article may be found the excerpt from Goffine's Explanations and Instructions concerning fast days.

Catholic Encyclopedia, Fast: In the United States of America all the days of Lent; the Fridays of Advent (generally); the Ember Days; the vigils of Christmas (Dec. 24) and Pentecost (variable), as well as those of the Assumption (14 Aug.); of All Saints (31 Oct.), are now fasting days.

Wikipedia, Fasting and Abstinence in the Roman Catholic Church: "Advent is also considered a time of special self-examination, humility, and spiritual preparation in anticipation of the birth of Christ. Fridays and Saturdays in Advent were days of abstinence, and until early in the 20th century, the Fridays of Advent were also days of fasting."   - Note that the Catholic Church lost her hierarchy to heretics at the end of the 19th century, thus no further changes were able to be made to the Catholic disciplines since then.

Pope Benedict XIV reiterated what constitutes proper abstinence (rough Google Translation of the Italian):

Pope Benedict XIV, Libentissme Quidem, June 10, 1745: "What are the allowed foods that can not be associated with those banned?

"We answer: The same foods are allowed to those who were allowed to eat meat, except, fish is a forbidden food to the point that one and the other food may not be taken together. However, those who only eat fish may eat eggs and dairy products.

"Does the commandment not to mix the other one kind of food also extend to the Sundays of Lent?

"We assert: It extends.

"Are these two commands valid even outside of Lent?

"They are valid outside Lent, namely that the only meal, with the other laws set out in the second and third answer to these questions, and the other prohibiting the mixing of food with the lawful prohibited, as is indicated in the fourth application."

No meat is to be consumed during Lent (except on Sundays), except where there is evidence that a Catholic Bishop with ordinary jurisdiction for a particular diocese has granted dispensations in accordance with the Constitution Libentissime Quidem of Pope Benedict XIV.  In other words, the Catholic faithful of a diocese do not "grant themselves" dispensations from the rules of fasting, even in the event of a vacant see.  The only possible exceptions might be those whose fasting might prove disastrous, and this according to epikeia.

Here are excerpts from three sources, the Liturgical Year by Prosper Guéranger, the Devout Instruction of Father Leonard Goffine and the Catholic Encyclopedia, which must be taken with TWO grains of salt, for it was written 32 years after the spiritual fall of Christian Rome AND it has already been shown to contain troublesome and even heretical passages:

The Liturgical Year, Volume 5: "The fourteenth century gave weight, both by universal custom and theological authority, to the opinion held by Richard of Middleton. It will, perhaps; suffice if we quote the learned Dominican, Durandus, bishop of Meaux, who says that there can be no doubt as to the lawfulness of taking one's repast at midday; and he adds that such was then the custom observed by the Pope, and Cardinals, and even the religious Orders.

"We cannot, therefore, be surprised at finding this opinion maintained, in the fifteenth century, by such grave authors as St. Antoninus, Cardinal Cajetan, and others. Alexander Hales and St. Thomas sought to prevent the relaxation going beyond the hour of None; but their zeal was disappointed, and the present discipline was established, we might almost say, during their lifetime.

"But whilst this relaxation of taking the repast so early in the day as twelve o'clock rendered fasting less difficult in one way, it made it more severe in another. The body grew exhausted by the labours of the long second half of the twenty-four hours; and the meal, that formerly closed the day, and satisfied the cravings of fatigue, had been already taken. It was found necessary to grant some refreshment for the evening, and it was called a "collation"."

From Goffine's Devout Instructions: "Was the fast of Lent kept in early times as it is now?

"Yes, only more rigorously; for: 1. The Christians of the early ages abstained not only from flesh-meat, but from those things which are produced from flesh, such as butter, eggs, cheese, and also from wine and fish. 2. They fasted during the whole day, and ate only after vespers, that is, at night."

Catholic Encyclopedia, Lent, Relaxations of the lenten fast: "From what has been said it will be clear that in the early Middle Ages Lent throughout the greater part of the Western Church consisted of forty weekdays, which were all fast days, and six Sundays. From the beginning to the end of that time all flesh meat, and also, for the most part, "lacticinia", were forbidden even on Sundays, while on all the fasting days only one meal was taken, which single meal was not permitted before evening.

"At a very early period, however (we find the first mention of it in Socrates), the practice began to be tolerated of breaking the fast at the hour of none, i.e., three o'clock. We learn in particular that Charlemagne, about the year 800, took his lenten repast at 2 p.m. This gradual anticipation of the hour of dinner was facilitated by the fact that the canonical hours of none, vespers, etc., represented rather periods than fixed points of time. The ninth hour, or none, was no doubt strictly three o'clock in the afternoon, but the Office of none might be recited as soon as sext, which, of course, corresponded to the sixth hour, or midday, was finished.

"Hence none in course of time came to be regarded as beginning at midday, and this point of view is perpetuated in our word noon which means midday and not three o'clock in the afternoon. Now the hour for breaking the fast during Lent was after Vespers (the evening service), but by a gradual process the recitation of Vespers was more and more anticipated, until the principle was at last officially recognized, as it is at present, that Vespers in lent may be said at midday.

"In this way, although the author of the "Micrologus" in the eleventh century still declared that those who took food before evening did not observe the lenten fast according to the canons (P.L., CLI, 1013), still, even at the close of the thirteenth century, certain theologians, for example the Franciscan Richard Middleton, who based his decision in part upon contemporary usage, pronounced that a man who took his dinner at midday did not break the lenten fast. Still more material was the relaxation afforded by the introduction of "collation".

"This seems to have begun in the ninth century, when the Council of Aix la Chapelle sanctioned the concession, even in monastic houses, of a draught of water or other beverage in the evening to quench the thirst of those who were exhausted by the manual labor of the day. From this small beginning a much larger indulgence was gradually evolved. The principle of parvitas materiae, i.e., that a small quantity of nourishment which was not taken directly as a meal did not break the fast, was adopted by St. Thomas Aquinas and other theologians, and in the course of centuries a recognized quantity of solid food, which according to received authorities must not exceed eight ounces, has come to be permitted after the midday repast.

"As this evening drink, when first tolerated in the ninth-century monasteries, was taken at the hour at which the "Collationes" (Conferences) of Abbot Cassian were being read aloud to the brethren, this slight indulgence came to be known as a "collation", and the name has continued since. Other mitigations of an even more substantial character have been introduced into lenten observance in the course of the last few centuries. To begin with, the custom has been tolerated of taking a cup of liquid (e.g., tea or coffee, or even chocolate) with a fragment of bread or toast in the early morning.

"But, what more particularly regards Lent, successive indults have been granted by the Holy See allowing meat at the principal meal, first on Sundays, and then on two, three, four, and five weekdays, throughout nearly the whole of Lent. Quite recently, Maundy Thursday, upon which meat was hitherto always forbidden, has come to share in the same indulgence. In the United States, the Holy See grants faculties whereby working men and their families may use flesh meat once a day throughout the year, except Fridays, Ash Wednesday, Holy Saturday, and the vigil of Christmas. The only compensation imposed for all these mitigations is the prohibition during Lent against partaking of both fish and flesh at the same repast."

Catholic Encyclopedia, Fast: "According to general usage, noon is the proper time for this meal. For good reasons this hour may be legitimately anticipated. Grievous sin is not committed even though this meal is taken a full hour before noon without sufficient reason, because the substance of fasting, which consists in taking but one full meal a day, is not imperiled. In like manner, the hour for the midday meal and the collation, may for good reasons be conscientiously inverted. In many of our larger cities this practice now prevails.

"According to D'Annibale (Summa Theologiae Moralis, 4 ed. III, 134) and Noldin (Summa Theologiae Moralis, n. 674) good reasons justify one in taking a collation in the morning, dinner at noon, and the morning allowance in the evening, because the substance of fasting still remains intact. Nothing like a noteworthy interruption should he admitted during the course of the midday meal, because such a break virtually forms two meals instead of one.

"Common sense, taking into consideration individual intention and the duration of the interruption, must finally determine whether a given interruption is noteworthy or not. Ordinarily an interruption of one half hour is considered slight. Nevertheless, an individual, after having commenced the midday meal and meeting with a bonafide interruption lasting for an hour or more is fully justified in resuming and finishing the meal after the termination of an interruption. Finally, unless special reasons suggest the contrary, it is not allowed to give immoderate length to the time of this meal. Ordinarily, a duration of more than two hours is considered immoderate in this matter.

"Besides a complete meal, the Church now permits a collation usually taken in the evening. In considering this point proper allowance must be made for what custom has introduced regarding both the quantity and the quality of viands allowed at this repast. In the first place, about eight ounces of food are permitted at the collation even though this amount of food would fully satisfy the appetites of some persons.

"Moreover, the attention must be paid to each person's temperament, duties, length of fast, etc. Hence, much more food is allowed in cold than in warm climates, more to those working during the day than to those at ease, more to the weak and hungry than to the strong and well fed. As a general rule whatever is deemed necessary in order to enable people to give proper attention to their duties may be taken at the collation.

"Moreover, since custom first introduced the collation, the usage of each country must be considered in determining the quality of viands permitted thereat. In some places eggs, milk, butter, cheese and fish are prohibited, while bread, cake, fruit, herbs and vegetables are allowed. In other places, milk, eggs, cheese, butter and fish are permitted, owing either to custom or to Indult. This is the case in the United States. However, in order to form judgments perfectly safe concerning this point, the Lenten regulations of each diocese should be carefully read.

