21. August, 2014Blog Post 57 comments

Vatican Lightning

In case you missed it, last month Fr. Paul McDonald had a Guest Op-Ed at Rorate Caeli, entitled, “The Council Opened the Church to the Prince of this World.” It’s well worth a read.

Quoting from the document Dominum et Vivificantem of Pope John Paul II, Fr. McDonald calls attention to the Holy Father’s rather casual suggestion that it is necessary to discern in the conciliar text between that which is a gift from the Holy Spirit, and “that [which] may instead come originally from the ‘prince of this world.’”

A sober minded Catholic cannot but be stunned!

Among other excellent observations, Fr. McDonald very astutely points out that JPII seems to imagine that allowing the Enemy to sow his poisonous fruit in the conciliar text was an acceptable risk in the  conciliar work of renewal; as if it is sometimes necessary for a mother to mix garbage with good food in order to foster growth in her children.

Is it not the case that the Church Militant, when she is authentically guided by the Spirit, is led ever more intimately into all truth? If this be so, and we know that it is, does this not mean that in order to remain true to her mission, the Church must continually purge from among her ranks those things that “may come from the Prince of this world,” as it is he who threatens to kill the souls of her members?

How is it ever acceptable to imagine otherwise?

In any event, all of this rather clearly points to the degree to which the mission of the Holy Catholic Church as given by Christ has been supplanted by mere human ideas and earthbound efforts.

  1. FrankIII August 21, 2014 2:39 pm

    How are simple laymen, leading our lives in a world attacking Catholics more every day, supposed to discern between the authentic voice of the Holy Ghost and “that [which] may instead come originally from the ‘prince of this world’”?
    Are we supposed to learn phenomenology and read the complete works of JPII in the original Polish?
    The only conclusion one can make is to junk almost everything done and written since 1962 and go back to what undeniably was completely authentic. I say “almost” because of “Humanae Vitae” (despite its flaws) and a few other things.
    Also, here are the Bible passages JPII footnoted for that passage of his, all from the Douay-Rheims translation:
    John 12:31: “Now is the judgment of the world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.”
    John 14:30: “I will not now speak many things with you. For the prince of this world cometh, and in me he hath not any thing.”
    John 16:11: “And of judgment: because the prince of this world is already judged.”

    • Anastasia August 21, 2014 9:28 pm

      Humanae Vitae had serious flaws. It opened wide the door to separating the primary purpose of marriage, procreation and education of children for God’s glory, from it’s secondary purpose, unity of the couple, by saying that one can have conjugal relations exclusively during the infertile period in order to avoid having children.Pius XII opened the door to contraception with his private letter to the Italian midwives and Humanae Vitae fully endorsed it. Humanae Vitae contradicts Pius XI’s Casti Conubii that says that one can never separate or subordinate the primary purpose of marriage from the secondary purpose of marriage for whatever noble reason one may wish to put forth.

      It absolute shocks me that most Catholics don’t see the gravity of Humanae Vitae and Pius XII’s letter to the midwives on contraception when it clearly went against the doctrines on marriage and it’s hierarchical order of purposes.

      • Indignus famulus August 22, 2014 12:27 am

        Dear Anastasia,
        If you want to convince others to think as you do, it might be a good idea not to announce that you are shocked by any problem “most” Catholics don’t see today, as that doesn’t speak well for your ability to make good judgments..
        —Please cite your source for your statement that a Pope’s “private letter endorsed contraception, so we may see if it is at all credible.
        This issue would be better served in a Forum, as it requires discussion. .We don’t think you are right about any of it, but would like to help you understand why. We’re also always open to learning where and if we’re wrong, so maybe you could teach us something. Please consider doing that.
        …in 1930, Tillbrook conferred with leading medical experts on “Nature’s Rhythm Method,” including Leo Latz, …Among Roman Catholics,
        Cardinal Hayes of New York cautioned, “Instead of being freely taught and commended, it (rhythm) is rather to be tolerated as an extreme remedy or means of preventing sin.” The Catholic Medical Guardian reported in 1935 that “the calculation of the ‘sterile period’ is never easy….
        There were advertisements in Catholic magazines for books and pamphlets on the rhythm method, and in 1951 Pope Pius XII sanctioned the rhythm method as a “natural” method of regulating procreation.
        The point being that it was in use for over 20 years, with permission of confessors, before Pius XII ever considered it. You need to know the facts, before making magisterial declarations as you frequently have.. Sorry, but you’re not credible, so far.

        • Anastasia August 22, 2014 8:58 am

          Sorry but “being in use for over twenty years with the permission of confessors” doesn’t quite impress me when I see what is being in use nowadays with the permission of confessors. Rhytm method, NFP or whatever you wish to call it goes against natural law, the sacrament of marriage and God’s purpose for conjugal intercourse.
          We have the sacraments to help us fight against the lifelong struggle with concupiscence. Go to confession,go to communion, receive the sacrament of marriage from the Catholic Church, pray for an increase of faith, hope and charity and pray for the grace to abstain. We have many helps from our Holy Mother Church and succumbing to contraception, separating the procreative purpose from the unitive purpose during conjugal intercourse in thought word or deed are not an option that our Lord gives His blessing to.Even atheists an heretics can see the hypocricy in saying that the rhytm method and NFP are
          not contraception.

