Welcome to the new Blog…

We  launch our new blog with this hymn in honour of Our Lady of Fatima…

In the light of recent developments – for example, the possible Canonisation of Pope John Paul II and the expected statement from the Vatican cutting all contact with the SSPX – the Fatima message becomes all the more urgent. Your comments are welcome… But before that, remember to (re-)register with wordpress.com!

31 responses

  1. The hymn on the video is beautiful – I’ve heard it before on the website.

    I do find myself thinking more and more about Fatima when I see the TV news. The unrest all over the world, and now the very likely canonisation of Pope John Paul II, brings Fatima to my mind all the time. I’ve heard more than one person say we are near the end now, so if the Pope doesn’t consecrate Russia soon, we might be facing a full scale third world war. We have to pray hard to Our Lady of Fatima for her intercession at this quite frightening time in human history.

    • I agree – the world is in turmoil and Fatima is our only hope. It’s just a case of getting the Pope to realise that – and act.

      • Why is nobody commenting on this Fatima thread? Is the title of the thread (Welcome to the new Blog) misleading? I would have thought that the video of the hymn to Our Lady of Fatima and the short introductory article, not to mention the two posts already commenting, were clue sufficient!

        Come on – is not Fatima in your mind as the possible canonisation (shock horror) of Pope John Paul II looms large: no longer a mere possibility but “coming to a TV screen near you, soon”… Is this not a worry too far? Is not your mind boggling to bits? Tell us!

        I heard only this morning that at least two Glasgow parishes have already got statues of Pope John Paul II in place: one is St Dominic’s in Bishopbriggs, and the other is at Turnbull Hall, the University of Glasgow Catholic chaplaincy. So much for the persistent claims that the chaplain there is soooooooo orthodox. I think not. Beatification only permits a local cult – not universal, so statues and the like are out of place, a disobedience.

        Given that it used to take centuries to be canonised, this is now beyond ridiculous. The only stipulation, it seems, now, to be raised to the altars (if you can find one) is that you be dead. And given the speed with which those who may be merely remotely Catholic are being honoured with canonisations galore, we might all say “roll on”!

  2. Here is some dynamite from the CDF to which a reader alerted me via email: seems the unbelievable Archbishop Muller, head of CDF, wishes to break off all contact with the SSPX, as reported over at Rorate Caeli – I would post a separate thread on the topic but for the fact that this one is so lacking comments and all of this anti-Catholic Tradition activity is directly linked to the Fatima prophecies, which foretold a diabolical disorientation-through-to-apostasy in the Church which – don’t forget – a senior Cardinal (Cardinal Ciappi – personal theologican to five popes from 1955-1989) said “begins at the top”.

    Let’s hear your thoughts on this – at least, the printable ones!

  3. Muller pulls this stunt with monotonous regularity. It’s a shame that the Church doesn’t do stakes and flames any more. I can’t think of a more worthy heretic candidate.

  4. I didn’t know he’s done this before, and if so why is Rorate Caeli reporting it? Even so, it’s useful because it makes it obvious from some of the information given there that Pope Benedict was definitely pushed out of the papacy.

    Could it be that Archbishop Muller knows that Pope Francis won’t bat an eyelid if a statement cutting of ties with the SSPX is issued?

  5. Josephine

    Before he was appointed to the CDF, Abp Muller was a thorn in the side of the SSPX – calling on them to close down their seminaries and disband, using police, church and government resources to harass them and so on. Bishop Williamson’s statement on the holocaust brought the Society close to being banned in Germany as a subversive organisation, and Muller made much hay with it.

    When he was appointed to the CDF, he made a series of ignorant and blustering public statements which made it clear that the negotiations wouldn’t be going anywhere, if he had anything to do with it.

    Rumours at the time were rampant that Muller had been inflicted on HH and that pressure was being brought to bear on him by secular governments, notably Germany. Bishop Fellay confirmed it in his public statements and sermons.

    Vatileaks was widely seen as the Roman equivalent of the tactics later used to bring down Cardinal Keith O’Brien.

