This is a great web-page on how the Catholic Church was infiltrated by Freemasons. It also proves that Paul VI and apparently John XXIII were both Freemasons (although John XXIII supposedly repented on his death-bed). Here's some quotes from masons and some of the VII Popes:

"Now then, to assure ourselves a Pope of the required dimensions, it is a question first of shaping for this Pope a generation worthy of the reign we are dreaming of [by saturating society with liberalism/free opinion/vice] Leave old people and those of a mature age aside; go to the youth, and if it is possible, even to the children... You will contrive for yourselves, at little cost, a reputation as good Catholics and pure patriots! This reputation will put access to our doctrines into the midst of the young clergy, as well as deeply into the monasteries. In a few years, by the force of things, this young clergy will have overrun all the functions; they will form the sovereign's council, they will be called to choose a Pontiff who should reign. And this Pontiff will be... imbued with the revolutionary principles that we are going to begin to put into circulation." "..let the clergy march under your standard, always believing that they are marching under the banner of the Apostolic keys." (Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita. - J. Venarri) (pages 6 -10)

Now read these quotes. Pay close attention to the quote from Paul VI at the United Nations!

* John XXIII in opening Vatican II: "The prophets of doom always talk as though the present in comparison to the past is becoming worse and worse. But I see mankind as entering upon a NEW ORDER, and perceive in this a Divine plan."

(Note: the United Nations was established by the Masons in 1943 to be the seat their 'World Government' (Piers Compton, 'The Broken Cross' p. 64)

* Paul VI told the U.N. assembly in New York, Mar. 6, '67: "Your vocation is to bring not just some people, but all people together as brothers. [ ! ] Who can fail to see the need and importance of thus gradually coming to the establishment of a 'world authority' capable of taking effective action on the juridical and political plane. Delegates to international organization, public officials, gentlemen of the press, teachers and educators, all of you, must realize that you have your part to play in the construction of a nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr."
(video "Communist Infiltration of the Catholic Church" - Dr. James Wardner)

* John Paul II speaking of the crisis in Iraq said on Dec. 20, '98: "To everyone I make a heartfelt appeal that human solidarity and respect for the International Order will prevail." (The Wanderer, Jan. 14, '99)

* John XXIII: "I see no reason why a Christian could not vote for a Marxist if he finds the latter to be more fit to follow such a political line and historical destiny." (Fr. J. Arriaga, ‘The New Montinian Church', p.570)

* Paul VI: "The Church has proclaimed herself so to speak, to be the servant of humanity... everything at the council was directed to the service of MAN." (Fr. Noel Barbara, 'Fortes in Fide', p.5)

* John Paul II: "Nothing [not even God?] surpasses the greatness or dignity of the human person... human life is the concrete reality of being capable of loving and serving humanity." (C.C.C. of America, tape #3)

* John Paul II: "O Man, O Woman, I love you with my whole heart, with my whole soul, and with my whole mind, because you are great in your dignity as Man or Woman, great in your value, and in your 'transcendence'."[!!]
(addressing U.N.E.S.C.O., June 2, 1980; from video 'Has Rome Become the Seat of the Anti-Christ'

To be honest I haven't read your link yet, but can imagine what it says. . . I will read it but right now I am in the middle of steam cleaning my carpets, not that you needed to know that.  Just taking a tiny break.

I did want to answer your question, which is why I am posting.

What has happened to the Catholic Church?

It became much, much smaller in numbers, and the shepherd has been struck, so the sheep have scattered.  

Do you believe that the Trad bishops are the successors of the apostles in our day?

May I ask which position do you have regarding this question?

I guess home aloners and some who hold that we cannot consecrate Bishops without Apostolic Mandate like John Daly claim that the episcopal mission as formal element of apostolicity needs to come from the Holy See.

While it is true that the traditionalist Bishops cannot claim a Sessio which truly can only come forth from its own principal, the Prima Sedes.

But the Missio is in its structure of Divine origin (see also Matthew 28,18ff): "Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops" (Acts 20,28). Through the Holy Ghost, not the Bishop of Rome. The absoluteness of the Missio, essential for the episcopacy sub ratione ordinis, follows with it.

But the Sessio can indeed not be without the Missio, since the reason for the existence of the Sessio is the better realization of the Missio.

Explain!

Not sure how the other sede groups were organized after the apostasy.   When I prayed to God for 5 years to show me the Church, He showed me CMRI in 1982.  


<<<In 1969, Daniel Quilter Brown received Episcopal consecration as an “Old Roman Catholic” bishop.  Bishop Brown had been born and raised a Catholic, but became disenchanted with the reforms of Vatican II and had chosen to become an Old Roman Catholic bishop in order to perpetuate valid Episcopal orders; realizing that the Old Roman Catholics, unlike the modern post-Conciliar Catholic Church, had not yet fallen into heresy and thus still retained valid Orders.

  Despite the fact that Bishop Brown obtained his consecration in the Old Roman Catholic Church (a schismatic church), he and his followers called themselves Roman Catholics and refused to use the title of “Old Roman Catholic.” Shortly after his consecration, he broke all ties and communications with the Old Roman Catholics.

  Bishop Brown soon became acquainted with Brother Francis and tried to persuade him a accept ordination from him, because “in view of the fact that we cannot exist for long as Catholics without the sacraments, I would propose to ordain to the priesthood a qualified member of your group (from the information I have, this would probably be yourself)...”

  Later he proposed to consecrate Brother Francis to the episcopacy in addition to ordaining him to the priesthood.

Brother Francis sought the advise of some traditional Catholic priests, most notably Fr. Burton Fraser, S.J., about Bishop Brown's proposal.  He was told that under the grave circuмstances that currently existed, that it was well within Catholic law and principles to accept consecration. Although the Catholic Church acknowledges the validity of Old Catholics orders, Brother Francis was unwilling to receive orders from Bishop Brown because of the schismatic origins of his consecration.

In the meantime, Bishop Brown openly repented of having received consecration from the Old Roman Catholics, broke all ties with them, made a public “Abjuration of Error and Profession of Faith,” confessed his sins and received absolution from a traditional priest.  It was only after these events that Brother Francis agreed to receive consecration from Bishop Brown:>>>>





If you can't accept this then find another avenue for the sacraments, as for myself, I am very happy with CMRI, because they seem to be the most charitable of all other traditional groups.  Charitable in that they do not sound off why we should beware of this group or that group.  I have never heard them speak unkindly of SSPX et al.    They pray for unity, and above all God has blessed them with His ever flowing grace.  

Not to say we have not had our share of scandals nor problems, but the fact that with each scandal, CMRI has received and abundance of blessings and growth.

So unless you are trying to convince yourself about CMRI, don't bother to post  negatively for my benefit.  

I answered your question but you never really did explain much about my question to you, as a better explanation of your point above on this thread.    

He was ordained priest first, anyway that is water under the bridge since the present Bishop has little connection with this incident.  I just mentioned it because the question was brought up by Hermen......

If you want to know about our current Bishop Pivarunas see this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Pivarunas

With the exception of an opinion on the link<<<<thus he is not in communion with the Holy See nor is he recognised as a bishop by the Roman Catholic Church. He can therefore be classed as a member of the Independent Catholic movement>>>>

Words like "Holy See" and "the Roman Catholic Church" today need to be defined for today during the crisis.  


I say, not a Catholic movement, but part of the remnant Roman Catholic Church.  

Yes SS- If you remember, in defending +Lefebvre, if his ordination by  Cardinal Leinart was invalid, his consecration by Leinart and, more importantly, the two supporting bishops would have his consecration valid as the minor orders are included in the major... So in this case, it would also be possible to elevate Brown to episcopate. If I'm mistaken, please correct me.

The Episcopacy is traditionally regarded rather as an extension of the Priesthood (the rubrics clearly say that it is a priest who is getting consecrated) - you certainly remember the Tridentine and Scholastic definition regarding the number of Holy Orders: Seven.

Modern theologians tend to see the Episcopacy as a distinct Order, but be that as it may, we cannot confect doubtful sacraments. A prior ordination to the Priesthood is therefore certainly necessary.

He was ordained priest first, anyway that is water under the bridge since the present Bishop has little connection with this incident.  I just mentioned it because the question was brought up by Hermen......

If you want to know about our current Bishop Pivarunas see this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Pivarunas

With the exception of an opinion on the link<<<<thus he is not in communion with the Holy See nor is he recognised as a bishop by the Roman Catholic Church. He can therefore be classed as a member of the Independent Catholic movement>>>>

Words like "Holy See" and "the Roman Catholic Church" today need to be defined for today during the crisis.  


I say, not a Catholic movement, but part of the remnant Roman Catholic Church.  

You can tell the person who wrote that article is a bit biased towards modernism.