      • marykpkj August 22, 2014 12:58 am

        Anastasia, I wish you would quit harping about Humanae Vitae, and worse, about Pius XII. Do you know that Pius’ work was not inspired? There is no longstanding requirement in the Church that couples may only have conjugal relations when they are fertile. There is no law against having relations during infertile times. Really, do you think that ‘spur of the moment’ pleasure is the only concern guiding Catholics in their choice of said conjugal relations?

        You cannot expect that adults would have no consideration for health or finances when procreating, unless such concerns would lead to sin, which is between the spouses and God.

        • Anastasia August 22, 2014 9:42 am

          Dear Mary,
          It is a sin to have conjugal intercourse exclusively during the infertile for the couple’s planned purpose of separating the primary purpose of procreation and education of children for God’s glory from it’s secondary purpose of the unity of the couple.
          I am aware that sexual pleasure alone is not always the motivating factor in conjugal intercourse for couples. The unifying effects from conjugal intercourse could also be a motivation for desiring conjugal intercourse and it should be for a married couple but not at the expense of subordinating the primary purpose of procreation and education of children for God’s glory to it’s secondary purpose. Let us not fool ourselves when we put unity before procreation.One can easily be united in lies. Just look at fornicators, adulterers, and sodomites. The effect of unity from sex is what ends up binding them and contraceptors in their sin.

          Like I said before we have the sacraments, abstinence and prayer to help us in the fight against the lifelong battle of concupiscence and the temptation to fear. Please pray for an increase, for all of us, in humility, purity, faith hope and charity.

          God bless

      • Matthew August 22, 2014 12:35 pm

        In Blessed Pope Pius IX’s encyclical Casti Connubii, the same one in which he spoke so forcefully regarding the deliberate frustration of the natural power of the marital act, we read the following:
        “Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.” (Casti Connubii, §59)
        How, in your opinion, does this differ from what Pope Pius XII taught, or even what Pope Paul IV taught, regarding the matter?

        • Anastasia August 22, 2014 6:59 pm

          “On account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects life cannot be brought forth” is not a deliberate act on the couples part to separate the procreative purpose from the unitive while having conjugal relations. It’s an act of nature and not an act on the couples part to try to thwart nature.If a couple is infertile from no fault of their own this does not assume that they therefor must be rejecting the primary purpose of procreation of children from their conjugal relations. Accepting our Lord’s hierarchical orders of conjugal sexual relations by not separating in thought word or deed the primary purpose of procreation from it’s secondary purpose whether one is fertile or not,is what will all keep us on the road to purity, Truth and sanctification.

          • Lynda August 26, 2014 9:44 pm

            Thank you, Anastasia, for your attempts to bring the truth of marital chastity out of over-complicated obscurity. “Natural Family Planning” ought not to be used to contracept, to render conjugal relations infertile.

        • Matthew August 22, 2014 10:57 pm

          Blessed Pope Pius IX is saying that spouses who choose to engage in marital relations for the fulfillment of secondary ends (e.g. cultivating mutual love and the quieting of concupiscence) at times when new life cannot be brought forth do not act against nature provided that these ends remain subordinated to the primary end (i.e. the procreation and rearing of children to the greater glory of God) and the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved. Therefore, to reduce the matter to one of fertility is crass biologism. The real question is whether the secondary ends are subordinated to the primary end. Seeking to attain those secondary ends through the means of marital relations is licit provided that their attainment is sought for the sake of the primary end. Again, to reduce this end to ‘making babies’ is crass biologism. It is truly participating in procreation and the rearing of children to the greater glory of God. That, as St. Augustine teaches, is the only thing that atones for surrendering to concupiscence. As long as you agree with that, I don’t see any reason for concern. That some Catholic look for excuses to abuse their powers of procreation and thwart God’s design is not exactly news, and we needn’t look to Humanae Vitae as to the cause. Rather, it goes all the way back to the Garden of Eden.

          • Anastasia August 23, 2014 10:19 am


            I am not quite sure why you would think that I might be perhaps believing in mindless baby making in a crass biologism way after everything I said. I have to say that I am very, very happy to see that you understand that to seek the secondary purpose of unity for the sake of the possibility of procreation is what is required. I believe you are interpreting Casti Connubii correctly.

            Yes we can go all the way back to Adam and Eve for the scar of concupiscence but since the late 1800s never has there ever been a more active push within our Catholic Church to redefine marriage’s order of purposes. This redefinition of marriage has been actively brewing within our Church for well over a hundred years and it has been wildly successful through Deichtrick Von Hildebrand’s “deeper” meaning of marriage, through Pius XII’s letter letter to the Italian midwives, the huge increase and facility to annulments, the acceptance of divorce and remarriage, through Humanae Vitae’s endorsement of separating the primary purpose of marriage from the secondary purpose for contraceptive reasons and on and on. All of these things have contributed to the severe weakening and destruction of marriage. Of course there are things outside the Church that have contributed to the downfall of marriage like the protestant Lambeth council, modern medicine and the pill, the feminist movement and so on and so on. However when the contributions to the destruction of marriage comes from the leaders and well known and not so well known lay faithful who profess to be Catholic do we have to stand up most certainly and fight against to defend marriage and our faith.

          • Matthew August 23, 2014 11:33 am

            Dear Anastasia,
            I didn’t mean to imply that you personally are resorting to biologism; merely that such reduction is fallacious and misses the point. I should have been more careful in my wording, and I apologize for the misrepresentation.
            I agree entirely that this is one of those areas where the prelates – especially in the U.S. and Europe – have horribly failed the souls in their care. I’ll be the first to admit that, after hearing numerous conflicting views from various priests, I had to spend a good deal of time investigating the matter for myself before I really understood what the Church teaches and what that means for my own marriage. And it didn’t really make sense until I replaced John Paul II’s ‘theology of the body’ with that of St. Augustine as recorded in his ‘On Marriage and Concupiscence’ and related works. Were we to reintroduce his concept of “regeneration”, I think we would be much better off in understanding the true purpose of Christian marriage, particularly as it relates to concupiscence.
            And this brings me back to the issue of biologism: we can’t ignore that there are, even among traditional Catholics, those who believe that, simply by virtue of having babies, or by ensuring that every sexual encounter could potentially result in the conception of a new life, they have fulfilled the true purpose of the marital act. St. Augustine is very clear on this point:
            “The marriage of believers converts to the use of righteousness that carnal concupiscence by which ‘the flesh lusts against the Spirit’ (Galatians 5:17). For they entertain the firm purpose of generating offspring to be regenerated – that the children who are born of them as ‘children of the world’ (Luke 20:34) may be born again and become ‘sons of God’ (Romans 8:14). Wherefore all parents who do not beget children with this intention, this will, this purpose of transferring them from being members of the first man into being members of Christ – however circumspect they be in their cohabitation, studiously limiting it to the begetting of children – really have no conjugal chastity in themselves.” (On Marriage and Concupiscence, Chapter IV)
            This is the Augustinian concept of “regeneration”, and, as you can see, it is crucial to understanding true Catholic doctrine on the atonement of concupiscence, conjugal chastity and the proper end of marriage. There is a weak echo of it found in the formula “procreation and the education of children”, but not enough to let the truth of the matter really shine forth, and that is unfortunate. And that’s a critique I would lay humbly at the feet of Blessed Pius IX as well, not to mention the bishops and priests of the period between Vatican I and II who emphasized procreation at the cost of obscuring regeneration, which, it must be said, played no small part in preparing the ground for the revolution of the 1960′s and 70′s.
            Nonetheless, I heartily agree that we should be doing more to defend true doctrine on this matter. But we must do so from the fullness of the faith, and be careful not to give the impression that we are more concerned with procreation than we are with regeneration, which is the true work of the Church in all her members.

          • Anastasia August 23, 2014 1:39 pm


            I have been praying for an increase in hope and your response has given me that immensely. It is so encouraging to be supported in this. You have motivated me to re-read the writings on marriage from Saint Augustine and to pray for his intercession in this battle to restore the teachings on marriage as given to us by our Lord Jesus Christ and His most Holy Bride our Mother Church.

            May our Lord continue to bless you and your family in Truth, Purity, Charity and Humility.

          • Indignus famulus August 24, 2014 11:23 am

            Dear Matthew,
            We’d like to be very clear about this, so please correct us if we misstate anything here. When you said above,
            “Blessed Pope Pius IX is saying that spouses who choose to engage in marital relations for the fulfillment of secondary ends (e.g. cultivating mutual love and the quieting of concupiscence) at times when new life cannot be brought forth do not act against nature provided that these ends remain subordinated to the primary end (i.e. the procreation and rearing of children to the greater glory of God) and the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.”.
            — it seems you were clearly disagreeing with the idea that NFP is in any way a sin, and in fact saying that it is perfectly in accord with Divine Natural Law and Church teaching, so long as the proper intentions are there, regarding regeneration (which obviously includes procreation as a given), ie..always with the idea of accepting children willingly, but still using a period of time when that is not likely, for those other valid purposes.. Thank you for St. Augustine’s teachings, BTW. We had not heard them before, but thankfully would never have thought otherwise, due to our appreciation of the gift of the Faith and its necessity for salvation. It flows naturally from love, to pass that on.. Perhaps that is one reason you don’t find this concept emphasized so much, where the importance of the Faith is put forward to couples before it gets to this discussion.( although it could be ignorance on the part of the teachers-regarding St. Augstine) Thanks for your input here.

          • Anastasia August 24, 2014 3:16 pm

            Dear Indignus Famulus,

            I know this question wasn’t addressed to me but I would nonetheless wish to respond. First I would just like to correct an error that I have noticed and that is it is Pius XI and not IX that wrote Casti Connubii.

