29. August, 2014Blog Post 42 comments

Game set satan

On the SSPX website is a review of the book by Monsignor Brunero Gherardini, “Vatican Council II: a Debate That Has Not Taken Place.” The piece is a little dated, but worthy of revisiting. (HT to Jim Paton for sharing it on my Facebook page.)

This book is a sequel to “The Ecumenical Council Vatican II: a Debate To Be Opened,” and as far as I can tell is currently available only in Italian. If and when it is translated, I’d like to get my hands on it.

The review, in any case, contains some very interesting extracts from the book (in English); among them, one in particular jumped out at me.

Msgr. Gherardini says of the Council Fathers and their anti-Thomistic approach to creating the conciliar text:

“One did not realize, nor did not want to believe, that rejecting St. Thomas Aquinas and his method would entail a doctrinal collapse.”

On the whole, grasping at the motives of the Council Fathers can be difficult if not impossible, and to the extent that it distracts from evaluating the text relative to objective truths, it can perhaps be of limited value.

That said, having read Professor Roberto DeMattei’s book, “Vatican Council II: An Unwritten Story,” with its copious footnotes, many of which reference the diary entries of key players at the Council, it is fairly obvious that some among them did indeed realize that their method was opening the way for doctrinal collapse; what’s more, it appears that some of them deeply desired exactly that.

It is perhaps debatable that some of those who did were ignorant to the point of sincerely believing that they were ultimately accomplishing some good, but that’s not the point I wish to discuss.

Rather, I raise this matter because it seems that there are any number of Catholics who naively imagine that the work of Vatican II was carried out by a collection of churchmen singularly determined to safeguard the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine.  That simply wasn’t the case; rather, certain of the Council Fathers, and the periti who advised them, clearly wished to subvert the doctrine of the faith on key points.

Can the same be said of other ecumenical councils?

Certainly; ecumenical councils are often contentious affairs. Among the players therein are men who presumably act, either by ignorance or sheer mischief, as pawns of the Evil One who stands ready at every turn to undermine the mission of the Church. It would be naive to believe otherwise. So, when it comes to ecumenical councils, generally speaking, while the results can be glorious; as it concerns the “way the sausage is made,” not so much.

What can be said of Vatican Council II alone, however, is that the conditions were such that the subversives were afforded an opportunity to see their poisonous prose mixed into the final product; the conciliar documents, wherein nourishing truths are juxtaposed side-by-side with the leaven of Lucifer.

This a bitter pill to swallow indeed; far too bitter for many to even consider.

What such persons fail to realize, however, is that Vatican II, unlike the previous twenty ecumenical councils, was missing the very ingredients that are necessary for assuring that the documents of any ecumenical council are pure; namely, the intent to define and bind, and therefore the protection of the Holy Ghost.

With the charism of infallibility thus precluded, the only stopgaps in place that could possibly prevent the seeds of a doctrinal collapse from being planted in the conciliar text were the popes who reigned during the Council; Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI.

Both of these men having failed to so serve the Church, the duty of safeguarding the doctrine of the faith then fell to the popes who would interpret and implement the text going forward; each of whom likewise dropped the ball.

Being the most cunning of all creatures, however, the Evil One was obviously unwilling to rest satisfied with the illusion of doctrinal dependability that came with papal approbation; so he promptly set in motion what he knows damn well will entice modern day men of weakened intellect to believe is every bit as good as conciliar infallibility, practically speaking; namely, the canonization of the pusillanimous Ponitiffs in question.

The worst of the lot, Paul VI, who leveraged the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy as a springboard for launching the greatest liturgical disaster the Church has ever witnessed, is set for beatification in October.

Game, set, Satan.

  1. In Hoc Signo Vinces August 29, 2014 2:57 pm

    Surely you mean “canonization” of “St” JP II “The Great” and “St” J XXIII “The Good” and not CANONIZATION?
    How sad how many people bought into the “canonization” charade. Even otherwise faithful catholics. Now poor Mr Matt of The Remnant is coming up with an utterly ludicrous, “it’s all Greg Burke’s fault” hypothesis to divert the blame squarely on Francis in order to keep his sanity intact:
    “…they [the reprobate] receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying:
    That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity.”
    2 Thessalonians 2:10-11

    • Mike August 29, 2014 10:29 pm

      It’s an interesting idea to blame Greg Burke, the P.R. guy, but Cardinal Bergoglio was doing things like this in Argentina for a long time before becoming Pope, like taking the bus, etc.

    • Indignus famulus August 30, 2014 10:46 am

      Dear In hoc signo and Mike,
      We have to agree– with due respect to Matt’s usual accuracy, Bergoglio’s life in Argentina makes this hypothesis about a highly-skilled P.R. man being responsible for his humble image, appear ludicrous:
      One report, based on his official biographer (Sergio Rubin)’s descriptions says:
      — “Bergoglio has shown a keen political sensibility as well as a self-effacing humility. He often rode the bus to work, cooked his own meals and regularly visited the slums that ring Argentina’s capital. He considers social outreach, rather than doctrinal battles, to be the essential business of the church. He accused fellow church leaders of hypocrisy and forgetting that Jesus Christ bathed lepers and ate with prostitutes.”
      — ” he rises at 4:30 am and is known to have little social life. Unlike most Argentines, who often dine at 11:00 pm, he goes to bed at 9:00 pm. But Bergoglio does like tango and soccer.”
      ….And another….” he enjoys a reputation as an ascetic despite his archbishop’s robes. He rides clattering city buses, makes his own meals and is famously accessible. He lives in a small apartment rather than the archbishop’s palace that comes with his old job….Those who know him describe the Archbishop of Buenos Aires and primate of Argentina as a shy, softly-spoken man who shuns high society.”

