Rorate Caeli has released a translation of a remarkable interview, originally published in 2008, with Cardinal Carlo Caffarra of Bologna. In it, he references correspondence he had with Sister Lucia, the principal visionary of Our Lady at Fatima:
Q. There is a prophecy by Sister Lucia dos Santos, of Fatima, which concerns “the final battle between the Lord and the kingdom of Satan”. The battlefield is the family. Life and the family. We know that you were given charge by John Paul II to plan and establish the Pontifical Institute for the Studies on Marriage and the Family.
>Yes, I was. At the start of this work entrusted to me by the Servant of God John Paul II, I wrote to Sister Lucia of Fatima through her Bishop as I couldn’t do so directly. Unexplainably however, since I didn’t expect an answer, seeing that I had only asked for prayers, I received a very long letter with her signature – now in the Institute’s archives. In it we find written: the final battle between the Lord and the reign of Satan will be about marriage and the family. Don’t be afraid, she added, because anyone who operates for the sanctity of marriage and the family will always be contended and opposed in every way, because this is the decisive issue. And then she concluded: however, Our Lady has already crushed its head.
Talking also to John Paul II, you felt too that this was the crux, as it touches the very pillar of creation, the truth of the relationship between man and woman among the generations. If the founding pillar is touched the entire building collapses and we see this now, because we are at this point and we know it. And I’m moved when I read the best biographies of Padre Pio , on how this man was so attentive to the sanctity of marriage and the sanctity of the spouses, even with justifiable rigor on occasion.
Does this come as any surprise to those watching the events currently unfolding in the Church? We have referenced various apparitions in the past that are related to this, beginning with Our Lady of Good Success, in the 17th century:
“Thus I make it known to you that from the end of the 19th century and shortly after the middle of the 20th century…the passions will erupt and there will be a total corruption of morals… As for the Sacrament of Matrimony, which symbolizes the union of Christ with His Church, it will be attacked and deeply profaned. Freemasonry, which will then be in power, will enact iniquitous laws with the aim of doing away with this Sacrament, making it easy for everyone to live in sin and encouraging procreation of illegitimate children born without the blessing of the Church… In this supreme moment of need for the Church, the one who should speak will fall silent.”
When we reflect on the division among prelates at the Synod, Our Lady of Akita comes to mind:
“The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against bishops. The priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their confreres…churches and altars sacked; the Church will be full of those who accept compromises and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord.”
Catholics are not required to believe in even the most approved and venerated private revelations, but many of us choose to do so. Does this battle relate to the famous discourse Pope Leo XIII was alleged to have heard in a vision between Christ and Satan, which led him to compose the prayer to St. Michael? How long the final battle will last, and what will come after?
It is impossible to know. But the notion that there is at this very moment a battle taking place for the heart of the Church and the souls of the faithful is no longer in dispute.
Originally published on June 16, 2015.
Some of us have been crying the battle cry for 50 years but on deaf ears. The warnings of our Holy popes for the past century have also fallen on deaf ears.
Read the signs of the times. Confusion, contradiction, dissent are the fruits of the past half century within the Church. The revolution against Christ is right within the Church, trying to destroy the faith and with it, the soul. The shepherds are leading the flock into heresy and apostasy. The philosophies of the enemies of Christ have become the philosophy of the teachers. The current occupant of the Chair of Peter makes vile comments about those who want to hold fast to the Truth and to Tradition.
These revelations are the reality in which we live.
I’ve heard the German Bishops go against Truth and Tradition, but never Pope Francis himself, he has always upheld it.
It’s not what a person says, it is what one does. When you give permission to a woman living with a married man to receive communion, you are effectively stating that marriage is not sacred. If you give the perception that you accept a person living in sin, then you give scandal. You can affirm the truth and tradition all day long in words, but if you do not uphold them by your actions, you cause scandal. The very fact that the Pope has not condemned the statements of the German Bishops, reveals that he accepts them. Imagine if one of the apostles was preaching heresy and lies, do you not think Jesus would rebuke them? As the Vicar of Christ, his job is to act in Christ’s place, and to lead. There is nothing but confusion among the bishops, priests and pope…do you think confusion comes from Christ? There is no consistency anywhere….the US Bishops are concerned about shale oil and immigration, the Irish Bishops are more concerned about offending a sinner than the upholding Church teaching and the Phillipino bishops are focused on land reform. These are worldly bishops who see themselves as philanthropists. Where is the focus on the super natural and the power of prayer? When Jesus said to Peter: “feed my sheep” — He was saying feed them the Word of God and the Bread of Life. In Jesus’ own words: John 6:27 “27”Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal.”
Yes, I agree with everything you stated.
I should like to edit/clarify this a bit…because it seems I’m saying one thing and agreeing with the opposite.
I can’t bring myself to judge or speak badly of the Vicar of Christ. I
don’t know why he is allowing these rogue Bishops to speak out the way they do, I don’t know what he says or does behind closed doors. I’m waiting on God, on the promise Christ made that hell will not prevail
against His Church. God allowed Pope Francis to be elected so I am
waiting and praying for the Church and the Pope and the world.
As a Catholic, I agree I would never speak against the Vicar of Christ. Pope Benedict XVI has not ceased to be the Successor of St. Peter. There is only one Holy Father and he is praying for the Church daily. Jesus did not appoint St. Peter to parade around the world in a Popemobile, to encourage relations with the US and Cuba, to partner with the UN (that is anti-Christian), to work hand in hand with the world. The Vicar of Christ is to pray for the Church and lead by living a holy, humble, simple life. It has nothing to do with meeting with Heads of State unless they wish to confess and convert to Catholicism. Francis meets with heads of state, participates in gifts exchanges, travel the world to wave to adoring fans. Jesus was hated by the world. And Jesus said if you were of this world, the world would love you. You are not of this world, so the world will hate you like they hated me. Prior to Vatican II, Popes did not give approval of anti-Catholic leaders by publicly meeting with them. This gives scandal. How could Francis, truly represent Christ, by engaging with Barack Obama? When Jesus ate with sinners, he called them to repentance publicly. If Francis does not do this, he gives scandal to the faithful.
What about the scandals of all of the popes-Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI who publicly prayed with and worshipped with those who are heretics, schismatics, and enemies of Christ? Did not John Paul II travel the world waving to his adoring fans? All of them have met publicly and privately with all kinds of anti-Catholic religious, political, and international organizations.
All of these popes were big supporters of the United Nations. Paul VI even stated: “The peoples of the earth turn to the United Nations as the last hope of concord and peace; We presume to present here, together with Our own, their tribute of honor and of hope.”
Pope Paul VI, in his October 1965 visit to the UN, he stated: “Our message desires, above all, to be a solemn, moral ratification of this high institution. This message is born from our historical experience. It is as a “specialist in humanity” that we bring to this Organization the approval of our predecessors, the whole Catholic Episcopate and our own, convinced as we are that this Organization represents the obligatory pathway for modern civilization and world peace.”
He goes on to shamefully say: “He (the Pope) has no temporal power whatsoever, nor any ambition to compete with you. In fact, we have nothing to ask, no question to raise. At most, we ask only to express this desire, to make this request: that is, to be permitted to serve you in those matters within our competence, disinterestedly, with humility and love.”
Pope John Paul II, in his visit to the UN on October 2, 1979, stated: “Your organization has a special significance for the world, because the thoughts and hopes of all the peoples of our planet converge in it.”
Afterward, in his official speech to the UN General Assembly he stated: “The Apostolic See not only bears strongly in mind its own collaboration with the UN, but since the birth of the Organization, it has always expressed its real esteem for and concurrence with the historical significance of this supreme forum for the international life of contemporary humanity…Popes John XXIII and Paul VI had confidence in this important institution as an eloquent and promising sign of our times. And the one who speaks to you now, since the first months of his own pontificate, has often expressed the same confidence and conviction nurtured by my predecessors.”
As you can see, praise and esteem for an atheistic, corrupt, anti-Catholic organization has come from all of the popes beginning with Pope John XXIII.
You are correct. John Paul II did travel the world and waved to his adoring fans. It was wrong. Despite John Paul II’s errors, he was still the Pope. Paul VI was still the Pope, despite his errors. Pope Benedict is still Pope – I don’t agree with any errors that the Popes have made, but they were still Pope just like St. Peter. But today, there are two men living in Rome with the title Pope — Pope Benedict and Pope Francis. Clearly only one of them is the Successor — the other is not. The Bible is clear about this.
Again, I don’t understand. Pope Benedict XVI resigned. So how can he still be the pope?
He resigned as the Head of the Vatican state. He resigned his governmental role of kissing babies, exchanging gifts with other heads of state, working with the UN, telling farmers how to farm, and all the other requirements of a Head of State. By the way….none of those governmental roles that are required by the Vatican Head of State were not the duties Jesus had in mind when He told Peter, “upon this Rock, I will build my Church.” Peter’s role is spiritual, not a worldly role as a head of state. Pope Benedict XVI never resigned being the Successor of St. Peter. He is and remains the Successor of St. Peter…and he is still referred to as the Pope.
Carolyn, I don’t believe he simply resigned as the Head of the Vatican state.
Please read what he, himself, said in his resignation announcement:
“Dear Brothers: I thank you most sincerely for all the love and work with which you have supported me in my ministry………and implore his holy Mother, Mary so that she may assist the Cardinal fathers with her maternal solicitude, IN ELECTING A NEW SUPREME PONTIFF.”
Didn’t the College of Cardinals accept his resignation (which strips him of all jurisdiction) see https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01031a.htm
Didn’t the College of Cardinals elect Pope Francis?
Yes, Francis is the Supreme Pontiff. Pope Benedict is the Successor of St. Peter.
More confusion. What is the difference between Supreme Pontiff and the Successor of St. Peter?
Pontifex Maximus is a term that dates back to the pagan religion of Rome. The high priests or the Pontifex Maximus was the leader and the “bridge-builder” between gods and man. During the Roman Empire, the Pontifex Maximus was the Emperor, or Head of State. Sadly today, Pope Francis acts more like the Head of State than the Successor of St. Peter. St. Peter’s role was spiritual. He did not seek to control or weigh in on matters of immigration reform, diplomatic relations between states or countries, nor did he tell farmers how to farm. St. Peter’s role was spiritual. He preached the Gospel, he baptized, he consecrated… his whole life was dedicated to the life of the spirit and preparing men and women for eternal life, not life on earth. Francis’ focus is worldly, and the world loves him. Pope Benedict is living a spiritual life and is praying for the Church and the faithful. Jesus said: John 17: 9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me: because they are thine” John 17:12″ While I was with them, I kept them in thy name. Those whom thou gavest me have I kept; and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition, that the scripture may be fulfilled.” Jesus didn’t pray for the world, he prayed for the ones that the Father gave to Him. The focus of the Church has always been to save souls. The organization of today is more like an NGO with a bank that focuses on diplomatic relations, climate change, economic markets, agriculture interests, and less on the supernatural or the eternal.
Carolyn, I totally agree with you about Pope Francis but couldn’t understand the differentiation you used. However, I do not believe that Benedict XVI is a faithful son of the Church. He was influenced by too many Modernist’s and I believe he has taught heresies, as Pope Francis does. I personally believe that all of the popes from John XXIII to Francis believed in and taught heresies. And I truly believe that the Second Vatican Council was the vehicle the Modernists/Liberals within the Church co-opted to finally realize their dream of creating a church of their design.
Despite John Paul II’s errors — and they were huge — he was still the Successor of St. Peter. I believe you are correct that Pope Benedict erred as well, but I believe Benedict could be a modern-day Saul. I also believe Benedict listened to the words of Christ: “Be wise as serpents and simple as doves.” And the fact remains, Pope Benedict is still the Successor of St. Peter — whether he is alive or dead — he remains the Successor of St. Peter. And as long as Benedict is alive, he remains the Successor of St. Peter and there can only be one Vicar of Christ – -not two. Jesus said to Peter “upon this rock, I will build my Church” There is only one head, just as there is only one Father. I believe Pope Benedict is the Holy Father.
A manifest heretic, which John Paul II was can not be a valid Pope because he ceases to be Catholic, he can not be head of a body of which he is not a member. http://www.cmri.org/02-answering-objections-sede.html
Does the same apply to Pope Liberius I?
If I lived at that time I might have an answer…..but I have no reliable information on Liberius I, I have plenty on JP II.
Very well, John Paul the Not So Great it shall be. If you can spare the time, I’d like to nail down some parameters so as to avoid derailing a good discussion with misconstrued terms, etc. Your position is that JP II was not the Pope because of manifest heresy. Was Modernism his heresy? Do you hold that he ascended the Chair and then became a heretic, or something different?
I know one heresy was modernism, the synthesis of all heresies, one only need look at what he did at Assisi and you will surely see the heresy if you choose to keep your eyes open….
I do not dispute that he was a material, Modernist heretic. But as to the position you hold, is it that he ascended the Chair, then fell into heresy, etc. or something aside from that entirely?
Assisi + JPII is all any honest person needs to know.
I’m afraid that’s not very convincing, as any honest person might want to inquire more deeply.
Yes, you are correct lwhite. I was wrong about Benedict! I know it’s 9 months later, but you are correct to say that Pope Benedict XVI is NOT a faithful son of the Church. If he was, he would speak up and shout from the top of the Vatican re: the crisis and confusion.
Recently I read this passage from Our Lord:
John 10:11
11″I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep. 12″He who is a hired hand, and not a shepherd, who is not the owner of the sheep, sees the wolf coming, and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them.…
Pope Benedict fled when he saw the wolf coming. A True Father would not abandon His spiritual children. He would teach. He would warn. He would wake them up! He could have spoken Truth. It may have cost him his life, but isn’t that what a Good Shepherd does?
So, I must apologize. You were completely on target regarding Benedict! We are in a struggle and every day I wake up to a new truth thanks to God’s grace.
Carolyn,
My heart and soul grieve knowing how many enemies of Christ there are within the Church. I believe the only other time in Church history comparable to the last 50 years is the Arian heresy, where a small minority remained faithful to the true teachings of the Church.
It is much worse than the shepherd not laying down his life for the sheep. The shepherd is the wolf.
No difference at all. You are right – on – and with the Truth.
You just broke the 2015 year old Apostolic Succession promised by Christ with your comment…I cannot agree with you on this. So I’ll stick with the promise Jesus Christ Himself made.
Pope Benedict is still leader of the Catholic Church. Apostolic succession has not been broken. Pope Benedict still serves the church through prayer and offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. He is still leading the flock. You do not need to be a public celebrity to lead the faithful. Francis is governing the non-profit organization arm of the church. Benedict’s leadership is purely spiritual, and eternal, it is not of this world.
Benedict is NOT the head of the Church nor is he discharging any duties in this concern.
ister Faustina
“I have offered this day for priests. I have suffered more today than ever before, both interiorly and exteriorly. I did not know it was possible to suffer so much in one day. I tried to make a Holy Hour, in the course of which my spirit had a taste of the bitterness of the Garden of Gethsemane. I am fighting alone, supported by His arm, against all the difficulties that face me like unassailable walls. But I trust in the power of His name and I fear nothing.”
This diary entry is from December 17, 1936. What else happened on that day?
Jorge Mario Bergoglio-Pope Francis-was born.
He did say that the charism of the papacy cannot be lost.
You have zero authority to make this claim – and you are wrong.
In the past, there have been Popes and Anti-Popes. This is a fact. Which means one of them was the true pope and the other was not. Pope Benedict is still in Rome and he has the title Pope and Successor of St. Peter. There can only be one.
Ousted by the forces of Free Masonary that have infliltrated the Church
A public heretic, a manifest heretic, ceases to be Catholic. Pope, or layman. A non catholic can not be a valid Pope.
Was he ignorant or just delusional when he said this….”Pope John Paul II, in his visit to the UN on October 2, 1979, stated: “Your organization has a special significance for the world, because the thoughts and hopes of all the peoples of our planet converge in it.” Only significance it has in my book is for being one of the most corrupt entities on the planet…the UN peace forces are long known for raping women when they come to a country, making JP’s verbiage trash talk. Since when do the hopes of mankind converge on trash for their future…thanks but no thanks..my hopes rest on a greater power than United Nuts.
There has been no permission for a woman to receive communion who is living with a married man. Where did you get that?
A lady living in sin of adultery, a mortal sin, shouldn’t be receiving the holy eucharist . Its actually not confusing at all.
AMEN!
One of the said confusions is to mistake capitalism for a family-friendly conservative system
Confusion about what part? Capitalism is an economic system. It is clearly not pro-family, as capitalism has undermined family values by encouraging consumption, two wage-earners and avoiding having children. Feminism is the natural offspring of capitalism. Women too should work. Having children is too much of a long-term investment. Capitalism is quarter-to-quarter.
You have answered the question yourself. As to clarity, so be it as far as you are concerned, but the said confusion has prevailed and lured most conservative people into voting to start with, and giving their vote to the bourgeoisie, who «historically, has played a most revolutionary part. The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors”, and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment”. It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom – Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation (…) The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation (…) The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society (…) Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, ALL THAT IS HOLY IS PROFANED, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind» (Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in the Manifesto of the Communist Party, 1st published in February of 1848).
Unfortunately the Manifesto of Marx is in opposition to the Eight beatitudes of Christ and the 10 Commandments of God the Father as well as the Lords Prayer. That which is in Opposition cannot be of the same fold. Therefore to accept Marx, would be to accept ANTI-CHRIST.
Marx extends the need for the sustainablility of the poor, buy suggesting that the removal of poverty is all possible, which is false, because then all, including those who would control this equality would obtain only an equal share of wealth, as the very poor would receive. That now is the lie.
The Truth is found in the Eighth Beatitude; The Marxist cannot accept the Eight Beatitude, nor its effects upon each human being. But it will persecute each human being to obtain its goals. Abortion, infanticide, homicide, genocide, euthanasia, slavery, wars, government by Totalitarian rule, mindless immigration, persecutions of Christians and other religions etc.
“Blest are those persecuted for holiness’ sake; the reign of God is theirs.” —Matthew 5:10
When we choose to expose ourselves to persecution, we choose to be blessed, and the kingdom of God is ours right away. This is the last and most important beatitude. It is the only beatitude Jesus expounds upon. He mentions insult and slander as ways in which we are persecuted (Mt 5:11). Then He points out that suffering persecution not only gives us happiness but also gladness, joy, and a great reward in heaven (Mt 5:12). It is our “special privilege to take Christ’s part — not only to believe in Him but also to suffer for Him” (Phil 1:29). God’s word proclaims: “Rejoice instead, in the measure that you share Christ’s sufferings. When His glory is revealed, you will rejoice exultantly. Happy are you when you are insulted for the sake of Christ, for then God’s Spirit in Its glory has come to rest on you” (1 Pt 4:13-14).
As you and I are sinners, we too are in opposition to God’s Commandments as a whole. Therefore, if being in opposition with said Commandments makes Marx an anti-Christ, you and I are anti-Christ too… Or are we really. Or are things a little more complicated?
Please proof read your sentence: “Marx extends the need for the sustainability of the poor, buy suggesting that the removal of poverty is all possible”… Do you not see that “sustainability” is about permanence, which the very action of a “removal” is not? Before we start discussing Marx’ ideas, you see, you must enable yourself to express your interpretation of those ideas in a
coherent manner, if I may, let alone your ability to understand Marx at all.
Regardless, Marx performed an economical and social analysis. Because it was relevant and pointed at Capitalism as being as inhuman as ungodly, some felt compelled to disguise Marxism. That was done on either side of the Chambers of all European countries, both left wing and right wing sharing a common interest: discrediting a sound analysis of the system which
was making them richer and richer by means of theft. That is the reason why Marx said, at the end of his life: “I am not a Marxist”. I know that you resent the man, fair enough, but you must reckon that he had a sense of humour…
Since Marxism is atheist, the eighth Beatitude taken in a spiritual sense is irrelevant, as far as Marxism is concerned. From a materialistic prospective, on the other hand, that Beatitude is more than welcome, as Marx believed that material, moral and psychological salvation from
Capitalism – let alone spiritual salvation which is God’s work and is irrelevant to Marxism – will occur after Capitalism has taken control of the lives of everybody on earth; only then will humanity be able to come back, so Marx maintained, to the primordial Communism where human beings were human in full and thus lived their lives in the way of giving – not exchanging or selling, mind you – receiving and giving later in return; that is called anthropology, not Marxism, by the way.
Accusing Marxism of “abortion, infanticide, homicide, genocide, euthanasia, slavery, wars, government by Totalitarian rule, mindless immigration, persecutions of Christians and other
religions” is a lie and there is a Commandment about that too. Let me give you two examples which I encourage to ponder on.
1) Marx stated that imperialism is the ultimate phase of Capitalism; need I say that Marx did not approve of that last development, let alone what he thought of Capitalism’s infancy?