            I fail to see how NFP does not try to thwart or subordinate the primary purpose of marriage when it plans to have conjugal relations exclusively during the

            Dear Indignus famulus,
            I realize that your question was addressed to Mathew but I would nonetheless like to answer it. NFP is not in line with Divine law when it plans to engage in conjugal relations exclusively during the infertile period in order to seek the secondary end while doing everything in their thoughts, desires and acts, thus everything in their power to avoid the effects and highest chance of possible conception. If Scripture says that a man can commit adultery by just looking at a woman with lust and that scripture also teaches that to just wish evil on a
            person is a sin can’t you see that what goes on in ones mind and desires to
            thwart the hierarchy of purposes of marriage is a sin also? Just because everything looks good on the outside i.e Look no chemicals or physical barriers during my conjugal relations, doesn’t mean that what goes on in the mind and what is planned doesn’t count. Please, our Lord knows what goes on in our minds. Do you really think He can be duped?

          • Anastasia August 24, 2014 3:21 pm

            Dear Indignus famulus,

            Sorry for the error in not knowing how to delete my first draft. I hope you were able to follow my response.

        • Indignus famulus August 25, 2014 9:24 am

          Dear Anastasia,
          Our comment was addressed to Matthew, for his clarification, because it appears he refuted your errors, and we hoped he would affirm that here, so others do not fall victim to your misleading or false statements such as,
          ” It is so encouraging to be supported in this”..
          —We’ve asked you to take this subject to a Forum on a number of previous occasions, yet you insist on forcing it onto the main blog, every time you appear. We’ve been married a long time and are not unaware of these issues, but human sexuality is a private, personal matter, and in charity and modesty, the Church does not force the open discussion of it on the general public -which is why you find it in in printed materials used in couples’- Pre-Cana and Marriage counseling forums, where people voluntarily seek to discuss it where and when it pertains to their lives and needs. You seem to have no respect for respect for people’s freedom or rights to choose where it is discussed, and have ignored complaints from us and others here…
          — There is a growing problems today with addiction in this area, and those who are its victims desperately need to avoid exposure to such topics, to avoid the near occasion of sin. They avoid sites which discuss such things, and Louie’s blog was never before one of those, until you arrived with this apparent obsession. We’re honestly tired of it. and, we’re apparently not alone. Others are free to disagree, but we suggest you start a blog of your own on your topic, rather than stealing from Louie- who has invested a lot of time and money creating a wholesome, Catholic place to meet and talk. .. .

          • Anastasia August 25, 2014 9:44 pm

            Dear Indignus famulus,

            I am sorry that this topic seems to be upsetting you. I tried my best to use reverent words as did Mathew. I fail to see what can be so disrespectful about this topic considering that some of our church fathers and popes never shied away when speaking on this topic which by the way is so desperately and seriously in need of correction in this modern day sexually and morally corrupt world.

            I find Louis blog very informative and interesting but when I see that something like Humanae Vitae that is mentioned by someone else a good thing I feel it is my duty as a Catholic to speak up. Aren’t we all here to try to help one another? I think you should reread what Mathew said because I beleive Mathews quotes from Saint Augustine supports greatly what it is that I am trying to get across when it comes to NFP when it is used to avoid conception.

            Louis’ topic was “Devil in the Conciliar Details”. I believe this topic was an opened invitation to discuss the Devil in the Conciliar Details of Humanae Vitae and to discuss how it contradicts Casti Connubii and Saint Augustine’s teachings.

            I am beginning to feel like I am always being pressured by you to be sent to the penalty box, the forum, when I bring up topics that seem to threaten you.

            Like I said I am really sorry if you are upset by this topic but it is too serious of an issue to hide just because it might be upsetting to others.

    • salvemur August 21, 2014 11:07 pm

      We have an unadulterated desposit of Faith. We have access in our days to the full treasure of the Saints and the Popes. The fact that every ‘pope’ since 1958 has been contradicting his ‘predecessors’ and doing ‘lunch’ with every hater of the Church should speak for itself.
      As one Catholic once said, “Christianity is not a religion which can compromise and survive.” Therefore the ‘Christianity of comprimise’, is simply not Chrisitanity.
      The folks at True Restoration are going to be publishing an ‘Antimodernist Reader’. They already have raised the funds so hopefully they’ll let enough people know when it’s out:

  2. Dumb_ox August 21, 2014 3:34 pm

    Speaking of truth, Bergoglio’s bombshell comment to Scalfari is always worth revisiting by anyone who thinks a pope – a teacher – should take the subject seriously:
    “I would not speak about ‘absolute’ truths, even for believers, in the sense that absolute is that which is disconnected and bereft of all relationship. Truth, according to the Christian faith, is the love of God for us in Jesus Christ. Therefore, truth is a relationship.”

    Compare Aquinas’ discussion of the nature of God. Asked, for example, if God is a (physical) body, he begins by asserting:
    “It is absolutely true that God is not a body; and this can be shown in three ways.”
    (ST, I, Q.3, Art. 1).

    Aquinas goes on to support his assertion using reason alone, independently of Revelation. He hereby demonstrates that absolute truth may be spoken of to believers and non-believers alike. He plainly would not try ground his argument in Bergoglio’s account of truth. Bergoglio, on the other hand, presents himself as an authority that should be listened to, without it seems attempting to explain why.

  3. my2cents August 21, 2014 4:02 pm

    “It is lucky for rulers that men don’t think”–Adolph Hitler

    It is lucky for Freemasons that Catholics don’t think.

    • Roman Watcher August 21, 2014 4:07 pm

      It is certainly advantageous for the Freemasons, that Cardinals in conclave don’t think, and that after the conclave they don’t criticize. Now I understand the meaning of the ancient canon which required that a priest be physically a whole man: it was saying something about him spiritually…if any of these men were in my club, I’d vote for them to be expelled, as they are experts in the dishonorable…

      • Berto Slomovicci August 22, 2014 8:17 pm

        Roman Watcher,
        speaking of Freemasonry, what do you think of the 1983 Codex’ removal of any reference to the organisation?

        Ratiznger’s Quaesitum est’s binding nature or not, it does seem to be a first step in officially accepting Freemasonry as legitimate fellow religious institution.

        Much like for the Jewish Talmudic sects (see V.II and subsequent encyclicals, and the changes to the Good Friday Prayer).

        Also I can’t help but be reminded of the Mason concept of all religions being conduits to the GAOTU, when I read or hear some statements coming from the V:II church, even their pontiffs, all seemingly underlying the belief that non catholic religions are merely imperfect ways of worship and not demonic in nature like Scripture and maybe pre V:II doctrinal documents seemed to suggest.

        The great “ecumenical” effort (Assisi first of all) also suggests this embryonic stance inside the V:II.

    • Matthew August 21, 2014 5:11 pm

      I think, at some point, someone had the idea that, if a conclave didn’t come to a conclusion within a week, then the people in St. Peter’s Square would start to suspect that the Holy Ghost was being thwarted by the machinations of men. I mean, we haven’t had a conclave last longer than a week since the election of Pope Gregory XVI in 1831. Just imagine the pandemonium which would ensue if the next conclave lasted a month! Ironically, in the rush to save us from the potential of scandal, cardinals might actually not take the time to make sure the voice whispering in their ear is that of the Holy Ghost.

  4. Berto Slomovicci August 21, 2014 5:47 pm

    I think this is very interesting, because the (probably) false apparition at Bay Side said something very similar to John Paul II.
    Here’s a quote I found:

    “Our Lady” of Bayside, Aug. 14, 1974 – Vatican II: “Satan was present – He listened with careful ears at the Great Council [Vatican II]. He awaited every move, and he placed his agents among you! Recognize and reconstruct your path! You have been deluded.” (Our Lady of the Roses (Blue Book), p. 87.)

    Again synchronicities between false apparitions and official VII church line (in this case none other than JPII himself, its head at the time).. like in the case of Medjugorje and its message on Religious Indifferentism and Ecumenism, very much in line with the VII church’s ones.

    • Indignus famulus August 21, 2014 11:18 pm

      Dear Berto,
      One good PROOF of a false apparition is the failure of its prophecies.
      Bayside thus failed before the year 2001, as in June 18,1988 it foretold:
      ‘Look up, and see what lies beyond your windows: a Ball that is fast hurtling towards earth! It will be here within this century, if not sooner.’ For even the scientists have failed to recognize the speed of this Ball.”
      Bay Side had others that failed as well, and many “hookers” mostly very vague, predictable, or unprovable. This comet is very old and common.

      –Bishop Mugavero – on November 4, 1986, officially declared they completely lacked authenticity. ..1. No credibility can be given to the so-called “apparitions” … 2. The “messages” and other related propaganda contain statements which, among other things, are contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church…-His successor Bishop DiMarzio concurred: I write in order to dissipate lingering doubts–f the Diocese of Brooklyn and the judgment of Bishop Francis J. Mugavero..” –This judgment has been maintained over the course of three decades… the alleged visions contain serious theological errors and contradict both Sacred Scripture.. including: the nature and identity of Christ, the identity and role of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Grace,….
      Bishop DiMarzio was reported as blasting the New York legislature when it voted in favor of gay-marriage, and lead an over 2 mile street procession on Good Friday, etc.- indications of Faithful leadership.. Not certainty, but more reason to question the judgment of those who still support these apparitions.

      • Berto Slomovicci August 22, 2014 8:30 pm

        Indignus Famulus,
        the fact these are fake apparitions (therefore demonic in Nature), endorsing or mirroring V:II stances, should be a cause of concern, not of relief.

        I was puzzled as to why a demonic apparition would warn people against Vatican II until I read this very article.
        The entity was merely yet again promoting John Paul II.
        In fact, if you check, all the Bayside demonic warnings, such as this one:

        “•”Yes, My child, even with Vatican II, it started out with the best resolves, but then satan took over the scene. And with his agents he reached into the highest professions, the highest league of the Hierarchy, until, it saddens Me to say that many priests are now on the road to perdition and taking many others with them.” (Our Lord through Veronica Lueken, July 25, 1985.)”

        on Vatican II predate JP II’s encyclical Dominum et Vivificantem, except for one which Leuken received June 18, 1986 (allegedly).

      • Berto Slomovicci August 22, 2014 8:44 pm

        In fact, it is a brilliant disinformation operation on the demons’ part.
        They will throw us a bone with the “Devil at Vatican II” bit, but all this does is exonerate the real (human) culprits by blaming fumous and ever slippery anonymous “high hierarchy” insiders.
        As much as Paul VI’s allusion to the Smoke of Satan, the message here is that, yes, there’s a demonic presence inside the Church, but lo! do not fear, most of it is still “genuine”, and most certainly you shouldn’t look at the “tallest poppy”.

        This will satisfy most people’s (especially troublemakers’) thirst for knowledge and ultimatively reassure them that while there are problems, they ought not to fear and keep attending their parish, pray for the Pope, etc.

  5. Indignus famulus August 21, 2014 7:49 pm

    Thanks again, Louie, for pointing out why the documents of Vatican II have become the source materials for so much error in the last 50 years. Here’s an example of something in them which we find most disturbing:
    — Nostra aetate says: “The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God.
    —-If Moslems adore the one God, then it has to be the same one we adore, as there is no other. But how can this be, when:
    The Qua’ran teaches (Sura 4:171Off): “Believe in Allah and say not ‘Trinity.’ Cease! It is better for you! Allah is only One God. Far is it removed from his transcendent majesty that he should have a son.”
    Allah is presented in the Qua’ran as an autocratic ruler who is aloof and arbitrary (Sura 5:40Off). Allah is capricious (Sura 2:284Off-), whereas the true God is trustworthy. Allah is unknowable whereas the God of the Bible is knowable (2 Timothy 1:12Off). Allah is impersonal, unlike the personal God the Scriptures reveal (1 Peter 5:6-7). (2 Corinthians 13:14Off-site Link).
    The Qua’ran denies point blank that Jesus was the Son of God (Sura112:2-3Off). It also denies His atoning sacrifice by claiming that he never died (Sura 4:157Off). (A substitute died for Him on the Cross.) Jesus was translated to Heaven, like Enoch, where He will remain until He returns to kill all pigs, destroy all crosses, and convert the world to Islam. Jesus will marry, reign for 40 years and then die and be buried next to Muhammad in Medina. Jesus is characterized in the Koran as nothing more than “an apostle of Allah” (Sura 4:171Off). – Source: The Truth About Islam Dr. David R. Reagan
    Allah is never anywhere presented as a god of love — which is the essence of the nature of the true God (1 John) Instead he is always the Master and His followers always his slaves. That may be a plus for evangelizers, as it was in the life of this Imam, who found Jesus after teaching He is not God, after a student asked him- who is Jesus? That led to his finding the truth:.
    Finally, a simple way to approach this question is by asking what is professed when converting. —How does one become a Catholic? Simply by receiving instruction in the Faith, declaring belief in the teachings, and then receiving the Sacrament of Baptism in the name of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.(The Blessed Trinity) whom Moslems denouce as a false God.

  6. Lynda August 21, 2014 9:23 pm

    Reason alone would tell one that “Allah” is not the One True God that those in His one holy Church worship.

    • Indignus famulus August 22, 2014 11:09 pm

      Dear Lynda,
      We agree, but sometimes it’s helpful to have a little back up from the Pope,
      as we found while further researching this topic. If you have any insights on this idea-we’d appreciate hearing them. It apparently has been widely accepted that the ignorance of the true nature of God, does not preclude the monotheistic religions from praying to Him–despite Jesus words about their need to go to the Father through Him.
      —- We read a few explanations of how– using Abraham’s legacy of revealed truth to Ishmael and Isaac and their descendants the council fathers – wanting to praise the Moslems and Jews- used that history as the reason they also “adore “the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth” in Nostra aetate.
      (though it seems very misleading to us to say that with extensive qualifications).
      — As the document acknowledges–their descendants later rejected the fulfillment of God’s revelation concerning their Messiah and Lord, Jesus. So they are without all they needed for salvation.
      —That adds to the confusing praise given to those and other non-Christian religions-to the point where it sounds like a promotion of them – absent the many negatives like very serious expressions of concern for loss of their souls. And it goes on to promote togetherness, so contrarily to what the Church usually does even to protect the faithful from apparitions deemed false.
      — We were a bit heartened to find Pope Benedict also decided it was time to criticize, as he said in a radio address regarding nostrae aetate:
      …” it speaks of religion solely in a positive way and it disregards the sick and distorted forms of religion which, from the historical and theological viewpoints, are of far-reaching importance; for this reason the Christian faith, from the outset, adopted a critical stance towards religion, both internally and externally.”

