Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2019/01/vatican-fraud-exposed-sworn-declaration.html

 

Read Full Post »

 

On Oct. 17, 2018, The Remnant Newspaper Blog posted John Salza’s, “Has Pope Francis Lost His Office for Heresy?” [1] If it looked familiar, it’s because it’s a rehash of Salza’s June 9, 2017 article, “Note to Sedevacantists: Heresy Does Not Automatically Sever One from the Church,” which I thoroughly refuted here.

Michael Matt asks in the comment section why sedevacantists attack John Salza if we all agree that Francis is the enemy. To answer Mr. Matt, a reply must be posted elsewhere, since the Remnant Newspaper will censor any sound argument against Salza.

There are two points concerning Matt’s question and Salza’s article, which is a consistent theme in their material concerning papal heresy/loss of office.

The first is how Salza blasphemes Christ and the Catholic Church.

He writes that a Catholic pope, “departs from his predecessors by attacking basic Catholic moral teaching (e.g., indissolubility of marriage; exclusion of adulterers from Holy Communion, etc.).” and “In light of Francis’ unprecedented attacks on Church doctrine and practice, some traditional Catholics, in seeking a solution to this papal crisis, are unfortunately being tempted to embrace the theology of the Sedevacantists.”

He concludes, “Indeed, how a true Pope could promote these evils.” Salza qualified those evils to be “clerical heresy and sodomy disfiguring the Church in an unthinkable way.” 

This is total heresy and blasphemy.  True popes don’t attack Church doctrine and practices and promote clerical heresy and sodomy. A true pope is the rock of truth as Christ and Vatican I declared. It’s upon this truth that sedevacantism (Catholicism) rests. The Gates of hell are not the popes as Salza most emphatically implies they are. See here and here. 

The second point is how Salza picks and chooses which popes of whose authority he will and won’t accept. He tells us how to interpret and accept Pope Pius XII’s Encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi. However, Salza doesn’t think the Vatican 2 papal teachings at Vatican 2 or their encyclicals, apostolic exhortations, canonizations, or general laws are to be accepted, at least, not all of them.

Salza quotes St. Robert Bellarmine, Revs. Laymann, Billuart, and Sylvester Berry as trusted authorities but utterly rejects as authoritative the teachings of his popes “St.” John XXIII, “St.” Paul VI, and “St.” John Paul II. 

Salza and the Remnant crew have no foundation of authority.

Lastly, Salza does get something right for a change. He writes that popes who openly leave the church would cease to be popes. What Salza gets wrong is what “openly leaves the church” means. He quotes St. Bellarmine on how Novation openly left the Church, but omits Bellarmine’s teaching on Nestorius openly leaving the Church. As I’ve repeated in past articles, St. Bellarmine writes in De Romano Pontifice:

And in a letter to the clergy of Constantinople, Pope St. Celestine I says: The authority of Our Apostolic See has determined that the bishop, cleric, or simple Christian who had been deposed or excommunicated by Nestorius or his followers, after the latter began to preach heresy shall not be considered deposed or excommunicated. For he who had defected from the faith with such preachings, cannot depose or remove anyone whatsoever.

Defecting from the faith is openly leaving the Church. It happens by preaching heresy! The canonists all say this specifically!

Salza quotes Rev. Sylvester Berry on how innocently professing heresy, while wanting to be united to the Catholic Church doesn’t make one a heretic. Salza then applies Berry’s teaching to Francis as if Francis really wants to be Catholic and united to the Catholic Church, therefore, he’s not truly a heretic. The problem is that Salza has already admitted several times that Francis is attacking the Catholic Faith. There’s no reason to believe that Francis wants to be united to the real Catholic Church. He wants his false heretical religion to be called the Catholic Church. The conciliar popes are heretics because they KNOW they are going against the Catholic Faith.

Salza’s argument runs contrary to St. Bellarmine and Pope St. Celestine I’s explanation of Nestorius, who they said “defected from the faith with such preachings [heresy].”