2) Marx called the immigration, the reserve army of Capitalism, whereas Capitalism needs the immigration to counter its inherent flaw: the tendency of the rate of profit to fall over time; need I say that Marx did not approve of said army?
Simply NO, you are terribly confused, have a Delphi complex in speech (obviously too long winded) and do not confront the notion that staying in the state of sin (as Marx promotes Pride) is not the state that a soul must be directed. You are lost unfortunately, and you will likely stay lost.
You are the confused one; for lack of education in that particular field, you confuse Marxism, on the one hand, and the plenty of ideologies and circles of people who have called themselves Marxists, on the
other.
It is a pity that all you have to say, to back your statements, is an anathema, that is the kind of thing that some people, and not the most honest ones, resort to, when they lack knowledge and arguments. The Catholic Faith is not only about spirituality; it is also about rationality, about intellectual life. Unfortunately, that aspect of Catholic life has decayed for centuries, except in a few seminaries, since orders such
as the Jesuits have given up teaching the lay people or have decayed to a state where they should better not try and teach anything any more…
In particular, I note that you are turning your back to the many arguments that I have given and the points that I have raised in good faith (in the general sense). That is not a manly manner for debate; being a Catholic is also about intellectual courage, if I may, while Faith is also about being willing to take the risk of confronting what one thinks is a heresy, being assured that the Holy Spirit will protect one against that heresy when one confronts the said heretic who I may be for the sake of argument.
I dare say that I see, in your anathema, the influence of the Protestants – of a real anti-Christ for once – who are so quick at vowing the eternal fire of hell to somebody with whom they disagree. That is, I am afraid, not the most humble of attitudes.
Your repeating the same old crap of so many Communist, Marxist idiots who think that have solved the world problems, only to be foolish about their own existence in the end. I.E.
“There are no absolute rules of conduct, either in peace or war. Everything depends on circumstances.”
– “As for us, we were never concerned with the Kantian-priestly and vegetarian-Quaker prattle about the “sacredness of human life”. We were revolutionaries in opposition, and have remained revolutionaries in power. To make the individual sacred, we must destroy the social order which crucifies him. And that problem can only be solved by blood and iron. The man who recognizes the revolutionary historic importance of the very fact of the existence of the Soviet system must also sanction the Red Terror.”
– “It was during that period that I became interested in freemasonry. … In the eighteenth century freemasonry became expressive of a militant policy of enlightenment, as in the case of the Illuminati, who were the forerunners of the revolution; on its left it culminated in the Carbonari. Freemasons counted among their members both Louis XVI and the Dr. Guillotin who invented the guillotine. In southern Germany freemasonry assumed an openly revolutionary character, whereas at the court of Catherine the Great it was a masquerade reflecting the aristocratic and bureaucratic hierarchy. A freemason Novikov was exiled to Siberia by a freemason Empress.
I discontinued my work on freemasonry to take up the study of Marxian economics. The work on freemasonry acted as a sort of test for these hypotheses. I think this influenced the whole course of my intellectual development.”
Leon Trotsky
My Life: The Rise and Fall of a Dictator
Leon Davidovich Trotsky (November 7, 1879 – August 21, 1940), born Lev Davidovich Bronstein, was a Bolshevik revolutionary and Marxist theorist. An influential politician in the early days of the Soviet Union, Trotsky served as the People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs and the People’s Commissar of War and was the founder and commander of the Red Army. He was also a founding member of the Politburo, the central policymaking and governing body of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Following a power struggle with Joseph Stalin in the 1920s, Trotsky was expelled from the Communist Party and deported from the Soviet Union. Ramon Mercader assassinated Trotsky in Mexico in 1940. Trotsky’s ideas form the basis of the Communist theory of Trotskyism, which remains a major school of Marxist thought theoretically opposed to Stalinism and Maoism.
And now you are insulting me. I may therefore ask, in your own terms, whether you are the one who is «lost». Regardless, what you just did is not manly either, as you are shielded by the distance and your identity is hidden…
You are not only quoting somebody ELSE, for the purpose of countering my quotes of Marx. You see, Trotsky belonged to a group, for a while, about whose ideology Marx warned his comrades: the Bolsheviks, as he saw that those people were geared towards a competing form of Capitalism: dictatorial state Capitalism… How is that for NOT being an «idiot», pray tell?
Marx singled out what he called the «Lumpenproletariat», that is (I quote) «alongside decayed roués with dubious means of subsistence and of dubious origin, alongside ruined and adventurous offshoots of the bourgeoisie, were vagabonds, discharged soldiers, discharged jailbirds, escaped galley slaves, swindlers, mountebanks, lazzaroni, pickpockets, tricksters, gamblers, maquereaux (pimps), brothel keepers, porters, literati, organ grinders, ragpickers, knife grinders, tinkers, beggars». Trotsky was one of them, on the high end as he was born to a well-to-do family of farmers. Having no morals, as you meant to point out, he may be compared to what one calls a white-collar delinquent nowadays. Both the blue-collar and the white-collar criminals are useful for the purpose of a revolution, and so was Trotsky, but never for a revolution that benefits the humble and the poor in the end, as was not the case of the Bolshevik revolution which perpetuated or even worsened the misery of the factory workers and the landless peasants in particular.
Mind you, let alone your tone of voice, I see less and less intelligence in your mental process, not to write what I would, if I wanted to act like a leftist in lack of solid arguments. So you check the consistency of your comment, for your own sake and for that of a good web site, next time you are about to copy something off the internet and feverishly paste it here, will you?
Blah, Blah, Blah!
I would hooah that one if you were a preschool child
Blah, Blah, Blah and more Blah!
Guys, I’m swamped today and don’t have time to play referee. Can we disagree respectfully and/or opt out if someone is annoying us too much?
I don’t have a comment policy yet, but I’m going to work on it. For now, it’s, “Hey, let’s all act like adults and deal with the crisis maturely and without making ourselves be mini-popes.” That should hold us for a bit, I hope.
Adults don’t promote baloney, or get into discussions regarding a failed ism. Adults do promote things that are good for others in the simple and broad sense. So a relentless discussion about a failed system is not worth speaking about. So lets be adults and get on with some serious discussions. Listening to those who promote a proven heresy like Marxism or Modernism is just as foolish waste of time. So get the none heretical conversations going.
Not being narcissist, an adult does not expect others to consider something as being nonsense, on the sole basis of his feeling that way about it. So he argues about it, and he does not just turn his back, waves the fires of hell and throws insults about, when somebody else’s opinion and comments are not the mirror image of what he thinks or feels – the definition of Narcissi’s syndrome…
So much for emotional maturity. Being an adult in an intellectual way is about being articulate, coherent and consistent; it is the opposite of confusion and self-contradiction. It is also about the ability to consider an idea which one thinks is wrong, and check whether there is something else than the will to do evil, in the motives of somebody who one thinks went up the garden path; the intellectual and the emotional maturities go hand in hand indeed…
That is what I did with Marxism: I took the risk to venture and see for myself; that is what I call a manly behaviour, in intellectual terms… I fell of my chair when, out of curiosity, I read, in an interned copy of the Manifesto of the Communist Party, of Marx and Engels, that «all that is holy is profaned» (my comment from 2 weeks ago). That was so unexpected, from my Catholic right wing’s prospective. It did not fit my whole view of Marxism, Socialism, etc, at all. Turning the page and forget about it would have been childish. It would have been the intellectual equivalent of the regressive longing for the unreachable in utero security, that one observes in so many juveniles, nowadays. I needed to learn more and wrestle with it, and so I did. I bought a 2nd-hand copy of the Manifesto and read it, whereby I grew more and more amazed at every page, because what I read was such a precise description of what is going on today.
As I do not expect my opponent to fathom the above, for the reason that I have implied, I want to open up the debate to some other Catholic thinking, for the sake of the mature readers, as the latter are capable to process an idea, a statement, a theory, in a more subtle way than the emotional binary thinking that is promoted by the media, the federal school system, the political system and Hollywood’s industry…
In encyclical “Laborem Exercens”, John Paul the 2nd wrote (i): «working at any workbench (…) a man can easily see that through his work he enters into two inheritances: the inheritance of what is given to the whole of humanity in the resources of nature, and the inheritance of what others have already developed on the basis of those resources». That double heritage, that is the natural resources and the means of productions, including the financial means that are invested in said Capital, we call «Capital». Since the Capital is, by the very nature of Capitalism, concentrated in the hands of a few people, that system, be it private as it is in America, or state Capitalism as it was in the Soviet Union, is a long lasting case of heritage embezzlement, if I understand late Pope John Paul correctly.
(i) http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_14091981_laborem-exercens.html
I hope that the above will help some to distance themselves from the religious veneration for Capitalism, that the aforementioned System(s) have induced in the public, including most Catholics, and will shed light on the motives of the people such as Marx who devoted most of their life to a critical analysis of what is portrayed nowadays as the sole and just way to manage society.
Speaking of justice, Pope John Paul carried on writing: «the modern unions grew up from the struggle of the workers – workers in general but especially the industrial workers – to protect their just rights vis-à-vis the entrepreneurs and the owners of the means of production». The a priori condemnation that many a Catholic casts upon unions is a by-product of the pervasive Judeo-Protestant influence (i) on the whole of society. Unknown to those Catholics, that condemnation is based upon the Judeo-Protestant belief – an anti-Christ belief – that there are only so many people who are meant by God to be saved; any form of workers’ struggle against wealth of any kind is therefore a revolt against God, and so be Marx’ writings, even as a sole critical analysis of the process according to which, from said Judeo-Protestant prospective that is, it is only right and holly that the riches get richer, and the poor get poorer…
(i) an influence which I, right or wrong, recognised in my opponent’s paradigm
Anyone with a nugget of info on Marx knows he was a pathetic fake and misogynist. Further by his denouncing of men as being greedy for wanting to build a business and provide other men work to serve their families, only proved him as a man sans balls. The jerk wanted women to have 3 jobs. For any red blooded woman that puts him in el jerko category…prepubescent boy. As for state sponsored capitalism we see how that is working out in China…NOT…anything where man’s free will and actions, which is none other than natural law, is godless… just as we watch in horror today at another man from the Vatican seemingly in praise of a monster known as MARX. La papa too denounces real men.
I think all are passionate about trying to figure this all out and in the process if it was possible I think these two would be best buddies. Their wanting to figure things out for the betterment of all is obvious. I hope that you guys can agree to disagree and like I do put pride in my pocket when I can and open my heart instead. God bless you
1,000 likes…Marx is not misunderstood. That is balderdash. Read above of what I said his own mother remarked of his lazy streak. It is not true that capitalism must be greedy…again so untrue. True value consists of one person giving something to get something and that is what capitalism is about. That is NOT to say that there are those who abuse it…obviously they do, but then they are NOT Practicing good and godly economics. All you guys who believe in some utopia only reveal ignorance of what real men and women are about…some will excel and others could give 2 craps of doing a good job or making any gains in life.
Denis, am I understanding you correctly that you are making Marx sound like some kind of hero in his denunciation of capitalism? I would remind you that Marx’s own mother had lamented he was so fricking lazy and never worked. As she was known to have said, “I wish that Karl would stop talking about capitol and make some himself. ” Sounds like a wise women to me, but he sure firmed up the foundation for that flimsy feminist movement which has done more harm than capitalism has! I don’t think feminists and liberal loony tune women have woken up to the fact that Marx set women up to do three fulltime jobs, while he and his ilk only had one..and truth be known, he never had 1! Face it the fat headed fool never had a pair, but wanted women to do all the work. Methinks perhaps he was a momma’s boy.
When the finger points at the moon, the fool, the ignorant and the liar look at the finger, not the moon… Marx’ review of Capitalism was such a powerful blow*, that the bourgeoisie** set about to undermine Marxism. Each bourgeoisie in their own country sent THEIR left wing to work: parliamentary tumblers who portrayed themselves as a Marxist opposition to THEIR bourgeoisie. Those people – call them leftists, reformists or progressives, if you will – advocated for a variety of distortions of Marxism; it came to a point where Marx said: «I am
not Marxist».
* it encompassed the critic of Bolshevism as the state form of capitalism, by the way
** by definition, the owners of the Capital
That tactic is called the «stinking bomb». When there is a popular movement against a bill that is unjust – say one of the many cunning schemes of the Finance – the one thing that its proponents avoid if they can, is a public debate about goal and ideas. They send to the stage people who will portray themselves as opponents, yet will discredit the opposition: useful idiots, cracked pots, or professionals
who know how to deflect criticisms, avoid the issue, confuse and ridicule good willing people unfamiliar with the media… In a grotesque instance, television journalists will there at the right moment – what a coincidence! – and film skinheads making the Nazi salute, right in the middle of a crowd of peaceful families demonstrating against abortion: «look at the finger, folks, not at the moon!»
Not only does Marx have nothing to do with what you call (and misunderstand) Feminism, that is Women’s Lib’. Marx recognised its early version, and so did he all the avatars of the Capital. He pointed them out and analysed them with eloquence. But, in a way, that is an effective way as far as the likes of yous are concerned, one is eloquent only when one is listened to. I have quoted, in this web site, the Manifest of the Communist Party* of Marx and Engels, but you still haven’t read it; you don’t want to read it. You don’t want to read what
Marx and Engels wrote about the deeds of the Capitalists**: «all that is holy is profaned», for it challenges your comfort and your certainty; do you really want to be a truth seeker, or an associate partner of the never ending Capitalist subversion of our communities?
* not the Bolshevik Party!
** http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm
Here is a Capitalist teaching you what Feminism is all about: David Rockefeller, through the words of his friend the filmmaker Aaron Russo*. When the Bourgeoisie has a plan for profits, their NEVER talk about MONEY; they talk about CULTURE in the general sense. They talk about LIBERTY, through the mouths of THEIR progressive (left) wing, when freedom is THEIR right to make YOU poorer and poorer. How do see the future of your middle class in America, by the way? So goes the saying of Democracy: «we are all equal; even the bankers can sleep under a bridge»…
* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCpjmvaIgNA
Take abortion, for example; Women’s Lib’ at its best. It is all about the right of a woman to do what she wants with her own body, isn’t? And you do feel awkward, in the face of a Feminist who makes you feel like a stubborn idiot and a chauvinist pig, don’t you? She is not all that wrong about the idiotic part, but she probably must include herself in that category, for she doesn’t know what she is talking about: MONEY. Abortion, in the motivation of its proponents (the pick of the bunch, that is) is not about FREEDOM. Abortion is about
– the cost of dead weight, as far as the Capital is concerned: school, health, food, closing, housing, etc,
– the time devoted to children, including pregnancy (what a waste of time!) by a mother whom the Capital would rather turn into a working cow, for THEIR profit,
– easing the workers’ demand for wages that support a family*,
– outsourcing reproduction abroad, therefore, like one moves production plants to China; children from overseas are cheaper…
…Haven’t you heard so many times that America is such a successful «melting pot»? Successful for WHOM? Why the hype?
* https://rutube.ru/video/705ffb9a6ad531713320a010acbffceb/
So, Sunshine, do you want to look at the moon, at last or at Marx finger and at his mother? READ and LEARN! Your successive governments, be they from the right wing or the left wing OF the Capital turned the good American people into binary-thinking simpletons, with a goal in mind; find out about it!
Love your first line….look at the moon, not the finger. Having said that after your rant on trashing capitalism via nuts like Marx, you don’t offer any new/improved economic systems.
You have to be sleeping under a log or go by the name of Rip Van Winkle not to know about the commie manifesto mush. You would also have to be sleeping if you didn’t see what is going on in real time with both the left and right. Can you name one congressmen on the left or right who actually has ballage? As for Rockefeller…duh…..ya think they have nothing to do with global BS politics? Like with the latest Zika virus —the Rockefellers patented in 1967…Zika is nothing new folks.
If one doesn’t know about central banking and the hugh enslavement tool used by the PE, you too are sleeping. Getting back to the sixties, both the repubs and dems had a a part in getting women to work outside the home. The repubs rejoiced at feminism….mainly for their war mongering, Those added tax dollars were a bonus to them. Adding insult to injury, they use your sons you lovingly raised for 18 years to be cannon fodder for pyschopaths in power. Or to be experiments as my son was in the Air Force.
Prior to GW1, they were giving our troops vaccines of anthrax/squalene and pryistogime, vaccines never used in concert with each other which meant they poisoned our boys and experimented on them The Nuremberg code was put into place just to avoid such evil, but the PTB decided ‘to hell with that’…and so about 13 years of my life and my son’s life were spent going from dr to dr and hospitals around Boston.
Between chronic bone and joint pain, five years on seizure meds, short term memory problems, peripheral neuropathy and then, tumors both internal/external on his testicles which no urologist in Boston would touch. As they told him, to operate and if cancerous, it/cancer could spread like wildfire, So for years he walked around with that. Until he moved to Texas where he found a doctor who had hundreds of GWS vets who had the same problem and he removed their tumors. To this day the gov’t has not told us of the reality of cruelty/sadism they inflicted on our boys.
While the repubs loved their wars, the left/dem losers loved women working for when democraps cried ‘help the poor’ they stuffed the tax/cash in their pockets..they loved those tax $$ women were adding to their corrupt coffers. I need no lessons Mr Faux teacher/Denis
Your notion of capitalism, like the present pathetic pope refers to those using capitalism as a tool to steal. I suggest you read Ayn Rand’s books. Albeit she was not a Christian, she nevertheless had the most honest take on what capitalism really meant. Not corporate America in bed with the gov’t to make slaves of us all, using public schools as brainwashing centers for kids to be future commie creeps.
As the present pope advocates a leftist stance, his fellow bishops of Nicaragua have castigated the pope for knocking capitalism. They said, ‘it may not be perfect’, but sure as hell ‘beats socialism, communism ‘of the left in South American countries where the poor are always FAR MORE POOR under such a system.
As a woman who raised a family of 7 in the 60’s,70’s and 80’s, I was more than aware that women were stupidly and lamely cooperating with govt/state by going out to work, burning their bras, and in general acting like brainless twits.
I rarely saw that any of them made any headway financially as they spent money just to keep the lousy jobs paying crooks in gov’t praising them for paying taxes like retarded robots.
BTW..thanks for the video above…already knew much of what he had to offer. I see he made no distinction as you between Feminism, women’s lib/other monikers. I read Betty Friedan’s Feminine mystique which was a mistake and Gloria Steinham, both of which didn’t have heads screwed on right. Having said that do you really see Planet Prison as a scholarly site?
You say this, “Haven’t you heard so many times that America is such a successful «melting pot»? Successful for WHOM? Why the hype?” If you cannot see that the most good for the most people happened in this country, I cannot help you. It is not the fault of the average citizen here that the system was overtaken by commie faggots, psychopaths, certain religious figures in cahoots with the PTB, mobsters of all stripes now, and Moe brohood ensconsed in the highest gov’t positions.
Up to the fifties while living in Detroit, MI, I saw black families with only a 10% jail rate. Black fathers were earning incomes, had families, attended Sunday church..in short honest citizens. No drugs around then. But the left changed that really fast. Detroit unions wanting free sht made auto manufacturers say ‘hell with you, we are taking our plants across the bounty blue’. Thanks to the left and their strong suit…they always hurt the most people.. force companies to go abroad, raising taxes to hurt families…and now in our time, the sickest.. commie common core, and the demonic push for getting kids to believe in the LGBT BS along with the PC MC BS.
Intellectual indigence leaves me speechless, Sunshine; that is my poverty.
Denis, do you live in France? If so, what do they smoke there?
Capitalism, like the liberty upon which it is based, is not independent of morality. Without being informed by Truth, freedom is unachievable — for individual as well as society.
Your point has cause/effect issues.
Au contraire Proteios…Capitalism is the natural offspring of feminism. I disagree that women should work outside the home. Feminism reared its ugly head not because of capitalism, but for a more nefarious reason. In the sixties I watched as all the women around me began going to work at outside jobs while I stayed home caring for a family of seven.
Many of the women, it was apparent to me, were not ‘up to the job’ of being a mother, wife and homemaker as that is the MOST challenging job of all. I recall a gal in the neighborhood that actually bragged she only had to spend at most an hour with her baby…and she thought that was worthy of a medal!! I recoiled in horror that any woman could view her offspring as such, as each one of my children I viewed as a blessing. And that, despite the marriage being totally one sided.
Most of those women who took outside jobs didn’t even need the money…it was for a second car which they needed for work..and they had to work to keep the second car, thus one sees the ‘nutty factor’ in such circular crazy thinking. Some women if not most were not even ahead financially for with all the money they had to put out for jobs they ended in the red.
Then for decades I read women who’d write woeful missives in magazines of chronic fatigue, never having time for herself or talents, et al. And of course, the rest of us were supposed to feel sorry for morons who chose to follow the herd…and to be so dumb as to want three jobs for every man’s ONE! It was sad to have neighbors say to me, “Johnny gets off the school bus at 3:00, can you keep an eye on him for me?” As if it was my god appointed job to be the ‘hood’ mommy for all!! The stories I heard conveyed to me many women hated the idea of sacrificing her life to serve a family. If they couldn’t have the recognition of climbing a corporate ladder, they felt like less.
The sixties were definitely loony tune times. They’ve remained with us a very long time. The offspring of those who grew up during that wretched long night of the soul, are now running/ ruining the country and even our churches. And Francis it appears wants to inflict the final blow on that basic unit of society. That of the family with the mother and father at the center caring, sharing and serving the lives they’ve created.
When you have women preferring to ‘find themselves’ in a sterile office setting, or competing with men in the market place, children will suffer big time. I saw many women have guilt at not being ‘there’ for the family. To assuage that guilt they ‘buy off’ their kids with toys, et al, which only serve as a distraction from the lack of quality family time. With today’s techie toys/cells/FB, other social media, kids are ignored while mom posts another bit of nothing important to her friends.
Tragically today you find that many if not most men, expect their wives to hold an outside job. All suffer equally as a result, for adding a second income boosts total tax output, requires a second car (hugh expense), mediocre meals often leading to poor health, a pig pen of a house never getting a good cleaning or any semblance of order, and 2 parents too tired to even think of any hanky panky. The latter is actually laughable when hearing all the trite talk of sex and it shouldn’t be the first reason for a relationship.
How utterly moronic is it to think in this day and age that many even have a desire or an urge to merge with non stop activity of work/kids/home and the kids activities outside the home. Any priest or pope worth his sacred post, should be screaming from the rooftops of the importance of conjugal relations, not to put more pressure on parents to push out more babies, but to have time alone as parents to enjoy each other.
I do believe it is the lack of that closeness which leads many to divorce. A person can only be an automaton so long and ignore their soul to the detriment of the marriage. And so it behooves those who counsel couples to put on thinking caps and send God’s good news which is… The kids were not there before you were, and if as parents you do NOT put yourselves first in your relationship, then good luck with all the rest.
The best thing parents can do for their children is not to give the kids every little thing they desire, but to see the real love of a husband and wife for each other. To do that, you have to be mature and not into following the herd. The herd tells us that both working is the way to go. The herd tells us that helicopter parenting is a good thing, but it actually prevents your kids from growing and learning how to survive. It’s easy to see why families fall apart….you’ve men feeling neglected and women feeling so worn out from 3 jobs, 1) paying 2) home 3) kids.
Communism has, with its 400,000,00 abortions in China?
What is most telling is that the Bishops of the United States…recently met in a Hyatt Regency (no slumming it for them) in St. Louis to discuss their strategic goals for the Church. The key issues include: immigration, shell oil, and the Pope’s visit. Could you imagine that when the Supreme Court is about to make a ruling on US Marriage laws that will affect every Catholic and every Catholic Church…it’s not even mention or listed on the Bishops agenda. And to think the Pope will visit with the very man who promotes the anti-life and anti-Christian agenda. At times, I wonder why the Lord permits this, but I am reminded by St. Peter’s words: the lord is long-suffering for our salvation.
Even from a purely secular point of view, the fundamental unit of civil society is the family, the foundation of the family is marriage.
Destroy the foundation, and civil society crumbles.
How much more horrific when one realizes the sacramental nature of matrimony and its ecclesiastical significance.
Marriage isn’t natural. At all. It is a civil convention. Everything “civil” is actually a convention. Just so you know.
Actually, no. Marriage is most natural.
But I’ll put you down as one who insists that the natural foundation of society is whatever people, through convention, decide it is.
Let me know how that works out for you.
In the meantime, the natural foundation of civil society is the family, the natural foundation of the family is marriage, and it is the nature of marriage that a man and a woman come together to create, love, and nurture human beings with immortal destinies.
Two guys buggering each other will never rise to that occasion. Just so YOU know.
SMH
You are combining “natural” and “civil” like a champ. It is not natural to wear pants or drive a car. It is civil and we have to do it differently according to where we are in time and space.
Anyway, here’s some light reading for you to chew on in case you allow yourself to go past your only source…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#History_of_marriage
Yeah, whatever.
I fear that if I look up the term “fatuous assumptions” on wikipedia there will be a photo of you.
You seem to fear a lot of things without looking them up, mate.
Love will always win. You should know that.
You seem to make things up out of whole cloth.
Love will always win?
Of course it will.
But two guys buggering each other is not love. It’s sodomy.
And I ain’t your mate.
Fatuous assumptions and fanciful lies. That’s you.
Notice how you reduct a full and loving relationship to sex. You’ve done it twice already. It’s like you can’t stop thinking about gay sex yourself. That’s kind of gay actually.
And sorry for calling you mate. I meant brother. We are all brothers, remember?
It wasn’t me who put the “sex” in “homosexual”.
What’s funny is how often the LGBTSTFU mob is reduced to acting as if buggery, tribadism, and sodomy have no role in being a Proud homosexual.
I thought “gays” were proud. But criticize that of which they are proud, and they accuse you of being like them. That’s kind of neurotic actually.
And no, we are not all brothers.
So whenever you think of yourself as a heterosexual, you picture yourself doing it with a lady? That’s creepy. Glad we are not brothers then.
Juan Carlos H. wrote:
A couple of points…
While I am heterosexual, I don’t think of myself as a heterosexual because I don’t define my identity according to my sexuality. That’s your bag.
When I reflect on what the word “heterosexual” means I grasp that it refers to people sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex. It is telling indeed that you find this simple knowledge of vocabulary “creepy”.
Similarly, when I reflect on what the word “homosexual” means I grasp that it refers to people with demented sexual compulsions such that they are sexually attracted to people of the same sex, and that such attractions can only be acted upon in certain perverse ways.
In the meantime, the natural foundation of civil society is the family, the natural foundation of the family is marriage, and it is the nature of marriage that a man and a woman come together to create, love, and nurture human beings with immortal destinies.
Two guys buggering each other will never rise to that occasion. Just so YOU know.
SMH
“While I am heterosexual, I don’t think of myself as a heterosexual because I don’t define my identity according to my sexuality.”
Can’t you them fathom the possibility gay people are just the same regarding sexuality as just one of the components of their identity? It is the heterosexuals who won’t leave their sexuality alone. Seriously, the anti-gay think more of gay sex than the people actually doing it.
As for the “foundation of civil society”. We are not changing it. Heterosexual couples will continue to have traditional families. In addition to that there will be other kinds of families. It is a little bit sad to hide your fear with fantasy-based denial. But if you get close enough you’ll see there’s nothing to fear. Love is love.
Overcome your fears, go out and interact with an existing homo-parental family. Try to avoid seeing true love between parents and their children. Try to label that as “fake love” or whatever. Reality will bite you mate.
Juan Carlos H. wrote:
Two things: I made no claim regarding what people view as their identity other than to say I don’t view my sexuality as a function of mine. You’re the one making that claim, not me.
Simply not true.
Oh, and I ain’t your friggin’ mate, and you wouldn’t recognize reality if it bit you.
Normal people don’t compel “gays” to march in parades in broad daylight mostly naked and celebrating deviant sex. The LBGTSTFU mob does that all on its own.
“Gays” are obsessed with their sexuality. They base their very identity upon in.
In any event, it is hardly my fault that “gays” love their sexuality until someone like me complains that it’s perverted.
Love is love. I love my grandmother, but that love doesn’t compel me to sodomize her.
You can’t distinguish between love and deviant behavior, and that’s sick.
There you go again, making false and fatuous assumptions about my experiences. I’ve known and continue to know plenty of “gays”, some are even couples with children.
The relationships are still disordered and perverse. That some of them are nice people changes nothing.
In the meantime, the natural foundation of civil society is the family, the natural foundation of the family is marriage, and it is the nature of marriage that a man and a woman come together to create, love, and nurture human beings with immortal destinies.
Two guys buggering each other will never rise to that occasion.
Juan C, Why don’t you give it up? Nordog’s got you. You’ve resorted to name-calling, insults, and false information through personal interpretation rather than true definitions; your argument – such as it is – is specious, not to mention fatuous.
Right.
Expect neither rationality nor humility from the Alphabet Soup Pride People.
If the Church wants to defend marriage, they need to separate it from the secular world, as in treating it wholly as a sacrament, and not get involved with marriage licenses.
Marriage is a natural institution good for the society and therefore the State has a stake in it. The State has the duty to promote all valid marriages which are in conformance with the Natural Law.
*
What makes a valid marriage sacramental/Christian is the baptism of the man and woman in that marriage. If only one is baptized the marriage is [still] natural but not sacramental. For example, St. Thomas arrives in India and preaches to the Hindus. His message is received by one married couple and moved by grace, they ask for baptism. When they are received in Church, that’s when the marriage becomes sacramental imaging the union of Christ the Bridegroom and His Bride, His Body, the Church.
Some how the Catholic Church will make it through this troubling time. Have faith, the Arian heresy, where the MAJORITY of bishops in the 4th century believed Jesus wasn’t God but created, almost destroyed the Church, but we made it. This is another test, for gold is tested and purified by fire, right?
The difference between the Arian heresy and the heresy of Modernism is that Modernism is the sum of all heresies. The Mystical Body of Christ will prevail. We have that promise from Christ. However, just as Jesus cursed the fig tree (Israel) because it was not bearing fruit, he has punished the Church for the failure of its leaders. Our Lady asked that Russia be consecrated to her Immaculate Heart by the Pope of 1960. This did not happen. As a result, the Church and the world are facing the consequence for that disobedience. And when you look at history, the 1960s is exactly when we saw the decline of morals, decline in church attendance, and the complete demolition of Tradition and devotions such as the one to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. And yes, we are being tried by fire, and God will purify His elect through this trial. We need to pray for everyone, especially poor sinners who are blinded and following false leaders. Our Blessed Mother Mary asked that we pray for sinners who have no one to pray for them.
I can only imagine how Europeans Catholics felt during the Protestant Reformation. Meanwhile, the Blessed Mother was at work in Mexico converting the hearts of MILLIONS, appearing as Our Lady of Guadalupe.
What miracle must happen to convert the hearts of millions in this present age of darkness?
Fire raining down from the sky?
the 1960’s also destroyed the mass with Vatican II !
judge not, lest ye be judged
Sure. I judge homosexuals and their destruction of marriage and attacks on the Church. I’m happy to be judged on my acts in marriage and in defending the Church.
That refers to judging the state of others souls, not actions. We MUST judge actions.
Yes, do not condemn, love the sinner; however, hate the sin!
However, do we not judge a tree by its fruit! (Luke 6:43-45)
Jesus does! Be Chriist-like!
Anyhow, for instance, when an unknown young man comes calling for my daughter, o my, do I do some judging;)
Anyway, be Christ-like; love Mary as much as Jesus does!
Wow, what a thought!
Ad Jesum per Mariam!
JAMLY,
euie
This is so alarming. I’m sad and happy all at once for the Church. One, because the Church has been silent about this abomination and two, this just means the Kingdom is at hand!
No need to wonder what the outcome of the synod will be….Pope Francis has already told us.
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1502896.htm
The crazy amount of success which the enemies of Our Lord have had especially since 1968 really only makes sense in light of that vision of Pope Leo XIII.
Ok, I’m going to say something really controversial. First, let me say that I think Pope Francis is a good person, but:
I don’t think I’ve heard Pope Francis actually refer to himself as “Pope”–only as “Bishop of Rome”. He does not wear red shoes or a couple other other traditional papal garments. He does not live in the Pope’s apartment. If it is true that he, Kasper and the other progressives agreed to vote him in prior to the conclave, then his election is invalidated (and they are all excommunicated)–and that’s IF Benedict can even legally resign (a BIG if). Combine all these concerns with the continued turmoil, confusion and infighting from the Vatican and you have plenty of reasons to wonder if Francis is a valid Pope.
Every Pope since Vatican II has ceased wearing the Papal Tiara. Coincidence? I don’t think so. Other than maybe John Paul I, none have been valid Popes.
Something tells me that the pope’s choice of headgear and shoes has very little to do with his legitimacy or lack of same. Some of what I read in both your reply and Dante’s original post smacks of sedevacantism, fortunately a non-starter at this blog site. To my point: If you want to say that, for instance, JP II’s kissing the Koran in public was an asinine thing to do, or that latter-day popes have left way too many known sodomites in positions at the Vatican, or even that Pope Francis is the worst pope in living memory, you’ll not get much argument. But when the conversation switches over to la-la land theories about an empty chair at the Vatican, collective eyes begin to roll here and some head to the warehouse where they store the straighjackets.
As Johnny said, we don’t do sedevacantist promulgations here. It’s one of the comment box no-nos. First and only warning.
Don’t believe your lying’ eyes.
The downward trajectory of the Catholic Church has been especially evident since the advent of Vatican II and Pope John XXIII when Modernism was welcomed into the Church with open arms. Much of Vatican II is simply heretical according to Father Gregory Hesse, S.T.D.and Dietrich von Hildebran. But one doesn’t need a theological dissertation to see the damage it has wrought. And now with Pope Francis and his strange behavior and the Synod on the Family entertaining such ideas as approval of sodomy and same sex marriages the overall devastation in the Church has sunk to a new level. St. Michael the Archangel defend us in battle.
Could you supply a citation for what you tell us here concerning Dietrich von Hildebrand ? I’d like to read this.
n 1973, Dietrich Von Hildebrand wrote The Devastated Vineyard. He wrote
these chilling words in the Preface, “the active work of destruction [of
the holy Church] is in high gear.” While many in the Church after
Vatican II “were deceived by such slogans as ‘renewal,’ ‘aggiornamento,’
and ‘come out of the ghetto’,” Von Hildebrand was encouraged by seeing
that many who were initially deceived were returning to orthodoxy.
“Various movements have been formed which are taking the offensive
against the destruction of the holy Church and the falsification of the
Christian spirit…” But by 1973, the errors had gained much ground,
and some errors that were being disputed when he starting writing books
about them in 1969 (including the book The Trojan Horse in the City of
God) had been widely accepted as beyond dispute in 1973.
Thanks. My specific question, though, is did he say specifically that “much of Vatican II” was heretical? Critics like R.J. Divozzo (The Church and the Culture of Modernity) are careful to note that a lot of what proceeded from the vaguely worded documents of V II, especially from Gaudium et spes, was heretical in nature, but not the actual conciliar documents themselves. The problem is the (perhaps purposeful) ambiguity of the council’s documents, not anything found there per se. What you wrote puzzled me because I never found those precise words in DvH’s writings.
I do not have his precise words either. Though I think it is certainly implied by his writing. Be that as it may Vatican II was a huge win for Modernism and a devastation for the Catholic Church.
I have read about this prior to the Synod getting underway. We are living that battle. We all need to keep our armor chink free
As I understand it, Our Lady of Good Success seems questionable at best. Apparently the earliest records of it appear in the 1930’s. I appreciate what is being said, but if you’re going to take an obvious swipe at the holy father using the Mother of our Lord as your witness, you should be more careful when “quoting” her. Our Lord may not appreciate His Mother being so flippantly used for personal agendas.
There’s some obscurity over the origins and approval, but some scholars have been working to uncover the truth. The apparition certainly dates before the 1930s, but political turmoil in the region has led to the hiding of some of the original documents. I personally know of one author who took a journey to Quito for work he was doing on the apparition and eventually gained enough trust to see a hand-copied version of the ancient prophecies in a monastery library. He said that those who possessed these documents kept them hidden, because so many of the Marxist revolutionaries in that country sought to destroy anything of that nature.
Considering the applicability of these apparitions, one hopes that divine providence may bring the truth of the thing to light sooner rather than later.
Granting the benefit of the doubt about the validity of the historicity of these events, it still seems unfitting for a Catholic to use such an unreliable event to quote Our Lady when criticizing “the one who should speak” which, logically, can only be a reference to the pope. If you find it necessary to criticize the pope then that’s your perogative. Many may agree, including myself. But using highly questionable “quotations” from Our Lady to support your opinion of the pope is out of bounds, to put it charitably.
There is a long tradition of this being considered an approved apparition. The Vatican has issued no directives to the contrary. I don’t see why Catholics cannot therefore, in good conscience, treat this apparition as worthy of respect.
Using the word “tradition” is a neat trick. It makes it kinda sorta sound catholic. And if it sounds kinda sorta catholic then it must be a license from God to criticize His vicar, even using the kinda sorta church approval meme to quote the Queen of Heaven.
The burden of proof is on you to show that this long-venerated apparition of Our Lady is somehow false. And before you say something about “proving a negative,” that’s precisely what the Vatican does when it investigates these phenomena.
And it has done no such thing with Our Lady of Good Success, despite having 400 years to do so.
You should know, but perhaps you do not know, that the Church’s silence about private revelation does not, in any way whatsoever, mean approbation in any sense. I do not bear a burden of proving anything. You have taken it upon yourself to *quote the Queen of Heaven* using an unapproved, highly questionable private revelation – and you use that “quotation” to make the case that the Mother of God is publicly critical of the vicar of Christ. Burden? You have taken it upon yourself to speak for the Mother of God. Good luck with that.
Do you have something substantive with which to dispute the claims of authenticity or not? Some have taken pains to document what they have found, and nothing I’ve seen to the contrary has indicated that prior approvals, dating back to the 17th and 18th centuries, should be disbelieved.
Modern scholarship, like that being done by Desmond Birch, also points toward authenticity.
In this instance, the prophecies have the added benefit of coinciding with manifest truth. The one who should speak IS silent right now.
Yes, of course your private judgement should trump the silence of the church.
In this matter, it is evident that the one speaking should be silent.
THERE ARE APPROVALS, FROM BISHOPS, ON RECORD. WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY?
(Sometimes Caps Lock helps people read gooder.)
“There’s some obscurity over the origins and approval…”
Your words, and true words. Which is why you should proceed with much trepidation when using “quotes” of the Mother of God to denounce Christ’s vicar. Use *your own* words. Don’t drag our mother into your petty squabbles.
Apparently, even caps lock isn’t a cure for your obfuscation.
Who are you to dismiss Our Good Mother who has already suffered so greatly, rein man?
Were the Holy Father’s action/inaction not in alignment with that which was foretold there would be no denouncement. Our Lady does not waste her time in warning that all will be perfect. Our Lord Himself told us in the gospel to judge by the fruits and to judge with right judgement.
Beware of blind loyalty. For if following Pope and hierarchy were all that was necessary there would have been no need for councils against the blind leading the blind, judging by way of fruits, and to discount as anathema any who come preaching a different gospel.
Remember, friend, we are also given warning of those with itching ears who will seek out the preaching they want to hear – not the truth.
It has been approved by all the Bishops of the diocese right from the beginning and the documentation goes right back to the source in the early 17th century. In addition under JP11 there was a canonical coronation. I recommend researching it. There are very good resources available from the Apostolate of Our Lady of Good Success own website. The DVD is very good also. Our Lady herself wanted this devotion to be kept hidden until these dark days we are in now. Hope you don’t mind me responding but this devotion has helped so many. So consoling. God bless.
Thank you, Steve, for re-posting this piece. Sadly, accurate and yet I cannot help to draw hope from the words of Our Mother. Are not her warnings a reminder of her motherly care and constant presence?
It may, and will likely, be very dark in future. But in the darkness, we know God is there and His triumph will be all the greater to witness.
The Battle has long begun. Even in the years of Terror in many different countries between the two Great Wars of the World (physical wars), these prophesies has been true. All these should lead us to ever more pray for the Pope and with him the entire Church.
I look at all these prophecies as a Venn diagram: truth is where they overlap.
You have Pope Leo XIII’s vision, which some reports say happened on October 13, 1884. According to St. Malachy’s prophecy, Pope Leo XIII was “Light in the sky”. As the story goes, Satan was told he would be given his 100 years, though the question is “when would that 100 years begin?”
On October 13, 1917, there was the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima. (A light in the sky, yes?) This happened during Pope Benedict XV, who’s name in St. Malachy’s prophecy was “Religion destroyed”.
Let us assume that these two events are tied together and see if there are any correlations:
1) 1917 + 100 years = 2017
2) St. Malachy’s list ends at 112 Popes. Pope Francis is #112 on that list
3) We have experienced the third in the tetrad of blood moons that correspond precisely with Jewish holy days
4) “Catholic Prophecy” by Yves DuPont cites numerous prophecies that tell the same tale: “Civil wars rage in Western Europe. The Church is persecuted; the Pope leaves Rome and dies in exile; an anti-pope is installed in Rome; the Catholic Church is split, leaderless and completely disorganized. Communism is victorious. The Mohammedans invade Europe and commit innumerable atrocities.” I don’t think I need to cite news articles pointing to the persecution of Catholics and the “invasion by immigration” that is happening to Europe by Muslim “refugees” and the atrocities they are already committing. Is Pope Benedict the “Pope in Exile”? Is Francis the “anti-Pope installed in Rome”? Jury’s out. Socialism is on the rise, and it’s merely “Soft Communism”. And is the Church split and disorganized? Certainly feels that way, doesn’t it?
5) For you numerologists: Pope Francis was elected on March 13, 2013. Pope Leo XIII. October 13. Lots of 13’s. Supposedly, 13 is an “unlucky” number because it is “one standing before the Trinity”
6) This article, which speaks of Sister Lucia of Fatima’s letter. Lucia means “light”. Fatima was the location of the Miracle of the Sun (“Light in the sky”). Her letter spoke of the “final battle” being about the family, and here we are.
I’m not a believer in coincidence. My gut tells me the Three Days of Darkness will be upon us soon.
Then again, I may be reaching.
Regarding divorce and remarriage, and our separated brethren, I think it is profound how the Woman at Well discourse has an amazing coincidence with Separation of Christians and divorce. I invite anyone to read this short reflection, which fleshes it out:
Woman at Well: Literal Divorce and Separation of Christians
Literal Divorce can image Ecclesiological Divorce. That is, separation of spouses can image separation of Christians.
See how profound, the greater the rift in Christianity, the greater the acceptance of divorce and remarriage:
Catholicism is utterly pure. It accepts no divorce and remarriage. Marriage is indissoluble.
The Orthodox, in schism, the least form of separation, have limited acceptance of divorce and remarriage. 3 total marriages permitted.
Protestants, more gravely separated from Rome and all Apostolic Succession, generally permit divorce and remarriage any number of times.
Now, let us consider Apocalyptic Marriage, or the Churches in separation:
Originally, all Christendom was married in an Earthly sense to Peter.
Then, a great portion of Christendom divorced Peter, and took to itself four husbands, the other four Apostolic Sees.
Later, much of Christendom left all veritiable earthly husbands and took unto themselves pseudo spouses, men who are like men of God (heretical pastors), and live like men of God and act like men of God, but who formally do not have holy orders.
Yes, what you have said is true. For you have had five husbands (Five Apostolic Sees), and the man you are now with is not your husband (heretical shepherds are not true men of God formally)
Read scripture and use it as a path of life. Attend mass regularly, Go to confession. Pray for grace cause we all are needing it very badly and remember to pray the ROSARY.
I think this Chesterton quote is appropriate these days;
“Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried.”
As for the Blessed Mother’s apparitions, as Catholics, we need not believe them since they are not de fide. However, the warnings should give pause given what has gone on in the last 500 years.
That’s a great blog article, Steve.
“Our Lady has already crushed its head” is what I am focusing on in the article. I have no doubt that what Sr.Lucia is stating what Our Mother told her and I am certain that Our Mother has crushed Satan.
However, Satan will hurl every single threat, blandishment, empty promise, empty enticement, every attempt at duress, to try to make each and every single one of us lose faith.
Satan will attempt to turn reality on it’s head. This will test us. It will test us like never before.
We will undergo disorientation, confusion.
West will appear as East, North will appear as South. The very reality we face will try to bore in to the very core of our souls, friends.
Remember Satan is stronger than any single individual. On our own we cannot counter his power.
But if we invoke the real Power, the Power that is God on high and Our Blessed Mother, then the battle is a foregone conclusion. Satan cannot withstand that Power.
Our Lady is ever faithful. She was the only one who stayed with Her Son throughout His Passion. Not for one second did she flinch or doubt, even in the midst of His insufferable agony, She remained there throughout. Steadfast and Faithful.
What a wonderful advocate to have for each and every one of us!
Jesus Christ demands a choice, a decision. He either He is the I Am or He isn’t. One cannot be on the fence about Him and if we are a going to follow Him, we need to follow all the way and not ignore what He Himself refers to as “hard sayings.” Have our church leaders forgotten Jesus’ own admonitions when it came to discipleship. He tells us to that if anyone should come to him without hating mothers and fathers..even one’s own life, that person cannot be His disciple; to cut off our arms if they cause us to sin; it is better for a person to tie a millstone around his neck and cast himself into the sea than to lead one of of His little ones astray; to take up our cross and follow Him; to die to self; that the way of salvation is narrow, but the way to destruction is wide; those with ears ought to hear; to go and sin no more. I wonder if Pope Francis has taken to the same practice as Thomas Jefferson: cutting out the parts of Scripture that he finds objectionable to the way he sees Christianity.
Our Lady of Good Success, pray for us.
Another aspect of this War: Taking out Republics [and telegraphing that the next target is The Republic (US)] with Christians in them. Islam their Tool
(More exposure on this conspiracy too monstrous to conceive)
@skojec (Thank you for all you are doing) has shared and we are grateful for this aspect of the last stages of the War that broke out in heaven in Our Time, the title of my blog. Please allow me to share other aspects. First, note this:
1) Next look at the picture below.
2) If you haven’t watched Star Wars: The Force Awakens, stop now, go watch [It is now available in blu ray/dvd], then come and complete reading this comment. Then watch again.
3) Look on the box cover and try to see any freemason/occult imagery. I am NOT recommending searching and visiting websites and I will tell you later why. You should be able to see the Masonic Square and Compass and “G”.
4) For those who have watched, recall Han Solo’s conversation with his son before his son Kylo Ren kills him. Remember, ‘Snoke is just using you.’
5) Look at Snoke and what ancient gods is he similar to? I hope one of them you got was Zeus.
6) Research George Lucas and you will hear him say he is telling old mythology in an new way. Then recall St. Peter and ‘cleverly invented myths’
7) Recall the mind reading/telepathy and mind control by Kylo Ren and Rey. It is true. Bl. Emmerich speaks of it. She says it was one of the preternatural gifts that never went away but they have rediscovered how to use it [perhaps taught]. I can confirm from personal experience [more on that later].
8) Recall the conversation between Snoke and Kylo Ren that before they can finish off the Jedi (Christians), they need to eliminate the Republics [the very same they created – ‘Order Out of Chaos’] with the Christians in them and that they will never destroy the Jedi completely [not one can remain alive because if the do, Christianity will be reconstituted] unless the get rid off secular governments that provide them haven. An Iraqi bishop had predicted that Christians would suffer persecution and their numbers greatly reduced if Saddam was overthrown.
9) In 2007 shocked Gen Wesley Clark repeated what he had learned ‘We’re going to take out seven countries in 5 years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.’
10) About me, was made very sleepy by some sites when researching Illuminati. It seems they can effect control via computer [and SmartTV?]
11) Confused when the Anti-Christ comes [from Catholic Prophecy and 2 battles of the end in Rev.] 1st battle or 2nd? I believe we are in the time period of the 1st.
12) Rewatching Star Wars and wondering about the weapon that can destroy planets.
*
Some goals of the Illuminati: 1. Abolition of ALL ordered national governments. 2. Abolition of inheritance. 3. Abolition of private property. 4. Abolition of patriotism. 5. Abolition of the individual home and family life as the cell from which all civilizations have stemmed. 6. Abolition of ALL religions [most feared is Catholicism and it apears the last to “fall”. They have seized the papacy. They control Islam. Churches for Israel working for them] established and existing so that the Luciferian ideology of totalitarianism may be imposed on mankind.
Why did I focus on Illuminati? Our Lady mentioned the relentless assault on and the undermining of the Church by secret societies. Bl. Emmerich mentions the Illuminati by name, so I went from there.
*
PS Characteristic of them to telegraph things in advance. More on that later.
PPS I do believe Pope Francis is the False Prophet.
PPPS I underatnd that The Golden Dawn is Rothschilds’ private coven. Apparentlly there is a table with 13 chairs, one reserved for Lucifer/Satan who appears. Recall how Snoke appears to give instruction and to receive update. But they are all doomed and they know it [cf. Han Solo/Kylo Ren conversation].
PPPPS Whenever the audio I listened to was made, at that time a defector indicated that the US Senate is 100% Illuminati and the House 98%. I will let you infer the rituals and sacrifices the politicians [+ Entertainment Industry, etc.] engage in. Shaq has proudly displayed his masonic ring on TV.
PPPPPS Han Solo/Indiana Jones [there is a story there too]/Harrison Ford, you were my hero ?!
*
Questions to ponder: Why a lady hero from a wasteland/desert place Jakku [those never coming back?] helped by a trooper from the inside?
By the way…the SSPX regularization is imminent.
It will be very, very soon.
I am in two minds regarding it. PF may have a plot … but the LORD traps the wicked in the work of their own hands.
*
Update thinking:
After regularization/normalization
1) How were the concerns of SSPX resolved?
2) What clarity is there for faithful regarding VII and its aftermath?
Perhaps PF thinks the more confusion the better but perhaps God will then provide the refuge and nourishment for his persecuted Church.
*
We will just have to wait and see.
No surprises here. The Catholic Church has been a co-conspirator with the devil on family and sexual issues for decades. Proof needed? For years almost everyone who sought a marriage annulment received one. Now, Pope Francis has made it even easier and free. And to make matter even worse ‘Amoris Laetitia’ will effectively eliminate the sinfulness of sexual sins by allowing those who commit them to receive Communion without repentance. We now have reached a new bottom. Let us each day pray for Pope Francis and ask Our Lady and St Michael to intervene.
Sounds very familiar of what I was trying to propagate in this forum in these past days.
The promise of “a time of peace for the world” and the “conversion of Russia to the Catholic Faith” have not manifested since Russia has not been Consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary by the pope and all the Catholic bishops of our planet, on the same day within the same hour.
Yes. John Paul II has consecrated the world, so have other popes before him. He even attempted the Russia consecration, but was thwarted by those around him. He tried twice in fact. There has never been a Consecration accomplish with the pope in union with all the Catholic bishops of our planet.
Why has every pope choose “The Lady of Fatima”, by name when they have personally consecrated their papacy? They could choose any title that we bestow on Mary. However, each one since John the 23rd have choosen “Our Lady of Fatima!” They know something that we do not, the full text of the Third Message/secret/warning of Fatima contained in Sister Lucia handwritten note that contained the “words of Mary.” That was to be made public in 1960 as requested by Heaven. This was in advance of what Vatican II has now done to us: causes confusion and discord within the Church, families, and the world, unlike ever seen in prior history. We still await the full discloser of the Third Message of Fatima!
Anyhow, anyone, with any common sense, can see that the Consecration has not been fulfilled as prescribed by Heaven just by the absence of the fulfillment of the promise of Mary (stated above) given to Lucia, Jacinta, and Fransesco at Fatima. This request comes from Mary to the children, but this request is Authored by the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity! We see wars, abortion, and the desecration of family, etc; millions and millions of people have been continuously killed since 1917. There has never been a period of peace in our world, especially since 1917. Battle and wars rage, unborn children are slaughtered, and evil has been proffered as good, in many aspects of our society.
Heavenly Father, we pray for the Triumph of The Immaculate Heart of Mary throughout the world, in our hearts and in our homes, and in our Catholic Churches, especially in the hearts of our Catholic ministers: priest, bishops, deacons, and other religious.
O St. Joseph, Terror of demons, please petition Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ to hasten the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary by the pope and all the Catholic bishops on Earth! Give them the needed Graces to accomplish Your Will!
O Sts. Jacinta & Francesco, help in this necessity!
O St. Michael, the Archangel, defends us in this battle!
O St. Pio, I send to you my Guardian Angel for assistance in this matter!
O Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of Thy faithful and enkindle in us The Fire of Thy Love!
Ad Jesum per Mariam!
JAMLY,
euie
Sr. Lucia’s statement certainly doesn’t come as a surprise, just a confirmation that marriage is indeed the ‘final battle.’ One of her comments, however, is a tad puzzling for me: “however, Our Lady has already crushed it’s head.” You would think that we would already be seeing evidence of this but??? Maybe it’s like the fallout after an earthquake, with the ‘aftershocks’ being as devastating as the actual earthquake.
Just a guess–God exists beyond time because he exists beyond space (or the universe). He is the alpha (beginning) and the omega (the end), “As it was in the BEGINNING, is NOW, and EVER SHALL BE.” In other words, from the viewpoint of heaven, which is not part of the physical universe but beyond it, history is happening all at once. Mary will crush, is crushing, and has crushed the head of the serpent.
“In this supreme moment of need for the Church, the one who should speak will fall silent.”
Such prophetic words considering the mish mash produced from The Synod on the Family. Not only is Francis silent, he is enabling this fall from Grace.
Thank you for re-posting this.
Can we not see that not only are there cardinals opposing cardinals and bishops opposing bishops but an entirely new sect operating within the very heart of the Church?
There is the old Catholic Church and the new Anglican/Protestant/Catholic/Pantheistic church (APCP). Or, the Ecumenical church where all religions are paths to salvation.
The APCP church is a church of “mercy” and fluid, or ever-changing doctrines and practices, according to the latest scientific research and “modern” interpretations of Scripture.
Although certain Catholic doctrines are officially declared necessary for entrance into the APCP church, in practice, they are rarely taught, making them simply a part of the ” all religions are acceptable” reality of the church.
The APCP church is a democratic church. The pope and the bishops have equal authority and power so that as the political, social, and moral attitudes of the people within different cultures and countries change, they can continuously adopt new interpretations of Scripture and new practices to adapt it to the current attitudes of the people.
The cardinals and bishops of the Catholic Church are at odds with those of the APCP church.
(Cardinals opposing cardinals, and bishops opposing bishops.)
The APCP church is not a church of condemnation or rebuke. It is a church of universal salvation. No one is excluded from Heaven. God is a cosmic God, approving of all beliefs. All religions are acceptable to God, who is not judgmental.
The APCP church is not a church of rigidity. A combination of religious beliefs within the liturgy of the diverse cultures is perfectly acceptable. The president-presider of the liturgy is free to introduce into the liturgy any novelty he chooses while he has an extensive list of options at his disposal within the official liturgical texts. Although some standards are required, they are merely suggestions.
This splitting up of the institutional Church into another sect, adopting another man-invented religion is, in my opinion, the path necessary for the coming reign of Antichrist. How else could he reign if the only bulwark against him, the true Catholic Church, stood fast and in fidelity to Jesus Christ?
And the men of Galilee continue to look at the sky…
Fatima was about Russia – it’s the great mystery of Fatima that Russia was so singled out. Now we see a pro-family Putin against an aggressive secular West…”The surprising rise of Christianity in Russia. Watch for the forces against Russia and there you will see the forces of Satan. and the how the final battle unfolds. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/mysticpost/2016/04/19/more-on-the-surprising-rise-of-christianity-in-russia/
May God continue to empower his children to do greater works
Is that the same John Paul II who covered up all those child raping priests? Marcial Maciel rings a bell? No? Are you even reading past what you are fed by the Catholic media? Do you even care about evidence beyond hallucinating nuns?
One last question: Is homosexuality only OK when a priest does it with a kid?
Stop trolling. No Catholic who loves God and honors His teachings makes excuses for sexual abuse. None. Get off your high horse.
Steve, I know that’s the way things should be. You also shouldn’t eat shrimp.
It just strikes me as ironic you are citing a Pope who turned a blind eye on child abuse for this. My horse is much lower than yours, mate.
Man, the shrimp canard never gets old. It’s like you don’t even know how to use Google. Here, I’ll give you a completely non-religious source:
https://www.quora.com/Why-can-Christians-eat-pork-shellfish-Muslims-eat-shellfish-but-Jews-cannot
“It just strikes me as ironic you are citing a Pope who turned a blind eye on child abuse for this.”
This article isn’t about JPII, whom I have my problems with, Maciel and other personnel decisions among them. It’s about Sister Lucia, and her apparitions from the Blessed Mother.
My horse is much lower than yours, mate.
Is that why I saw you riding in on it from a mile away? How’s the air up there?
Your arguments to impose your beliefs on other people’s lives are supposedly based on the creator of it all without a shred of scientific evidence. The horse can’t get higher than that.
By the way, good to know it is safe for you to eat shrimp by focusing on the convenient interpretation of another part of the same book. It is as though it’s full of contradictions. Here, another link mate: http://bibviz.com/
I haven’t sought to impose my beliefs on you, though I do believe that any government bereft of any moral regulation is going to lead to problems for its people.
I do now, and have always believed, in conversion by means of education. I’m not a Muslim. There is no hidden sword.
The claim that faith should be empirical in nature is absurd. Of course it isn’t. And modern science (much of which is really scientism) is as dogmatic, doctrinal, and unempirical as any religious faith. There are things taken as givens for which we simply have no explanations, from the origin of the matter in the “Big Bang” to Stephen Hawking’s recent reversal on singularities.
There is a great deal about the universe that is mysterious or unknown. And for people to dismiss anything they can’t have a sensate experience of or re-create in a lab experiment is dull as dirt. Anyone who has ever fallen in love knows that it’s more than an equation. The metaphyiscal realm and the physical one are not at cross purposes.
But this article, and the majority of the content of this website, is not aimed at convincing those who, like you, not only don’t believe, but are anti-theistic. It’s about dealing with our own internal issues as a Church, and rebuilding the culture and traditions of Christendom that gave you your cozy first-world, Western Civ life.
For the life of me I don’t understand why atheists spend so much time hating a God they don’t believe in.
Thank you for your thoughtful answer.
We went a little bit astray though. When I say you are trying to impose your beliefs I mean making others do what you believe they should even if they don’t share your faith. Even if that makes them profoundly unhappy. Because a book says it so. Or a nun prophet. Or anything that can give you the confidence into taking action against the harmless nature of human beings you are afraid of and are too scared to understand. It is still love and love comes from God. Doesn’t it?
Why would you imply I hate your God goes beyond me. Maybe you like feeling persecuted?
How am I making others do what I believe? Do I have some power of compulsion I’m not aware of?
I’m not implying you hate my God. I’m stating it, flat out. You came into the comment box on a Catholic website — not just any Catholic website, but a pretty staunch one — and picked a fight by going after supposed biblical inconsistencies and the failure of a pope to deal appropriately with sexual abuse from his clergy.
You’re not a Muslim, or you’d be lording their nonsense over us.
You’re not a Buddhist, or you wouldn’t bother.
You’re not a Protestant, or you’d never be going after the Bible.
Your pattern of attack bears the signature of the crusading atheist. You’re not Dawkins-level (he’s just a flat out troll), but you’re a competent amateur. Between the lines of your comments is the clearly implicit assertion that all of us would be a lot better off without our craven obeisance to that imaginary man in the sky.
I learned my faith 24 years ago debating with atheists like you on local BBSes in my hometown, before the Internet was even available. I’ve been doing it ever since. You guys are nothing if not predictable.
Sorry for coming here then to an open place on the web?
Steve, I didn’t look this site up. It just appeared on my Facebook from a friend who is using this for the shock factor to scare people and prevent legislation to approve gay marriage. I am not gay but I am sympathetic to people. In general, you see?
So this line of thinking does lead to real to imposition. Why is that religious people think they have any kind of right to dictate how other people should behave beyond their own group? If you are like the Julius guy up there, then you might think: “we are saving them”. If that’s the case, it is selfish and arrogant at best.
As for hating your God, come on. You are telling me what I feel? That’s also pretty arrogant as well as nonsensical. It is the fan club, Steve. I’m sure you’ve heard that before.
I have absolutely no problem with your God or religion as long as its area of influence does not apply to people who does not want it.
As for the crusading Atheist. Nope. Just a humanist. Trying to help balance this nonsense for anyone to read.
There are lots of open places on the web that I disagree with. Guess what I don’t do? Go there and start picking fights with them. Maybe I value my time more than you do.
Everyone — everyone — thinks they have the right to dictate how others should behave beyond their own group. You, in fact, think that you have the right to dictate that others should not dictate. Your campaign of tolerance of other views stops at the door of views that have an impetus to persuade and convince. You think that the imposition of a union that is not now nor will ever be marriage — that erodes the very foundations of civilization as we know it for the past few thousand years — is no imposition at all. That somehow redefining an institution that has meaning and status and serves as a civic good does not damage the meaning and status of the institution for all those who currently belong to it.
I have other things to do today. I’m not going to go around and around with you. Every argument of yours I demolish will be replaced by a new one. You’re not here to talk. You’re here to be morally superior and smug.
And for the record, humanism isn’t a religion. You may worship yourself, but not only are you the crappiest god in the history of religion (no powers or anything) but that still makes you an anti-theist. Unless you believe in God and reject him, you are also an atheist. Your dissimulation isn’t fooling anyone.
Who said Humanism is a religion? Humanists think they are God themselves? People must worship something?
You are demolishing arguments you create. That’s easy. Please go do your things then.
Sorry to cut in Steve, but Juan Carlos, don’t persist in a fight you cannot win. These are not simply our beliefs but the beliefs; there are no others. Outside of true Catholicism everything else is pure fairy tales spun by the devil himself (mark my words). Bishop Fulton Sheen once replied to a person who said to him “I don’t believe in Hell” with “you will when you get there!” Juan Carlos, you still have time, but not a lot. Make sure you tell all your friends.
Let me just ignore that for a second Julius. But thanks for trying.