Friday, November 29, 2013


And so it begins, that period of expectation which is the time of Advent.  It is another link with our ancestors, in which we share their longing for the coming of the Messiah.  That we have this unbroken link is one of the glories of our Faith.

To face this holy time with the right dispositions of mind and heart, amid all that bombards us and which take our thoughts away from Advent, is a task that even many of our fellow Catholics of old never had to face. They did not have to contend with Walmart and television, and they were spared the modern indignity of having their carols desecrated by talent challenged pop musicians.  They had silence and stillness.  It is what we need moderns need, too: the time to begin stillness, and silence

While it may seem in glaring contradiction to our call for silence at this time, we can provide balm to our troubled souls with the music inspired by this time, beginning with, for example, the O Antiphons:

These are normally recited, or sung, during the final days of Advent, the seven O Antiphons commencing on December 17th.  But it is not inappropriate that we can take part in them even earlier as we continue the days of preparation.

Some weeks back our friend Timothy Cullen wrote here about the beauty of the music of Hildegard von Bingen.  An example, lasting over an hour let us warn you, can be heard here:

Such music is so beautiful to the ear, and thus to the mind and the heart, that it cannot help but add to our Advent.

But can anything compare with sitting in a beautifully adorned Church in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament in complete quiet?  Very little.  But I say let us have both; let us have our contemplation in stillness, and let us also hear the voices of our ancestors as represented by talented modern artists.  After all there is a reason God gave us music.  But it is both of these things that form a part of the longing we share with the ancients.

Beautiful music and profound silence are saying something to us:

People, look to the East.

Wednesday, November 27, 2013


It is not my intention to write too much about this yearly orgy of spending which is to commence this Friday following the US creation known as Thanksgiving.  But one appalls at the waste.

Not to mention the mayhem that grows worse every year on these days of binge shopping for items we do not need preparing for Christmas which, thanks to the materialist mindset, is thrown in front of our faces from September onwards without even a cursory acknowledgement that we prepare for Christmas by keeping a good Advent.

But why waste words?  Writers such as I can not stop this thing, which has come to be known in a serio-comic way as Black Friday.  It is too ingrained in the mindset, and those politicians who cooked up their "Thanksgiving" holiday in the 19th century so as to upstage Advent and Christmas knew what they were doing.  Ultimately it was done by Money for Money, as are most ventures of the Enlightenment Personified, the United States.

Waste and Consumption are twin devils that are everywhere and always promoted by the Money Interests.  And why not?  They have the most to gain....while we have the most to lose.

On a happier and more profound note, Advent is coming.

[Here is another interesting take on the American holiday, from Thomas di Lorenzo:]

Sunday, November 24, 2013


There is always hope.

Even now.  Of the Three Theological Virtues, all of equal value, the virtue of Hope is perhaps the one on most people's minds, those who are of the Faith at any rate.  As everything is crashing down around us, and it is, hope is a virtue that I, for one, would like to keep very much in mind.

It is with that cognizance of this particular theological virtue that I offer these few thoughts on the upcoming meeting tomorrow,  November 25th, between Vladimir Putin and the Pope, a meeting apparently requested by Mr Putin himself and readily agreed to by Francis.  We don't know what will be discussed at this meeting but preliminary reports inform us that it will concern for the most part the terrible situation of Christians in the Middle East in general and Syria in particular.  God be thanked for that.

Yet I am not ashamed to admit that I do hope, at least a little, for the beginnings of a miracle.   Or should we say another miracle, because we had a rather interesting miracle on September 7th, when the USA was getting ready to smash into smithereens the nation of Syria, but was stopped by both a papal plea for fasting and prayer and the diplomatic genius of Vladimir Putin (I remain firm in the opinion that the one followed the other).  What precisely that other miracle might be I obviously cannot say but I can hope that it could portend the beginning, even if a very small one, of a rapprochement between the Eastern Church and Rome, or that it might be something equally momentous.

Equally momentous?  I shall let the philosopher Vladimir Solovyev say it, a man whose life centered upon the desire to convince the Orthodox to return to the Universal Church:

"The profoundly religious and monarchic instinct of the Russian people, certain prophetic events in its past history, the enormous and compact bulk of its Empire, the great latent strength of the national spirit in contrast to the poverty and emptiness of its actual existence - all this seems to indicate that it is the historic destiny of Russia to provide the Universal Church with the political power which it requires for the salvation and regeneration of Europe and the world." (1)

Solovyev spent his short life trying to bring the Eastern Churches back into the bosom of the Catholic Church, which he terms always the Universal Church, so when he is saying that Russia must be the guardian and protector of the Universal Church he is saying that the Church could see its work on earth defended by a great Christian power.  To Solovyev the philosopher this whole idea dovetails with his vision of the day when the schism of 1054 A.D. will be ended and Russia will emerge as the shield that will protect the True Faith in a reunited Church of the East and the West.

Mr Putin has already met with the previous two Popes.  But the world has changed with startling rapidity this past Fall and what he spoke about to the last two Popes was most likely somewhat different than what these two men might speak about today.  Among other things Putin appears to be, according to published interviews, genuinely concerned by the split in the two Churches. This alone is most interesting.

I imagine it would absolutely terrify the world's neo-pagan rulers if a serious, Christian, powerful Russian ruler would become the defender of the world's Christians.  A delightful thought.

But I must not allow my glasses to become too rosy-colored.  The current Russian leader may not wish to be Christendom's new guarantor, or perhaps God does not think the time is yet ripe.  And He may not think that the time is yet right for an end to the Great Schism.  So many times in the past the delicate relations between the Catholics and the Orthodox have come to grief often because of clumsiness on the part of the one or the other.  That could easily happen here.  And there is "baggage" being carried by both parties that could ruin everything.  We must leave the dealing of that baggage to God.

Right now, as we write, we are faced with an extremely powerful, militaristic, usurious and openly pagan government intent on forcing the world to accept every conceivable vice at the point of a gun.  On the other side of the world we have a once-powerful government slowly beginning to be healed from a cruel dictatorship of eighty years standing which is going from strength to strength.  It is a fascinating situation.

The Pope and Vladimir Putin will meet on the feast of Sr Catherine of Alexandria.  St  Joan of Arc named St Catherine as one of those who counseled her.  She is a Saint honored both in the East and the West.  Five days later, November 30th, is the feast of St Andrew.  An interesting week for such a meeting to occur in.

1.) Vladimir Solovyev, Russia and the Universal Church, Trans. by Herbert Rees, London, Geoffrey Bles, The Centenary Press, pg. 29

Putin and the Pope, earlier today.
[Of course the Pope will be meeting with the snake oil salesmen from America shortly after his meeting with Mr Putin, and with the snake himself on December 2nd, which I fully expect will be an attempt to defuse any good that might have come from the meeting between Putin and the Holy See.  But I am hopeful that the Holy Father will not allow himself to be bamboozled by them.]