    That Bishop Williamson and his group were employing the same tactics against the SSPX at the same time wasn’t seen as a coincidence.

    Then BXVI stated that the SSPX would need to accept VII after all and the negotiations broke down completely.

    BXVI commissioned three retired cardinals to carry out investigations into the allegations uncovered by Vatileaks. We’re told that he made his decision to resign on the same day that the cardinals presented him with their report.

    During sede vacante, Muller again tried to use his office to attack the SSPX and made a series of aggressive and threatening public statements against them. Probably thinking that he might get away with it while the See was vacant.

    Abp di Noia slapped him down, hard and publicly, and he’s kept his mouth pretty much shut ever since.

    Like every other member of the Curia, Muller tendered his resignation during sede vacant, as is usual. Unusually, Francis accepted all of them, but asked some Curial heads to remain in position on a temporary basis. Muller was one of them – he’s currently only acting Prefect of the CDF – but obviously thinks that his position is getting safer if he feels able to again attack the SSPX in public.

    As Muller is a documented heretic (doesn’t believe in transubstantiation or the immaculate conception) he may or may not be as safe as he thinks.

    It all depends how important orthodoxy is to the current Bishop of Rome.

    If Muller gets away with this, he’ll become bolder and will re-excommunicate the Society, given half a chance. He means to destroy it, if he can.

  6. spiritustempore,

    I’d forgotten about his past stunts – but I think the real dynamite in the Rorate Caeli article is (I’m told – not read all the links yet) that all the evidence points to the “pushing” of Pope Benedict (as we suspected) not his willing resignation.

    • I can’t help thinking that the blog article is so correct – all the Fatima prophecies are coming true and the Quito one as well, with “cardinals opposing cardinals and bishops opposing bishops” and “those who should speak out remaining silent.”

      I still wish Pope Benedict hadn’t resigned. He was at least moving things in the direction of the traditional Faith where the liturgy is concerned. Pope Francis is proving to be a disappointment, to me at any rate.

  7. It certainly looks like it, Editor, and I suspect that there’s a lot more information that may still come out.

    To me, this comment in the Rorate article from Come de Previgny was striking:-

    Undoubtedly, the influence of certain heads of dicasteries strongly opposed to this recognition, as well as specific diplomatic pressures, had their influence on the inclination of the pope. A few months later, the latter resigned from his position in the stormy context of the Vatileaks. As a French university professor rightly remarked recently, these leaks have ceased as if by magic since pope Ratzinger stopped presiding over the fate of the Church.

    Bishop Fellay had this to say about the negotiations and the sudden addition of the unacceptable terms:-

    (As reported by John Vennari from Bishop Fellay’s Australian conferences in 2012)

    http://angelqueen.org/2012/11/08/no-romesspx-accord/

    Bishop Fellay went on to speak of the massive opposition to Rome recognizing the SSPX. “There is some opposition [to an Agreement] from inside the Society, but it is not to be compared with the opposition from the other side.” Even if the Pope truly wanted to “regularize” the SSPX, he faced colossal opposition if he tried to do so.

    Jews: “The Jews publicly requested from the Pope that the Vatican not accept the SSPX.”

    Freemasonry: “A few hours before I was given the text of June 13 (and there were very few who knew about this text) the leader of Freemasonry was able to say that there would be no Agreement. That means Freemasonry knew there were enough elements” in the June 13 document that the SSPX could “not accept”.

    Bishops: “I know Bishops’ conferences who were preparing a fire[storm] against Rome if we would have been accepted.”

    States: “I know of states who threatened to call back their ambassadors – which means to break diplomatic relations with the Vatican – if we would have been recognized.”

    This is all credible. I had been watching the Jews reaction to the possible SSPX regularization and have been reporting on it in CFN. When Pope Benedict XVI “lifted” the alleged excommunications of the four bishops of the Society of St. Pius X in 2009, a daily secular newspaper in New York State interviewed me on the topic. The reporter said a local rabbi told him the following: “We rabbis are concerned about a possible ‘regularization’ of the Society of St. Pius X. We fear this may bring about the Vatican’s return to the pre-Vatican II teaching that the Old Covenant is superseded by the New Covenant.”

    In the same vein, when the Vatican’s Cardinal Koch announced last spring that the SSPX must accept all of Vatican II, including it’s new approach to Judaism, Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League immediately issued a press-release praising Cardinal Koch for his defense of the Council.

    One of the states threatening to break off diplomatic relations was Germany. Angela Merkel’s public statements about the possible reinclusion of the SSPX were antagonistic and, “coincidentally” ceased just about as soon as Muller was appointed to the CDF.

    The curial heads most antagonistic to the SSPX included the active homosexual, Levada (now retired to spend the rest of his life with his catamite and successor as Archbishop of San Francisco) plus the German cardinals, most notably Koch.

    After all, the Rhine has to protect its revolution….

    There’s a wealth of information available that suggests very strongly that Benedict XVI was driven to resign with some extremely unpleasant threats, and that members of his own Curia were implicated in those threats.

    Meantime, Pope Francis has the Vatileaks dossier which BXVI left for him. He was also elected with a mandate to clear out the Curia.

    It will be very interesting to see whether he does anything with the dossier and what his appointments to the key dicasteries will be. Starting with the CDF.

  8. spiritustempore,

    Once again, your post has taken my breath away – especially this bit:

    “Bishop Fellay went on to speak of the massive opposition to Rome recognizing the SSPX. “There is some opposition [to an Agreement] from inside the Society, but it is not to be compared with the opposition from the other side.” Even if the Pope truly wanted to “regularize” the SSPX, he faced colossal opposition if he tried to do so.

    Jews: “The Jews publicly requested from the Pope that the Vatican not accept the SSPX.”

    Freemasonry: “A few hours before I was given the text of June 13 (and there were very few who knew about this text) the leader of Freemasonry was able to say that there would be no Agreement. That means Freemasonry knew there were enough elements” in the June 13 document that the SSPX could “not accept”.

    Bishops: “I know Bishops’ conferences who were preparing a fire[storm] against Rome if we would have been accepted.”

    States: “I know of states who threatened to call back their ambassadors – which means to break diplomatic relations with the Vatican – if we would have been recognized.”

    Even to those who don’t have any much contact with the SSPX, this speaks clearly of the devil at work. Why so worried about the Society being regularized?

    I know it says in the article that all this and the rest “is credible” but that doesn’t make it any less amazing.

    I sincerely hope Pope Francis replaces Archbishop Muller – if he doesn’t that will speak for itself about where the Pope’s sympathies lie.

  9. Josephine

    I know…it’s like a Malachi Martin novel. I’m beginning to think that his blend of fact and fiction leant more heavily toward fact than I’d ever suspected 🙂

    Sandro Magister reported the following:-

    “He refers to him continually. He combats him without respite. He does not believe him to be a myth, but a real person, the most insidious enemy of the Church…In the preaching of Pope Francis”, there is one subject that returns with surprising frequency: the devil. It is a frequency on a par with that with which the same subject recurs in the New Testament. But in spite of this, the surprise remains. If for no other reason than that with his continual references to the devil, pope Jorge Mario Bergoglio parts ways with the current preaching in the Church, which is silent about the devil or reduces him to a metaphor.”

    Cardinal Noe (Paul VI’s MC) said:-

    Pope Paul VI spoke of the smoke of Satan because he maintained that those priests who turned Holy Mass into dry straw in the name of creativity, in reality were possessed of the vainglory and the pride of the Evil One. So, the smoke of Satan was nothing other than the mentality which wanted to distort the traditional and liturgical canons of the Eucharistic ceremony.”

    If you compare the rites of the Church before 1962 with their later equivalents, you’ll see what he meant – what was taken away….and the supernatural consequences of what we lost, like the Leonine prayers as just one example.

    When the Church opened a “window onto the world” in 1962, the battle moved within the walls. That’s not to say that the same spirit hasn’t also affected some members of the SSPX, who’ve fallen out of the other side of the Barque.

    The last thing that the enemies of the Church want is for her to regain her traditions and her full strength. They’ll do anything to prevent it, but ultimately, they’ll fail. We have Our Lord’s word for that.

    Francis is a pope unlike any other. There are promising signs, such as his devotion to Our Lady and the rosary. He is subject to the most tremendous pressure that can be brought to bear on any man on this earth, so he’ll have to tread carefully. Particularly because of what happened to his predecessor.

    It will take careful discernment to understand his actions, and we might not see anything evident for a while yet. All we can do is watch and pray for him, but perhaps this is a foretaste of what we can expect:-

    http://ncronline.org/news/vatican/pope-consecrates-vatican-city-st-joseph-st-michael-archangel

    With retired Pope Benedict XVI sitting next to him, Pope Francis formally recited separate prayers to consecrate Vatican City to St. Joseph and to St. Michael the Archangel.

    The early morning ceremony Friday in the Vatican Gardens featured the unveiling of a new statue of St. Michael, sculpted by Giuseppe Antonio Lomuscio. The project, along with a fountain by Franco Murer dedicated to St. Joseph, was initiated under Pope Benedict.

    Pope Francis said the statue of St. Michael with his sword piercing the devil is “an invitation to reflection and prayer.”

    “Michael fights to re-establish divine justice,” he said. “He defends the people of God from their enemies, especially the enemy par excellence, the devil.”

    The statue is a reminder that evil never wins, the pope said. The devil’s head is “crushed, because salvation was accomplished once and for all with the blood of Christ.”

    “In consecrating Vatican City to St. Michael the Archangel, we ask him to defend us from the evil one and cast him out,” the pope said. “We also consecrate Vatican City to St. Joseph, the guardian of Jesus, the guardian of the Holy Family. May his presence make us even stronger and more courageous in giving space to God in our lives in order to always overcome evil with good.”

    In his prayers for the formal consecrations, Pope Francis asked St. Joseph to “watch over and give peace to this land bathed by the blood of St. Peter,” increase the faith of Vatican employees and visitors and strengthen the vocations of all the “bishops, priests, consecrated women and lay faithful who work and live in the Vatican.”

    In the prayer to St. Michael, Pope Francis asked the archangel to help ensure that the Vatican be a place of fidelity to the Gospel and the “exercise of heroic charity.”

    He also prayed that St. Michael would intercede to help “make us victorious over the temptations of power, riches and sensuality” and keep Vatican employees strong in “the good fight of the faith.”

  10. I think there is a mixture of great weather (we’re boiling hot up here in Scotland for the next few days, I believe) and some people still struggling to sign up, which explains the slowness of the new blog.

    So, I thought I would mention that if anyone just can’t manage to sign up in the usual way, please email me to say so because I can “invite” you to the blog and I think that makes it easier in some way. Not sure how or why – but, then, like the great Mysteries of Faith I don’t need to fully understand. As long as it works!

    On Fatima topic…

    spiritustempore, it is interesting – curious even – that Pope Francis speaks so often of the Devil and yet appears not to recognise him at work in the Church today. He’s still a “Vatican II man” – that’s the contradiction which I cannot comprehend. Is he only seeing the Devil at work in materialism and temporal greed, but not in the liturgical chaos and widespread dissent around us? Odd? Yes? No?

    And on the (related) topic of the canonisation of Popes John 23rd and John Paul II…

    One of our readers sent me the following link which clearly states that without the Devil’s Advocate, a canonisation is not valid – and so says Pope Benedict XIV

  11. My new name must have affected my brain because I’ve only just noticed that this is a thread! I didn’t know a lot of this information and, spiritustempore, you have also taken my breath away and that’s saying something! As you say, it’s like a Malachi Martin novel. A priest friend (no lover of the SSPX and who believes that the consecration has been done) commented to me:

    “I’ve known Malachi Martin all my life and it really is strange the way he distanced himself from Rome and yet never left the priesthood. It was if he carried some great burden.”

    Mmmm

    • It was if he carried some great burden

      Yes. Someone once said on the blog that MM had said that the enthronement of Satan in the Vatican as described in Windswept House actually did happen.

  12. semperfidelis,

    If you go to your dashboard, you can select PROFILE and change back to your own username. Just type it in the slot which reads “Publicly display name as” and then remember to scroll down to click “update profile” (or whatever it says to save the change)

    You know it makes sense. You just don’t LOOK like a CrofterLady!

    Same day… much later – semperfidelis really wants to be CrofterLady, so I take it all back! She does look like a lady who lives in a croft!

  13. I always liked this prophecy of Blessed Plus IX.
    “Since the whole world is against God and His Church, it is evident that he has reserved the victory over His enemies to Himself. …those with talents and vigor crave earthly pleasures, and not only desert God, but repudiate Him altogether; thus it appears they cannot be brought back to God in any other way except through an act that cannot be ascribed to any secondary agency, and thus all will be forced to look to the supernatural, and cry out: ‘From the Lord is this come to pass and it is wonderful in our eyes!’ … There will come a great wonder, which will fill the world with astonishment. This wonder will be preceded by the triumph of revolution. The Church will suffer exceedingly. Her servants and her chieftain will be mocked, scourged and martyred.”

    This is from the book, “The Prophets And Our Times” by Fr. Cullerton. The edition I have was published in 1950.
    It reminds me of the Cardinal who had read the Third Secret and said that it spoke of a singular, exceptional event, a manifestation of the Supernatural. And it really sounds like Fr. Malachi Martin was pretty much saying the same in his interviews.

    • Welcome back, 3littleshepherds!

      And thank you for your very interesting indeed first comment on the new blog. Haven’t heard of that book – must check if it’s still in print.

  14. Editor

    I’m hopeful (ever hopeful….!) that the measures that Francis takes to combat the devil will prove effective across the board, intentionally or unintentionally. The joint consecration to St Michael was a hopeful sign…if the Vatican and everyone who lives/works there has been consecrated to St. Joseph and to St Michael, and if the consecration was effective, then I suspect that the devil is in for a thorough-going bit head-squashing.

    Good news about the canonisations too….pretend canonisations should be easily enough undone, in time.

    Semper/Christina

    I read comments made by Malachi Martin and it seems that he did confirm to a number of people that the enthronement ceremony took place in 1962/3. Looking at what happened to the Church in following years, and the seeming impotence of the hierarchy to do anything about it, it does seem like a plausible explanation. As a peritus at VII, MM would have been privy to information that the average Vatican commentator wouldn’t.

    3little shepherds

    That’s another interesting piece of information – thanks for posting it. I wonder if JPII had it in mind when he spoke in Fulda in 1980:-

    When the Pope John Paul II was in Fulda, during his visit to Germany (from 15th to 19th November 1980) he was asked some questions by a group of people: one question was about the 3rd secret of Fatima and another one about the “near future” of the Church. One of the people present documented the exchange. Names of witnesses are at the editorial office of the magazine “Vox fidei”. Below is reported the part of the text from two questions, published (in Italian) in that magazine (issue #10 – 1981).


    Question: “What about the third secret of Fatima? It already should have been published in 1960”.

    Answer (of the Holy Father): “Due to its shocking content and so as not to allow the global power of communism to interfere with the affairs of the Church, my predecessors gave confidential information in a diplomatic way. In addition, it should be enough for every Christian to know what follows: when you read that oceans will flood whole continents, that millions of men will die very suddenly in a few minutes… if this is known, it isn’t really necessary to claim the publication of this secret… Many people want to know it just for curiosity and sensationalism: but they forget that “knowing” involves also responsibility… but they just want to satisfy their own curiosity. This is dangerous when at the same time, they don’t want to do anything, saying: “It is useless to do anything to improve the situation!”. Then the Pope took the Rosary and said: “Here is the medicine against this illness! Pray, pray and don’t question further. Recommend all the rest to Our Lady!”.

    Question: “How will things go with the Church?”

    Answer (of the Holy Father): “We must be ready to face great imminent trials, which could also require the sacrifice of our life for Christ… The trials could be reduced through your and our prayers, but they can’t be (anymore) avoided, because a true renewal of the Church can take place only this way… just as it has already occurred many times that the Church rose up again through blood. It won’t be different either this time. Let’s be strong and let’s get ready, having faith in Christ and in his Mother. Let’s pray much and often the Holy Rosary”.

  15. spiritustempore,

    That is a very important quote from Pope John Paul II which I read a long time ago and forgot about. Wasn’t he such a mixture of the sound and the modernist? How could a Pope who said the above about being ready to shed our blood for Christ, then call a meeting like Assisi? It really beggars belief.

    • Josephine

      I, too, had forgotten about the Fulda statement. Very interesting, in light of later developments.

      Yes, it is a mystery, the way Pope John Paul II could switch from the exactly correct Catholic position to the completely incomprehensible Assisi events.

  16. spiritustempore,

    Yes, I agree – the joint consecration is a good sign and thanks, too, for the reminder of the Fulda quote. All very intriguing.

    Apologies for this flying visit – been one of those days so off to hit the pubs and clubs before having an early night (!)

  17. Burning the candle at both ends again, Editor? You single girls have all the fun….!

    Josephine

    Yes, JPII does seem a bit of a contradiction. I doubt that I’ll ever understand the nuances of Romanita, and he was an expert at it.

    I went off to look for the book that 3littleshepherds recommended above and noticed that Fr Gruner of the Fatima apostolate referred to it in this article:-

    http://www.fatimapriest.com/work12.html

    In the same article, Fr Gruner’s comments on JPII were interesting:-

    “In his sermon during the beatification of Blessed Jacinta and Francisco, Pope John Paul II warned us about the dangers to our salvation today by telling us that “The message of Fatima is a call to conversion, alerting humanity to have nothing to do with the ‘dragon’ whose ‘tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth’ (Apoc. 12:4).”

    By this statement, Pope John Paul II reveals that one-third of the Catholic clergy is being dragged down by “the serpent” — he is speaking in the present tense. He informs us that the biblical prophecy cited in Apoc. 12:3-4 applies to our time….But the Pope doesn’t say “one-third of the Catholic clergy”; he says (citing Apoc. 12:3-4) that one-third of the stars of heaven are cast down to the earth by the tail of the dragon. He does not explain what the “stars of heaven” are. We have to go to Catholic commentaries in order to know that the “stars of heaven” are consecrated souls of the clergy: cardinals, bishops, priests.

    […]

    Therefore, it seems very clear that Pope John Paul II has sent the Church a warning that the Third Secret concerns the clergy; that one-third of the Catholic clergy are following the devil and taking souls with them. What else could the Pope have meant, in view of the commentaries which are certainly known to him, when he quoted Apoc. 12:3-4, and warned about the tail of the dragon? As we have just seen, this is not my opinion; it is understood that the stars of heaven are the Catholic clergy.

    So, the Holy Father himself reveals what is in the Third Secret. Because, you see, the reference to Apocalypse 12:3-4 is nowhere in the revealed part of the Fatima Message, so it must be in the Third Secret in the words of Our Lady which have not yet been published although their publication the Pope had just ordered at the time he gave his sermon at Fatima.

    In conclusion, we can see that the undermining of the Catholic Faith from within the Catholic Church by one-third of the Catholic clergy today is an essential part of the Third Secret. The treason of one-third of the clergy is cited in the Message of Fatima, and this treason is happening in our time. Many clergy are betraying the Church with scandalous behavior. The evidence of the unfolding of the Third Secret is there for all to see.

    Just like his statement in 1982, the Pope did not say that the Faith would be undermined, but he did say that the basis of our salvation was being undermined. But what is the basis of our salvation? It is our faith. We have to understand that the Pope is telling us these things, but yet not that openly.

    On the one hand, the Pope feels he has to speak because — like Our Lady — he cannot remain silent; and he is speaking very publicly and he is speaking in a very public place, among devoted servants of Our Lady – that is, before the crowd in Fatima, before a million people in 1982 when he talks about the basis of our salvation being undermined.

    He also talks about the apocalyptic menaces – or almost apocalyptic menaces – looming over mankind in 1982. In the year 2000, he speaks about “one-third of the stars of heaven”. But he doesn’t speak that clearly that the average person can understand without just a little bit of explanation. The Pope is telling us that the Third Secret concerns the dangers to the Faith and that one-third of the Catholic clergy are involved.

    However, the Pope does not say these things directly – but in a somewhat hidden manner, in language for the learned to grasp. He may not want to turn off the simple folk without them being given a chance for an explanation.

    Sister Lucy said over and over again that in this time of confusion, this time of “diabolical disorientation”, there would be persons of high authority within the Church – persons who have heavy responsibility (to be clear, cardinals and bishops and priests) who would be “blind and leaders of the blind”. It is a spiritual chastisement for our sins of not listening to the warning already published at Fatima.

    It comes to our knowledge and attention that the Pope does not feel that he can speak freely, because he is surrounded somewhat by priests, bishops and cardinals who are undermining the Faith, who are part of that one-third. But the Pope either doesn’t know who they are or he does know who they are, but he doesn’t feel that he can speak safely and survive to the next day.

    Whatever his reason, he is not speaking that clearly — but he is speaking clearly enough that we can figure it out. Jesus told His disciples on one occasion, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear” (i.e.: let him who has ears to hear, let him understand).

    I do wonder if Fr Gruner is correct in thinking that JPII felt that he could not speak freely, and that he had to conform – at least outwardly – to modernism.

    Editor’s little gem about needing a devil’s advocate for a canonisation to be valid also made me think. It was JPII who abolished the office of devil’s advocate and I wonder whether he did so because he was a modernist, or because he wanted to limit the damage to the Church from something like a future canonisation of Paul VI.

    Malachi Martin, in “Windswept House” had his main character expressing frustration with the “Slavic Pope” and the contradiction between his personal holiness and his complete failure to do anything to stop the rot within the structures of the Church.

    JPII claimed to have had a vision in Rome, similar to the miracle of the sun at Fatima, and Malachi Martin refers to it in “Windswept House’. MM wrote that JPII was waiting for the intervention of Our Lady, and I wonder if, perhaps, he felt that the Church was so far gone that only a “rebirth through blood” could redeem her, as he suggested at Fulda.

    Definitely a complex and fascinating man.

  18. spiritustempore,

    When I submitted a question at one of Fr Gruner’s conferences on this issue of Pope JPII and later Pope Benedict having the inability to speak due to the people around him, pointing out that one of these key anti-Fatima people was/is none other than Cardinal Bertone whom Pope Benedict appointed to the top office of Secretary of State, only part of my question was read out. That’s because the other person I named as having been identified by Fr Gruner’s group previously, was Cardinal Ratzinger! Now that he was Pope Benedict, he was above a certain level of criticism. It isn’t a good idea to hide from the truth of this matter, which is that the Popes are negligent about Russia. End of. Our Lady surely would not have asked for the Consecration if it wouldn’t be possible. She didn’t mention the faithless (possibly Freemasonic) Secretary of States “who must be obeyed”. The Pope (Benedict) presumably could have appointed whoever he wanted as Secretary of State so why appoint someone known to be opposed to the Consecration if he really wanted it done?

    Also, I cannot see how anyone who neglects their duty of state can be considered personally holy. Would we want to canonise a mother who had plenty of charisma but who neglected her children? Is it possible that she is pleasing to God and practising heroic virtue?

    Or, as seems to be the case, is it sufficient that she is “complex and fascinating” with plenty of charisma, great a socialising?

    Now, I know that you don’t really think that, spiritustempore, but some people clearly do – so I’m not missing the chance to say – “NO!” to the canonisation of Pope John Paul II – no matter how complex and fascinating he may be!

  19. I do get the point, Editor 🙂 I think the signs are pretty clear that JPII shouldn’t be canonised – please don’t think that I’m arguing to the contrary.

    I also agree that more than one conciliar pope has been negligent about Russia…and Paul VI wilfully disregarded Our Lady’s requests. I think that JPII went as far as he felt he could go….although not far enough.

    The consecration is possible, otherwise Our Lady wouldn’t have asked for it, but even She implied that it would be carried out late.

    There are undoubtedly evil men in the structures of the Church, and their networks are a matter of public record. Thinking back to the likes of Marcinkus, Villot and Casaroli, the influence of these networks exists at the highest levels.

    In more recent times, the Vatileaks firestorm and the unholy mess surrounding Cardinal Keith O’Brien suggests that the old tactics still work well.

    While not recommending JPII as a candidate for sainthood, his apparent combination of perfect orthodoxy and alarming modernism fascinates me.

    Considering the rumours surrounding the all-too-brief papacy of his predecessor and the discovery of Roberto Calvi hanging from Blackfriars Bridge with his pockets full of rocks, not to mention attempts on his life by Mehmet Ali Agca and Fr Juan Fernandez Krohn, he may well not have felt at liberty to act and speak as freely as he would have wished…I’m speculating, of course.

    There were many times when JPII apparently put unity ahead of orthodoxy, which has led to the situation we see today with the German Bishops’ Conference (and others) in effective schism, but it may well be that the external and internal pressures that Bishop Fellay tells us were applied to Benedict XVI were also operative against JPII.

    As an example, I doubt that Benedict XVI would have willingly chosen to appoint Abp Muller to the CDF, particularly at a delicate point in negotiations with the SSPX. Remembering Merkel’s public statements when the SSPX excommunications were lifted and her subsequent attempts to interfere in discussions between the Society and the Church, then Vatileaks and the simultaneous imposition of Muller (of all people) as their main negotiating partner points clearly to a pope who felt himself unable to resist overwhelming secular influence.

    I don’t believe that Benedict XVI retired willingly, nor do I believe that JPI died naturally – their manners of leaving the papacy may point to some kind of explanation for the apparent contradictions in JPII’s own papacy…Fr Gruner’s explanation does make some sense to me.

  20. Ed… I have tried posting on the general discussion thread…. am I in some sort of Purgatory?

    • Apologies, Nolite Timere,

      I’ve been out all day and only just found your posts in the pending file. Released now.

      Your lengthy reply to CrofterLady was duplicated, so I’ve deleted one of them.

      Love your avatar!

  21. I logged in! I guess it’s hit or miss with me.

    I grew up reading Fr. Gruner and he did inspire me to love and pray for the Holy Father. My parents also loved the Holy Father. However books such as “Peter, Lovest Thou Me” were our coffee table books.

    I guess perhaps Fr. Gruner chose to follow Sister Lucia’s example. She always met the Pope with great love and respect. And maybe he thought the Pope would receive less prayers if he was criticized. If someday it’s proven that Sister Lucia after 1960 is a fake then, oops! But alot of people probably did look to her to know how to approach the whole problem.

    Also I never believed in Garabandal even if Fr. Gruner or Malachi Martin spoke supportive of it. We had some of the first books published while the alleged apparitions were still going on. I read them when I was a teenager. They were very pro Garabandal and in one of them Blessed Mother tells one of the girls that the second Vatican Council will be a success! Oh brother! Anyway

  22. Ed

    Thanks for my release!!!

    Compared to some of the posts on here mines was hardly lenghty!

    • I know that, Nolite Timere and I can’t see any reason for your posts to have not posted unless it was due to the duplication. They actually went into the SPAM folder so that’s probably why. Last time that happened (to spiritustempore), when I clicked NOT SPAM I thought her posts would go straight up but no, straight to moderation. At least I realised to check moderation to release yours right away. Poor spiritus went for quite a while wondering where all her hard work had gone before I realised they’d gone from SPAM to moderation. Who would an editor be?

      Anyway, renewed apologies. You’re not being discriminated against, believe me! Your avatar has placed you high on my “favourites” list.

%d bloggers like this: