'DIVINE MERCY' CULT IS REMINISCENT OF COVID SCAM

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

 

 

'Divine Mercy' is a cultish, fraudulent devotion, suppressed by the Holy Office under Pope Pius XII and rehabilitated by the Polish John Paul II, posterboy for the conciliar, Novus Ordo, Synodal, counterfeit religion. The original image for 'Divine Mercy' was painted to Sr Faustina Kowalska's specifications by a Freemason, Eugeniusz Kazimirowski, a major mover in the local Vilnius Lodge - a particularly dark, sinister brand of Freemasonry - who later committed suicide.

St Thomas, in the Gospel for the Mass of Low, or Quasimodo Sunday (now disguised as 'Divine Mercy' Sunday), would have had difficulty seeing, let alone touching - as Our Lord directed him - the wounds as shown in the hands of the resurrected Christ: they're almost invisible. 

The image, in contrast to the majestic Sacred Heart now 'disappeared' from Novus Ordo churches, is literally heartless. The rays of light exactly correspond with the Freemasonry compass. The red and white coloration would have appealed to the Polish Messianism fixation evident in the Mariavites, excommunicated en masse in 1906, to whose cult 'Divine Mercy' has many similarities, and would go a long way towards explaining its instant success in Poland.

Faustina's bishop, Archbishop Romuald Jałbrzykowski, who consistently opposed Faustina's supposed revelations, never authorised the display of the painting by Faustina's spiritual director, Fr Michael Sopocki, in the absence of his Ordinary. 

More offensive to Catholic doctrine and sentiment is Faustina's claim that blessings are bestowed by the painting. That's idolatry. Quite the thing, idolatry, apparently, with thousands of Catholics the world over flocking to venerate the image in processions and churches in a counterfeit religion ruled by an antipope. Robert Prevost ('Pope Leo XIV') was exposed recently as having worshipped the demon goddess Pachamama. He is thereby an apostate who can hold no office whatsoever in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

The image has had feet attached - artistic licence, perhaps?

Faustina is hailed as a 'prophetess'. She said her devotion would bring to the Church "a new splendour", and hundreds of thousands of her followers insist that her 'prophecy' is already fulfilled. How come? In 1958 (while her diary was still on the Index of Prohibited Books), in many traditionally Catholic countries Sunday Mass attendance was 75%; now in those regions it's 17 %. Res ipsa loquitur (the fact speaks for itself).

Fr Sopoćko praised Faustina and promoted her image

Any Carmelite familiar with St John of the Cross and St Teresa of Avila, Doctors of the Church, would discern a large rat lurking in this new, conciliar devotion which usurps the Sacred Heart. A Carmelite would wonder at Faustina's relationship with her spiritual director, Fr Rev. Michael Sopoćko, who asked her to write her visions and locutions in a diary to save him time hearing her confessions. Faustina is described by one authority as the victim of the most incompetent spiritual director in Christendom. How long would Fr Sopocko or Faustina have lasted in any of St Teresa's houses?

Teresa would also have given very short shrift to Faustina's notion of Mercy über alles - of Mercy trumping Justice. Mind you, that was Jorge Bergoglio's theme and 'Pope Leo', has taken it to heart., making the cult of 'Divine Mercy' the perfect advertisement for the cult of Modernist Rome.

It's surely fair to say that after blaming the suppression of the Diary on 'faulty translations', Faustina's devotees would love to check out the original source material. They can't. Not even scholars. It's under lock and key.

Faustina heard voices in her head. She said she was threatened by Jesus. Pardon me? God does not give threatening locutions. Her archbishop found her revelations repellent. From day one. The Holy Office based its suppression on the opinion of all Poland's bishops. All the 'Divine Mercy' promises were made by Faustina without a plenary indulgence. She asserted that the Sacred Host 'came out of the tabernacle into her (unconsecrated) hands' (thereby making her the world's first ever 'Eucharistic Minister'?). And so on. Ad nauseam.

