Thursday, 3 August 2017

Knights of Columbus change the Fourth Degree uniforms - Joining the new Francis fashion?


The Knights of Columbus have changed their Fourth Degree uniforms.








They now join the Francis revolution and the Knights of Malta in running down the brand.


Image result for knights malta meeting pope

35 comments:

Anonymous said...

The Bishops will love it! Not only will it be much more fitting for their participation in NO liturgies, its a lot more encountery, dialoggy, and peripheral, a lot less Deus Vult. They'll have a tough time with the berets though....most of them will end up looking like the floppy beanies that aspiring impressionist painters on the Montmartre wear, the ones with the little pointy things on top.

-Andrew

Peter Lamb said...

The Roman Catholic Church has visible and invisible aspects. Visible are the external profession of faith, the administration of the Sacraments, and the human government of the Church. Invisible is the grace and assistance of the Holy Ghost, Who infuses into the hierarchy the virtues of faith, hope, charity and the authority to govern, teach and sanctify. The Holy Ghost assists the Church by His influence in its promulgation of doctrine, morals, liturgy, and discipline, in such a way that these are free from error and thus guarantees the infallibility and indefectibility of the Church.

What is left of the authority of the Church in the Novus Ordo is merely the visible aspect of authority, that is, persons designated to receive authority by legal election in terms of canon law. What is lacking to them is the Divine Authority and Assistance - forfeited due to their multiple heresies and consequent automatic excommunications.

Mere election is not sufficient. The Authority must come to the elect from Christ in order that he be a true Pope, or a true Bishop. This Authority is transferred only on condition that the designated person has the intention of promoting the objective and proper ends of the institution over which he is placed. John XXIII,(a registered judeo-mason), was elected pope in 1958. By a defect, (heresy), however, the Divine Authority was never transferred to John XXIII and his successors, because they intended to pervert the Church, and to lead it in an heretical, modernist direction contrary to its nature and purpose as instituted by God.

The battle is between Christ and the devil, satan. The minions of satan, the novus ordo hierarchy, are trying to destroy the Church of Christ. They wish to destroy the visible traditions, the pomp, the majesty, the liturgy, the Sacraments and the physical beauty of Christ's Church in any and every way they can. This defacement of the Knights, is just another little step in that direction.. How long eternity in hell will be for them.

The Black Adder said...

For a second, I thought the Knights of Columbus disbanded and amalgamated with the Royal Canadian Legion.

Barona said...

How dare these men select a uniform reminiscent of our veterans from the War. Honestly, either way they look like clowns. The first is so ostentatious and pompous; the latter gravely insulting. I guess pomposity is preferable to insulting.

Dorota Mosiewicz-Patalas said...

@ Peter Lamb

Thank you for the... beautiful post.
I never could get over Roncalli's membership in freemasonry. How could he be a valid pope? We talk too little about these facts and their meaning. Many don't know them. I never know whom to trust, aware that we have all been lied to a lot.

Was Montini friendly with that red-haired male actor? I know he was removed as Pope's secretary for treason (didn't the Pope fall ill in grief over this?), only to be brought back under Roncalli. What a shame.

Anonymous said...

http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/3310-next-stage-in-the-bergoglian-debacle-gay-church-comes-out

Anonymous said...

Wow. The Boy Scouts of Columbus.

Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

Dr.Lamb. We haven't had a Pope since the death of Pius XII is your claim. How then is the Church to choose another Pope when there are about two bishops left from Pius XII's reign?

Only in magical thinking is your solution to be found.

Michael Dowd said...

I don't care how they dress but rather what they do to protect and promote the Catholic faith. Making nice with Pope Francis does not qualify. Maybe disqualifies.

Edison Frisbee said...

The Knights of Columbus: "Would you like to know more?"

Kathleen said...

The 4th Degree Knights serve as an honor guard -- at times for the Most Blessed Sacrament. As such, their attire *currently* is entirely appropriate for the duty. It is about the respect and honor due the *recipient* of the honor guard.

Just like the Swiss Guard uniform is appropriate and traditional priestly vestments are appropriate.

It is not about the person wearing the attire it is about the one being served.

The new uniform looks most like a prep school uniform.

Terribly unfortunate. Hopefully it is staunchly resisted.