  2. Dumb_ox August 29, 2014 4:44 pm

    “One did not realize, nor did not want to believe, that rejecting St. Thomas Aquinas and his method would entail a doctrinal collapse.”

    On this point is worth quoting para. 31 of Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis in full (emphases added):
    “31. If one considers all this well, he will easily see why the Church demands that future priests be instructed in philosophy ‘according to the method, doctrine, and principles of the Angelic Doctor,’ since, as we well know from the experience of centuries, the method of Aquinas is singularly preeminent both for teaching students and for bringing truth to light; his doctrine is in harmony with divine revelation, and is most effective both for safeguarding the foundation of the faith, and for reaping, safely and usefully, the fruits of sound progress”.

  3. my2cents August 29, 2014 6:45 pm

    It is quite obvious that every post-conciliar pope will be canonized with the possible exception of B16 (showed a hint of friendliness toward Tradition). After all, whose in charge? The Modernist hierarchy currently in control who celebrate the “success” of V2—the destruction of the Holy, Roman Catholic Church. They have not succeeded entirely, but Bergoglio is certainly in their camp. The upcoming synod will be very revealing!! If Bergoglio plays his cards right, he may be declared St. Bergoglio while still among the living. Lord, have mercy!!

  4. Roman Watcher August 29, 2014 7:28 pm


    its not game set, Satan….

    no non-infallible papal act is immune from being overturned.

    The problem is that many a sentimentalist or politically correct catholic is immune from logic, presented in the fact of the fact that his superior(s) are liars, dupes, or malign.

    Let us not imagine that everyone in the Church who goes along with V2 is such. Most of us were once go alongs, and came to realize the truth by contantly running into pathological liars in favor of v2 and interpreting it in the manner most hostile to all truth.

    Burke and his like need to be confronted with truth: the truth of Bergoglio’s perfidy, the truth of their own diabolic negligence during the Conclave, and thr truth of their cowardly silence in the fact of it all…

    • Indignus famulus August 29, 2014 9:02 pm

      Dear Roman watcher,
      Say for the sake of discussion, all the saner members of the hierarchy decided they have to do something. Wouldn’t their success depend entirely on how many of them exist-given that things get put to votes? When the Council passed Nostra aetate, the vote was 2, 221 to 88 against.
      After the next Fatima miracle, maybe?

      • Roman Watcher August 30, 2014 3:05 pm

        the revolution of the modernists advances when catholics put substance behind form. At the Council this was the great sin…if the 88 had made objections on doctrinal grounds and threatened to excommunicate the others, I’d bet the outcome would have been different…but they acquiesced to tolerate doctrinal errors and ambiguous expressions for the sake of following the form and outward appearance of ecclesiastical niceties…

        • Indignus famulus August 30, 2014 4:31 pm

          Dear Roman Watcher,
          Agreed, so what makes you think it’s “not game set Satan” as you said above, do you see something changing that we haven’t noticed?

          • Roman Watcher August 30, 2014 6:13 pm


            Your question is indigna….!

            Do you not recall the words of Our Lord: The gates of Hell shall not prevail against My Church?

            No further proof is necessary…

            Anyhow, the way to oppose heresy in the Supreme Office of the Church, even with a heretical Synod, speaking hypothetically, is well known to every top canonist in the Church. I recall speaking to a prof in canon law some months before B16 resigned. He said it was a well known point of law and tradition that the Cardinals can judge a heretical pope. He made this statement on his own initiative, and now I see that he had heard something well in advance of Bergoglio’s entrance.

            So when push comes to shove, the Catholic Cardinals can convene and declare the fact, and give the rest of the College time to respond by calling a meeting and declaring it formally. Then it will be for us faithful in Rome to chose the right side. Thus the faith of Rome will not falter even if a third of the stars are cast down from the heavens…

            I hope it does not come to that, but if it does we need to be ready to do what Catholics will have to in such an hour…and such an eventuality will be a great boon for the Church, for then all the faithful in the world will have to decide to live by the Faith or to follow what is politically correct, and thus the Church will be purged of the ungodly, to the honor and praise of God.

          • Indignus famulus August 30, 2014 8:12 pm

            Dear Roman watcher,
            Ah, we see what the problem was.. We never had in mind the whole Match being lost, since we believe as you do-that can never happen, so what you wrote gave us the impression you saw some more immediate cause for change.
            Thanks for clarifying.

        • Lynda September 1, 2014 4:44 am

          Dear Roman Watcher, this is true – putting “form” before substance, or compromise with evil (live and let live) before God and His Unchanging Commandments.

  5. Mike August 29, 2014 9:16 pm

    I thought they wanted parishes to form small faith communities. So what do they really want?

  6. Catholic Johnny August 30, 2014 12:58 am

    I would only under clearly defined circumstances defend Pope Paul VI of infelicitous memory, but Pope John Paul II did far more damage to the Catholic church with his synchretism and heterodox formulation of the effects of the Incarnation (universal justification). And altar girls? I am sure that even the liberal Paul VI would have blanched at that.

  7. salvemur August 30, 2014 1:17 am

    “On the whole, grasping at the motives of the Council Fathers can be difficult if not impossible, and to the extent that it distracts from evaluating the text relative to objective truths, it can perhaps be of limited value.” ———- Possibly of as much value as deciphering Judas’ essay against the Truth. One could imagine if Judas had ignored had managed to put off ‘going to his place’ via a rope and decided to live and cultivate a ‘Judas-messianity’ – what would it have looked like? Its liturgy would spurn the Real Presence; its doctrine would deny Peter and the Apostolic Body as hinderances to ‘natural’ inclusiveness (the special mission of perfidious Jews not withstanding); its disciplines would contradict supernatural goods and the obtainment of them and focus upon a pharisaic utopia rendered by obeisance to the spirit of treachery, of denying Christ, of dissolving Christ (it’s interesting that ‘utopia’ actually means ‘no place’ (yet the liberals still don’t get it. Saint Thomas More coined it.)
    “There is a species of moral, legal, and social modernism which We condemn, no less decidedly than We condemn theological modernism…It is necessary ever to keep in mind these teachings and pronouncements which We have made; it is no less necessary to reawaken that spirit of faith, of supernatural love, and of Christian discipline which alone can bring to these principles correct understanding, and can lead to their observance. This is particularly important in the case of youth, and especially those who aspire to the priesthood, so that in the almost universal confusion in which we live they at least, as the Apostle writes, will not be ‘tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive.” (Ephesians iv, 14) (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922.) ——— Newchurch is a fruit of the ‘wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive’, utterly condemned by the Holy See, now ‘rehabilitated by the ‘unholy see’.
    “One is only morally ‘free’ to do what is right. Error has no rights. God grants no civil ‘right,’ whether in the Divine Positive Law or the Natural Law, to adherents of false religions to propagate their beliefs openly. God does not want the souls for whom He shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross to be confused by the open dissemination of error…For when the liberty of all ‘religions’ is indiscriminately asserted, by this very fact truth is confounded with error and the holy and immaculate Spouse of Christ, the Church, outside of which there can be no salvation, is set on a par with the sects of heretics and with Judaic perfidy itself. For when favour and patronage is promised even to the sects of heretics and their ministers, not only their persons, but also their very errors, are tolerated and fostered: a system of errors in which is contained that fatal and never sufficiently to be deplored HERESY which, as St. Augustine says (de Haeresibus, no.72), ‘asserts that all heretics proceed correctly and tell the truth: which is so absurd that it seems incredible to me.’‘ (Pope Pius VII, Post Tam Diuturnas, April 29, 1814.) ——- what is it Newchurch teaches and practices? the above mentioned ‘confusion and dissemination of error’; and what’s more we support and pay homage to the disseminators of this evil, of this error – we say by our homage, ‘you have the right to teach and disseminate error, and to obtain from us the money and obeisance necessary to teach error.’

    • salvemur August 30, 2014 4:01 am

      Remember when Bergoglio preached that ‘inside every Christian is a Jew’, as if the foundation of Christian is without Christ. What a lie. What a terrible seditious lie. Christ is the Truth, we as human beings are ‘built’ for Truth. The Truth is that inside every Jew is a muzzled Christian desperate for ‘liberation’ from the crippling falsehood of judaism and rabbinicalism. Same with atheists, muslims etc. What an utter perversity is a so-called Catholicsm that doesn’t seek or worse, turns away converts. This, at even a base ‘natural ethics’ level is a ‘sin’ against any traditional concept of hospitality, let alone the Divine Mission of Christ’s Church. I think about the missionaries. Those extraordinary priests and nuns who, moving through alien lands and peoples, bravely brought the kinship that can only be found in Christ, including in the Body of Christ all those who had been geographically ‘cut off’ and kept in ignorance and starved of the Real Presence. Now we have priests and nuns who despise the Body of Christ in Truth and the gathering together of ‘thy children, as the hen doth gather her chickens under her wings’, except, ‘thou wouldest not’; instead the universalist, religously indifferent pseudo-marxist ‘ethicial society’ or the perverted ‘Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee’.

      • salvemur August 30, 2014 7:43 am

        p.s. re game-set-satan, if people stopped playing with satan he’s dead in the water. If priests stopped lying to Almighty God at every Mass calling the perfidious faithful and the servant of the father of lies the servant of Truth, such would be a healthy and honest remedy to the current eclipse of Truth and Church. but then I guess one would have to acknowledge that bergoglio teaches counter-faith.

    • Lynda September 1, 2014 4:50 am

      Dear Salvemur.

      You speak with great passion for the God and His Holy Church. Thank you for your contributions. Are you a priest or religious?