“Defection of Faith” is how anyone including the pope tacitly resigns his office which resignation is accepted in advance by operation of the law, and hence is effective without any declaration. Can. 188.4 

The canonists of the 1917 code have explicitly refuted Salza’s position with canon 188.4 which utterly demolishes his entire argument. That’s why the Remnant completely ignores Can. 188.4 in a serious discussion on the issue. See here for more on Can. 188.4

 

Footnote:

[1] https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/fetzen-fliegen/item/4145-has-pope-francis-lost-his-office-for-heresy

 

Read Full Post »

Mr. Hutton Gibson has been most gracious to me over the years. He helped me with my grammar and edited out a hundred typos from my book, “Papal Anomalies and their Implications.”

Happy 100th Birthday, Mr. Gibson!

Godspeed to you!

Read Full Post »

First, we’ll briefly look at Calvinism.

Calvinism is a theology named after the Protestant Reformer John Calvin, which is held by many Protestants today such as the Presbyterians, Baptists, and others. One of its principle components is the doctrine of election. In a nutshell, it means that God for all eternity has determined which part of mankind He will save by looking out on the whole horizon of individual persons and giving grace only to a certain number of them to be saved (the elect). In the end, all of these graced given persons will be saved because this grace according to Calvinism is irresistible. The rest of the world God leaves to be damned because He does not give them grace to be saved.

The foundation for this theology is to avoid saying man has anything whatsoever to do with his own salvation. God does it all and He will make it happen.

So when we come to the Scripture passage 1Tim.2:3-4, “God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” John Calvin taught in his commentaries that “all men” referred “to classes of men, and not to individual persons.” He understood that if God desired all individual men to be saved, then He couldn’t just leave men to be damned without giving those help through grace. In Calvinism, grace is irresistible and man can’t reject it, therefore, those given grace will be saved and those not given grace will not be saved.

The implication of Calvin’s doctrine is that God positively predestines part of mankind unto damnation. In other words, God created part of mankind for hell, not heaven.

Calvin’s doctrine comes apart at the seams when he attempts to explain in his commentary Matt.11:28, “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.”

Concerning this passage, Calvin wrote, “He now kindly invites to himself those whom he acknowledges to be fit for becoming his disciples. Though he is ready to reveal the Father to all, yet the greater part are careless about coming to him, because they are not affected by a conviction of their necessities. Hypocrites give themselves no concern about Christ, because they are intoxicated with their own righteousness, and neither hunger nor thirst (Matthew 5:6) for his grace. Those who are devoted to the world set no value on heavenly life. It would be in vain, therefore, for Christ to invite either of these classes, and therefore he turns to the wretched and afflicted.”

The problem here is the Calvin believed in the total depravity of man’s will after the fall of Adam and Eve. This means that without grace, the will to do good or even desire it is dead in man. A dead man can do nothing for himself. He has not the will to do as he ought. Therefore, God has to awaken the dead will of man or else man can only will to do evil because that is his only desire. Calvin’s theology must assume that absolutely all men are careless about coming to Christ without grace and he can’t hunger or thirst for God’s grace without grace. It would be impossible to set a value on heavenly life with a totally depraved will to do good or desire it. Either all men despise the grace of God or they don’t know about it to despise it.

So while Calvin says, “the greater part [of mankind]” he knows that it has to be all. He is trying to make a distinction that doesn’t exist in his theology to fit the Scripture passage. None of the distinctions he makes above exists in a totally depraved world in his own theology.

But Calvin really drops the ball when he wrote, “we must bear in mind what I have said, that Christ stretches out his hand to all the afflicted, and thus lays down a distinction between his disciples and those who despise the Gospel. But we must attend to the universality of the expression; for Christ included all, without exception, who labor and are burdened, that no man may shut the gate against himself by wicked doubts.”

So it is with Calvin, Christ tells “all, without exception” “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” According to Calvin, Christ knows full well that no one can come to Him without Christ giving them grace to do so and yet He doesn’t give all mankind the grace to do what He asks of them. Christ cries crocodile tears for the lost. He could give them the grace, but won’t do so. He lets them all go to suffer eternal fire because He doesn’t desire all individual persons to be saved. Obviously, we agree that those who go to hell are in rebellion to God and deserve it, but all are in rebellion to God unless God provides the means to be saved. Unless God provides the means, then it must come down to the fact that He created souls for the purpose of suffering the eternal fire of hell.

