A Curiously Selective Crusader

A Curiously Selective Crusader

by Christopher A. Ferrara
Fatima.org/Perspectives
November 24, 2015

On October 7, 1571 the Holy League’s armada, commanded by Don Juan of Austria and sent into battle with the blessing of Saint Pius V, won a miraculous victory at Lepanto when the wind suddenly changed direction, filling the sails of the Holy League’s ships and stilling those of the Turks. The Turkish fleet was decimated, 30,000 Muslim invaders were slain, and all of Europe was saved from the scourge of Islam. Saint Pius V recognized that the Rosary and the intervention of Our Lady had been decisive in the outcome of the battle — which he knew by interior illumination even before the news reached Rome. He ordered a feast day for commemoration of the victory [October 7, the Feast of Our Lady of the Rosary], later extended to the universal Church by Pope Clement XI.

Today, a thoroughly neutralized Church militant, rendered impotent by the pseudo-doctrines of “dialogue,” “interreligious dialogue” and “ecumenism,” offers only endless blather about “the path of peace” even as a resurgent Islam threatens Rome itself. Pope Francis has just responded to the Paris attacks and the threat by ISIS to target the Vatican with a pacifist diatribe condemning all war, even a just war in defense of a Christian homeland. In his usual mocking tone, Francis declared:

“A war can be justified — quote-unquote [fra virgolette in Italian] — with many, many reasons. But when all the world as it is today, is at war — all the world! — piecemeal though that war may be, a little here, a little there, and everywhere, there is no justification. And God weeps. Jesus weeps.”
I rather doubt that God is weeping over efforts to recapture territory invaded by ISIS, from which Christians have been driven out if they have not already been butchered, burned alive, raped, beheaded or forced into slavery. Nor do I think that God was weeping when the battle was won at Lepanto. I rather think that the entire heavenly court was rejoicing along with Saint Pius V.

But as is so often the case with Pope Bergoglio, what he says today will be found to have been flatly contradicted by something he said before. In this case, as Ann Barnhardt has reported, Cardinal Bergoglio had this to say in 2012, on the 30th anniversary of Argentina’s failed attempt to invade the Falkland Islands:

“We come to pray for all who have fallen, sons of the homeland who went out to defend their mother, the homeland, and to reclaim what is theirs, that is of the homeland, and it was usurped.”
Apparently Cardinal Bergoglio did not think God was weeping when the Fascist-Peronist government of Argentina engaged in a war of naked aggression for purely nationalistic reasons: to “reclaim what is theirs” but which in fact was not theirs. As Barnhardt notes, the Falklands had been a possession of the United Kingdom since the Spanish abandoned them in the 1830s, and a 2013 referendum of the islands’ 1516 inhabitants yielded a grand total of three votes in favor of coming under the authority of the Argentine government.

Yet when it comes to the legitimate use of force to defend Christians against Muslim savages bent on their destruction, and the just war in general, Pope Bergoglio informs the world there is no justification for war under any circumstances and that God is weeping. The only reasonable explanation for this blatant self-contradiction — along with so many others — is a tendency to say whatever seems expedient at the moment without regard for any consistent underlying principles. But then we were warned within hours of Cardinal Bergoglio’s election that he was “famous for his inconsistency.”

A NOTE TO READERS: One might reasonably ask why this column has been devoted almost exclusively of late to the scandals that Francis provokes almost daily. This, unfortunately, is unavoidable — and precisely because these pages are written from the perspective of Fatima.

The Pope is the earthly head of the Catholic Church. As such, he has immense power: the power to guide the Church aright and literally to renew the face of the earth, but also the power to inflict immense harm upon the Church and the cause of the Gospel, with consequent grave harm to the world at large, through imprudent and even reckless words and deeds outside the very limited scope of papal infallibility.

That is why the Pope stands at the very heart of the Message of Fatima and its divine prescription for the rescue of the Church and the world in this chaotic epoch: the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary by the Pope in union with the world’s bishops. And that is why this Pope, at least so far, can only be seen as a central figure in the ever-worsening ecclesial and world crisis Our Lady warned would be the consequence of failing to heed Her request.

Concerning Francis and his program, therefore, one cannot be silent.

Facebook
Twitter
Google+
http://angelqueen.org/2015/11/25/a-curiously-selective-crusader/
Get AQ Email Updates
AQ RSS Feed

8 comments on “A Curiously Selective Crusader

  1. One thing that confuses me: Why must Russia yet be consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary when as a nation she seems to be the sole defender of decency (having not capitulated to the tyranny of homosexualism) and a most prominent crusader (at great cost) against Muslim aggression in the world today? Granted there are serious problems within Russia, with a horrible abortion rate and a serious dearth of children. But why must we still fear amongst all evils the spread of Russia’s errors throughout the world? Unless perhaps “Russia’s errors” refers to that seemingly ever-present demoralization that plagues so many in the West today, rendering souls lukewarm and devoid of any serious resolve in confronting the various forms of wickedness that assail the Kingdom of Christ in the world…? That our Lady wants this consecration is sufficient for me. Yet still I look for reasons why.

