Very likely the prophesied Great Chastisement, what Our Lady of Fatima foretold as the annihilation of various nations. It's also in the Third Secret of Fatima, besides the widespread loss of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, as one can learn from Pius XII's unpublicized reading of the Secret in 1957, one of those present being the American Cardinal Samuel Stritch: www.youtube.com/watch?v=nO-8UhGOagg&t=4s (3 min, 40 sec)
From the book, Goodbye Good Men by Michael S. Rose:
“One of the most critical questions posed to potential seminarians, . . . is whether or not the applicant approves of the ordination of women to the priesthood. This puts the orthodox seminarian in a difficult position. If he reveals that he agrees with the Magisterium that the Church does not have the ability to ordain women, he is liable to be dismissed from being further considered. If he lies and says he is “open” to the idea, then he compromises himself: not the ideal way to begin the studies he hopes will lead to the priesthood . . . Although oftentimes it is the vocations director, usually a priest, who conducts the initial interview, it is common that an assistant, often a religious sister, serves as what some call the “inquisitor,” In other cases, bishops have allowed “troubled women religious – many of whom had already left their orders – to occupy the top positions in their vocations office and seminary administrative posts.”
Rose, M. S. (2002). Chapter 1 The Gatekeeper Phenomenon. In Goodbye Good Men How Catholic Seminaries Turned Away Two Generations of Vocations to the Priesthood (pp. 54–55). essay, Aquinas Publishing.
You miss the increasingly obvious point that Prevost's "election" is invalidated on two counts. The likely superior point is that as a publicly manifest heretic he could not be elected pope under Pope Paul IV's bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio. Neither are the Catholic faithful obliged to accept him under this bull and if their conscience is persuaded, they are obliged NOT to accept and to resist his election. The likely inferior point of invalidity relates to the number of cardinal electors exceeding 120. When we Catholics refuse to see the obvious and then come over all surprised at the evil fruit thereof, we have only our own blind stupidity and apparent willingness to be gaslighted to blame!
There is no impediment to a woman being appointed to be prefect of a dicastery. Is your judgement based on law or tradition? It does not seem to relate to either in reality. Pope Leo XIV is not bound to Paul VI's teaching, things have moved on since that was promulgated after all the current Pope is the Supreme Legislator of The Church. Neither is it clear in what you write why he should be regarded as a manifest heretic? Canonically he is not even close.
Thank you for the comment. My concern isn’t rooted in legal positivism but in continuity with divine and ecclesiastical tradition. The idea that “there is no impediment” to a woman governing clergy through a dicastery would have struck every previous age of the Church as absurd, for the simple reason that governing clergy pertains to sacred orders. This is patristic, canonical, and perennial.
Yes, the pope is the supreme legislator within the bounds of tradition. He is not an absolute monarch. Pius IX, Leo XIII, and Pius XII were clear: the pope is bound by the deposit of faith, and he has no authority to innovate against it.
As for manifest heresy, I have not pronounced any definitive judgment, nor do I need to. I am observing the public alignment with condemned teachings: praising documents like Abu Dhabi, retaining promoters of heterodoxy, and advancing agendas (synodality, interreligious relativism, female governance over clergy) that contradict Scripture and tradition.
Canon law, particularly post-1983, is no safe refuge for novelty. It assumes a Catholic framework, which is precisely what is in question when hierarchy itself advances what prior magisterium called “errors.”
We don’t need a juridical declaration to raise the alarm. We need fidelity to what the Church always taught, not just what the current administration permits.
Who has the authority to declare absolutely another a manifest heretic public or private as if this is an established fact? Correspondents are making wild assertions that may well be culpable against the virtue of prudence. On what basis can this be done without papal authority. A case must be made and tried by those who have the authority to do so. Until that is concluded anything else is pure opinion and is what St James is speaking about when he speaks of sins of the tongue. Otherwise known as calumny and detraction or feathers in the wind.
An observation as an Orthodox Christian: the women pictured don’t look like nuns. For years I’ve been reading reports that the traditional Catholic orders are the ones getting the young nuns. I’ll continue to pray that my Catholic brothers and sisters are released from this horrible spirit of Vatican II and rediscover their Orthodox roots. All of this is moving the Roman Church farther away from the apostolic Faith.
Why is « faithful Catholic » code for « misogynist « ? If Jesus hadn’t wanted women to have authority over men, he wouldn’t have appeared first to the women. Set the sisters and the laity free!
But wait a second, I was reliably informed by Trad inc. that Provost was a stealth Traditionalist.
A tragedy to those who feel and a comedy to those who think.
What next?
Very likely the prophesied Great Chastisement, what Our Lady of Fatima foretold as the annihilation of various nations. It's also in the Third Secret of Fatima, besides the widespread loss of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, as one can learn from Pius XII's unpublicized reading of the Secret in 1957, one of those present being the American Cardinal Samuel Stritch: www.youtube.com/watch?v=nO-8UhGOagg&t=4s (3 min, 40 sec)
More little known info at that YouTube channel.
From the book, Goodbye Good Men by Michael S. Rose:
“One of the most critical questions posed to potential seminarians, . . . is whether or not the applicant approves of the ordination of women to the priesthood. This puts the orthodox seminarian in a difficult position. If he reveals that he agrees with the Magisterium that the Church does not have the ability to ordain women, he is liable to be dismissed from being further considered. If he lies and says he is “open” to the idea, then he compromises himself: not the ideal way to begin the studies he hopes will lead to the priesthood . . . Although oftentimes it is the vocations director, usually a priest, who conducts the initial interview, it is common that an assistant, often a religious sister, serves as what some call the “inquisitor,” In other cases, bishops have allowed “troubled women religious – many of whom had already left their orders – to occupy the top positions in their vocations office and seminary administrative posts.”
Rose, M. S. (2002). Chapter 1 The Gatekeeper Phenomenon. In Goodbye Good Men How Catholic Seminaries Turned Away Two Generations of Vocations to the Priesthood (pp. 54–55). essay, Aquinas Publishing.
Kyrie Eleison.
I do not regard it as coincidence that the 1969 novus ordo Invasion of the Sanctuary was quickly followed by the invasion of the sanctuary of the womb
You miss the increasingly obvious point that Prevost's "election" is invalidated on two counts. The likely superior point is that as a publicly manifest heretic he could not be elected pope under Pope Paul IV's bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio. Neither are the Catholic faithful obliged to accept him under this bull and if their conscience is persuaded, they are obliged NOT to accept and to resist his election. The likely inferior point of invalidity relates to the number of cardinal electors exceeding 120. When we Catholics refuse to see the obvious and then come over all surprised at the evil fruit thereof, we have only our own blind stupidity and apparent willingness to be gaslighted to blame!
There is no impediment to a woman being appointed to be prefect of a dicastery. Is your judgement based on law or tradition? It does not seem to relate to either in reality. Pope Leo XIV is not bound to Paul VI's teaching, things have moved on since that was promulgated after all the current Pope is the Supreme Legislator of The Church. Neither is it clear in what you write why he should be regarded as a manifest heretic? Canonically he is not even close.
Thank you for the comment. My concern isn’t rooted in legal positivism but in continuity with divine and ecclesiastical tradition. The idea that “there is no impediment” to a woman governing clergy through a dicastery would have struck every previous age of the Church as absurd, for the simple reason that governing clergy pertains to sacred orders. This is patristic, canonical, and perennial.
Yes, the pope is the supreme legislator within the bounds of tradition. He is not an absolute monarch. Pius IX, Leo XIII, and Pius XII were clear: the pope is bound by the deposit of faith, and he has no authority to innovate against it.
As for manifest heresy, I have not pronounced any definitive judgment, nor do I need to. I am observing the public alignment with condemned teachings: praising documents like Abu Dhabi, retaining promoters of heterodoxy, and advancing agendas (synodality, interreligious relativism, female governance over clergy) that contradict Scripture and tradition.
Canon law, particularly post-1983, is no safe refuge for novelty. It assumes a Catholic framework, which is precisely what is in question when hierarchy itself advances what prior magisterium called “errors.”
We don’t need a juridical declaration to raise the alarm. We need fidelity to what the Church always taught, not just what the current administration permits.
Who has the authority to declare absolutely another a manifest heretic public or private as if this is an established fact? Correspondents are making wild assertions that may well be culpable against the virtue of prudence. On what basis can this be done without papal authority. A case must be made and tried by those who have the authority to do so. Until that is concluded anything else is pure opinion and is what St James is speaking about when he speaks of sins of the tongue. Otherwise known as calumny and detraction or feathers in the wind.
Why am I not surprised...
An observation as an Orthodox Christian: the women pictured don’t look like nuns. For years I’ve been reading reports that the traditional Catholic orders are the ones getting the young nuns. I’ll continue to pray that my Catholic brothers and sisters are released from this horrible spirit of Vatican II and rediscover their Orthodox roots. All of this is moving the Roman Church farther away from the apostolic Faith.
Why is « faithful Catholic » code for « misogynist « ? If Jesus hadn’t wanted women to have authority over men, he wouldn’t have appeared first to the women. Set the sisters and the laity free!
Unfortunately, this is nothing new. Women already control just about every parish on the local level ...!
And if they didn't what then i wonder? Where are the sons of Adam? The daughters of Eve only have a near monopoly because those who should don't.
You ain't seen nothing yet!
God deliver us…