Sunday, 3 September 2017

Only one way out of this mess

The Church is in its gravest crisis since the Arian heresy. I would argue that the very Arian heresy is back again with us today. It is simply inconceivable that the leaders of the Church today actually believe that Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ, is God. If they truly believed it, they would not have promulgated Amoris Laetitia nor would homosexualists such as James Martin, S.J., and countless others, be allowed to spread their poisonous bile by their Superiors.

Earlier today, the evil leaders of the northern part of the Korean peninsula explodes an underground test of a hydrogen bomb five times more powerful than what was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki; the earthquake which followed was nearly 6.3 on the Richter Scale. People suffer losses of life, homes, jobs and normalcy in Texas, and the media is worried about stiletto heals. We are truly deluded if we think we can get out of this on our own.

Louis Verrecchio has your Sunday reading.

Our-Lady-of-Fatima window


Ana Milan said...

"The Hidden History of Pope Francis" on You Tube is well worth viewing. This must have been well known to the Cardinals who elected him to the Papal Office. It was a concerted effort by Sankt Gallen Group (Mafia), who are mainly made-up of corrupt individuals, that connived to get rid of PB & install PF in his place. There never was, nor can be, a divided papacy. That should really have been a wake-up call to the rest of the Hierarchy - even those who in their weakness gave their vote to this Argentine. Tradition ensures that only One person can hold that Office. It shouldn't have to involve Canon Law which is man-made. Tradition goes back to Christ & His First Apostles & therefore takes precedence. When are the Dubia Cardinals going to act? It is a scandal to all mankind that they (& the silent ones) haven't by now done so.

Felix M said...

You've featured a picture of Fatima. The essential message of Fatima is the need for prayer and penance, not details about the dangers which the Church is currently experiencing. And the desperate need is for each of us to sanctify ourselves.

But I note that, when Pope Bergoglio went to Fatima, there was little mention of prayer and no mention of penance.

Anonymous said...

With all due respect, Vox, I gotta disagree with you on this one. 'If they truly believed Jesus of Nazareth was God, they wouldn't have promulgated AL.' I sincerely believe it is because they know that He is God that they have chosen to promulgate AL and spread their errors. When one serves the evil one, God is his enemy.

Tom A. said...

The Arian Heresy was nothing compared to today. While it was widespread, the actual error was over one letter in one word. Today, the error attacks the entire faith itself as Pope St Pius X brilliantly taught. Restoration after the Arian Heresy was a cakewalk compared to the damage done by modernism.

Anonymous said...

A correction will come,but it won't be the one their expecting.

Johnno said...

Actually Felix M. it's both. The refusal of "prayer and penance" lead to the "dangers which the Church is currently experiencing."

These details are in many Marian Apparitions and are widely believed to be part of the buried 3rd Secret.

The 1st 2 secrets were of course about war and also the fact that Heaven and Hell exist.

Notice how the Concilliar Church today tends to deny Hell, don't understand Heaven and think they can build Heaven politically on Earth through Communism, and also for some reason that no major World War will come and everything will be just fine if we practice ecumenism.

All this is why we're in the current mess. The faith was lost by these men the moment they gave into the secular enlightement which said the Church was wrong about Geocentrism. That therefore the natural sciences and psychology and the theory that religion and God or gods are just manifestations of the human psyche and the evolutionary result of moral/scientific constructs to bring order from chaos.

Both Freud and Neitzche saw the Church's credibility being destroyed when Science tore the lovely veil of medieval Christianity's Geocentric system to shreds, and that God was dead the minute we unchained the Earth from its sun and sent mankind hurling into the darkness of the cosmos where we would have no moral direction.

This is why the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima is relevant. It is a shot directly into the absurd stupidity of mankind and its trust in the Heresy of Heliocentrism. Something the Papacy itself since the 1800's began to fail in its duty to uphold. And the dirty little secret is that modernist science today still can't prove the Inquisition wrong. That's why it desperately clings to Einstein's Relativity and Relativism has quite naturally disordered mankind. Despite how neither one of them makes sense and runs into its own deluded contradictions.