Calvin’s theology is completely demonic because it really makes Christ Evil on two fronts.

In Catholic theology, God creates all men for heaven. Although, He foresees who will not be saved, He nevertheless gives all men the possibility to be saved through His Grace. There’s a mystery behind how and why man accepts or rejects the grace of God. The fate of unbaptized infants who never had the chance to make a decision appears to conflict with the above statement. However, there’s another point of view here. Since the Church has declared that those who die in original sin only, do not share in the eternal punishment with those who die in actual sin, God has mercy on them by letting them die early because He knows that they will reject Him if given the opportunity. God desires their salvation for He created them to know, love, and serve Him but God’s foreknowledge is also aware that they will not do so. For reasons known only to God, He had a particular mercy on them.

Now we come to Feeneyism. There are different levels of Feeneyism but the one specifically referred in this study is the one that says that any person not baptized by water will be damned.

As the Church grew over the centuries, so did its extension over the earth. In fact, the Roman Catechism states, “the Holy Scriptures inform us that the general judgment will be preceded by these three principal signs: the preaching of the Gospel throughout the world, a falling away from the faith, and the coming of Antichrist.”

This means that throughout the Church’s 2000 year history, the Gospel has not always been preached throughout the whole world. The implication is that not everybody since the time of Christ has even known about Him. Keeping in mind that Catholic theology understands I Tim. 2:4 that God desires all men to be saved to mean each and every individual, how do we reconcile this with the fact that not all men have been able to know Christ to be saved? Those ignorant of Christ because of their own doing are different from those invincibly ignorant. The question concerns the invincibly ignorant not the others.

The Feeneyite says all of the invincibly ignorant are damned. If this is so, how is this different from Calvinism concerning Matt. 11:28 that God only provides the possibility to be saved to a certain number of people, which necessarily implies that God created part of mankind for hell?

The case of unbaptized infants wouldn’t apply to all of mankind because of Matt. 11:28, the fact that adults suffer unfathomable suffering in hell, and there’s no reason to think all mankind would have rejected Christ since over time people converted as the gospel spread.

It would seem that God wouldn’t allow a competent adult to die invincibly ignorant. God would have to make Himself known providing an extraordinary way at least to those “sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all heart and ready to obey God” (Pope Pius IX).

However, Feeneyism takes it to the next level because it’s one thing to be ignorant and it’s another to know Him. With Feeneyism, knowing, accepting, and loving Christ is not enough. Some Feeneyites argue that perfect love of God is impossible without the sacrament of Baptism.

In Catholic theology, fallen man needs the grace of God to know, love, and serve Him, which is our very purpose of existence. For the Feeneyites, either one can or can’t know, love, and serve God without Baptism, but Heaven is still out of reach without the sacrament. The implication is that God created souls for the purpose of hell.

In Calvinism, if a man has the grace to desire and do good, he will do good and be saved. With Feeneyism, God may grant the grace to a catechumen who responds by knowing and accepting Christ waiting on the Church to baptize him but God still sends him to hell if he happens to die before then.

The typical Feeneyite will argue that God will send a missionary or a miracle of one to the goodwill persons to be baptized. The problem with this argument is that we have catechumens die before baptism and we aren’t to judge their hearts to be ill-willed. Also, the Church has already taught by implication that the Gospel has not always been preached throughout the whole world. This implies that it is needed in order to reach those of goodwill. Lastly, we have unbaptized saints who shed their blood for Christ.

At this point, one might ask why then should the Gospel be preached throughout the world? The answer is seven-fold:

First, God desires that His Church be established in a normal way.

Second, sanctification is higher with the sacraments.

Third, knowing Christ during life is better than discovering Him only at death.

Fourth, the more we know Christ as we live, the more we can love Him now and forever.

Fifth, the world with Christ is better than a world without Him.

Sixth, the Glory to God is greater with Christ being known, loved, and served on earth.

Seventh, the will of God is not that we discover Him only at death, but as soon as possible.

In conclusion, Calvinism and Feeneyism share the same diabolical character that God desires only a select few to be saved and positively wills the others to damnation. For them, the implication must be that Jesus claims to love and have died for all men but in reality, he taunts and mocks the helpless knowing full well that He created them for nothing but eternal suffering in the lake of fire.