  8. Indignus famulus August 30, 2014 8:00 pm

    Jorge Borges is listed in several articles about Pope Francis (and Jorge Bergoglio), as his “favorite author” Our research shows he was a
    - self-descried “agnostic” and Argentine poet, essayist, and short-story writer-tales of fantasy and dreamworlds-influenced by Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, and Judaism, heretics, mystics; Europeans and English- like Berkeley, who argued that there is no material substance; the sensible world consists only of ideas, which exists for so long as they are perceived.
    — his tales embrace universal themes -with ideas from theological speculations of Gnosticism and the Jewish Cabala, and sees man’s search for meaning
    in an infinite universe as a fruitless effort. His first collection of short stories,.. A combination of book and maze, can be read in many ways-the so-called
    “hypertext”. Religion and heresy are explored in such stories as “The Theologians”, and “Three Versions of Judas” in which the inversion of mainstream Christian concepts of redemption, is characteristic of Borges’s approach to theology in his literature.”
    [one Yahoo-blogger wrote: "I read Jorge Luis Borge's "Three Versions of Judas", where he suggests that Judas was just following the command of Jesus. Jesus needed an "excuse" to be sacrificed and save humandkind, so he used Judas as a tool and do his thing. Then he goes further and suggest Judas himself was Jesus, since he sacrificed his own reputation and went to hell in order to save humankid. What do you think about it? " You can read Borges text here"]: http://southerncrossreview.org/49/borges-judas-eng.htm The story ends with the fictitious author wishing himself in hell.
    Another recurrent image is the mirror, which reflects 2 different identities. “I” stands not for the public man but for the private self, for reality, since these other things are unreal to me,” he said.”
    Borges came to a permanent rift with his longtime lover, Argentine Communist Estela Canto, and in 1967 married the recently widowed Elsa Astete Millán. The marriage lasted less than three years. Divorce did not exist in Argentina, so they entered into a legal separation. His last years Borges lived with María Kodama, his assistant whom he married in 1986 via an attorney in Paraguay, though his marriage to Elsa had never been annulled, in what was then a common practice among Argentines wishing to circumvent the Argentine laws of the time regarding divorce. He died of cancer a few months later in Switzerland.
    So the Pope’s favorite author lived as an agnostic bigamist, who believed the search for meaning in this life is fruitless, whose “real” self was not his public self, and who was skilled at writing things that could be read in many ways.
    Maybe this helps explain his enthusiasm for the “documents” often discussed here?

    • salvemur August 30, 2014 11:14 pm

      No surprise – such is the ‘nature’ of the new ‘kings’ of Christ (what a terrible thing to call such a ‘king’ of Christ) who by all appearances, words deeds and preferences appear simply to be of the world, the flesh and the devil.
      From Roncalli’s first encylcal (as far as I know the first ‘papal’ encyclical ever to be praised by freemasons) to the signing off on the new rites of ‘ordination’ for Bishops and priests, the structure (the very essence of the Apostolic Body) and all the people within the Faith (and those seeking entry) have been handed over to the world, the flesh, and the devil. The ‘beneficiary’ of the VII machine is the father of lies = Protestantism, all false-religions, UN, secularism, the New Age, the New World Order – people and institutions who’s only interest is to dismantle the Bride. So where is the visible Church? It has to be that, as Cardinal Pie predicted, we have reached that time where She has been reduced ‘to individual and domestic proportions’. So what does God prefer, quantity or quality? when it comes to the Faith? I’d take a stab at quality being the right answer.
      Bergoglio is simply a by-product (one might dare to say a waste-product) of the VII-NO-Church – a machine that has all but wiped out authentic Catholicism in self-named ‘catholic’ parishes world wide. It, the VII-NO-Church machine has attacked doctrine, discipline and liturgy. It systematically, tier by tier, has attacked and eroded the Holy Monarchy of Christ – it’s so-called ‘kings’ have abdicated to the UN, the US constitution, to protestantism, to universalism, to false-religions, to secularism, you name it, and all under the guise of a sort of ‘convergence’ of doctrine, discipline and liturgy. This ‘convergence’ is simply the genius-of-Judas. Judas may have been a bishop but he was never and could never be Peter. With regards to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, I don’t think it could ever be overstated how abominable it must be to heaven to laud Judas as a servant and king of the Faith. The Mass is (at least supposed to be) a ‘sacrifice of proptiation’ (something unacceptable to protestants), making satisfaction to God for sin. Exactly how is one supposed to ‘converge’ this Truth with a world of lies without dismissing the Truth in our midst by our own free will? I think we have to start by stopping this big lie in the face of God at Mass.

