Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘The Blessed Virgin Mary’ 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

Read Full Post »

Rev. Shannon of the Fathers of Mercy continues discussion/debate with his reply on Thu, Jan 05, 2012 08:56 AM, and my reply back on Jan. 6, 2012.

 

Dear Rev. Shannon,

I’ve decided to answer all of your email reply below in bold print.

Dear Steven,
Pax Christi!
At certain times in Holy Church, as you well know, there have been various claimants to the Throne of Peter. Many saints, including St. Vicent F., the angel of the last judgment, supported the wrong pope. The good Lord did not fault him.

I wrote a book on the issue. The whole Church falsely recognized an antipope at one time. One of the big differences between all the antipopes of the past and the conciliar antipopes today, is the fact that the antipopes of the past held the Catholic Faith, unlike the conciliar antipopes today. Benedict XVI openly rejects the historic Catholic Faith. You have admitted that he is a revolutionary against the Faith. According to Divine law and Church law, he cannot be pope. By accepting him as pope, knowing and believing that he is a heretic and revolutionary, you are openly rejecting the laws of God and Church.

My moral certitude is based on externals, i.e., no council has been called to deal with a heretical pope and no members of the curia have begun the process of an investigation and removal. Maybe it will happen…maybe a council will be called to correct all the problems connected with the conciliar and post-conciliar ambiguities and errors.

If Benedict were a true pope, no council could remove him! Your suggestion is a rejection of the dogma proclaimed at the First Vatican Council. Since you imply that Ratzinger is a “heretical pope”, by Divine and Church law, he has condemned and removed himself. It’s automatic with no declaratory sentence. This is the unanimous teaching of all the canonists (something I proved to Rev. Rickert who’s only answer was silence.)  You’ve got it exactly backwards!

It’s out of my hands as I seek to cling to Tradition and follow a confused “Peter,” who denied our dear Lord on three occasions yet kept his office.

Confused Peter? Ratzinger is merely confused? Sorry, but that doesn’t fly at all. Ratzinger knows precisely what he is doing! Peter denied that he knew Christ out of fear for his life! Popes would not lose their office if under duress! Besides, wasn’t the papal office put in effect after Christ’s death? We celebrate the birth of the Church at Pentecost. Moreover with Peter, the circumstances are quite a bit different. The argument you propose doesn’t fit, since Ratzinger is not under any duress, he isn’t confused, and the laws are quite clear that a heretic can’t be pope!

Judas, too, though an infidel and apostate who betrayed our Lord, was ordained and kept his office, for as the prophecy of ps. 108 states…let his office or episcopate be given to another.

You’re making a terrible mistake here! The office of Holy Orders (episcopacy) and office of the papacy are two entirely different things. You can’t equate the jurisdiction of Orders (episcopate prophecy referred in Acts 1:20) with the office of the Papacy. A pope who lost his office, would continue to be a bishop. On a side not, even the Office of Peter isn’t filled by direct lineage of Peter himself. Some have come from the East, which means popes came from St. Andrew’s and Philip’s lineage, or some other Apostle.

The past few popes, though very confused in their teachings and very suspect in their actions, have not bound me to believe anything against the Holy Faith. This is the problem, yet also the “out” that we have over the past 50 years…nothing is binding…no more canons are listed with anathemas. There have been no formal errors because there have been no formal teachings.

Wrong! Assuming it was a legit council, you are bound to believe in Vatican 2 regardless of its level of authority. You can’t reject the Supreme Ordinary Magisterium. Pope Pius IX was clear on this point in Quanta Cura. Besides the teachings of Vatican 2, you have all the laws and disciplines that you are bound to follow by these conciliar popes. You have admitted that the sacraments are problematic but that they still work. Are you not aware of all the Catholic Teachings that the Church can’t give any law, practice, and discipline (such as a sacrament) that are problematic? Let me quickly run by you a few examples:

Pope Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei, 78 (1794), and Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, 9 (1832) who stated: “Furthermore, the discipline sanctioned by the Church… must never be called crippled, or imperfect.”  In Quo Graviora, 4-5 (1833), Pope Gregory reemphasized the same point.

