Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

Freemasonry & The Catholic Church: A Brief Introduction

Freemasons, Francmaçons, Libremuoratori, Freimauren, were the names given throughout Europe to the builders of the great medieval cathedrals. They belonged to Catholic guilds and were bound by strict adherence to the tenets of the Catholic faith and morality. As they traveled from country to country with different languages and customs, they developed their own set of signs, symbols and gestures as means of mutual recognition. These builders were known as “operative” masons.

Beginning in 16th and 17th century England, having lost the true Catholic Faith, free-thinkers, agnostics, alchemists, “antiquarians” (those interested in pre-Christian religions), spiritualists, and Rosicrucians (a fellowship dedicated to restoring the earthly paradise through scientific advancement and occult knowledge) emerged and began openly forming cenacle, salons, clubs and secret societies to further their aims. In 1717 many came together to form a unified “Grand Lodge” to build not cathedrals to the glory of God, but a temple dedicated to the glorification and  perfection of man. Under the guise of rebuilding Solomon’s Temple, a  symbol of human wisdom, these “Free builders” or “speculative” masons adopted the rituals and signs of the earlier Cathedral builders to secretly set about building a new world order, or Novus Ordo Saeculorum. This new order, according to its adepts would be based on human rights, liberty, equality, fraternity and the universal brotherhood of man.

Supposedly free from the arbitrary dictates of “altar and throne,” Masonic lodges spread across continental Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries fomenting political unrest and social upheavals. The vast majority of revolutionary thinkers of the period, including Rousseau and Voltaire, were inducted Freemasons.

The lure of the lodges was that in a highly structured class system also religiously divided, they accepted men of all ranks, stations and faiths without distinction into a fraternal bond of philanthropy. Masonry presented itself as “a beautiful system of morality, veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols.” The “Craft” was there to “make good men better” regardless of their religious or political affiliations.

Beneath the high-sounding rhetoric, smoldered a deep hatred of the Roman Catholic Church and its teaching authority on faith and morals. The words with which Voltaire signed many of his letters come to mind, “Écrasez l’infame (Crush the loathsome thing) — referring to the Catholic Church.

The Permanent Instruction of Alta Vendita  (a Masonic document discovered in the mid-19th century and verified by Pope Pius IX)  concurs:

Our ultimate end is that of Voltaire and of the French Revolution – the final destruction of Catholicism, and even of the Christian idea. The work which we have undertaken is not the work of a day, nor of a month, nor of a year. It may last many years, a century perhaps…Crush the enemy whoever he may be; crush the powerful by means of lies and calumny…If a prelate comes to Rome from the provinces to exercise some public function, learn immediately his character, his antecedents, above all, his defects. If he is already a declared enemy…envelop him in all the snares you can lay under his feet; create for him one of those reputations which will frighten little children and old women…paint him cruel and sanguinary: recount regarding him some trait of cruelty which can easily be engraved in the minds of the people.

For its part, the Catholic Church has prohibited Catholics from membership in Masonic organizations and other secret societies, starting in 1738. Since then, at least eleven popes have made pronouncements about the incompatibility of Catholic doctrines and Freemasonry and from 1738 until 1983, any Catholic who publicly associated with, or publicly supported, Masonic organizations was censured with an automatic  excommunication Latae sententiae (the act in itself being sufficient cause without need of further judgment or ecclesiastical pronouncement).

The clearest of these condemnations is that of Pope Leo XIII’s Humanum Genus, published in 1884:

The race of man, after its miserable fall from God, the Creator and the Giver of heavenly gifts, “through the envy of the devil,” separated into two diverse and opposite parts, of which the one steadfastly contends for truth and virtue, the other of those things which are contrary to virtue and to truth. The one is the kingdom of God on earth, namely, the true Church of Jesus Christ; and those who desire from their heart to be united with it, so as to gain salvation, must of necessity serve God and His only-begotten Son with their whole mind and with an entire will. The other is the kingdom of Satan, in whose possession and control are all whosoever follow the fatal example of their leader and of our first parents, those who refuse to obey the divine and eternal law, and who have many aims of their own in contempt of God, and many aims also against God….. At every period of time each has been in conflict with the other, with a variety and multiplicity of weapons and of warfare, although not always with equal ardor and assault. At this period, however, the partisans of evil seems to be combining together, and to be struggling with united vehemence, led on or assisted by that strongly organized and widespread association called the Freemasons.

What makes this declaration so important is that it clearly points out the origin of what would coalesce into Freemasonry. The modern “Craft” did not appear out of thin air just prior to the French Revolution, but is simply a manifestation of the  age old battle begun in Eden. Humanity is divided between those who serve God and those who serve Satan.

The enmity of these two camps will continue until the end of time.  There can be no truce nor melding of Good and Evil as proposed by the Freemason Albert Pike in his authoritative Morals and Dogma of Freemasonry in chapter XXII “Sublime Prince of the Royal Secret”: 

The primary tradition of the single revelation has been preserved under the name of the “Kabalah” [sic] …. of that Equilibrium between Good and Evil, and Light and Darkness in the world which assures us that all is the work of the Infinite Wisdom  and Infinite Love. (Emphasis added)

Pope Leo’s encyclical also makes it clear that the true end of Freemasonry is not the apotheosis [divinization] of man, as generally  believed, even by the vast majority of Masons and modernist circles within the Church,* but the apotheosis of Satan. This will be achieved, according to Pike, in the Kabbalistic doctrine of apokatastasis, or a harmonious rapprochement of all that exists, good and evil, male and female (androgyny), Christ and Satan, all encompassed and melded together under the guise of a universal infinite love.

This is the “occult doctrine” promoted through the ages by the followers of Satan going back to the Garden, as newly propounded  by Helena P. Blavatsky  – The Secret Doctrine (Pasadena, California: Theosophical University Press, 1963), Volume I, page 414.  Volume II, pages 234, 235, 243, 245.

Once the key to Genesis is in our hands, it is the scientific and symbolic Kabbala which unveils the secret. The Great Serpent of the Garden of Eden and the “Lord God” are identical…. When the Church, therefore, curses Satan, it curses the cosmic reflection of God…. For it is he who was the “Harbinger of Light,” bright radiant Lucifer, who opened the eyes of the automaton [Adam] created by Jehovah, as alleged; and he who was the first to whisper, “In the day ye eat thereof, ye shall be as Elohim, knowing good and evil” — can only be regarded in the light of a Saviour. An “adversary” to Jehovah… he still remains in Esoteric Truth the ever loving “Messenger”… who conferred on us spiritual instead of physical immortality…. Satan, or Lucifer, represents the active… “Centrifugal Energy of the Universe” in a cosmic sense…. Fitly is he… and his adherents… consigned to the “sea of fire,” because it is the Sun… the fount of life in our system, where they are purified… and churned up to re-arrange them for another life; that Sun which, as the origin of the active principle of our Earth, is at once the Home and the Source of the Mundane Satan….

(Blavatsky was initiated into the Grand Orient Adoptive Rites of Memphis and Miriam with the highest rank of Crowned Princess 12, on November 24, 1877)

This is also the occult doctrine proposed by Valentin Tomberg in his Meditations on the Tarot, eulogized by Hans Urs von Balthasar in his glowing afterward (English edition) and unfortunately adopted by many in the Church today.

The battle rages on. As HH Pope Paul VI warned in his 15 November 1972  General Audience, “Evil is not a deficiency, but a highly efficient spiritual being both perverted and perverting, It is a terrible reality that is mysterious and frightening. ‘We know,’ writes St. John the Evangelist, ‘that we are of God, and the whole world is in the power of the Evil One.'” The Evil One knows he has been defeated, but in his pride he refuses to accept the fact. If he can but once again be accepted by humanity as God’s equal, he believes, the Almighty must accept him, as well.

Éliphas Levi, “As above, so below, as below, so above” the Masonic “Complete God”

This is the “occult” doctrine of all ages known to initiates as the “Emerald Tablet of Hermes Trismegistus,” a mythical Egyptian contemporary of Moses. It is the Kabbalistic doctrine of harmony arising from the fusion of opposites or “coincidetia opositorum,” a “God” beyond true and false, right and wrong, good and evil. This doctrine, unfortunately has been surreptitiously penetrating our Holy Faith since (as von Balthasar points out in his afterward to Meditations on the Tarot) the Renaissance, and in the Modernist movement, which was categorically denounced by St. Pius X in 1907.

We know from the Book of Genesis that Our Lady is called to crush the Serpent’s head “…And I will establish a feud between thee and the woman, between thy offspring and hers; she is to crush thy head, while thou dost lie in ambush at her heels.”   Genesis 3: 7

Our Lady of Guadalupe (Coatlaxopeuh “Quatlasupe” in the Aztec Nahuatl language meaning “she who crushes the serpent”)

May this prophesy be fulfilled soon!

Pray the Rosary
*Vatican II, Gaudium et Spes, no. 12. “Believers and unbelievers agree almost unanimously that all things on earth should be ordained to humanity as to their center and summit.”

207 thoughts on “Freemasonry & The Catholic Church: A Brief Introduction”

  1. Thank you for this article.

    I believe that the Popes have formally condemned Freemasonry on no less than twenty-three occasions.

    John Salsa has done hiss best work I think in describing (as a former Mason himself) the nature of the Craft and why Masonry is totally incompatible with – indeed, it is antithetical to – Catholicism. He also usefully describes the methodology for leaving Masonry, as every Catholic member must. It is still a mortal sin for a baptised Catholic to join that organisation (not that this fact stops at least some, perhaps many, Bishops and Cardinals …).