      • Indignus famulus August 31, 2014 7:58 am

        Dear salvemur,
        We don’t disagree with your points about the harm done by VII, including in this case, as we also believe the devil used it as his personal tool to achieving the current state of affairs. But we think it goes deeper than that, because Jorge Bergoglio, was born in 1936, and describes being taught the same Faith we were taught, under the strong influence of his grandmother.
        He writes in his books of his great admiration for a teacher one high-school teacher who as an active Communist and happy to provide materials for a student who was a self-described “avaricious reader” and eager to explore its philosophies. That would have been at the latest, in the early 1950′s, the same period to which he recently referred as a time he ‘Thanks God” we have left behind us– because he remembers all those years of not being able to visit extended family members who were living in sin- because the Church required that back then as they were not married. Pius XI reigned till he was 3, and then Pius XII for the next 18 years till he turned 22 in 1958. So his home and basic religious formation and schooling, including those rebellious ideas and interests that veered away from it, took place well before John XXIII became Pope, and he entered the seminary which likely took those raw materials and finished the job..
        The Jesuits must have seen something “special” in him early on, as he made his perpetual profession to their order in 1973, became master of novices at the Seminary in San Miguel, and then later that same year, was elected superior of the Jesuit province of Argentina.

        • Lynda August 31, 2014 9:42 am

          And by the time he became a Jesuit priest, that Order was well and truly corrupted, particularly in South America.

  9. Indignus famulus August 31, 2014 3:11 pm

    Dear Lynda,
    Fr. Paul Shaughnessy wrote a fascinating expose of the Jesuits in 2002 during JPII’s pontificate. — a U.S. Marine Chaplain on his 4th tour of Iraq in 2008, and one of the priests threatened with arrest if he celbrated Mass on base during the Government Shutdown in 2013 in Virginia Beach, who held Mass for the base-in the Park- after welcoming all to join him “as he fulfilled his daily priestly Mass duty” –Saturday and Sunday. (providing times and place). http//www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/295pzsns.asp?page=3
    Quotable quotes: “The overall portrait is one of men content in their vocations, who have drawn closer to the person of Jesus while leaving an earlier Almighty God figure behind.” This ..is a deft expression of the characteristic disconnection between Jesuit identity (in the new mode) and priestly service of God (in the old).”
    —”Loyola’s gamble was that, if a man’s own desire for God could be made present to him, he would willingly endure the required sacrifices until he saw the truth “from inside,” and was motivated no longer by discipline but by love. For four centuries the gamble worked. No more.” “Almost overnight the pope’s light infantry became a battalion in which every man decided for himself which war he was fighting.”
    “THIS “PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY” is the motto of the new Jesuit nomenklatura,… superiors in the 1970s understood clearly that you can write or say pretty much anything you want, provided you keep open your semantic lines of retreat..the German theologian Karl Rahner was able to exhort his fellow Jesuits: “You must remain loyal to the papacy in theology and in practice, because that is part of your heritage to a special degree, but because the actual form of the papacy remains subject, in the future too, to an historical process of change, your theology and ecclesiastical law has above all to serve the papacy as it will be in the future.” See the move? Our current Jesuits are all loyal to the papacy, but to the future papacy–that of Pope Chelsea XII, perhaps–and their support for contraception, gay sex, and divorce proceeds from humble obedience to this conveniently protean pontiff. –The result, quite simply, is widespread infidelity to the vows: slackening in poverty and obedience, but, most dramatically, failure in chastity. –
    —In 1999 the American Jesuits decided to give priority to the recruitment of gays (under the rubric of “men comfortable with their sexuality”), and the majority of American formatores, Jesuits in charge of training, are homosexual as well.”
    … “the single most important post-conciliar change in the command structure of American Jesuits: the shift of de facto power from the formal hierarchy (rectors, provincials) to university presidents. On paper, the presidents remain subject to their religious superiors; in reality the presidents set the tone. The fate of Father Joseph Fessio, director of Ignatius Press in San Francisco, is a good illustration.”
    — “the attitude of Pope John Paul II towards religious congregations, female as well as male, is somewhat Darwinian. He is content to let the healthy groups prosper–Mother Teresa’s Missionaries of Charity are a parade example–while letting the unhealthy ones die out of their own accord, like sick caribou amid the permafrost…recent popes have judged the political cost of intervening to reform failing congregations as excessive in view of the likely benefits to be gained”
    — “…no young man–at least no young man with real options–chooses to give his life to a truce. It is a lonely senescence. Here and there are rumors of courage, devotion, even faith. But the passionately uncertain Jesuit finds himself enclosed in a small corner of a small world, with the waning consolations of sodomy and single-malt whiskey, tottering down the corridors of an increasingly ominous twilight.”

    • Indignus famulus August 31, 2014 3:15 pm

      reposting the link at #10 below.

    • Lynda September 1, 2014 5:04 am

      Thank you, dear IF. And, of course, Fr Malachi Martin’s definitive book on the mutiny of the Jesuits.

      John XXIII, Pope from 1958 to 1963, was convinced that an “open windows, open fields” policy would induce others — including the Soviets — to refashion their own attitudes and policies. Pope John lowered as many barriers between the Church and the world — including the Soviet Union — as he could in his short, action-packed pontificate. He even went so far as to guarantee the USSR immunity from attacks by the Church, a stunning reversal of papal attitudes.

      It was a huge gamble. And it could only work if an adequate amount of goodwill reigned among his opposite numbers.

      The gamble failed. The great poignancy was that when he died, Pope John, peasant-realist that he was, knew that his openness had been seen as weakness, and had been taken advantage of by men of much smaller spirit.