You have contradicted this teaching by implying that the sacraments are crippled but still work.

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, 66 (1943): “Certainly the loving Mother is spotless in the Sacraments,…in her sacred laws imposed on all.”

You most certainly don’t believe the sacraments are spotless!

You’ll also find theologians such as 2:91 (1958) stating: “The Church’s infallibility extends to….ecclesiastical laws passed for the universal Church for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living”

P. Hermann, Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae (4th ed., Rome: Della Pace, 1908), vol. 1, p. 258: “The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments. . . . “If she [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, she would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible.”

Monsignor G. Van Noort, S.T.D.  in Dogmatic Theology, A Dorsch in Institutiones Theologiae Fundamentalis, R.M. Schultes in De Ecclesia Catholica, Valentino Zubizarreta in Theologia Dogmatico-Scholastica, Serapius Iragui in Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae, and, Joachim Salaverri in Sacrae Theologiae Summa all teach the same!

You are going against the Church!

Lastly, you are bound by Divine law and Church law which says a pope can’t be a heretic. So it is in your hands to do something. You can’t give non-sequiturs, and red-herring excuses as you’ve done in this reply.

Listen, dear Steven, I am a simple priest of God with some learning gained at seminary and in my own private studies. Do I see problems with the new rites…absolutely…they are impoverished yet they work.

But you haven’t demonstrated why they work. I submit that they most likely don’t work based on the teachings of previous popes that tell us why not. Again, you can’t say that there are problems with the new rites without violating the Divine law as taught by all the saints and theologians. Are you aware that Fr. Amorth, Rome’s chief exorcist, called John Paul II’s new exorcism rite, “dangerous,” “ineffective,” and “a blunt sword” against the devil”? Amorth has positively demonstrated that Rome is not Catholic by implication, since it’s impossible for the Catholic Church to do what Amorth said Rome has done. Anyway, it’s too bad Amorth has been fooled into thinking that Rome is still Catholic, and missing this teaching of the Church about laws and disciplines.

Our dear Lord allows a lot, including the virtual destruction of the Latin Rite, but His grace still flows through these channels, albeit faulty ones.

As I’ve demonstrated, by calling the rites “faulty” you have set yourself a part from the Catholic faith. Either they are not Catholic, or they are not faulty. Our dear Lord would not allow faulty rites and the virtual destruction of the Latin Rite.

Christ truly wishes His good people to be assured that their sins are forgiven and that they have received His actual Body and Blood, and that their children are being baptized.

Of course He does! That’s why I’m trying to get you to understand why sins may not be forgiven by way of your confessions. Baptism is valid by anyone, even a pagan, if correct matter, form, and intention are present. Anglicans could make the same argument that you’re making, but their sacraments (except Baptism) are invalid!

Catholics can only come to acknowledge this through visible, external signs.

Again, Anglicans could give the same argument, but the Church has dogmatically told us what must be present for these sacraments to be valid. Just because you have a visible sign doesn’t make it valid.

I was ordained on June 10, 2000, in the Cathedral of the Incarnation in Nashville, TN, by Bishop Kmeic, who traced his line back to one of the many Pope Innocents, I’m not sure of the number.

If Bishop Kmeic had a faulty form in his sacramental orders, then he can’t trace his line at all. That’s my point! If you were ordained by an invalid bishop, then you can’t be a true priest regardless whether your form was correct or not! This is the problem with the new rites. They cause serious and reasonable doubt about the validity!

I am listed in the Catholic directory and I have faculties to preach, offer Holy Mass, the Sacraments, and to hear confessions. I have permission to reside in a diocese and to serve. You, who have no authority whatsoever, claim that I do not.

If you’re doubtfully ordained, then I’m bound by God and the Catholic Church to claim that you do not! The Catholic directory, and the dioceses permitting you to do the sacraments either don’t have any authority themselves (because they hold fast to the revolution) or they do have authority and have made a huge error in permitting you to do so. Neither of the two sources you give me is infallible! You have not given a guarantee of your orders being valid by merely listing those sources. It means nothing. You must explain (with a solid foundation) why the 1968 rite of orders doesn’t violate the condemnations and teachings of Popes Leo XIII, and Pius XII. So far, I’ve not seen one good explanation that removes the doubt! If you can’t do so, you’re in serious trouble regardless whether you believe me or not.

You suggest that I get re-ordained…which would be a sacrilege.

I said “conditionally” re-ordained, which would not be a sacrilege. It would be a sacrilege for you to continue down your path knowing and acknowledging that the rites are faulty when that’s an impossible thing according to the all the teachings of the popes and theologians who have taught on the issue!

Perhaps I should do it in a hotel room and thus add to the sacrilege.

We have Catholic Churches, but if we didn’t, yes, wherever you can do it.

Fr. Leonardo has no faculties to hear confessions (which are required for validity)…no faculties to preach…and although his Mass may be valid, it is certainly illicit.

You keep saying so, but you have nothing to back up your claim. You never give a reason. What authority do you have to say so? So far, you haven’t given a reasonable explanation why I should believe that you’re a valid priest.

No thank you, I will continue the counter-revolution within the Visible Church not some sort of invisible one where only the true spiritual ones reside.

You’re not part of the Visible Church if you are joined to the revolutionaries! You’re suggesting that you can be a revolutionary against the Catholic Faith as you say Ratzinger is, and yet be part of the Visible Church at the same time. Don’t you see how contradictory this is? Also, we’re no more invisible than when the Church was underground in Rome during the first few centuries. You know who we are. We actually can trace our lineages with the same sacraments as the historic Faith has always used. We actually hold to the historic Faith wholly and inviolate. Which teachings are we denying? You can’t say that we are not part of the Visible Church. Material schism is the best you can accuse of.

The first revolutionary liturgical pope was Pius XII who radically changed Holy Week. He committed an act that had never been done before, liturgically speaking.

Wrong! Pope Gregory the Great added  “diesque nostros in tua pace disponas” to the Hanc Igitur of the Canon. The Romans were outraged at this act and threatened to kill the pope because he had dared to touch the Sacred Liturgy.

Why, Holy Communion is now distributed even on Good Friday…receiving the Resurrected Body of our Lord on the day of His Death…all thanks to Pius XII.

I don’t dare criticize it either, since it would be against the Divine law to suggest that a pope did do something wrong with the liturgy. I could give several other examples of changes or permissions from popes concerning the liturgy that you would criticize, but none of them are like the novus ordo missae. You can’t even compare your argument with that liturgical catastrophe!

No, this good pope did not force us to believe in evolution, but he opened the door leading to Pope John Paul II’s assertion that evolution was more than an hypothesis.

 John Paul II actually stated, “Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of more than one hypothesis within the theory of evolution.”  You have a mistranslation of his words.(That’s pretty bad if I have to defend JP2).

As an aside, I am reading the book Of Human Hands by a sedevacantist priest from Norwood, OH. Good book…but he and Bishop Dolan seem to fall into error as well. Consider the fact that Bishop Dolan and his sidekick told the good people of St. Gertrude the Great that Michael Schiavo was perfectly correct in his dealings with his wife, Terri Schiavo. They told their flock that husbands have such rights over their wives…yikes! Terri was a woman in her 40s who just needed a feeding tube to eat. Now she’s dead. But for the likes of Bishop Dolan and his sidekick, everything was licit. Maybe Bishop Dolan has lost his office, too?!

Actually, I have problems with their orders as well. Their lineage (which comes from Lienart) is problematic for me, since Lienart was a Luciferian six years before he was made a bishop. But regardless, your argument doesn’t help your case one iota!
Are you sure that you were baptized? I mean, it was the new rite…the form didn’t change, but did that priest say the right words? I mean a lot of weird things happened in the 70s.

I’m pretty sure I was validly Baptized, since it was by a very old priest in 1970. But if I wasn’t validly baptized, I have faith that God will help me in the end!

I am sure that you have been re-confirmed…was it conditionally or absolutely?

Conditionally, of course! Like I said, I call the new rites questionable leaving reasonable doubt, but not absolutely invalid.

Who was your bishop? Does he pass through the Thuc line? The Vatican…yes the post-conciliar Vatican has basically accepted the Thuc line bishops and priests since such a priest went into Clear Creek monastery and was not re-ordained as far as I know.

My line comes from Thuc, des Lauriers, my friend Mckenna, to Slupski. They all are valid! That’s reasonably for sure!

But then again, who can trust the Vatican.

I don’t, since I have proven that they’ve lied about a great many things!

Did not our Lord tell us not to be filled with anxiety?

I’m not filled with anxiety! I know I’m right, and so far, no one has come close in showing where or how I’m wrong.

Habe fiduciam…have confidence, dear Steven. Furthermore, take that heavy yoke of the entire Church’s problems and put it back on our dear Lord. He has the shoulders to carry His Bride…you don’t. Be good and Happy Epiphany!
In Jesus and Mary,
Fr. Shannon

I’m in the Visible Church! I’m sure of it! I’m happy, but I’m not satisfied; not until I’ve helped as many people as possible to see the truth about Rome’s counterfeit religion!

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 »

THE FOLLOWING WAS A LETTER WRITTEN TO A PROMINANT EVANGELICAL PASTOR WITH HIS OWN TV AND RADIO PROGRAMS. IT WAS WRITTEN IN JANUARY OF 2000 IN RESPONSE TO AN ANTI-CATHOLIC PROGRAM DENOUNCING CATHOLIC BELIEFS ABOUT THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY.

The Truth about the Blessed Virgin Mary In a Nutshell

The good Catholic puts Jesus Christ at the center of his life. As for the Blessed Virgin Mary, he loves and honors her as the highest of all of God’s creation, as Catholics believe God Himself holds her.

She is not worshiped in adoration but in honor only.

Worship can mean adoration (latria) or mere honor (dulia or hyperdulia). Catholics do not honor her any more than the great honor already bestowed on her by God by making her his own mother. Just as Christ obeyed the Law of honoring his mother and Father, so we imitate Christ.

Catholics most certainly pray to her as they do all the angels and saints.

Although all worship (adoration) is prayer, not all prayer is worship. The primary definition of pray is “to ask, implore, and beseech.” Praying is the only form of communication we have with Heaven. When prayer is attributing divinity, it must be directed to God alone.

To pray to the dead is condemned by God, but those in Heaven are not dead. Catholics pray to Mary and the saints as a form of communication, because they’re alive in Christ.

Catholics believe Christ is the one mediator between God and man and that salvation comes only from Him and through Him.

Catholics do not believe that God is too big for us to go straight to Him, because we go straight to Him every day. However, we do ask those older brothers and sisters and mother who have entered Heaven to pray for us and to help us in need, because they are instruments of God’s grace.

Is this unbiblical? Not at all! They are the cloud of witnesses who are concerned with our salvation. (Hebrews 12:1) Mary and the saints are not dead but alive in Christ. We are in the love of Christ as those who have gone before us. Not even death can separate us from the love of Christ (Romans 8:38) and we who belong to Christ belong to His Body the Church. We cannot say we don’t need others in the Body of Christ (I Cor. 12:18-20, 24-25) especially the saints.

The Holy Bible says the prayer of a righteous man avails much. (James 5:16)

Who are more righteous than the saints in Heaven? After all we petition Christians on earth to pray for us (I Timothy 2:1-3), and this doesn’t run contrary to the doctrine that Christ is the one mediator. It is through Christ we pray for one another.

Why not petition those who have gone before us glorified in the Body of Christ who are concerned with our salvation?

This is what praying to Mary and saints is all about. Our Father in Heaven wants us to have a relationship with Mary and our older brothers and sisters in Heaven since after all, we are one big family who will one day be together for all eternity.

We call Mary the “EVER” Virgin because she did not have other children. The brethren of the Lord are not her children. The New Testament mentions “brothers” and “sisters” of the Lord in (Matt. 12:46; Matt. 13:55; Mark 3:31–34; Mark 6:3; Luke 8:19–20; John 2:12, 7:3, 5, 10; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:5).

“Brother” (Greek: adelphos or plural Adelphoi) and “sister” (adelphe) do not always mean full or half blood brother and sister.

The Old Testament shows that “brother” could mean any male relative from whom you are not descended. Male relatives from whom you are descended are known as “fathers” and all generations who are descended from you are your “sons” as well as cousins, those by marriage, or by law.

Lot is called Abraham’s “brother” (Gen. 14:14), even though, being the son of Haran, Abraham’s brother (Gen. 11:26–28), he was actually Abraham’s nephew.

Jacob is called the “brother” of his uncle Laban (Gen. 29:15). Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar had no sons, only daughters, who married their “brethren,” the sons of Kish. These “brethren” were really their cousins (1 Chr. 23:21–22).

(Deut. 23:7; Neh. 5:7; Jer. 34:9) refers to kinsman. See also the reference to the forty-two “brethren” of King Azariah (2 Kgs. 10:13–14) and (2 Sam. 1:26; Amos 1:9) refers to friends.

Be that as it may, there was no word for cousin in Hebrew or Aramaic and the word brother was used to identify them. The Greek word for cousin is anepsios but the New Testament writers translated by transliterating the Hebrew and Aramaic idiom into the Greek text.

We also see this in the Septuagint. The Septuagint was a Greek version of the Hebrew Bible, which came from the Hellenistic Jews 100 years BC. It was this version of the Bible that Christ used as the quotations found in the New Testament came from the Septuagint.

The English translators continued to use the same Hebrew word to identify all kinsmen. A close look at the text will clue us in on which kinsmen the word brother(s) might be or cannot be.

When Mary was told by the Angel Gabriel that she would conceive a son, she asked, “How shall this happen, since I do not know man?” (Luke 1:34)

The early Church Fathers interpreted this (and rightly so) to mean that Mary had made a vow of virginity even through married life. Why ask the question if this were not the case? After all, if Mary planned on having children with Joseph she would not have asked the question. Her marriage with Joseph was the rare type of living like brother and sister.

The first heretic to come up with the idea that Mary had other children was Helvidius in 380 AD. St Jerome in his treatise “On the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mary” used Holy Scripture and the writings of earlier Fathers as St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Polycarp (disciple of St John the Apostle), and Justin Martyr to completely debunk Helvidius’ position which Jerome called “novel, wicked, and daring affront to the faith of the whole world.”

The following is somewhat how St Jerome argued.

The finding of Jesus in the Temple at age twelve did not hint of the idea that Mary had other children. (Luke 2:41–51). Jesus was known as “the son of Mary” (Mark 6:3), not as “a son of Mary.” Never do we see other children in the Gospels being referred to as children of Mary.

At the foot of the Cross, Jesus entrusted his mother to John (John 19:26-27). John’s blood mother Salome was also at the foot of the Cross and if Jesus had other full blood brothers, why make Mary a mother to John who already has a mother? What about Mary’s other sons?

The answer is that Mary never had any other child. Heretics argue that “brethren of the Lord” must be interpreted as full blood brothers because of other Scripture verses.

(Matthew 1:25): “And he did not know her till she brought forth her firstborn son.”

Heretics fail to understand that “till” here does not always mean until something else happens. We see this word several times in Holy Writ. In (II Sam. 6:23), “Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death.” Does this mean that she had children after her death? Of course not.

In (Deuteronomy 34:6), speaking about Moses, “and no man hath known of his sepulcher until this present day.” Does this mean that they know now? Of course not.

In (Genesis 8:6-7) speaking about Noah, “after that forty days were passed Noe, opening the window of the ark which he had made, sent forth a raven: Which went forth and did not return till the waters were dried up upon the earth.” Does this mean the raven returned? Of course not.

Just as till or until does not work to mean some future event in these verses, it also does not imply in (Matthew 1) to mean that Mary and Joseph had relations after the birth of Christ.

First-born also doesn’t imply that there is a second or third-born. As we see in (Exodus 12:2; Numbers 3:12) the Hebrews understood the meaning of first-born to be the child that opens the womb. The first-born son was to be sanctified under the Law. (Exodus 34:20) That child will always be thought of as the first-born regardless.

As for the brothers of the Lord who are mentioned, we know that the mother of James (the Less or Younger) was also named Mary.

When we cross reference the Gospels on the women standing beneath the cross we get a clear picture who is who: “among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee” (Matt. 27:56)

“There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome” (Mark 15:40).

“But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene” (John 19:25).

We see that Salome is the mother of the sons of Zebedee (James the Greater and John) and the mother of James and Joseph is the wife of Clopas.

Elsewhere (Matt. 10:3) we see that James is also the son of Alphaeus. This Alphaeus is the same person as Clopas. The Aramaic name for Alphaeus can be rendered in Greek either as Alphaeus or as Clopas.

Some have argued that Alphaeus took a Greek name similar to his Jewish name, the way Saul took the name Paul. James the Less or Younger (brother of the Lord) is the son of Mary and Clopas (Alphaeus). The other “brethren” are the actual full blood brothers of James, which means they are not the sons of the Virgin Mary.

There are other arguments to demonstrate Mary’s perpetual virginity, but the above arguments alone suffice.

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception means that Mary was conceived in her mother Anne’s womb without the stain of original sin. Original sin is the deprivation of sanctifying grace with the stain of a corrupt nature.

Mary was preserved from this sin by God’s grace from the first instant of her existence. She was born and remained throughout her whole life immaculate. Never did she sin nor was affected with a corrupt nature.

This doesn’t mean she is almighty, all knowing, or equal to God. The Angels in Heaven have not sinned and we don’t think of them as being equal to God.

It means that she has completed what Eve failed in the beginning. It means she is the perfect model for the Church. If the imperfect St Paul said to imitate him as a model (I Cor. 4:16, 11:1, Philippians 3:17), how much more than the perfect Virgin Mary?

The Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary is most certainly justified from the Holy Bible.

First, (Genesis 3:15) can be used to identify Mary, who is at enmity with Satan. This comes right after the Original Sin of Adam and Eve.

Here, Holy Scripture says there will be a woman and whose seed will both be at enmity with Satan. The historical Christian faith has always identified Jesus as the “New Adam” but also Mary as the “New Eve.” Incidentally, Jesus identified his mother as “woman” at the wedding feast at Cana (John 2:4) and again at the foot of the cross (John 25:26). Was Jesus reminding us of the prophecy of Genesis 3:15?

Secondly, the Angel Gabriel’s greeting to Mary demonstrates her purity and perfection. The angel Gabriel said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you” (Luke 1:28). “Full of grace” is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary as it is a title.

The traditional translation, “full of grace,” is by far the best translation for it best captures what the Angel is conveying, rather than the poor translation “highly favored daughter.”

No doubt, Mary is the highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies much more. Also, it never mentions the word for daughter.

Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning “to fill or endow with grace.” Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced from the beginning up until the present.

Mary was always full of God’s grace and she enjoyed that position throughout her whole life. She is the Immaculate Conception. Period!

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was officially defined by Pope Pius IX in 1854. Heretics claim the doctrine was an invention of the Church at that time.

Doctrines are defined formally when controversy arises that needs to be settled or when the Church believes such definitions will draw men closer to God.

Many doctrines and beliefs took years for the Church to define. The Holy Trinity was defined in 325 AD and the Holy Bible was first defined in 380 AD. These were not inventions of the Church but definitions and declarations to clarify the Christian Faith.

Heretics say that Mary was a sinner because of (Rom. 3:23) “all have sinned” and because Mary said her “spirit rejoices in God my Savior” (Luke 1:47), and only a sinner needs a Savior.

It is true that Mary needed a Savior. However, unlike the rest of mankind, Christ saved her from absolute death by prevention. Mary is perfect because Christ saved her in anticipation at the moment of her conception.

Just as a drowning man is saved by being pulled out of the deep waters, Mary was prevented from falling in and even getting wet. Just as a man in a deep pit is saved by being pulled out, Mary is prevented from falling into the pit in the first place and being stained with the mud below.

She has more reason to call God her Savior than we do, because he saved her in an even more glorious manner!