Irenaeus said...

Hence why I took Irenaeus as my pseudonym. O argue Gnosticism is just in vogue as Arianism is today.

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Johnno, Cosmology is way over my head, but is obviously an interest of yours. Somebody lent me a DVD which purported to demonstrate the cutting edge of current development according to background radiation axis. I cannot remember the name of the DVD. According to it, the Earth is at the centre and the Universe rotates around it. What you think?

Johnno said...

Hi Peter,

Sorry for the late reply. The DVD you watched was likely 'The Principle' which focuses on evidence from the Cosmic Microwave Background and features a variety of views from Catholics, Protestants, Agnostics and Atheists. All affirm basically that what they are seeing is real, though some do not want to accept it or escape to the Multiple Universe theory to dismiss it as a chance occurrence.

What I think is that the Church got it precisely right when it defended Geocentrism as revealed by implication in the Scriptures and defended by the Church Fathers, and condemned Heliocentrism officially as heresy upheld by successive Papacies that saw the dreadful implications of its error.

I recommend checking out the work of Dr. Robert Sungenis. There is another DVD series getting into the history of the science called 'Journey to the Center of the Universe.' It can be streamed online too.

He is currently working on another one called 'The Church Vs. Galileo' which will focus more on the theological and Church history side.

See the videos at these links:

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Johnno, Thank you for your reply. " Geocentrism as revealed by implication in the Scriptures and defended by the Church Fathers, and condemned Heliocentrism officially as heresy..." I find this very interesting and am completely ignorant about it. Why would heliocentrism be heresy? I thought it was simply a matter of science? Please explain the religious importance of geocentrism to me.

Johnno said...

Hi Peter,

St. Robert Bellarmine, when he and the Holy Inquisitors denounced Heliocentrism explained it eloquently:

“Second, I say that, as you know, the Council [of Trent] prohibits interpreting Scripture against the common consensus of the Holy Fathers; and if Your [Reverence] wants to read not only the Holy Fathers, but also the modern commentaries on Genesis, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Joshua, you will find all agreeing in the literal interpretation that the sun is in heaven and turns around the earth with great speed, and that the earth is very far from heaven and sits motionless at the center of the world. Consider now, with your sense of prudence, whether the Church can tolerate giving Scripture a meaning contrary to the Holy Fathers and to all the Greek and Latin commentators”(Bellarmine to Paolo Antonio Foscarini, April 12, 1615).

The point came down to these matters:
- The inerrancy of Scripture.
- The inerrancy of Dogmatic Councils.
- The Church's Sacred unbroken Tradition.
- Papal infallibility.

The Church is the authority on the Scriptures and it interprets and hands down everything as it has been received. And part of that Tradition with a capital 'T' was a Geocentric cosmology. The Jews held it, and it is notable in the plain literal sense of Scripture right from Genesis where the Earth existed by itself with nothing else from the 1st Day created ex nihilo, to various miracles such as when Joshua commanded not only the Sun, but also the Moon to stop moving in the sky until Israel's enemies were slain, indicating that both these heavenly bodies moved with respect to the Earth. As well as from the Pslams, Job and elsewhere where the Earth was spoken of as God's Footstool (therefore at rest), and that God, by analogy like the Earth was 'unmovable' and unchanging. In order for such analogies to work, the object being described must therefore be physically factual.

Johnno said...


The Church Fathers understood this and received this Tradition and Interpretation of the Scriptures. They were unanimous in their geocentric cosmology, defending it against both the Heliocentric Greek schools whose cosmology saw fit that Helios or Apollo were more fit to be the center of things, and the Geocentric Greek schools who saw the Earth as central, but being the 'anus' of the universe because the realms of the gods who were above man were in the air and therefore the surrounding universe was a higher plane than the Earth. Against this the Fathers stated that the Earth was central as the Tabernacle of the Lord, the apple of His eye upon which the Incarnate Word would take on Flesh, become man, act out the central and important role of the Saviour Victim Crucified and redeem man and then rule over this Earth as His Domain. Therefore the Earth was the jewel at the center of Creation.

So we see from Tradition and History that the Church defended Geocentrism, not just because it got embroiled in some outside scientific debate into which it had no business being as some neo-Catholic commentators want to proclaim, but because whether they liked it or not it was part of literal Scripture and part of the Church's Tradition derived from Scripture, interpreted as such unanimously by the Fathers and therefore indicating that it must have been of both Jewish and Apostolic origin. And so whenever the Fathers were overwhelmingly in consensus on matters of Scripture and Church belief, this interpretation was dogmatically codified as infallible by the Council of Trent, numerous Papal proclamations, then Vatican I, and even restated, although more vaguely, in Vatican II.

So knowing all this it has been said that it would be just as wrong to state that Jesse had fewer than seven sons, or that Adam and Eve did not exist as real persons, or that the Davidic Kingdom did not exist as it was to say the Earth moved through space. This undermines Scripture's inerrancy.

And if one were to state that the Fathers, in interpreting Scripture were incorrect on something universally unanimous, meant that if they could be wrong about Geocentrism, then that they might also be wrong on The True Presence of the Eucharist, Mary's Perpetual Virginity, Original Sin, etc. etc. etc. and that therefore the Dogmatic Councils of the Church erred, the Papacy is not infallible, may not have ever existed as an institution etc. etc. etc.

The 16th Century Saints and Popes saw where this was going amidst an era of the Protestant Reformers and Enlightenment Rationalists who seized upon this issue to undermine the Catholic Faith and Papal Authority.

This game was for all the marbles. And the Church vs. Galileo myth is the founding dogma of modernity. After all, back then the term of 'literalism' and 'fundamentalism' was first used to assault the Holy Catholic Church who would still not relinquish the literal interpretation of "This is My Body. This is My Blood." Destroy the Fathers' view of cosmology based on Scripture, and therefore that means the Papacy and the Church have no reliable Tradition and the Scriptures are open for re-interpretation by every man and scientific establishment.

Johnno said...


"Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall, in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures, hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never intended to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established."
- Council of Trent, Session IV.

"But, since the rules which the holy Synod of Trent salutarily decreed concerning the interpretation of Divine Scripture in order to restrain impetuous minds, are wrongly explained by certain men, We, renewing the same decree, declare this to be its intention: that, in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the instruction of Christian Doctrine, that must be considered as the true sense of Sacred Scripture which Holy Mother Church has held and holds, whose office it is to judge concerning the true understanding and interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures;
and, for that reason, no one is permitted to interpret Sacred Scripture itself contrary to this sense, or even contrary to the unanimous agreement of the Fathers."
- Vatican Council I, Chapter II, Denz. 1788.

Johnno said...


"…and, most of all, that they may understand that God has delivered the Holy Scriptures to the Church, and that in reading and making use of His Word, they
must follow the Church as their guide and their teacher. St. Irenaeus long since laid down, that where the charismata of God were, there the truth was to be learnt, and that Holy Scripture was safely interpreted by those who had the Apostolic succession. His teaching, and that of other Holy Fathers, is taken up by the Council of the Vatican, which, in renewing the decree of Trent declares its “mind” to be this – that “in things of faith and morals, belonging to the building up of Christian doctrine, that is to be considered the true sense of Holy Scripture which has been held and is held by our Holy Mother the Church, whose place it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Scriptures; and therefore that it is permitted to no one to interpret Holy Scripture against such sense or also against the unanimous agreement of the Fathers.”

By this most wise decree the Church by no means prevents or restrains the pursuit of Biblical science, but rather protects it from error, and largely assists its real progress. The Professor of Holy Scripture, therefore, amongst other recommendations, must be well acquainted with the whole circle of Theology and deeply read in the commentaries of the Holy Fathers and Doctors, and other interpreters of mark. This is inculcated by St. Jerome, and still more frequently by St. Augustine, who thus justly complains: “If there is no branch of teaching, however humble and easy to learn, which does not require a master, what can be a greater sign of rashness and pride than to refuse to study the Books of the divine mysteries by the help of those who have interpreted them?”

The other Fathers have said the same, and have confirmed it by their example, for they “endeavored to acquire the understanding of the Holy Scriptures not by their own lights and ideas, but from the writings and authority of the ancients, who in their turn, as we know, received the rule of interpretation in direct line from the Apostles.” The Holy Fathers “to whom, after the Apostles, the Church owes its growth – who have planted, watered, built, governed, and cherished it,” the Holy Fathers, We say, are of supreme authority, whenever they all interpret in one and the same manner any text of the Bible, as pertaining to the doctrine of faith or morals; for their unanimity clearly evinces that such interpretation has come down from the Apostles as a matter of Catholic faith. The opinion of the Fathers is also of very great weight when they treat of these matters in their capacity of doctors, unofficially; not only because they excel in their knowledge of revealed doctrine and in their acquaintance with many things which are useful in understanding the apostolic Books, but because they are men of eminent sanctity and of ardent zeal for the truth, on whom God has bestowed a more ample measure of His light. Wherefore the expositor should make it his duty to follow their footsteps with all reverence, and to use their labors with intelligent appreciation."

- Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus

Johnno said...


So as we see from the quotes above which are a sampling of the Church's Teaching about the matter. One cannot just toss away what the Fathers taught and defended which they received from the Apostles and when interpreting Holy Scripture.

Galileo, like the Protestants wanted to interpret the Scriptures for themselves according to their own misguided scientific research. Galileo at least for his part, recanted, and even in his old age in private letters had turned around and began defending the Church's wise theologians against other heliocentric adherents who were corresponding with him in order to use him for their own revolutionary ends.

The Church condemned Galileo's propositions as being “formally heretical” “erroneous in faith” and “opposed to Scripture.”

Galileo's 2 main errors were:
1) The Sun was the center and did not move.
- The Church ruled that Scripture plainly states the Sun does move. This is not controversial because all scientists today agree that the Sun is moving and not the center of the universe. "The proposition that the sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to the Holy Scripture."

2) The Earth was not the center and moved around the sun.
- The Church ruled that Scripture plainly states that the Earth is at the center, and does not move through space and that any movement of the Earth indicated in Scripture was local as in Earthquakes or prophetical references to God Himself shaking the Earth. "The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith."

As Dr. Sungenis argues in his book, "It must also be pointed out that it was not
merely “theologians” of the day who were teaching that the Earth’s position and immobility was part of the Scriptural revelation. It was mainly the popes and cardinals of the 1600s and 1700s. Bellarmine himself said: “Nor can one answer that this [geocentrism] is not a matter of faith.” Paul V assembled eleven cardinals who condemned the Copernicanism of Fr. Foscarini in 1615 as being “formally heretical.” Pope Urban VIII argued profusely with Galileo on the basis that heliocentrism was “opposed to Scripture” and finally decreed through his Holy Office that belief in the non-movement of the sun around the Earth was “formally heretical,” and by doing so made heliocentrism a belief that was against the faith."

The Popes also enforced this Teaching with the full weight of their authority throughout Christendom by forbidding the Universities Princes, Dukes and Theologians and Catholic Scientists from ever teaching Heliocentrism. This was upheld by as many successive Pontiffs as there are pontiffs who failed to Consecrate Russia. This was therefore binding on all Catholics and has never been revoked except by laxity of enforcement as is the case of many Catholic doctrines today.

Peter Lamb said...

Hi Johnno, What a brilliant and lucid explanation! It all makes perfect sense. I can't thank you enough for your trouble in explaining it all so carefully and well. You have increased my understanding tremendously. The extended ramifications of geo versus helio are stunning! Please let me repeat myself and say thank you very, very much! Brilliant!!!

Johnno said...


In closing, because this is a very big topic, the history of how Heliocentrism wormed its way into the Church is very much akin to all we've observed now from Vatican II up to our present state under Francis.

Modernist clergy, influenced by the Scientific consensus under Protestantism and Atheism and other heresies, began to try and make inroads in the Church to allow 'scientific freedom' and used deception, historical distortion and subterfuge.

The Papacy was in a weakened state following Napoleon's persecution, with access of the Inquisition's archives being under his control. Weak Popes wearied from the turmoil around them allowed things to go out of control. Some were lied to about the Inquisition's actual condemnations by suggesting it had to do with circular versus elliptical orbits rather than that it actually had to do with the Sun and Earth's actual mobility. Already some Popes were then kowtowing to vaguely stating what the Church actually taught, and eventually Galileo, Copernicus, Forscarini and other works were gradually removed from the Index with no reasons given, but under Papal permission which was either obtained through lying to them or their own private unjustified rationale.

This manner of thinking eventually led to the dilemma that the Church and the Papacy of the past had erred. And therefore as Cardinal Ratzinger admitted, this issue influenced the periti entering into the Vatican II Council, such that many believed the Church had to make concessions to the world and to science, and that perhaps the Scriptures were not scientifically accurate but on inerrant on matters that pertained to our Salvation, a point that influenced the document Die Verbum. Even though Ratzinger admitted in the same work that Science could not prove the Church wrong, but according to current consensus of Relativity, both Geocentricism and Heliocentrism were equivalent mathematical models of reality.

The Vatican II Council also did not exonerate Galileo as some wanted, and when John Paul II put together a commission to exonerate Galileo and make a different ruling against a formal Trial by the Holy Office, much like St. Joan of Arc, it turned out that he couldn't and instead in a speech prepared for him to the Pontifical Academy of Science, just reiterated the Relativistic line, stated both sides were at fault and apologized that the Church didn't handle it better that it could have, whatever that meant...

Today, despite that Science cannot prove its case, with its best attempt being Relativity which says both Geocentrism and Heliocentrism can each be correct, the latter is chosen by default because -
a) They assume the Universe is a product of random chance. Therefore Geocentrism is statistically unlikely because it would then strongly suggest Intelligent Design and Creationism.
b) It would vindicate the Holy Catholic Church and the Papacy against which the Galileo myth serves as useful Atheistic/Protestant propaganda.
c) It would destroy the entire edifice of modern day science along with all its nonsensical theories, carreerists, and every aspect that rests upon this house of sand from fields of psychology to history. Mankind would suffer from the sheer weight of this embarassment.
d) Political movements and social re-engineering campaigns from socialist economics to the LGBT and every anti-Christ movement in between have bloody good reason to prevent such a worldwide shift.
e) That goes double for the fools in clerical garb whose theology and post-Christian reinterpreting of the faith are wrecking the Church, the Mass and the Sacraments and leading souls to Hell.

They've constructed a new Tower on the Babel of Copernicism. With one strike against that foundation the whole thing burns to the ground.

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Vox, Johnno's most scholarly explanation of geo v heliocentrism, Galileo and exegesis is so good and so lucidly written, that I am sure it would benefit many Catholics as much as it has benefited me. As it is, only the handful of readers who subscribed to notification of comments on that particular post will see it, as the posts have in the meantime moved on. Please would you consider making it a "guest post" by Johnno in the near future, so that all your readers can read it? It covers a wide field of matters of fundamental Catholic importance.

Johnno said...

Thank you Peter.

But true credit belongs to Catholic men like Dr. Robert Bennet, Dr. Robert Sungenis, Rick Delano and others who have done the research and publicly made efforts to defend the Catholic Faith and the Church's reputation in the face of enormous opposition.

I highly recommend everyone check out the good work they are doing at

Also recommended, see these videos for more info:

Iconoclasm in the Heavens

Rick Delano on "The Principle" & Geocentrism

I also live in Toronto, so if Vox would like to watch either 'The Principle' or 'Journey to the Center of the Universe' I and a friend are willing to lend him copies and meet up to talk. All this is something that must be more widely known.

Johnno said...

One more good video.

Dr. Robert Sungenis presentation on Geocentrism in Dallas, Texas

A healthy dose of truth, right from the mouths of the Church's own enemies.

Peter Lamb said...

Thank you Johnno. I really hope Vox lets you do a guest post on this.