An Uncanonically Elected Pope?

David Martin imageBy October 21, 2017


With all the controversy that surrounded the election of Pope Francis upon the resignation of Pope Benedict in 2013, it seems that Catholics may have lost sight of a key element in this episode, namely, that Benedict XVI never resigned his papal office, but only the active exercise thereof.

On the eve of his resignation, he said: “Anyone who accepts the Petrine ministry no longer has any privacy. He belongs always and completely to everyone, to the whole Church… “The ‘always’ is also a “forever”—there can no longer be a return to the private sphere. My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this.” (General Audience, February 27, 2013)

According to these words, Benedict XVI remains pope, with no revocation of his office having occurred. According to Church law, a pope must give up “his office” for his resignation to be valid. (Canon 332) Pope Benedict clearly chose to retain his office “forever,” which means he is still pope, which means that Francis cannot be pope, since there cannot be two popes. The late Fatima expert Fr. Nicholas Gruner points this out in a rare video on Benedict XVI’s resignation.  If Francis is the pope, then Benedict’s office is revoked, but Benedict insists it was not revoked.

To explain away the papal chimera that was born of the historic 2013 conclave, Archbishop Georg Gänswein who serves as prefect of the Pontifical Household told the pressthat Benedict XVI’s resignation announcement on Feb. 11, 2013, marked the introduction of a new institution into the Catholic Church: “a de facto enlarged ministry, with both an active and a contemplative member.” He said the Petrine office is now a “common papacy” comprising more than one member, i.e. Benedict and Francis.

Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a “shared papacy,” and Gänswein no doubt realizes that this is an argument used by heretics to undermine the Primacy of Peter, but his explanation to the press apparently was the best he could do to cover for a very embarrassing situation that caused the man he honored to be dethroned.

Fr. Gruner on the resignation of Benedict XVI from Louie Verrecchio on Vimeo.

What it boils down to is that Benedict XVI was forced into abdicating

What it boils down to is that Benedict XVI was forced into abdicating, i.e. to give up the “active ministry,” but this was done under the guise of a resignation to not split the Barque asunder with controversy. Credible reports from 2015 indicate that Benedict XVI was coerced into stepping down, which was providentially foreshadowed in Pope Benedict’s inaugural speech of April 24, 2005, when he said: “Pray for me, that I may not flee for fear of the wolves.”

We know from Cardinal Danneels of Brussels that he was part of a radical “mafia” reformist group opposed to Benedict XVI. Danneels, known for his support of abortion, LGBT rights, and gay-marriage, said in a taped interview in September 2015 that he and several cardinals were part of this “mafia” club that was calling for drastic changes in the Church, to make it “much more modern,” and that the plan was to have Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio head it.

This infamous clique—which is documented in Austen Ivereigh’s book the Great Reformer—comprised key members of the Vatican “gay lobby” that had clamored for Pope Benedict’s resignation, the same members who stirred up so much chaos at the October 2014-15 Synods on the Family.

Ivereigh’s book brings to light the intense lobbying campaign that was spearheaded by Cardinal Murphy O’Connor to get Cardinal Bergoglio elected as pope. Up to 30 cardinals were involved.

According to Ivereigh, “they first secured Bergoglio’s assent” and then “they got to work, touring the cardinals’ dinners to promote their man.” This was confirmed, in the case of Cardinals Murphy-O’Connor and Cardinal O’Malley, in the Wall Street Journal report from August 6, 2013.  As the conclave neared, they then held a series of closed meetings, known as congregations, one of which featured Cardinal Bergoglio as the keynote speaker

Clearly, there was intense politics and vote canvassing at work around the time of the conclave, which directly violated Pope John Paul II’s Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis, which lays down the rules for conducting conclaves. Therein he makes it clear that vote canvassing among cardinal electors is strictly forbidden, and that it 1renders the election “null and void.” Key passages are as follows:

81. The Cardinal electors shall further abstain from any form of pact, agreement, promise or other commitment of any kind which could oblige them to give or deny their vote to a person or persons. If this were in fact done, even under oath, I decree that such a commitment shall be null and void and that no one shall be bound to observe it; and I hereby impose the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae upon those who violate this prohibition…

82. I likewise forbid the Cardinals before the election to enter into any stipulations, committing themselves of common accord to a certain course of action should one of them be elevated to the Pontificate. These promises too, should any in fact be made, even under oath, I also declare null and void.

76. Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected. Universi Dominici Gregis (February 22, 1996) | John Paul II

Bearing this in mind, let us consider now the prophecy of St. Francis of Assisi concerning a future pope. This is found in the Opuscula or Works of St. Francis, which was published by the preeminent Franciscan historian Fr. Luke Wadding in 1621.

Shortly before his death in 1226, St. Francis of Assisi called together the friars of his Order and detailed this prophecy of what was to come upon the Church in the latter days. The following is an excerpt taken from Works of the Seraphic Father St. Francis of Assisi, R. Washbourne, 1882, pp. 248-250, with imprimatur by His Excellency William Bernard, Bishop of Birmingham.


“At the time of this tribulation, a man, not canonically elected, will be raised to the Pontificate, who, by his cunning, will endeavor to draw many into error…. Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it under foot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Jesus Christ will send them not a true pastor, but a destroyer.”

The clearest evidence of “an uncanonically elected pope” would be his success in drawing “many into error,” something that has become rampant since Francis was elected. We see many in the Church talking down dogma, praising Luther, and even dignifying adultery, courtesy of Amoris Laetitia which teaches that we can now break the commandments if conscience dictates. (303) And whereas some argue that this is material and not formal heresy, how do they explain the apparent formal heresy contained in paragraph 297 of Amoris Laetita?

“No one can be condemned forever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel! Here I am not speaking only of the divorced and remarried, but of everyone, in whatever situation they find themselves.” (AL 297)

This clearly denies the Church’s dogmatic teaching that hell is eternal. In an interview with Catholic World Report (CWR) in December 2016, Cardinal Raymond Burke, who is presently a member of the Apostolic Signatura, said that if a pope were to “formally profess heresy he would cease, by that act, to be the Pope.” Burke was reiterating Church teaching, as expressed by famed canonist Franz Wernz in his Ius Canonicum: “In sum, it needs to be said clearly that a [publicly] heretical Roman Pontiff loses his power upon the very fact.”

There is also the issue of Francis’ ongoing collusion with U.N. globalists. Freemasons the world over praise Francis and see him as a hero for the way he has turned the Vatican into a bully-pulpit for the advancement of left-wing political causes like population-control, open borders, and a communistic one-world government.

THE BIG AND OBVIOUS QUESTION that remains is, if Benedict XVI in fact remains pope, why doesn’t he alert the Church to the nullity of Francis’ election? And why did he even consent to the 2013 conclave if he already knew his continued papacy would invalidate the election?

Perhaps the late Fr. Malachi Martin provided the answer to this in summer 1998. In an interview on the Art Bell show, Father Malachi stated that he read the Third Secret of Fatima in February 1960. Bound by oath not to reveal the text of the Secret, he commented on the basic gist of the Secret, i.e. its prediction of apostasy in the church, while refuting the various apocryphal versions that callers were quoting to him on the program.

However, in response to an alleged quotation from the Third Secret about a pope who would be “under the control of satan,” Fr. Malachi replied, “Yes, it sounds as if they were reading the text of the Third Secret.”

According to Fatima experts, including the late Fr. Nicholas Gruner, this mention of a pope under Satan’s “control” would mean that he is innocently bound and kept under control. Benedict won’t speak the truth about Rome’s present collusion with Antichrist, because he is bound by fears and kept under surveillance by an iron-clad Vatican bureaucracy, if in fact they haven’t threatened him at gunpoint. There could be more to Danneels’ “mafia club” than meets the eye.

This is credible, when we consider that on February 10, 2012, almost one year to the day before Benedict XVI announced his resignation, it was reported that the pope was given only one year to live if he didn’t resign. The Telegraph UK reported that Cardinal Paolo Romeo, Archbishop of Palermo, said these things to a group of people in Beijing toward the end of 2011.

