by Pauly Fongemie
October 7, 2014
Feast of Our Lady of the Rosary

On February 11, 2013, just after Pope Benedict XVI abdicated, a bolt of lightning that struck directly over the dome of St. Peter's Basilica in Rome [for info about the actual bolt that was documented, see infra] was photographed. I simply do not believe in such coincidences. God was warning us that a very dark, tempestuous night was overtaking the Church. The next papacy would be far different than that of Benedict's. Actually this ghastly gloom was foretold by none other than Our Lady of Fatima, who asked for many Rosaries to be said not only for sinners who had no one to pray for them, but for the Pope in particular. She told Sister Lucia that the Consecration of Russia to Her Immaculate Heart would be done at long last, very late and until then the Church and the world would have to suffer much chastisement. For the Popes' failure to effect the Consecration as she specifically called for, the worst punishment of all would befall the Church. One aspect of the suffering to happen to the Pope would involve a great loss of faith, and as we know from those who read the still as yet completely revealed Third Secret, THE APOSTASY WOULD BE FROM THE VERY TOP DOWN. One of the priests who read the entire Third Secret was Pope John Paul II's personal theologian, as well as the future Pope Benedict who made reference to Chapter 13 of the Apocalypse. This is most likely why the modern popes would not have the Secret published, and when it was finally revealed, as Mother Angelica said so pointedly, "We aren't getting it all." Pride and stubborn, defiant denial are companions arm in arm, forming a phalanx against humility, reason, and submission to the will of God.

Centuries before Our Lady of Fatima's advent in history we were provided with a microcosm of the ills of our time, those that plague the Church and nations that rely on grace through the Church, even if none acknowledges this divinely ordained reality. Essentially it involves nothing less than total chaos because the two indispensable natural laws would be abandoned in all probability, one resulting from the other. That possibility has materialized. The "natural law" of the Church is Tradition which precedes the canonization of the Bible and the Magisterium. Pope St. Pius V's infallible, irreformable bull, Quo Primum Tempore, Establishing Forever the Canon of the Mass, in 1570, clearly warns future generations that "Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.

In other words no one is permitted ever to alter the precept and decree on the Mass or else incur the wrath of God. This is strong language, indeed, and stern, for the gravity of the dangers inherent in altering the codified [Tridentine] liturgy requires strict adherence. The law of prayer is the law of belief. The faith can be adulterated through changes in the liturgy, without any Pontiff declaring heresy to be orthodox, which the Holy Ghost would never permit. However we were never given Divine protection against weak Popes and prelates who make bad and even evil decisions that can disrupt and dislodge orthodoxy through unwise and disastrous pastoral approaches.

There are those who say no Pontiff can limit a subsequent Pope. They use this faulty premise to justify their disobedience to Quo Primum. Let us think this through with reason, aided by grace.

#1 Pius V, a very learned and holy man who passed the rigors of the devil’s advocate before sainthood - now discarded so foolishly in order to sanctify the Vatican Council II by canonizing the Popes of Vatican II and those who have adopted their errors and are thereby favored by the establishment which needs to confer a special kind of legitimacy on this pastoral initiative as opposed to the dogmatic Trent - would know he could not bind another Pope and would have not wasted his time and credibility if such a possibility were to be valid. Since he did assign anathemas, including the wrath of God if anybody, even a prelate, dared to countermand Quo Primum, by definition he had the blessing of God to bind a subsequent Pontiff, by God’s design - our omniscient God knowing what would later occur through the machinations of worldly men who would imbibe of the spirit of modernism and cast aside Tradition.

#2 Under certain conditions any Pontiff can bind subsequent Pontiffs because he is the Vicar of Christ and it is Christ that has established limits on men, including Pontiffs who are not a law unto themselves, but are to serve the salvation of souls. Certain requisites must be met to be saved. So if there is a threat to salvation and God provides the grace, a Pope can explicitly teach in such wise about salvation and all that pertains to it and do so irreformably as in Quo Primum. Truth cannot change. By binding a subsequent Pope who may be subject to weakness, the souls of the faithful have a sure guide when tempted to be dismayed by confusion. Pope St. Pius X said that the friend of the people is not the innovator, but Tradition! In the case of an act of excommunication, this is a discipline that can be revoked under Tradition, which occurred in the Athanasius, Pope Liberius confrontation. That Pontiff is still not declared a Saint, while the Saint surely is. Quo Primum is in reference to Tradition itself, which means the Catholic Faith, not one iota of which can ever be revoked! The innovators want things both ways and fail to see their inconsistency, not to omit their hypocrisy, when they adamantly insist that the Lefebvre "excommunication is permanent" while Quo Primum was temporary. Utter balderdash, relying on the hope that most of us won't notice the glaring discrepancy!