Interesting update:

A small but not unimportant action by Russia:

Thursday, November 21, 2013


Sage advice from blogger Dad29:

"One of the First Things in politics is 'Never, ever, adopt the language of the enemy.'"

Now, dear, old Dad29 is more of a political blogger who writes much about politics, often from a Republican Party perspective, but his quote can be easily applied to any conflict between two ideologies.  What he says is correct: don't adopt the language of your enemy.

Unfortunately, when speaking about the homosexual perversion modern man has been doing exactly that.  Worse, modern Catholics have been doing the same.  They are taking a perfectly innocent word "gay" and using it to describe something unspeakable.  My dear fellow Catholics I am telling you very bluntly that when you use that word to describe sodomite behavior you are signalling defeat in a very crucial battle of a very real war.

Nor is this a small point.  When the enemy - and let us name the enemy: a satanic juggernaut using perversion as its weapon of choice - defines the terms, and the opponents accept those terms, the opponents have already lost. Every time the word "gay" is used to describe this unnatural vice we concede ground.  It is one of the most clever devices of the Overseers of the Pit to change the meaning of words in such a way that men call evil good and good, evil.  It is that upside-down mentality of the devils, which turns Masses into Black Masses and crucifixes upside-down that drives this war on words.  If we here could but succeed to convince our fellow writers to stop using that word in its perverted meaning we would have achieved something.

Even solid, thinking Christians use the word.  My very dear friends this cannot go on.  The sodomites laugh and smirk among themselves when they see their adversaries using their own terminology.  And why shouldn't they?  They see a battle, not a minor skirmish, that they have won.

This writer once had a brief correspondence with a noted Catholic writer regarding his continued use of that word to describe the homosexual perversion.  I suggested that "buggery" would be a better and more exact word to use to describe this but he brushed that aside by saying, quite frankly, that since "gay" is now the accepted word to use to describe them (accepted?  by whom?), and that it is now widely in use, that he felt perfectly comfortable in using it in the future.  He added that the word "buggery" was somehow too old-fashioned to be taken seriously.  (We must therefore presume that other such words as "murder", "bestiality" and "adultery" would also make his list of old-fashioned words not to be used any longer.)  A true futurist, he.  But this is what we are up against.

As cringe-making as it is to see the word "gay" misused so outrageously it is equally troubling to redefine serious mortal sins as "attractions".  Well, yes, they are attractions: sinful attractions.  Mortally sinful attractions to be more precise.  But when some frightened souls are discussing buggery the word "sin" must be eliminated and substituted with something more medical-sounding, such as "same sex attraction".  Once again, many Christians have begun using this strange phrase in such a way as to suggest that a sodomite is merely someone suffering from some kind of disease, like pneumonia or the mumps, and that therefore we should not encourage him to get into the Confessional but instead we should commiserate with him in his unfortunate malady.  I will certainly admit that there are those who are plagued with the terrible temptation to commit these awful acts and that if we are aware of someone so suffering we should of course sympathize but with firmness.   When your mother discovered you were shoplifting candy bars at the grocery store when you were a child did she deal with you as someone with some sort of sickness, or did she take a firm hand, practicing "tough love"?  I believe we can be safe in assuming that she did not explain to the shopkeeper that her child was suffering from Candy Filching Attraction and that he must try to understand.

Even worse we now have a phrase to describe serious, destructive mortal sin that is the cleverest of them all.  I refer, of course, to that nebulous condition, "sexual orientation" which emerged out of thin air a few decades ago.  Truly, that phrase has come directly from the halls of Hell.  It is brilliant and meaningless at one and the same time.  Like Humpty Dumpty's vocabulary it is designed to mean whatever it is we want it to mean.  Brilliant it is because it builds upon the dubious "SSA" myth and embellishes it.  It is designed to make us accept anything, any carnal appetite no matter how twisted, as something we are born with.  If your interest is in pederasty, or God knows what else, it is simply your orientation and you must just live with it and not have to be plagued with admonitions to mend your ways.  The phrase dovetails perfectly with the "born that way" nonsense that the unthinking have begun to accept more casually.  Good people have fallen victim to this phrase, causing them to put aside their revulsion of vice, and that is the most saddening thing of all.  A more perfect illustration of preternatural influence would be difficult to find.

This is a campaign of mendacity that has had sensational success.  If the same methods were to be used to convince the public that bear-baiting or cannibalism are now acceptable, just like sodomy now supposedly is, it most likely would have worked in the same way.  How prophetic was the Church then when She warned that the acceptance of contraception and the contraceptive mentality would lead to crimes such as abortion and sodomy.  The same mind that would now accept such unspeakable evils as abortion and sodomy would soon without question soon accept even more of the perverse.  Indeed I fully expect that in a very short time you will be able to legally murder your mother.  When that time comes they will surely come up with a soothing, medicinal phrase to describe matricide.  Because using the right words is the crucial thing.

That is why this deadly war is a war of the words.

Dear friends, do you really, truly want to help these people who are succumbing to the homosexual temptation?  These people are headed for the abyss as we well know  If we wish them to avoid that then we must begin to rethink our sentimental views about their condition.  Sentimentality about something so gravely serious as this will do nothing to rescue these poor souls whose manner of living will bring them certain spiritual death unless they give up this vice.  It is a vice that is degrading them and even causing them to take leave of their own senses.  Help for them can come by not mincing words about what it is we are talking about.  Ending the use of fanciful phrases and words to describe their condition will do more good for them than trying to find excuses.

We especially exhort our Bishops to lead the way in telling it like it is and to strenuously avoid the nice, calmly words like "gay", "sexual orientation" and whatever else they will come up with to put lipstick on a pig.  For remember, Your Lordships, that if you don't start to courageously step up to the plate with clear, unequivocal language you will lose one small battle after another, and will soon find yourselves like Lemuel Gulliver, tied down with tiny ropes - but enough of them so you will no longer be able to move.  The world is boxing you into a corner, dear Bishops; while you still have time you must start speaking out, with clarity and strength.  They have all the forces of evil on their side and they are formidable forces.  But you have one up on them...if only you would choose to use Him.

I have a sense of futility about all this.  I have lost count of how many letters to the editor, or responses in blogs I have written to attempting to encourage people, especially those who know better, to cease using the Enemy's terms of reference.  Very few have been convinced, and whether it is because my writing skills are not equal to the task or because people believe it to be a trivial matter my efforts have met with only a very limited success.  But as this war is indeed a war and because this point is far from trivial I shall continue trying to point out that calling things honestly what they are, even in the most charitable way possible, is crucial to efforts to wrest them away from the wrong path they are taking, and that every inch conceded to the promoters and enablers of unnatural vice, like using the word "gay" to describe something unspeakable, is another inch of ground that we have lost.

We have lost far too much ground already.

Wednesday, November 20, 2013


Mr Binyamin Netanyahu feels that the historic residents of Palestine are being overly pampered.

“It cannot be that the Palestinians are forever pampered by the international community,” Netanyahu insisted, saying it was time to demand the Palestinians start making some real concessions to their occupiers.

This man is scheduled to meet with the Pope on December 2nd, during the holy season of Advent.  Perhaps Rome might need a little background on him, as well as a brief overview of his policies towards the people under his fiefdom and for that reason we present the following information.

We thought it would be helpful, in light of Mr N's statement, that we should get a better idea of this pampering, lovingly administered by his government:

Gaza, after being pampered by the Israelis

Mr Netanyahu might be interested in learning that God will only tolerate only so much injustice, murder and rapine.  As the Jewish people might like to recall from the Torah, He does occasionally get angry.

In a further example of excessive pampering, the Israeli occupiers have decided (again) to mow down more ancient olive groves belonging to the historic residents of Palestine in the name of security.

Olive groves in Palestine destined to be mowed down.  If they look like they they could have existed at the time of Christ we shouldn't be surprised, because they have been there since the time of Christ.

We wonder if anyone in the Catholic Church will stand up and say something about this murder and economic destruction, labelled "pampering" by the war criminals in Tel Aviv.   The victims of the terrible storms that devastated the Philippines brought instant papal sympathy, and rightly so.  But this ongoing degradation and extermination of the people of Palestine by occupiers who are beginning to make the Communists and Nazis look like benevolent regimes receives scant attention in the halls of the Vatican.

Alas, we know why that it: it is the Rome/Tel Aviv agreement, still very much in force, that silences the outrage and the just anger of the Church in the face of these every day horrors.  Non-thinking Christians dismiss all these things as something not to be too concerned about because, after all, in their eyes Israel is God's chosen land and all those who suffer under the Israeli boot are simply Muslims who deserve what they get.  Yes, sadly, I have read those very words on not a few Catholic blogs, and recently.  Their blindness to what is happening in the Holy Land is simply astounding and their refusal to see another side of the story or even sympathize with their fellow Christians who are suffering there is mind-boggling to say the least.  To be fair, they are subject to an almost daily barrage of pro-Israel propaganda.  Their minds soak up this propaganda so much so that their capacity to reason seems to leave them.

Aside from all this, an interesting report from the Jewish daily Haaretz describes how what remains of the Palestinian economy is being demolished.

Children in Gaza have to walk through sewage to go to school:

Mondoweiss, a left-leaning Jewish blogsite which often has very interesting information to depart offers readers some more facts on the ground to consider:

The Mondoweiss article has one of the most telling descriptions of the mindset of hatred and revenge we have ever come across.  But we still ask, why does no one speak of this - especially no one in the Vatican?  And I say this with full knowledge of the secret Agreement described above.  Agreement or no, can not the Pope or anyone in the hierarchy in Rome find it in their hearts to condemn this?  One wonders just how bad it has to get before we will ever hear the words of justice once again coming from the Church.

The Syrian debacle was put on hold thanks to the Pope, Mr Putin and the prayers of millions.  But the same country that got the USA to do its dirty work for them in Iraq, and wanted us to go and destroy Syria, is still trying to get us to destroy Iran.  Pat Buchanan writes about this today

We here are a small and insignificant voice.  Our readership is minuscule.  It is doubtful that any high Churchman has even heard of us, let alone read us. Yet we ask the Vatican to seriously consider breaking all diplomatic relations and agreements with that nation that has become every bit as despicable as the totalitarian regimes of the last century.  It was a blunder of colossal magnitude for John Paul II to establish diplomatic relations with this illegal state founded upon a total rejection of Jesus Christ.  That blunder must be reversed.  The Church's credibility, indeed the Church's very survival in the Holy Land, depends upon Her disentangling Herself from this octopus.

Until the Vatican extricates itself from this agreement those people who have lived in the Holy Land for 5,000+ years are going to be totally eliminated.

Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.
Blessed are the meek: for they shall posses the land.
Blessed are they who mourn: for they shall be comforted
Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill
Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy
Blessed are the clean of heart: for they shall see God
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called children of God
Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice' sake, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven

Those who hunger and thirst after justice will be satisfied one day. 

UPDATE 23 November 2013:

"Putting Palestinians on a diet"

Tuesday, November 19, 2013


From Mars?

From the Nazis?

From the Commies?


Boise doesn't know who or what has designs on them but they're ready: they've just purchased military-grade assault vehicles.  And they're not the only Important City in America to have purchased such hardware.  High Springs, Florida and Lafayette, Indiana are also ready in case a coven of werewolves emerges from the nether regions to attack the populace.

Here's the scoop.

It is amusing to reflect upon the fact that the same people who are aghast at the Communist paranoia of the 1950s, and the Nazi/Japanese paranoia of the 1940s, are the ones assuring us that the Department of Homeland Security, which is happily promoting anti-everybody paranoia around the country, is only acting in our best interests.

Maybe it's time we took another look at that Twilight Zone episode, "The Monsters are Due on Maple Street".  Rod Serling was more of a prophet than he knew.

Sunday, November 17, 2013


I am beginning to seriously wonder if the Vatican has a great dislike for Milwaukee.  By questioning this I am not engaging in sarcasm; I am just curious.  I am curious because of the people Rome has sent to watch over the Milwaukee Archdiocese during the last thirty-odd years.

Consider:  in 1977 Milwaukee was blessed with the presence of one Rembert George Weakland, a strange, petulant and obnoxious Modernist who would probably still be Archbishop had his homosexual dalliances not become public.  Under his fiefdom misery upon misery was visited upon the hapless Catholics of the diocese, the local seminary was turned into a porn film grind house, the ugly and stupid Novus Ordo Masses became uglier and stupider, homosexual predation of adolescent boys became more prevalent, every idiotic liturgical abuse permitted by a weakened, ungoverning papacy found a place in the City's Catholic churches and schools, the list goes on.  Weakland never missed an opportunity to publicly utter his personal dissent (read: schism) from Church teaching knowing full well he would be protected in Rome by his mincing friends there.  The traditional Mass that was said in Milwaukee regularly in at least two diocesan churches quietly disappeared and went "underground", so to speak, and where heroic priests, knowing their rights, continued to serve those who wished to have the ancient rite even if that meant having Holy Mass in rented halls or private homes. (Weakland would eventually, and reluctantly, "allow" a traditional Mass at a chapel once the 1984 indult was granted by the reigning Pope)

In short, Rembert Weakland took an already weakened diocese and all but demolished it.

After this Archbishop was forced to resign the Vatican named Timothy Dolan as the new Ordinary of the diocese.  At his installation, Dolan insisited on having the disgraced former Archbishop take part in the ceremony, a move which began his sorry and extremely uninspiring reign on a note of outrage and further scandal.  Archnbishop Dolan laughed a lot and spoke a lot and told jokes a lot and wore "cheese heads" a lot but did nothing whatsoever to repair the damage done by Hurricane Weakland.  His stint in Milwaukee was for all intents and purposes an utter failure.

He did have one success, however; he personally scuttled a long and prudently managed attempt to install the Fraternity of St Peter as the guardians of the so-called "Tridentine Community" in the Milwaukee diocese preferring instead to award the plum to a traditional religious order far less likely to say or do anything "offensive" to the modernist powers-that-be.

That brings us to the current occupant of the Archdiocesan See of Milwaukee, Jerome Listecki.  At his installation ceremony the new tradition of scandalizing Catholics continued with the presence there once again of Rembert Weakland.  I do not wish to be too hard on Archbisop Listecki this early on in the game but, thus far, we are seeing a woefully mediocre performance.  He seems particularly unlettered in the Faith, and is now involving the Archdiocese in a particularly bad idea, bringing the Obamunist Common Core(!) to diocesan schools.  His communication style lends itself very quickly to the banal and he speaks like an executive of the Coca-Cola Company trying to defend the "New Coke"; all the corporate cliches and buzz words are ever-present in his writings and his press conferences.  Pretty sorry stuff.

His non-response to the terrible situation at Marquette University also speaks volumes.

To be fair he does on occasion say or do a few minimally edifying things, and is a very slight improvement on his predecessors;  he is nevertheless unsuited at this point to lead a troubled diocese.  One hopes the prayers being offered for him will do some good.

Rome has graced the once-charming city of Milwaukee with such as these.  I don't know why.  I can only assume that there is some lingering hatred for the town harbored in the hearts of those in the Vatican in charge of assigning Bishops.  Milwaukee's northern neighbor Madison gets a good man like Morlino. Their neighbors slightly to the South get a fine man like Jenky.  One lucky diocese gets a Paprocki.

But Milwaukee gets these men.  Why?

Thursday, November 14, 2013


When it sometimes happens that we tire of prayer, and this writer must face the fact that this does happen from time to time, when we think there is nothing else we can contemplate on in the quiet silence of our devotions, it is a good and helpful thing to keep reminders before us.

This piece from LifeNews may serve as that kind of reminder:

The old and the infirm among us, especially those finding themselves in our hospitals, have very great need of somebody's prayers.  Hopefully ours.

Tuesday, November 12, 2013


Our collection of past issues of both Approaches and Apropos never fail to offer views that, though written sometimes nearly 30 years ago, are still as timely as ever.  And as one of our stated goals here at The Eye Witness is to be a "reminder" of things sometimes forgotten we like to mine often the treasures found in those two invaluable periodicals.  We take this opportunity to remind our readers that some back issues of these excellent publication are still available and can be obtained by contacting the Editor of Apropos.

In Approaches No. 84, 1984, editor Hamish Fraser (1913-1986) takes note of the real spectre of material schism which many Catholics both lay and clerical found themselves in.  He quotes Cardinal Eduoard Gagnon (1918-2007) who admitted to an American publication with commendable frankness that the Church is tolerating material schism in many countries, including America.

Hamish Fraser writes:

"Archbishop Gagnon later admitted:

'Even in Rome you have people who block things.  Many things which have happened in seminaries and in theology would not have happened had there not been someone in Rome to help them.'

"In effect therefore, qua Roman prelate, Archbishop Gagnon finds it necessary to admit that 'material schism' is a characteristic of the universal Church not merely in the USA, but also in Europe, and 'even in Rome'.

"In saying so, Archbishop Gagnon did not tell us anything we did not already know.  But it is nevertheless significant and most useful to have this admission.  For whereas whenever we say what has now been said by Cardinal Gagnon, it is automatically contested by Romolatrists as the libellous exaggeration of extremism, this is no longer possible.  For now it is a Roman prelate who has said the Church is now everywhere in a state of material schism.

"Nor did this state of 'material schism' begin with Pope John Paul II.  It first became sensationally manifest in the immediate wake of Humanae Vitae to which various national episcopal conferences reacted by making clear that the Encyclical's teaching could be disregarded in practice.

"The episcopal formula by means of which Humanae Vitae was defied by the then (1968) most dissident episcopal conferences - France, Canada, Germany, Belgium, Mexico, Scandinavia, etc. - was that the encyclical would be interpreted 'pastorally' and with full respect for 'the primacy of conscience'.

"However, since the Bishops involved refused to make it clear to their flocks that, as Catholics, they have the inescapable duty of informing their consciences as to what always has been, still is, and always will be the authentic moral teaching of the Universal Church; since on the contrary they gave the impression that Catholics are free to obey or disobey even the infallible teaching of the Ordinary Pontifical Magisterium (as exemplified by Humanae Vitae's teaching concerning contraception 1) these bishops not only presented 'primacy of conscience' in absurd caricature; by doing so they also made it clear that they themselves were in schism with the authentic Pontifical Magisterium.

"If this was not immediately obvious it was because, instead of condemning or disciplining such bishops, Paul VI accepted their defiance without demur, even going so far as to commend the pastoral solicitude of the most outstanding 'material schismatics', such as the episcopates of France and Canada.

"Moreover, whereas he proceeded to suppress the Mass of all time by a most savage abuse of authority, and to impose in its stead the valid but Protestantizing Novus Ordo Missae, the same Pontiff did nothing whatever to implement the teachings of Humanae Vitae.  And in this respect, and also in respect of his suppressing the unequivocally Catholic Mass, Paul VI was himself to that extent also in schism with the authentic Pontifical Magisterium which it was his duty to defend and uphold.

"Such papal behaviour could not but have disastrous consequences.  In particular, even such episcopal conferences as had initially demonstrated exemplary obedience in the wake of Humanae Vitae - particularly those of Scotland and Ireland - soon capitulated to the 'pastoral' consensus of the more dissident hierarchies.  Consequently, the 'people of God' as a whole were soon dragged into 'material schism' with Rome which resulted in a plummeting birth rate which derives from the fact that the immense majority of Catholic women of child-bearing age no longer respect the Church's moral teaching.

"That this sad state of affairs derives from material schism is quite incontrovertible.  The simple truth is that with a few - very few - outstanding exceptions, nothing has been taught concerning the Church's authentic moral teaching for two decades."

Hamish Fraser wrote that nearly thirty years ago.  The "plummeting birth rate" he talks about could not possibly be better illustrated than in the number of Catholic schools and Catholic churches closing down.  And his observations concerning the contempt shown to authentic Church teaching by its own Bishops are now sensationally corroborated by merely looking around us.  Of course nothing need be said about the selective governance of our recent papacies, who say many fine things which are rarely if ever backed up by actions.  Paul VI's near-psychotic suppression of the Ancient Rite Mass as opposed to his non-disciplining of dissenters and other wayward Churchmen was continued under subsequent papacies until Benedict's sense of simple justice finally overcame him when he published Summorum Pontificum.  That selective governance still reveals itself in such situations as Rome tolerating materially schismatic prelates like Mahony or Schonborn while coming down harshly on the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate.

Hamish Fraser's article is therefore a timely reminder, indeed a solid history lesson, that it would be worth our while to contemplate.

NOTES(from Hamish Fraser):

1. While Humanae Vitae is not a formally infallible document - i.e. all that it contains is not infallible - its teaching concerning contraception, being fully in line with that of all previous Pontiffs, is integral to the infallible teaching of the Ordinary Pontifical Magesterium.  Cf 'Authority of the Church's Social Doctrine' by Arnaud de Lassus in Approaches No. 83.

Monday, November 11, 2013


The little children of Fatima said that most of the people going to hell go there because no one prays or does penance for them.

That being said, behold a view of hell on earth,  Boston, June, 2013....

....and the hell-bound:

If I do nothing for them, and if they should die in their present state, these wretches will experience the unspeakable horrors of the pit .

Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for these miserable sinners now, and at the hour of their deaths.


If we didn't already know how unspeakably corrupt our government/corporatist alliance actually is, here is a piece by Hunter Lewis:

Government + big business....which is about the best description of Fascism we ever heard of.  Working together to destroy the health of our children and ourselves.

Saturday, November 9, 2013

1961 B.C.

Because everything in the Catholic Church must now be reckoned as having been before the Council and after the Council it will simplify discussions if we refer to all dates prior to 1962 as "B.C.", Before the Council.   That way it will be easier for Churchmen high and low to communicate their ideas on what the Church is in the here and now and not what it was in prehistoric days.

This will even help us to eliminate the Jewish-inspired terms B.C.E. (Before Common Era) and C.E. (Common Era), which were cooked up a few years ago as an insult to Christ, terms which even the Church Herself has now adopted in some of its proclamations, ever sensitive to the feelings of others.

So since all now agree that the Council was the New Pentecost, the Great Awakening as it were, it only seems fitting for the Church and the world to adopt this new system of dating events.

A few examples:

In 33 B.C. Our Lord Jesus Christ was put to death and then rose from that death.

In 70 B.C. in fulfillment of Our Lord's prophecy the city of Jerusalem was razed to the ground by the Romans.

In 1545 B.C. the Council of Trent (a minor Council as opposed to the New Pentecost one that came later)  was convened.

In 1961 B.C. the future Pope Paul VI, Giovanni Battista Montini, was doing much behind-the-scenes preparatory work on the New Pentecost which would officially commence the following year.

We presume this would be the best way to go forward since all Catholic Church pronouncements, Encyclicals, official texts and speeches, as well as sermons, initiatives, architectural designs, musical compositions, Luminous Mysteries, missals, etc. are imbued with the teachings and emanations of the Second Vatican Council, even though occasionally allusions are made to some Jurassic statements made in the past by certain neanderthals, but are passed over in silence by most book writers, theologians, canon law gurus and the general Church establishment.

Wednesday, November 6, 2013


One really does wonder if Rome will finally get the picture that the illegal "state"of Israel is no friend to the Church and is, in point of fact, its deadly enemy.

We would be curious to see the response of the many Christian (and Catholic) Zionists out there to this crime.  Perhaps things like this will, at long last, awaken some people?

Please God it will awaken the Vatican so that we Catholics no longer have to endure papal visits to synagogues and heads pounding on wailing walls.

And the world wonders why the Palestinians hate their occupiers.

Tuesday, November 5, 2013


Where does one even begin to reply to such a thing as this, pictured above?

I don't doubt for a moment the sincerity behind it, but I would first ask the individual who cooked up that photo and caption, how many of those 1.2 billion Catholics actually behave as Catholics, or, more to the point, even believe as Catholics anymore?  One must assume that such a person is very impressed by numbers but little else.  That he (or she) has no historical perspective whatsoever - or I daresay any historical knowledge whatsoever - is quite obvious from this exercise in unamusing self-delusion.

Unfortunately such a photo will cheer only those who wish to avert their eyes from the imminent danger many, many Catholic souls are in at this moment.  As ever, the blind seemingly always lead the blind.  Their heads are firmly buried somewhere and they answer earnest calls for prudence and discernment with cheeky responses, like the photo pictured.

I suppose it would not be sporting of me to remind the creator of this advert that if the current occupant of Peter's Chair continues on the rocky course of his predecessors he might find himself adjusting that 1.2 billion number down a trifle.

And one question does beg to be answered:  how much greater than 1.2 billion would be the number of Catholics worldwide if Holy Church would once again

a) heal itself of doctrinal and liturgical catastrophes,
b) get deadly serious about governing and
c) start proclaiming the necessity of the Church for salvation?

But perusing the website from which this "meme" arose it is clear that what they lack in inventive humor is more than made up for by their total misunderstanding of the current Catholic reality.

Friday, November 1, 2013


[This article, by AS Fraser, first appeared in Apropos No. 28, Christmas 2010. It has been posted on the Apropos website ]

Monsignor Ronald Knox in his study, Enthusiasm(1), remarks:

 ‘Shaftesbury tells us that “inspiration is a real feeling of the Divine Presence, and enthusiasm a false one”; but this easy habit of labelling and docketing is everywhere the enemy of truth. What right have we to assume that the man who lays credit to heavenly illumination must be either a saint or a fraud? Even where a canonised saint is concerned, we know that his revelations are binding on himself alone; we others are free to doubt them. We shall hesitate still more about the ipse dixit of some religious leader, inside or outside the Church, whose credentials we must needs assess on their own merits….(2)

Does this advice apply equally to the ipse dixit [say so] of a Pope who may have claimed to have received some inspiration or illumination or indeed none? We suggest that it does unless it conforms to the already revealed teaching of the Church. We have no less a teacher than St Paul on this question who in Galatians (1:8-9) warns us that we must test what we are told against what has already been revealed:

‘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.
As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.’

St Vincent of Lerins

We are not well enough versed in Scripture to claim that such a warning doubly voiced is unique, but it is nevertheless salutary and St Paul even cautions us against himself should he ever, for whatever reason, preach a gospel other than that received and already preached by him. Here we find the basis of St Vincent of Lerins’ formula that:

‘Curandum est, ut id teneamas quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est.’ – ‘We must take care to hold that which was everywhere, always and by everyone believed.’

St Vincent adds: ‘Hoc est enim vere proprieque catholicum’ - ‘For that is truly and in the strictest sense “Catholic”’.

It is true that St Paul’s warning is directed against false teaching but nevertheless it does suggest to us that a degree of discernment is required when appraising what a churchman or even a pontiff might say where what is said does not fall within the remit of the extraordinary or ordinary Magisterium of the Church.

Can one disagree with the Pope?

For Catholics inclined to papolatria(3) and who hang on any papal ipse dixit, we also cite the modern and entirely reasonable argument of Fr. Calmel which was related by Jean Madiran in his postscript to Fr. Calmel’s book, Brève apologie pour l’Eglise du toujours. Monsieur Madiran recounts that, in the reign of Pius XII, traditionalists (in France) were intemperate and imprudent regarding the papacy, an attitude which led to the accusation of papolatry. He identified Marcel Clement as particularly remiss in this regard and cites the occasion when Monsieur Clement, following Jean Ousset’s example, ‘repeated St Pius X’s phrase: “It is not possible to have holiness where there is disagreement with the Pope”’. Madiran continues:

‘Fr. Calmel put much energy into rejecting this proposition. The authority invoked did not weaken his conviction. St Pius X is St Pius X – Fr. Calmel venerated him with all his heart but in this matter the pope was expressing a private opinion which was incorrect. The history of the Church shows us canonized saints who disagreed with popes who were not canonized. Fr. Calmel also appealed to theology and to common sense. St Pius X in this same discourse to priests of 2nd November 1912 … declared, “One cannot limit the field in which the Pope may and must exercise his will”(4). Fr. Calmel tells us that if one understands this in the sense that the field has no limit or only the limit prescribed by each pontiff, in the absence of all objective criteria, one falls into manifest error. He spoke in vain, the error was not apparent to us. The course of events served to instruct us better.’(5)

The most dyed-in-the-wool supporters of Vatican II, however, are unlikely to suffer from papolatrist or ultramontane sentiments or at least they would have us so believe. They can, however, be as equally papolatrist when the Pope conforms, at least in their estimation, to their Modernist ideas or when his actions or motivations appear to suit their aims or aspirations.

John XXIII’s Inspiration

Inspiration for the Second Vatican Council is generally attributed to Pope John XXIII and by his own admission to inspiration from on high. In his convocation of the Council, the Pope makes reference to an inspiration which led him to call the Council:

‘For this reason, welcoming as from above the intimate voice of our spirit, we considered that the times now were right to offer to the Catholic Church and to the world the gift of a new Ecumenical Council, as an addition to, and continuation of, the series of the twenty great councils, which have been through the centuries a truly heavenly providence for the increase of grace and Christian progress.’(6)

There is no doubt therefore that the Second Vatican Council was called as a result of Pope John’s response to the ‘intimate voice’ of his spirit which he welcomed ‘as from above’. As Ronald Knox advised us in Enthusiasm, we are perfectly free to doubt, or at least to question the Pope’s illumination. And in the light of the Council’s fruits, the average Catholic Fruit Inspector, as Robert Hickson would put it, has the right to draw his own conclusions.

Reasoned consideration or impulse?

In his opening speech to the Council, John XXIII gives us what we will later show is an edited version of his account of the inspiration which led to the Council – a deliberation arrived at, it seems, not as a result of reasoned consideration but in response to what seemed an impulse:

‘As regards the initiative for the great event which gathers us here, it will suffice to repeat as historical documentation our personal account of the first sudden bringing up in our heart and lips of the simple words, “Ecumenical Council”. We uttered those words in the presence of the Sacred College of Cardinals on that memorable January 25th, 1959, the feast of the Conversion of St Paul, in the basilica dedicated to him. It was completely unexpected, like a flash of heavenly light, shedding sweetness in eyes and hearts. And at the same time it gave rise to a great fervour throughout the world in expectation of the holding of the Council.’(7)

Subsequent accounts of this inspiration seem to conflict with this ‘historical’ account presented to the Council Fathers in such effusive terms. Perhaps, however, it was merely an extremely redacted version to highlight the inspiration rather than the actual circumstances thereof.

Peter Hebblethwaite in his biography, John XXIII – Pope of the Council, devotes a chapter to the subject of inspiration of the Council. He reports the testimony of Cardinal Ottaviani, given in an interview in Epocha on 8th December 1968(8), that he had visited Cardinal Roncalli in his cell during the conclave and had said to him: ‘Your eminence, we have to think about a council’. Cardinal Ottaviani then recalls:

‘Cardinal Ruffini who was also present, was of the same opinion. Cardinal Roncalli made this idea his own, and was later heard to say, “I was thinking about a council from the moment I became Pope.”’(9)

Hebblethwaite remarks that, ‘Ottaviani was of course here claiming credit for having been the first to propose the summoning of the Council. It would be ill-becoming to accuse the pro-prefect of the Holy Office of bare-faced lying’.  Hebblethwaite, to be fair, records that both Cardinals Ruffini and Ottaviani had form in their calls for a Council. He reports that Ruffini had encouraged the newly elected Pius XII to call a council, and that Ottaviani and Ruffini were associated in a 1948 project for a council.   

Hebblethwaite admits, however, that it is John XXIII’s accounts of how and when the idea or inspiration came to him, ‘that have muddled and misled everyone’
These accounts are recorded thus by Hebblethwaite:

History of that inspiration

October 30th 1958: Archbishop Capovilla states that John XXIII on this date first mentioned ‘the necessity of holding a council.(10)

November 2nd 1958: John XXIII noted in a memo after meeting Cardinal Ruffini that they had discussed the possibility of calling a council.(11) 

November 2nd 1958: John XXIII says to Capovilla: ‘There should be a Council’.(12) 

 November 4th 1958: John XXIII crowned Pontiff 

Early November 1958: ‘He [John XXIII] spoke about the Council to Giovanni Urbani, his successor as Patriarch of Venice, and Girolamo Bortignon, bishop of Padua.’(13)

January 8th 1959: John XXIII meets Don Giovanni Rossi and tells him: ‘I want to tell you something marvellous, but you must promise to keep it secret. Last night I had the great idea of holding a Council…The Holy Spirit doesn’t help the Pope. I’m simply His helper. He did everything. The Council is His idea.’(14) 

January 20th 1959: The Pope meets Cardinal Tardini and gauges his reaction to the proposal of an Ecumenical Council.

January 22nd 1959: John XXIII ‘now bubbling over with enthusiasm’ announces his intention to hold a Council to the Andreotti family who were sworn to secrecy.

January 25th 1959: John XXIII announces his intention to hold a Council to assembled Cardinals at St Paul’s–without-the-walls. 

May 8th 1962: In an address to Venetian Pilgrims, John XXIII told them how the Council came about:

‘Where did the idea of an Ecumenical Council come from? How did it develop? The truth is that the idea and even more its realisations were so unforeseen as to seem unlikely. A question was raised in a meeting I had with the Secretary of State, Cardinal Tardini, which led on to a discussion about the way the world was plunged into so many grave anxieties and troubles… What should the Church do? Should Christ’s mystical barque simply drift along, tossed this way and that by the ebb and flow of the tides? Instead of issuing new warnings, shouldn’t she stand as a beacon of light? What could that exemplary light be?’

‘My interlocutor listened with reverence and attention. Suddenly my soul was illumined by a great idea which came precisely at that moment and which I welcomed with ineffable confidence in the divine Teacher. And there sprang to my lips a word that was solemn and committing. My voice uttered it for the first time: a Council.’(15)

Embarrassed commentators

Hebblethwaite could find it no more becoming to accuse the Pontiff of bare-faced lying than to accuse Cardinal Ottaviani. But he does acknowledge that this account poses a problem, and that it would be simply false for the Pope to claim that he had never pronounced the word ‘Council’ prior to 20th January 1959. Hebblethwaite admits too that a passage in John XXIII’s Journal in which he asserts a similar account ‘has embarrassed commentators’. Hebblethwaite concludes that ‘the January 20th 1959 meeting cannot have happened exactly as he later described it because he himself had already admitted to Felici that the proposals for a Roman Synod and the revision of canon law [also aired at the meeting] came to him from others. Hebblethwaite suggests by way of explanation, ‘That [Pope] John’s memory faltered and that his unconscious editing of his reminiscences is designed to emphasise, yet again that the idea of the Council was an “inspiration” in the sense defined above.’(16)

The account of the inspiration for the Council given to Council Fathers for the historical record, was, it seems, not quite that ‘flash of heavenly light, shedding sweetness in eyes and hearts’. Nor could his uttering of the words ‘ecumenical Council’ there be remotely described as completely unexpected nor as a flash of heavenly light, particularly so when he had already aired the idea with Tardini among others. According to Hebblethwaite:

‘The seventeen cardinals were unresponsive to his dramatic announcement. For all they appeared to care, he might have been reading out his laundry list. He was bitterly disappointed. He said so plainly: “Humanly speaking, we would have expected that the cardinals, after listening to our address, might have crowded round to express their approval and good wishes.” But they did nothing of the kind.’(17)

Wild fantasy or binding inspiration

The whole question of inspiration nevertheless was something that clearly figured in John XXIII’s mind. Hebblethwaite is of the opinion that the Pontiff did not understand this as a private revelation nor as a special vision or other such manifestation. He proffers the opinion that such an inspiration was of the nature of ideas that came in prayer and that Pope John would have discerned these spirits using the Ignatian ‘discernment of spirits’, winnowing or evaluating them ‘according to their persistence and the “consolation” or “desolation” they brought.’ According to Hebblethwaite:

‘What Pope John most wanted to know was whether the idea was “not some wild fantasy or spectacular improvisation, but an inspiration (ispirazione) that bound him, as ever, to submit to the Lord’s will” (Letture p.266). He feared in other words that it might be no more than a temptation, a deceiving will o’ the wisp or an indulgent ego-trip. He wanted to know whether it was “of God”, a grace, an inspiration.’(18)

One can only conjecture that this thought continued to haunt him even years later, and perhaps accounts for his repeated redaction of the circumstances surrounding his inspiration. If it was an idea that arose out of prayer rather than a private revelation why was it expressed more in the language of the latter rather than the former: ‘the flash of heavenly light’, ‘the shedding of sweetness and light’, ‘a soul illumined with a great idea’? Was his discernment of spirits exacting enough when he told his friend Rossi that the night before he had had a great idea to hold a Council? Certainly, both Paul VI and John Paul II held the opinion that John called the Council under divine inspiration. Paul VI in his opening speech to the Second Session of the Council suggested that gratitude and praise be given to Pope John, ‘for having resolved - doubtless under divine inspiration – to convoke this Council…’. John Paul II made reference too in his audience of Wednesday 25th November 1981 to ‘the mysterious and irresistible inspiration of the Holy Spirit’ which led John to convoke the Council.

It must be the Holy Spirit

There is no indication, however, that Pope John, sought, as Peter Hebblethwaite charitably suggests, that discernment of spirits through counsel other than his own. It appears that it was he alone who decided the source of that inspiration – even though it is now admitted that another voice or inspiration suggested a less than divine source to him. This admission perhaps expresses the Pontiff’s fears more acutely than those we have already quoted. He was not so much afraid of his inspiration being a wild fantasy as something more sinister. Cardinal Franz König recounts:

In January 1959, while he was still finally making up his mind whether he should call a council or not, he seemed at times to be amazed by his own courage. Soon after he had announced that he was summoning a council, he confided to me in a private audience how, during the Octave of Prayer for Christian Unity in January 1959, the idea suddenly came to him. ‘My first thought was that the devil was trying to tempt me. A council at the present time seemed so vast and complicated an undertaking. But the idea kept returning all that week while I was praying. It became more and more compelling and emerged ever more clearly in my mind. In the end I said to myself, “This cannot be the devil, it must be the Holy Spirit inspiring me”’.(19)

One can only read this with amazement. The Pontiff made the decision that his inspiration was divine rather than diabolic because it became more and more compelling and emerged ever more clearly in his mind. Such is hardly sufficient reason for determining the source of an inspiration.

As Romano Amerio reminds us, ‘In the case of Vatican II, there were no prior consultations as to whether the council was necessary or opportune’,(20)  and as Cardinal Pallavicini, historian of the Council of Trent, remarked, ‘to convoke a General Council, except when absolutely demanded by necessity, is to tempt God.’(21)
Was God tempted?

It is not for us mere mortals to decide whether God was tempted or not. But we can assess the fruits thus far of the Council not only according to our own calculation but by the Popes themselves. John XX111 died before the Council began in earnest. He had been full of what some have described in various ways as over-optimism. Had he lived to see the post-conciliar period and the immediate inheritance of the Council he might have questioned again from whence his inspiration came.

We know that Paul VI in a sermon on the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul, 1972 (22) was constrained to suggest that the smoke of Satan had somehow entered the temple of God and that the Devil came to suffocate the fruits of Vatican II. He also stated that ‘The Church is in a disturbed period of self-criticism, or what would better be called auto-demolition. It is an acute and complicated upheaval which nobody would have expected after the council. It is almost as if the Church were attacking herself.’ Cardinal Ratzinger too, in his Jesus Interview, admitted that the results of the Council ‘seem cruelly opposed to everyone’s expectations, beginning with those of John XXIII and then of Paul VI.’ He proceeded to acknowledge that ‘The net result therefore seems negative: I am merely repeating here what I had already said ten years after the close of the Council’s work – it is incontrovertible that this period has definitely been an unfavourable one for the Catholic Church.’ (23)  Cardinal Ratzinger did not blame this upon the Council but upon what he called the Konzilsungeist, ‘the anti-spirit of the council’ which ‘held that everything that is new (or can be considered as such: how many ancient heresies re-surfaced during those years, to be hailed as novelties!) is always superior to what already exists. And according to this “anti-Spirit”, the history of the Church was to be seen as making a fresh start as from the Ecumenical Council of Vatican II.’(24)

Widespread apostasy

And in his meditation on the ninth station of the Via Crucis in 2005 a few days before his election as Pope Benedict XVI, the Cardinal made his famous observation about ‘filth’ in the Church. But his meditation was perhaps not so much about child abuse, as was presumed generally, but rather about widespread apostasy of which child abuse was but one manifestation:

‘Should we not also think of how much Christ suffers in His own Church? How often is the holy sacrament of His Presence abused, how often must He enter empty and evil hearts! How often do we celebrate only ourselves, without even realizing that He is there! How often is His Word twisted and misused! What little faith is present behind so many theories, so many empty words! How much filth there is in the Church, and even among those who, in the priesthood, ought to belong entirely to Him! How much pride, how much self-complacency! What little respect we pay to the Sacrament of Reconciliation, where He waits for us, ready to raise us up whenever we fall!’

In the prayer following that unprecedented meditation, he describes the Church of today in terms utterly devoid of the post-conciliar optimism which his predecessors repeated mantra-like upon the deck as, in natural terms, the barque of Peter, appeared to be sinking:

‘Lord, your Church often seems like a boat about to sink, a boat taking in water on every side. In your field we see more weeds than wheat. The soiled garments and face of your Church throw us into confusion. Yet it is we ourselves who have soiled them! It is we who betray you time and time again, after all our lofty words and grand gestures. Have mercy on your Church; within her too, Adam continues to fall. When we fall, we drag you down to earth, and Satan laughs, for he hopes that you will not be able to rise from that fall; he hopes that being dragged down in the fall of your Church, you will remain prostrate and overpowered. But you will rise again. You stood up, you arose and you can also raise us up. Save and sanctify your Church. Save and sanctify us all.’

Vigilant and hostile intelligences

None of us will know this side of Heaven whether John XXIII’s inspiration was of divine or diabolic origin. We do know, however, as the Catholic Encyclopedia tells us, that the ‘the activity of Satan does much more than merely add a further source of temptation to the weakness of the world and the flesh; it means a combination and an intelligent direction of all the elements of evil…’ and that ‘the perils of the situation are incalculably increased when all may be organized and directed by vigilant and hostile intelligences.’(25) We know from the experience of such great Saints as the Curé d’Ars, that even saints can be deceived by the Evil One who ‘imitates the inspirations of the Holy Ghost’. The Curé d’Ars almost succumbed to temptation on occasion because such ‘had worn the disguise of love for God.’

When we consider John XXIII’s inspiration to hold a Council, therefore, we cannot know whether such was an inspiration or an imitation. All we do know is that following from that inspiration, the Church was subjected to a great revolution which has led to widespread apostasy – an apostasy which has all the hallmarks of having been devised by ‘vigilant and hostile intelligences’. Did not Sister Lucy of Fatima too, in a letter to her friend, write about the ‘diabolical disorientation invading the world and deceiving souls?’

Cardinal Ratzinger’s prayer, at the Ninth Station of the Cross in 2005, was a clear recognition of that apostasy and its diabolic author. The Apostle Paul has taught us how we must combat this powerful enemy:

‘Put you on the armour of God, that you may be able to stand against the deceits of the devil. For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and powers, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places.’ (Ephesians 6:11, 12).

Perhaps above all its great faults, the post-conciliar Church in its over-optimistic hubris completely underestimated, or even ignored, Satanic power – a power which can only be exorcised by ‘prayer and fasting’ both of which were casualties of the post-conciliar revolution. These tools are undoubtedly a prerequisite to ‘a grand and possibly definitive ordering of the last Council in all its dimensions and content’ at the highest level of the Magisterium – as called for by Mgr Brunero Gherardini in his important work: The Ecumenical Vatican Council II – A Much Needed Discussion. Until such a definitive ordering occurs we feel that John XXIII’s legacy, the Second Vatican Council, will continue to frustrate his concern in his opening speech, ‘that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be guarded and taught more efficaciously’.(26) In that same speech he declared: ‘We feel we must disagree with those prophets of gloom, who are always forecasting disaster, as though the end of the world were at hand.’ That his successors should speak of the state of the Church in terms of near despair is testimony to how wrong he was to consider that ‘Divine Providence is leading us to a new order of human relations which by men’s own efforts and even beyond their very expectations, are directed toward the fulfilment of God’s superior and inscrutable designs.’ This new order does not sit well with his successor’s assessment on Good Friday 2005 of a Church filled with ‘pride and self-complacency’ - the first of which is the vice of the Father of Lies, he who ‘imitates the inspiration of the Holy Ghost’. Would Pope John XXIII have felt so confidant in his inspiration had he been granted a vision of the consequences of the Council thus far?



1 Enthusiasm – A Chapter in the History of Religion, RA Knox, OUP (Clarendon Press), 1950.
2 Ibid. p.8
3 Literally, worship of popes – those who hang on every word of a Pope as if it were revealed truth.
4 Alas, Paul VI subscribed to much the same sentiments, as those expressed by St Pius X, in his attempted abrogation of the traditional Mass.
5 Louis Salleron was one of the few to share Fr. Calmel’s opinion at that time.
6 Humanae Salutis, December 25th 1961, The Documents of Vatican II, Abbot version. 1966, p.705
7 The Documents of Vatican II, Abbot version. 1966, p.711.
8 Testimony he repeated in a conversation with Bernard R Bonnot, an American graduate student in February 1975. cf. Pope John XXIII, Peter Hebblethwaite, p. 283.
9 John XXIII, Peter Hebblethwaite, p. 283
10 Ibid, p.307
11 Ibid.
12 Ibid
13 Ibid.
14 Ibid. p.312
15 Quoted by Peter Hebblethwaite, John XXIII, p.316
16 Peter Hebblethwaite, John XXIII, p. 318
17 Ibid. p.322.
18 Ibid. p. 308
19 Cardinal Franz König, ‘It must be the Holy Spirit –How Vatican II changed the Church’ The Tablet 21st December 2002.
20 Iota Unum, p. 48.
21 Hist. Conc. Trid. Lib. XVI. C. 10, tom.ii. p.800. Antwerp, 1670.
22 Only a summary exists in Italian of this Papal homily on the Vatican website. In the volumes, The Teachings of Pope Paul VI, published by Libreria Editrice Vaticana, the homily is missing in its entirety!
23 An interview with Vittorio Messori in Jesus magazine. 1985 See ‘Why the Faith is in a State of Crisis’: Supplement to Approaches No. 89. p. 9.
24 Ibid
25 Entry for “The Devil”.
26 Opening Speech to the Council, The Documents of Vatican II, Abbott version, p.713. 

With thanks to Anthony Fraser at the APROPOS website.  A printable pdf version of this article is available there.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...