  2. What I’d love to see is a post or perhaps a series of posts on history that give a comprehensive list of books that homeschoolers (and others with an interest) can use for upper high school. Now there are lots of book lists that cover early history well enough. What I’m looking for is a list of books that will help to do an in depth study, though not an academic one, particularly starting from the Renaissance so that they will be able to understand things like Freemasonry, modernism etc.

    I think I might have found a good spine text, ‘The History of the Catholic Church’ by Mourret-Thompson, though we have just started reading it so I will have to see how it goes. But it would be good to read other books to fit in with it as we go along.

    It would also be good to have a list of good literature to read too. I’d like to know which are the must reads and which to avoid. I just don’t have the time to preview them myself.

    Perhaps this is something that I’m just going to have to muddle through and find for myself, and perhaps share later on, but I’d love any suggestions.

    • You might read The Plot against the Church by Maurice Pinay, a collective name for those church historians and theologians who traced the history of attempts (and successes) at infiltrating the Catholic Church from very early in the Church. The book was written just prior to Vatican 2 as, I think, a warning.

      The book is lengthy and a translation from French so a bit awkward. I read it a couple of years ago and I’m still reeling from the info. It is available as a pdf, free of charge.

    • Sharyn, I used to own the eight volumn set of “The History of the Catholic Church” by Mourret-Thompson, when I was teaching classical education to little groups of Catholic high schoolers. Even though I had to disect it on my own and then form it into a curricula along with print outs, quizzes, tests and exams, I loved every minute of it and hopefully passed on this rich history to my students. I wish I had all those many papers but like many things in life they were discarded to make way for old age and my eventual demise. Maybe I was able to plant a seed or two by the Grace of God.

      • Thanks Jas, really pleased to read your comment!

        ‘ I loved every minute of it’

        History is one of my favourite subjects too 🙂 We can take an awfully long time to get through books we are reading sometimes because we sit round discussing it at length. But please God I am planting seeds too!

        Please say a prayer for me to teach my children well! God bless!

    • You might want to try contacting Michael Matt of the Remnant. He is a very good traditional catholic and advocate for homeschooling. I heard he may be doing some pieces on homeschooling for his publication so he’s probably in the right mindset.

  3. The quotation from Genesis is incorrect. That’s Genesis 3: 15:

    [15] I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

    [15] “She shall crush”: Ipsa, the woman; so divers of the fathers read this place, conformably to the Latin: others read it ipsum, viz., the seed. The sense is the same: for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent’s head.

    *This* is Genesis 3: 7:

    [7] And the eyes of them both were opened: and when they perceived themselves to be naked, they sewed together fig leaves, and made themselves aprons.


  4. The quotation from Scripture is incorrect. That’s Genesis 3: 15, NOT Genesis 3:7.

    THIS is Genesis 3: 7:

    [7] And the eyes of them both were opened: and when they perceived themselves to be naked, they sewed together fig leaves, and made themselves aprons.

    This is Genesis 3: 15 (with footnote):

    [15] I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

    [15] “She shall crush”: Ipsa, the woman; so divers of the fathers read this place, conformably to the Latin: others read it ipsum, viz., the seed. The sense is the same: for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent’s head.

    Source: Douay-Rheims Bible Online

    • If you were looking for a way to earn some extra income every week… Look no more!!!! Here is a great opportunity for everyone to make $95/per hour by working in your free time on your computer from home… I’ve been doing this for 6 months now and last month i’ve earned my first five-figure paycheck ever!!!! Learn more about it on following link

          • THANK YOU for blocking that person. Sending you a hug.

            Btw, was the Scripture quotation fixed? C.f. my post above deleted comment.

          • Looks like it hasn’t. And unfortunately in this case, I don’t have any control over editorial concerns. Steve has first and final say there. He tries not to work Sundays, I know, and has been very busy, but he’ll change it as soon as he gets the chance I’m sure.

  5. Never forget that the devil can only imitate God. That “reflection” is a parody of the awesome authority given to Peter “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Matthew 16:19 I have had the displeasure of being the target of masonic ‘preaching’ which I would place even below of the Jehovah’s Witnesses gibberish theology.
    On a side note Coatlaxopeuh is “the one who crushes the serpent” in the Nahuatl language but with all due respect please be aware that Our Lady presented herself as Our Lady of Guadalupe that is the same that appeared to Gil Cordero in Extremadura many centuries before. The similarities between the experiences of Gil Cordero and St Juan Diego Cuauhtlatoatzin are many. Our Lady used the name Guadalupe both with Juan Diego and with Juan Bernardino. Two witnesses suffice. These days many are saying that the Spaniards heard “Guadalupe” when Juan Diego said Coatlaxopeuh. That is pure speculation. If that was true the participants in the miraculous apparition of Our Lady had plenty of time to correct the mistake but they did not. That is because Our Lady wanted to give Native Mexicans the same dignity of the Spaniards — who in spite of their many defects were Christian knights, caballeros cristianos encomendados a María. The Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico is the same that appeared in Extremadura. She is the one that was present when the Roman Empire, the Muslim Andalus, and the Aztec Empire fell. She is the slayer of the pagan gods, the crusher of demons. There is no such thing as Our Lady of Tepeyac. Mary of Nazareth never instructed to call us that way. Coatlaxopeuh is an attribute of our Lady when translated to our language and Christian imagery but Coatlaxopeuh was first and attribute of both Coatlique Toniatzin, the Mother Earth of the Aztecs, and also of the demon Huitzilopochtli the sworn enemy of Quetzalcoatl the feathered serpent.

    • Thank you very much for the explanation of Guadalupe. I heard something similar but your explanation is much clearer.

    • The origin of the name Guadalupe has always been a matter of controversy. It is nevertheless believed that the name came about because of the translation from Nahuatl to Spanish of the words used by the Virgin during the apparition to Juan Bernardino, the ailing uncle of Juan Diego.

      Some believe that Our Lady used the Aztec Nahuatl word of coatlaxopeuh which is pronounced “quatlasupe” and sounds remarkably like the Spanish word Guadalupe. Coa meaning serpent, tla being the noun ending which can be interpreted as “the”, while xopeuh means to crush or stamp out. So Our Lady must have called herself the one “who crushes the serpent. – Source: “Why the name “of Guadalupe”?

      • Thank you, friend. I have been researching the subject since 2006. The Nauhatl theory is very weak. The Nican Mopohua states very clearly that Our Blessed Mother introduced herself as “Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe” to Juan Diego and to his uncle Juan Bernardino. Since the Nican Mopohua is written in Nahuatl with Roman characters by a man who could write also Spanish and Latin (the Aztec born convert Valeriano) whocould have easily corrected the “error” or “misinterpretation” — since he had the authority and the freedom to do so — it is hard to believe that Valeriano would perpetuate a mistake. You will have to buy the book in a few months. There are abundant reasons to believe that Our Blessed Mother wanted to be known as Our Lady of Guadalupe. The connections both theological, historical, and merely logical between the Mexican Guadalupe and the Spanish Guadalupe are overwhelming. You will have to read the book. It will be published before the end of June in English and a Spanish and Portuguese translations will follow soon after.

          • Of course I am not establishing doctrine on this. Those are only my humble opinions based on the facts at hand, the Nican Mopohua mostly and then a number of other details that emerge from the details we have received. That is why I said the case for Coatlaxopeuh is weak — not impossible but weak — It would be like taking the name of Venus and attaching it to Mary Star of the Sea. The Nahuatl speakers would have never given up the name to follow a Spanish misinterpretation… in my opinion. God allowing, one day we will meet those blessed souls and we will learn exactly what happened. :o)

  6. The Masonic belief in the error of Deism (a fanciful and ethereal god, having created the universe, now leaves it to run itself) will prove to be their ultimate undoing – they have cut themselves off from the vine. The Church teaches, by contrast to their nonsense; The Preservation of the World: “God keeps all created things in existence”. De Fide.

  7. Is not the following a heretical statement?

    Vatican II, Gaudium et Spes, no. 12. “Believers and unbelievers agree almost unanimously that all things on earth should be ordained to humanity as to their center and summit.”

    Seems that way to me. Shouldn’t all things be directed to God as their center and summit? No wonder the Catholic Church is in such trouble. Our Lady of Fatima pray for us.

    • Only if it is interpreted as the enemy [who works in and through masonry] would want us to interpret i.e. man is god with no God above him. The statement is in line with Scripture:

      Psalm 8:5-7 (RSVCE) –

      5 Yet thou hast made him little less than God,
      and dost crown him with glory and honor.
      6 Thou hast given him dominion over the works of thy hands;
      thou hast put all things under his feet
      7 all sheep and oxen,
      and also the beasts of the field,

      It is impossible for an Ecumenical Council to contain and/or to teach an error in faith or morals.

      • Your interpretation of Psalm 8 is erroneous. It says God has placed all creation under man’s control, which does not say what you think it says.

        In the hierarchy of creation, man is superior to all else. which is the way it should be. He is not superior to his Creator, which is clear in the words of the Psalm.

        “Thou hast given him dominion over the works of thy hands” does not say ‘dominion over You.’ It says ‘ over Your creation.’

      • “It is impossible for an Ecumenical Council to contain and/or to teach an error in faith or morals.”

        Not so sure about this in the case of Vatican II which was a pastoral council, not doctrinal.

        Christ said by their fruits you shall know them. The devastation of the vineyard has been the fruit of Vatican. The ambiguity of the statement I quoted above is such an example. The Psalm 8: 5-7 you quote does not confirm the statement from Vatican II but could be interpreted as opposing it. The ambiguous Vatican II statement above suggests man is the summit, not God.

        And furthermore all one has to do is listen to Pope Francis, a product of Vatican II, to find out how far off the mark he is doctrinally.

      • @FMShanguya, do you believe that Psalm 8:5-7 supports Vatican II, Gaudium et Spes, no. 12. “Believers and unbelievers agree almost unanimously that all things on earth should be ordained to humanity as to their center and summit.”

          • Yes. Though humans have dominion over the works of His hands it doesn’t follow that all things on earth should be ordained to humanity as their center and summit. God is still the creator of humanity and all things on earth, therefore all should be ordained to God as their center and summit. Psalm 8:5-7 may demolish Laudato Si though…I have to admit that I haven’t nor do I intend to read it so maybe someone can let me know if Laudato Si is in anyway supported by this passage. My guess is that it isn’t.

          • Like I said before, if we divorce the interpretation of this section from the revelation we have received then it is soemthing the enemies of the Church can run with and they do run with it. Remember that those words find their fulness in Christ as MAN

            1 Corinthians 15:26-28Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE) –

            26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 “For God[Greek he] has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “All things are put in subjection under him,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things under him. 28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things under him, that God may be everything to every one.

      • It is only impossible for an ecumenical council to err when it invokes infallibility, that is when defining doctrines and issuing canons and anathemas, or otherwise deliberately invokes it. Vatican II did none of those things. All of its documents should be taken as reflections on the part of the Council Fathers. Vatican II is only infallible when it states what has always been believed by the Church, the same as the Ordinary Magisterium.

        • 1) Please demontrate from the Jerusalem Council, which is the prototype of all the Councils, how the Apostles invoked infallibity?

          2) Did Vatican II, an Ecumenical Council of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church teach error in faith or morals?

          • 1) There was a matter of doctrine defined there: that circumcision is not necessary for salvation and therefore should not be forced on converts. It defined a doctrine, thereby invoking infallibility.

            2) I would have to say yes, it did. Specifically, in regards to its declarations on ecumenism and religious liberty. There are many smaller ambiguous or problematic statements, for example the bit of Gaudium et Spes quoted here. However, this isn’t problematic for a faithful Catholic because Vatican 2 did not make any infallible or binding statements. Nothing in the council is binding on Catholics because the Council said it made no binding statements.

          • So when the Church taught that Mary was Theotokos prior to Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431) [i.e., in the period from the Apostles to the said Council], that teaching wasn’t infallible nor binding to Catholics because it had not yet been defined a doctrine [by an Ecumenical Council]?

          • Technically, no it was NOT actually binding on Catholics because the church hadn’t bound it to the faithful. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t TRUE. It just means we were not bound to believe it. St. Thomas Aquinas went back and forth a few times about the Immaculate Conception. It wasn’t defined dogma yet and so the faithful weren’t bound to believe it. It was generally believed, as was Mary as the Theotokos, but not universally and it was not binding. The Church has the power of binding and loosing, and until it exercises that power, we are not bound, unless of course Our Lord bound it first (for example, his death and resurrection, which we are bound to believe and which it was Our Lord who directly bound us to.)

          • Technically, no it was NOT actually binding on Catholics because the church hadn’t bound it to the faithful.
            Wow! Please take the time to pray and think about what you have just written.

          • I already have. As I said, the fact that something is true does not mean it’s binding in the ecclesial and canonical sense. Over time there has been much theological debate about things that are objectively true and (now) binding upon Catholics. Mary was and is Theotokos. But that wasn’t a universal belief of Catholics through all centuries. Just as the Immaculate Conception and Her Glorious Assumption weren’t always universally believed. The Assumption in particular has had proponents and detractors throughout the centuries. But then Pius XII defined the Assumption of Mary as dogma, to which we owe assent. It is binding now. But we didn’t owe assent of intellect before the proclamation of the dogma.

            That said, would you like to explain how this in particular relates to our discussion of Vatican II? Because you’ve kind of deviated…

          • Theotokos has always been a Catholic belief. Read the Scriptures. Defining doctrine [=making dogmas] doesn’t create new doctrine where there wasn’t one for Catholics to believe in, but to squash doubts and heresies that endanger the truth in question and ultimately the Faith.

            Truths turn into dogmas the instant that they are disputed. Thus every man who utters a doubt defines a religion. – G.K. Chesterton

          • As I said before, something can be true and not be binding. Is Mary the Theotokos? Yeah, of course, and she always has been. Before it was a defined dogma, were you bound to believe it? Actually no. Theotokos has been settled for a long time, so let’s take another example closer to our time, where it’ll be easier to find sources. The Assumption of Mary. Was Mary assumed into heaven? Yep. She was, whenever it was that she completed her earthly life, some 1900ish years ago. Were Catholics always bound to believe it? If you look up some commentaries from the 19th and early 20th centuries and before, you’ll find that theologians, all in goodstanding, went back and forth. And yet the truth is what it is. When Pope Pius XII proclaimed the dogma, it was no longer optional or a matter to be debated. The pope proclaimed that it was divinely revealed that Mary was assumed into heaven, ending all debate. This sort of thing has happened many times in the past. A little research will show this to be true.

          • You’re missing the point… was it the true faith that Mary was the Theotokos? Yes, absolutely! Was that the teaching of the Church? Yes, it was. Would you become a Catholic no longer in goodstanding if you questioned it? NO! You didn’t! Why do you think it was defined? Because it was a serious question that needed an answer!

          • Would you become a Catholic no longer in goodstanding if you questioned it? NO! You didn’t! Grevious error.

            Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. – Athanasian Creed

            One must hold the whole catholic faith before it is define and after is defined, and whether it is defined or not. Again, defining doctrine is NOT what makes a truth catholic.

          • Would you STOP saying grievous error??? That’s just insulting.

            Anyways, my other comment says it all. There is no talking to you. Logic doesn’t seem to suit you…

            Things can be up for discussion, true or not. The situation with the SSPX is an example, apparently deaconesses are an example, the Immaculate Conception (which St. THOMAS AQUINAS went back and forth on!) is an example. If something hasn’t been made clear by the church, things can be discussed. Once the church speaks, then the matter is settled. I can almost guarantee there is more nuance to this than either of us is aware of.

            But whatever. I’m done. I just can’t discuss this with someone who is not willing to dialogue without simply saying “grave error” like he’s the prefect of the CDF or something…

          • I haven’t been caught by my words… and you clearly don’t understand what I’m saying. I’ll continue our dialog on the other point but this one we’re just talking past each other and it’s utterly pointless now. We’ll get no where.

          • Re ordination: In the Byzantine Tradition, the bishop imposes hands on the ordinand and says: “Divine grace, which always supplies that which is lacking and heals that which is infirm, ordains the devout deacon (man’s name) to the holy priesthood…” I

            I forget the rest of it but that’s my. 02.

          • Interesting fact, the Council of Florence, and especially the section we’re dealing with, (as I understand it) was actually because of the reintroduction of the Greek Rites into the Catholic Church after the Great Schism in 1054. And the Greek rite does not have the handing on of the chalice and yet was always recognized as a valid ordination rite.

          • Here’s another example: at what point during the ordination rite for priests actually confer the order? The general consensus after the Council of Florence was that it was the granting of the chalice… and yet Pius XII declared, definitively, that the order is conferred in the laying on of hands. So were all bishops and priests disobedient and unfaithful between Florence and Pius XII? Nope! That’s also an example of how a Council can err in matters of faith and morals when there is no dogmatic or doctrinal definition!

          • Cf. Ecumenical Council of Florence (1438-1445) – EWTN

            Please pont out to me a decree/document or [even a teaching from this Council] that states the ordination rite for priests: actually confering the order is via the granting of the chalice And then I can properly respond to you.

          • From Session 8:

            The sixth is the sacrament of orders. Its matter is the object by whose handing over the order is conferred. So the priesthood is bestowed by the handing over of a chalice with wine and a paten with bread; the diaconate by the giving of the book of the gospels; the subdiaconate by the handing over of an empty chalice with an empty paten on it; and similarly for the other orders by allotting things connected with their ministry. The form for a priest is: Receive the power of offering sacrifice in the church for the living and the dead, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit. The forms for the other orders are contained in full in the Roman pontifical. The ordinary minister of this sacrament is a bishop. The effect is an increase of grace to make the person a suitable minister of Christ.

            There you go. All I had to do was search the document for “chalice.”

            And now, from Sacramentum Ordinis of Pope Pius XII:

            Wherefore, after invoking the divine light, We of Our Apostolic Authority and from certain knowledge declare, and as far as may be necessary decree and provide: that the matter, and the only matter, of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy is the imposition of hands; and that the form, and the only form, is the words which determine the application of this matter, which univocally signify the sacramental effects – namely the power of Order and the grace of the Holy Spirit – and which are accepted and used by the Church in that sense. It follows as a consequence that We should declare, and in order to remove all controversy and to preclude doubts of conscience, We do by Our Apostolic Authority declare, and if there was ever a lawful disposition to the contrary We now decree that at least in the future the traditio instrumentorum is not necessary for the validity of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy.

          • While I research …

            You have given me a teaching from a council and a teaching from a pope that you say are in contradiction and you say in this apparent contradiction that Pope Pius XII is to be upheld over the Council of Florence. What is you basis for this? Not sure if you are a Ttrad and setting aside the fact that the Church’s Teaching is at its fullest at and Ecumenical Council, but if you are, shouldn’t you uphold the older teaching?

            Has the Church anywhere condemned the teaching of Florence on this matter or has the Church offered some other explanation or interpretation for this apparent contradiction?

          • The contradiction is only there if you hold to the idea that everything an ecumenical council says in its documents regarding faith and morals is 100% infallible. However, if you look at the language used in that portion and the surrounding sections, it’s simply teaching in a general way, not with authority. Pope Pius XII on the other hand, IS speaking with authority, and that’s clear from the language used. The contradiction is only there if you hold to the position that YOU have, which is that everything any ecumenical council says on faith and morals is infallible. It’s not. Only when it invokes that charism is it infallible. Florence didn’t in that section, and Vatican II never did. Do you have another explanation?