 By Divine design praxis must signify, uphold and conform to dogma. Otherwise it will contradict it in the habitual experiential sense - in the minds of the faithful who are then taught slowly and imperceptibly [at first] that dogma itself changes. This is human nature and common sense. Let me provide a prosaic analogy easily understood, if not a perfect comparison:

If I, as governor, proclaim truthfully the speed limit is 50 miles per hour between Augusta and Belgrade, but then tell the public that if one decides that 70 miles per hour is better in selective cases [not only during a genuine emergency], well then, "we" will look the other way while declaring the law of 50 still on the books because of the need to acquire federal funding. What do you think would occur over time? Most people would simply resort to doing 70, because the law did not truly mean what it says since those charged with enforcing it refuse to do so on the whole. Now, let us go further along this trajectory. Suppose that there are several state troopers who patrol the highway between Augusta and the Belgrade region. Some believe in enforcing the law because the law serves a purpose which cannot be suspended without real danger to human lives. Other officers think that the lax approach is more humane, in touch with people's feelings and individual needs. And, more significantly and self-serving, the path of least resistance, one of the attributes of the inordinate desire for human respect, ever a peril  to the soul. Pride is evident in such a downward spiral for those who proffer such an approach to real human problems, congratulating themselves on being so up-to-date and "not stuck" in the supposed now irrelevant past. This is a grand deception, so pervasive that those who advocate the latter approach are the very ones who are most blinded to the delusion that has crept over them, not just those who follow too trustingly out of misplaced obedience or plain naïveté. So a few troopers, who understand what is ultimately at stake, maintain the enforcement of the law, rightly, while the others look the other way, collecting a pay check for running roughshod over a sane and enforceable law, if the will were willing.

Now what do you think would ensue? Those who were ticketed by the law-abiding troopers - the traditionalists - would complain that there was not the equal protection of the law; they would be correct of course and being so they would make a lot of noise; eventually these troopers would be forced to disregard the law or else be fired by their cowardly superiors. This would be the result even though the traditionalist drivers were in truth seeking to have the law enforced across the board, not be freed by an exemption. This is because they are true traditionalists and not hypocrites. Soon the only people allowed to be state troopers would be the lawless who have contempt for public safety. Part of that contempt is that older people who do not like to drive fast, are treated disdainfully as the law demands that no one is permitted to drive less than 15 miles below the enforceable limit in order to avoid clogging the road and abetting impatience to the point that accidents can occur. So those elderly who are dismayed about going over 50, which they would then have to do, become nervous and are marginalized as they feel less free to travel to Mass, for instance. The troopers who have allowed themselves to become corrupted in re the speed limit are now prime for further degradation of their state in life and their responsibility to protect human life. The first inroad has weakened them to be less likely to uphold standards elsewhere if doing so would mean loss of a livelihood. Again, human nature. One fault begetting another. Eventually, in keeping with with the phrase I coined decades ago, "evil on the installment plan" nothing would be sacred, left untouched as more accredited groups would vie with the so-called status quo, now an anachronism, because they, too, would want the "right" to dispense with the very nature of the natural law itself in order to assuage their "hurt feelings" and so forth - the ultimate in chaos and disintegration.

This law of human nature is much more important to the "natural law" of the Church, Tradition. Violate this through like means as in the above scenario of the natural law which adheres to every man, is essential to his dignity by virtue of his creation by God - to disregard its indispensable precepts is to invite moral anarchy and dissolution which certainly affects the eternal salvation of every single soul subject to such madness! We first witnessed this damnable practice when en masse the Canadian and American hierarchy stopped upholding the doctrine on contraception. Of course, knowing that to openly preach that it was no longer a sin was not canonically possible, they simply refused to provide proper catechesis to their flocks, which then took their cues and we all know the deplorable loss of the notion of the generous Catholic family in most quarters, with a decline in the Catholic population that is precipitous. And, in the objective order, sacrilege on an epic scale!

Let us return to Pope St. Pius V.

God gave the supernatural grace of prescience to Pius V, a humble and saintly Pontiff, who carefully placed the warning about the wrath of God at the end of his bull, because God knew that there would come a time when weak and otherwise debilitated Pontiffs would come in succession, bringing confusion [both Paul VI and John Paul II called for evangelization, Francis says not to, for instance] where disorder is the "order" of the day. Incoherence, utter blindness and incompetence follow in its wake and in turn distrust and anger, when the people finally realize they have been deceived and yea, abandoned in effect. To forestall this, Pius V was given the grace by God to write in infallible language the strictures and precepts found in Quo Primum. If a future Pontiff would be so foolish and heartless to not heed this warning about the wrath of God, at least those among the people who were serious about the Faith and paying rapt attention, would know their duty and not follow into perdition. For as the following have made abundantly clear:

"The fort is betrayed even of them that should have defended it."

- St. John Fisher, Bishop and Martyr

Let us regard the tradition of the Church also as worthy of belief. Is it a tradition? Seek no further!

- St. John Chrysostom

"Those therefore who after the manner of wicked heretics dare to set aside Ecclesiastical Traditions, and to invent any kind of novelty, or to reject any of those things entrusted to the Church, or who wrongfully and outrageously devise the destruction of any of those Traditions enshrined in the Catholic Church, are to be punished thus:


- Second Council of Nicaea, 787 A.D.

Father Victor Mzroz of Krakow Poland was a disciple of St. Maximilian Kolbe. The Saint had admonished him to remain faithful always to Tradition: “The devil has the Bible but he is in Hell. It is Tradition that will bring you to Heaven.”

For those who ask for the gift of faith if they do not as yet have it, these declarations are sufficient in of themselves. For those who have forsaken the faith out of preference for modernity and worldly ideas, such statements could never be enough, and for those who already have been given the gift of faith, they are precepts to maintain whole and entire.

When the modern Popes flouted Divine precept and the law of Tradition by discarding the strictures of Quo Primum, they and the Church through their fall were subject to the wrath of God. They ought to have known because:

Pope Pius XI summed up the mind of the Church which serves Christ first, as to the duties and responsibilities of the Roman Pontiff in Divini Cultus [1928]:

“No wonder then, that the Roman Pontiffs have been so solicitous to safeguard and protect the liturgy. They have used the same care in making laws for regulation of the liturgy, in preserving it from adulteration, as they have in giving accurate expression of the dogmas of the faith.”

The Novus Ordo is more Protestant than Catholic and therefore in no way can it be said to "give accurate expression of the dogmas of the faith."

That wrath entailed spiritual blindness and moral corruption, the willingness to compromise on that which cannot be vitiated. The womb of the Sanctuary, the Tabernacle had been violated, essentially, with the "New Mass" which was the destruction of the Roman rite, absolutely forbidden! Fr. Joseph Gélineau S.J., a Council peritus and liberal apologist for the new liturgy, states in his book “Demain la Liturgie” (1976 MD p.77-8): “To tell the truth, it is a different liturgy of the Mass. This needs to be said without ambiguity. The Roman rite as we knew it no longer exists. It has been destroyed…

This brought a loss of grace so that when the second womb was violated - the unborn child awaiting birth - the clergy no longer had the will to effectively shepherd the Catholic people to resist abortion, having already deserted their flocks to the contraception mentality and practice.And having conceded precious ground on contraception, the Catholic people got the priests they deserved, rather than needed, deliberately fewer children, fewer priests, like night follows day, in  a never ending cycle of nihilism spawned by sheer audacity - irresoluteness and a distaste for sacrifice and discipline guaranteeing the rest. It's an old, old story but one our current generation has yet to learn, and never more than our Bishops, as epitomized by the treachery of Cardinal Dolan in the matter of the advance of Sodom. Prior to his betrayal he already showed signs of wanton disregard for the sacred when he laughed it up with Obama at a public dinner, in complete disregard for his august duty to evangelize for the cause of restoring all things in Christ. At the time I referred to him as a "skittish poltroon." As events unfolded I was being too kind. Our willingness to sin through contraception and acceptance of sodomy [54%] has brought us such prelates in all but a handful of dioceses.

When nothing happened to Timothy Cardinal Dolan who joined the "Who am I to judge" chorus, it was all over but the weeping and gnashing of teeth. When I heard of the October Synod on the Family, to be held behind closed doors, beyond the puview of those to be most affected by its resulting policy, I knew we were in for the ride of a lifetime, right off the steepest of cliffs. The foreboding was so all-encompassing I had all I could do to concentrate on my daily duties. Now word comes that, indeed, the Synod seems poised to change discipline - permission for those living in open sin to receive Communion sacrilegiously, in such fashion that it will be tantamount to issuing new doctrine in the practical sense. Christopher Ferrara, writing in THE REMNANT [], calls it what we must, if we are to be candid and upfront - evil.

I almost laughed when I read in our local daily that our Bishop, Robert Deeley was not concerned about the Synod because in his estimation it would not change doctrine. But I did not laugh because it was more deplorable than ridiculous. Of course doctrine cannot and will never officially be changed de jure, the Holy Ghost would not sanction it, this is a promise. What is happening is much more insidious and evil, for the apostates in Rome, yes I call these Judas goats apostates, are changing doctrine de facto, through evil practice that scraps doctrine. Period! And Heaven be damned!

When God is angry with His people he sends them bad priests, and Pontiffs, it seems ...

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us ...

Our Guardian Angels, preserve us, lest we be led astray ...

The above banner image is not of the actual bolt that was photographed. The images are not of high quality for graphics, so I made my own in Paint Shop Pro. John Vennari has an article on the Catholic Family News web site that features one of the photographs, which can be found here:

To view other sizes of the lightning, you are referred here: