SEND YOUR BISHOP A POSTCARD. ASK IF HE'S A CATHOLIC

 To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, FB Messenger or X.

'Pope Francis' worships the pagan goddess Pachamama in the Vatican, 2020

It sounds ridiculous - it is ridiculous - but it's a fact: Rome is now ruled by pagans. By its appointments last week the See of Peter revealed itself as a den of devotees of Pachamama. Of outright pagan idolatry. As Mel Gibson, director of The Passion of Christ puts it, "that's number one on the Mosaic hit list".

https://

"Great shall be the number of priests and religious who shall separate themselves from the true religion."As foretold by Our Lady of La Salette in 1846, ancient paganism has returned to Rome, which has a new religion now: the 'Synodal Church'. It's not the Catholic Church.

One of Leo's 19 new consultors to the Dicastery for Interreligious Dialogue is Catherine Cornille, who's argued that Christian life can be aided by Buddhist meditation and Hindu yoga. Another, Sofía Nicolasa Chipana Quispe, has described humans as part of Pachamama, and belonging to Pachamama. Leo's new man for the Archbishopric of Morelia, +Carlos Merlos, is reported as being “purified” in a Mazatec ritual. His new Secretary for the Dicastery for Clergy is Archbishop Carlo Redaelli, who refused to condemn the sodomitic “marriage” of a Catholic scout leader, instead promoting Francis' line of “welcome, discernment and integration”.

Rome has lost the faith, and in this crisis of mass apostasy lay Catholics often don't know where their bishop or priest stands. A wolf blends. He disguises himself as a sheep - or worse, a shepherd - until he's got so close he's caught you. 

Find out whether your bishop or priest is a shepherd or a wolf. Ask him to affirm the faith. All you need is a postcard and pen, and a response from him of a single 'yes' or 'no'. Because he, like you, must adhere to every one of the articles of faith listed below to be truly a member of Christ's Body, the Church.

  

A well-informed and faithful Catholic, a reader of this blog, writes thusly:

Dubia to the Bishops, Priests and Deacons of the Holy Catholic Church

 

It has become apparent that there is an apostasy occurring within the Church. This apostasy, starting at the top, has spread to such an extent that Rome appears to be returning to her pagan roots.

 

Our Lord, Jesus Christ commanded His sheep to know the voice of their shepherds and to follow them - but to flee from the wolves disguised as shepherds. So we are required to know what our shepherds affirm to be true in matters regarding the Faith.

 

The apostasy from the top has made it necessary for the laity to request, respectfully, that our Priests and Bishops confirm publicly that they still believe, and affirm, the Faith.

That they remain in Christ's Church. 

"Quis ut Deus?" Just as St Michael had to cry his challenge in heaven to the Angels, we the laity now need to question our shepherds to see who are still in the Catholic Church, in order that we may know who still serve Christ as His good shepherds.

  

This dubia is a formal request, to our bishops and priests, for a yes or no answer to the questions listed below.

Do you believe and affirm the truths expressed in the statements below? If you do not affirm them, you will be understood to be too lukewarm in your faith to answer, or that you disagree with one or more of the following statements:

 

Do you affirm that Jesus Christ is the Son of God?

 

Do you affirm that Jesus Christ is the Head of His Church, and the Body of His Church are the Faithful who belong to Him?

 

Do you affirm that there is no salvation outside the Church?

 

Do you affirm that the Church has four marks; none of the four marks can change; all four must always be present.:

 

That the Church is One, because God is One.

 

That the Church is Holy because the Church is established in Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who is God.

 

That the Church is Catholic. As stated by St. Ignatius of Antioch, She is the universal Body of Christ. As such she always contains all Truth, whole and entire, is inerrant, and does not change.

 

That the Church is Apostolic; The Catholic Church is apostolic because it was founded by Christ on the apostles and, according to His divine will, has always been governed by their lawful successors, the Pope and the Bishops. 

 

Do you affirm that only men can be ordained to Holy Orders?

 

Do you affirm that Modernism is a condemned heresy? As condemned by Pope Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis (1907) ?

 

Do you affirm that Indifferentism is a condemned heresy? As condemned by:

Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos (1832)

Pope Leo XIII in Humanum Genus (1884)

Pope Pius XI (1922-1939), Mortalium Animos (1928)

To end any doubts you may have about your bishop or priest's faith in Christ, all you need is a postcard and pen, and a response from him of a single 'yes' or 'no'. Because he - like you yourself - must adhere to every one of the articles of faith listed below to identify as a member of Christ's Body, the Church.

 

ASK YOUR BISHOP: "ARE YOU A CATHOLIC?"

 

To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, FB Messenger or X.  

 

"Great shall be the number of priests and religious who shall separate themselves from the true religion": it's glaringly obvious that the prophecy of Our Lady of La Salette in 1846 has now come to pass.

The Church is in apostasy and the vast majority of bishops and priests say nothing. Do they silently concur with Amoris Laetitia, Traditionis Custodes, Fiducia Supplicans and the "Document on Human Fraternity”, or are they still faithful to the Church and her dogma? Because one cannot hold the office of pope, cardinal, bishop, or priest unless he is Catholic. A Catholic who falls into heresy, schism or apostasy is no longer Catholic, ipso facto.

The conciliar, synodal, Prevostian Vatican is ruled by latter-day Pharisees very like those who, when "the whole multitude of his disciples began with joy to praise God with a loud voice", asked Our Lord to rebuke them. For example, 'Pope Francis' who squelched Bishop Joseph Strickland and Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano for speaking the truth, and Leo's bishops who now stifle the ultimate in praise of God - the Traditional Latin Mass.

"To whom he said: I say to you, that if these" (bishops and priests complicit in the evils of religious indifferentism and sodomy now rampant in the conciliar cult) "shall hold their peace the stones will cry out" (Lk 19, 40).

So now the stones are crying out. Fr Michael Mary Sim and the Transalpine Redemptorists of Christchurch, New Zealand, having repudiated Amoris Laetitia, Traditionis Custodes, Fiducia Supplicans and the "Document on Human Fraternity” are calling on Catholics everywhere to ask their bishops priests and deacons to affirm their loyalty to Christ and His Church.Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoASkrCQqT4

 

 

Open letter to the Bishops, Priests and Deacons of the Holy Catholic Church

 

It has become apparent to the laity, and even to some outside the Church (especially good Protestants), that there is apostasy within the Mystical Body of Christ. This apostasy, which began at the top, has spread wide and deep. As we have been warned she would, Rome appears to be returning to her pagan roots.

 

Our Lord Jesus Christ commanded that His sheep know the voice of their Shepherd. If we are to obey Christ we need to know what you affirm to be true in matters regarding the Faith.

 

Apostasy from the top makes it necessary for the laity to request, with respect, that our Priests and Bishops confirm publicly that they still believe, and affirm, the Catholic Faith; that they remain in Christ's Church. Just as St Michael had to cry his challenge, "Quis ut Deus (who is like God)?" in Heaven to the Angels.The laity need to question their shepherds in order to see who are still in the Catholic Church, serving Christ as His good shepherds.

 

 

'Pope Leo' admits the synodal Church does not possess the truth

 

 

If you believe and affirm the statements below, please sign. Failure to sign will be taken to mean that either your faith is lukewarm or you disagree with one or more of the following statements:

 

 

I affirm that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

 

 

I affirm that Jesus Christ is the Head of His Church, and the Body of His Church are the Faithful who belong to Him.

 

 

I affirm that There is no salvation outside the Church.

 

 

I affirm that The Church has four marks; none of the four marks can change and all four must always be present:

 

That the Church is One, because God is One.

 

That the Church is Holy because the Church is established in Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who is God.

 

That the Church is Catholic. As stated by St. Ignatius of Antioch, She is the universal Body of Christ. As such she always contains all Truth, whole and entire, is inerrant, and does not change.

 

That the Church is Apostolic; she is hierarchical.

 

 

I affirm that only men can be ordained to Holy Orders.

 

 

I affirm that Modernism is a condemned heresy.

 

 

I affirm that Indifferentism is a condemned heresy.

 

 

  

Signature ________________________________

 

Name ___________________________________

 

Date ____________________________________

 

 

 

VAT2: A GLOBALIST COUP AGAINST THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

 To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, FB Messenger or X.