“His remarks were expressed with such certainty and resolution that the people he was speaking to thought, with a sense of alarm, that an attack on the Pope’s life was being planned,” the report said.

The extraordinary comments were written up in a top-secret report, dated Dec 30, 2011, and delivered to the Pope by a senior cardinal, Dario Castrillon Hoyos, in January 2012. The report was written in German, apparently to limit the number of people within the Vatican who would understand it if it was inadvertently leaked. It warned of a “Mordkomplott”—death plot—against Benedict.

Hence Pope Benedict XVI, in an emotional farewell speech at St. Peter’s on February 25, 2013, told a crowd of 100,000that God had called him to step down and devote himself to prayer, and ‘to scale the mountain.’

This suggests that Benedict XVI is “the Holy Father” in Lucy’s vision who scales the mountain, while Francis is the “bishop dressed in white.” In conjunction with the Third Secret message, Sr. Lucy of Fatima received this symbolic vision, which she penned on January 3, 1944. The following is an excerpt of the vision which was published by the Vatican on June 26, 2000.

“We saw in an immense light that is God: ‘something similar to how people appear in a mirror when they pass in front of it’ a Bishop dressed in White ‘we had the impression that it was the Holy Father’. Other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious going up a steep mountain, at the top of which there was a big Cross of rough-hewn trunks as of a cork-tree with the bark; before reaching there the Holy Father passed through a big city half in ruins and half trembling with halting step, afflicted with pain and sorrow, he prayed for the souls of the corpses he met on his way; having reached the top of the mountain, on his knees at the foot of the big Cross he was killed by a group of soldiers who fired bullets and arrows at him, and in the same way there died one after another the other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious, and various lay people of different ranks and positions. Beneath the two arms of the Cross there were two Angels each with a crystal aspersorium in his hand, in which they gathered up the blood of the Martyrs and with it sprinkled the souls that were making their way to God.”

In her vision, Lucy sees two popes as it were. The first is a mirrored image of what appears to be the pope, but is actually “a bishop dressed in white” who gives the “impression” he is the pope. The true pope and his followers scale the mountain amidst peril and danger, praying for the spiritually dead along the way, before which they pass through a city half in ruins, representing the Church in shambles. At the end of their journey they are martyred for their allegiance to Jesus Crucified. It is a symbolic picture of the Church being put to death.

It should be emphasized that a reflection in the mirror is not a reality, but only an appearance, an impression. Lucy makes the point that this appearance is “a bishop dressed in white.” Given what we know, it is safe to say that the bishop dressed in white is not Benedict XVI or any previous pope, but Pope Francis.

When we consider all the above, it begins to shed light on the mystery as to why St. Faustina, known for her role in establishing the devotion to the Divine Mercy, penned an unusual entry into her diary on December 17, 1936. Entry 823 is as follows.

“I have offered this day for priests. I have suffered more today than ever before, both interiorly and exteriorly. I did not know it was possible to suffer so much in one day. I tried to make a Holy Hour, in the course of which my spirit had a taste of the bitterness of the Garden of Gethsemane. I am fighting alone, supported by His arm, against all the difficulties that face me like unassailable walls. But I trust in the power of His name and I fear nothing.”—Diary of St. Faustina, 823

It is significant to note that St. Faustina on that day was making reparation for priests, an offering that brought upon her the worst suffering she had ever endured, and perhaps the worst she would ever endure. But too, on that bitter day of December 17, 1936, was born Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who would later reign as Pope Francis, the 266th pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church.

Could it be that on that day St. Faustina was atoning for the many priests, bishops, and cardinals of the future that would be misled by Francis? But too, could it be that her mysterious torment that day signaled the arrival of a future anti-pope?

1. Only in cases of collusion involving simony does the pope lift the nullity in order that the election may remain valid (78).


Whispers in the Loggia: In Magnum’s Wake, Pope “Clarifies” Sarah. Again.


In an extraordinary rebuke to one of his own Curial cardinals, the Pope has aimed to “explain simply, and hopefully clearly… some errors” in his Worship chief’s understanding of Magnum Principium, his recent motu proprio on liturgical translations, indicating the new norms granting new oversight to bishops’ conferences as a fresh development and declaring several key pieces of the operative rules in 2001’s Liturgiam authenticam “abrogated.”

A year since Francis’ last open clash with his top liturgical aide, a personal letter from the pontiff to the CDW prefect Cardinal Robert Sarah (above, ad orientem), dated 15 October, was published this morning by the Italian outlet La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana and subsequently confirmed by the Holy See Press Office, as well as being placed on the Italian homepage of Vatican Radio. (Ironically enough, even as this Ordinary Sunday takes precedence, today marks the feast of St John Paul II, under whose authority LA was promulgated.)

Noting a recent, lengthy commentary in which Sarah stated that LAremains “the authoritative text concerning liturgical translations,” the Pope responded by relating that paragraphs 79-84 of the 2001 norms – those which deal precisely with the requirement for a vernacular rendering’s recognitio by Rome – were now abolished, going on to note that Magnum “no longer upholds that translations must conform on all points with the norms of Liturgiam authenticam, as was the case in the past.”

In the new balance of responsibility, Francis said, Sarah’s contention that “the words recognitio and confirmatio, without being strictly synonymous [to explain the Vatican’s role], are nevertheless interchangeable” – in essence, that little had changed from LA – was not the case. As the pontiff explained, “the faculty” now belongs to the respective bishops’ conferences “to judge the goodness and coherence of terms in the translation of the original, albeit in dialogue with the Holy See”; in other words, not a unilateral call on Rome’s part, even at the process’ final stage.

Given considerable focus in the new norms’ wake on the use of the word “fideliter” – that is, a conference’s charge of weighing a translation’s fidelity to the original – in Magnum‘s revision of the Code of Canon Law, the pontiff writes that the term, as judged by an episcopal conference, implies a “triple” meaning: “first, to the original text; to the particular language in which it is translated, and finally to the understanding of the text by its audience.

In light of LA‘s revision of translation principles – which placed a premium on accuracy to the original Latin text over a “dynamic equivalence” approach that allowed a looser standard to ensure widespread comprehension – the Pope’s new interpretation is of particular significance.

While Francis began his letter by thanking the Guinean cardinal for his “contribution,” it bears recalling that, on Magnum‘s release in early September, Sarah – who Papa Bergoglio himself named to CDW in late 2014 – was conspicuous by his absence: an explanatory note on the new norms was instead issued by his deputy, the English Archbishop Arthur Roche. A former bishop of Leeds and chairman of ICEL – the global coordinating body for English-language translations – Roche was likewise received by Francis in a private audience earlier this month by himself.

Given the broad circulation of Sarah’s earlier interpretation on the new norms – in particular, among circles routinely critical, or even hostile, toward the pontiff – Francis closed the letter by asking the cardinal to transmit his response to the outlets which previously ran Sarah’s piece, as well as to the episcopal conferences and CDW’s staff and membership.

The letter published today marks the third instance of Sarah’s responses to Francis meeting a very public retort from the Pope. In early 2016, as CDW promulgated the decree formally allowing women to participate in the washing of the feet on Holy Thursday, an attached letter from the pontiff to the cardinal revealed that Papa Bergoglio’s directive for the change had been held up for over a year.

Six months later, Francis (through the Press Office) issued a “clarification” that Sarah had been “incorrectly interpreted” in calling for priests to adopt the ad orientem stance in celebrating Mass, which the cardinal urged days earlier at a conference for traditionalists in London.

In a major speech to Italian liturgists late last summer, Francis declared, “with certainty and magisterial authority,” that the Vatican II reforms are “irreversible” – adding that, for the church, “the liturgy is life, and not an idea to be understood.”

Source: Whispers in the Loggia: In Magnum’s Wake, Pope “Clarifies” Sarah. Again.

World’s End Update. The “Last Things” According to Francis – OnePeterFive

According to Francis Sandro Magister October 20, 2017

In the important newspaper “la Repubblica” of which he is the founder, Eugenio Scalfari, an undisputed authority of Italian secular thought, last October 9 returned to speaking in the following terms about what he sees as a “revolution” of this pontificate, in comments by Francis that are derived from his frequents conversations with him:

“Pope Francis has abolished the places where souls were supposed to go after death: hell, purgatory, heaven. The idea he holds is that souls dominated by evil and unrepentant cease to exist, while those that have been redeemed from evil will be taken up into beatitude, contemplating God.”

Observing immediately afterward:

“The universal judgment that is in the tradition of the Church therefore becomes devoid of meaning. It remains a simple pretext that has given rise to splendid paintings in the history of art. Nothing other than this.”

It is seriously doubtful that Pope Francis really wants to get rid of the “last things” in the terms described by Scalfari.

There is in his preaching, however, something that tends toward a practical overshadowing of the final judgment and of the opposite destinies of blessed and damned.

Read more here: World’s End Update. The “Last Things” According to Francis – OnePeterFive

Bishops and women priest campaigners sign letter supporting Pope Francis |

Wolfgang Thierse, a signatory of the letter, as German Bundestag Vice-President in 2013 (Getty)

Bishops and women priest campaigners sign letter supporting Pope Francis by Dan Hitchensposted Friday, 20 Oct 2017

More than 150 Catholics, including bishops, priests and academics, have launched a statement in support of Pope Francis.

The Pro Pope Francis open letter, available in English and German, follows the “filial correction” of Pope Francis, which claimed that the Pope had helped to spread heresies.

The signatories, including eight bishops, address the Pope, saying: “Your pastoral initiatives and their theological justification are currently under vehement attacks by a group in the church. With this open letter, we want to express our gratitude for your courageous and theologically sound papal leadership.”

They congratulate the Pope on “reshaping the pastoral culture of the Roman Catholic Church”, adding: “We share your dream.”

The bishops include two from Austria, Paul Iby, Bishop Emeritus of Eisenstadt, and Helmut Krätzl, an auxiliary bishop in Vienna archdiocese.

Other distinguished figures on the list are László Sólyom, the former president of Hungary; Wolfgang Thierse, former president of the Bundestag; Fr Tomáš Halík, a past winner of the Templeton Prize; and Charles Taylor, the Canadian philosopher.

Taylor, author of A Secular Age, has previously criticised the “rigid moralism” of “the Vatican’s present position” on matters including birth control.

One signatory, Martha Heizer, was excommunicated by Pope Francis in 2014 for co-hosting private “Masses” in her home at which no priests were present.

Another, the philosopher Gerard Hughes SJ, has written in a piece on abortion: “The embryo is a potential person, but that is very different – and morally different – from being a person … I don’t think we can draw any sharp lines.”

The other UK-based signatory, Prof Thomas O’Loughlin, signed a statement from the Wijngaards Institute declaring that “Responsible contraception should be allowed” and that after divorce, “Expecting these persons to live celibate lives betrays a severe and suspicious view of human sexuality.” He is an academic patron of the Institute, whose website records that “Our clash with traditional views came to a head in 1994 when the Vatican declared that the exclusion of women from the ordained ministries was definitive and should no longer be discussed.”

Other signatories have written on the subject of women’s ordination. Fr Carl-Peter Klusmann has said that if a woman were to be consecrated as priests, Rome would have to give reasons why this was invalid – and that “Today’s theology does not offer such reasons.” Christian Weisner has helped to lead an international campaign for women’s ordination. Bishop Fritz Lobinger, a retired South African bishop, has suggested ordaining “elders”, adding “Because the majority of proven local leaders are women, it is unavoidable that the question of their inclusion among ordained elders will arise, though present church law does not permit it”.

Some signatories are members of the group We Are Church, which advocates sweeping changes to the Church, including “democratic structures” and the admission of women to the priesthood.

An organiser of the petition, Fr Paul Zulehner, said that as Pope Francis faced criticism, and bishops and others seemed reluctant to defend him publicly, they wanted to “give a voice to the silent supportive majority”.

Asked whether the signatories hoped that Pope Francis could help open the way to women’s ordination, Fr Zulehner said: “The letter deliberately does not address controversial issues. The question of women’s ordination does not play an explicit role in our action.”

Source: Bishops and women priest campaigners sign letter supporting Pope Francis |

LifeSiteNews co-founder: Problems in the Church today are ‘unthinkable’

Featured Image

October 19, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – There has been a “monumental shift” over the past four years in how the Vatican interacts with promoters of population control, one of the founders of LifeSiteNews told the International Population Conference.

“These past four years have been the most painful and difficult reporting we have ever done,” John-Henry Westen, Co-Founder and Editor-in-Chief of LifeSiteNews, told the online conference’s attendees.

Whereas Pope St. John Paul II “actually called on pro-life groups to involve themselves in the battle against population control,” Pope Francis has invited some of its biggest proponents to speak at the Vatican and even given credence to some of their positions.

Continue reading here.

Promotion of Homosexuality: The Defining Image of a Corrosive Pontificate

Read here.

Feast of the Most Sacred Heart

* Note: Picture from Fr. Buckley’s 50th Golden Jubilee. I was fortunate to have him as my Ignatian Retreat Master when the FSSP was in Elmhurst, PA

Rev. Father James Buckley, FSSP
On 1 July 2008, at the Shrine of the Most Blessed Sacrament in Hanceville, Alabama, Fr. James Buckley of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, delivered the following homily for the First Solemn Mass of Father Jared McCambridge, FSSP.

The year was 1849. Forced to flee Rome by revolutionaries who had killed his prime minister, Blessed Pius IX, the Vicar of Christ and ruler of the papal states, was living in Gaeta, a territory which at that time belonged to the kingdom of Naples. Joining the exiled pope, Father Giovanni Merlini, the third superior general of the Fathers of the Precious Blood suggested to the Holy Father that in order to regain the papal states, he should bind himself by a vow to extend to the entire Catholic Church the Feast of the Precious Blood. On Saturday June 30, after consultation with prudent and pious priests, Pius IX without binding himself by vow informed Merlini that he would extend to the whole of Christendom the Feast of the Precious Blood. On that very day, the armies of France entered Rome and two days later revolutionaries capitulated. To commemorate this immediate and extraordinary sign of divine approval, Pius IX decreed the following August that the Feast of the Precious Blood would be celebrated throughout the world on the first Sunday of July, which in 1849 was July 1.
This history is an introduction to the feast itself which honors Christ for the special reason that He shed His blood for the remission of our sins. In his letter to the Ephesians, St. Paul in speaking of Christ says: “In whom we have redemption through his blood, the remission of sin, according to his grace” And St. Peter writes in his first epistle: “you have not been redeemed by perishable things silver and gold…but by the precious blood of Christ as of a lamb without spot”.

In his Eucharistic hymn “Adoro Te devote” St. Thomas Aquinas says: “Cujus una stilla salvum facere totum mundum quit ab omni scelere”. The meaning is this: one drop of Christ’s blood was sufficient to wash clean the whole world”. But it was not by one drop that He redeemed us. In the garden He sweat blood; when scourged, according to the Shroud of Turin, He received 120 lashes from the nape of His neck to His buttocks. Blood flowed from His sacred head crowned with thorns and when nailed to the cross blood poured from hands and feet while He lived and after His death it poured from His side.

It is the wound from His side which is the focus of today’s gospel. Saint John the Evangelist, an eye witness, reports that although Christ was already dead one of the soldiers opened his side with a lance. Saint Augustine observes that there is significance in the word opened because from the side of Christ as from a door there comes forth eternal life. This, he says, was foreshadowed by the door in the side of Noah’s ark. When it was opened all, both men and beasts, that were to be saved from the flood entered in.

Because the blood of a dead man congeals, it was a miracle, a divine sign, that blood flowed from the side of Christ after His death. This miracle was done, says St. Thomas, to show that through Christ’s passion we obtain full remission from sin. The eternal life that Christ brings us, moreover, is first communicated to us by baptism, represented by water. For Our Lord said: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God”. The blood of Christ, the price of our salvation, also represents the Eucharist. As He Himself also said: “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood hath everlasting life and I will raise him up on the last day”. Since baptism and the Eucharist belong to the Church, holy men from ancient times have recognized that Eve who was formed from the side of Adam sleeping in the garden foreshadowed the Church who was formed from the side of Christ, sleeping on the cross.