  7. Cyprian August 21, 2014 9:39 pm

    Does Fr. McDonald say enough here, or does he stop far short of appraising his readers of the apparent naiveté or ignorance of JPII?:
    “Among other excellent observations, Fr. McDonald very astutely points out that JPII seems to imagine that allowing the Enemy to sow his poisonous fruit in the conciliar text was an acceptable risk in the conciliar work of renewal; as if it is sometimes necessary for a mother to mix garbage with good food in order to foster growth in her children.”
    What is shocking here is that according to Fr. McDonald JPII apparently believed that the Prince of this world was in some way subject to the fathers of the Council who “allowed” the “Enemy to sow his poisonous fruit in the conciliar text”. What does the Church say about the relative positions of Lucifer and man? I found this in the Catholic Encyclopedia:
    “There is no need to discuss the view of some theologians who surmise that Lucifer was one of the angels who ruled and administered the heavenly bodies, and that this planet was committed to his care. For in any case the sovereignty with which these texts are primarily concerned is but the rude right of conquest and the power of evil influence. His sway began by his victory over our first parents, who, yielding to his suggestions, were brought under his bondage. All sinners who do his will become in so far his servants. For, as St. Gregory says, he is the head of all the wicked–”Surely the Devil is the head of all the wicked; and of this head all the wicked are members” (Certe iniquorum omnium caput diabolus est; et hujus capitis membra sunt omnes iniqui.–Hom. 16, in Evangel.). This headship over the wicked, as St. Thomas is careful to explain, differs widely from Christ’s headship over the Church, inasmuch as Satan is only head by outward government and not also, as Christ is, by inward, life-giving influence (Summa III:8:7).”
    Isn’t it more accurate to say that those church “fathers” who “allowed” “the Enemy to sow his poisonous fruit in the conciliar text” were in actual fact not “allowing” anything but were rather DOING THE WILL of the Prince of this world? What does the Catholic Encyclopedia have to say about such people who do the will of the Prince of this world?: “All sinners who do his will become in so far his servants.”
    Further, if those perpetuating VII are, in fact, the servants of the Prince of this world and are doing his will in the perpetuation, it is hardly surprising that the visible “Church” through which they are operating appears to be “diabolically disoriented”. Isn’t it more accurate to say that the true Church cannot be “diabolically disoriented” meaning that the visible “Church” which appears to be diabolically disoriented is, in fact, a satanic counterfeit?
    When I read about the apparent thought processes of our Church leaders it appears that few of them fear either the Almighty or the evil one!

    • Roman Watcher August 22, 2014 4:10 am

      Pride goes before the fall; it makes one think that he knows better than God, so obviously, it makes one think that he can best the Devil by his own wits. The love of everything modern to the contempt of everything true and sacred and holy.

      How I am disgusted by the clergy preaching at us laymen about how we have lost the sense of the sacred and that Vatican II rightly interpreted will restore that….! Ugh, just look in the mirror, your excellencies!

      Now that the West is disarmed of the Catholic Faith, perhaps God has sent ISIS to destroy what was battered down and opened up, so as to give those responsible everything they have deserved…and to suscitate, at least out of a desire for self preservation, a proper Christian notion of the virtue of intolerance and war against the Godless…

      • Indignus famulus August 22, 2014 11:18 pm

        Dear Roman watcher,
        It’s certainly seems to be having that affect on many former total pacifists. We’re not war-mongers by any means, but we have a hard time watching people use the freedom of speech to denounce all forms of armed aggression, knowing how many courageous men and women have died to make that one of the things they still can do.
        —Pope Francis told the U.N. to figure out what to do without war or bombs to “stop him” (ISIS). Time will tell whether or not he will revise those limits.

  8. Br. Jerome August 21, 2014 10:58 pm

    I don’t think St. John Paul II meant to say or said that there was demonic influence in the texts themselves, but only in their wrongful implementation. The Holy Spirit protects the Church in Council.

    • Indignus famulus August 21, 2014 11:26 pm

      Dear Br. Jerome,
      Why do you think it was that Pope Paul VI was so emphatic about not declaring this council dogmatic, unlike all those which preceded it? He also was the Pope who lamented that “the smoke of Satan has entered the Church”, so perhaps he also had his doubts about this matter.

    • Cyprian August 21, 2014 11:56 pm

      @Br. Jerome: Can you eliminate as a possibility that JPII was of the same mind as Cardinal Kasper who stated:
      “In many places, [the Council Fathers] had to find compromise formulas, in which, often, the positions of the majority are located immediately next to those of the minority, designed to delimit them. Thus, the conciliar texts themselves have a huge potential for conflict, open the door to a selective reception in either direction.” (Cardinal Walter Kasper, L’Osservatore Romano, April 12, 2013)
      The discussion of this statement can be easily googled to find many comments, e.g., like that appearing on the Unam Sanctam blog.
      When I read comments like this, I wonder who Cardinal Kasper believes to be the author of the conflict regarding the reception of the VII texts?
      Further, the idea that the Truth of Our Lord cannot be reduced to unanimous formulas to which everyone can assent, but rather has to be contained in “comprise formulas” composed of “majority” and “minority” positions reminds me of 2 Corinthians 6:15: “And what concord hath Christ with Belial?”

      • Indignus famulus August 22, 2014 1:02 am

        Dear Cyprian,
        While there does seem to be evidence in their statements before and after the council, that on some issues the presentation of truth itself was being questioned -at least in their thoughts, we must allow for the possibility that compromise is sometimes necessary in deciding how best to state ideas, and not all the ideas being discussed at the council were directly about dogmatic truth. Not that we’re looking for excuses for the modernists attending, but the pursuit of truth on our parts, about what actually took place, must make some allowances for those other possibilities in the interest of fairness.

        • Cyprian August 22, 2014 2:19 am

          “But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil.”

  9. salvemur August 21, 2014 11:10 pm

    St Basil The Great: “Religious people keep silence, but every blaspheming tongue is let loose. Sacred things are profaned; those of the laity who are sound in their faith avoid the places of worship as schools of impiety, and raise their hands in solitudes, with groans and tears to the Lord in heaven…Only one offence is now vigorously punished—an accurate observance of our father’s traditions.”
    “What happened over 1600 years ago is repeating itself today, but with two or three differences: Alexandria is today the whole Universal Church, the stability of which is being shaken, and what was undertaken at that time by means of physical force and cruelty is now being transferred to a different level. Exile is replaced by banishment into the silence of being ignored.” R. Graber, Athanasius and the Church of Our Time (Edinburgh, 1974)
    “Our Canons and our forms were not given to the Churches at the present day, but were wisely and safely transmitted to us from our forefathers. Neither had our faith its beginning at this time, but it came down to us from the Lord through His disciples. That therefore the ordinances which have been preserved in the Churches from old time until now, may not be lost in our days, and the trust which has been committed to us required at our hands; rouse yourselves, brethren, as being stewards of the mysteries of God, on seeing them now seized upon by aliens.” Historical Tracts of St. Athanasius (Newman ed.)

    • salvemur August 22, 2014 1:27 am

      p.s. no offense, ‘br jerome’, but wojtyla was one of the ‘aliens’ who ‘seized upon ‘mysteries of God’ for his kin – those alien to the Faith.

      • salvemur August 22, 2014 4:19 am

        ” rouse yourselves, brethren, as being stewards of the mysteries of God, on seeing them now seized upon by aliens.”
        for those who never studied classical myth, where the ancients’ idols went around ‘seizing’ this or that desirable – it is a euphemism for ‘rape’. This is what, in my opinion is meant in the passage by ‘seized’ – the ‘aliens’ rape the mysteries of God and, like some harem maker, hand the same around for more to their own alien kind.

    • Lynda August 22, 2014 11:29 am

      This quote of St Basil describes the Church of these past few decades in a nutshell. St Basil, please intercede for us.

      • salvemur August 23, 2014 8:13 am

        I agree. “those of the laity who are sound in their faith avoid the places of worship as schools of impiety, and raise their hands in solitudes, with groans and tears to the Lord in heaven….”

  10. S.Armaticus August 22, 2014 2:25 am

    Of topic… sort of.
    The Federalist via Hot Air blog has this gem: http://thefederalist.com/2014/08/21/how-to-shrink-your-church-in-one-easy-step/
    Correlation equals causality? You decide.

  11. Cyprian August 22, 2014 9:16 am

    @IF: Your reply is conclusory and self-serving in the context of this discussion. If you care to explain, how exactly does my citing of Our Lord’s own words not advance my argument? Cardinal Kasper’s statement admits that the conciliar texts were at the very least ambiguous. Did you understand that? Our Lord said that ambiguity in statements regarding the faith is of the evil one. It would seem of all situations that texts directed to the universal church should follow Our Lord’s words and be free of ambiguity, don’t you think?

    • JamesTheLesser August 22, 2014 12:17 pm

      God is in control. The ambiguities in the text were allowed by Him. Those that have eyes will see. The sad fact is Kasper is so lost he views the ambiguities as a good thing rather than the result of his, and his ilks, hardness of heart and desire to be worldly.

    • Indignus famulus August 23, 2014 12:54 am

      Dear Cyprian,
      . The comment you refer to could easily have been placed separately to avoid the appearance of detracting from yours. Sorry for the aggravation.

  12. my2cents August 22, 2014 11:04 am

    Everyone should know about this:
    This should leave no doubt regarding the “devil in the details” of the post-conciliar “church”.
    The Bishop who gave his permission is the very same one who allowed the murder of Terry Schiavo!! Anyone who thinks the New Order “church” is the TRUE Church is living in “LA LA Land”!

  13. de Maria numquam satis August 22, 2014 11:38 am

    Blessed Feast Day,
    dear brethren.
    Slightly OT-please excuse.

    Today August 22 – The Immaculate Heart of the Blessed Virgin Mary
    pre-1958 Calendar
    Peace be to you all.

Only registered users can comment.