|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chapter 16 Part 1 of 2 Framing an Indictment Great is the calamity that now afflicts Holy Church and the world at large. In these extraordinary times, just as in the time of the Arian crisis, the laity must shoulder burdens that in ordinary times would not be theirs. As members of the Mystical Body of Christ, we have a duty to take positive measures to oppose the crisis, according to our stations in life. In doing so we cannot be deterred by that false appeal to piety which urges us to indulge in the gross presumption that "God is in charge of the Church", if this is taken to mean that rank-and-file Catholics must do nothing to oppose error and injustice perpetrated by members of the hierarchy, but rather blindly submit to every decision of authority, no matter how destructive its consequences. Our Duty in Justice and Charity That is not the Catholic way. That is not what the laity and faithful clergy did during the Arian crisis, and it is not what we should do today. Our silence and acquiescence in the face of this ongoing disaster would, first of all, be an injustice to the Church and a betrayal of our solemn duty in justice as confirmed Catholics, as soldiers of Christ. Then, too, there is our obligation in charity toward our fellow Catholics, including our superiors in the hierarchy. We have a duty in charity to our superiors to oppose what is happening in the Church, even if that means taking the extraordinary step of having to rebuke our own superiors in public. As Saint Thomas Aquinas taught: "if the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly." Why is it both just and charitable for a subject to rebuke his prelate, even publicly, in such cases? St. Thomas here observes that the public rebuke of a prelate "would seem to savor of presumptuous pride; but there is no presumption in thinking oneself better in some respect, because, in this life, no man is without some fault. We must also remember that when a man reproves his prelate charitably, it does not follow that he thinks himself any better, but merely that he offers his help to one who, ‘being in the higher position among you, is therefore in greater danger,’ as Augustine observes in his Rule quoted above."1 Of course, there is also danger to our fellow Catholics—the gravest possible danger—from the current course of destructive innovation being followed by certain members of the Vatican apparatus, who have turned their backs not only on the Message of Fatima but on the Church’s entire past. The teaching of Saint Thomas on the duty to rebuke our superiors when their actions threaten harm to the faith reflects the unanimous teaching of the Saints and Doctors of the Church. As St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, taught in his work on the Roman Pontiff, even the Pope may be rebuked and resisted if he threatens harm to the Church:
Likewise, the eminent Sixteenth Century theologian Francisco Suarez (whom Pope Paul V praised as Doctor Eximius et Pius, or "Exceptional and Pious Doctor") taught as follows:
If even the Pope may legitimately be resisted when he takes actions that would harm the Church, all the more so the prelates whom we must accuse here. Quite simply, as Pope St. Felix III declared: "Not to oppose error is to approve it; and not to defend truth is to suppress it." Members of the laity and lower-ranking clergy are not exempt from that injunction. All the members of the Church are subject to it. We thus have a duty to speak out. We have a duty to bring to the Pope’s attention what we believe in conscience is a well-founded accusation that the prelates named in this book (and their many collaborators) have caused, and imminently will cause, grave harm to the Church and the world by their attack on the Message of Fatima. We have a duty to petition the Holy Father for redress of the crime that we believe these men have committed. We are about to submit our case for your consideration as fellow members of the Holy Catholic Church. We will now summarize briefly what the evidence has shown in general, and what it shows as to the particular actions of those we have accused here. In general, we have proven the following: First, the Message of Fatima is a true and authentic prophecy of vital importance for the Church and the world in this epoch of human history. The Message was delivered in person by the Mother of God, authenticated by indisputable public miracles witnessed by tens of thousands of people, has been pronounced worthy of belief by the Church, and has received the explicit endorsement of a series of Popes, including Pope John Paul II. In short, the Message of Fatima simply cannot be ignored. As Pope John Paul II himself has said, the Message of Fatima imposes an obligation on the Church. Second, the Message of Fatima calls for the establishment in the world of devotion to the Immaculate Heart—and thus the Catholic Faith—throughout the world. To that end, God Himself has decreed these things for our time: the solemn public consecration of Russia—specifically and only Russia—to the Immaculate Heart by the Pope and the bishops together, the conversion of Russia to Catholicism, and the consequent Triumph of the Immaculate Heart in Russia and elsewhere. Third, the Third Secret of Fatima (in that portion yet to be revealed) predicts what Catholics see all around them today: a catastrophic loss of faith and discipline in the Church—heresy, scandal, apostasy reaching into nearly every corner of the Catholic world. Aside from the mountain of other evidence we have presented on this point, one piece of evidence standing alone proves this: the crucial phrase in the Message which the accused have buried and tried to make everyone forget: "In Portugal the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved etc."