Because Christ humbled Himself becoming obedient unto death even to the death on the cross, God hath exalted him and given him a name that is above every name. In his human nature Christ subjected Himself to the will of the Father by undergoing bloody sufferings. He is now seated in glory at the Father’s right hand. The wounds He once suffered He now bears as sparkling trophies of His triumph over sin and death. These surpass the stars in splendor and the honeycomb in sweetness. All the diamonds and rubies of the Orient cannot compare with them in value nor can balsam and the rose equal their fragrance.

But although He is exalted in glory it is still most fitting for us to give him thanks and praise. In the colloquy for his meditation on the triple sin St. Ignatius bids those making the Spiritual Exercises to look at Christ hanging on the cross and consider that He who lives in eternity entered into time and that He who in His divine nature cannot suffer took to himself a human nature so that He could die on the cross for me and for my sins. Christ died for me. What have I ever done for Christ? What am I doing for Christ? What will I do for Christ?

In order that one love Christ in deed and not merely in word, he should try to make an improvement in his life. If, for example, he notices that he has some habit of venial sin, perhaps it is taking God’s name in vain, using bad language or talking about the faults of his neighbor; he should strive to improve first by resolving as soon as he awakes in the morning, to avoid the offense. Then at some time during the day he should examine his conscience, marking down on a piece of paper the number of times he has fallen. When he goes to confession, he should not only mention the offense but the number of times he has committed it. In a very short time, he will make extraordinary progress

The Blood of Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, lavishly shed in the Passion is the price of our salvation. In our gratitude for the redemption He won for us at such a great price, we must engrave upon the walls of our mind those stirring words of Saint Ignatius: Christ died for me. What have I ever done for Christ? What am I doing for Christ? What will I do for Christ?

Provided Courtesy of:
Eternal Word Television Network
5817 Old Leeds Road
Irondale, AL 35210

Tears of Faith and Love: founded in 1988, FSSP enters 30th year

By New Catholic Wednesday, October 18, 2017

Come sorrowing tears, the offspring of my grief,
Scant not your parent of a needful aid;
In you I rest the hope of wish’d relief,
By you my sinful debts must be defray’d:
Your power prevails, your sacrifice is grateful,
By love obtaining life to men most hateful.

If love, if loss, if fault, if spotted fame,
If danger, death, if wrath, or wreck of weal,
Entitle eyes true heirs to earned blame,
That due remorse in such events conceal:
That want of tears might well enrol my name,
As chiefest saint in kalendar of shame.

At Sorrow’s door I knock’d, they craved my name:
I answer’d, one unworthy to be known.
What one? say they. One worthiest of blame.
But who? a wretch, not God’s, nor yet his own.
A man? Oh no! a beast; much worse. What creature?
A rock. How call’d? the rock of scandal, Peter!

With mildness, Jesu, measure mine offence;
Let true remorse Thy due revenge abate;
Let tears appease when trespass doth increase;
Let pity temper Thy deserved hate;
Let grace forgive, let love forget my fall:
With fear I crave, with hope I humbly call.

Redeem my lapse with ransom of Thy love,
Traverse th’indictment, rigour’s doom suspend;
Let frailty favour, sorrows succour move,
Be Thou Thyself, though changeling I offend.
Tender my suit, cleanse this denied den,
Cancel my debts, sweet Jesu, say Amen!
Saint Robert Southwell
St. Peter’s Complaint


The Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter proudly display as their symbol not emblems of glory, but tears of heartfelt shame, the tears of their heavenly Patron. As with Peter, the early tears of uncertainty became assurances of triumph – not for the earthly honor of their members, but for Our Lord Jesus Christ and the undying heritage of the Church of Rome, founded upon the blood of Simon son of John.

Congratulations to the Fraternity on this their 29th Anniversary of foundation, as they enter their 30th year of common life for the Church — and a wish of many more decades of fidelity to the Roman See and her doctrine and steadfastness, under the protection of God and of the redeemed tears of Saint Peter.

From Rorate Caeli Website

KILLING STATUES: Christophobic Mobocracy in America ~ Remnant TV

Keep the Faith