 

Once upon a happy time, the Catholic Church was counter-revolutionary. The Church on earth was the Church Militant, opposing the evils of the world. And she was remarkably successful. In the aftermath of World War II, in the 'fifties, along with Great Britain and the United States she flourished. Everyone went to Mass on Sunday. Vocations to the priesthood and the religious life proliferated. What the Catholic Church said, went. 

However. Globalism was resurgent; governments were making money and proclamation by the Church of the Gospel (especially the Beatitudes) was seen as a stumbling block. The Church had to be taken out. The globalist class intended to neutralise the Church, to delegitimise her, to deconstruct the papacy, and Vatican II and Synodality was the way to do it. They went to work to change the Church. The abolition of the death penalty is a stark example of their success. 

The council was a coup. A revolution. It was, and is, neoModernism imposing itself on the faithful through the organs of the Church by corrupted clergy. Its only opposition - the only real opposition to evil today -  resides in the Traditional Latin Mass movement, which precisely for that reason has been subjected to a pogrom by the counterfeit conciliar church now squatting in the Vatican. 

If today the Church is a devastated vineyard, the reason is Rome's determination to get rid of traditionalists by getting rid of where they congregate. In God's ghetto: the Traditional Latin Mass. 

(Acknowledging Stephen Kokx and the Catholic Esquire: https://youtu.be/eUFq5oBqEY8)

 "[Vatican II] must be deleted, nullified, vilified, stamped out and shredded. There should be a public burning of its documents in St. Peter’s Square. There will be no solution to the Church’s problems until this council is unmasked for the villain that it is."

From Robert Morrison at The Remnant Magazine:

Every single ambiguity of Vatican II tended to undermine Catholic teaching in precisely the way against which the pre-Vatican II popes emphatically warned. This is not mere coincidence. 

 

Moreover, the presence of so much ambiguity fundamentally undermines the Catholic Church’s role as truth-teller. The Church obviously knew how to speak clearly and unambiguously on all of the matters that have become so contentious after the Council.

 

In his 2024 book Flee From Heresy: A Catholic Guide to Ancient and Modern Errors, Bishop Athanasius Schneider provided the following question and answer regarding how Vatican II differs from previous ecumenical councils:

 

“What was the key difference between Vatican II and all previous ecumenical councils? 

 

The previous ecumenical councils formulated the doctrine of faith and morals in articles with the clearest possible assertions, and in concise canons with anathemas, to guarantee an unambiguous understanding of the true doctrine and protect the faithful from heretical influences within or outside the Church. Vatican II, however, chose not to do this.”

 

Elsewhere in his book, Bishop Schneider noted that some of Vatican II’s ambiguities have led to erroneous understandings which could be corrected by a future infallible act of the Magisterium. While it is still too early to know whether Pope Leo XIV would cooperate with God’s grace to make the necessary corrections to rectify Vatican II’s ambiguities, it is worth considering why ambiguity was the most lethal weapon of Vatican II’s architects.

 

 

False ecumenism rampant

In his One Hundred Years of Modernism, Fr. Dominique Bourmaud discussed the evidence we have that the architects of Vatican II employed ambiguity deliberately:

“We could cite a hundred cases of such ambiguity, which was in fact premeditated, as Fr. Laurentin explained: “Here and there, ambiguity was cultivated as an escape from inextricable oppositions.

 

One could lengthen the list of such wordings encompassing opposing tendencies, because they could be looked at from both sides just like those photographic tricks whereby you see two different people in the same picture depending on the angle you look at it. For this reason, Vatican II already has given, and will continue to give rise to many controversies.’”

 

Fr. Laurentin’s image of the photographic trick is quite revealing because he and others were truly attempting to trick the well-meaning Council Fathers into accepting passages that could be read with an anti-Catholic meaning. The liberals could do this only by persuading these Council Fathers that the passages could also be read with a seemingly orthodox meaning.

 

The most important step in this process of deception was to persuade the Council Fathers that it was permissible for the Council’s documents to include ambiguous language.