            I attend the TLM almost exclusively, I abhor the terrors that have been loosed in the Church over the last 50+ years, and I oppose the errors of Vatican II. I’m definitely a trad even though it annoys me that we have to label ourselves what kind of Catholic we are because there should only be two types (religious orders and eastern rites aside) – orthodox or heterodox.

          • Answering:

            From the Catechism of the Council of Trent –

            Holy Orders Is a Sacrament

            That Sacred Ordination is to be numbered among the Sacraments of the Church, the Council of Trent has established by the same line of reasoning as we have already used several times. Since a Sacrament is a sign of a sacred thing, and since the outward action in this consecration denotes the grace and power bestowed on him who is consecrated, it becomes clearly evident that Order must be truly and properly regarded as a Sacrament. Thus the Bishop, handing to him who is being ordained a chalice with wine and water, and a paten with bread, says: Receive the power of offering sacrifice, etc. In these words, pronounced along with the application of the matter, the Church has always taught that the power of consecrating the Eucharist is conferred, and that a character is impressed on the soul which brings with it grace necessary for the due and proper discharge of that office, as the Apostle declares thus: I admonish thee that thou stir up the grace of God which is in thee, by the imposition of my hands; for God hath not given us the spirit of fear, but of power, and of love, and of sobriety.

            So now we have the council of Florence and the Catechism from another Council, that of Trent, agreeing and stating that the Church has always taught this. Also we know that the Apostles were made priests at the Last Supper and there we are sure a chalice and bread being given to them, therefore,

            1) You are gravely mistaken to say that the Council of Florence, which is supported by teaching from Trent, with the latter stating that the church has always done and taught this, is in error and the one in error vs. Pope Pius XII. Grevious error indeed.

            2) The following ought to clear the apparent contradiction

            CCC 1573 [] The essential rite of the sacrament of Holy Orders for all three degrees consists in the bishop’s imposition of hands on the head of the ordinand and in the bishop’s specific consecratory prayer asking God for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and his gifts proper to the ministry to which the candidate is being ordained.[60 Cf. Pius XII, apostolic constitution, Sacramentum Ordinis: DS 3858.]

            1574 As in all the sacraments additional rites surround the celebration. Varying greatly among the different liturgical traditions, these rites have in common the expression of the multiple aspects of sacramental grace. Thus in the Latin Church, the initial rites – presentation and election of the ordinand, instruction by the bishop, examination of the candidate, litany of the saints – attest that the choice of the candidate is made in keeping with the practice of the Church and prepare for the solemn act of consecration, after which several rites symbolically express and complete the mystery accomplished: for bishop and priest, an anointing with holy chrism, a sign of the special anointing of the Holy Spirit who makes their ministry fruitful; giving the book of the Gospels, the ring, the miter, and the crosier to the bishop as the sign of his apostolic mission to proclaim the Word of God, of his fidelity to the Church, the bride of Christ, and his office as shepherd of the Lord’s flock; presentation to the priest of the paten and chalice, “the offering of the holy people” which he is called to present to God; giving the book of the Gospels to the deacon who has just received the mission to proclaim the Gospel of Christ..

            Am I right to say Trads discount the Catechish of the Catholic Church promulgated by Pope St. John Paul II? And do you as a Trad discount it? If yes, then you now know why you were mistaken the way you were mistaken

          • “Trads” don’t discount the Catechism promulgated by Pope St. John Paul II simply as a matter of fact. I think you mistake exactly what it means to be a “trad” though now isn’t the time for such a discussion. Because of certain statements contained within the CCC (such as quoting Lumen Gentium on Islam which is gravely mistaken), one has to be a little leery, but it is generally a good source. Not everyone will agree with me but there it is.

            Ok, let me break it down a little more… I’m going to use only the Council of Florence and Pius XII because the Catechism of Trent is not the documents of the council itself but only teaching that came from it and therefore has a different level of authority (and it basically quotes Florence anyways.) So, as we know, a sacrament consists necessarily of the proper matter, form, and intention. Florence says regarding this: Its matter is the object by whose handing over the order is conferred. So the priesthood is bestowed by the handing over of a chalice with wine and a paten with bread … The form for a priest is: Receive the power of offering sacrifice in the church for the living and the dead, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit.

            But then Pius XII says:
            that the matter, and the only matter, of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy is the imposition of hands … that the form, and the only form, is the words which determine the application of this matter, which univocally signify the sacramental effects – namely the power of Order and the grace of the Holy Spirit.

            We have a pope seemingly disagreeing with a council as to what the matter and form the sacrament are. Now one could hold that you simply take the older teaching… but that’s a gross oversimplification, because the good pope’s words here are rather unequivocal: “We of Our Apostolic Authority and from certain knowledge declare, and as far as may be necessary decree and provide” … ” It follows as a consequence that We should declare, and in order to remove all controversy and to preclude doubts of conscience” … “We do by Our Apostolic Authority declare” … ” if there was ever a lawful disposition to the contrary We now decree.” If we follow the teaching of Pastor Aeternus to the letter, this actually sounds like the Pope as pastor of all the faithful, regarding a matter of faith and morals, to be held by all the faithful, in other words ex cathedra is declaring something opposed to the teaching of at least one previous council. So, if we follow your logic, that everything an ecumenical council says regarding faith and morals is infallible, we have one infallible statement contradicting another infallible statement.

            Which means one of several things: 1) An ecumenical council has more authority and a higher level of infallibility than a pope ex cathedra, 2) that the Church cannot ever speak infallibly, 3) one or the other did not invoke Apostolic Authority and is not infallible or 4) all this Jesus stuff is bunk and we should forget it.

            Well, it can’t be 1 because that’s the heresy of conciliarism. And Vatican I says 2 is wrong. I’m not comfortable going with 4, are you? That leaves number 3. One of these did not invoke Apostolic Authority and infallibility. From the language, it’s pretty clear that Pius XII did and Florence didn’t. But that’s not possible according to your logic… That leaves you with 1,2, or 4. Pick one. You end up a heretic or an apostate, and please don’t end up a heretic or an apostate. I don’t want to see a brother end up in such a place. Even though you and I disagree about this and we’ve never met outside these comments, I love you too much to let you go that way.

          • It is you who sees a contradiction [I don’ t], and worse, in addition, you go on to state that a council is in error, The Church has reconciled for me the apparent contradiction in CCC 1573 & 1574. In cases like this and for your own peace of mind, and for the sake of your faith & salvation, it is better to write the Church for an explanation rather than come to the conclusions that you have reached. Cf. Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church | CDF –

          • If my salvation is in danger then so is that of Bishop Athanasius Schneider as he was the first one who I heard of this situation from. His explanation was that Florence did not speak authoritatively so things were open for discussion (until Pius XII settled it centuries later.) And since Vatican II did not speak authoritatively, those things are open for discussion. The CCC says what Sacramentum Ordinis does… and not what Florence says. You’re right that there is no contradiction, because one settled matters, one didn’t. Your idea that a council cannot ever err ever no matter what is being said in whatever way it says it naturally produces a contradiction.

            It’s like you went with the argument and then, as soon as you were challenged in your belief, you just shoved your head in an alternate reality. I seriously don’t see how you got there, but ok. I’m going to bed for the night. If you have a response, I look forward to reading it in the morning. It’s really quite late for me. Goodnight and pax tecum.

            P.S. A link to the interview this is in – it’s actually a very good interview so you might as well watch the whole thing when you have time!

          • Bishop Athanasius Schneider, whom I greatly respect, is not the Church. E.g., his position on the SSPX is at odds with that of the Church.
            Your idea that a council cannot ever err ever no matter what is being said in whatever way Now you exaggerate my position. Again, the Church which cannot ever err when she teaches on faith and morals, cannot err when she teaches on faith or morals from a council. Meaning all in her ratified council decrees by a pope as regards teaching in faith or morals are free from error.

          • … I just… I can’t even… this is like talking to an unfeeling computer that has set protocols that can’t think beyond the preprogrammed protocols.

            Well, you can’t say I didn’t try…

          • From that same article:

            “In the question of the matter and form of this sacrament we must distinguish between the three higher orders and the subdiaconate and minor orders. The Church having instituted the latter, also determines their matter and form. With regard to the former, the received opinion maintains that the imposition of hands is the sole matter. This has been undoubtedly used from the beginning; to it, exclusively and directly, the conferring of grace is ascribed by St. Paul and many Fathers and councils.”

            This is the beginning of the very paragraph your quotation is found in… AND THIS CONTRADICTS FLORENCE which says that the matter of the sacrament is the handing over of the chalice and paten. Your quotation is simply giving part of the contrary opinion that the traditio instrumentorum are the matter and why that opinion may be held. It’s also important to note that the Catholic Encyclopedia was written before Pius XII’s pontificate meaning Sacramentum Ordinis hadn’t been written yet! In addition, the end of the next paragraph says

            “All that we have said about the matter and form is speculative; in practice, whatever has been prescribed by the Church must be followed, and the Church in this, as in other sacraments, insists that anything omitted should be supplied.

            And such thought as this is WHY Pius XII issued Sacramentum Ordinis and said “in order to remove all controversy and to preclude doubts of conscience…” There was doubt, he settled the matter definitively.

            You’re proof texting these documents and producing your own eisegesis while ignoring what the Church ACTUALLY said. The only thing you’re right on here is that there is no actual contradiction. What I’m trying to show you is that your position, that an ecumenical council cannot err at any point on a matter of faith or morals, produces a contradiction. The ONLY logical position to take, without stuffing your head in the sand, is that a council only is infallible when it invokes the Apostolic Authority to define doctrine, issue canons, and issue anathemas. The Church, as a whole, cannot err in matters of faith or morals, that is true. The Church cannot err in its definitive teachings, true. The Church HAS NOT erred and cannot in its perennial teaching. But, in non-declarative matters, if the Church does not definitively settle something, then the discussion is still open and the prevailing opinion may change. If that’s true, then you can start looking at Vatican II and see that nothing is settled, which is the whole point of this long drawn out discussion. You can look at Vatican II, with the idea that nothing is settled, and still say “everything here is orthodox and in line with Catholic teaching throughout the ages” (though I would say you’re wrong.) Do you see how this produces a contradiction, if you hold that?

            Sidenote: I really don’t see how the CCC could have settled matters for you. It states what Pius XII says and does not hold the non-authoritative opinion that Florence did…

          • Let me try to approach it one other way for your sake before I summarize. Please share with me a ‘traditional’ ct of faith in English, perhaps one you say regularly.

          • Ah. Look, you can try as many different angles as you want. You’re simply wrong. Write your summary and then let’s move on with our lives because we’ve been at this for two days and it’s simply no longer helpful.

          • Another dodge like in the other exchange. Very telling!
            You didn’t provide, therefore I will provide for the sake of the other readers here. From now on you CANNOT have an excuse.

            Act of Faith / Actus Fidei

            O my God! I firmly believe that Thou art one God in three Divine persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; I believe that Thy Divine Son became man, and died for our sins, and that he will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe these and all the truths which the Holy Catholic Church teaches, because Thou hast revealed them, who canst neither deceive nor be deceived .

            Latin Version: Actus Fidei
            Domine Deus, firma fide credo et confiteor omnia et singula quæ sancta ecclesia Catholica proponit, quia tu, Deus, ea omnia revelasti, qui es aeterna veritas et sapientia quae nec fallere nec falli potest. In hac fide vivere et mori statuo. Amen. (My emphasis)

          • So what you’re saying is that you don’t think I believe all that the Catholic Church teaches… except that I do and you’re venturing dangerously close to calumny.

          • That’s because you’re absolutely infuriating to talk to and has nothing to do with the substance of the argument! Have you maybe considered that I’m just over dealing with you? I’ve presented a mountain of evidence and you’re just sticking your head in the sand… as you do whenever Vatican II and JP2 come up. I honestly feel sorry for you… I really do.

          • @jonathanwabbaschwartzbauer:disqus:

            So what you’re saying is that you don’t think I believe all that the Catholic Church teaches[?]


            1) No you don’t because the Church taught at Vatican II and you reject part or whole of Vatican II and part of the catechism of the Catholic Church.

            2) No you don’t because you say Pope Eugenius [Eugene IV]/COUNCIL OF FLORENCE (1438-1445) erred when they[/it – the council] taught: The sixth is the sacrament of orders. Its matter is the object by whose handing over the order is conferred. So the priesthood is bestowed by the handing over of a chalice with wine and a paten with bread. Please note that this is NOT a general consensus but a teaching, and you have pitted one pope of the Catholic Church against another and you have not stopped to consider that if you really I believed all that the Catholic Church teaches even when it first appears that there is a contradiction among the Church’s teaching, in reality, there can’t be.

            In this case the resolution is very simple. to your original question, neither the LORD ordaining the Apostles [no imposition of hands at the Last Supper] nor the Apostles ordaining [clearly manifold evidence of laying of hands] ever said at what point the priesthood is bestowed and therefore this clearly does not belong to Divine Revelation/Sacred Deposit of Faith = Sacred Scripture + Holy Tradition and Pope Pius XII DOES NOT address this.

            Now if we are talking about what Matter and Form is essential for the conferring of the priesthood orders [vs. at what point it the priesthood is conferred], and knowing that as Christ did not ordain His Apostles by imposition of hands, it would seem that He left to the Church the power of determining by which particular rite the power and grace should be conferred, then Pope Eugenius [Eugene IV]/COUNCIL OF FLORENCE (1438-1445) decreeing, ‘its matter is the handing over of a chalice with wine and a paten with bread and Pope Pope Pius XII decreeing ‘the matter is the first imposition off hands of the Bishop which is done in silence, …’ are both correct and without error because what they have decreed does not contradict Divine Revelation, it and what one pope can do, the other can do as well, since it was left up to the Church.


            In our exchange, you have epitomized a typical Trad and their MO, which is latching onto something and rashly make erroneous conclusions, all because, this case, you are determined to discredit a valid council of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church [VII]; and along the way employing tactics like feigning injury, claiming to pity me, dodging when cornered, intimidation, etc. Please reconsider you Trad position and you can do well starting to make reparation by sharing this comment of mine wherever you have cause damage by broadcasting your position on this matter.

    • Vatican II is the most insidious of Satan’s lies. Couched in devout and faithful terms, the documents of the Council say one thing but teach its opposite. The document on religious liberty is second to the prime example, stated above. It is unabashed freemason philosophy.

      • Vatican II redefined the meaning of pastoral to accommodate situation ethics which effectively nullified doctrinal teaching. Vatican II began the Protestation of the Catholic Church in a formal way.

  8. According to the report of the Pope’s words at Fatima yesterday, the apparitions seen there by the three children have now been ‘officially’ re-interpreted in a human sense only. to whit:

    ‘Returning to the little chapel for a nighttime vigil, Pope Francis reminded pilgrims to pray, as Mary taught the children at Fatima, for “those most in need” of God’s mercy. “On each of the destitute and outcast robbed of the present, on each of the excluded and abandoned denied a future, on each of the orphans and victims of injustice refused a past, may there descend the blessing of God, incarnate in Jesus Christ,” he said.’

    So “those who are in most need of Your Mercy”, universally understood until now as those living in a state of serious sin, are now the poor, the lonely, migrants, etc. Anyone but sinners.

    And again:

    ‘On the eve of the 100th anniversary of the Marian apparitions at Fatima, the Pope asked tens of thousands of pilgrims May 12 to reflect on “which Mary” they choose to venerate, “the virgin Mary from the Gospel” or “one who restrains the arm of a vengeful God?”’

    So we are to forget Fatima’s message of penance and mortification for sin, we are to forget Sister Lucia’s Memoirs where she wrote later that she had been led to understand that the visions described the End Times, and remember simply the Blessed Mother in her “original” guise as Mother of God only.

    Fatima and what happened there is thus definitively airbrushed out of the life of the Catholic Church. My reaction to that is that the betrayals of this man and of the post-Vatican II Church know no limits.

          • The Cold War didn’t start until after WWII. Our Lady said this in the midst of WWI (1917) and Sister Lucia wrote it down in her Third and Fourth Memoirs (early to mid-40s, I.e. during WWII).

            Obviously, during the Cold War the errors of Russia were emphasized. Now… 🙁


          • I was merely referencing the appalling headline at “CruxNow” [funded by the Knights of Columbus and their grand wit Carl Anderson] demeaning our Blessed Mother, aggrandizing the Bergoglian retrofitting of the apparitions, while debasing their significance during the Cold War. Any argument is not with me – address Crux, Knights, Anderson and Bergoglio. His corn beef and hash comments during the centenary celebrations are as expected a cup cake of deconstruction.
            Who can bear it any longer?

          • I try to avoid it. It is painful. That the Knights have invested in it is beyond my imagination. It reveals the depths to which we have fallen.
            God bless you.

          • One of my uncles (now deceased) was a 4th degree Knight. From what I’ve seen on the Remnant, the KOC is chummy with the Freemasons. Fr. Michael McGivney, the founder of the KOC, would be horrified.

    • Just be careful, … as I understand it, it was Sr. Lucia herself that did not (want to) interpret her visions much later.
      Are those the the words, the visions (memoirs?) you speak of here ???
      She said it was up to Holy Mother Church, meaning to say, the Pope, the Magisterium whom we ought to listen to regarding this.
      Take care not to fall into the trap of that “rad-trad” avec SSPX cum Sedevacantist drivel-dribble.
      Adhere to the Pope Benedict XVI’s “Hermaneutic of Continuity,” in referring to the spiritual movement from Vatican I —> Vatican II.

      • Comrade Tom, the Memoirs give much greater context and some of Sr. Lucia’s thoughts about the whole affair, in general and in particular. You should direct yourself to for more information.

        The “Magisterium” spoke about the apparitions long ago: they are authentic. “Rome” has in the last few decades spoken too – a crock of lies, to put it bluntly. “Rome” is not equivalent to the “Magisterium”.

        I am an SSPX adherent. Stop the insults, I am sick of it.

        The “Hermaneutic of Continuity”? A desperate and already failed attempt to give Vatican II an authenticity (a connection with Holy Tradition) it has wholly lost and which it never deserved.

        • Corngrave Josef I feel your pain but know that Pope Francis is working feverishly towards SSPX rapprochement.
          Obedience is key in all these, … it is as simple for us and as difficult as it is for those who stray.
          Verbal gymnastics are only valid if the Truth comes about.
          Prayers, honest & heartfelt have more currency here so we must leave it at that.
          Live Jesus in our Hearts, FOREVER

    • As many times as I hear accounts such as this it never fails to horrify me. You think I’d be used to it by now. Why isn’t the Blessed Mother both the Mary of the gospels and the one who holds back the hand of God? Why is that counter intuitive. She is Queen of Heaven and Earth. She is our mother. Duh. No conflict there.
      And that beautiful mercy prayer she taught the children and us is so obviously for all poor sinners–especially those on their way to hell that Jesus will be merciful. To “liberation theologize” it is just so bad. So bad.

