Wednesday, April 29, 2020
Fatima, the Sacred Heart, Hell & Virus Trads
This post is written with the hope that Catholic Monitor readers will this first Friday make reparation to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, the Immaculate Heart of Mary and for the conservation of sinners as Our Lady of Fatima asked for.
I intend to offer reparation by following the fasting rules of Good Friday on May 1, the Feast of St. Joseph the Worker especially because many graces are needed at this critical moment in history because of the Satanic coronavirus hysteria tyranny.
Tradition in Action explains that Jesus is merciful, but also because of original sin and when after baptism we sin which is an infinite crime He had to redeemed us by his infinite sacrifice on Good Friday. However, He requires that we in grace unite to His Redemption by doing penance and reparation for forgiveness of our sins and implicitly for others:
“In the images of the Sacred Heart, He points to this symbolic font of love and mercy for us. The devotions to the Sacred Heart always suppose reparation for our sins. We are sinners, we must make reparation. Despite the promises from Our Lord and the fact that He paid an infinite price for our Redemption, we must make reparation. We should always do penance for our sins and make various kinds of reparation.”
“… the error of the [extreme Francis] Divine Mercy devotion. It preaches that we can expect an unconditional mercy with no price to be paid whatsoever, with no obligations whatsoever. This is not the message of Christ.”
“Christ is merciful. Time and time again, His mercy pardons our repeated sins in the Sacrament of Penance, always taking us back no matter how bad our sins are. And what happens in the Sacrament of Penance? The very name of the Sacrament tells us exactly what happens: to be effective the Sacrament supposes penance. Not only are you there at the Sacrament recognizing your full submission to the Church and your dependence on the Sacraments for forgiveness, but you walk out of the confessional with an imposed penance.”
Also, Fatima’s Sister Lucia said that Our Lady asked for sacrifices and rosaries to obtain the graces so sinners will not go to Hell, but also for reparation because of sins against God and the Mother of God:
“Sacrifice yourself for sinners and say many times especially whenever you make such a sacrifice: ‘O Jesus, it is for love of You, for the conversions of sinners, and in reparation for the sins committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary.”
Sister Lucia told Father Lombardi, according to Vatican’s Osservatore della Domenica on February 7, 1954, the following about why there is a need for sacrifices and prayers for sinners so they can be saved from Hell.
Fr. Lombardi: “Tell me is the Better World Movement a response of the Church to the words spoken to Our Lady?”
Lucia: “Father there is certainly a great need for this renewal. If it is not done, and taking into account the present development of humanity, only a limited number of the human race will be saved.”
Fr. Lombardi: “Do you really believe that many will go to Hell? I hope that God will save the greater part of humanity.” [He had just written a book entitled: Salvation for those without faith.]
Lucia: “Father, many will be lost.”
Fr. Lombardi: “It is true that the world is full of evil, but there is always a hope of salvation.”
Lucia: “No Father, many will be lost.”
(Fatima, The Great Sign by Francis Johnston, Tan Publishers, Inc. Rockford, Illinois, Page 36)
The devotions of Our Lady of Fatima and the Sacred Heart of Jesus are both about reparation because mankind has free will that by grace can cooperate with God for our redemption and others.
The heresies that denied free will were Protestantism and Jansenism which was a Catholicized Protestantism.
Might banning the Mass because of the supposed Black Plague coronavirus promoter Virus Trad Steve Skojec as well as Tim Gordon and his brother Dave be infected with the heresy of Jansenism?
This heresy like Protestantism and the Modernism of the Nouvelle theologie school, that dominated the proceedings of Vatican II, claimed to be returning to the “early Church” practices.
Jansenism emphasized pessimism due to original sin and predestination as did Calvinism and Lutheranism with the denial of free will.
One of the main tenets of Jansenism was that Holy Communion shouldn’t be received frequently. In the early twentieth century, Pope Pius X, the hammer of Modernist heretics, condemned this tenet and endorsed frequent Communion.