The attitude of Catholics in regard to 'Divine Mercy' in New Zealand at least and it seems in many other countries, reminds one of their sheepish behaviour during the Covid scam, when false shepherds cancelled Holy Mass and locked churches; when the faithful lined up for a 'vaccine' derived from the cells of aborted babies and those who refused it were treated as pariahs. Just as pearl-wringers now treat people who refuse to believe in 'Divine Mercy'.

When it inspires 'good Catholics' - including bishops - to accept holus-bolus all its errors (including offering the divinity of God to God, a theological impossibility), 'Divine Mercy' must indeed be a dark devotion. It appeals to our lazy, fallen human nature by its implicit suggestion that fronting up to confession and Communion once a year will wipe your slate clean and admit you to heaven, no questions asked, no merits necessarily earned. 

It perfectly reflects the psychology of the easy, new conciliar religion which wishes to attract adherents of any and all false religions as 'pathways to God'. We need to remind ourselves that presumption is one of the six sins against the Holy Ghost.

The outlook for Catholicism is grim. Thank God for that rare hold-out, that bulwark of the Catholic Faith - the Society of St Pius X, which states: 

"Many people have certainly received graces from the devotion to Divine Mercy propagated by Sr. Faustina, and her personal piety was exemplary. This does not necessarily mean that this devotion is from God. It is true that Pope John Paul II promoted this devotion, that it was through his efforts that the prohibition was lifted on April 15, 1978, and that he even introduced a feast of Divine Mercy into the Novus Ordo.

 

" ... ['Divine Mercy] is a Sacred Heart without a heart, without reparation, without the price of our sins being clearly evident. It is this that makes the devotion very incomplete and makes us suspicious of its supernatural origin. This absence of the need for reparation for sins is manifest in the strange promise of freedom from all the temporal punishment due to sin for those who observe the 3:00 pm Low Sunday devotions.

 

How could such a devotion be more powerful and better than a plenary indulgence, applying the extraordinary treasury of the merits of the saints? How could it not require as a condition that we perform a penitential work of our own? 

"I am uniting Myself with you so intimately as with no other creature.” (The Diary, §707, p. 288). This gives every appearance of being a claim of being more united to Jesus than anybody else, even the Blessed Virgin Mary, and certainly more than all the other saints. What pride, to believe such an affirmation, let alone to assert that it came from heaven! “And the Lord Jesus said to me, Don’t cry. You are that saint.” (§1650, p. 583). These are words that most certainly no true saint would affirm.

 

She praises herself on several occasions through words supposedly uttered by Jesus. For example: “Beloved pearl of My Heart, I see your love so pure, purer than that of the angels. Sr Faustina claimed to be exempt from the Particular and General Judgments. On February 4, 1935, she already claimed to hear this voice in her soul: “From today on, do not fear God’s judgment, for you will not be judged” (§374, p. 168).

Add to this the preposterous affirmation that the Host three times over jumped out of the tabernacle and placed itself in her hands (§44, p. 23), so that she had to open up the tabernacle herself and place it back, a presumption on God’s grace which goes beyond all reason, let alone as the action of a person supposedly favored with innumerable and repeated mystical and supernatural graces.  

The “Divine Mercy” devotion is arguably a Novus Ordo devotion, because the lack of need for expiation mirrors the change in the Novus Ordo Mass. But consider this: even if it were harmless enough (and even that may be going too far - if the devotion is not from Heaven, where else might it be from?!), it is still not a true devotion. As such the effect of its spread will always be to undermine the spread of true devotions.

(Every 'Divine Mercy' chaplet prayed - maybe because it's quicker - means one fewer Rosary.) 

... the devil does not need to get us to do actively evil things all the time: he just needs us not to do the good which we should be doing. [E]ven if there isn’t anything actively evil, the mere fact that it is a replacement for something good serves the enemy’s purpose.