      Pope Paul VI, 1963-1978, blind to the deficiencies of John’s policy, further refined it. The Holy See became nothing less than a plaintiff at the bar of Soviet power, pleading on diplomatic grounds for a hearing; instituting cautious conversations; practicing the week-kneed art of concessionary approaches — and even stooping to mean-spirited deception and betrayal of the admittedly difficult Primate of Hungary, Cardinal Mindszenty, in order to please the Soviets and their castrated Hungarian surrogate, Janos Kadar.

      In all of this, Paul VI, personally the gentlest of all modern Popes, unwittingly compromised his papal authority. His grand strategy for his Church was taken over and prostituted by others, reducing him to an impotence that scarred his last disease-ridden years until his death on August 6, 1978.

      Still, it was Paul VI who, very late in the day of his papacy, realized that the original dual purpose of the Society of Jesus had been changed. Under his pontificate, an extensive critical dossier about the Society was compiled. It is enough for the moment to say of that dossier that its contents were damning. It was a portrait, in effect, of a Jesuit Order that, like a weathervane atop a roof, had been turned by a different wind. For Jesuits, the papacy no longer held primacy of position. The corporate aim of the Society was now to place itself and the Church at the disposal of a radical and purely sociopolitical change in the world, without reference to — indeed, in defiance of — papal strategy, policies, and aims.

      In 1973, Paul VI, alarmed more than ever by the way the Society’s members were behaving, tried to stop the onrush of events. He met with the head of the Order, Jesuit Father General Pedro Arrupe, several times. More than a few of those interviews between the two men were stormy. More than once, Paul wanted Arrupe to resign. One way or the other, Arrupe survived all papal attacks. Paul VI did insist that Arrupe convey to his Jesuits “Our demand that the Jesuits remain loyal to the Pope.” Arrupe and his assistants in Rome at that time were intent on preparing for another international assembly of the Order, a General Congregation, as such an assembly is called. So he bought time, valuable time. Paul, in his weakness, could find no alternative but to wait.

      Paul did make one last but equally ineffective attempt to recall the allegiance of the Society to the papacy during the ninety-six-day international assembly of Jesuit leaders, the 32nd General Congregation of 1974-1975. His effort met with total incomprehension and stubborn — some said even self-righteous — opposition from the Order. Pope and Jesuits simply could not agree. The Jesuits would not obey. Paul was too weak to force the issue farther.

      “When you have people [the Jesuits],” wrote Jesuit Father M. Buckley about Paul’s attitude to that 32nd General Congregation, “who do not think they have made errors either in content or procedure, and when they are suspected, resisted or reproved by the very man they are attempting to serve…you have…a very serious religious problem.”

      To say the least.

      Cardinal Albino Luciani of Venice was elected to succeed Paul VI on August 26, 1978. Even before he became Pope, he had apparently made up his mind unfavorably about the Society.

      And apparently the Society had already made up its mind about Pope John Paul I. No sooner had he been elected than the Jesuits asserted themselves. Father Vincent O’Keefe, the most prominent of the four General Assistants to Arrupe, and the one being groomed to succeed Arrupe one day as Father General of the Order, told a Dutch newspaper in an interview that the new Pope should reconsider the Church’s ban on abortion, homosexuality, and priesthood for women. The interview was published.

      Pope John Paul I was incensed. This was more than contempt. It was an assertion that the Society of Jesus knew better than the Pope what morals Catholics should practice. And it was an assertion that the Society had the authority to speak out; that is, it was a direct appropriation of the authority that belonged exclusively to the papacy.

      John Paul I summoned Arrupe and demanded an explanation. Arrupe humbly promised to look into the whole matter. But John Paul could read the handwriting on the wall as clearly as any Pope. On the basis of Paul VI’s critical dossier, and with the help of a very experienced old Jesuit, Father Paolo Dezza, who had been Confessor to Pope Paul VI and now was John Paul I’s confessor, the Pope composed a hard-hitting speech of warning. He planned to deliver it to the international assembly of Jesuit leaders and Father General Arrupe at another of their General Congregations to be held in Rome on September 30, 1978.”

      • Mike September 1, 2014 1:11 pm

        Dear Lynda,
        Thanks for such a sober and beautiful, though terrifying, submission. It is good for people to remember that for the most part these priests answer the call due to their love of Jesus and their desire to serve His Church. As they gain more responsibility they may get caught up in using the world’s knowledge of how best to influence people and forget that Our Lord knows how best to overcome the world. Your words will help me and others to keep in mind a love for their souls as we pray for them, yet strive to overcome what they’ve done.

        • Lynda September 1, 2014 9:42 pm

          Forgive me! I did not make it clear enough that what I “cut and pasted” is an extract from Malachi Martin’s book on the “The Jesuits”.