—in Portugal, yes, but not in other countries, as we have seen. Fourth, Sister Lucy insisted that the Third Secret be made public by 1960, because in that year it would be "much clearer." Fifth, by 1960 the Second Vatican Council had been called. The men who have governed the Church since 1960 have given the human element of the Church an entirely new orientation. They have done this by means of an "opening to the world" through which "dialogue" with heretics, schismatics, Communists, atheists and other opponents of the one true Church has de facto replaced the Church’s once fierce opposition to error and Her obligation to pass on to all the following generations the Catholic Faith whole and inviolate, as Christ commanded them to do. Not content with ignoring their own solemn duty to keep and pass on the Faith, they also persecute those who seek to adhere to that duty. Sixth, as early as 1973 Pope Paul VI was forced to admit that "the opening to the world has become a veritable invasion of the Church by worldly thinking"—that is, by liberalism. This invasion of the Church by liberalism, and the consequent collapse of faith and discipline within the Church, represents the cherished goal of organized Masonry and Communism: not the complete overthrow of the Church, which they know is impossible, but the adaptation of the Church to liberal ideas. The present state of the Church is precisely what these forces boldly predicted they would achieve, and precisely what a long line of pre-conciliar Popes warned was the object of their conspiracies. Seventh, instead of fighting against the new orientation that adapts the Church to liberal ideas, post-conciliar churchmen, including those we accuse here, have unswervingly pursued the new orientation by taking and implementing decisions in the name of Vatican II, including (a) Ostpolitik, a policy by which many members of the Church are made to avoid any condemnation of or active opposition to Communist regimes; (b) the "ecumenical venture" and "interreligious dialogue", which de facto abandon both the conversion of non-Catholics to the one true religion and the dogma that the Catholic Church is the one true Church, outside of which there is no salvation; (c) the introduction of novel and ambiguous terminology in conciliar and post-conciliar documents which (like the formulas of the Arians in the 4th Century) undermine belief in the dogmas of the Faith; (d) a totally unprecedented "reform" of the liturgy by abandoning the traditional Latin Rite; (e) permission or toleration for various forms of heteropraxis (unsound practices) such as communion in the hand, altar girls, removal of the tabernacle from the altar, etc., which undermine belief in the Holy Eucharist and the sacrificial priesthood. Eighth, the Message of Fatima, with its simple call for the public consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart by the Pope and bishops, the conversion of Russia to Catholicism and the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart (and with it the Catholic Church) throughout the world, cannot be reconciled with the new orientation of the Church, in which Ostpolitik, "ecumenical dialogue" and "interreligious dialogue" prevent the Church from publicly declaring that Russia must be consecrated and converted to the true religion for the good of that nation and the world. Ninth, the churchmen who implement the new orientation, including the accused, have attempted to revise the Message of Fatima to make it conform to the new orientation. They have done this by insisting upon an "interpretation" of the Message that eliminates (a) any consecration of Russia by name (which they regard as an intolerable "ecumenical" offense or "provocation" to the Russian Orthodox), (b) any conversion of Russia to the Catholic Faith (which they have expressly abandoned as "outdated" ecclesiology), and (c) any Triumph of the Immaculate Heart throughout the world (which they regard as "triumphalistic", embarrassing and "non-ecumenical"). Tenth, the present Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Sodano, who has assumed de facto control of the daily governance of the Church since the reorganization of the Roman Curia by the Masonic Cardinal Jean Villot (Secretary of State of Pope Paul VI), has dictated a Party Line on Fatima, according to which the Message of Fatima in general, and the Third Secret in particular, are to be buried by means of an "interpretation" that eliminates its prophecies of future events, converting them into past events, and reduces its specifically Catholic content to mere generic "Christian" piety that will not offend the Russian Orthodox or the Protestants. Eleventh, the Secretary of State’s Party Line on Fatima was cited no less than four times in the commentary on the Message of Fatima and the Third Secret published by Cardinal Ratzinger and Monsignor Bertone on June 26, 2000. Twelfth, in accordance with the Party Line on Fatima, the Third Secret has been only partially disclosed, and the vision of the "Bishop dressed in White" being executed by soldiers outside a half-ruined city has been "interpreted" to mean nothing more than the failed attempt on the life of Pope John Paul II by a lone assassin 21 years ago. Thirteenth, that portion of the Third Secret which contains the "words of the Virgin" referred to by the Vatican itself in 1960—the words which almost certainly follow the incomplete phrase "In Portugal the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved etc."—has been withheld from the faithful. Fourteenth, the Third Secret has in fact been revealed in its essence not only by the testimony of numerous witnesses, but by Pope John Paul II himself, who has twice (in sermons at Fatima) explicitly linked the Message of Fatima to the Book of the Apocalypse, and in particular to the fall of one-third of the stars (consecrated souls) from Heaven after they are dragged down by the "tail of the dragon" (Apoc. 12:3,4)—an event nowhere seen in the first two parts of the Message, and therefore undoubtedly seen in the Third Secret. Fifteenth, in a vain attempt to quell legitimate doubts about the Party Line on Fatima, the Vatican apparatus has conducted a secret "interview" of Sister Lucy—for which there is no transcript or other complete record—in which it appears that she was essentially induced to "agree" that she likely concocted those elements of the Fatima Message that contradict the Party Line, and was further induced to repudiate (without the slightest explanation) her unwavering testimony for 60 years that the Consecration of Russia requires explicit mention of Russia and the participation of both the Pope and the world’s bishops in a joint public ceremony. Sixteenth, those who do not hew to the Church’s new orientation, including the Party Line on Fatima, are subjected to persecution and "purging" by means of "suspension", threats of "excommunication" and other forms of unjust discipline, while those who are faithful to the new orientation and the Party Line on Fatima are left alone, or even rewarded, even if they are promoting heresy, engaging in open disobedience to liturgical or other Church laws, or committing unspeakable sexual scandal. As in the time of the Arian heresy, we are facing the same situation lamented by Saint Basil the Great: "Only one offense is now vigorously punished: an accurate observance of our fathers’ traditions. For this cause the pious are driven from their countries and transported into deserts." Seventeenth, as the direct result of this concerted effort to revise, obscure and bury the Message of Fatima in favor of the new orientation, Russia has not been consecrated, Russia has not converted but has only further degenerated, the Church is in the depths of an unprecedented crisis, many souls are at risk. For the Virgin of Fatima said: "If people do what I ask, many souls will be saved." And Our Lady also said: "Many souls go to hell because they have no one to pray and make sacrifices for them." Regarding her own mission, Sister Lucy said to Father Fuentes on December 26, 1957: "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." In consequence, the world is facing the annihilation of various nations that Our Lady of Fatima warned would be the consequence of spurning Her requests. Now, as to the prelates we have been compelled to accuse by name before the Church, the following has been established by substantial evidence: As to Cardinal Angelo Sodano First, as Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Sodano is literally the most powerful figure in the Church today, given the reorganization of the Roman Curia under Pope Paul VI; and, as such, Cardinal Sodano is the de facto ruler over the daily affairs of the Church, especially given the failing health of the Supreme Pontiff. Second, owing to the same curial reforms of Pope Paul VI, Cardinal Sodano stands at the head of every Vatican dicastery, including the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), which (when it was called the Holy Office) was formerly headed by the Pope. Third, it is Cardinal Sodano who has dictated what we have called the Party Line on Fatima: i.e., the falsehood that the Message of Fatima, including the Third Secret, belongs entirely to the past, and that no one may request any longer the Consecration of Russia. We know this because,
Fourth, Cardinal Sodano, as the de facto ruler of daily Church affairs, has vigorously enforced the new orientation of the Church in the matter of Fatima. We know this because,
As to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger First, Cardinal Ratzinger, in his capacity as head of the CDF, has on innumerable occasions stated his commitment to the new orientation of the Church, which he described as "demolition of bastions" in a book published after he had become head of the CDF. Second, in accordance with this "demolition of bastions", Cardinal Ratzinger has openly declared his view that Blessed Pius IX and St. Pius X were "one-sided" in their solemn, infallible condemnations of liberalism, and that their teaching was "countered" by Vatican II. He further declares that the Catholic Church no longer seeks to convert all the Protestants and schismatics, and that it has no right to "absorb" their "churches and ecclesial communities," but must make a place for them in a "unity of diversity"—a view that is obviously irreconcilable with the consecration and conversion of Russia to the Catholic Faith. Cardinal Ratzinger’s view is, to say the least, suspect of heresy. Third, one of the "bastions" Cardinal Ratzinger has sought to "demolish" is the traditional Catholic understanding of the Message of Fatima. Fourth, Cardinal Ratzinger sought to demolish the bastion of Fatima in TMF, which he published under the control of Cardinal Sodano. Fifth, TMF attempts to destroy the authentic Catholic prophetic content of the Message by the following exegetical frauds:
Sixth, Cardinal Ratzinger, following Cardinal Sodano’s Party Line, stated in TMF that "we must affirm with Cardinal Sodano: ‘... the events to which the third part of the ‘secret’ of Fatima refers now seem part of the past’", and (according to Cardinal Sodano’s "interpretation") that the Third Secret culminated with the failed assassination attempt in 1981. Seventh, in adopting the Sodano Party Line on the Third Secret, Cardinal Ratzinger flatly contradicted his own testimony in 1984—three years after the assassination attempt—that the Third Secret is a "religious prophecy" concerning "dangers to the faith and the life of the Christian, and therefore the world", on which occasion Cardinal Ratzinger made no suggestion that the Secret pertained to the 1981 assassination attempt or any other past event. Eighth, in furtherance of the Party Line, Cardinal Ratzinger went out of his way to criticize Father Nicholas Gruner at the press conference of June 26, 2000, advising the world press that Father Gruner "must be submissive to the Magisterium" and accept the alleged 1984 consecration of the world as a consecration of Russia. That is, according to Cardinal Ratzinger, Father Gruner must submit to Cardinal Sodano’s Party Line. Cardinal Ratzinger’s claim is false because there has been no binding, authoritative pronouncement of the Magisterium—not the Pope, not a Council, not the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. Ninth, in sum, Cardinal Ratzinger, carrying out the Party Line, deliberately used his position as head of the CDF to lend the false appearance of theological weight and validity to a shameless "deconstruction" of the Message of Fatima—an effort so blatant that even the Los Angeles Times sub-headlined its coverage of TMF and the June 26, 2000 press conference as follows:
As to Monsignor Tarcisio Bertone In his capacity as Secretary of the CDF, Msgr. Bertone also carried out the Party Line dictated by Cardinal Sodano. First, Msgr. Bertone perpetrated a demonstrable fraud by asserting in TMF that "Sister Lucia personally confirmed that this solemn and universal act of consecration [of the world in 1984] corresponded to what Our Lady wished (‘Sim, està feita, tal como Nossa Senhora a pediu, desde o dia 25 de Março de 1984’: ‘Yes it has been done just as Our Lady asked, on 25 March 1984’: Letter of 8 November 1989). Hence any further discussion or request [for the Consecration of Russia] is without basis." Second, the fraud is demonstrable since the cited "letter of 8 November 1989" was printed out by a computer that the aged Sister Lucy does not use, and contains an error of fact that Sister Lucy could not have made—namely, that Pope Paul VI performed a consecration of the world during his visit to Fatima in 1967, when Pope Paul never consecrated anything during his fleeting appearance at the Cova da Iria. Third, Msgr. Bertone deliberately relied solely upon the patently bogus "letter of 8 November 1989", even though he (and the rest of the Vatican apparatus) had complete access to Sister Lucy in April-May 2000 and could have asked her to confirm that the 1984 consecration of the world sufficed for a consecration of Russia—contrary to her consistent testimony for decades. Fourth, Msgr. Bertone, truckling to the Sodano Party Line that Fatima "belongs to the past", dared to state in TMF that "the decision of His Holiness Pope John Paul II" to publish the Third Secret on June 26, 2000 "brings to an end a period of history marked by tragic human lust for power and evil"—a reckless, preposterous and fraudulent claim that ignores reality and contributes to the present endangerment of the Church and the whole world. Fifth, in response to growing public doubt about the completeness of the Vatican’s disclosure of the Third Secret and the Consecration of Russia, Msgr. Bertone staged a secret "interview" of Sister Lucy at her convent in Coimbra, the alleged results of which were not produced for more than a month. Sixth, although the "interview" is alleged to have lasted more than two hours, Msgr. Bertone offered only forty-four words from Sister Lucy related to the Consecration of Russia and the Third Secret, which words are presented without any surrounding context, so that it is impossible to tell exactly what Sister Lucy was asked, and how exactly she answered. Seventh, among other incredible things, we are asked to believe that during this two-hour interview, of which we are given only forty-four relevant words,
Eighth, no transcript or other record of the two-hour "interview" has been produced, but only an Italian-language summary in L’Osservatore Romano, signed by Msgr. Bertone and (purportedly) by Sister Lucy, who does not even speak Italian. (Sister Lucy’s "signature" does not appear on the English translation of the "summary.") Ninth, Msgr. Bertone conducted the "interview" even though he had a vested interest in coercing Sister Lucy to support the Party Line, and to defend his own preposterous claim that the press conference of June 26, 2000 "brings to an end a period of history marked by tragic human lust for power and evil …" As to Cardinal Dario Castrillón Hoyos The principal role of Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos in this matter has been to carry out the Party Line and serve the new orientation of the Church by seeking, in his capacity as head of the Congregation for the Clergy, to crush the Fatima apostolate and destroy the reputation of Father Nicholas Gruner, who represents the largest pocket of "resistance" to the effort to bury the Message of Fatima. The evidence shows that, First, the new orientation of the Church has allowed the Catholic clergy to be thoroughly infiltrated with homosexuals, pederasts and heretics who bring disgrace upon the Church—to the detriment of the many good priests who, like Father Gruner, have kept their vows and kept the faith. Second, despite a crisis in faith and discipline among the clergy that is raging on every continent, Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos has issued public condemnations, notices of "suspension" and even a threat of excommunication regarding only one priest in the entire Catholic Church: Father Nicholas Gruner, who has committed no offense against faith or morals, has kept his vow of celibacy, has kept the faith, and has done absolutely nothing to warrant any punishment, let alone the cruel and unusual punishment imposed upon him by Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos under the direction of Cardinal Sodano, who has arrogated the papacy to himself de facto. Third, the only priests Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos has subjected to immediate and harsh disciplinary measures during his tenure are "traditionalist" priests he deems insufficiently "inserted" into the "ecclesial reality of today" and "the present-day Church"—i.e. the new orientation, which he enforces far more diligently than the doctrinal or moral integrity of the priesthood. Fourth, in his letter to Father Gruner of June 5, 2000, Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos threatened Father Gruner with excommunication—only days before the June 26, 2000 press conference called to "gently debunk" the Message of Fatima, under the direction of Cardinal Sodano. Fifth, on February 16, 2001, Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos sent Father Gruner another letter, renewing the threat of "excommunication" and demanding that he "publicly retract" criticism of Cardinal Sodano, and other matters of free opinion in the Church, found in certain articles in The Fatima Crusader—an unprecedented demand, and one that is quite ludicrous considering the profusion of heretical literature promoted by unfaithful priests and even bishops today, about which Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos does nothing. Sixth, in the same letter, Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos revealed his motive of furthering the Party Line when he castigated Father Gruner for not accepting the new version of Fatima: "the Blessed Mother appeared to the three little visionaries in the Cova da Iria at the beginning of the century, and marked out a program for the New Evangelization which the whole Church finds itself engaged in, which is even more urgent at the dawn of the third millennium." Seventh, Our Lady of Fatima said nothing about any "New Evangelization", but only the consecration of Russia, the conversion of Russia to Catholicism, and the triumph of Her Immaculate Heart—all of which Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos studiously ignores, along with the other accused. Eighth, in a Church beset by widespread clerical corruption that he generally tolerates, Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos has attempted to destroy the life’s work and good name of Father Nicholas Gruner, a faithful priest, simply and only because Father Gruner will not accept a counterfeit of the Message of Fatima, dictated by Cardinal Sodano. As to All of the Accused The evidence we have presented shows that all four of the accused—Cardinal Angelo Sodano, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Msgr. Tarcisio Bertone, and Cardinal Dario Castrillón Hoyos—have combined and conspired to take various actions that make no sense unless they are viewed through the prism of the motive we have proven here: the motive of eliminating the Message of Fatima, understood in a traditional Catholic sense, from the memory of the Church, in order to make way for a new ecclesial orientation that cannot coexist with what the authentic Message says. The accused have attempted to dispose of the Message of Fatima at precisely that moment in history when the Church’s correspondence to its requests would avert what anyone can see is a coming global catastrophe. The civil authorities of the world, armed with only the fallible intelligence reports of their human operatives, are wise enough to prepare for the worst. But the accused, who are in possession of an infallible heavenly intelligence report about the coming annihilation of nations, tell us that the report mentions only past events, is probably not reliable, and can in any event be safely disregarded. At the same time, the evidence is overwhelming that the accused are still concealing from us a part of that heavenly intelligence report pointing directly at their own actions and omissions as the cause of an unprecedented crisis in the Church, a crisis whose terrible effects are now visible to the entire world, which looks on with a mixture of mockery and contempt. To be continued ...
Footnotes 1. ST, Q. 33, Art. V, Pt. II-II. 2. St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, Book II, Chapter 29. 3. De Fide, Disp. X, Sec. VI, N. 16.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