It appears that Skojec and the Gordon brothers agree with the Jansenist heretics and oppose Pius X’s endorsement of frequent Communion.
In a podcast of Rules for Retrograde, Dave (although it might have been Tim because their voices are similar), in a conversion about the “early Church” and why apparently because of original sin infrequent Communion was seemingly good for the reason of the veneration due to the Eucharist, said:
“The frequent reception of the Eucharist, as Steve [Skojec] I think was speaking about in the Mike Church Show, the frequent reception of the Eucharist is a really relatively new thing.”
(Rules for Retrograde (Tim Gordon & Dave Gordon), R4R#43: Coronavirus & Catholicism w/ Steve Skojec,” March 20, 2020, 18:00-18:11)
Theologian Jessica Murdoch of Villanova University quotes Pope Pius X saying this type of thinking is Jansenistic:
“‘[T]he poison of Jansenism, which had infected… under the appearance of honor and veneration due to the Eucharist, has by no means entirely disappeared’… this same pontiff declared: ‘Let frequent and daily communion… be available to all Christians… it is enough, nevertheless, that they be free from mortal sins, with the resolution that they never sin in the future.'”
(First Things, “A Pessimism that would Canonize All'” February 21, 2017)
Jansenist’s pessimism led them to say that Holy Communion shouldn’t be received frequently because they thought like Luther that man had no free will to cooperate with God’s grace to overcome mortal sin and make a “resolution that they never sin in the future.”
Apparently, Francis by his Lutheran denial of free will affirms the Protestant-like heresy Jansenism which denied love for “love under compulsion is hardly love.” It appears that Francis “removes the very essence of love—freedom.”
Murdoch, a associate professor of fundamental and dogmatic theology, explains:
“Thus the Jansenists reduced morality to meaninglessness. There is no hope here—one inescapably acts according to a delectation that does not in any way correspond to one’s free will. Both merit and damnation are possible without true freedom.”
“By rendering the will passive, Jansenius removes the very essence of love—freedom.For love under compulsion is hardly love. In the view of Jansenius, our storm-tossed souls merely crest and fall with no possibility of self-control. The upshot: Sin is ultimately God’s fault, rather than ours, because God could place the irresistible love of virtue in our souls, yet chooses not to.”
“… But [Francis’s Amoris Laetitia Lutheran and Jansenist] moral and anthropological pessimismdo not do justice to God’s mercy.For God’s superabundant mercy extends to redemption in Christ, who takes on our very nature in the hypostatic union and truly sanctifies our nature interiorly. By sanctifying us in a startlingly intimate way, the merciful God creates love in us—makes us lovable, draws our hearts into his own, and makes us fully free and capable of living the Christian life with vigor and joy. The moral norms of the Church are grounded, therefore, in what we might call a supernatural realism. Contrary to the sentiments of our age, realism is not found in an anthropological pessimism that settles for the ‘grey’ of continually ‘missing the mark’ and denies God’s transformative love. Rather, through faith we know that God’s grace makes us capable of virtue, even at times heroic virtue, as we see in the lives of the saints, who we might say are the most real among us.”
“We are, indeed, plagued by a new sort of Jansenism, one rooted in presumption rather than despair. The ‘old’ Jansenism arose from both anthropological and theological despair—the Catholic absorption of total depravity, and the loss of hope in the possibility of salvation.Ironically, those who criticize the four cardinals—and anyone who believes that Amoris Laetitia is in need of clarification—often fall into a new form of Jansenism.This ‘new’ Jansenism is marked by a similar pessimism with respect to human nature—total depravity under a new name, whether ‘weakness’ or ‘woundedness’ or ‘greyness.’ And like what preceded it, the new Jansenism articulates a loss of hope in the power of grace to regenerate the soul. The difference is that the new Jansenism tends towards presumption.Whereas the Jansenism of old despaired that anyone could really be loved by God, be good enough to receive Holy Communion, or be saved, its newer version has so little faith in the power of God to change hearts that it presumes God does not care for something so insignificant as the human heart. No, God is too busy to care about my paltry sins. None are loved personally as they are, but rather all are loved in a great, amorphous mass of humanity that could not but be saved. One need not be in a state of grace to receive Holy Eucharist, because the state of grace is not a real possibility for most people.”
“At first blush, the new Jansenism sounds encouraging—none are guilty, all are saved! In truth, however, a pessimism that would canonize all is only a shade less pessimistic than one that would condemn all to hell. As St. Thomas notes, both despair and presumption are sins against hope.”
Is it possible the Jansenistic pessimism against receiving Holy Communion frequently has infected Skojec and the Gordon brothers?
Remember that Murdoch wrote the above that she thought that the Francis document “Amoris Laetitia… often fall[s] into a new form of Jansenism”:
“At first blush, the new Jansenism sounds encouraging – none are guilty, all are saved! In truth, however, a new pessimism that would canonize all is only a shade less pessimistic than one that would condemn all to hell. As, St. Thomas noted, both despair and presumption are sins against hope.”
Theologian Dr. Lawrence Feingold explains the Lutheran sin against the theological virtue of Hope which is presumption:
“[T]he original doctrine of Luther presumed to be certain of salvation without the necessity of contrition.”
(Course Notes for Fundamental Moral Theology, December 2009, Page 160)
Why is Hope called a theological virtue?
“Hope is termed a theological virtue because its immediate object is God.”
(Catholic Encyclopedia: New Advent, “Hope”)
It may be that for Francis, Skojec and the Gordon brothers in their obsession with the coronavirus that their “immediate object is [not] God,” but their “immediate object is” fear of death” since all of them apparently think the new virus is supposedly the new Black Plague.
As St. Athanasius said the real “disciple of Christ despise death… instead of fearing it.”
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Mass and the Church as well as for the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Pray an Our Father now to offer reparation for the offenses against the Sacred Heart of Jesus, the Immaculate Heart of Mary and for the conversion of sinnners.
He was also quoted in public here:
Sent from my iPhone
I am not sure how to classify such error, I only know that after posting several times, this statement, on Steve’s Blog, from Jorge Bergoglio in regards to same-sex sexual unions, from page 117 of Jorge Bergoglio ‘s book, On Heaven And Earth, I was permanently blocked, I am assuming by Steve, but I am not certain it was Steve. The justification I was given for being blocked was that I, (who desire to be a Faithful Catholic) could not possible know that the election of Jorge Bergoglio was not valid, even though, prior to his election, Jorge Bergoglio set himself against every other validly elected Pope, and thus against Christ, And His One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church, outside of which, there is no Salvation, due to The Unity Of The Holy Ghost.
“If there is a union of a private nature, there is neither a third party, nor is society affected.” Jorge Bergoglio, prior to his election as pope, denying the Sanctity of the marital act within The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, and denying that sin done in private is sin, while denying The Unity Of The Holy Ghost (Filioque), and thus denying Christ, His One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church, outside of which there is no Salvation, due to The Unity Of The Holy Ghost.
How can the election of a man to the Papacy, who denies The Sanctity of the marital act within The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, and the fact that God, The Most Holy And Undivided Blessed Trinity, Through The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, Is The Author Of Love, Of Life, And Of Marriage, while denying sin done in private is sin, possibly be valid?
“Whoever is against the Pope is, ipso facto, outside the Church.”
This would include, of course, Jorge Bergoglio, prior to his invalid election as pope.
One can know through both Faith and reason that this statement, which denies “The Integralism and The Logic Of The Cross, is a form of Pelagianism, that in denying that sin done in private, is sin, not only denies that God, The Most Holy And Undivided Blessed Trinity, Through The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, Is The Author Of Love, Of Life, And Of Marriage, in private and in public, but denies The Very Essence Of Life-Affirming And Life Sustaining Salvational Love, God’s Gift Of Grace And Mercy, which is Apostasy.
I continue to be concerned and Pray for the safety of Pope Benedict XVI.
Sent from my iPad