 

Read Full Post »

 

Holy Week is here and we’re about to see a bunch of R&R sedevacantists apply the law of epieikeia to the 1955 missal of Pope Pius XII. Their reasoning is simple. They have passed judgment on the decision of the Apostolic See and therefore have done exactly what is forbidden by the First Vatican Council when it infallibly declared:

  1. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52], and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53]. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54].

Not only has Vatican I declared that its judgments are not to be judged, it also declared that:

  1. For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished.
  2. That this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error.

Therefore, no judgments can be made without rejecting the above two declarations. See Should the 1955 Missal Be Rejected?

Unfortunately, R&R sedevacantists have determined by private judgment against Pope Pius XII that the 1955 missal:

  1. Has false principles and practices.
  2. Marginalizes the Social Kingship of Christ.
  3. Is naturalistic.
  4. Undermines the proof of Christ’s Resurrection
  5. Undermines the proof of malice Jews had for Christ after His death.
  6. Leads to the New Mass.

R&R sedevacantists also reject the fast law of Pope Pius XII where he extended the Lenten fast on Holy Saturday to midnight and they reject the Feast of St. Joseph the Worker, the same pope established on May 1st of the liturgical calendar.

 

Read Full Post »

The principle Brian lays out in his disclaimer at 1:24 of the following video is spot on.  The rest of the video is also great. Considering my website is Catholic TOP GUN, I’ll will provide gun videos from time to time. Yes, I’m a gun owner and I promote Gun Owners of America, “The only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington.” (Ron Paul).

 

 

If you’re interested in the links Brian provides or the comments in the video, click below…

PROOF the NRA Stands WITH Anti-Gunners AGAINST the 2nd!

Read Full Post »

We Catholics understand how much evil is in the world considering that Rome has lost the Catholic Faith and is working hard to drag as many people to hell as possible. It’s not just our souls they want but our very lives. The following interview is exceptionally good. I almost stopped watching at about 12 minutes into it thinking I got the gist of it but I was wrong. It gets better and better as the interview continued.

Read Full Post »

 

Now that November, the special month to remember those in Purgatory, comes to an end, I want to remind Catholics that one of the greatest works of mercy we can do is offer prayers for the dead. It shouldn’t end with November. It should be a daily routine. A couple of great little books by Fr. Paul O’Sullivan explain this well, which you can read here and here.

One of my favorite books of all time on the subject is Fr. Schouppe’s Purgatory. It has affected my life more than any other book outside of Holy Writ. I used to buy copies online and give them away. To this day, I keep a copy on me and read it occasionally. You can read it online here.

The book is filled with teachings from the Church and saints, and hundreds of true stories of those who were given the grace to witness apparitions from Purgatory, or the place itself, and/or have been there and came back to tell about it. Below is one such story found in the book.

– There was in Northumberland a man named Drithelm, who, with his family, led a most Christian life. He fell sick, and his malady increasing day by day, he was soon reduced to extremity, and died, to the great desolation and grief of his wife and children. The latter passed the night in tears by the remains, but the following day, before his interment, they saw him suddenly return to life, arise, and place himself in a sitting posture. At this sight they were seized with such fear that they all took to flight, with the exception of the wife, who, trembling, remained alone with her risen husband. He reassured her immediately: “Fear not,” he said; “it is God who restores to me my life; He wishes to show in my person a man raised from the dead. I have yet long to live upon earth, but my new life will be very different from the one I led heretofore.” Then he arose full of health, went straight to the chapel or church of the place, and there remained long in prayer. He returned home only to take leave of those who had been dear to him upon earth, to whom he declared that he would live only to prepare himself for death, and advised them to do likewise. Then, having divided his property into three parts, he gave one to his children, another to his wife, and reserved the third part to give in alms. When he had distributed all to the poor, and had reduced himself to extreme indigence, he went and knocked at the door of a monastery, and begged the Abbot to receive him as a penitent Religious, who would be a servant to all the others.

The Abbot gave him a retired cell, which he occupied for the rest of his life. Three exercises divided his time — prayer, the hardest labour, and extraordinary penances. The most rigorous fasts he accounted as nothing. In winter he was seen to plunge himself into frozen water, and remain there for hours and hours in prayer, whilst he recited the whole Psalter of David.

The mortified life of Drithelm, his downcast eyes, even his features, indicated a soul struck with fear of the judgments of God. He kept a perpetual silence, but on being pressed to relate, for the edification of others, what God had manifested to him after his death, he thus described his vision : —

“On leaving my body, I was received by a benevolent person, who took me under his guidance. His face was brilliant, and he appeared surrounded with light. He arrived at a large deep valley of immense extent, all fire on one side, all ice and snow on the other; on the one hand braziers and caldrons of flame, on the other the most intense cold and the blast of a glacial wind.

“This mysterious valley was filled with innumerable souls, which, tossed as by a furious tempest, threw themselves from one side to the other. When they could no longer endure the violence of the fire, they sought relief amidst the ice and snow; but finding only a new torture, they cast themselves again into the midst of the flames. “I contemplated in a stupor these continual vicissitudes of horrible torments, and as far as my sight could extend, I saw nothing but a multitude of souls which suffered without ever having repose. Their very aspect inspired me with fear. I thought at first that I saw Hell; but my guide, who walked before me, turned to me and said, ‘ No; this is not, as you think, the Hell of the reprobate. Do you know,’ he continued, ‘ what place this is? ‘No,’ I answered. ‘Know,’ he resumed,’ that this valley, where you see so much fire and so much ice, is the place where the souls of those are punished who, during life, have neglected to confess their sins, and who have deferred their conversion to the end. Thanks to a special mercy of God, they have had the happiness of sincerely repenting before death, of confessing and detesting their sins. This is why they are not damned, and on the great day of judgment will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Several of them will obtain their deliverance before that time, by the merits of prayers, alms, and fasts, offered in their favour by the living, and especially in virtue of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass offered for their relief.’ “

Such was the recital of Drithelm. When asked why he so rudely treated his body, why he plunged himself into frozen water, he replied that he had seen other torments, and cold of another kind.

If his brethren expressed astonishment that he could endure these extraordinary austerities, “I have seen,” said he, “penances still more astonishing.” To the day when it pleased God to call him to Himself, he ceased not to afflict his body, and although broken down with age, he would accept no alleviation.

This event produced a deep sensation in England; a great number of sinners, touched by the words of Drithelm, and struck by the austerity of his life, became sincerely converted.

This fact, adds Bellarmine, appears to me of incontestable truth, since, besides being conformable to the words of Holy Scripture, Let him pass from the snow waters to excessive heat, 1 Venerable Bede relates it as a recent and well-known event. More than this, it was followed by the conversion of a great number of sinners, the sign of the work of God, who is accustomed to work prodigies in order to produce fruit in souls. –

 

 

Read Full Post »

The Three Children Seers of Fatima

 

[The following writing is taken from my book, The Greatest Conspiracy Ever.]

It was the story of Fatima that inspired me to become a greater and more devoted Catholic. It entails the great miracle of the sun with a completely soaked countryside dried up in 10 minutes witnessed by 70,000 people whose wet and washed out clothing became as they were pressed and dried during the event. [The hundred year anniversary is just 3 days away.] The three children seers endured great penances (some of them self-inflicted) because of their vision of hell and Our Lady’s messages. It has been documented photographically that the youngest seer, Jacinta Marto, had an incorruptible body 30 years after her death. Lastly, there is the mystery of the three secrets especially the Third Secret that has kept us in suspense.

There are several books and movies about Fatima and even whole apostolates founded, dedicated and devoted to the story of Fatima. What else could be said about Fatima and the Third Secret that has not already been said? It would seem the topic has been exhausted. However, there is one more very important point about Fatima and the Third Secret, which, I believe, has been missed by everybody…Our Lady’s hidden message.

To find this hidden message, one must ask several questions which apparently have never been asked before based on the following information:

Sister Maria das Dores (Lucia de Santos), the oldest seer, once told 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.” (1)

She clearly forewarned of a very great chastisement and it would occur within the next two years.

So what was it?  What very great chastisement befell the world between the years 1958 and 1960?

Was Sister Lucia a false prophet?

Sister Lucia at approximately 40 years of age 

 

From Our Lady, Lucia clearly prophesied the Spanish Civil War under Pope Pius XI and World War II under Pope Pius XII which the world experience just 13 years earlier.

Are we not to suppose that a greater chastisement will befall the world?

The Third Secret, written down by Sister Lucia in 1939, was given to the popes down through the years and was supposed to be revealed by 1960 or after Sister Lucia’s death, which ever happened first, because the world would better understand its contents in that time period. (2)

We know the Third Secret was not revealed by 1960.  I say by 1960 since Sister Lucia was apparently not dead yet, which brings us to ask the questions:

Why did Our Lady say the secret was to be revealed in 1960 or Lucia’s death whichever comes first?

Did Our Lady know that Lucia would die around the year 1960?

If not, why bring up her death at all if 1960 was the time the world would understand the Secret?

All this is very interesting because pictures of the Lucia before 1960 appear to show a different person than the Lucia after that year. Did she die and it was kept hidden from public knowledge as an imposter played her role?

Be that as it may, some other important questions need to be asked:

Since Our Lady foreknew the chastisements of the wars in the 1930’s and 1940’s, how is it she didn’t foresee her Third Secret not being revealed in 1960?

Why did Our Lady say the secret was to be revealed by 1960 if She knew that it wouldn’t happen?

If She did foresee that it wouldn’t be revealed, why did She say that it would be best understood in 1960?

Thus from these questions, we will be able to ascertain a hidden message within Sister Lucia’s prophecy to Fr. Augustin Fuentes and what Our Lady said about the reading of the Third Secret in 1960. 

Before we look at what is this hidden message, we need to hear what was said about the Third Secret from a key figure of the Church… Fr. Malachi Martin.

 

Father Malachi Martin

 

The late Fr. Malachi Martin, doctor, exorcist, linguist, and advisor to several “popes”, and made secret cardinal and bishop by Pope Pius XII, read the Third Secret in 1960 along with Cardinal Bea and John XXIII.

According to Fr. Malachi Malachi, John XXIII did not believe in Fatima and therefore refused to read the Secret because it was not in line with what John XXIII had in mind for the future of the Church. (3) In 1962, at the Second Vatican Council, John XXIII referred to the three seers of Fatima as “Prophets of Doom.”(4) This is interesting since John XXIII called Fatima, “the center of all Christian hopes.”(5) Yet, he refused to read the Third Secret in 1960.

Fr Malachi Martin gave clues to the Third Secret saying the Secret was far worse than even a nuclear war. It would fill confessionals and Churches and it did not involve the chastisements as the earlier wars. (6)

Before Fr. Malachi Martin died, he actually revealed the Third Secret to close friends and began a tell-all book on the New Vatican. With great sadness, he came to hold the sede vacant position after visiting Rome and being told by John Paul II that they did not share the same Faith. (7)

Eleven months after the death of Fr. Malachi Martin, Rome reveals what they say is the contents of the Third Secret, claiming it was about John Paul II and the attempt on his life in 1981. (8)

Since the world was told that it would better understand the meaning of the Third Secret in 1960, we know what Rome revealed in 2000 and their conclusion was a complete fabrication concocted to deflect the real Secret and its meaning.

What modernist Rome revealed was not shocking, would not fill any confessional as it didn’t, nor would there be any reason for John XXIII not to reveal what Rome actually revealed 40 years later, not to mention the fact that it was conveniently revealed after the death of Fr. Malachi Martin, the one man who could have and would have refuted their lie.

With this information, lets again look at the initial questions:

1. Since Our Lady foreknew the chastisements of the wars, how is it she didn’t foresee her Third Secret not being revealed in and by 1960?

Answer: She was fully aware that it would not be revealed and there is no reason to believe She didn’t know.

2. Why did Our Lady say that the secret was to be revealed by 1960 if She knew that it would not be done after saying the secret would be best understood by 1960?

Answer: This is the crux of the issue.  Pope Pius XII had already stated that after him would come the deluge. (9) The 1958 conclave elects a documented modernist and Mason.

So Our Lady is pointing to the time. She already said a Great Chastisement would come between the years of 1958 and 1960. Fr. Malachi said it was not about a war as with earlier chastisements but far worse.

What is far worse than a nuclear war? What happened between the years of 1958 to 1960?

I submit the death of Pope Pius XII and the uncanonically elected Roncalli to the papacy was it.

What is the worst thing that could ever happen to the world? Would it not be what sedevancantists hold to be true? That the papacy has been usurped and the true faith was replaced by a counterfeit version, with millions of Catholics being led astray right into hell? Was not hell and saving souls what Fatima was all about?

The Third Secret did not specifically say anything about the conclave or an election of some antipope or Fr Malachi Martin would have become a sedevacantist immediately, but rather it indicated an apostasy from the top and the coming antichrist, which would initiate the Great Apostasy. How far at the top? If the very top (the pope) were actually an apostate, then he would not be a true pope. It is that simple.

Not revealing the Third Secret was in essence revealing it. It is the message but a hidden message, yet everybody seemed to miss that Our Lady would know that the Secret would not be revealed in 1960 saying it would better understood then. She was telling us what it is by not having it revealed.

If you don’t believe in the approved apparition of Fatima with a verifiable miracle witnessed by over 70,000 people, then you would be viewed by the faithful as faithless. Not revealing a Secret by the Blessed Virgin Mary when asked by her to do so, is saying to all the faithful that you simply don’t trust them to believe the Catholic Faith as it has always been preached. A true pope would not try to usurp the authority of Heaven and this is precisely what John XXIII did.

The truly faithful believe in Fatima because they know the miracles that have come from it could not possibly come from hell or else the Catholic Church already defected by approving it. Remember, the Church was fully aware of the contents of the Secret when She approved the apparition.

John XXIII claimed Fatima was the center of all hope and yet refused to reveal the Secret. Why?  Was he truly faithless, a wicked man, or both?

One more thing as a little side note…Pope Pius XII consecrated specifically Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary on July 7, 1952, fulfilling Our Lady’s promise. She never promised he would do it with all the bishops but that he would do it none-the-less. (10)

Consequently, Russia converted out of its Communist ways ending the persecution on her Christians and there was a certain period of peace. The nations that were annihilated into the Soviet Union have regained their sovereignty. (11)

 

Footnotes:

  1. Controversy has surrounded this interview with Fr. Augustin Fuentes. Two years later, an anonymous note came from the episcopal curia of Coimbra denouncing the interview as fraudulent. Sr. Lucy was then silenced. Fr. Joaquin Alonso, who wrote over 5,000 documents on Fatima at the request of the bishop of Fatima, wrote in 1975 that the interview with Fr Augustine Fuentes was authentic.
  2. Our Lady of Fatima, MacMillion, First Edition 1947, p. 211, by William Thomas Walsh, and Sermon, Third Secret of Fatima, Most Reverend Robert F. McKenna O.P.
  3. Coast to Coast AM radio program, May 8, 1998, Art Bell with Fr Malachi Martin
  4. Fr Malachi Martin referred to the opening speech at the Second Vatican Council in the 1998 interview with Art Bell.
  5. Fatima, The Great Sign, Tan, p. 12, by Francis Johnston
  6. Coast to Coast AM radio program, May 8, 1998, Art Bell with Fr Malachi Martin
  7. Private exchanges with his closest friends.
  8. Inside the Vatican, Special Supplement June-July 2000, and Inside the Vatican June-July 2000
  9. The Destruction of Christian Tradition, World Wisdom, p. 132, by Rama P. Coomaraswamy
  10. Fatima, The Great Sign, Tan, p. 89, by Francis Johnston, states that Lucia wrote after the 1952 Consecration of Russia, “I am grieved that it has not yet been carried out as Our Lady had asked. Patience! … Let us hope that Our Lady, as a good Mother, will be pleased to accept it.” The initial quote in 1917 stated by Our Lady, “In the end, …The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me; it will be converted.”
  11. Our Lady of Fatima, MacMillion, First Edition 1947, p. 226, by William Thomas Walsh, indicates the conversion of Russia referred by Our Lady was conversion out of Communism since this is the error that needed to be corrected by the papal consecration before it spreads to every nation.

 

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »