Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Marian Apparitions’ Category

Matt,

Allow me to give another possible interpretation of the Church approved apparition of Our Lady of Good Success.

“The passions will erupt and there will be a total corruption of customs (traditions?), for Satan will reign almost completely by means of the Masonic sects” (Our Lady of Good Success:  Prophecies for Our Times, p. 44).

If the word for customs should be translated to morals, that would fit in the prophecy. Elsewhere, Our Lady said, The precious light of the Faith will go out in souls because of the almost total moral corruption… in those times, the air will be filled with the spirit of impurity which like a deluge of filth will flood the streets, squares and public places. The licentiousness will be such that there will be no more virgin souls in the world.” Therefore, the word, if translated morals, wouldn’t necessarily refer to the new mass.

Before I continue on, let’s focus first on the part of the prophecy that is most significant and which no one has commented: “How the Church will suffer during this dark night!  Lacking a prelate and a father to guide them with paternal love, gentleness, strength, wisdom and prudence, many priests will lose their spirit, placing their souls in great danger(p. 57).

I have a different translation. It reads, Then the Church will go through a dark night for lack of a Prelate and Father to watch over it with love, gentleness, strength and prudence, and numbers of priests will lose the spirit of God, thus placing their souls in great danger.”

According to the prophecy, this happens during the 20th century. What could this mean except that the Church will be without a pope for quite awhile? How long does this symbolic “dark night” last? In Holy Writ, days and nights are separated, when in modern times, we see a day as including both daytime and nighttime. Holy Writ also states, “But do not ignore this fact…with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” (II Peter 3:8) Could it be said rightly that a night is as a thousand years, etc? Since the Church has never given an interregnum limit, no one could say with assurance that the Church couldn’t go without a pope for a thousand years. God forbid such a thing to happen. However, the dark night reference most certainly should be viewed as a long time, and not as a single night. After all, when a pope dies, the Church generally goes several weeks before another pope is installed. That being said, my next comment will explain the pope-less Church implication.

“They (the Masonic sects) will focus particularly on the children in order to achieve this general corruption.  Woe to the children of these times!  It will be difficult to receive the Sacrament of Baptism, and also that of Confirmation.  Making use of persons in positions of authority, the devil will assiduously try to destroy the Sacrament of Confession…” (p. 44).

All the sacraments are connected here. In other words, Baptism, Confirmation, and Confession will be difficult to receive, because the Masons who have infiltrated as the authorities invalidated the sacraments. John XXIII and Paul VI were initiated into Masonry in Paris in the late 1940’s. This, of course, would automatically make them heretics/schismatics and outside of the Church. It just so happens that when they got into power, the very first thing they did was call a council which employed the Masonic doctrine of religious liberty, and changed all seven sacraments. Monuments have been built by the Masons in honor of John XXIII, and honors have been given to Paul VII by notorious Masons. Paul VI, himself, often wore in public the EPHOD in place of the Pectoral Cross, which was worn by the Levitical High Priest making it appear that he was associated with international Judaism and Masonry.

In the Sacrament of Holy Orders, Paul VI did away with all the references to the priesthood in the form, mirroring the invalid Anglican rite which was condemned by Pope Leo XIII because of the removed references. Confirmation suffered the same problem. Bishop Lefebvre attempted to keep the original rite intact, but was condemned by the same authorities (conciliar popes) who would have none of it. If you were trying to keep the historic Catholic Faith by rejecting as invalid these new rites and conciliar popes, you would be hard pressed to find a Catholic priest to give you these sacraments, thus the prophecy would be fulfilled.

“The same will happen with Holy Communion. Alas!  How deeply I grieve upon manifesting to you the many and horrible sacrileges — both public and also secret — that will occur from profanations of the Holy Eucharist!  Ofter during this epoch, the enemies of Jesus Christ, instigated by the demon, will steal consecrated hosts from the churches so that they might profane the Eucharistic species.  My Most Holy Son will see Himself cast upon the ground and trampled upon by irreverent feet” (p. 44-45).

In the new religion of Rome, you will find valid priests since most of them by 1985 would have received the Sacrament of Holy Orders before the new rite in 1968. Some countries never changed the words “for many” therefore those new masses would still be valid, although, illicit. Rome continued with the correct words, “for many” which would mean their new masses would be valid. It just so happens, that Rome according to some recent figures, has some of the largest satanic cults. Therefore, the prophecy could be fulfilled by Rome itself. However, the entire prophecy could be speaking phenomenologically. Therefore, it wouldn’t matter if any of the sacraments were actually valid.

“The Sacrament of Holy Orders will be ridiculed, oppressed and despised…” (p. 46).

As I stated before, the pre-1968 rite which is valid, was ridiculed, oppressed and despised. We saw it with the SSPX in the beginning, and with all the sedevacantist groups.

“The demon will try to persecute the ministers of the Lord in every possible way.  He will labor with cruel and subtle astuteness to deviate them from the spirit of their vocation and will corrupt many of them.  These depraved priests [pedophiles, etc.?], who will scandalize the Christian people, will incite hatred of the bad Christians [the liberals?] and the enemies of the Roman, Catholic and Apostolic Church to fall upon all priests.  This apparent triumph of Satan will bring enormous sufferings upon the good pastors of the Church…” (p. 46).

Many of the pedophile priests were valid priests from the pre-1968 rite. However, the good pastors, in the external forum, (sedevacantists) of the Church continue to suffer from those pedophiles.

“The secular clergy will leave much to be desired because priests will become careless in their sacred duties.  Lacking the divine compass, they will stray from the road traced by God for the priestly ministry, and they will become attached to wealth and riches, which they will unduly try to obtain” (p. 57).

I won’t mention names, but I see this with some old valid priests in union with Rome.

“Moreover, in these unhappy times, there will be unbridled luxury which, acting thus to ensnare the rest into sin, will conquer innumerable frivolous souls who will be lost.  Innocence will almost no longer be found in children, nor modesty in women.  In this supreme moment of need of the Church, those who should speak will be silent” (p. 46). “To test the faith and confidence of the just, there will be occasions when all will seem to be lost and paralyzed” (p. 54).

Sounds like signs of our times and the position of sedevacantism to me. For those who have the silly notion that we Catholic sedevacantists have some secret knowledge, we see an approved apparition supporting fully our sedevacantist position. And I’ll repeat again and again, that we also have many prophecies about the Church. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, The Present Crisis of the Holy See, 1861, London: Burns and Lambert, pp. 88-90:“The apostasy of the city of Rome from the vicar of Christ and its destruction by Antichrist may be thoughts so new to many Catholics, that I think it well to recite the text of theologians of greatest repute. First Malvenda, who writes expressly on the subject, states as the opinion of Ribera, Gaspar Melus, Biegas, Suarrez, Bellarmine and Bosius that Rome shall apostatize from the faith, drive away the Vicar of Christ and return to its ancient paganism. …Then the Church shall be scattered, driven into the wilderness, and shall be for a time, as it was in the beginning, invisible hidden in catacombs, in dens, in mountains, in lurking places; for a time it shall be swept, as it were from the face of the earth. Such is the universal testimony of the Fathers of the early Church.”

St. Nicholas of Flue (1417-1487) stated: “The Church will be punished because the majority of her members, high and low, will become so perverted. The Church will sink deeper and deeper until she will at last seem to be extinguished, and the succession of Peter and the other Apostles to have expired. But, after this, she will be victoriously exalted in the sight of all doubters.” (Catholic Prophecy by Yves Dupont, p. 30)

And we have Pope Paul IV’s Bull that implies that we must use our private judgment against an antipope whom everyone else (cardinals, bishops, priests, etc) might recognize as a true pope.

To be in communion with Modernist Rome, knowing full well of its approval and practice of interreligious worship, is to be guilty as an accessory to the crime. Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943: “For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”  If you recognize their great apostasies as not severing them from the Church, then you would be rejecting the Divine Law and thus severing yourself from the Body of Christ.

Popes can sin and be evil, but they can’t be heretics, schismatics, and apostates. The conciliar popes are total apostates! They are severed from the Body of the Church. To be in union/communion with them would be placing one’s self outside of the Catholic Church, since one would be in union/communion with non-Catholics. It’s that simple!

Also, there is no middle ground. You couldn’t say that you reject Benedict XVI but go to a mass that is in communion with him. That would be a lie, and it would be a scandal! If you merely doubted about whether the Office of the Papacy is filled, then you would have to doubt everything else. You can’t have a doubt about it.

Steven

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Rev. Shannon continues the Vatican 2 debate on “subsists”.  Fri, Dec 30, 2011 11:07 AM

Dear Steven,
Pax Christi!
Believe me…I know the dangerous implications that can be drawn from the wrong meaning of the word subsists, especially regarding the defined dogma, extra ecclesiam nulla salus. I mean, which “Church” are we talking about here…the Church of Christ?…the Catholic Church? I thought they were one and the same thing? They are identical as Fr. Tromp stated on numerous occasions. Fr. Tromp was a peritus that was in the so-called conservative camp during the unfortunate council. As mentioned before, he was the primary author of Mystici Corporis where the Mystical Body of Christ was identified as the Catholic Church. The quotations in your last email are very familiar to me, especially the one by the infamous Dominican, Fr. Edward S., who, by the way, was censured because of his problematic….read heretical…statements. But the Dominican did make a proper observation, viz., that if the Church of Christ is a larger entity than the Catholic Church…and that it finds a place in various denominations, then there is no longer one Church but various groups participating in different degrees in Christ’s work. I totally reject that statement made by Cardinal Ratizinger in that German newspaper interview, which, by the way, was edited by the Vatican newspaper since it was over the top. Also, the statement that the Church of Christ is “present and operative” in other Christian groups is a problem, lest we conclude that the Church of Christ is present and operative in various Satanic masses where the Body and Blood of our Lord is truly present. Do some Christians have a valid baptism? Yes, because they stole the Catholic one. By way of analogy, if a foreign country stole some of our munitions and guns and started using them, we would not refer to America being present and operative in the use of these stolen goods. I admit and believe wholeheartedly that the present pope and the previous one as well, are and were a part of what you label the revolution. The new, so-called orientations that they took and still take are unfamiliar to true Catholicism. Yes, I have read some of Cardinal Ratzinger’s private works…his statements on Original Sin and the resurrection of the body are most disturbing. His movement towards the Jews…the anti-logos party…is also disturbing. Using that previous analogy, the moon is waning big time. I wait for the day that those in authority correct this problems and bring clarity to all their confusion. But knowing that the Church is visible…with visible shepherds…I have moral certainty…not absolute…but moral certainty…that the see is occupied. Our Lady never and I mean never warned us that the see would be empty for so many decades. Don’t you think that she might have mentioned this in one of her various apparitions to prepare the Catholic people?
Be good….Fr. SC

Steven Speray replies 12/31/2011

Dear Rev. Shannon,

You’re a brave man! I’m so glad to hear that you know the problems and reject them. However, I would like to answer your last few sentences.

You say that you have a moral certainty that the see is occupied. Are you saying then that a pope can be a heretic, and a revolutionary against the Church? I can give you over 20 quotes from popes, saints, and canonists that all teach that this is impossible! I also can provide you with Vatican I theologians that teach that the Church is visible without a pope for very long periods. I would love for you to read my history book on the popes Papal Anomalies and Their Implications. I give concrete examples for the foundations of sedevacantism.

You said, “Our Lady never and I mean never warned us that the see would be empty for so many decades. Don’t you think that she might have mentioned this in one of her various apparitions to prepare the Catholic people?”

We have better than an apparition. We have the teachings of the Church and the laws of the Church that spell out the applications for our position. As for apparitions, however, have you not seen the messages of Our Lady of Good Fortune (Good Success)? “…the Church will go through a dark night for lack of a Prelate and Father to watch over it…”  THIS HAPPENS IN THE 20TH CENTURY ACCORDING TO THE APPARITION. Not only does Our Lady tell when it will happen, but she tells us how describing in detail the very events that we are witnessing. She is spot on with the specifics of the terrible catastrophe. As a side note, the seer, Mother Mariana is an incorruptible. Who else is the Prelate and Father but the pope?

We also have the unapproved part of the apparition of La Sallete: “Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichrist.”

Fatima: Exact words of Sister Lucia (visionary at Fatima) in an interview with Father Augustin Fuentes on December 26, 1957: “Father, the Blessed Virgin is very sad because no one heeds her message; neither the good nor the bad. The good continue on with their life of virtue and apostolate, but they do not unite their lives to the message of Fatima. Sinners keep following the road of evil because they do not see the terrible chastisement about to befall them. Believe me, Father, God is going to punish the world and very soon. The chastisement of heaven is imminent. In less than two years, 1960 will be here and the chastisement of heaven will come and it will be very great. Tell souls to fear not only the material punishment that will befall us if we do not pray and do penance but most of all the souls who will go to hell.” 

Sister Lucia clearly forewarned a chastisement would occur before 1960 and Our Lady is the one telling her this. What was it? I submit the death of Pope Pius XII and the uncanonically elected Roncalli to the papacy was it. What else could it have been?

And the 3rd Secret that Rome gave us was a lie. I’ve written about this. Fr. Malachi Martin read it in 1960, and it has been relayed to me. However, I will tell you that part of it was apostasy at the very top of the Church! Cardinal Ciappi actually tells us that it begins at the top.

Lastly, we many prophecies about the Church. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, The Present Crisis of the Holy See, 1861, London: Burns and Lambert, pp. 88-90:“The apostasy of the city of Rome from the vicar of Christ and its destruction by Antichrist may be thoughts so new to many Catholics, that I think it well to recite the text of theologians of greatest repute. First Malvenda, who writes expressly on the subject, states as the opinion of Ribera, Gaspar Melus, Biegas, Suarrez, Bellarmine and Bosius that Rome shall apostatize from the faith, drive away the Vicar of Christ and return to its ancient paganism. …Then the Church shall be scattered, driven into the wilderness, and shall be for a time, as it was in the beginning, invisible hidden in catacombs, in dens, in mountains, in lurking places; for a time it shall be swept, as it were from the face of the earth. Such is the universal testimony of the Fathers of the early Church.”

St. Antony of the Desert (251-356):  “Men will surrender to the spirit of the age. They will say that if they had lived in our day, Faith would be simple and easy. But in their day, they will say, things are complex; the Church must be brought up to date and made meaningful to the day’s problems. When the Church and the World are one, then those days are at hand. Because our Divine Master placed a barrier between His things and the things of the world.” ([Disquisition CXIV] Quoted in Voice of Fatima, 23 January 1968)

St. Francis of Assisi: “Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it under foot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor, but a destroyer.” (Works of the Seraphic Father St. Francis Of Assisi, Washbourne, 1882, pp. 248-250)

St. Nicholas of Flue (1417-1487) stated: “The Church will be punished because the majority of her members, high and low, will become so perverted. The Church will sink deeper and deeper until she will at last seem to be extinguished, and the succession of Peter and the other Apostles to have expired. But, after this, she will be victoriously exalted in the sight of all doubters.” (Catholic Prophecy by Yves Dupont, p. 30)

Don’t you think it’s more absurd to have the Church run by the very Gates of Hell for the past 50 years? Why is sedevacantism so difficult to believe, if you already know that Rome is leading a revolt against the Catholic Faith?

Sincerely,

Steven

Rev. Shannon responds Sun, Jan 01, 2012 07:44 PM

Dear Steven,
Pax Christi!
One of the reasons I have great sympathy for sedevacantists…and I am not belittling you or the movement here in anyway…but I do have sympathy because things have largely collapsed. The facade has come crumbling down. For all it’s worth, I do feel that we are near what is often called the minor chastisement which will be an echo of the major one towards the last days. If Rome will become the seat of the anti-Christ…which I would consider as near a de Fide statement as one can get considering what the Fathers have taught…then the minor chastisement or the echo of the major one will include a major loss of Faith on the part of most including the very pastors called to guide Holy Church. The reason I mention moral certitude is that it allows me to act. You may have received Holy Communion today being that it is the great octave day of Christmas, but did you hear the words? Do you know the priest’s intention? Exteriorly, things seemed fine and for all intensive purposes were fine. The externals were there, therefore you could act. If something external was a problem, i.e., misspoken form or improper matter or the priest treating the Mass as a joke, then you would have some evidence. You may have also gone to confession…who has granted Fr. Leonardi faculties to hear confessions since jurisdiction is included in the very validity of the Sacrament of Penance? Sedevacantists may point to some case of necessity somehow supplying for missing faculties. But since the externals aren’t there, I would strongly question the validity, i.e., I would not have moral certainty. You call me Rev. and not Father, yet you refer to the priest at Regina Pacis with the traditional paternal title. You may question my orders, but I have moral certitude that allows me to act an offer Mass. Granted the new Rite is greatly impoverished in all its Sacraments, it ultimately works…I can be morally certain about that. If I were simply playing with bread and wine at the altar, simulating a Sacrament and committing a great sacrilege, then I would stay as far away from me as possible and I would not deserve any title of reverence for I would be no more than a protestant “minister” / layman. I am morally certain that this pope is a successor of St. Peter which allows me to act. I am not sure how far you go back…you may go for the Siri thing, though he proved to go along with every revolutionary act of the council and the post-conciliar changes. You may accept Pope Pius XII, but then again his actions, especially in regards to the liturgy is quite suspect. Also, his very weak treatment of the great error of evolution has been plaguing us for decades. Pius XI basically dismissed Fatima and refused to consecrate Russia in 1929 even though heaven asked it of him thus allowing the Reds to fully take over Russia. Anyway, have a good New Year.
In Jesus and Mary,
Fr. Shannon

Steven Speray replies 1/2/2012

Dear Rev. Shannon,

Why do you say the externals are missing with Fr. Leonardo? I submit that the externals are solidly there. I’m not sure what you mean when you say, “You call me Rev. and not Father, yet you refer to the priest at Regina Pacis with the traditional paternal title.”   I have referred to Rickert as Rev. and when I have used the term father with him in the past, I first put it in quotations marks. I don’t recognize Rickert’s ordination anymore than I recognize yours. I hold that there is reasonable doubt about both of your orders, since the 1968 Form is so problematic, making appear to be irreconcilable to the teachings of both Popes Leo XIII and Pius XII. I’ve not seen anyone give an explanation that removes that doubt.

You may say that you have a moral certitude that the Holy See is occupied because it allows you to act, but that’s not what I asked. I asked, “Are you saying then that a pope can be a heretic, and a revolutionary against the Church?”  Based on what you’ve stated, you appear to hold that the conciliar popes are heretics and revolutionaries. According to Divine law, this is not possible, but also according to Canon law. You must reject them as true popes if you indeed think they are heretics. To continue to hold that the Holy See is occupied by Benedict XVI is to reject the laws of God and Church.

You may say that your orders are valid, because the sacraments “ultimately work” and that you “can be morally certain about that”, but you must first answer why you can have a moral certainty that the Holy See is occupied. We can get into the orders issue later if you wish, but that’s another topic. By the way, I don’t accuse of you of believing  that your sacraments are invalid. The Anglicans may also believe their sacraments are valid, but they’re not.

As far as the Siri election is concerned, I wrote about it. He was never pope, and even if he was, he would at best be seriously questionable/doubtful which means we couldn’t accept him.

I don’t think Pope Pius XII’s liturgy is suspect, and a weak treatment of evolution is not the same as erroneous treatment. Big difference! As for Pope Pius XI and Fatima, he may have not believed in it. He didn’t have to, right? But you said that there was no apparition of Our Lady to warn us of a popeless Church for so long, and I gave you examples that she may in fact have done so. That’s all. If you don’t believe in those apparitions, that’s up to you. I just provided them. However, if you do believe in Fatima:

What was it (great chastisement before 1960 foretold by Sr. Lucia)? You didn’t address this whopping claim by Fatima’s main seer. Either something happened or Sr. Lucia was wrong. You also have the “terrible catastrophe” Our Lady of Good Success (approved apparition) predicted when the Church will go through a dark night without a pope in the 20th century. I see a connection, do you?

Also, I noticed that you didn’t answer my other questions. Don’t you think it’s more absurd to have the Church run by the very Gates of Hell for the past 50 years? Why is sedevacantism so difficult to believe, if you already know that Rome is leading a revolt against the Catholic Faith?

Anyway, why don’t you get conditionally re-ordained and join the counter-revolution? You can’t be a counter-revolutionary and be in union with the revolutionaries at the same time. That would be like fighting for the British Loyalists while, at the same time, establishing and being in union with the Independent Patriots during the American Revolution. You have to take a side. You can’t have your church cake with a heretic pope, too.

Sincerely,

Steven

Read Full Post »

In a week, the Church will remember the events that took place in Fatima, Portugal in 1917.

The mysterious third secret has remained a secret.

Lucia said that the Secret was to be revealed in 1960 because that would be the time that the world would understand it.

Since that time, at least two alleged third secrets have been revealed.

In 2000, Rome revealed what they said was the real third secret. However, we know it was a lie because no one would have understood it in 1960 since Rome claims the Secret came to pass in 1981 with the shooting of John Paul II.

The second alleged third secret reads as follows (from http://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/B352_Secret.html) …

Tuy September 1, 1944 or April 1, 1944


JMJ

Now I am going to reveal the third fragment of the secret: This part is the apostasy in the Church!

Our Lady showed us the individual who I describe as the ‘holy Father’ in front of a multitude that was cheering him.

But there was a difference from a true holy Father, his devilish gaze, this one had the gaze of evil.

Then, after some moments we saw the same Pope entering a Church, but this Church was the Church of hell; there is no way to describe the ugliness of that place. It looked like a gray cement fortress with broken angles and windows similar to eyes; it had a break in the roof of the building.

Next, we raised our eyes to Our Lady who said to us: You saw the apostasy in the Church; this letter can be opened by the holy Father, but it must be announced after Pius XII and before 1960.

In the kingdom of John Paul II the cornerstone of Peter’s grave must be removed and transferred to Fatima.

Because the dogma of the faith is not conserved in Rome, its authority will be removed and delivered to Fatima.

The cathedral of Rome must be destroyed and a new one built in Fatima.

If 69 weeks after this order is announced, Rome continues its abomination, the city will be destroyed.

Our Lady told us that this is written,[in] Daniel 9:24-25 and Matthew 21:42-44


Why I don’t believe this alleged third secret is authentic

1.      Lucia said the secret would be clearer in 1960. Yet, JPII didn’t exist until 18 years later. This is the same reason why the alleged secret revealed by Rome in 2000 doesn’t work. Rome claims the Secret came to pass in 1981 with the shooting of John Paul II.

2.      The authority of Rome was not transferred to Fatima as the alleged secret says, “will be” done. It cannot be transferred to Fatima unless a true pope moves there like it happened at Avignon.

3.       This secret would not have scared very many Catholics in 1960, or cause them to go to confession as Fr. Malachi said the Third Secret would if they heard it.

Not only does Ratzinger have an evil gaze, but also, John XXIII and Paul VI had very evil gazes!

The Tradition is Action website makes the “holy father” with an evil gaze to be Ratizinger but notice that the secret was referring to one BEFORE the kingdom of John Paul II.

This would not be Ratzinger!

I know the real secret didn’t allude to the Church being without a pope as in sedevacantism, but notice that this secret says that “In the kingdom of John Paul II…the dogma of the faith is not conserved in Rome, its authority will be removed and delivered to Fatima” CAN ONLY MEAN THAT JOHN PAUL II DOESN’T CONSERVE THE FAITH EITHER WHICH MEANS HE IS ALSO AN APOSTATE WITH THE REST OF ROME!

FR MALACHI WOULD HAVE NOTICED THIS AND NEVER ACCEPTED JOHN PAUL II AS A TRUE POPE!!!!!

With this being said, how can the authority of Rome be transferred to Fatima, when only a true pope with the Catholic Faith can make it happen?

It took many years for Fr. Malachi to reject John Paul II as a true pope, doing so near the end of his life.

Read Full Post »