As for Romans 3:23, “all have sinned”, we know that infants have not nor could not sin, and even St Paul in (Romans 9:11) implies such when referring to Jacob and Esau.

The extreme mentally ill cannot sin since they have not the ability to reason.

Jesus never sinned (Heb. 4:15).

Both Mary and Jesus followed the Law of Moses of making sin offerings but this was to identify themselves with sinners, not indicate they were sinners needing to make an offering for some sin.

Since there are clear exceptions to Romans 3, it does not follow that Mary must be a sinner based on this verse.

In 1950, Pope Pius XII, in Munificentissimus Deus, defined that Mary, “after the completion of her earthly life was assumed body and soul into the glory of heaven.”

Christ, by his own power, ascended into heaven, but Mary was taken up into Heaven by God.

She didn’t do it under her own power. No one knows if she died or not. The majority says she did die by choice in imitation of her Son and Savior.

Besides Enoch, Elijah and perhaps Moses, other bodily assumptions are mentioned in Holy Writ: Matthew 27:52–53: “The tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many.” (Matthew 27:52-53)

One cannot argue that Mary’s bodily assumption is impossible.

The woman clothed with the sun in the Apocalypse 12:1 can be interpreted to be Mary. In this verse, we see the woman described with a head and feet, which implies a body. She also has a crown of twelve stars implying that she is a queen.

The woman can also be interpreted to be the Church but since the other figures in the Apocalypse represent specific persons such as the dragon who is Satan and the beast who is the antichrist, then it would follow that the woman would most likely be Mary.

There is also the fact that the entire history of the Church has recognized that Mary was taken into Heaven with her body. There is more history to confirm this fact than the Immaculate Conception itself.

Relics of saints are highly prized especially the bones, hair, teeth, etc. There are body relics of every major saint except Mary, who was the greatest human person (Christ was the Divine Person).

Cities and churches boast about the relics of their particular saints but none boast about Mary’s. The reason for this is that the faithful have always known that there are none with Mary since her body was taken up.

When we look at the Ark of the Covenant of the Old Testament in reference to Mary of the New Testament, we see that she is the Ark of the New Covenant.

The Old Testament Ark carried the Word of God in the Ten Commandments, the bread of heaven called manna, the staff of Aaron which symbolized the high priesthood.

Mary carried the Word of God in the person of Jesus, who is the true Bread from Heaven, and the high priest.

The Old Testament Ark was made of incorruptible wood, and Mary is incorrupt.

David said, “How can the ark of the Lord come to me?” (II Sam 6:9) and Elizabeth said, “why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”

David danced before the Lord because of the ark (II Sam 6:12-14) and the babe John the Baptist in Elizabeth’s womb leaped when approached by Mary. (Luke 1:41)

Just as the Old Testament Ark was overshadowed by the glory of the Lord in Exodus 40:34-35, so too, Mary was overshadowed by the Holy Ghost in Luke 1:35.

It is no coincidence that Luke wrote about Mary as the New Ark of the Covenant. He drew from the same books of the Old Testament.

St John’s says in his Apocalypse that he sees the Ark of the Covenant in the temple of God in chapter 11:19, and the very next verse describes a “woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars.”

No doubt, St John is seeing Mary and is saying that she is the Ark of the New Covenant.

The whole Book is about Christ and his triumph over Satan and his wickedness over the earth. It was Mary that brought us our Lord and Savior, and through her, Christ conquers and reigns.

Since the Immaculate Conception and Assumption are not explicit in Scripture, heretics conclude that the doctrines are false.

This comes from the anti-historical, anti-Scriptural, and anti-logical doctrine of Sola scriptura, or the Protestant “Bible only” doctrine.

The Catholic Church was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly—guided, as he promised, by the Holy Spirit until the end of the world (John 14:26, 16:13).

The mere fact that the Church teaches that something is definitely true is a guarantee that it is true (Matt. 18:17-18, 28:18-20, Luke 10:16, 1 Tim. 3:15).

Heretics will, of course, disagree with this position, but the point is made that the Ever Virgin Mary is immaculate “without sin” using Scripture and logic to do so.

Read Full Post »