 

[I]t ought to be fairly clear that this is not something that Traditional Catholics want to be getting involved in. And it is certainly not something that would ever be promoted by a priestly Society which sees its duty as defending the Catholic faithful from the post-Vatican II wasteland.  [T]roubling evidence is mounting which shows the promotion by the SSPX of this condemned, modernist devotion and of its the ascendency amongst the SSPX laity (redacted). https://thecatacombs.org/archive/index.php?thread-1310.html

 We are indebted to Stephen Kokx of Kokx News, Kirk Hansen from Ascent of Mount Carmel and Nate Vaughan and Sebastian Malik from Real Divine Mercy for many of the insights cited above. View the video Divine Mercy Devotion EXPOSED: Sr. Faustina's Writings Are Not Catholic.

Jesus Christ had reason indeed to ask that inexpressibly sad question, "But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?" (Luke, 18:8)

How Faustina’s postconciliar cult eclipsed the Sacred Heart, renamed Low Sunday, and sold Catholics a mercy discourse that too easily slips from repentance into presumption.

 

The day that used to belong to Easter

 

What used to be Low Sunday, Quasimodo Sunday, Dominica in albis, the close of the Easter Octave, has been rebranded in the postconciliar world as “Divine Mercy Sunday.” John Paul II tied the day to Faustina’s revelations in 2000, and later Vatican texts simply speak of the Second Sunday of Easter “or Divine Mercy Sunday.”

 

The postconciliar Directory on Popular Piety even describes the devotion as something that has developed and spread in “recent years” in connection with the octave of Easter. In other words, this was not the immemorial identity of the day. It was an overlay added later.

 

And that change is important. Because once you rename a day, you reshape how ordinary Catholics experience it. Instead of seeing Easter Week crowned by the Church’s ancient meditation on the newly baptized, on St. Thomas, and on the close of the Paschal octave, countless people now treat the whole week as a countdown to the “big” mercy Sunday, the day of special promises, special images, special devotions, special chaplets, special branding. Easter itself becomes, for many, the runway. Faustina becomes the headliner.

 

 

Even orthodox priests ...

What Low Sunday actually was

 

The older tradition describes this Sunday as Quasimodo from the Introit, Dominica in albis because the neophytes laid aside their white baptismal garments, and Pascha clausum because it closed the Easter Octave. The Catholic Encyclopedia says the same, adding that the Sunday’s very name pointed to the newly baptized and to man’s renewal through the Resurrection. This was a day rooted in baptism, Easter, and the apostolic witness of St. Thomas.

 

That older liturgical focus was also doctrinally crisp. The Gospel of the day turns on the risen Christ standing in the midst of the Apostles, showing them His hands and His side, breathing the Holy Ghost, and conferring the power to forgive sins.

The point is the Resurrection, the wounds, the apostolic mission, the sacrament of Penance, and the confession of faith: “My Lord and my God.” That is a far stronger Catholic architecture than the syrupy devotional atmosphere that now engulfs the day in most parishes.

 

Rome really did suppress the Faustina devotion

 

This is the part the propaganda always tries to blur. The Holy Office did act. The 6 March 1959 notification, published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, stated that the distribution of pictures and writings presenting the devotion to Divine Mercy “in the forms proposed by this Sister Faustina” was to be forbidden, and it left bishops free to remove such images already exposed for worship.

 

Then came the reversal. In 1978, the CDF declared that the prohibitions contained in the 1959 notification were “no longer binding,” after examining “many original documents unknown in 1959,” considering changed circumstances, and taking account of the opinion of Polish ordinaries.

 

Notice what the 1978 text actually says. It does not say the Holy Office had simply botched the case or the earlier judgment was false because of bad translations. It says new documents were considered, circumstances had changed, and the ban was no longer binding. That is a much narrower statement than the apologetic myth usually pushed today.

 

Indeed, the “faulty translation” line is largely the language of later promoters. The Marian Fathers’ Divine Mercy site says the Vatican in the 1950s had only a faulty Italian translation and was operating on misinformation. But that is their explanatory narrative, not the wording of the 1978 Roman notification itself.

