Monday, July 25, 2016

The Illuminati Mysteries

 The Vatican II sect isn't un-Catholic, it's decidedly anti-Catholic. This sentiment goes back to the Great Apostasy at the Second Vatican Council which repudiated Catholicism for Modernism. While Mr. Bergoglio ("Pope" Francis) might be the Modernist par excellence, he's just finishing the demolition job begun by his (equally false) predecessors. There is nothing more pleasing to God, after the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, than a filial devotion to His Immaculate Virgin Mother. That's why after turning the Holy Sacrifice into the Novus Bogus bread and wine service, the Modernists waited for the dust to settle before attacking the greatest devotion to Our Heavenly Mother; her Rosary. As this post will show, they succeeded in destroying the Rosary and replacing it with one that is as bogus as their new "mass."

What is the Rosary?

  •   The Rosary was instituted circa 1206 by St. Dominic, who was under Divine Inspiration. He had prayed to the Blessed Mother for help in defeating the Albigensian heresy. (See Encyclical Supremi Apostalatus Officio of Pope Leo XIII, para. # 2, 3, and 4). 
  • The supernatural origin of the Rosary has been specifically affirmed in the official teaching of no less than eleven popes, to wit: Leo X , St. Pius V, Gregory XIII, Sixtus V, Clement VIII, Alexander VII, Blessed Innocent XI, Clement XI, Innocent XIII , Benedict XIV, and Leo XIII (who wrote an incredible ten encyclicals on the Rosary).
  • The purpose of the Rosary is to crush heresy, rout the enemies of the Church, convert souls, and appease the wrath of God justly provoked by the sins of humanity. (Notice how the Modernists made it impossible to pray the Rosary at the Novus Bogus with all the bantering back and forth, shaking hands, and singing such deep spiritual classics as Michael Row The Boat Ashore). 
  • The power of the Rosary is attributable to Mary's unique role as Mediatrix of All Grace. (This prerogative was set to be defined by Pope Pius XII, and many bishops at Vatican II wanted it defined, but Roncalli ["Pope" John XXIII] and the Modernists made sure that never happened). 
  • It is composed of The Lord's Prayer, The Gloria, The Apostle's Creed, and 150 Angelic Salutations (The Hail Mary) which correspond to the 150 Psalms in the Bible. For this reason, the Rosary has sometimes been referred to as "Mary's Psalter."  

The Modernists Plot To End The Rosary

In his book, The Reform of the Liturgy, arch-Modernist and Mason Annibale Bugnini relates that in 1972 he drew up a schema to "reform" Marian devotion and submitted it for approval to the Congregation for Divine Worship. In his diabolic schema, he proposed changing the Rosary so the Lord's Prayer is said only once at the beginning, and the Hail Mary truncated to include only the "biblical portion." The part "Holy Mary Mother of God..." would be said only once at the end of each tenth Ave. He even wanted a "public rosary" consisting of songs, "readings," "homilies," and "a series of Hail Marys,but limited to one decade." Montini ("Pope" Paul VI), still busy destroying the Mass and sacraments, declined to approve the change. 

 Ironically, it would be left to the "Marian Pope"---Karol Wotyla, aka John Paul II---to finish what Montini and Bugnini didn't get around to doing; "reform", or rather "deform" the Rosary. On October 16, 2002, Wotyla issued his "apostolic letter" Rosarium Virginis Mariae ("RVM"). The wretched false pontiff overturned the traditional form of the Rosary as set forth in the bull Consueverunt of Pope St. Pius V. He added five "Luminous Mysteries" in addition to the Joyful, Sorrowful, and Glorious Mysteries. Furthermore, RVM tells us why Wotyla made the changes; to bring the Rosary in line with the new and heretical ecclesiology of Vatican II. The Rosary shall no more be about the crushing of heresy and conversion of those outside The One True Church. It is for world peace and family unity. There's nothing, in and of itself, wrong with either intention. However, it omits the main focus of the Rosary, and presents us with two intentions that wouldn't disturb a Protestant, or even a member of the Ethical Humanist Society. It seeks "unity" without "offending anyone" and 11 years before Bergoglio, reminds us that "proselytism is nonsense."

Let's turn our attention to the two worst aspects of the deformed Rosary (1) the purpose, as per Wotyla in RVM, and (2) the Luminous Mysteries. 

RMV and Naturalism

 RVM was spawned by the same error which drives both Modernism and Masonry: Naturalism, i.e., the belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes; supernatural/spiritual explanations are rejected as false. In RVM, there is no mention of how praying the Rosary is to save, namely that it might give divine grace, inspire mortification and sacrifice, elevate souls to supernatural and eternal truths and to a supernatural love of God. This elimination of the clear distinction between the natural and supernatural orders, was condemned by Pope Pius XII in his 1950 encyclical Humani Generis.

In paragraph #11 we are told, "In the recitation of the Rosary, the Christian community enters into contact with the memories and the contemplative gaze of Mary." Meditation is not simply remembering, there is supernatural grace which enables the True Catholic to love and sacrifice for God. Paragraph #12 tells us "By its nature the recitation of the Rosary calls for a quiet rhythm and a lingering pace, helping the individual to meditate on the mysteries of the Lord's life as seen through the eyes of her who was closest to the Lord." The "quiet and lingering pace" has nothing to do with Catholic meditation, as if it were some mantra repeated by a pagan during Yoga.

In paragraph #28 we read, "while the latter (non-Christian forms of prayer) contain many elements which are positive (this is the false ecclesiology in Lumen Gentium, whereby the Church of Christ subsists in false sects according to how many "elements" of truth they have. To have all the elements is best, but just having some is equally good) and at times compatible with Christian experience, they are often based on ultimately unacceptable premises. Much in vogue among these approaches are methods aimed at attaining a high level of spiritual concentration by using techniques of a psycho-physical, repetitive and symbolic nature. The Rosary is situated within this broad gamut of religious phenomena"  (Emphasis mine) The Rosary is situated within the broad gamut of religious experience in the same way the Eucharist is related to the Buddha, so John Paul II allowed the pagan statue to be placed on top of a tabernacle at the Assisi ecumenical gathering. (Thank God, their "Eucharist" is invalid!).

Also the heretical ecumenism is seen because:

  • Throughout the document, the word "Catholic" is never used except in one footnote referencing the heretical Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992).  
  • There is no mention of its supernatural origin.
  • There is no mention of the Our Lady of Fatima with the First Five Saturdays devotion (that includes the Rosary) and the Fatima prayer to be recited at the end of each decade, "O My Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of Hell, and lead all souls to Heaven, especially those most in need of Thy Mercy."
  • There is no mention of Mary as "Mediatrix of All Grace." 
  • There is no mention of the 15 promises to those whom recite the Rosary.
  • There is no mention of its power to convert people, save souls, and destroy heresy.
  • There is no mention of the miraculous power of the Rosary to save the Church as was the case during the great Battle of Lepanto in defeating the satanic Mohammedans. 
The "Luminous Mysteries"

In paragraph #21, RVM institutes the new "Luminous Mysteries." They are "significant" or "luminous" moments: "(1) Christ’s baptism in the Jordan, (2) his (sic) self-manifestation at Cana, (3) his (sic) proclamation of the Kingdom of God and call to conversion, (4) his (sic)Transfiguration and (5) his (sic, again) institution of the Blessed Eucharist." (Numbering mine). You might wonder what it is that these events have in common to be called "mysteries of light." It is not anything to do with the Blessed Mother, or even with the Redemption. They express the new theology whereby propitiatory sacrifice is eliminated, as was the case in replacing the Mass with a neo-Protestant bread and wine service. The new "Pascal Theology" tells us Redemption is a work of God's mercy and love which He shows to all humanity.There is no need for the Cross except insofar as it is a manifestation of God's Mercy. 

The baptism at the Jordan River was a manifestation of the Triune God. The first miracle of Christ at Cana shows His power over the laws of nature, and RVM denigrates Mary as "first among believers." She might be, in some sense, the first to believe at the Incarnation, but She is not merely some "first among equals," as if her Faith were on par with everyone else. The "proclamation of the Kingdom of God" is nebulous and does not clearly teach the Foundation of One True Church, and no one is called to enter it or be damned. It demonstrates Christ's forgiveness and love in some vague way. The Transfiguration shows forth Christ's Divinity (but RVM simply says "the glory of the Godhead" --we wouldn't want to offend someone with a bold statement of Christ's Divinity now, would we?). 

The fifth and last Luminous Mystery is the most disturbing to me. The Eucharist is called that "in which Christ offers his body and blood as food under the signs of bread and wine, and testifies 'to the end' his love for humanity (Jn 13:1)" (RVM, para. #21). First, there is no mention of the Eucharist as one of the seven sacraments, and no mention of the Most Holy Sacrifice necessary to produce It and which perpetuates the sacrifice of the Cross in an unbloody manner.  Second, the Real Presence is not clearly and unambiguously stated as Transubstantiation. Third, St. John 13:1, is misrepresented. Christ said He loves "His own" until the end, referring to the efficacy of His sacrifice (those who accept and work with grace unto salvation), not all humanity (which has grace sufficient to save all, but not all are saved due to the misuse of free will by those who will be damned). The bottom line in all this is that everyone is saved, because all believe (in some way)  in a type of "manifestation of God's love," and that's all that matters. [One final note of interest to which I owe Mr. Michael Cain of (a website I highly recommend) for the info. If you divide the 150 Hail Marys of the Rosary by the three sets of mysteries (a Trinitarian number), that's 50 Haily Marys. Divide the 200 Hail Marys of the Modernist Rosary by the Trinitarian number 3 and you get 66.6!] 


 These "Luminous Mysteries" are "Illuminati Mysteries" conceived in Hell, and planned out by the Modernists and Masons. The Vatican II sect has given us a non-Catholic bread and wine service to replace the Mass, non-Catholic, invalid sacraments (excepting some baptisms and marriages), non-Catholic theology, and since 2002, a non-Catholic Rosary denigrating the Immaculate Mother of God. In this light it makes a perverted kind of sense when "Pope" Francis tells us, "There is no Catholic God." At least not in his sect. 