 

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre opposed this effort with his November 27, 1962 intervention at Vatican II, in which he encouraged his fellow Council Fathers to express the Council’s teaching in a “dogmatic and scholastic” form that would help promote precision of thought and expression:

 

“[I]t is of the highest importance that ‘the whole of traditional Christian doctrine be received in that exact manner, both in thought and form, which is above all resplendent in the Acts of the Council of Trent and of Vatican I,’ according to the very words of the Sovereign Pontiff.

 

So for these very important reasons, it is absolutely essential to maintain these two objectives: to express doctrine in a dogmatic and scholastic form for the training of the learned; and to present the truth in a more pastoral way, for the instruction of other men.” (I Accuse the Council!, p. 5)

 

Archbishop Lefebvre proceeded to suggest two sets of documents: “one more dogmatic, for the use of theologians; the other more pastoral in tone, for the use of others, whether Catholic, non-catholic or non-Christian.” As Archbishop Lefebvre recounted, the proposal was not well-received:

 

“The proposal met, however, with violent opposition: ‘The Council is not a dogmatic but a pastoral one; we are not seeking to define new dogmas but to put forward the truth in a pastoral way.” (I Accuse the Council!, p. 4)

 

All throughout the history of the Catholic Church, theologians have worked to make Catholic teaching more and more clear, accurate, and complete. At Vatican II, this clarity was sacrificed in the name of a “pastoral” approach.

 

In hindsight, we now know that this pastoral aspect of the Council has only yielded confusion and apostasy. Unfortunately, though, the pastoral aspect of the Council persuaded the Council Fathers to allow for ambiguous expressions.

The initial drafts of the Council’s documents were more liberal than those that were ultimately accepted. But the final documents did not efface the liberal pictures; rather, they added to the orthodox pictures that could be seen within the same passages.

 

Although Archbishop Lefebvre lost the battle of trying to have the Council express its teaching in a “dogmatic and scholastic” form that would have prevented ambiguities, he did not surrender in his attempts to counteract heterodoxy. One of the most illuminating passages written about Vatican II is from Archbishop Lefebvre’s They Have Uncrowned Him, in which he describes his work to oppose the liberal theologians:

 

“It is certain that with the 250 conciliar fathers of the Coetus we tried with all the means put at our disposal to keep the liberal errors from being expressed in the texts of the Council. This meant that we were able all the same to limit the damage, to change these inexact or tendentious assertions, to add that sentence to rectify a tendentious proposition, an ambiguous expression.

 

But I have to admit that we did not succeed in purifying the Council of the liberal and modernist spirit impregnating most of the schemas. Their drafters indeed were precisely the experts and the Fathers tainted with this spirit.” (p. 167)

 

We cannot think properly about the Council if we do not grasp these crucial insights from Archbishop Lefebvre. The initial drafts of the Council’s documents were more liberal than those that were ultimately accepted. Going back to the image from Fr. Laurentin, it was much easier to the see the liberal picture in the initial documents. But the final documents did not efface the liberal pictures; rather, they added to the orthodox pictures that could be seen within the same passages.

 

Archbishop Lefebvre continued:

 

“What we were able to do was, by the modi that we introduced, to have interpolated clauses added to the schemas; and this is quite obvious: it suffices to compare the first schema on religious liberty with the fifth one the was written — for this document was five times rejected and five times brought back for discussion — in order to see that succeeded just the same in reducing the subjectivism that tainted the first drafts. . . .

 

[In this declaration,] Dignitatis humanae, of which the last schema was rejected by numerous Fathers, Paul VI himself had a paragraph added which said in substance: ‘This declaration contains nothing that is contrary to tradition.’ But everything that is inside is contrary to tradition!

 

Mortally sinful ... published by an official Vatican media page.

Thus someone will say, ‘Just read it! It is written, There is nothing contrary to tradition’ — well, yes, it is written. But that does not stop everything from being contrary to tradition! And that sentence was added at the last minute by the Pope in order to force the hand of those — in particular the Spanish bishops — who were opposed to this schema. . . Well, let us be logical! They changed nothing in the text!” (pp. 167-169)

 

Abandoned Catholic church in Liege, Belgium

Belgium was the heart of the VatII 'revolution' under heretics like Suenens, Danneels & De Kesel

So all of these efforts to make the documents more orthodox ultimately served the purpose of allowing the Council Fathers to grow comfortable enough to approve the ambiguous documents that could still be read in a heterodox manner.

 

And, indeed, the statement added at the direction of Paul VI did not change the reality that the authors of the document intended to interpret it in a heterodox manner.

 

The Council Fathers were perfectly capable of speaking even more clearly about the same issues. And yet, in the eyes of all rational readers, they abandoned the clarity and certainty of past statements. In so doing, the Council compromised the Church’s authority in the eyes of Catholic and non-Catholics alike.

 

The way we were (in the 'fifties)

Also in the '50s: so Vatican II appears to have been an unrelieved disaster for Roman Catholicism.

 

 

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger corroborated all of this in his Theological Highlights of Vatican II, in which he described the same last-minute addition to Dignitatis Humanae:

 

“Most controversial was the third newly emphasized aspect. The text attempts to emphasize continuity in the statements of the official Church on this issue. It also says that it ‘leaves intact the traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and communities toward the true religion and the only Church of Christ’ (n. 1).

 

The term ‘duty’ here has doubtful application to communities in their relation to the Church. Later on in the Declaration, the text itself corrects and modifies these earlier statements, offering something new, something that is quite different from what is found, for example, in the statements of Pius XI and Pius XII. It would have been better to omit these compromising formulas or to reformulate them in line with the later text. Thus the introduction changes nothing in the text's content; therefore, we need not regard it as anything more than a minor flaw.”

 

As Michael Davies explained in his The Second Vatican Council and Religious Liberty (p. 205), Ratzinger was mistaken about the chronology of text added by Paul VI. However, the future Benedict XVI was entirely correct about that fact that the body of the Declaration actually contradicts the teaching of Pius XI and Pius XII.

 

Benedict XVI would later encourage faithful Catholics to read Vatican II documents in light of Tradition (i.e., the hermeneutic of continuity), and we can assume he was entirely honorable in his intentions.

 

However, such an exercise could only be effective if it fully accounts for the most salient reality: namely, that the Council’s texts were tainted with ambiguities that leave open the possibility to see the liberal meanings that were actually intended by the men who drafted the documents. Without this recognition, the hermeneutic of continuity can only “succeed” by persuading Catholics to abandon reason.

 

Countless souls have apostatized over the past sixty years because they see the picture of the Council as Fr. Laurentin explained: they either see a picture that is entirely heterodox, or one that is ambiguous (nobody sees anything that is unambiguously orthodox). And so they either think the Church has changed its teaching or else forfeited its doctrinal authority.

 

 

But there is more that could be said against the ambiguities of Vatican II. Whereas it was theoretically possible that every ambiguity could have gone in a more rigorous direction that offended liberal sensibilities, the indisputable reality is that every single ambiguity tended to undermine Catholic teaching in precisely the way against which the pre-Vatican II popes emphatically warned. This is not mere coincidence.

 

Moreover, the presence of so much ambiguity fundamentally undermines the Catholic Church’s role as truth-teller.

 

The Church obviously knew how to speak clearly and unambiguously on all of the matters that have become so contentious after the Council. The Council Fathers were perfectly capable of speaking even more clearly about the same issues.

 

And yet, in the eyes of all rational readers, they abandoned the clarity and certainty of past statements. In so doing, the Council compromised the Church’s authority in the eyes of Catholic and non-Catholics alike.

 

 

 Finally, we can see that it avails little for certain scholars to be able to hold the interpretive keys that allow them to read the documents in a quasi-orthodox manner when the vast majority of Catholics have no such knowledge.

 

Countless souls have apostatized over the past sixty years because they see the picture of the Council as Fr. Laurentin explained: they either see a picture that is entirely heterodox, or one that is ambiguous (nobody sees anything that is unambiguously orthodox). And so they either think the Church has changed its teaching or else forfeited its doctrinal authority.

 

 

The only solution is to openly oppose the ambiguity in Vatican II, condemn the errors that could be inferred from the ambiguous passages, and affirm the Church’s true teaching. May God grant Pope Leo XIV the grace to do this. Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us!https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/7823-why-ambiguity-was-the-most-lethal-weapon-of-vatican-ii-s-architects

"The Coronation of the Virgin Mary" (17th century) Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for the Church