 

 

 

So no, Catholics are not obliged to pretend that the preconciliar suppression was some meaningless misunderstanding, as though the Holy Office had simply slipped on a banana peel. The official 1959 act existed, and the official 1978 act lifted its force without erasing the fact that it had existed.

 

Sacred Heart or substitute religion

 

 

The tragedy is that a suspect private-revelation package spread in a Church that already possessed a majestic, magisterially promoted devotion centered on the Sacred Heart of Jesus. In Haurietis Aquas, Pius XII described devotion to the Sacred Heart as a priceless gift, a powerful means of repaying the divine Lord through love and reparation, and even asked what devotion could surpass it for the needs of the Church and the world.

 

He tied it explicitly to adoration, thanksgiving, expiation, the Eucharist, the Cross, and the love of Christ crucified.

 

That older devotion had weight, objectivity, and theological depth. It was not a spiritual marketing campaign built around a twentieth-century diary. It did not need to elbow its way into Easter Week with a new name. Traditional Catholic critics have therefore argued for years that the Faustina devotion functions as an imitation or displacement of the Sacred Heart, because it takes themes already present in the Church’s older devotion to Christ’s Heart and repackages them in a thinner, more emotional, and more postconciliar register.

 

Catholic Candle says plainly that Catholics should avoid the false Divine Mercy devotion and cling instead to the Sacred Heart, while Fr. Benedict Hughes for CMRI argued that another devotion centered entirely on mercy would naturally tend to draw attention away from the universally recognized devotion already promoted by the Church.

 

That criticism lands because the contrast is obvious. The Sacred Heart language is reparation, expiation, adoration, and love answering love. The Faustina cult, as commonly promoted, is trust, pardon, ocean of graces, clean slate, complete forgiveness, extraordinary grace, second baptism. One school forms penitents. The other easily forms spiritual consumers.

 

Mercy without enough fear, sorrow, or reparation

 

To be fair, the Vatican’s 2002 indulgence decree for Divine Mercy Sunday does include the usual Catholic conditions: sacramental confession, Eucharistic communion, prayer for the intentions of the Supreme Pontiff, complete detachment from affection for sin, and even language about supernatural sorrow and a firm resolution not to sin again. So it would be inaccurate to say that every official text attached to the observance excludes repentance. It does not.

 

But that is only half the story. The official Divine Mercy promotional material simultaneously pushes Faustina’s promise that one who goes to confession and Communion on that day receives “complete forgiveness of sins and punishment,” and it says that, for these “extraordinary graces,” the “only condition” is worthy Communion on Divine Mercy Sunday after a good confession and trust in mercy.

 

Another official Faustina site goes even further and calls this grace greater than a plenary indulgence and likens it to a “second baptism.” That is exactly why traditional Catholics recoil.

 

Even when defenders try to explain it carefully, the devotional culture built around these promises trains the average person to think in terms of shortcut, reset, and spiritual wipe-clean language rather than in the harder Catholic teaching of conversion, satisfaction, amendment, and reparation.

 

This is also why the devotion fits the modern church so comfortably. Official SSPX commentary on mercy has warned that a false mercy detached from justice turns Christianity into sentimental humanitarianism and a consolation industry, one that goes soft on sin and hard on doctrinal clarity.

 

Another SSPX liturgical piece says the Church never separates mercy from justice. That is exactly the problem here. The Faustina package, especially in the hands of modern pastors, too easily becomes mercy as permanent amnesty. It slides naturally toward the postconciliar refusal to preach judgment with any edge.

 

The image problem is not trivial

 

Traditional critics are also right to object to the image itself. The Gospel for this Sunday centers on the risen Christ showing Thomas His hands and His side. Yet critics have long noted that the original Kazimirowski image associated with Faustina either omits or so minimizes the wounds that the result is visually jarring.

 

The CMRI article makes that objection directly, and the official Faustina site confirms that the first image was the 1934 Kazimirowski painting done under her supervision. Whatever one thinks of later softened reproductions, the broader criticism is sound: the iconography of this cult does not carry the same doctrinal density as the older imagery of the Sacred Heart, where the lance wound, the Heart itself, and the price of reparation are unmistakable.

 

And that is not an aesthetic quibble. Images teach. The Sacred Heart teaches love through sacrifice, mercy through atonement, tenderness through a wound. The Divine Mercy image, by contrast, is often received as a kind of soft-focus postwar consolation print. It is Christ without enough blood, without enough thorns, without enough judgment, and, in the most criticized versions, without even clearly displayed wounds in the very octave where the Church reads about Thomas touching them.

 

The deeper issue

 

The Divine Mercy devotion is dangerous because it harmonizes almost too perfectly with the conciliar religion’s governing instinct. Severity is embarrassing. Judgment is softened. Reparation fades. The Sacred Heart recedes. Low Sunday is renamed. The old Catholic balance between mercy and justice survives on paper, but in practice the emotional accent shifts hard toward reassurance.

 

That is why the devotion spread so explosively after Vatican II. It baptized the new orientation.

 

So yes, the whole thing is tragic. Low Sunday did not need rescuing by a new cult. Easter did not need a devotional add-on to become attractive. The Church already had the Sacred Heart, already had the octave, already had the Gospel of Thomas, already had confession, already had indulgences, already had the language of sin, contrition, satisfaction, reparation, and grace.

 

What the faithful needed was deeper roots in those realities, not a replacement package that the Holy Office once suppressed and that the postconciliar system later elevated into a global phenomenon.https://bigmodernism.substack.com/p/low-sunday-stolen

 

 

Image shows Sts Valerian and Tibertius with Valerian' spouse, St Cecilia, Martyrs 
https://sensusfidelium.com/the-liturgical-year-dom-prosper-gueranger/april/april-14-sts-tiburtius-valerian-and-maximus-martyrs/

Sts Valerian, Tibertius, Maximus and Cecilia, Martyrs, please pray for the Church

 

IS 'DIVINE MERCY' DIVINE? IS THE SSPX DISOBEDIENT?

 

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

 

 

So today is 'Divine Mercy Sunday', when millions of Catholics the world over venerate the slightly sinister, literally heartless image instituted by the Polish Pope John-Paul II in commemoration of a Polish nun, Sr Faustina Kowalski, who claimed to enjoy a relationship with Jesus Christ more intimate than anyone else's, ever. Including, that is, His relationship with His Mother and Co-Redemptrix, Mary. 

It is truly astonishing that reportage on this blog of the ban by the Holy Office under Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani (leading defender of Catholic Tradition at Vatican II), of the 'Divine Mercy' devotion, has elicited condemnation of the Society of St Pius X (SSPX) as 'schismatic' - from traditional Catholics! What has the SSPX to do with the price of fish, as it were? Talk about out of left field ... The antagonism exhibited suggests that the article was over target. 

And that target was the conciliar, Novus Ordo, Synodal religion for which the charismatic Pope John Paul II, ardent promoter of all things Polish/Catholic - especially Sr Faustina - is chief poster boy. 'Divine Mercy' enthusiasts claim that their devotion does not detract from that of the Sacred Heart - but strange to say, the pre-Vatican II image of the Sacred Heart has been 'disappeared' from conciliar churches and replaced overall by the effeminate 'Divine Mercy'. 

 Providentially, just yesterday Robert Morrison, writing for The Remnant Newspaper,  gave grounds to refute that hoary old canard of 'schism' in regard to the Society and its founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. Very relevant is Morrison's comment that "those who oppose the archbishop are often complicit in the evils that do far worse harm throughout the Church ... the silence of those who should denounce the evils plaguing the Church is arguably far more culpable than the disobedience of Archbishop Lefebvre."

Certainly traditional, Latin Massgoing Catholics should find enough in these evils to absorb their attention and prayers, rather than fritter their time on accusations of 'schism' levelled at the SSPX, its holy priests and its supporters whose only other option for Mass is the Novus Ordo . +Lefebvre's personal raison d'etre and his sole reason for consecrating bishops in defiance of Modernist Rome was the preservation of the priesthood and the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and the traditional movement arguably owes its very existence now to the archbishop and his Society. 

From 'The Remnant Newspaper':  

 

Is the Society of St. Pius X truly disobedient? This analysis explores the troubling SSPX paradox: widespread dissent in the Church is ignored, while fidelity to tradition is condemned. From liturgical abuse to doctrinal confusion, the real crisis of obedience may not be where you’ve been told to look.

To begin with, it is useful to consider the nature of the SSPX’s disobedience. As we can see from Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s response to a 1976 interview question about whether he was heading towards schism, he believed that he was remaining obedient to what the Church had always taught while the innovators were the ones who were truly disobedient or schismatic:

“When someone says to me, ‘You are going to cause a schism,’ I answer that it is not I who am causing a schism; I am remaining in a completely traditional line. So I remain united to the Church of two thousand years, and I am doing nothing other than what has been done for two thousand years, than what I was congratulated for doing, for the same thing, I am condemned! . . .

 

What is schism? It is a break, a break with the Church. But a break with the Church can also be a break with the Church of the past. If someone breaks with the Church of two thousand years, he is in schism.”

 

One does not necessarily need to agree with the substance of Archbishop Lefebvre’s positions to be able to conclude that his disobedience to Rome was sincerely motivated by a desire to remain faithful to the immutable Catholic Faith. He understood that the Faith could develop over time, consistent with the teaching of Vatican I and St. Vincent of Lerins, but he refused to go along with changes that had already been condemned by the Catholic Church through the centuries.

 

An essay from the September 1988 issue of Courier de Rome (the French version of the Italian SiSiNoNo) highlighted some of the tensions he saw between what the Church had always taught and the impermissible innovations that proliferated after Vatican II:

“It seems that since Vatican II, a Catholic is constantly compelled, by necessity, to have to choose between Truth and ‘obedience,’ or in other words, between being a heretic or a schismatic. Thus, to take a few examples, he has to choose between St. Pius X’s encyclical Pascendi, which condemns modernism as ‘a collection of all heresies,’ and the present openly modernist ecclesiastical orientation, which, through the voice of the Holy See, never ceases to laud modernism and modernists and to disparage St. Pius X. . .

 

He has to choose between the Catholic dogma ‘outside the Church there is no salvation’ and the present ecclesiastical orientation, which sees in non-Christian religions ‘channels to God’ and declares that even polytheist religions ‘are also venerable’!”

 

The essay presented several other examples of the ways in which Catholic teaching differs from what we hear from Rome, but the excerpt above allows us to understand the nature of Archbishop Lefebvre’s concerns. He was disobedient only to the extent that he believed was necessary to resist changes that he considered to be anti-Catholic.

Disobedience is tolerated—even celebrated—so long as it does not defend Catholic tradition. Tweet this quote

This, however, does not present the full picture of disobedience in the Catholic Church. Those who judge Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX cannot do so with any semblance of justice or charity if they turn a blind eye to the widespread manifestations of disobedience that are symptoms of the evils against which the archbishop fought.

 

This is the case not only because Archbishop Lefebvre believed his actions were necessitated by the disobedience to Catholic teaching on the part of his persecutors but also because those who oppose the archbishop are often complicit in the evils that do far worse harm throughout the Church.

 

In many cases, the silence of those who should denounce the evils plaguing the Church is arguably far more culpable than the disobedience of Archbishop Lefebvre. As such, we must consider a few of the many manifestations of disobedience throughout the Church today.

 

Liturgical Disobedience. As an initial matter, it must be said that the Novus Ordo Mass itself was promulgated without adhering to some of the most basic requirements of Vatican II’s constitution on sacred liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, such as:

• “Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.”
• “[T]here must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing.”

 

Any casual observer of both the Traditional Latin Mass and even an exceptionally pious Novus Ordo Mass in the vernacular knows that these two requirements were ignored. Beyond that, it has been the case for sixty years now that Rome does almost nothing to curb the widespread abuses that regularly take place at Novus Ordo Masses. Sacrilege and utter disrespect for the Blessed Sacrament are far more common in most dioceses than the Traditional Latin Mass.

If breaking with the past is not schism, then what is? Tweet this quote

 Moral Disobedience. It did not take long after the Council to manifest one of the most profound and widespread instances of moral disobedience in the history of the Catholic Church: the fact that the majority of Catholics reject Paul VI’s 1968 encyclical on birth control, Humanae Vitae. This public, uncorrected disobedience sent the message throughout the Church and to the entire world that Catholics did not actually need to follow the Church’s moral teaching. This normalized the cafeteria Catholicism that we see today.

 

Doctrinal Disobedience. Many opponents of Archbishop Lefebvre relentlessly support Vatican II, often on the grounds that its ambiguous documents do not actually contain errors. Such defense of Vatican II’s documents should in no way overcome the need to condemn the errors that have been spread in the name of Vatican II — indeed, those who insist that we must trust the Council’s documents would seem to have an even greater obligation to condemn those errors.

 

For instance, those who tell us that the decree on ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, did not itself promote false ecumenism should be the most vocal opponents of false ecumenism. Likewise, those who defend the Council’s dogmatic constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, would seem to have a pressing obligation to oppose the Synod on Synodality, which was built on the passages of Lumen Gentium.

 

However, with few exceptions, those who insist that we must believe Vatican II do nothing to oppose those destructive doctrinal errors that have been justified in the name of the Council.

 

Disobedience to the Council. Conversely, there were many orthodox passages in the Council documents that are now effectively rejected by large portions of the hierarchy. For example, this passage from Lumen Gentium is routinely contradicted by bishops:

“They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion.

 

He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a ‘bodily’ manner and not ’in his heart.’ All the Church’s children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word, and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged.” (Lumen Gentium, 14)

 

This passage is contradicted not only by false ecumenism but also by documents such as Amoris Laetitia and Fiducia Supplicans.

A ‘different Church’ has emerged—one that welcomes everyone except those who refuse to abandon tradition. Tweet this quote

Here is another passage that thoroughly refutes the false ecumenism promoted by Rome for the past sixty years:

“Baptism therefore establishes a sacramental bond of unity which links all who have been reborn by it. But of itself, Baptism is only a beginning, an inauguration wholly directed toward the fullness of life in Christ. Baptism, therefore, envisages a complete profession of faith, complete incorporation in the system of salvation such as Christ willed it to be, and finally complete ingrafting in eucharistic communion.” (Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, 22)

This passage makes it clear that we must help non-Catholics find and accept the unadulterated Catholic Faith; but Rome has spent the past sixty years assuring Protestants that God loves them as they are, without any real need to convert.

 

The Council documents also included a statement which condemns the doctrinal evolution so prevalent for the past sixty years:

“Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. . . But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. 

 

This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit,

... which explains why the Holy Office banned the 'Divine Mercy' devotion.

 

... it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.” (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum, 10)

 

The latter portion of this statement is quite similar to what Archbishop Lefebvre frequently said to defend his adherence to what the Church had always taught. Passages such as this were included in the Council documents at the insistence of the conservative Council Fathers and theologians to counterbalance provisions that favored the opposing (liberal) orientations. After the Council, though, the conservative passages were ignored while the most liberal meanings of the ambiguous passages were advanced.

Only one group of the baptized is chided and asked to remain outside of the Synodal tent inspired by Congar and erected by Francis: Traditional Catholics. Tweet this quote

 Papal Disobedience to Divine Law. Finally, it is necessary to consider papal disobedience to Divine Law, in matters large and small. While we never see efforts from the post-Vatican II popes to actually define something heretical, there has been no shortage of documents and statements from the popes promoting ideas that are opposed to infallible teaching.

 

To take one obvious example, Francis said that “all religions are paths to God” in his September 13, 2024 interreligious meeting with young people. This is an obvious heresy, which has been condemned by the Catholic Church in various ways for centuries.

 

All of this leads to a confusing picture of the state of the Church. It is reasonable for Catholics to want to choose a path that essentially amounts to doing their best to remain faithful to the true Faith while ignoring all of the unholy distractions to the extent possible. And, for those who choose this path, the prospect of being labeled a schismatic is truly frightening, even with the assurances from men like Bishop Schneider that such a label would not truly fit the SSPX.

 

Even so, God has not left us with a situation in which we truly cannot make any sense out of the chaos around us. We do not have to believe in the messages of Fatima to appreciate the implications of the statement that Eugene Cardinal Pacelli (the future Pius XII) made in 1931 based on the Third Secret of Fatima:

“I am worried by the Blessed Virgin’s messages to Lucy of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a Divine warning against the suicide of altering the Faith, in Her liturgy . . .  I hear all around me innovators who wish to dismantle the Sacred Chapel, destroy the universal flame of the true Faith of the Church, reject Her ornaments and make Her feel remorse for Her historical past.

 

A day will come when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted.

For example, the statement of Pope Leo that "no one possesses the entire truth".

She will be tempted to believe that man has become God.”

 

If he [+Pacelli] were to have lived through the situation in which he described — which resembles our situation today — he presumably would have resisted all of these horrors and would have been condemned as disobedient and schismatic for doing so.

If order were restored tomorrow, today’s ‘rebels’ might be revealed as the Church’s most faithful sons. Tweet this quote

Years after he died, one of the men whose ideas Pius XII had condemned in his 1950 encyclical, Humani Generis, had this to say about Vatican II:

“By the frankness and openness of its debates, the Council has put an end to what may be described as the inflexibility of the system. We take ‘system’ to mean a coherent set of codified teachings, casuistically specified rules of procedure, a detailed and very hierarchical organization, means of control and surveillance, rubrics regulating worship — all this is the legacy of scholasticism, the Counter-Reformation, and the Catholic Restoration of the nineteenth century, subjected to an effective Roman discipline.

 

It will be recalled that Pius XII is supposed to have said: ‘I will be the last Pope to keep all this going.’” (pp. 51-52)

These are the words of Yves Congar from his book condemning Archbishop Lefebvre, Challenge to the Church: The Case of Archbishop Lefebvre. It is almost as though Congar was celebrating the same horrors that Pius XII had prophetically described in 1931. And, for those who may still need an even clearer picture of the situation, God permitted Francis to open the Synod on Synodality with an address that included this homage to Congar:

“Dear brothers and sisters, may this Synod be a true season of the Spirit!  For we need the Spirit, the ever-new breath of God, who sets us free from every form of self-absorption, revives what is moribund, loosens shackles, and spreads joy.  The Holy Spirit guides us where God wants us to be, not to where our own ideas and personal tastes would lead us.  Father Congar, of blessed memory, once said: ‘There is no need to create another Church, but to create a different Church’ (True and False Reform in the Church). 

 

That is the challenge.  For a ‘different Church,’ a Church open to the newness that God wants to suggest, let us with greater fervour and frequency invoke the Holy Spirit and humbly listen to him, journeying together as he, the source of communion and mission, desires: with docility and courage.”

 

Francis succeeded in creating the different Church, the Synodal Church, which persists today. All the baptized, including Protestants, form this new Synodal Church and are welcomed and celebrated as they are. Only one group of the baptized is chided and asked to remain outside of the Synodal tent inspired by Congar and erected by Francis: Traditional Catholics.

So if we are going to question the disobedience of Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX he founded, we need to consider this bigger picture of disobedience within the Church. The SSPX stands out both for its willingness to be declared disobedient in defense of tradition as well as its public stance against the diabolical disobedience that pervades the entire Church, from the smallest diocese to the Vatican.

 

If God were to return order to the Church tomorrow, then the SSPX would be deemed obedient while the overwhelming majority of those who condemn the Church would be recognized as disobedient. Knowing this, why would we hesitate to side with the SSPX today rather than stand with those destroying the Church? Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us!https://www.remnantnewspaper.com/sspx-paradox-rome-disobedience-tradition/