      • Indignus famulus September 1, 2014 2:03 pm

        Dear Lynda, the last line of your above comments ended with:
        ” He [John Paul I ]planned to deliver it to the international assembly of Jesuit leaders and Father General Arrupe at another of their General Congregations to be held in Rome on September 30, 1978.”
        in case anyone is unaware: -wickipedia reports:
        “John Paul I was found dead sitting up in his bed shortly before dawn on 28 September 1978.”
        —The Vatican reported that the 65-year-old pope most likely died the previous night of a heart attack…. Inconsistent statements were made relating to who found John Paul I’s body, the time when he was found, and what papers were in his hand.
        —These various issues led to a number of conspiracy theories concerning his death. The Vatican has not investigated the claims and does not profess belief in any possible deceit.

        • Lynda September 1, 2014 9:48 pm

          Yes, dear Indignus Famulus! That is why I cut the extract from Fr Martin’s book at that point! It’s a great pity the Jesuits did not hear the address prepared by the Pope.

  10. salvemur September 1, 2014 3:53 am

    Why oh why oh why oh why the cold-cloths for ‘Bergoglio’s’ brow (am I way off base in suggesting that it is nothing to do with the individual). I’m sure we all know people of one degree of separation who, against much greather odds, have held to the true faith. Beside the point I guess – nobody pays homage to the Holy Ghost through their person.
    Sedevacantist warning, not sure if this makes it G or X rated. Unlike say ‘bishops’ who ‘dialogue’ with satan and are incapable of anything but ‘diabolizing’ the unadulterated Faith and Her adherents, your very average Catholic who knows that ‘sedevacantism’ actually adheres to Faith in the current crisis, does not return the insult. Sedevacantists hold to Christ’s cause – saving souls. For a start, ‘sedevacantists’ did not equivocate (apsotasize from) the Faith in the Second Vatican Council. Sedevacantists did not manufacture a bastard rite of ‘mass’ and a bastard rite of ‘ordination’, or destroy the sacrament of confession, or ‘contribute’ to the ‘Jesus Seminar’!?!. Sedevacantists do not promulgate religious indifferentism or a multitude of other heresies. Sedevacantists did not ‘strip the altars’ or create ‘clown’ masses and ‘youth’ masses or catechists who preach okayness of sodomy and the not-okayness of the doctrine of original sin. When was the last time a sedevacantist invited a lama and several other ideological ‘curiosities’ to insult the first commandment before God Almighty, and the clueless world? Sedevacantists would never suggest (let alone claim the authority to insist) that a protestant layman receive a Catholic Episcopal send off. Sedevacantists do not support, encourage or sit on the fence with regards the sins that cry out to Heaven for vegeance. Niether do sedevacantists suggest for one second that Christ is the ‘lord of revolution’ (remember Bergoglio embraces his stance as a revolutionary). It is modernists (condemned condemned condemned (unless they convert)) by the Infallible Magisterium) who are at odds with Faithful Catholics (otherwise known as (we are waiting for a True Pope whilst we get on with the business of the cause of Christ our King A.K.A. being Catholic). LOVE – the most abused word/idea/mood in the history of human idiocy, covers, so St Paul said, many ‘sins’; I would guess that deceit unto eternal death is not one of them. It is my view that sedevacantists are simply being Catholic: ‘For while one saith, I indeed am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollo; are you not men? What then is Apollo, and what is Paul? The ministers of Him whom you have believed; and to every one as the Lord hath given. I have planted, Apollo watered, but God gave the increase. Therefore, neither he that planteth is any thing, nor he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase. Now he that planteth, and he that watereth, are one. And every man shall receive his own reward, according to his own labour. For we are God’s coadjutors [assistants]: you are God’s husbandry; you are God’s building. Christ the Only Foundation.’
    Whatever Mr Bergoglio is ‘shepherd’ of, it is, unequivocally, not Christ’s flock.

    • Indignus famulus September 2, 2014 6:46 am

      Dear salvemur, you wrote:
      “Why oh why oh why oh why the cold-cloths for ‘Bergoglio’s’ brow”…
      Perhaps you would be less inclined to view the ongoing discussions “cold cloths” and would see them more as beneficial to the pursuit of truth, if you were not so obviously intent on “recruiting” for sedevacantism – a term you used at least a dozen times in your last comment.

      • salvemur September 2, 2014 11:30 pm

        I’m not sure about the ‘recruit’ comment. If you believe, and I guess you must, that Bergoglio is the Vicar of Christ, protected from leading souls to Hell by the Holy Ghost, then you will kow that he recently ‘canonized’ Wojtyla, the Vatican supporting this canonization because they claimed, whatever his faults, Wojtyla was ‘sincere’, even if he was sincerely misguided and misguiding. I sincerely believe (based on Church teachings) it harmful to souls to pay homage to a false shepherd. I really don’t see what the big deal about sedevacantism is for those who hold that the perceived ‘bishops of Rome’ for fifty odd years operated with the authority of God – they have created a Catholicism wherein papaly fidelity is officially defunct. It doens’t make sense, therefore, to even object to someone who refuses to believe that the need for papal fidelity is defunct, and is able to hold to the teachings of true popes by means of a teaching the Church herself already made provisions for. It’s not ideal, not by a long chalk, but there it is.

  11. S.Armaticus September 1, 2014 9:25 am

    Ran across this gem. One for the “non possumus” category :)
    Link here: http://liturgyguy.com/2014/08/14/a-traditional-spanish-priest-says-no-mas/
    “It was mentioned that catechists instruct children in both ways to receive Communion… Really? Who does that? Nobody does that, come on. With very rare exceptions, whenever I give Communion to children at the Basilica (we’re not a parish but a Sanctuary, without Baptisms, Confirmations, and First Communions), the practical totality of them receive on the hand. This saddens me to no end. Why? Because they were taught by imposition to do so in their parishes. The children do not know any other way of receiving communion. I only know that children are not taught to receive Communion on the tongue, far less to kneel, only to receive in the hand while standing. That sure looks like “clerical imposition”, doesn’t it? But it’s only “clerical imposition” when traditional priests do “traditional” things. Yeah, right.”
    Time to say NO to N.O. ;)

    • salvemur September 1, 2014 2:29 pm

      it’s weep-worthy. In the ‘badlands’ of Novus Ordo land, kids simply disappear forever after baptism (which may by some grave error of over resourcing also include confirmation) but rest assured – these then disappear and their selfish seeking for Christ’s sacramental grace is, hopefully, perverted into truth-indifference forevah. ForEVAH.

  12. S.Armaticus September 1, 2014 10:15 am

    And one for the “Go east young man” category: another parish makes the jump.
    Link here: http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2014/08/another-parish-moves-east-greenville.html
    And the good pastors explains: “From Christian antiquity, priests and people celebrated the Holy Eucharist by facing together towards the Lord, which meant standing together on the same side of the altar. This ancient and universal practice was lost sight of in the last two generations by the new practice of the priest standing across the altar from the people during the Eucharistic Prayer, a custom almost never before found in the sacred liturgy except for rare instances of architectural necessity, and in the last few years, theologians and pastors have begun to review this innovation in light of the best scholarship and the experience of the Church since the late 1960′s.”
    It’s harder to get out of those darned ’60′s then it was to get into them. The Grachii brothers would be proud. ;)

  13. S.Armaticus September 1, 2014 10:28 am

    Eye candy ;) “Crucifixes in, Ressurectionfixes (whatever) out!”
    Now if they could just ditch those d*mned tables. ;)

  14. S.Armaticus September 1, 2014 1:28 pm

    And this over at the RC blog:
    Money quote:
    “The physical reconfiguration of churches, by which a priest is obliged to stand behind the altar, facing the people, has had a devastating effect on the theology of the priesthood and on priestly piety. Many priests have, alas, come to view the Mass primarily as a spiritual commodity offered to the people for their edification, instruction, sustenance, and comfort. The idea of offering the Holy Sacrifice to God, even in the absence of the faithful, is fast fading away. It is becoming more and more common for priests to refrain from offering the Holy Sacrifice apart from those occasions when there is a scheduled Mass with people in attendance.”
    The commoditization of God :(
    Can’t do stand up comedy to an empty house. ;)

  15. Michael Leon September 1, 2014 3:42 pm

    Hi Louie. Knowing how much you dislike the silly can’t-we-all-just-get-along “coexist” motto, I thought you would be interested to know that the Vatican now seems to be officially endorsing that message. At least Vatican Radio (you know — the Vatican’s version of NPR) has posted a “coexist” banner on an article promoting the “inter-religious soccer match for peace”.
    If that is not enough to raise your eyebrows and give you indigestion and spontaneously begin to recite a Hail Mary, then there is also the promotional cartoon featuring bergoglio and a(nother) clown named Plim Plim.
    Can bergoglio lunch boxes be far behind?

    • In Hoc Signo Vinces September 2, 2014 9:07 am

      Dear Michael,
      When I first saw the plim-plim cartoon with Francis advertising the interreligious match for peace, I honestly thought it was a spoof by some guys to make fun of the man occupying the chair of Peter for holding such a ridiculous event. But no, it was very real!! This is all promoted by the Vatican!
      On RT Ruptly they showed a clip with soccer star Maradona explaining how, “we deserve this pope [yes, no kidding! The man is arrogant enough (in his view) to think that we deserve a good pope! God help the poor wretch!]. This is not a pope who gives you his ring to kiss but he hugs you instead. He is worried about the hunger in Africa.” OK, what about spirtual hunger, a more lethal type of hunger that can lead to the eternal loss of the soul?
      Here Maradona explains (@ 1:25) that he’s come back to the Church. Question is: what Church has he come back to?
      Something tells me it is certainly not the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Otherwise, why the decision to “come back” now? Is there something that he didn’t see before, that he more CLEARLY sees now? As in apostasy? As in a “Church” willing to embrace homosexuals and every kind of sin and perversion? As in a church willing to give the body of Christ to people living in a state of mortal sin (aka the “Oktober Bergoglian revolution”). I think anyone with half a brain now can clearly see, “hey, all the old traditional bastions have finally been demolished and razed to the ground! Now we can all join this “Church of Man” where the justice of God is absent and only His mercy is extolled!”

      • Lynda September 2, 2014 7:22 pm

        Alas, the Pope’s evil antics have rendered parody redundant. Reparation. Reparation. Reparation.

  16. Cyprian September 3, 2014 12:12 pm

    Here is a link to an interesting article written by a reader of another blog:

Only registered users can comment.