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Dorota, Montini's ("paul vi") boyfriend was an actor, "Frank", was his name, if I remember correctly. He was doing Audrey Hepburn's hair in a film I saw. He had free access to the Papal Apartments. Montini was picked up by the police, on several occasions, dressed in ordinary clothes, "cruising" the streets of Rome at night. He and Roncalli joined the same masonic lodge on the same day.

Peter Lamb said...

ABS,
1. If a material pope were to convert to Catholicism, he would become Pope formaliter.
2. We cannot be certain that an impeded Pope does not exist.
3. An Imperfect General Council could elect a Pope.
4. Divine intervention.

Msgr. Journet — The Church of the Incarnate Word – “During a vacancy
of the Apostolic See, neither the Church nor the Council can
contravene the provisions already laid down to determine the valid
mode of election (Cardinal Cajetan, O.P., in De Comparata, cap. xiii,
no. 202). However, in case of permission (for example if the Pope has
provided nothing against it), or in case of ambiguity (for example, if
it is unknown who the true Cardinals are or who the true Pope is, as
was the case at the time of the Great Schism), the power ‘of applying
the Papacy to such and such a person’ devolves on the universal
Church, the Church of God.”

Cajetan, O. P. — De Comparatione Autoritatis Papae et Concilii – “. .
. by exception and by suppletory manner this power (that of electing a
pope), corresponds to the Church and to the Council, either by the
inexistence of Cardinal Electors, or because they are doubtful, or the
election itself is uncertain, as it happens at the time of a schism.”

Billot — De Ecclesia Christi – “When it would be necessary to proceed
with the election, if it is impossible to follow the regulations of
papal law, as was the case during the Great Western Schism, one can
accept, without difficulty, that the power of election could be
transferred to a General Council. Because ‘natural law prescribes
that, in such cases, the power of a Superior is passed to the
immediate inferior, because this is absolutely necessary for the
survival of the society and to avoid the tribulations of extreme
need.”

Vitoria — De Potestate Ecclesiae – “Even if St. Peter would have not
determined anything, once he was dead, the Church had the power to
substitute him and appoint a successor to him… If by any calamity, war
or plague, all Cardinals would be lacking, we cannot doubt that the
Church could provide for herself a Holy Father. Hence such an
election; ‘a tota Ecclesia debet provideri et non ab aliqua
partuculari Ecclesia.’ (“It should be carried by all the Church and
not by any particular Church.”) And this is because “Ilia potestas est
communis et spectat ad totam Ecclesiam. Ergo a tata Ecclesia debet
provideri.’” (“That power is common and it concerns the whole Church.
So it must be the duty of the whole Church.”)

Osusanna said...

I shall miss the pomp very much. I always fancied that they could use those swords if need be. Now they will look like ushers. It's like going from Victorian mansion to bungalow, IMHO.

Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

Dear Dr. Lamb. Yes, it is as ABS suspected, magical thinking. Like a puritan protestant trying to evade the ecclesiastical traditions you are.

You must know the election of the Pope has procedures put in place by a Pope. But ,you seem to think the Church can simply cease to be visible (an invisible church is protestant tradition) for nearly three score of years and then gather some Bishop to choose another Pope.

That is magical thinking. The vast majority of Bishops have been named by the Popes who followed in the unbroken line of succession following Pius XII and they certainly are not going to do what you wildly imagine they might.

Go ahead, name one single living Bishop who thinks that Franciscus is not Pope.

You have willingly attached an anchor to your soul and it has dragged you down beneath the surface of reality.

You are not making any sense at all.

Repent and come home



Peter Lamb said...

Dear Dorota, Please read all of this to appreciate the evil confronting us. Even just scrolling through it will make your hair stand on end.

http://padrepioandchiesaviva.com/uploads/Chiesa_viva_441_S_en_New_Corrected.pdf

The proofs are multiple. Those who choose to recognize these ghouls as Catholic hierarchy, must choose between willfull blindness and aiding and abetting heretics for their epitaphs.

Michael Dowd said...

ABS vs. Dr. Lamb. The way I see the good Doctor's scenario unfolding is that the Catholic Church disavows it's Catholicism and becomes a part of the New World Order Universal Church of Man. At that point, Dr Lamb's Catholic Church would be the only Catholic Church. Is it not unreasonable to suppose that given present trends in Vatican that such a thing could actually happen?

Dorota Mosiewicz-Patalas said...

Thank you, Peter Lamb.
This will occupy me a little. My sickness makes me mostly bed-ridden these days.

Peter Lamb said...

Definition of Delusion:
A persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self, or persons, or objects outside the self, that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary.

This definition pertains to so many who fear sedevacantism:
Holy Scripture teaches us that when Almighty God created man, He created him in His own image and likeness. By “image and likeness” are meant our intellect and will, the possession of which distinguishes us from brute animals (cf. Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Exeunte Iam Anno, n. 14). Our intellect and will belong to our rational soul, which God infuses into our bodies. Our intellect was given us to know what is true, and our will was given us to love what is good.

All arguments, by their very nature, pertain to the intellect, inasmuch as they belong to the operation of the intellect called discursive reasoning. The purpose of debate is to enlighten the intellect, which can then move the will — but only if we do not place an obstacle against the will.

The intellects of many have long been enlightened by sufficient evidence that the conciliar popes are anti-popes, but they refuse to concede the fact. All debate is useless, because their obstacle is not found in the intellect, but in their will.

“I will never be a sedevacantist”! “You will never convince me that Sedevacantism is true”! People who say such things are demonstrating that their intransigence is not ruled by evidence, but rather by their desire to cling to their status quo - truth be damned, if need be. Such people cannot be convinced in rational debate; their minds are a priori made up. Nothing - neither fact, nor debate, will change their position. Their will can only be moved by grace.

Peter Lamb said...

Numerous motives may move the will and they may be good, or bad: love of truth, passion, fear, anger, pleasure, cowardice, human respect, money, etc. Many simply do not want sedevacantism to be true! Sedevacantism isn’t fun! It is difficult not having a Pope and oftentimes not even a Priest, or church available. But, Catholics do not hold a position because they find it appealing (will) - we hold it because it is convincing according to our Catholic Faith (intellect). I am a sedevacantist, not because I like the position, but because my Faith and my reason tell me that it is the only correct Catholic position to hold - no matter the consequences!

Why this irrational fear of Sedevacantism? Is it preposterous to consider that perhaps a manifest blaspheming apostate, who slyly undermines Catholic doctrine on every occasion, just might not be the Pope of the Catholic Church? Is this a most damnable and dangerous error?

Many people refuse to embrace, or even consider Sedevacantism, not because they are convinced, in good faith, that the evidence for it is lacking (most people have not nearly studied the issue sufficiently), but because they do not want it to be true. It would require them to admit that they have been wrong - (pride); or because they are afraid of what others might say, or think -(human respect); or because it might have undesirable consequences in their family; or work life; or because it would cause them grave inconvenience, or displeasure -(cowardice/effeminacy); or because they do not really care about the matter - (tepidity/sloth).

Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

Dear Dr. Lamb. You think the last five Popes were heretics and, thus, not Popes but a consequence of that insane claim is that there are no legitimate Bishops and, thus, the Church has ceased to exist.

Why don't you just cut to the chase and declare Jesus Christ s the worst liar who ever lived?

He said the gates of Hell would not prevail but when does the sums of your charges, that is the result.

So, just save us all some time and say what you truly believe - That the Church has failed and it no longer exists

The Four Marks of The Church are no biggies for a sede, right?

But, fake heretical popes and no bishops means no unity, no jurisdiction, no ministry, and no apostolic succession...

Good luck evangelizing the broken hearted with that bad news....

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Mike, If I understand you correctly, it has already happened for 60 years. The novus ordo church is not the Catholic Church.

Kathleen1031 said...

If we can get the Protestants to wear the old uniforms they will come right back, since we know everything they do is better than what we do.

Kathleen1031 said...

Dorota, my dear, many a time I've read your good comments and been inspired or learned something. God bless you for your good work as you peck away at your laptop. You are still active in the world even in sickness. May the Good Lord heal you soon and completely, and give you peace and comfort.

Dorota Mosiewicz-Patalas said...

@ Kathleen

Thank you very much. I lived with this thing for years, not knowing why I was so ill. A rare disease, hard to diagnose - acromegaly, where a benign tumour attaches itself to pituitary gland and floods the system with growth hormone. After a successful surgery by excellent doctors three months ago I got much better, but now am rather ill again. More tests Tuesday. My good Mother prays for me every day. Dad did too, but he died in March. Thank you for your good wishes. I think I might beat this, should it be God's will.

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Dorota, I'm sure Kathleen has spoken for us all. XXX

Michael Dowd said...

Peter Lamb said...

"Dear Mike, If I understand you correctly, it has already happened for 60 years. The novus ordo church is not the Catholic Church."

I am referring to actions that make it abundantly clear to most people that the doctrine of the Catholic Church has substantially changed. At the present time this has only partially taken place. Of course, you Peter, will say that there is already sufficient evidence. I am saying we need more. By the way, I send a monthly contribution to Most Holy Trinity Seminary. I think we need them doing what they do.
Keep up your good work.

Peter Lamb said...

Thanks Mike and an especial thanks for donating to Most Holy Trinity. :)

Tom A. said...

ABS, are you still peddling that apostolic succession canard? There are bishops. Fellay is one and there are others. Plus, there is no need for a Pope to ordain a bishop. A bishop can ordain a priest to become a bishop. I only state this for the edification of others as Dr Lamb has demonstrated correctly that you are beyond reason and obstinately defiant with your will. The only question I curiously hold is, it pride or effeminancy that blocks your intellect?

Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

Dear Tom A. The Catechism of the Council of Trent teaches:

The Church has but one ruler and one governor, the invisible one, Christ, whom the eternal Father hath made head over all the Church, which is his body; the visible one, the Pope, who, as legitimate successor of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, fills the Apostolic chair.

It is the unanimous teaching of the Fathers that this visible head is necessary to establish and preserve unity in the Church. This St. Jerome clearly perceived and as clearly expressed when, in his work against Jovinian, he wrote: 'One is elected that, by the appointment of a head, all occasion of schism may be removed'. In his letter to Pope Damasus the same holy Doctor writes: 'Away with envy, let the ambition of Roman grandeur cease! I speak to the successor of the fisherman, and to the disciple of the cross. Following no chief but Christ, I am united in communion with your Holiness, that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that on that rock is built the Church. Whoever will eat the lamb outside this house is profane; whoever is not in the ark of Noah shall perish in the flood.'


The same doctrine was long before established by Saints Irenaeus and Cyprian. The latter, speaking of the unity of the Church observes: 'The Lord said to Peter, I say to thee, Peter! thou art Peter: and upon this rock I will build my Church. He builds His Church on one. And although after His Resurrection He gave equal power to all His Apostles, saying: As the Father hath sent me, I also send you, receive ye the Holy Ghost; yet to make unity more manifest, He decided by His own authority that it should be derived from one alone, etc.'

Should anyone object that the Church is content with one Head and one Spouse, Jesus Christ, and requires no other, the answer is obvious. For as we deem Christ not only the author of all the Sacraments, but also their invisible minister; He it is who baptizes, He it is who absolves, although men are appointed by Him the external ministers of the Sacraments so has He placed over His Church, which He governs by His invisible Spirit, a man to be His vicar and the minister of His power. A visible Church requires a visible head; therefore the Saviour appointed Peter head and pastor of all the faithful, when He committed to his care the feeding of all His sheep, in such ample terms that He willed the very same power of ruling and governing the entire Church to descend to Peter's successors.

Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

Vatican I


The Eternal Shepherd and Guardian of our souls {I Pet. 2:25}, in order to render the saving work of redemption lasting, decided to establish His holy Church that in it, as in the house of the living God, all the faithful might be held together by the bond of one faith and one love. For this reason, before He was glorified, He prayed to the Father not for the Apostles only, but for those also who would believe in him on their testimony, that all might be one as the Son and the Father are one {John 17:20}. Therefore, just as He sent the Apostles, whom He had chosen for Himself out of the world, as He Himself was sent by the Father {John 20:21}, so also He wished shepherds and teachers to be in His Church until the consummation of the world {Matt. 28:20}. Indeed, He placed St. Peter at the head of the other apostles that the episcopate might be one and undivided, and that the whole multitude of believers might be preserved in unity of faith and communion by means of a well-organized priesthood.He made Peter a perpetual principle of this two-fold unity and a visible foundation, that on his strength an everlasting temple might be erected and on the firmness of his faith a Church might arise whose pinnacle was to reach into heaven. But the gates of hell, with a hatred that grows greater each day, are rising up everywhere against its divinely established foundation with the intention of overthrowing the Church, if this were possible. We, therefore, judge it necessary for the protection, the safety, and the increase of the Catholic flock to pronounce with the approval of the sacred council the true doctrine concerning the establishment, the perpetuity, and the nature of the apostolic primacy. In this primacy, all the efficacy and all the strength of the Church are placed (Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, chapter 1)"

Now, it is quite clear that the heresies of the sedevacantists are of such note that only those suffering diabolical delusions can not see them.

The sedevacantists have been attached an anchor of magical thinking to their souls and they are being, willingly, dragged down unto Perdition and no amount of citing from Catholic tradition and infallible teaching can sway them because they are ideologically insane in a way similar to those who are psychologically delusion.

NO man burdened with an ideological delusion can be turned away from that delusion by mere reason, evidence, and/or logic.

No, such men possessed of this devilish condition can only be liberated by fasting and prayer but the sedevacanstist is to haughty to accept such self-help.

Peter Lamb said...

Tom, Best response is to ignore. Any response will simply elicit further rambling, ranting tirades. We had a more intelligent one before. Given the chance they will carry on ad infinitum.

Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

Dear Dr. Lamb. ABS has seen you pop-up at other blogs asking moderators if they agree that sedevacantism is the most logical position to be in and ABS has seen blog administrators flat out call you a heretic and so it is no wonder that you can't stand opposition to your heresy but it is revealing that you have to so rapidly resort to name-calling when it is pointed out (using traditional sources) that none of your claims are capable of being sustained.

And it is always best to ignore when your captious claims are easily eviscerated simply by citing a source like The Roman Catechism - that is kind of hard for even a sede to dismiss as having been suffused by modernism.

So, relax Dr Lamb, you and your ilk far outnumber ABS on these threads and so fear not to tread boldly trumpeting your heresies.

Ana Milan said...

OK ABS. It's not that Peter Lamb (& his ilk) has a great following on any of the sites they frequent. It's just that as he (they) cannot answer the necessary questions we ask that make their adversaries simply ignore them - as he has suggested that you do. I have never had an answer to any of the following:

1. They cannot prove that God hasn't sustained His Sacraments (ex opere operato) even if VII was invalid.
2. Whilst I personally prefer the Tridentine Mass that doesn't say it was the only valid & licit Holy Mass. What about the early liturgies, many of which consisted only of the words of consecration/blessing of the species - were they also evil & harmful? They simply cannot verify their allegations!
3. Whilst I too would like to see VII rescinded, bar Divine intervention (consecration of Russia) it is highly unlikely that a future Pope or Ecumenical Council will decree that VII & its documents & NO Mass were in error. Another council might partly amend them but even then the sedes would find some other reason to stay away. Only Our Blessed Lady & Sts. John & Mary Magdalene stayed with Jesus at the foot of the cross until he died. The rest fled, i.e. until the Resurrection. Sedes are mirroring Atheism as they require proof that Christ is still with His Church. Where is their faith?? The Bride of Christ is suffering His Passion but will be made holy once more when He has finished separating the chaff from the wheat. We have been told that those who persist until the end will be saved.
3. Sede priests are latae sententiae & don't have the faculties to function as priests & therefore the sedevacantist movement does not have the authority, infallibility or indefectibility to do anything let alone licence or ordain priests, not to mention Bishops. To infer otherwise is a blatant untruth.
4. What is most unpleasant in their allegations is that they infer that Jesus lied & that the Gates of Hell did actually prevail against His Church. Some say this happened after VII, many others say long before that time. However, they try to sidestep the issue by saying the True Church is still without error but that that Church is no longer the institutional Church that is in union with the Pope & Rome but rather an unscriptural & invisible church, which is essentially Protestant heresy. If the Catholic Church still contains the four theological marks of being One Holy Catholic & Apostolic as well as the seven historical marks then they should be able to point it out to us. It is not in someone's living room with Mass being relayed on a tv set. This does not fulfil our duty to attend Holy Mass everySunday & Holy Days of Obligation, nor does it meet the requirement of Confession & reception of Holy Communion at least once per year. As they cannot verify that God hasn't sustained His sacraments there is no just reason for them to tell Catholics to avoid them.

IMO Sedevacantism is, therefore, the gravest of evils. I should certainly recommend you ignoring these people in future as I intend to resume doing so.

Vox Cantoris said...

Good day all,

I have great respect for all commenters here. I have said it before, even though Dr. Lamb's position on the popes is not mine, I have more in common with him (and you probably do as well) than with the majority of Catholics in my own territorial parish. I deeply respect him and his depth of knowledge and faith.

I do not support the sedevacantist position, but I can understand it.

All of us are scandalized by the crisis. Some have chosen one response and others, other responses.


Regardless, we are all brothers and sisters in Christ and love His Church.

This discussion has now concluded.

I do not like to restrict the combox, please respect that.