  1. Great article,very insightful subject matter.
    In the beginning of this entry,you mention Pius XII.
    He helped start all of this nonsense from 1945-1958.(New Psalter 1945)
    I have seen video of him from 1954-1958,and he was very active and alert.(not bed ridden sick like so many have claimed )
    Not saying he was a freemason but I have seen many pics of Pius XII giving many different men the masonic handshake.
    Bugnini wasn't the Boss but he gets blamed a lot.At least JP2 was honest about his heresy and blasphemy.
    'The call to conversion' is one of the Luminous Mysteries.What are these people converting to other than a global unitarian-esque religion?

    1. Actually, Unitarianism is beginning to look more and more dogmatic when compared to the Vatican II sect!!


    2. Yeah no kidding I agree completely.Fr.Ratzinger (Anti-Pope Benedict XVI) going to the German Synagogue on Good Friday was basically Jesus Christ being metaphorically crucified once again.
      It literally stuns me how people in the novus ordo and a small handful of informed Protestants think he was ultra Catholic-Conservative.

  2. @ previous anonymous: Some people see masonic plots where there are none. Pius XII was a good pope, but the people who advised him were certainly not. For exemple: Cardinal Bea, his confessor, was a crypto-modernist. It was Bea who desperately wanted to change the stance of the Catholic Church on other religions, especially the Jews. He would eventually succeed under the naive and overly optimistic pope John XXIII. Both Roncalli (John XXIII) and Montini (Paul VI) were chosen by the crypto-modernist cardinals,precisely because they could be so easily manipulated / controlled and wouldn't pose any serious threat to their ecclesiastical revolution. If most of the cardinals were not already crypto-modernists during the 1950s they would surely have chosen the traditionalist Ottavianni to be the next pope in the conclave of 1958. Or like father Gommar DePauw once said:'they didn't become bums overnight.'

    1. I agree! I would add that Roncalli and Montini were not merely passive puppets of the Modernists, but staunch champions of their heresy!


    2. The rot began after the death of the great Pope St. Pius X. His three successors may have been good, holy and orthodox men but, compared to Pope Pius X, they were weak popes who failed to take decisive action against the pernicious modernists in the Church.

    3. @Anonymous 10:05AM
      I never stated Pius XII was a Freemason,only there are pics of him giving the Veil of the Master Craft grip many times.
      I don't "See masonic conspiracy everywhere".
      If you read my comment it's plain spoken and not littered with 'conspiracy'.
      I am not a Theologian yet the Council of Trent Session 7 Canon 13 states anyone who changes or calls into question the approved rites,ceremonies and liturgies of the Catholic Church are Anathema.
      Seems Pius XII did call into question and change many ceremonies and laws 1945-1958.
      You draw your own conclusion and please understand these are facts not conspiracy theory.
      Have a blessed Day.

  3. Thanks for the informative article on the Masonic "Luminous Mysteries" of JPII. The Vatican II counterfeit church continually changes the truth of God and turns it into a lie.

    1. That's the sad reality Joann. God Bless!


  4. @ Introibo Ad Altare Dei: I only partly agree with you. Let's first look closer at the papacy of (Roncalli) John XXIII. Pope John XXIII did the three things that Pius XII already wanted to do: call the Second Vatican Council, making Montini a cardinal and ratify the second wave of Bugnini's changes to the Mass. But was John XXIII really a heretical antipope, or just a plaything in the hands of the Modernists? It's a question that is difficult to answer, but let us first consider all the things that point to his orthodoxy. 1) He issued the apostolic constitution Veterum Sapientia (February 22, 1962) reaffirming the centrality and permanence of the Latin language in the Church’s life and liturgy. 2) He shared in an apostolic letter with the world his devotion to the Precious Blood of Jesus (June 30, 1960). 3) He had a supple and profound devotion to both Pius IX and Pius X, papal Saints and heroes of traditionalism. 4) He detested Bugnini so much that he removed him from his position as Secretary of the Commission for Liturgical Reform and his chair as professor of Sacred Liturgy at the Lateran University. 5) He lauded the success of the missions to promote the Faith throughout the world in the encyclical Princeps Pastorum (November 28, 1959). The list goes on... Is this a man who willingly wanted do destroy the Catholic Faith? Not at all! It is true that John XXIII was a naive and overtly optimistic person, or like archbischop Marcel Lefebvre once recalled: 'He had a totally different temperament than Pius XII. John XXIII was a very simple and open man. He did not see problems anywhere.'
    The only really progressive stance which one could accuse John XXIII of, was his more open attitude towards other Christian denominations and the Jews. The reason behind this were his experiences as an Apostolic Visitor in Bulgaria (1925 - 35) and as an Apostolic Delegate to Turkey and Greece (1935 - 1944), which brought him into close contact with the Greek-Orthodox Church and the Jews. Roncalli was even confronted with the Nazi terror up close and saved hunderds of Jewish children their lives. The war surely had a huge emotional impact on John XXIII and that's why as pope he decided to further weaken the aggressive Catholic stance on the Jews which already started under Pius XII, although he kept believing that they, just like everybody else, needed to convert to the one true Faith. Now did John XXIII promulgated one or more heresies during his papacy? Some point to the encyclical Pacem in Terris (April 11, 1963) which they say contains the heterodoxy of religious freedom, but when read in it's proper context John XXIII seems to talk about the freedom of Catholic worship. The Modernists would eventually make an progressive caricature of John XXIII after his dead to further their destructive agenda. The father Gommar DePauw noticed this already in 1967. At a lecture which is nowadays known under the title 'Conciliar or Catholic' he told his audience the following: 'Never has the church known a Pope who was more traditional in his doctrine and in his liturgical outlook than the good Pope John XXIII, who is now being abused to justify the monstrosities which he detested and which he never authorized.'

    1. I must disagree. You fail to appreciate (a)the Catholic Faith as "Integral", i.e., it's all or nothing, and (b)the facts you either omit or of which you were unaware.

      Please refer to my post of 8/31/15 "True And False Saints." Here are some facts about Roncalli which I will reproduce from that post below:

      Angelo Roncalli aka "Pope" John XXIII

      Was removed from his teaching position at the Lateran University under "suspicion of Modernism." He was on a list of suspected Modernists as far back as 1925, and which list was kept at the Holy Office.

      Received the red hat of a cardinal from the hands of French President Vincent Auriol in 1953 at Roncalli's insistence. Auriol was a committed Socialist, of whom Roncalli said he was an "honest socialist." Pope Pius XI had stated, " No one can be, at the same time, a sincere Catholic and a true socialist."

      Promoted ecumenism. He ordered the words removed from the prayer of Consecration to the Sacred Heart of Jesus : "Be Thou King of all those who are still involved in the darkness of idolatry or of Islamism." He changed the Good Friday prayers so as to remove the phrase "perfidious (i.e., faithless) Jews." He further modernized the Mass, Breviary, and Calendar.

      In his encyclical Pacem In Terris (1963), he stated in paragraph #11, "Also among man's rights is that of being able to worship God in accordance with the right dictates of his own conscience, and to profess his religion both in private and in public." This is blatant heresy. Although the Vatican II sect did not begin until 1964 with the promulgation of Lumen Gentium by Antipope Paul VI, we can be morally certain Roncalli was not pope from at least this date. His encyclical clearly repudiates the teachings of all previous popes, most especially Popes Gregory XVI and Pius IX

      The fact that he may have done some orthodox things, does not prevent his being a heretic. Fr. DePauw, my spiritual father, changed his mind considerably between 1967 (1981 when I met him) and 1999, from which point I believe him to have accepted sedevacantism. In 1967, Father was not open to sedevacantism, so in SSPX-like fashion, he made excuses. To his credit, when the proof was overwhelming, he changed his position. (More below)


  5. And what about pope Paul VI (Montini)? Was he truly a Modernist or even worse a freemason? I highly doubt it. Let us first exam everything that points to Paul VI's orthodoxy. 1) He issued the encyclical Mysterium Fidei (September 3, 1965) in which he firmly condemned those progressive theologians who rejected the teaching of transubstantation. 2) He defended priestly celibacy in the encyclical Sacerdotalis Caelibatus (June 24, 1967) at a time priests were leaving the priesthood in droves and cardinal Alfrink defended married priests in the Netherlands. 3) He went against cardinal Suenens who wanted the Church to accept contraception and wrote one of the most prophetic papal documents ever: Humanae Vitae (July 25, 1968). 4) In the encyclical Ecclesiam Suam he corrected the error in Lumen Gentium that states that the Church merely subsists in the Body of Christ and acknowledged 5) He rejected Bugnini's proposal to change the Rosary and said: 'the faithful would conclude the pope has changed the Rosary and the psychological effect would be disastrous. Any change in it cannot but lessen the confidence of the simple and the poor.' The list goes on... Let's be honest now, if Paul VI really wanted to destroy Catholicism he just had to do the complete opposite of what he defended in his encyclicals.
    Is Paul VI completely blameless for the state the Church finds itself today? No, of course he is not. Why did things go so wrong directly after the Council? As with John XXIII much can be explained by looking at the life and character of Paul VI. Montini (Paul VI) came from a bourgeouis environment, never was a diocesan priest and became stuck in an ivory tower mentality early on because of his intellectualism. He naturally liked progress which is reflected in his admiration for modern art and science. One could say his personality was strongly liberal leaning, which together with his indecision spelled disaster for the Church. The evil advisors knew Paul VI's character through and through and tried to persuade him to go beyond the already broken documents of the Council. This is why Paul VI succumbed so easily when Bugnini came to him with his Ordo Missae (1969), which went against Sacrosanctum Concilium. It's a prime example of how the Modernist 'shadow popes' de facto ruled (and still rule) the Catholic Church. Father John Hardon recalls in this respect: 'Pope Paul VI had become distressed by the abuses of the liturgy after Vatican II and was determined to have the Novus Ordo Mass said in Latin. Apparently he planned to issue some sort of direction to this effect. Cardinal Leo Joseph Suenens got wind of what the Pope wanted to do and orchestrated a world wide response of bishops. Cardinal Suenens chose a day and on that day a majority of the world’s bishops telegrammed the Vatican protesting the Pope’s hoped for Latin requirement with threats to disobey.'

    1. Once again, facts are omitted, and you fail to remember Catholicism is "all or nothing." Why would Montini and Roncalli do such seemingly orthodox things? The answer is simple; they needed to "boil the frog"--kill by increments. Can you imagine if we had a time machine and brought a devout Catholicfrom 1958 to 2016, and showed them an average Vatican II sect parish? They would flee in horror!! Montini needed the cover of "orthodoxy" to allow others to do exactly what you are doing, see him as a "victim" and appear orthodox to get people to go along. The SSPX and "recognize and resisters" (R&R) use the "it was his evil advisers" canard to maintain that he wasn't a heretic and retained his office! He had to proceed slowly to the point where Bergoglio can finish off whatever remnants of the faith and moral remain in his sect.

      Most damning is the fact Montini was a sodomite and Modernist. Please see my post of 2/29/16, "A Queer Thing Happened." I will reproduce some of it here.

      "How did the so-called "Gay Mafia" take root in the Vatican? The short answer: Giovanni Montini ("Pope" Paul VI) was an apostate and a raging sodomite. The evidence is as great as it is disturbing.

      Openly sodomite Irish writer, Robin Bryans, claimed in his 1992 autobiography The Dust Never Settles,that his personal friend (one Hugh Montgomery) told him that he and Montini had been "gay lovers" since his appointment as a diplomat at the Vatican

      French writer and ambassador Roger Peyrefitte (also a sodomite) stated that while Archbishop of Milan, Montini would go to a secluded house for the purpose of "hooking up" with homosexual men
      Montini decried "slanderous allegations made against me," but never once mention what they were, nor did he even attempt to defend himself.

      Fr. Georges de Nantes, one of the first Traditionalist priests openly denounced Montini for his alleged homosexuality, even bringing it to the attention of "Pope" John Paul II so as to prevent his "beatification" and "canonization"

      According to the New York Times, the Italian actor Paolo Carlini was a frequent visitor of Paul VI and was alleged to be his lover"

      He was also suspect of Modernism going back to the 1950s. Here's the problem: a pope can NOT promulgate heresy or that which is harmful to souls (which includes universal disciplinary laws). Had Paul VI been pope, the Holy Ghost would have prevented him from signing "Lumen Gentium." The fact that he signed it makes it morally certain that prior to that date he professed heresy as a private theologian and lost his office. The fact he would commit one of the "sins that screams to Heaven for vengeance" says it all; defective morals AND MODERNISM, of which he was suspect.

      How is this different from Pope Pius XII? Eugene Pacelli was never suspect of Modernism, and none of his changes were heretical. Bugnini knew a true pontiff COULD NOT approve heresy. What he was able to do was get people used to change. A law ceases to bind when, in circumstances arise that the pope could not have foreseen, it becomes "noxious." That's why some sedes like the SSPV and Fr Cekada don't use the revisions of 1955 for Holy Week.
      As to the quote from the other commenter above, the Council of Trent was not saying that the pope could not change the approved rites of the Church.If this were so, both Pope Clement VIII and Pope Urban VIII would be anti-popes because they made changes to the Mass in 1604 and 1634 respectively. No theologian EVER held such an opinion pre-Vatican II. The changes of Vatican II are to be rejected as "evil per se." The only way to do that is to elect an actually heretic, not a wishy-washy lackey who would be protected from any actual error by God the Holy Ghost.


    2. Of course they would flee in horror! I don't deny this; I fled my parish in horror years ago! But the world isn't black or white: it's gray. One must learn to differentiate. That's why, after reading more than 200 books on the subject of Vatican II, I went from being a sedevacantist to a Traditionalist in good standing with the Holy See. Not because I don't notice or don't care about the blatant heresies spread by bad shepherds, but to combat them more effectively. Traditionalists can only heal the Church from the inside; standing on the sideline is not going to work. That's why Modernist popes, cardinals and bishops don't fear sedevacantists or the SSPX, but attack the ever growing number of young priests and faithful within the body of the Church who want sound doctrine and an uplifting liturgy. Now let me answer to your discourse. Was pope Paul VI a homosexual and does it really matter? Pope Pius IX has been accused of being a freemason. There is evidence that both supports and contradicts this claim; the same goes for the accusations of Paul VI being a sodomite. One must also remember this were the 1970s and people liked to make a fool out of people with authority, especially the Catholic hierarchy. The traditional minded Cardinal Spellman has been accused of homosexuality as well, but I never hear complains about that! Now if Paul VI was really a homosexual it wouldn't have effected his papacy one bit, because a pope can be a persistent sinner. The prime example of this is of course pope Alexander VI ( Roderic Borgia) who was completely immoral and made a mockery of the papacy. And what about Paul VI being a Modernist? If he had been suspected of it like you tell me during the 1950s, then why didn't pope Pius XII defrock or excommunicated him? No, he did the complete oppposite and made him the new archbisshop of Milan! The same goes for Roncalli (John XXIII) whom he made Patriarch of Venice and a cardinal. Disobedient clergy or those espected of heresy you don't give key positions in the Church; it's as simple as that. Now did Paul VI lost his office by signing Lumen Gentium? He didn't, because for him 'subsists in' and 'is' meant the same thing, which he later further explained in the encyclical Ecclesiam Suam. One can clearly see the Holy Ghost at work here defending Catholic Truth.

    3. I'm sorry your reading material made you apostatize to the Vatican II sect. I pray you return before you lose your soul. Let me respond.

      Your errors:

      1. A heretic can be pope.

      Montini being a sodomite doesn't matter. My reason for mentioning it was that loss of faith and morals usually go hand in glove. You are correct that a morally evil pope does NOT lose office, but a heretical pope does (For citations to the unanimous teaching of all pre-Vatican II canonists and theologians who teach he falls from office by Divine Law, see "Traditionalists, Infallibility, and the Pope" by Fr. Cekada and available to download for free at BTW, there are many sources that show Montini to have been a sodomite, and many less for Spellman--who became a heretic in either case.

      Hence, your contention that there can be a "Modernist Pope" makes no more sense than claiming there can be a "Lutheran Pope." One who is a heretic is outside the Church, and he who is outside the Church cannot (by Divine Law) be Head of the Church.

      2. The protection from error by the Holy Ghost extends to Church promotions.

      It does NOT! If that were the case, why did Pope Paul IV issue his bull Ex Cum Apostalatus Officio, preventing the election of an heretical cardinal to the papacy, even if approved by all cardinals. He decreed such an election "null and void." If papal authority were protected from appointing heretics to bishop and cardinal, the legislation of Paul IV would be superfluous. So when you write, "Disobedient clergy or those espected(sic)of heresy you don't give key positions in the Church; it's as simple as that." It must be changed to read " SHOULDN'T give key positions in the Church." As my reader Mary comments above, Popes Benedict XV, Pius XI, and Pius XII were not as vigilant as ST. Pius X. Pius XII in particular, took advice from his confessor, the closet Modernist Cardinal Bea, who convinced him they were "reformed" and no threat. Hence, was Fr. DePauw able to say, "They didn't become bums overnight."

      3. Lumen Gentium is not heretical because Montini understood it differently.

      A declaration is heretical according to the objective sense of the word, not the subjective understanding of the one making the declaration. We can never know someone's internal thoughts, so if I were to say, "The Immaculate Conception means Mary was in original sin" I'm a heretic, and to declare that I took it to mean the opposite would be disingenuous at best.

      Do you really think Montini didn't understand the difference between "Subsist" and "is"? (Even Bill Clinton seemed to know more on that score!) The 1965 document "Ecclesiam Suam" clarified nothing. If it did, please explain why the Chief Rat--Ratzinger--had to clarify it in the year 2000, and trot out that same 1965 document of Montini?

      I will continue below.


    4. ON JUNE 29, 2007, the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), with Benedict XVI’s approval, published “Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church.”

      The first question that Ratzinger’s statement poses is whether Vatican II changed the Catholic doctrine on the Church.

      Not surprisingly, the answer is no — Vatican II “developed” this doctrine, “deepened” it, and “more fully explained” it.

      The CDF statement cites no pre-Vatican II pronouncements from the magisterium for us to compare with the new doctrine. Indeed, the footnotes for the document do not cite even one pre-Vatican II pronouncement or source. Everything is Vatican II and beyond — a sure sign that Vatican II did change Catholic doctrine on the Church.

      To answer the question, the CDF merely trots out a 1965 statement from Paul VI (Ecclesiam Suam)that Lumen Gentium “really changes nothing,” that “that which was uncertain is now clarified,” and that everything “is now put together in one clear formulation.”

      But apparently not clear enough, because after 47 years, Ratzinger must put out a document to answer the question…"What does 'subsist in' mean?It replies that “‘subsistence’ means this perduring, historical continuity and the permanence of all the elements instituted by Christ in the Catholic Church, in which the Church of Christ is concretely found on this earth.”

      Please note it well: subsistence does not mean identity (as in “is”) but possessing elements.Ratzinger’s statement explains that Vatican II adopted “subsists in” rather than “is” because it “comes from and brings out more clearly the fact that there are ‘numerous elements of sanctification and of truth’ which are found outside [the Church’s] structure, but which ‘as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, impel towards Catholic Unity’.”

      The purpose, then, of adopting “subsists” was to float the partial communion or “elements” theory of the Church — and thus promote the cause of ecumenism.

      This much is clear from Ratzinger’s next statement: “Separated churches and communities” — schismatics and heretics, in other words — possess both significance and importance in the mystery of salvation, and “the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation.” This is the very heresy Paul VI signed in "unitatis redintegratio" Do you believe that God uses false sects as a means of salvation in contradiction of all previous Church teaching? I see NO SIGN of the Holy Ghost in this heretical mess!!

      4. Infallibility does not extend to universal disciplinary laws.

      It does. Why did you leave your Vatican II sect parish screaming and become a True Catholic (sedevacantist) unless you felt the Novus Bogus and the revised "sacraments" rendered invalid by Montini (except for some baptisms and marriages) were incentives to impiety, and not as good as the True Mass and sacraments. According to theologian Hermann, "The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments.... If she [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, she would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible." (Jean Herrmann, Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae, Vol. 1, 1908, p. 258) Continued below

    5. If Vatican II were NOT heretical there would be no need for "young priests and faithful within the body of the Church who want sound doctrine and an uplifting liturgy." as you wrote. You tacitly admit that sound doctrine and a pleasing "uplifting" liturgy is absent. But this is impossible, as the Church is infallible in this area. Also, Montini rendered the new rite of ordination/consecration invalid, so your young "priests" are laymen like their Anglican counterparts.

      5. You can change the "Church" from within.

      You can't change what no longer exists in formally Catholic parishes. You're putting lipstick on a pig and trying to get a supermodel--it doesn't work. The Vatican II sect is just that; a man-made sect erected in 1964 with false doctrine, false morals and false sacraments. Why not join a local Methodist congregation and try to make it "the Catholic Church"? Just as futile.

      6. Loss of office matters in 2016.

      No it doesn't. A heretic cannot BECOME pope in the first place. Would you really like me to go through the laundry list of heresy perpetrated by Bergoglio as "Cardinal"? (Not to mention Luciani, Wotyla, and Ratzinger).

      Please return to the One True Church and leave the Vatican II sect that wants a one world religion, and doesn't care what you do as long as your in union with their heresy, separated from Christ. I'll be praying for you. (Thanks to the work of Fr. Cekada for some of the research above)


    6. One can't fight inside the church without valid holy order's and valid Sacraments.
      I hold the belief Pius XII started this mess but its pointless to place blame 65 years later.
      My prayer is all traditional Catholics can agree upon the pre-1950 traditions including fasting after midnight for Holy communion.
      My father lived in post WW2 Germany and said that war was so devastating it affected Europeans emotionally,including churchmen.
      John XXIII and Pius XII had good points and very bad points.
      Those men died long long ago and we need to focus on the future.

    7. I'm in agreement; we need to focus on the future and flee the false sect of Vatican II. God bless, my friend!


    8. It is my understanding Pope Clement and Pope Urban made rubrical changes to Holy Mass.
      The difference between those 2 and Pius XII is the changes in 1951,1953,1956,1957,1958,is the traditions Pius XII altered dated back to the time of thee Apostles and radically altered Holy Week (I.e.the meaning and ceremonies ),the immemorial after midnight holy communion fast etc...
      Good Friday pre-1955 was the last Mass of the Presanctified in the Roman Rite and Holy Saturday pre-1951 could be traced back to the Apostolic Age.
      Do you see how changes in rubrics during Holy Mass is minor as opposed to destroying and changing the oldest traditions in the Roman Rite of Catholicism and Christianity in general?

    9. The bottom line is whether or not the changes were HERETICAL. I know of not one pre-Vatican 2 theologian who teaches that the pope, as Supereme Legislator, cannot change liturgical rites regardless of antiquity.

      Were they WISE? In RETROSPECT, no they were not, and therefore they cease to bind when they become "noxious" due to events the Pope could not have reasonably foreseen.

      Therefore, some Traditionalist clergy don't use the changes (SSPV), while others (CMRI) do. You can say you prefer the older rites, and that's fine. However, the Church cannot give that which is evil, so if you're claiming them to be evil you must show how it is against Faith or Morals.

      It would also entail Pope Pius XII being a false pope, since a true pope cannot legislate evil. Also take note, that Pope Pius truncated the Eucharistic fast, while urging all who could do so to maintain the fast from midnight. On the feast of Our Lady's Assumption, I may have to work a 10 hour day, and drive straight over for 8 pm Mass. It was Pope Pius who gave us evening Mass given the changing work circumstances in the world. By the time I would get out of Mass, I would be fasting approx. 22 hours! Some people due to age or medical condition cannot fast that long. Happily, they can make use of the 3 HR fast and not have to give up receiving Our Lord in Holy Communion.

      I have been to both pre and post 1955 Holy Week rites. I prefer pre-1955, but that's all it is---my preference. I do not and cannot condemn them as evil/heretical.


    10. Knowing a Freemason (Bugnini) created the new post 1951 holy week and knowing the council of Trent anathematizes anyone who changes liturgy,I will personally call every change in the 1950's wrong.
      Catholics fasted after midnight for centuries,what makes us so special?If you're going to evening Holy Mass,go to confession and abstain from Holy Communion.
      Dominus Vobiscum

  6. In my opinion Pope Pius XII was the last true Pope. All his encyclicals, and in general, his work, are true Catholic. Obviously he was surrounded by modernists, to whom he should have excommunicated. In my humble opinion that was a mistake. He was no Saint Pius X, but he was a true Pope and a true Catholic who lived under the conditions of a world war. Roncalli, he is different, he was a modernist, but in Bergolio's standards he is made to be looked as a traditionalist. He was a mason and an antipope. A true modernist, who should have been excommunicated. As time has gone by, every successor to the see has been getting bolder and bolder with the heresies, until the complete apostasy of today. Great article to send to friends.

    1. I agree completely! Bergoglio makes Roncalli look like St Pius X by comparison! How tragic for the world.


    2. I agree completely! Bergoglio makes Roncalli look like St Pius X by comparison! How tragic for the world.


    3. Sorry to be redundant but Western Civilization is in the process of literally imploding.
      We have had 5 very evil anti-popes in a row starting circa 1963.
      The Turkish president is talking about turning Hagia Sofia back into a mosque.
      Our military is allowing transsexuals to serve openly.
      Abortion and sodomite marriage are marketed as virtues in our national political system.
      This talk of Pius XII and John XIII is now the ancient past.
      We can see 60 years later with our post modern society that the changes in Catholic liturgy and Sacraments from 1951-1969 were literally catastrophic.
      Think about your soul,family,country,etc...
      A valid Catholic priest was murdered in cold blood,not in Iraqbut France just 3 days ago.
      Men from the cold war pre-woodstock era do not have much effect on us.
      We need to focus on the present and future.
      God bless you all.

  7. One more thing (sorry if I am commenting too much but this subject fascinates me) about the 1950's & very early 1960's.
    I honestly think John XXIII reign was the result of life long moderate liberalism and a bad seminary formation.
    Its been reported he pleaded on his deathbed to have the Council stopped and ground to a halt.
    Also in 1959 he celebrated the pre-1950 Holy Week in its entirety at Vatican City.He stated Latin should never be removed from the Holy Mass.
    He also celebrated the Byzantine Rite in the Papal Tierra.(The Tiara was rejected by every anti-pope starting with Anti-Pope Paul VI)
    I acknowledge he was liberal and wasn't the staunch Catholic Pope ala Innocent III but neither was Pius XII.
    Both Pius and John represent the beginning of the modern era and beginnings of the novus ordo.

    1. True to a point. Pope Pius XII allowed the idea of change to be accepted, while the changes themselves were not heretical. Roncalli was suspect of Modernism going back to 1925 under Pope Pius XI, was removed from his teaching position, praised socialism, and taught heretical liberty of worship.

      Big difference. However, I'll be the first to agree that things have degenerated so much, Roncalli looks like St Pius X when compared to Bergoglio !!

    2. Something that goes unmentioned consistently is Roncalli's seminary formation. For him to be cited at various times for modernism in his younger days,his seminary formation was either heretical or incompetent.
      Something evil was already brewing in the early 20th century.

    3. Without a doubt. St. Pius X was able to "send Modernism underground" so to speak, but was unable to eradicate it during his 11 year reign as pope. Also, remember that being taught something and believing it are two different things. You can be taught all about Greek mythology and know all about it, yet you wouldn't believe it. Modernists think they know more and better than the Church. They said all the right words to get into positions of power and then started the process of planting the seeds of error. To quote Fr DePauw once more, "They didn't become bums overnight ."


  8. I am new to your blog. I apologize for not digging deeper to find the answer to my question, but will ask it here even though it is a little off topic. Could you point me to a post or a discussion or even another source with which you agree that answers the question *how* the Church would ever be "reconstituted" if it is the case that all the post-68 Orders are invalid (even among those "conservative" figures like Sarah, Athanasius etc.). Are you one who believes it will take a Divine intervention of the sort that we cannot presently foresee? Or do you think that the present putative office holders (I gather you don't concede that any N.O. figure "holds" any office), could recant their heresies, adopt the true Faith and become legitimate. (This is close to the idea of sedeprivationism that I believe Sanborn has advocated. He may have since abandoned that idea.) In other words, how do you handle the dilemma of the "gates of Hell" issue? It seems to me if it really is "over" so far as a total destruction of Holy Orders except for a handful of Bishops and priests in the wilderness, they will be dead soon and there really would be almost nothing left. I know, I know, I've heard the idea that even if there was only one true Catholic left on Earth...etc. I just find that a bit of a stretch since Christ founded a visible, institutional, hierarchical Church -- that it would be reduced to nothing -- especially since knowledge of the Faith still lives in so many, and is even increasing as we compare notes. So, how, if at all, do you envision the Church in restoration from the VII heresies and all they have wrought?

    1. Please see my posts, "A Cure For Sedevacantism" of 2/19/14, "Consecrated To The Service Of God And Ordained To Fight Vatican II" of June 9, 2014, "Partially Bad And Completely Insane" of December 1, 2014, and "Sedeprivationism" of November 10, 2014.


  9. I think Bishop Sanborn is sedevacantist now.