  2. Many things are confusing in the Fatima messages. Among them too, that “In Portugal the dogma of the Faith will be preserved”. Also, from what I had heard, Sister Lucy was supposed to have been allowed by God to live until the whole prophecy was to be realized/completed. I, quite frankly, don’t think these prophecies should be taken too literally. Much can be allegory or metaphor. Also, messages, may have been correctly transmitted to a child, but how that human child receiving the message remembers or interprets through the prism of her mind is a different story. The only guarantee of correct and complete transmission of any Catholic Truth is through the Holy Spirit working through the Apostles and their designated successors.
    Interesting to note, and strangely enough, if one were to substitute “Russia” for the “United States” in those messages, it would make more sense, since it is the US that is spreading its errors throughout the world, and making the Church suffer. It’s the US that exports population control, abortion and homosexual activism through its NGOs and “strings attached” Economic Aid, Banks and Loans programs; and if that don’t work out, “democratic” and “”human rights” rhetoric and revolution.

  3. It’s clear that Our Lady said that Russia would spread its errors, that Russia must be consecrated to Her Immaculate Heart, and that Russia would be converted and an era of peace would be granted to mankind.

    That Russia has spread her errors is abundantly clear. First, Communism has spread to China, Viet Nam, North Korea, Cuba, and more. Second, Socialism has taken root almost everywhere including here in the US. But more significantly, the errors came into the Church in full swing in Vatican-II when pseudo-saint Roncalli sold out to the commies, and turned over the Council to bishops who decimated Catholic doctrine, ended Catholic states, proclaimed the Church to be on even footing with all religions, and implemented changes to effectively destroy memory of the past, exactly as Communist regimes do.

    Both in the Church and in societies, a conformist, collectivist mindset has ascended that militates against God-given free will, forcing its will on all and marginalizing all who dissent. This is the core of the “errors of Russia.” It will be the end of the Church and civil society if it continues. We may see a descent into barbarism that makes the 20th Century look like a test run. Whatever, it will become so heinous and ubiquitous that only a miracle can end it. This will be to the great glory of the Mother of God.

  4. The Fatima apparitions took place between the february 1917 and the October 1917 period, interestingly enough. The Mensheviks who overthrew the Czar were the ones who were largely behind the February revolution that ushered in a “bourgeois” revolution. But they were Marxist. Most of them had the idea that a “Bourgeois ” revolution and economic transformation was necessary before a second socialist revolution was to occur. The Second October 1917 revolution was staged by their more radical cousins that believed that the “bourgeoisie” stage of development could be skipped and Russia could jump straight into socialism, without any intermediary stage. Much of the 3rd “prophecy” was pretty much more an actualized reality, rather than a prophecy, and it was clear that the “errors of Russia” would spread unless people change their hearts and turn to God. This message of Fatima would appear to be explained best as a message that refers to that short window of time between the two 1917 revolutions.
    But again, its all speculation, not because God or His mother are inaccurate, but the understandings and interpretations of what the Fatima children believed they were hearing may not have been fully clear to them, and/or they may not have communicated all in the clearest possible language. After all, they are only simple shepard children. My argument is best exampled when one compares Fatima to LaSalette. You will note that in LaSalette, the children reported similar, but not exactly the same prophecies. The Church, in fact, was critical of one version of the LaSalette prophecies.
    My point is that these prophecies are not best as indicators of events to come, but rather, after they happen, in retrospect, the human race and the Church can acknowledge the comfort that God and Our Lady are with us, and we can see how God sees all, knows all, has full control of everything happening, and has everything planned and we can see when all is over, how God planned everything to work out for the best.

    • Hence the statements by +Benedict ; that of Lucy’s imagination …
      But, it’s almost as if Our Lord’s remark re St. Margaret Alacoque’s prediction of the King of France… As if He knew it would happen ! :) Well , come to find out, the church had (still has) it’s share of those who are anti-Fatima; the pope really can’t do too much with a hand dealt to them like this. I don’t think it’s so much that the Fatima narrative was askew coming from a child but that the church would not do as instructed by Heaven.

    • My point is that these prophecies are not best as indicators of events to come

      Yeah, right. The Mother of God appeared to three children over a 6-month span. She gave more messages to Lucy later. However, even though She made simple declarative sentences, She was unable to make predictions that correspond to reality and /or was unable to insure that the children would faithfully transmit them, even though Lucy was yet alive to correct any misunderstanding. If that’s the case, then it was a false apparition. Our Lord would never put His Mother in such a position. I don’t give La Salette any credence for that very reason.

    • Oh, and the miracles. The miracle of the sun was seen by thousands over distances of many miles. The great light over Europe to herald the start of WWII was also seen by thousands, one of whom I’ve spoken to. Our Lady specifically predicted the great light and the second world war. It’s yet another simple declarative sentence that can’t be understood according to its plain meaning, I’d guess??

  5. Go get ’em, Cyprian! (And, a tip o’ the hat to partick56, as well…)

    VERY well said, dear friend. VERY well said.

Leave a Reply