"Finally, a little tea, coffee, chocolate or such like beverage together with a morsel of bread or a cracker is now allowed in the morning. Strictly speaking, whatever may be classified under the head of liquids may be taken as drink or medicine at any time of the day or night on fasting days. Hence, water, lemonade, soda, water, ginger ale, wine, beer and similar drinks may be taken on fasting days outside meal time even though such beverages may, to some extent, prove nutritious. Coffee, tea, diluted chocolate, electuaries made of sugar, juniper berries, and citron may be taken on fasting days, outside meal time, as medicine by those who find them conducive to health.  Honey, milk, soup, broth, oil or anything else having the nature of food, is not allowed under either of the two categories already specified.

"It is impossible to decide mathematically how much food is necessary to involve a serious violation of this law. Moralists as well as canonists concur in holding that an excess of four ounces would seriously militate against the obligation of fasting, whether that much food was consumed at once or at various intervals during the day because Alexander VII (18 March, 1666) condemned the teaching of those who claimed that food so taken was not to be regarded as equalling or exceeding the amount allowed (Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum et Definitionum, tenth ed. Freiburg im Br., 1908, No. 1129).

"The ecclesiastical law of fasting embodies a serious obligation on all baptized individuals capable of assuming obligations provided they have completed their twenty-first year and are not otherwise excused. This doctrine is merely a practical application of a universally accepted principle of moralists and canonists whereby the character of obligation in human legislation is deemed serious or light in so far as the material element, involved in the law bears or does not bear a close and intimate relation to the attainment of a prescribed end.

"Inasmuch as fasting considered as a function of the virtue of temperance bears such a relation to the promotion of man's spiritual well-being (see Lenten Preface in the Roman Missal), it certainly embodies an obligation generally serious. To this a priori reason may be added what Church history unfolds concerning the grave penalties attached to transgressions of this law. The sixty-ninth of the Apostolic Canons decrees the degradation of bishops, priests, deacons, lectors or chanters failing to fast during Lent, and the excommunication of laymen, who fail in this way.  The fifty-sixth canon of the Trullan Synod (692) contains similar regulations. Finally Alexander VII (24 Sept., 1665) condemned a proposition formulated in the following terms: Whoso violates the ecclesiastical law of fasting to which he is bound does not sin mortally unless he acts through contempt or disobedience (Denzinger, op. cit., no. 1123).

"Though this obligation is generally serious, not every infraction of the law is mortally sinful. Whenever transgressions of the law fail to do substantial violence to the law, venial sins are committed. Inability to keep the law of fasting and incompatibility of fasting with the duties of one's state in life suffice by their very nature, to extinguish the obligation because as often as the obligation of positive laws proves extremely burdensome or irksome the obligation is forthwith lifted.

"Hence, the sick, the infirm, convalescents, delicate women, persons sixty years old and over, families whose members cannot have the necessaries for a full meal at the same time, or who have nothing but bread, vegetables or such like viands, those to whom fasting brings loss of sleep or severe headaches, wives whose fasting incurs their husband's indignation, children whose fasting arouses parent's wrath; in a word, all those who can not comply with the obligation of fasting without undergoing more than ordinary hardship are excused on account of their inability to fulfil the obligation.

"In like manner unusual fatigue or bodily weakness experienced in discharging one duty and superinduced by fasting lifts the obligation of fasting. However, not every sort of labour, but only such as is hard and protracted excuses from the obligation of fasting. These two conditions are not confined to manual labour, but may be equally verified with regard to brain work. Hence bookkeepers, stenographers, telegraph operators, legal advisers and many others whose occupations are largely mental are entitled to exemption on this score, quite as well as day-labourers or tradesmen. 

"When these causes begetting exemption by their very nature, do not exist, lawfully constituted superiors may dispense their subjects from the obligation of fasting. Accordingly the Sovereign Pontiff may always and everywhere grant valid dispensations from this obligation. His dispensations will be licit when sufficient reasons underlie the grant. In particular cases and for good reasons, bishops may grant dispensations in their respective dioceses. Unless empowered by Indult they are not at liberty to dispense all their subjects simultaneously.

"It is to be noted that usually bishops issue just before Lent circulars or pastorals, which are read to the faithful or otherwise made public, and in which they make known, on the authority of the Apostolic See, the actual status of obligation, dispensations, etc. Priests charged with the care of souls may dispense individuals for good reason. Superiors of religious communities may dispense individual members of their respective communities provided sufficient reasons exist. Confessors are not qualified to grant these dispensations unless they have been explicitly delegated thereunto. They may, however, decide whether sufficient reason exists to lift the obligation.


"No student of ecclesiatical discipline can fail to perceive that the obligation of fasting is rarely observed in its integrity nowadays. Conscious of the conditions of our age, the Church is ever shaping the requirements of this obligation to meet the best interests of her children. At the same time no measure of leniency in this respect can eliminate the natural and divine positive law imposing mortification and penance on man on account of sin and its consequences. (Council of Trent, Sess. VI. can. xx) "

What Must You Do To Get to Heaven?