Bishop Fellay on Pope Francis

[Admin]

Bishop Fellay on Pope Francis
What we have before us is a genuine Modernist!

Bishop Bernard Fellay warned on October 12, “The situation of the Church is a real disaster, and the present Pope is making it 10,000 times worse.”

He said this in an address at the Angelus Press Conference, the weekend of Oct 11-13 in Kansas City.

Bishop Fellay, Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X, gave an extensive lecture on Saturday afternoon that focused on the Third Secret of Fatima, and its apparent prediction of both a material chastisement and a great crisis in the Church.

This report will highlight some of the more dramatic aspects of the Bishop’s Saturday conference and his Sunday sermon.

Bishop Fellay quoted in detail Sister Lucy, those who have read the Third Secret, and those who have knowledge of the Secret. He noted Sister Lucia said that if we want to know the contents of the Third Secret, read chapters 8 through 13 of the Apocalpse.” (details of the Third Secret will be contained in the upcoming November edition of Catholic Family News)

Sister Lucia’s reference to Chapters 8 through 13 of the Apocalypse is particularly chilling, since the end of Chapter 13 speaks of the coming of Antichrist.

Bishop Fellay noted that Pope St. Pius X said at the beginning of his pontificate the ‘son of perdition’ may already be on the earth. He also noted the original prayer to Saint Michael of Pope Leo XIII mentions that Satan aims to establish his seat in Rome.

The bishop quoted Cardinal Luigi Ciapi, the Papal Theologian of all the Popes from Pius XII to John Paul II who said, “In the Third Secret we read among other things that the great apostasy in the Church begins at the top.”

He also spent a good bit of time on the famous and dramatic 1957 interview of Father Fuentes with Sister Lucia, in which she reiterated that “various nations will disappear from the face of the earth,” and that “the devil will do all in his power to overcome souls consecrated to God.”

Since the ministers of God are struck with this confusion and disorder, the faithful are left to fend for themselves for their own salvation. The help that should be provided by Churchmen is not there. This is “the greatest tragedy you can ever imagine for the Church.”

The times are very serious. We have to be serious about our salvation, “and to do this we are deprived of a very important element, which is the support of the [Church] authorities. What a tragedy.”

He spoke of Sister Lucia’s comforting words that God has given two last remedies for us: The Holy Rosary and Devotion to the Immaculate Heart.

Rome/SSPX

Bishop Fellay alluded to the SSPX/Vatican drama of 2012: “When we see what is happening now [under Pope Francis] we thank God, we thank God, we have been preserved from any kind of Agreement from last year. And we may say that one of the fruits of the [Rosary] Crusade we did is that we have been preserved from such a misfortune. Thank God. It is not that we don’t want to be Catholics, of course we want to be Catholics and we are Catholics, and we have a right to be recognized as Catholics. But we are not going to jeopardize our treasures for that. Of course not.”

He continued, “To imagine that some people continue to pretend we are decided [still] to get an Agreement with Rome. Poor people. I really challenge them to prove they mean. They pretend that I think something else from what I do. They are not in my head.”

As for the discussions with Rome: “Any kind of direction for recognition ended when they gave me the document to sign on June 13, 2012. That very day I told them, ‘this document I cannot accept.’ I told them from the start in September the previous year that we cannot accept this ‘hermeneutic of continuity’ because it is not true, it is not real. It is against the reality. So we do not accept it. The Council is not in continuity with Tradition. It’s not. So when Pope Benedict requested that we accept that the Second Vatican Council is an integral part of Tradition, we say, ‘sorry, that’s not the reality, so we’re not going to sign it. We’re not going to recognize that’.”

“The same for the Mass. The want us to recognize not only that the [New] Mass is valid provided it is celebrated correctly, etc., but that it is licit. I told them: we don’t use that word. It’s a bit messy, our faithful have enough [confusion] regarding the validity, so we tell them, ‘The New Mass is bad, it is evil’ and they understand that. Period!’” Of course the Roman authorities “were not very happy with that.”

He continues, “It has never been our intention to pretend either that the Council would be considered as good, or the New Mass would be ‘legitimate’”.

“The [April 15, 2012] text we presented to Rome was a very, shall we say, delicate text that was supposed to be understood correctly; it was supposed to be read with a big principle which was leading the whole thing. This big principle was no novelty in the Church: ‘The Holy Ghost has not been promised to Saint Peter and his Successor in such a way that through a new revelation the Pope would teach something new, but under his help, the pope would the Pope would saintly conserve and faithfully transmit the deposit of the Faith.’ It belongs to the definition of infallibility [from Vatican I]. That was the principle, the base of the whole document, which excludes from the start any kind of novelty.

“And so take any kind of sentences from the text without this principle is just to take sentences that have never been our thinking and our life. These phrases in themselves are ambiguous, so to take away the ambiguity we wanted to put [in] this principle [from Vatican I]. Unfortunately, maybe that was too subtle and that’s why we withdrew that text, because it was not clear enough as it was written.

“So it is very clear our principle is always the same to stay faithful! We have received a treasure. This treasure does not ‘belong’ to us. We have received this treasure and we have to hand it to the next generation. And what is requested from us is faithfulness, fidelity. We do not have the right to jeopardize these treasures. These are the treasures we have in our hands and we are not going to jeopardize them. Read on

********************************************

Below is a quote, from the source given, which caused me to examine my own position on these wonderful words of Bishop Fellay.

+Fellay's words seem authentic enough in this recent address. But the problem is that even if they are really, truly authentic, he has lost all credibility... and the rupture between him and +Williamson is set in stone. It is a great tragedy that this man should lead the SSPX... even in the best case scenario (Krah & Zionist ilk kicked out, Resistance welcomed back in, SSPX commits definitively and unequivocally to no deal until the people in the Vatican convert), he has caused irreparable harm to the society over which he was given charge. Not to mention at all the flocks for which the SSPX provides sacraments and guidance.

Pray God's will be done. Source

Yes, even if BF has sprouted the wings of an angel...he has lost all credibility.

If he has truly had a change (back) of heart to the spirit and reason-for-being established by Archbishop LeFebvre then all we can do is sincerely rejoice. I would love to believe it. It certainly can be a great grace he has received through the sacrifices of our beloved Bishop Williamson, the resistance priests and the many others who fought for the Church. I have no doubt that if he has received such a grace then it is only because of the enormous costs these wonderful priests have paid for him to receive it. Of course, signs of a true renewal in his heart would result in reconciling himself with Bishop Williamson et al. I would certainly need to see such true humility before I could believe him again. I fear it would take many lifetimes to undo all the damage.

Fact is though, I will never trust him again.

When, under his watch and policy-making, he has directed the young souls of the young priests to use the Sacraments as weapons against good Catholics there is a great deal of personal, as well as public reparation to be done! And the laity in general who attend SSPX Masses and received the Sacraments from its priests have been deliberately subjected to a psychological fear campaign. They have had no verbalised/written statements/documents telling them specifically to disobey Bishop Williamson et al regarding:

• (a), b),(c) because these are sins against the Church and a denial of their faith,

• that they will be refused the sacraments because these sins are public sins etc. etc. etc.

NO, any innocent Catholic who just wanted to hear what the 'expelled' priests were saying have been intimidated, lured into private conversations with the priest in charge then summarily told they must leave. Trusting the judgement of 'their' priest they were placed in the position of doubting their own state of grace.

Speaking for myself, and I would suspect - many others, our faith has been tested severely, albeit needlessly, because God gave us shepherds/priests to direct, guide, protect and feed us. Vat II sold out the Church. Sadly, and with great anguish, the SSPX has a chronic, incurable infection. All it can do, is try to heal itself and save the souls of the countless priests and laity that have put their faith in the care of its government.

My hope is that Bishop Fellay has truly repented of these actions for the sake of his own soul. I will continue to pray fervently that this is the grace he has received.

Kathleen Donelly

See Also

 

[Admin]

Bill Pointing from Brisbane contributed this article with his critique.

Bishop Fellay said this in an address at the Angelus Press Conference, the weekend of Oct 11-13 in Kansas City.

Rome/SSPX

Bishop Fellay alluded to the SSPX/Vatican drama of 2012: “When we see what is happening now [under Pope Francis] we thank God, we thank God, we have been preserved from any kind of Agreement from last year. And we may say that one of the fruits of the [Rosary] Crusade we did is that we have been preserved from such a misfortune. Thank God. It is not that we don’t want to be Catholics ( So the implication is, that if we don’t want an agreement with neo-modernist Rome(that Rome which archbishop Lefebvre declared on the day of the episcopal consecrations that we want no part with! then we don’t want to be Catholic! What a monstrous lie! What a wicked assertion! Or in the words of Bishop Fellay to the three bishops, “ we are implicit sede-vacantists”. Unbelievable, but this is the reasoning of Bishop Fellay. Clearly he has forgotten everything his holy founder told him on the day of his consecration and in all his conferences on the church thereafter!), of course we want to be Catholics and we are Catholics, and we have a right to be recognized as Catholics (Hmmm a right to be recognised as Catholics by whom? Archbishop Lefebvre clearly showed that the conciliar church was not catholic but rather a new church, a counter church and a counterfeit church! Now the question has to be asked: why do we need their recognition? Was Archbishop Lefebvre ever worried about his excommunicated status? Apparently he never felt anything but joy! However, this “status” has now become an all-consuming end for the new-SSPX, what gave Archbishop Lefebvre such joy causes only consternation in the minds of Bishop Fellay and his followers!) But we are not going to jeopardize our treasures for that. Of course not.” ( Really! But you wanted an agreement last year and at all costs! You ignored the warnings of the three bishops, of the monastic orders and of so many of your own priests and when they refused to be silent on such grave matters you punished and expelled them from your society! So far the count includes 1 bishop and 27 of your own priests whom you have punished and expelled! Not to mention withholding ordinations from the Capuchins and the Dominicans. Not to mention your policy of denying the sacraments to the faithful who have anything to do with the priests you have expelled. What a wicked deprivation of these priceless gifts, which no priest has a right to deny any catholic. Here we have a Bishop who is prepared to cause such grievous harm to souls in order to further his agenda, of making the truth subservient to the iniquity that is neo-modernist Rome. Moreover the 6 conditions for re-unification with neo-modernist Rome decided at last year’s general chapter remain in full force, despite the Archbishop clearly stating that we would never go back to Rome, until Rome converts. Thus, these 6 conditions represent a complete betrayal of the position of Archbishop Lefebvre. These conditions do not even guarantee our chapels freedom from our local Novus Ordo Bishops! Such is the iniquity of the current position of Bishop Fellay and the new-SSPX.)


He continued, “To imagine that some people continue to pretend we are decided [still] to get an Agreement with Rome. Poor people. I really challenge them to prove they mean. They pretend that I think something else from what I do. They are not in my head.”


As for the discussions with Rome: “Any kind of direction for recognition ended when they gave me the document to sign on June 13, 2012. That very day I told them, ‘this document I cannot accept.’ (Yet two days later you signed a declaration stating that: the second Vatican council enlightens , deepens and enriches certain aspects of our faith! You also stated in this document that the new mass was legitimate and you stated that you accepted the new code of canon law, which contains heresies such as religious liberty and all kinds of sacramental abuses! Not only that, days after your declaration was rejected you wrote to the pope in great consternation when the declaration was rejected, saying, “I thought we had an agreement here”! Moreover in October you wrote to Cardinal Levada telling him you were committed to this course of action( reaching a practical agreement with Rome)! No wonder Bishop Williamson calls you a “pathological liar” Monseigneur! ) I told them from the start in September the previous year that we cannot accept this ‘hermeneutic of continuity’ because it is not true, it is not real. It is against the reality. So we do not accept it. The Council is not in continuity with Tradition. It’s not. So when Pope Benedict requested that we accept that the Second Vatican Council is an integral part of Tradition, we say, ‘sorry, that’s not the reality, so we’re not going to sign it. (Yet you wrote something to the complete contrary in your declaration on the 15th April, which you signed and submitted to Rome! Which agrees perfectly with what you said during your CNS interview, that you hoped the second Vatican council would be part of tradition and that the second Vatican council was only presenting a very, very, very limited view of religious liberty. Funny how it still managed to destroy the church somehow!) We’re not going to recognize that’.”


“The same for the Mass. The want us to recognize not only that the [New] Mass is valid provided it is celebrated correctly, etc., but that it is licit. I told them: we don’t use that word. It’s a bit messy, our faithful have enough [confusion] regarding the validity, so we tell them, ‘The New Mass is bad, it is evil’ and they understand that. Period!’” Of course the Roman authorities “were not very happy with that.” ( Unfortunately you wrote something to the contrary in your Declaration of 15th April, boldly asserting that the new mass was legitimately promulgated i.e. lawful and licit and therefore pleasing to almighty God! What a monstrous lie!)


He continues, “It has never been our intention to pretend either that the Council would be considered as good, or the New Mass would be ‘legitimate’”.


“The [April 15, 2012] text we presented to Rome was a very, shall we say, delicate text that was supposed to be understood correctly; it was supposed to be read with a big principle which was leading the whole thing. (What is written, is written! Unfortunately there was nothing ambiguous in what you said, it was all plain as the light of day! To pretend what you have written could possibly be given another meaning is just being plain deceitful!) This big principle was no novelty in the Church: ‘The Holy Ghost has not been promised to Saint Peter and his Successor in such a way that through a new revelation the Pope would teach something new, but under his help, the pope would the Pope would saintly conserve and faithfully transmit the deposit of the Faith.’ It belongs to the definition of infallibility [from Vatican I]. That was the principle, the base of the whole document, which excludes from the start any kind of novelty.


“And so take any kind of sentences from the text without this principle is just to take sentences that have never been our thinking and our life. These phrases in themselves are ambiguous (Now Archbishop Lefebvre calls this kind of ambiguity that you are referring to, “the devil’s quicksand”! Pope St Pius X called it the synthesis and most pernicious of all heresies! Why would you want to talk like a modernist, heretic Monseigneur? Since when can the doctrines of our faith be given two possible meanings anyhow? Arius did this and was unfortunately anathematized! What do you think will become of you Monseigneur?), so to take away the ambiguity we wanted to put [in] this principle [from Vatican I]. Unfortunately, maybe that was too subtle and that’s why we withdrew that text (Ah, but you did not withdraw the text! Rome rejected it! Remember what happened now Monseigneur? I guess it’s the old adage of repeat a lie often enough and they will believe it! The more I hear you talk Monseigneur, the more I keep thinking about a little book by George Orwell, called Animal Farm. Now if you did withdraw your declaration, which is untrue, as all you ever did was write to Cardinal Levada and say, “ this document has become unworkable and we will have to start again”(hardly a withdrawal of any of the grave errors in your declaration!), then the question must be asked: why did so many of your priests such as Fathers Theman, Laisney, Walliez et al spend so much time defending it and pointing out what a wonderful document it was and why were all these magnificent essays uploaded to all you websites???), because it was not clear enough as it was written.


“So it is very clear our principle is always the same to stay faithful! We have received a treasure. This treasure does not ‘belong’ to us. We have received this treasure and we have to hand it to the next generation. And what is requested from us is faithfulness, fidelity. We do not have the right to jeopardize these treasures. These are the treasures we have in our hands and we are not going to jeopardize them. (But you were willing to jeopardise all last April, expelling priests and bishops who opposed you. Even last week you were in Rome again! Now what on earth were you doing there Monseigneur? And when will be your next visit?)

Pope Francis

Bishop Fellay returned to Sister Lucia’s 1957 statement that the Rosary and Devotion to the Immaculate Heart are the two last remedies God has given to mankind.

He said there is “definitely a ‘material’ chastisement of the world in sight. There is something big in front of us. How? When? I have no idea. But if you put everything together, it is clear that God has had enough of the sins of man.”

He then spoke of those sins that cry to Heaven for vengeance, such as abortion, and the sins against nature, which was an illusion to the unnatural ‘re-definition’ of marriage and related sins. He also spoke of what appears to be a coming persecution of Christians.

“What do we do? Don’t panic, because panic is of no use at all. What you need to do is your job – your daily duty. That is the best way to prepare.”

He continued that we are in “very scary times” but we are not helpless. He noted the “the situation of the Church is a real disaster. And the present Pope is making it 10,000 times worse.”

“In the beginning of the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI, I said, ‘the crisis in the Church will continue, but the Pope is trying to put on the brakes.’ (Benedict XVI, trying to put the brakes on! Really! This man who publicly made a mockery of the 1st commandment almost every single month of his papacy! This man who publicly denied the bodily resurrection of Our Lord! This man who was described by many as being the “arm” of the second Vatican council!) It’s as if to say, the Church will continue to fall, but with a parachute. And with the beginning of this [Pope Francis] pontificate, I say, ‘he cuts the strings, and he put a [downward] rocket’.”

“If the present pope continues in the way he started, he is going to divide the Church. He’s exploding everything. So people will say: it is impossible that’s he’s the Pope, we refuse him. Others will say [and this is presently Bishop Fellay’s position]: “Wait, consider him as Pope, but don’t follow him. He’s provoking anger. Many people will be discouraged by what people in the Church do” and will be tempted to “throw it all away.”

But, he reminded, God is “much, much bigger than we are. God is able to have the Church continue” (I think Bishop Fellay mistakenly believes the conciliar church, this church that archbishop Lefebvre called a counterfeit church to be the true church! Clearly this counterfeit church is becoming more brazen in manifesting it’s true character as time goes by, but then again this was always it’s agenda, to lead souls away from God gradually at first and then at an ever increasing rate. Archbishop Lefebvre said, we were the true church and that they were a counter- church. ) and even can work through these imperfect ministers. (Can you really call these people imperfect ministers! Archbishop Lefebvre called them false shepherds and anti-Christ’s who work for the destruction of the mystical body of Christ!) “But once again”, he repeats, “don’t follow them. Follow them when they say the truth, but when they tell you rubbish, you don’t” follow them on those points. “Any obedience to be true must be related to God. When I say I obey to a person” he should be a “a mirror of God.” But “when mirror tells me contrary of God, it is no longer a mirror, then I don’t follow him.”

Bishop Fellay noted that we cannot simply obey the present Popes without question, because then we would destroy ourselves, we would endanger our Faith.

Following the warning of Sister Lucia, Pope Leo XIII and Pius X, Bishop Fellay further warned that we may be entering into the time of Antichrist, but we cannot know when, or how far off in the future this may be.

Sunday Sermon

Bishop Fellay returned to these themes at his Sunday sermon at the Pontifical High Mass offered at St. Vincent de Paul’s Church in Kansas city.

He amplified a few points regarding Fatima, the Secret, the 2012 drama with Rome, and then spoke of some of the many grave problems with Pope Francis.

“From the start,” he said, “we have the impression that we have something wrong with this Pope. From the start, he wanted to distinguish himself to be different from anybody else.”

A small example of this is Francis’ insistence on wearing black shoes instead of the red papal shoes, but this is minor compared to greater issues. We must look, said the bishop, at what is his vision of the Church, his vision of the council, and what is his plan.

It was around the time of World Youth Day, late July of this year, that Francis began an avalanche of talks, interviews, phone calls, etc. “We may not have the entire picture at this point, we have enough to be scared to death.”

As is typical of the Modernist, as Pius X warned in Pascendi, the Modernist will sometimes speak in a heretical fashion, and then speak in an orthodox manner. Bishop Fellay gave the example of one of these contradictions:

He spoke of interview in early October that Pope Francis conducted with the atheist journalist Eugenio Scalfari in Rome’s La Repubblica wherein Francis appears to promote a dangerous relativism:

Scalfari: “Your Holiness, is there is a single vision of the Good? And who decides what it is?”

Pope Francis: “Each of us has a vision of good and of evil. We have to encourage people to move towards what they think is Good.”

Scalfari: “Your Holiness, you wrote that in your letter to me. The conscience is autonomous, you said, and everyone must obey his conscience. I think that's one of the most courageous steps taken by a Pope.”

Pope Francis: “And I repeat it here. Everyone has his own idea of good and evil and must choose to follow the good and fight evil as he conceives them. That would be enough to make the world a better place."

With a good deal of emotion, Bishop Fellay said of the Pope’s response: “That’s really not Catholic! Because whatever I think has absolutely no value if it does not fit with reality. We have a conscience, but it will only lead us to Heaven if our conscience is a mirror of God.” The conscience must be formed according to God’s law. “So to pretend that anyone can full his own idea is just rubbish,” said Fellay, “It has nothing to do with Catholic teaching. It is absolute relativism.”

About a week after this, however, Pope Francis spoke of the necessity of fighting the devil, the final battle with the devil, that nobody can fight the devil half way, and that we must fight relativism. Francis said the opposite what he said to La Repubblica. “There is the contraction with him”.

Francis: A Man of the Council

Next: what is the vision of Pope Francis on Vatican II? This is found in his much-publicized recent, lengthy interview with the Jesuits, published in various publications throughout the world, and in the Jesuit’s America magazine in the United States

Bishop Fellay says that Pope Francis “takes it for granted that the Council was bright success. What was the main theme of the Council?” To re-read the Faith in light of modern culture. You could say, “to incarnate the Gospel in the modern world.” Francis “is very happy with this…” and believes “The Council brought forth many good fruits. The first example he gives is liturgy – the reformed liturgy. That is the beautiful fruit of the Council. That’s what he says. And he’s very happy with it.”

Francis tells us “this re-reading of the Gospel within the modern culture is irreversible, so we will not go back. We are in front of a major fight.”

Of the Old Mass, Francis speaks of “Vetus Ordo” (Old Order). Francis believes that Pope Benedict probably helped restore the Old Mass as a prudential act for those who still hold to it. “But don’t expect Francis to come back to the Old Mass. Maybe he will ‘indulge’ it [let us celebrate it unmolested]. God knows.”

But Francis “sees there is a problem with this Old Mass. Because there are people who ideologize this Mass. Guess to whom he is aiming? I don’t need to say much. So what is going to happen with us? What I see: there is quite an obsession in him about those people who look to the past. Listen to the Pope’s words:

Pope Francis: “What is worrying, though, is the risk of the ideologization of the Vetus Ordo, its exploitation. … If the Christian is a restorationist, a legalist, if he wants everything clear and safe, then he will find nothing. Tradition and memory of the past must help us to have the courage to open up new areas to God. Those who today always look for disciplinarian solutions, those who long for an exaggerated doctrinal ‘security,’ those who stubbornly try to recover a past that no longer exists—they have a static and inward-directed view of things. In this way, faith becomes an ideology among other ideologies. I have a dogmatic certainty: God is in every person’s life.”

Bishop Fellay continues, “The impression we have in the present Pope is that he has a zeal for the ‘more or less’, for the ‘about’; and he wants at all cost to escape what is too clear and too certain. But the Faith is like that because God is like that. Well, that’s not what he thinks.”

Another troubling quote from Pope Francis:

“If a person says that he met God with total certainty and is not touched by a margin of uncertainty, then this is not good. For me, this is an important key. If one has the answers to all the questions—that is the proof that God is not with him. It means that he is a false prophet using religion for himself. The great leaders of the people of God, like Moses, have always left room for doubt.”

Bishop Fellay exclaims in response: “What Gospel does he have? Which Bible does he have to say such things. It’s horrible. What has this to do with the Gospel? With the Catholic Faith. That’s pure Modernism, my dear brethen. We have in front of us a genuine Modernist.”

"How much time will be needed for people in the Church to stand up ‘by no means!’ [will we accept this new teaching]. I hope and pray this will happen. But that means an enormous division in the Church.”

He speaks of the Pope Making a mess, and reminds us that this is what the Pope urged at world Youth Day: he urged the young people to “make a mess”. Bishop Fellay responds, ”Incredible. We have never heard of this <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank">. But that’s what he wants.

Francis also tells us he is a greater admirer of the ultra liberal Jesuit Cardinal Martini (now deceased). Martini wrote a book calling for a total revolution in the Church. “And that is what Francis wants. And he told us the eight cardinals he chose to help him ‘reform’ the Church think like him".

We could go on and on.

The final example: Ecumenism.

' Bishop Fellay says, that Pope Francis claims that “very little has been done in this direction.” This is astounding, the bishop notes, because ecumenism has launched untold disaster to the Church, to Catholic nations. “Yet the present Pope says, “very little, almost nothing done in this direction.”

Bishop Fellay says as part of his summing up: “The mystery of the shadow on the Church has never been so great. We are in front of very hard times. Don’t have any illusions. And it is clear the only solution is to stick to what we have; to keep it, to not let it go by any means.

“Pope St. Pius X said that it was the essence of any Catholic to stick to the past. The present Pope says exactly the contrary: forget about the past; throw yourself into the uncertainty of the future

“Definitely we need the Immaculate Heart of Mary. What are experiencing is the Secret of Fatima. We know what we have to do: pray, pray, pray, and penance, penance, penance. To pray to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, the means given to us precisely in these hard times; and to pray the Rosary.

“Be certain,” says Bishop Fellay, “The next [Rosary] Crusade is not far off. Go to the Rosary. Pray it every day. We live in very dangerous time for the Faith, and we need this Heavenly protection.”

(Signed) Bill Pointing, Brisbane.
He continues, “It has never been our intention to pretend either that the Council would be considered as good, or the New Mass would be ‘legitimate’”.








[/URL]

 

[Admin]

Canker, a scalpel and tape - II - (Translation from French)

1 - Conversion of Bishop Fellay

Martin Luther and John Calvin would have been horrified at first sight by the heresies of Francis I, while we waited for our part, on 12 October 2013. Finally, it's official, after seven months of deafening silence, Bishop Fellay said that Pope Francis is a very bad Pope conference "rebranding" River in Kansas City, commenting sermon known action of this terrible successor of Peter, delivered to gradual day (though still disappointing), official sites, while showing a change from the previously imposed changes on the way to see how Rome has changed. From 2000 until now, Rome "had changed" in the right direction without completely changed course, but now she "parts" in the wrong direction (while retaining some positive but few "changes").

From the point of view of Menzingen is Rome "change", not us, even when we change perspective, so that if Rome "change" again for the Tradition, as under Benedict XVI, we will change tomorrow, as we change now, in this October 12, and just like before we changed.

The problem is, because the Revolution constantly alternating destructive and conservative offers. After the rain Franciscan current Pope, will we be ready to not let ourselves be surprised by a new so-called "good weather", so Benedict XVI? The Brotherhood does not change?

Another change of address: Bishop Fellay thank God who has preserved us to sign a canonical agreement in 2012. Yet those who have publicly spoken out against such an agreement and who persevered in the categorical refusal of it, refusing accordistes principles of Chapter 2012 in accordance with the principles enunciated by Archbishop Lefebvre (cf. book M.l ' Abbe Woodpecker), solemnly recognized Chapter of 2006, all these anti-accordistes madmen principles ... were "thanked".

The official version is that it is not them that have prevented the signing but Rome, June 13, 2012, made such changes in the text of the DQA, in the present circumstances, "unfortunately" (sic) Such a text would not be spent in the Brotherhood (cf. letter of June 17, 2012, Cor unum 104).

Now, no worries, we can again publicly oppose agreements unmolested. Size change compared to 2012. If the poor priests of resistance had been able to wait a year, they would still be warm. The election of ultra revolutionary François should calm their recent concerns about an agreement, but here they continue to excite the "ouaibe" mainly.

Why the priests of the Resistance and they continue their fight?

2 - The canker has he changed?

Unfortunately not, except worse, as the current papacy, by the way.

The DQA is still there in this latest speech, still intact.

You have to understand something important, I insist, and I would almost say that I am infallible about it: the Pope is infallible but can be mistaken, while Bishop Fellay is infallible even when he is wrong. (Some say, especially when he is wrong).

Thus Bishop comes to repeat for the umpteenth time in this Oct. 12, its position on the DQA. The DQA is a subtle text, understood and acceptable as a whole. He thinks that at worst, all we could blame him is to leave ambiguities could be resolved if we take the trouble to analyze the context.

Yet the ambiguities in the text are significant:

1 - Vatican illuminates the life of the Church,

2 - The new Mass is lawfully enacted

3 - The Sacraments novus ordo are valid per se ,

4 - The new code is to follow mainly

5 - The Profession of Faith of 1989 applies.

Question: are these simple ambiguities?

If the ADI contained only these unambiguous errors, it is purely wrong. The error would be easily detectable by all and the text would not be as dangerous.

The problem is the modernist ambiguity is to say that we will follow the whole Tradition, unchangeable, continuous, uninterrupted, error, insisting that it is only what we think .. . even though it tramples the same tradition a few paragraphs later.

Bishop Fellay telling anyone who will listen that he has the principle of unchanging tradition in the document header (before leaving hanging five so-called "ambiguities" that are rather obvious errors), he refuses to understand that c is mainly that which horrifies us the idea that it will use the Tradition to say such errors. "Yes, you put the tradition in the document header, but how is it possible that the tradition has made you accept such mistakes in the future, instead of you to condemn all at once?"

It is modernist thinking that the idea of ??tradition can be powerful to the point of giving a traditional nature frankly erroneous statements or contrary to the same tradition. Bishop Fellay refuses to see the irreducible opposition between early (doubtful) of the DQA, and five errors that follow. This refusal is much more serious (because more dangerous) than five errors themselves.

We are dealing with a disease of the mind, a failed concepts, called modernism .... And there's many mansions in the house of modernism, one in Rome and one in Menzingen. (Small technical problem Menzingen: everyone takes the anti-modernist oath, while in Rome, we do not practice this double game)

This disease is more profound that it affects the principle of non-contradiction, and in general it is incurable at Menzingen or elsewhere.

And it is the same disease that Bishop Fellay criticizes the Pope Francis, an outrageous statement, the other almost traditional! He reproached his procrastination without realizing that the DQA "pussyfooting", also on the same page ...

Poor that we do not have the chance to understand, Bishop Fellay said that if we ask the Tradition as an absolute principle, we can then make use of subtle expressions, seemingly ambiguous (5 points) to get not error, but the tradition itself. We will never understand that the best way to combat Vatican II and its reforms, it is to recognize a certain extent ... "We dare to say that there is something in Catholic Vatican II." (17th minute sermon of 13 October 2013). Say it is modernism juxtapositionniste.

3 - Progress of the error

Under these conditions, we can not hear us, as "thank" those we have "thanked". It is time to seek the destruction of the five new outside influence Menzingen. Admittedly, we're a little tormented outside because it is not always easy materially and our small groups are so scattered, but peace in the hearts and the path is clear.

Meanwhile, errors Menzingen down the chain of command. The conference of Abbot Themann professor in Winona, is widely disseminated: it is the same modernism: those who think that "legitimately promulgated" means lawfully promulgated did not understand, 'said the young priest. Under the context, "legitimately promulgated" means "promulguante legitimate authority."

All the abbots of the Brotherhood are not in favor of the DQA, but a new way of Vatican II was born: it is interpreted, not Ratzingerian way (hermeneutic of continuity), but "traditional" way If you change what needs to be changed in its largest ambiguities in a totally traditional sense. (Interview with News France ). Our mind is unfortunately not enough to see the subtle difference between these two interpretations. (In fact, there is none).

Another thing deeply disturbing is the use of the new code of canon law. In the letters of expulsion that are distributed, the new code is even before the former. I am insured with Father Ortiz, who has been expelled, to see clearly that there are no changes since 2012.

All irregularities during the witch hunts and expulsions, as the Father Raphael OSB (which is guilty Bishop Galarreta), also show a disregard of the law as such.

Liberal pustules emerge here and there, even among colleagues we thought illiberal and, among the faithful, there is a growing worldliness and a contraceptive mentality, encouraged by those priests who recommend the natural method, intermarriage with the Ecclesia Dei the tradœcuménisme ...

In places, the youth totally abandoned religious practice.

We still do not know where we are in relation to branding. What happened to the 70 million euros rothschildiens? The Brotherhood is a well recorded it under the title "Dello Sarto AG" corporation? The property of the respective districts are they now all centralized, property of the Society being used as collateral to borrow money? Krah he always seat in the intimate affairs of the fraternity? Jews are they still our "elder brothers" in the words of Bishop Fellay? The answers are all opaque.

And we do not go and tell us that we are exaggerating. Is not the first time we see a newsletter of the Society, stupidly called "the flying squirrel", publish an entire homily of Pope Francis, in which he praised the Arrupe SJ, who was left to the point of preventing Paul VI to sleep? Is it not the first time, when Francis calls for a prayer vigil with false religions, a senior district:

- Responds to this call,

- Issuing this appeal to false religions,

- And instead of praying for repair,

asked his followers to pray for peace with the Pope at the same time or the Pope went to war in this world by trampling down the first commandment!

Finally, the many other unfortunate quotes the General Council must be retracted, one by one: cf. interview with CNS, the theory of 95% good in Vatican II, the claim that Vatican II is not a great heresy ... The same goes for the six conditions of the Chapter. A human view, recovery is impossible, especially since the menzingerienne design authority that any authority can not lose face (which includes the current Rome, Bishop Fellay conference in Lille on May 7), and what is more general than is the only infallible interpreter of what he says, even if the obvious meaning of his words is poor, and even his words would be unfortunate, context come to the rescue to give them a not only unorthodox, but highly diplomatic sense. It is not out of the woods.

4 - Caritas non cogitat malum

But hey, what is true is true, even next to a mountain of pretense that I do not like to list. Bishop Fellay deals François modernist and rejoices that there is not and that there will be no agreement. He even expects a great general punishment with Williamson.

Good for the Brotherhood, hopefully it will help him shake!

If Bishop Fellay had been able to run its réconciliationistes desires, (remember the Pentecost sermon in 2012, "Rome is beautiful and good that we want to recognize"), more priests have joined us, but it would be the end of the Brotherhood. I do not think I have desired such a disaster, even to inflate the meager ranks of the resistance, but the creeping liberalism within the Brotherhood is a much more serious and more difficult to eradicate than just signing a risk canonical recognition fornicating with the new Rome.

The deadly poison of liberalism is still at work, he has won many important positions, and good, as Father Scott, are send in baboons in Zimbabwe, when they are not cleaned simply. Doctrinal line is no longer the same as before, and the modernist reasoning of the Superior General in the DQA and about the DQA does bode well.

For us the best thing is to stay outside, and never reconciled with Menzingen, as the nullam partem with heretics will not officially triumphed in the head and the members of the body profoundly sick as Menzingen refuse to understand that truth juxtaposed with an error is an error, but a total perversion of the mind , as Archbishop Lefebvre said about Vatican II.

The ultimate in modernism, is the use of the truth to get the error. Poor me, who believed that everyone had learned this Écône.

5 - Finally

"If we preach Christ, whether through envy, or whatever with a genuine zeal, I rejoice, and I will rejoice," says the great St. Paul.

If they demolish the infamous Francis Francis shabby me, I can only rejoice. We are here, also says St. Paul, "to demolish all the buildings of the devil", and who can deny all historical machinations of Lucifer, Modernist Rome is the largest and deserves all convictions and all possible détestations until the measure of his iniquity is full and divine wrath finally brief reference to it.

The new Rome is an insult to God, the more we will tackle them, the better. Welcome, my lord, on the outskirts of the antechamber of the area adjacent to the fold! The boat sinks a little slower, it seems. Pump as much as you can, pump water, not air, all our wishes, our prayers are with you.

In Iesu and Maria

François Chazal + Avec l'Immaculee

 

[suzanne]

Edited out

 

[nick]

I think you may perhaps be overly charitable .
If it be the case, then unfortunately, his insanity has infected the sspx organism with a type of rabies.
It leads to the death of the infected organism, and unfortunately, in the terminal stage it goes about madly attacking and infecting others.
I am less charitable , suspects it was planned from a long time ago, perhaps even at a level higher than + Felley even understands.

 

[Admin]

<div class="quote" timestamp="1391639170" author="@suzanne" source="/post/2089/thread"><div class="quote_body"><div class="quote_avatar_container"><div class="avatar-wrapper avatar_size_quote avatar-0">//images.proboards.com/v5/defaultavatar.png</div></div><div class="quote_header">Feb 5, 2014 22:26:10 GMT @suzanne said:</div>I know this might sound silly, but the more I am reading about Bishop Fellay, the more... I don't understand!
Some days he says the new mass is legitimate, some days he says it is absolutely not. Some days he says Pope Francis is great, some days he says he might not even be Pope; some days he says he is working towards an agreement, some days he says it is out of the question!

Is it possible that he might have, well, lost the plot? I mean that he may have a mental problem? A brain tumour? It just doesn't make sense at all...<div class="quote_clear"></div></div></div>
None of the explanations apply to this man! That is the WHOLE problem...we keep trying to understand! Bishop Fellay takes advantage of that innocence, and he does it deliberately! But of course you need proof and since you will never get it from the Menzingen Group you have to look for it. That is what the Resistance movement is all about. It provides the proof! You already realise the contradictions in the proof provided.

Priests have united throughout the whole world in their opposition to the deliberately chosen path of Bishop Fellay! They may not have been members of the SSPX as were the expelled priests (Frs. Pfeiffer/Hewko/Chazal etc.) for you will see In Cor Mariae many other priests are listed with their reports. Would all these priests sacrifice so much if they were not convinced by the proof of BF's own statements? Would they risk everything in their efforts to warn us of the danger we are in by attending neoSSPX Masses? Father Ortiz makes no bones about it at all!

Read up on this forum about the Streaky Bay situation. Father Pfeiffer and Father Chazal have spoken from the housetops to us pointing only to proof.

There is no time left to resurrect proof for each person who chances on a resistance forum. There is absolutely nothing wrong with BF's mental or physical health. He is cold-bloodedly taking the flock with him to join Conciliar Rome full stop. We, here on Cor Mariae, are not going with him. Full stop. We will do everything in our power to stop the lemming rush over the cliff.

Unfortunately, Catholic lay folk who give him the benefit of the doubt believing it to be an act of charity...such good souls are helping him achieve his ends. The time for hesitation/indecision is long gone. I have been praying the Mass at home/saying my Rosary/doing the Stations of the Cross/Aspirations etc. for some time now with full consent and approval of our beloved priests who grace this forum with their presence and visit us as often as possible. Sacrifices are definitely involved. I had much to lose when I made the decision but have been greatly strengthened since making it. Archbishop LeFebvre is the only voice we follow here. He speaks from heaven itself with all his writings/works/example. Bishop Fellay has all but gotten rid of this great saint believing himself to know better. Father Ortiz has plainly labelled BF's condition as 'spiritual pride'.

The case against BF would not be so bad if he openly informed his flock what his intentions are....but no he continues to terrorise them into obedience by sanctioning the denial of the Sacraments to Catholics in a state of grace. It is gravely sinful for a priest to use the Sacraments to achieve his own ends...to blackmail holy souls into submission. These things can only be done deliberately and cold-bloodedly.

 

[Admin]

I am less charitable

Quite the opposite Nick. It is Charity to speak the truth - to condemn error/deceit/lies/threats/misuse of the Sacraments.

 

[suzanne]

<div class="quote" timestamp="1391639170" author="@suzanne" source="/post/2089/thread"><div class="quote_body"><div class="quote_avatar_container"><div class="avatar-wrapper avatar_size_quote avatar-0">//images.proboards.com/v5/defaultavatar.png</div></div><div class="quote_header">Feb 5, 2014 22:26:10 GMT @suzanne said:</div>I know this might sound silly, but the more I am reading about Bishop Fellay, the more... I don't understand!
Some days he says the new mass is legitimate, some days he says it is absolutely not. Some days he says Pope Francis is great, some days he says he might not even be Pope; some days he says he is working towards an agreement, some days he says it is out of the question!

Is it possible that he might have, well, lost the plot? I mean that he may have a mental problem? A brain tumour? It just doesn't make sense at all...

None of the explanations apply to this man! That is the WHOLE problem...we keep trying to understand! Bishop Fellay takes advantage of that innocence, and he does it deliberately! But of course you need proof and since you will never get it from the Menzingen Group you have to look for it. That is what the Resistance movement is all about. It provides the proof! You already realise the contradictions in the proof provided.

Priests have united throughout the whole world in their opposition to the deliberately chosen path of Bishop Fellay! They may not have been members of the SSPX as were the expelled priests (Frs. Pfeiffer/Hewko/Chazal etc.) for you will see In Cor Mariae many other priests are listed with their reports. Would all these priests sacrifice so much if they were not convinced by the proof of BF's own statements? Would they risk everything in their efforts to warn us of the danger we are in by attending neoSSPX Masses? Father Ortiz makes no bones about it at all!

Read up on this forum about the Streaky Bay situation. Father Pfeiffer and Father Chazal have spoken from the housetops to us pointing only to proof.

There is no time left to resurrect proof for each person who chances on a resistance forum. There is absolutely nothing wrong with BF's mental or physical health. He is cold-bloodedly taking the flock with him to join Conciliar Rome full stop. We, here on Cor Mariae, are not going with him. Full stop. We will do everything in our power to stop the lemming rush over the cliff.

Unfortunately, Catholic lay folk who give him the benefit of the doubt believing it to be an act of charity...such good souls are helping him achieve his ends. The time for hesitation/indecision is long gone. I have been praying the Mass at home/saying my Rosary/doing the Stations of the Cross/Aspirations etc. for some time now with full consent and approval of our beloved priests who grace this forum with their presence and visit us as often as possible. Sacrifices are definitely involved. I had much to lose when I made the decision but have been greatly strengthened since making it. Archbishop LeFebvre is the only voice we follow here. He speaks from heaven itself with all his writings/works/example. Bishop Fellay has all but gotten rid of this great saint believing himself to know better. Father Ortiz has plainly labelled BF's condition as 'spiritual pride'.

The case against BF would not be so bad if he openly informed his flock what his intentions are....but no he continues to terrorise them into obedience by sanctioning the denial of the Sacraments to Catholics in a state of grace. It is gravely sinful for a priest to use the Sacraments to achieve his own ends...to blackmail holy souls into submission. These things can only be done deliberately and cold-bloodedly.
<div class="quote_clear"></div></div></div>I am NOT hesitating, or excusing AT ALL! It just that his statements are so contradictory that sometimes it sounds like the ravings of a mad-man.
But I agree, it can't really be, and so many priests wouldn't be following him if he was just mad...

I had much to lose too, now I can't send my child to the SSPX school (not to mention church!) and I don't know for how long my husband can keep working because of his health, so it puts me in a very difficult situation as well. Not to mention family members who are still with the SSPX etc, etc.

Viva Cristo Rey

 

[Admin]

No need to say sorry Suzanne! The problems you state plagues those who keep one foot in and one foot out because of serious reasons. Unfortunately, that is what it has come to. There is a great resistance movement in Brisbane and you would have a lot of support/help/encouragement.

 

[suzanne]

No need to say sorry Suzanne! The problems you state plagues those who keep one foot in and one foot out because of serious reasons. Unfortunately, that is what it has come to. There is a great resistance movement in Brisbane and you would have a lot of support/help/encouragement.

I know... we have already organised playgroups/catechism, etc. I'm definitely two feet out (of the SSPX), no question about that. It was just a thought... ;-)

 

[suzanne]

But you are right to keep comments in check with the Forum's line... ;-)

 

[nick]

I am less charitable

Quite the opposite Nick. It is Charity to speak the truth - to condemn error/deceit/lies/threats/misuse of the Sacraments.

I don't think you understood my point Admin. I was pointing out that to give + Felley the benefit of the doubt so to excuse his maliousness on a possible mental illness was being wayyyyy tooooo nice (charitable).

On the other hand, I was being "less charitable" ( less likey to give him the benefit of the doubt, or to excuse him ) by pointing out that his actions were likely pre-deliberated.

I was not using the word "charitable" in a strictly catholic theological sense, as I think you understood it. Charitable for most people simply means " being nice"
.

 

[suzanne]

Quite the opposite Nick. It is Charity to speak the truth - to condemn error/deceit/lies/threats/misuse of the Sacraments.

I don't think you understood my point Admin. I was pointing out that to give + Felley the benefit of the doubt so to excuse his maliousness on a possible mental illness was being wayyyyy tooooo nice (charitable).

On the other hand, I was being "less charitable" ( less likey to give him the benefit of the doubt, or to excuse him ) by pointing out that his actions were likely pre-deliberated.

I was not using the word "charitable" in a strictly catholic theological sense, as I think you understood it. Charitable for most people simply means " being nice"
<div class="quote_clear"></div></div></div>
.
I'm sorry I even wrote down my fleeting thought... didn't mean to create these arguments. I'll stick to translations from now on...

 

[Admin]

Quite the opposite Nick. It is Charity to speak the truth - to condemn error/deceit/lies/threats/misuse of the Sacraments.

I don't think you understood my point Admin. I was pointing out that to give + Felley the benefit of the doubt so to excuse his maliousness on a possible mental illness was being wayyyyy tooooo nice (charitable).

On the other hand, I was being "less charitable" ( less likey to give him the benefit of the doubt, or to excuse him ) by pointing out that his actions were likely pre-deliberated.

I was not using the word "charitable" in a strictly catholic theological sense, as I think you understood it. Charitable for most people simply means " being nice"<div class="quote_clear"></div></div></div>

Yes, I understood what you meant Nick. That is why it is important to know that 'being nice' is not charity but the opposite.

 

[nick]

don't worry about it suzanne, us trads tend to get feisty at times, (speaking for myself here only); after rejecting Vat 11, now we have to reject what we thought was going to be a permanent safe haven with the sspx. i wasn't trying to be argumentative with Admin., just seeking clarification of meaning. i always worry about being misunderstood by people that are important to me. sometimes i can sound somewhat defensive. my apologies to the both of you.

 

[sidneyb]

What is this movement in Brisbane resisting?

 

[mariaangelagrow]

Speaking from the view of an outsider, sort of, I returned to a Church that was, to all appearances, entirely different. I kept seeking the Church I once knew, but then became incapacitated with years of illness. But I watched, sought to learn all that I could, and prayed. It seemed to me that if the NO is an evil aberration and heretical, then any moving toward it or compromise with it would be no different than alignment with the VII adherents. Fellay can speak quite well. But it reminds me of what Jesus said re: the pharisees: to do what they say, but not what they do. MC most resembles the Church I knew from before all the catastrophic, diabolical disorientation. I had no ties to any group, but was seeking what is best in this situation. And after long hours, years of study and pondering, this seems the very best and truest affiliation in these times.

 

[symphorosa]

(On Bishop Fellay's interview: )

He also spent a good bit of time on the famous and dramatic 1957 interview of Father Fuentes with Sister Lucia, in which she reiterated that “various nations will disappear from the face of the earth,” and that “the devil will do all in his power to overcome souls consecrated to God.”

The Report by Father Fuentes:


"I wish to tell you about the last conversation which I had with Sister Lucy on the 26th of December (last year). I met her in her convent. She was very sad, very pale and emaciated. She said to me,"



"No One Has Paid Any Attention"



"Father, the most Holy Virgin is very sad because no one has paid any attention to Her Message, neither the good nor the bad. The good continue on their way, but without giving any importance to Her Message. The bad, not seeing the punishment of God actually falling upon them, continue their life of sin without even caring about the Message. But believe me, Father, God will chastise the world and this will be in a terrible manner. The punishment from Heaven is imminent."



The Secret Not Revealed



"Father, how much time is there before 1960 arrives? It will be very sad for everyone, not one person will rejoice at all if beforehand the world does not pray and do penance. I am not able to give any other details, because it is still a Secret. According to the will of the Most Holy Virgin, only the Holy Father and the Bishop of Fatima are permitted to know the Secret, but they have chosen to not know it so that they would not be influenced. This is the third part of the Message of Our Lady, which will remain secret until 1960."



Russia, the Scourge of God



"Tell them, Father, that many times the Most Holy Virgin told my cousins Francisco and Jacinta, as well as myself, that many nations will disappear from the face of the earth. She said that Russia will be the instrument of chastisement chosen by Heaven to punish the whole world if we do not beforehand obtain the conversion of that poor nation."



"The Decisive Battle" Between Mary and Satan: the Falling Away of Consecrated Souls and Priests



Sister Lucy also told me: "Father, the devil is in the mood for engaging in a decisive battle against the Blessed Virgin. And the devil knows what it is that offends God the most, and which in a short space of time will gain for him the greatest number of souls. Thus the devil does everything to overcome souls consecrated to God, because in this way the devil will succeed in leaving the souls of the faithful abandoned by their leaders, thereby the more easily will he seize them."



"That which afflicts the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the Heart of Jesus is the fall of religious and priestly souls. The devil knows that religious and priests who fall away from their beautiful vocation drag numerous souls to hell. … The devil wishes to take possession of consecrated souls. He tries to corrupt them in order to lull to sleep the souls of laypeople and thereby lead them to final impenitence. He employs all tricks, even going so far as to suggest the delay of entrance into religious life. Resulting from this is the sterility of the interior life, and among the laypeople, coldness (lack of enthusiasm) regarding the subject of renouncing pleasures and the total dedication of themselves to God."



That Which Sanctified Jacinta and Francisco



"Tell them also, Father, that my cousins Francisco and Jacinta sacrificed themselves because in all the apparitions of the Most Holy Virgin, they always saw Her very sad. She never smiled at us. This sadness, this anguish which we noted in Her, penetrated our souls. This sadness is caused by the offenses against God and the punishments which menace sinners. And so, we children did not know what to think except to invent various means of praying and making sacrifices."



The other things which sanctified these children was to see the vision of Hell.



The Mission of Sister Lucy



"Father, that is why my mission is not to indicate to the world the material punishments which are certain to come if the world does not pray and do penance beforehand. No! My mission is to indicate to everyone the imminent danger we are in of losing our souls for all eternity if we remain obstinate in sin."



The Urgency of Conversion



Sister Lucy also said to me: "Father, we should not wait for an appeal to the world to come from Rome on the part of the Holy Father, to do penance. Nor should we wait for the call to penance to come from our bishops in our diocese, nor from the religious congregations. No! Our Lord has already very often used these means, and the world has not paid attention. That is why now, it is necessary for each one of us to begin to reform himself spiritually. Each person must not only save his own soul but also help to save all the souls that God has placed on our path."



"The devil does all in his power to distract us and to take away from us the love for prayer; we shall be saved together or we shall be damned together."



Last Times



"Father, the Most Holy Virgin did not tell me that we are in the last times of the world, but She made me understand this for three reasons."



The Final Battle



"The first reason is because She told me that the devil is in the mood for engaging in a decisive battle against the Virgin. And a decisive battle is the final battle where one side will be victorious and the other side will suffer defeat. Also, from now on we must choose sides. Either we are for God or we are for the devil. There is no other possibility."



The Last Remedies



"The second reason is because She said to my cousins as well as to myself, that God is giving two last remedies to the world. These are the Holy Rosary and devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. These are the last two remedies which signify that there will be no others."



The Sin Against the Holy Spirit



"The third reason is because in the plans of Divine Providence, God always, before He is about to chastise the world, exhausts all other remedies. Now, when He sees that the world pays no attention whatsoever, then as we say in our imperfect manner of speaking, He offers us with ‘certain fear’ the last means of salvation, His Most Holy Mother. It is with ‘certain fear’ because if you despise and repulse this ultimate means, we will not have any more forgiveness from Heaven, because we will have committed a sin which the Gospel calls the sin against the Holy Ghost. This sin consists of openly rejecting, with full knowledge and consent, the salvation which He offers. Let us remember that Jesus Christ is a very good Son and that He does not permit that we offend and despise His Most Holy Mother. We have recorded through many centuries of Church history the obvious testimony which demonstrates by the terrible chastisements which have befallen those who have attacked the honor of His Most Holy Mother, how Our Lord Jesus Christ has always defended the honor of His Mother."



Prayer and Sacrifice and the Holy Rosary



Sister Lucy told me: "The two means for saving the world are prayer and sacrifice."



Regarding the Holy Rosary, Sister Lucy said: "Look, Father, the Most Holy Virgin, in these last times in which we live, has given a new efficacy to the recitation of the Rosary. She has given this efficacy to such an extent that there is no problem, no matter how difficult it is, whether temporal or above all spiritual, in the personal life of each one of us, of our families, of the families of the world or of the religious communities, or even of the life of peoples and nations, that cannot be solved by the Rosary. There is no problem I tell you, no matter how difficult it is, that we cannot resolve by the prayer of the Holy Rosary. With the Holy Rosary we will save ourselves. We will sanctify ourselves. We will console Our Lord and obtain the salvation of many souls."



Devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary



"Finally, devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, our Most Holy Mother, consists in considering Her as the seat of mercy, of goodness and of pardon, and as the sure door by which we are to enter Heaven."1


from www.fatima.org/essentials/opposed/frfuentes.asp

 

[Admin]

Symphorosa said:

15 Oct 2013 at 4:28pm Admin said:

He also spent a good bit of time on the famous and dramatic 1957 interview of Father Fuentes with Sister Lucia, in which she reiterated that “various nations will disappear from the face of the earth,” and that “the devil will do all in his power to overcome souls consecrated to God.”

I did not say these words...Bishop Fellay spoke them (para 9)as you will see if you read the full post :

Bishop Fellay on Pope Francis