        • The Great Stalin and ann have written wisely. Are we going through The Great Chastisement, where the Holy Spirit is letting us see what happens when we substitute the goal of promoting personal sanctity and holiness for all men, with the “progressive” this-worldly vision of the likes of Saul Alinsky, George Soros, and Jorge Bergoglio, promoting the false mercy of letting the poor and marginalized have their way without the burden of the enlightenment of Jesus, and with their material care the primary goal of our relations with them? The poor too are men and women with eternal souls, not just the objects of our “mercy.”

    • For heavens sake!!! What is wrong with this pope. Does his agenda know no bounds?

      Why doesn’t anyone in the Church take our Lady seriously? Are they too vain, too comfortable in their own sin or perhaps under a demonic influence?

    • “On each of the destitute and outcast robbed of the present, on each of the excluded and abandoned denied a future, on each of the orphans and victims of injustice refused a past, may there descend the blessing of God, incarnate in Jesus Christ,” he said.’

      This man cannot even restrain himself at Fatima. He is so obviously filled with anger, and is attempting to fill the hearts of others with it. Francis curses the dark, yet does not embrace the Light. He’s just another ” punk fighter” without a real cause.

    • You have to admit, the wily Jesuit knows how to turn just about anything to his narrative. I just finished reading The Political Pope and I recommend it to anyone who wants to get an intellectual handle on this disastrous pope and his Weltanschauung. Those who have closely followed the descent since his election in 2013 will recognize almost everything in the book, but having all his gratuitous insults, outrageous formulations, multiple rotten episcopal appointments, and dubious and tendentious recasting of traditional Catholic thought condensed into 200+ pages is sobering; the effect of the whole is much more than the sum of its parts. If, as I do, you find Bergoglio rebarbative, this book will do nothing to improve his image in your mind. It’s an easy read that most can do in a day or two, but have the Alka-Seltzer handy. (There are a few minor typos and an occasional grammar error, e.g. treating “media” as if it were a singular noun, but generally it’s professionally written and offers copious notes at the end to document the author’s assertions of fact.)

  9. A superb article Mr. Armstrong, and thank you for it, very much. Many friends, Catholic and not, ask often “What’s wrong with the Masons??” as if we who know were all daft and conspiratorial sourpusses to position ourselves “against philanthropy.” They know nothing of the roots of the Craft and see only the nice commercials for hospitals, etc. I will send them your article, with note about what I’m sure is only a typo regarding 3: 7 versus the correct 3:15. Indeed, may Our Lady of Guadalupe reign!

  10. “The Jewish connection with modern Freemasonry is an established
    fact everywhere manifested in its history. The Jewish formulas employed
    by Freemasonry, the Jewish traditions which run through its ceremonial,
    point to a Jewish origin, or to the work of Jewish contrivers. …Who
    knows but behind the Atheism and desire of gain which impels them to
    urge on “Christians” to persecute the Church and destroy it, there lies
    a hidden hope to reconstruct their Temple, and in the darkest depths
    of secret society plotting there lurks a deeper society still which
    looks to a return to the land of Judah and to the rebuilding of the
    Temple of Jerusalem?” – Mgr. Dillon, The War of Antichrist With The Church And Christian Civilization, 1885 A.D.

    IS THIS TRUE????

    • IT IS!
      With the following perspective, it is easy to understand:

      Mark 12:1-12 (RSVCE) –

      The Parable of the Wicked Tenants

      12 And he began to speak to them in parables. “A man planted a vineyard, and set a hedge around it, and dug a pit for the wine press, and built a tower, and let it out to tenants, and went into another country. 2 When the time came, he sent a servant to the tenants, to get from them some of the fruit of the vineyard. 3 And they took him and beat him, and sent him away empty-handed. 4 Again he sent to them another servant, and they wounded him in the head, and treated him shamefully. 5 And he sent another, and him they killed; and so with many others, some they beat and some they killed. 6 He had still one other, a beloved son; finally he sent him to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ 7 But those tenants said to one another, ‘This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.’ 8 And they took him and killed him, and cast him out of the vineyard. 9 What will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the tenants, and give the vineyard to others. 10 Have you not read this scripture:

      ‘The very stone which the builders rejected
      has become the head of the corner;
      11 this was the Lord’s doing,
      and it is marvelous in our eyes’?”
      12 And they tried to arrest him, but feared the multitude, for they perceived that he had told the parable against them; so they left him and went away.

      Those of the synagogue of Satan who say that they are Jews and are not, but lie [Rev 3:9 (RSVCE) – head this conspiracy to their destruction.

      • Catholicism is also “closely connected” to Judaism. Every one of the points made about Jewish ceremonial, etc., is applicable to Catholicism. Check out How Christ Said the First Mass, Fr. Meagher, 1906. The link above recounting the history of English Masonry states that the first English lodge was established some eighty years after its founding in 1717 by the descendants of the builders of medieval cathedrals, guild members who were certainly not Jews. The claim of a “Jewish origin” is problematic.

        Having said this, there is undoubtedly an affinity between modern, secular Judaism and Masonry, a correlation of interests including mutual antagonism toward the Church. Two thousand years of history, of a more or less bitter character. This is why the conversion of people like myself, a Jew, is nothing short of a miracle. I happen to know that in my case (and that of my mother, who was baptized and received into the Church on her deathbed), it was the result of over forty years of fervent prayers of devout Catholic friends for the conversion of my family. When Our Lady said that many go to hell because they have no one to pray and perform sacrifices for them, She meant it. The grace of conversion for Jews is contingent on the charitable perseverance of Catholics. Quite a responsibility.

    • He also wrote a book called Grand Orient Freemasonry Unmasked. Try looking it up in a used book store or Amazon.

  11. Why we have so many fifth columnists in our ranks…!?

    The Canon Law of the Catholic Church from 1917., Cann. 2335, emphasizes the Church’s position on the masonry societies, namely, the “enrollment” of Catholics in the masonry societies. In the mentioned canon states:
    Can. 2335. Nomen dantes sectae massonicae aliisve eiusdem generis associationibus quae conta Ecclesiam vel legitimas civiles potestates machinantur, contrahunt ipso facto excommunicationem Sedi Apostolicae simpliciter reservatam.

    Document of pope Pio IX. (Apostolic Constitution) from 1869. is even more concrete. It states:
    Nomen dantes sectae Massonicae, aut Carbonariae, aut aliis eiusdem generis sectis quae contra Ecclesiam vel legitimas potestates seu palam, seu clandestine machinantur….

    But, a problem occurs in the simplification, ie. The omission above mentioned “terminology” in the Code of Canon Law in 1983. (ie, post-conciliar period), Can. 1374., which reads as follows:
    Can. 1374. Qui nomen dat consociationi, quae contra Ecclesiam machinatur, iusta poena puniatur; qui autem eiusmodi consociationem promovet vel moderatur, interdicto puniatur.

    In the Church document from 1869., two sects were clearly mentioned “Secon Massonicae Car Carbonariae”, but in the Church document from 1917., only one sect “Sectae masonicae” was mentioned, while in the Codex from the year 1983., in the Can. 1374., no sects are mentioned at all. Instead of the word “sect”, we have now term “society”, and this are in general, “a societies that inhale the Church”.
    So since then there is no “sectae masonicae aut Carbonariae” mentioned at all.
    Since the Catholic Church should not interrupt the dialogue even with the “societies plotting against the Church” (According the quotes about ‘dialogue’ between the Church and the Masons from Quaesitum est), – we have right now what we deserved. To many fifth columnists in our ranks.
    The Catholic Church must never have any dialogue with the devil and/or his servants!

    • How can one dialogue with one’s enemy? OnePeterFive, OnePeterFive, OnePeterFive

      1 Peter 5:9 (RSVCE) –

      9 Resist him [the devil], firm in your faith, knowing that the same experience of suffering is required of your brotherhood throughout the world.

      Cf. RORATE CÆLI: Cardinal Ravasi calls for Dialogue with Freemasonry – Excerpts & Church Teaching

      • FM:

        Right on.

        The same thing applies to modern Protestantism. The various texts of V2 that affirm that Protestants are to be seen as “separated brethren” and the like are time-bound. What Protestantism was in 1965 is NOT what it is today; vast fragmentation, individual interpretations of constantly changing doctrine and in the mainline groups, what must be apostasy and blasphemy in false orders falsely consecrating false elements…lesbian and homosexual “priests” and “bishops” promoting same-sex unions, approving divorce and accepting abortion.

        The Church needs to re-evaluate every ecumenical program in light of these changes.

        I am learning that many Catholic theologians and prelates must be either duplicitous or naive and ignorant of the nature of Protestantism at its core. God did not give Protestantism the charism of indefectibility! It is NOT the Catholic faith and cannot be treated as an entity in possession of that charism! The teaching of the sects is variable and constantly changing. Yet we “dialogue” with them as if they are in possession of fixed dogma. We watch their “rites” and “Sacraments” and think they are similar to our own, but they are NOT. Maybe {???} the mainline groups were “close enough” to warrant treatment as “separated brethren” when the texts of V2 were written, but certainly many groups can barely be called Christian except for outward ceremonies today.

        May God give wisdom to our leaders.

        • These theologians have lost their faith. Simple as that. “Dialogue” is a favorite word of those who want to undermine the faith. It’s right up there with “nuance” and “walk together” and other obfuscations. I found this out in the 70’s and 80’s when most of the so called Catholic books out there were full of these fluffy insubstantial unsatisfying words and concepts. I found old books from pre Vatican II and devoured them. It was real food, real doctrine, real faith. This error/heresy of modernism has been burrowing under the foundations of our Holy Church for a long time (read Pius X’s warning and the concerns of other Popes in the 19th and early 20th century) Now it is out in the open. Thank God for Fatima and the promise of the Blessed Mother. Thank God for Pope Leo XIII’s warning and prayers to St Michael. It’s not like we didn’t know it was coming. But being in it is pretty terrible.

        • Our Pope and heirachy would not want to “dialogue” with the Protestants of the 1960’s. Notice the ones they now approach are those who have most fully embraced the modernist heresy. Our own Church, Pope, and heirachy are steadily marching to embrace this heresy.

    • ivan:

      I concure. It is troubling that the ’83 code let it slip by, but clarification was made:

      I printed this and more out for a local priest who communed Freemasons. I don’ know if it was successful in changing his mind. He told me he just didn’t think it was a big deal. e even told me that when he was a monk, they rented the monastery facilities to the local /Masons for their annual fundraiser!

      What did they {not} teach at seminary?

      What has HAPPENED to the Catholic Church?

      • RTHEVR Thank you,
        I saw it. The Declaration begins with: “It has been asked…”
        No wonder that IT (someone, but hmm,… who?) has asked. And why such changes are made in first place?
        To make image of masonry less bad? Or to make image of others, whatever societies, to looks like more awful and dangerous?
        Either way it is a big ‘win’ situation for masonry. (As the novus ordo is ‘win’ situation for protestant forces which were/are infiltrated in the Catholic Church.
        What should we expect if “IT has not been asked…”? Nothing. No clarification. In that case it will not be needed.
        The way how it works here all together, seems not very intelligent. Exemption of the name ‘masonry’ of that (condemnation) context from the Church’s Codex, is knowingly done with special purpose, to create more and better chances for masonry to weave into higher places of the Church.
        Further stated in declaration written by card. Ratzinger:
        “Therefore the Church’s negative judgment in regard to Masonic association remains unchanged since their principles have always been considered irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Church and therefore membership in them remains forbidden…”
        Very soft talk, of course. Is this all,- just ‘irreconcilable’? The ultimate goal of masonry is taking down the Church of Christ at any cost. The masonry is very likely the greatest and most worse enemy of the Catholic Church. Any other evil ‘society’ can not come even close to them.
        It is therefore more than stupid to decide to have ‘dialogue’ also and even with the greatest enemy of the Christ and His Church!
        ‘To have or lead a dialogue’ can never be a goal in itself. For this pagan world ‘the dialog’ is the most of time a final purpose of itself.
        But for the Church leaders, who should and must know much better, dialogue is just a very useful tool for approaching the final goal(s). The goals that always should and must be good enough firstly to God and his Church. And just then for this world, od whatever society it may be.

      • – Can. 2335. (1917.) Who enroll in Masonic sect or similar society, which plotting against the Church and the secular legal authorities, fall instantly (ipso facto) into excommunication simply reserved to Holy See.
        – (1869.) Those who enroll in Masonic or Carbonic sect or other similar sects which, either openly, or secretly, are plotting against the Church or legitimate authorities …
        – Can. 1374. (1983.) Whoever enters into a society which plots against the Church, shall be punished with a just punishment; Whoever promotes or leads such society, shall be punished by the ban of worship.

  12. Keep in mind the following note in Gaudium et spes – [which I have just noticed]. It will be useful when it comes time to clean up the Church.



    1. The Pastoral Constitution “De Ecclesia in Mundo Huius Temporis” is made up of two parts; yet it constitutes an organic unity. By way of explanation: the constitution is called “pastoral” because, while resting on doctrinal principles, it seeks to express the relation of the Church to the world and modern mankind. The result is that, on the one hand, a pastoral slant is present in the first part, and, on the other hand, a doctrinal slant is present in the second part. In the first part, the Church develops her teaching on man, on the world which is the enveloping context of man’s existence, and on man’s relations to his fellow men. In part two, the Church gives closer consideration to various aspects of modern life and human society; special consideration is given to those questions and problems which, in this general area, seem to have a greater urgency in our day. As a result in part two the subject matter which is viewed in the light of doctrinal principles is made up of diverse elements. Some elements have a permanent value; others, only a transitory one. Consequently, the constitution must be interpreted according to the general norms of theological interpretation. Interpreters must bear in mind—especially in part two—the changeable circumstances which the subject matter, by its very nature, involves.

    • By the words “seeks to express the relation of the Church to the world and modern mankind” and “the Church gives closer consideration to various aspects of modern life and human society” this document condemns itself to obsolescence and irrelevance. Modern mankind, modern life and human society are very different in 2017 from what they were in 1965. The document’s use-by date has long passed. Time to throw it out!

    • This should have been placed in the part of the thread this relates to. Here it is simply off-topic and liable to start an argument. Please repost it there. This comment will be removed tomorrow.

  13. On Which Side is Pope Francis?

    If anyone is wondering still on which side the Pope is, the following tweet of @pontifex

    Inequality is the root of social evil.— Pope Francis (@Pontifex) April 28, 2014

    And this article should make them wonder no more.

    The lure of the lodges was that in a highly structured class system also religiously divided, they accepted men of all ranks, stations and faiths without distinction into a fraternal bond of philanthropy.

    Cf. The masonic motto: Liberté, égalité, fraternité [ou la mort].

      • Isn’t what the rebellion all about this? I.e., Satan couldn’t stomach someone higher than him?
        Without revelation, I too would have wondered but knowing that in his love and mercy God has called us to form His Body, God’s own Body, and

        1 Cor 12:16-18 (RSVCE) –

        16 And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? 18 But as it is, God arranged the organs in the body, each one of them, as he chose.

        then I realise that even if I was the nail of His big toe or the sole of His foot, this is more than enough for me provided I remain in him, and sinee it pleased Him for me to be part of His Body, I rejoice and give thanks for any other part that I may deem more glorified than me and better than my part.

        • Because of my upbringing I happen to know Peronism very well. That was the cancer that destroyed the great and vibrant country that Argentina was. The Proverbs say that envy rots the bones. Peronism is a system based on envy. The only proposition of Peronism is this: “If someone has more than you do, he surely must have taken it from you because we all deserve to be equal.” So a Peronist father noticing that one of his children is taller than the other proceeds to cut the legs of the taller one until equality is achieved. This is of course allegorical but describes well how the obsession with equal distribution of riches permeated Argentine society and turned it into Hell on Earth. Father Bergoglio onced belonged to the inner circle of Peronism, the “Guardia de Hierro” a group of loons who practiced “vertical obedience” to Peron, a pretty blasphemous thing to do for a Catholic since Peron ordered the burning and sacking of the Catholic churches of Buenos Aires once. So when our Pope says things like that I see it as another opportunity to trust in God. God is good, and he is a benefactor. He won’t give His children anything that is not good for the salvation of their souls. This Pope is a gift to us in some mysterious way. May be God want us to grow in obedience and trust. It is easy to follow a saint and a genius who never makes a mistake. It takes courage and faith to follow a nincompoop. Let us have courage and faith. God is in control not Peter, or Alexander VI, or Francis. The enemies of the Church shall not prevail. We have His promise.
          As for this “equality” thing I wonder what he thinks of these words of Jesus: “I tell you, make for yourselves friends by means of unrighteous gains,
          so that when you fail, they may receive you into the eternal tents.” It looks like here Jesus is teaching that earning more than others can be an opportunity to show mercy on those less fortunate. A person thus acting buys hard mercy by showing soft mercy to others. I give my dollars to the needy, God gives me eternal life as a reward. I call that a good deal for all involved, equality be … a thing for the damned whose eyes are greedy of the neighbors’ riches.

          • Doesn’t it say in scripture that the devil fell through envy ? And envy begets murder. “he was a murderer from the beginning” as we see with Cain and Abel. That was envy that turned to murder. Envy among people in a nation is toxic.

          • Doesn’t it say in scripture that the devil fell through envy?
            Negative! The envy comes after he has already fallen,

            Wis 2:23-24 (RSVCE) –

            23 for God created man for incorruption,
            and made him in the image of his own eternity,[a]
            24 but through the devil’s envy death entered the world,
            and those who belong to his party experience it.


            a. Wisdom 2:23 Other ancient authorities read nature

          • Did you really mean to write this, “It takes courage and faith to follow a nincompoop?”

          • Popes have been that through history. Even Peter had his bad moments. Yet the disciples followed him in spite of all his shortcomings. God gives us Peter in every generation. Sometimes we get the brave Peter of Pentecost, sometimes we get the confused Peter of the Transfiguration; and it looks like we are getting Peter the denier at present. I say that with sadness and respect. I mean no insult at all.

          • Peter didn’t deny Christ after he was made Pope and it was also prior to the descent of the Holy Ghost. Anyway, just thought the statement sounded funny; not how I think of following Christ. Guess there can be pretty nincompoopy Popes but I don’t think Catholics consider themselves following a nincompoop but following Christ, so…impossibly far from a nincompoop.

          • I’m afraid you got your timing wrong. Peter denied Christ the eve of the Crucifixion. He did no see Christ again until after the Resurrection. Peter was two weeks into his papacy when he denied the Lord and he was informed by the Holy Spirit about Christ being the Messiah. Read from Matthew 16:20 onward and find yourself a good Gospel chronology, or ask a well formed Catholic. The Transfiguration happened one week into his papacy and one week before the denial (give or take a day). Yes we follow Christ, who told us to follow Peter. That is what the Vicar of Christ is there for. Three things make us Catholic: Our Eucharistic Lord, Our Blessed Mother, Our Pope in Rome. We can’t miss any of them and still be Catholic. Popes are not perfect, nor they are under the obligation of being objectively infallible all the time. It is good to keep that in mind because we owe him obedience in matters of morals and faith. God bless you!

          • This is from Catholic Answers, Peter and the Papacy, ‘Finally, after the resurrection, Jesus appeared to his disciples and asked Peter three times, “Do you love me?” (John 21:15-17). In repentance for his threefold denial, Peter gave a threefold affirmation of love. Then Christ, the Good Shepherd (John 10:11, 14), gave Peter the authority he earlier had promised: “Feed my sheep” (John 21:17). This specifically included the other apostles, since Jesus asked Peter, “Do you love me more than these?” (John 21:15), the word “these” referring to the other apostles who were present (John 21:2). Thus was completed the prediction made just before Jesus and his followers went for the last time to the Mount of Olives. ‘. I do not in dispute the Catholic obligation of obedience to the Pope.

          • Catholic Answers can say all they want they don’t have any
            imprimatur on their assertions – as far as I am concerned I stick with the Magisterium of the Church and the Apostolic Fathers. Peter was made Pope clearly with the approval of God the Father and God the Holy Spirit in Caesarea. Get yourself the three volume copy of The Faith of the Early Fathers by Fr. William A. Jurgens go to page 370 under Doctrinal Index/Church/Primacy and read the numerous quotes from the early Fathers of the Church. Now please reason the text like a Catholic, NOT like in a Protestant fashion, making doctrine out of thin air like Catholic Answers often do turning an opinion into a quasi-dogma.

            Matthew 16:17-19 – Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

            John 21:15 – When they had finished eating, Jesus said to
            Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?”

            “These” is a rather ambiguous word here: technically it may refer to the fishing business (fish, boat, apparel, earning a living fishing, etc.) or “do you love more than these people love me?” or “do you love these people more than you love me?” The ambiguity forces us to consider everything because no one can know for sure. See the Textus Receptus:

            John 21:15 – Ὅτε οὖν ἠρίστησαν λέγει τῷ Σίμωνι Πέτρῳ ὁ
            Ἰησοῦς Σίμων Ἰωνᾶ, ἀγαπᾷς με πλεῖόν τούτων λέγει αὐτῷ Ναί κύριε σὺ οἶδας ὅτι φιλῶ σε λέγει αὐτῷ Βόσκε τὰ ἀρνία μου

            One opinion is that Our Lord could be referring to the earlier declaration of Peter, who said that he would never deny the Lord, even if the others fell away, and no matter what the cost to himself. Notice that Peter is called the foreordained SHEPHERD already at the mount of Olives and the event at the beach is still one month in the future.

            Mark 14:26-30 – And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives. And Jesus said to them, “You will all fall away; for it is written, — ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.’ But after I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee.” Peter said to him, “Even though they all fall away, I will not.” And Jesus said to him, “Truly, I say to you, this very night, before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times.” But he [Peter] responded vehemently, “If I must die with you, I will not deny you.” And they all said the same

            If you want to go around instructing the faithful, please do your homework first and study. We are all brothers here, we are all learning. Please do not mislead others with half cooked theology. I wish Catholic Answers would do the same.

          • Boy, I sure didn’t mean to put Catholic Answers in your cross hairs. I’m Catholic so I took a little umbrage at the idea of following a nincompoop. If you like it run with it.

          • “Hyperbole?” Does it mean to be totally wrong whilst maintaining a healthy supply of condescension?

          • The “totally wrong” statement begs a refutation, an argument. Truth does not run out of arguments and then accuses the messenger of condescension. Good thing you can read souls. I won’t accuse you of anything. So please explain why I am “totally wrong” perhaps I am wrong because I am a man? The argumentum ad vulvam does not work with me. I hate feminazism.

          • CW, is not Melanie’s assertion, that Peter’s Pontificate came later rather than earlier, supported by the use by Our Lord of the future tense? “I will build my church …” ; “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven …”.

          • So Peter was ordained a Pope at Caesarea but not quite yet? Was that a conditional statement? Was it a promise? Was Jesus merely talking in a kingly fashion by using the words of Isaiah 22? How can we legally construe a delay there so the denials don’t stain the papacy?

            “Delaying” the papacy of Peter to dislodge Peter’s denials of the Lord from Peter’s pontificate bothers me. It looks like we are massaging Scripture in Jehovah’s Witness fashion to make the guy look good. It is tortuous at best. The time will come and we are very near when there will be a denial of the Lord coming from a sitting Pope. We have been told that the hierarchy will fornicate with the world and the Church will be scattered and persecuted. Evil will not prevail but we will see the foolishness of “putting our faith on princes” even if those are the princes of the Church. We are expected to be obedient but we are not asked to be blind.

          • I understand. All things are possible when we start isolating one word here and one word there. That is when the beauty and wisdom of Holy Tradition shine: when we can look back to the statements of our Fathers of the Church. I’ll give you one example: neither in Hebrew or Aramaic there is a future tense. Christ was obviously talking in Aramaic at Caesarea. We know that because we plays with the words Kepha (promontory, crag, rock) and Caiaphas (dell) — Peter is most obviously being ordained there, that is not my opinion, it is what the Fathers of the Church have always stated. Am I being condescending for stating that fact? or should I defer the clarification and “be nice” by not correcting an error? Did I use bad language? No. So what is the big deal? If someone wants to believe that Popes are unfailingly great people that never do anything wrong … go ahead — it is not true — in fact that is a soft form of idolatry. Once I was in charge of selecting a quote from Scripture for a weekly leaflet of no importance. It did not have to be anything in particular, just a Psalm or something to be the header of the week. So I normally went to the daily readings and selected one. The secretary who was to enter that simple quote in the computer system invariably said: “I will check with Fr. So and so” and invariably Fr. So and So told her that as long as it came from the Bible it was FINE, but she did the same every week. That, my friend in a very common mix of ignorance with envy. This discussion that emerged here has nothing to do with finding the truth. For one side it is just a pissing contest. Too bad there is so much of that Protestant spirit even among those who think themselves defenders of Catholic Tradition.

          • Yes, point taken but you have to take people with you with kindness (I do the opposite all too often). I’d be very glad to read the Fathers on the question that’s been discussed. Would you be able to post a few citations here?

          • There is plenty in ChurchFathers dot com (due to the current link hacking problem I suggest to type it directly) and also in The Faith of the Early Fathers as I indicated above. In none of those, to the best I can recall, there is any indication that Peter’s papacy was merely announced in Mt. 16 and established in Jn. 21. In my long years of reading the Fathers and Bible commentaries of all sorts, that is a new one. Of course I can be wrong and if someone shows me a Magisterial document supporting such interpretation I will appreciate it. Beware of Catholic Answers, or Scott Hahn, Marcus Grodi, Steve Ray, and other “Catholic personalities” coming from the Protestant world. They may have the best intentions but their former views sometimes continue informing their thoughts. My best advice is to stick to the Fathers and learn to “think Catholic” from the root up.

          • “My best advice is to stick to the Fathers and learn to “think Catholic” from the root up.”
            I can not enough emphasize how much I agreed with this!

          • Pope Pius IX, July 18, 1870, First Vatican Council, Session 4, Chapter 1, #3:
            “And it was to Peter alone that Jesus, after his resurrection, confided the jurisdiction of Supreme Pastor and ruler of his whole fold, saying: ‘Feed my lambs, feed my sheep’… So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.”

  14. Sublime Prince of the Royal Secret: … Equilibrium between Good and Evil, and Light and Darkness in the world …

    And you thought STAR WARS was about good vs. evil with good triumphing? Think again. Satan has been at this for a long time with his cleverly invented myths [cf.
    2 Pt 1:16]

    GEORGE LUCAS: Yeah, I know what that is. And it’s — it’s — it’s sprinkled throughout this episode. I mean, it’s — it’s all of the — the groundwork’s been laid in this episode. And the — the film is ultimately about the Dark Side and the light side, and those sides are designed around compassion and greed. And we all have those two sides of us and that we have to make sure that those two sides of us are in balance. – The Mythology of ‘Star Wars’ with George Lucas, June 18, 1999 by Staff

    And that’s is what is hinted in the trailer of the upcoming Star Wars The Last Jedi

    Recall that the JEDI are Christians whom they want to exterminate to the last man –

    Now another lie from the evil one: to convince Christians that they can and ought to coexist [] with evil.

    • From below, my take is that Our LORD is being presented as the Freemason’s Sun (Disk) to be worshipped

      In the way which we trace for our brethren there are found great obstacles to conquer, difficulties of more than one kind to surmount. They will be overcome by experience and by perspicacity; but the end is beautiful. What does it matter to put all the sails to the wind in order to attain it. You wish to revolutionize Italy? Seek out the Pope of whom we give the portrait. You wish to establish the reign of the elect upon the throne of the prostitute of Babylon? Let the clergy march under your banner in the belief always that they march under the banner of the Apostolic Keys. You wish to cause the last vestige of tyranny and of oppression to disappear? Lay your nets like Simon Barjona. Lay them in the depths of sacristies, seminaries, and convents, rather than in the depths of the sea, and if you will precipitate nothing you will give yourself a draught of fishes more miraculous than his. The fisher of fishes will become a fisher of men. You will bring your-selves as friends around the Apostolic Chair. You will have fished up a Revolution in Tiara and Cope, marching with Cross and banner-a Revolution which it will need but to be spurred on a little to put the four quarters of the world on fire. (My emphasis) – The Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita


      We also pointed out that the baring of feet to something is viewed as paying that thing homage in Freemasonic lore. And, of course, sun worship is a key aspect of Freemasonry too. – (Workers’) Paradise Lost | Torch of The Faith News on Wednesday 07 September 2016 –

    • I had to pull my contribution. Felt like I was being irreverent. Hope the Stalin Prize didn’t come w/$1,000,000 if I would’ve won!

  15. Scottish Rite Creed
    Human progress is our cause, liberty of thought our supreme wish, freedom of conscience our mission, and the guarantee of equal rights to all people everywhere our ultimate goal.


Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...