In a different thread, Brotherfrancis75 brought up Pope Leo XIII.

Can someone tell me why Pope Leo XIII hasn't been beatified or even brought up yet?  

He wrote Custodi Di Quella Fede (On Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ) December 8, 1892.  

How can a Freemasonic church even consider a cause for his beatification?

Are there miracles recorded by Pope Leo XIII?  Is so, where can we read of them?

Is that all we're waiting for?  Does the beatification process not start until a miracle is attributed?

Shouldn't the whole body of work be taken into consideration?  Heroic virtue?  Great moral clarity?  Sustaining the theological integrity of the Holy Church while it was under attack?  

The modernists, in their heart of hearts, probably don't believe in miracles but will allow one to be admitted if it will serve their purposes, i.e, "canonizing" one of their own.  

Are there miracles recorded by Pope Leo XIII?  Is so, where can we read of them?

I believe it was he who wrote the St. Michael prayer after having a vision.

Same reason more or less as Pius IX, neither "played the game".

The crisis didn't just start with VII, it was the culmination a long time comin' and for a couple centuries wheels were in motion. The Curia has long been a brood of vipers, and it takes more than a pope to beatify (or canonize) a saint.

Both Pius IX and Leo XIII have causes for canonization, I frequently pray to both for intercession, but consider how far their causes have gone while JPII's was fastracked: it's the bureaucrats that'll never let it happen.

I read some where the tomb of Pope Leo XIII was opened and his body
was found perfectly preserved. He is not buried at St. Peter's, but an
another Church in the Vatican.

(silent B&W motion picture)
with dubbed-in phonograph recording of him singing
a simple Ave Maria chant - perhaps from Latin divine office.


Pope Leo XIII was a very fine pope.

However, he wrote openly against the Freemasons, such as his encyclical,
Humanum genus, 1884, “On Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ,” the landmark encyclical
that exposes that secret society and all such secret societies as inimical
to the Church and her policy of openness.

Now, why would cardinals who are committed to a policy of secrecy want
to approve the recognition of a Pope who suppressed secrecy?


Would +Fellay, for example, who is demanding "Silence!" from everyone in
the SSPX, be in favor of advancing the cause of a venerable Pope who
denounced secrecy in religious congregations as "inimical to the Church?"

He wrote Custodi Di Quella Fede (On Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ) December 8, 1892.  

How can a Freemasonic church even consider a cause for his beatification?

Good question.  It was this same forbidden "Freemasonic secrecy" that was
the termites that ate away at the structure of the Church before Vat.II was
able to take hold.

Well, if there needs to be a miracle, perhaps we can ask Pope Leo III rid the Church of the freemasons and heretics.  That would be a miracle, wouldn't it?

I like the way you think, CathMomof7!

Quote from: Iuvenalis

The crisis didn't just start with VII, it was the culmination a long time comin' and for a couple centuries wheels were in motion. The Curia has long been a brood of vipers

I respectfully disagree. I do think the ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic infiltration was in process well before the election of Pope Pius XII, but the crisis didn't officially begin until Vatican II. Things began going downhill quickly after John XXIII's election.

The corruption in the Church in the modern age begins with Galileo, who came
along 100 years after Luther.  After that, it was Charles Darwin, who came along
150 years after Galileo, basing his heresies on the smoldering stench that Galileo
had left behind, combined with the secret agenda to destroy the Church that the
Freemasons peddled.  It was a 350-year process that paralleled the Protestant
revolt, and left the weakened Catholic Church in a state of hollowness, like a
wood frame building that had been eaten by termites.  It still looks like a building,
but one real stiff wind or an earthquake and it all comes tumbling down like a
house of cards.  

Vatican II could never have been "successful" (disasterous) if it had not been
for the corruption that had set in, and the Freemasons who had wormed their
way into positions of authority.  

When Freemason cardinals at the time of Leo XIII had removed Galileo's books
from the Index, there were priests all over the world who did not believe the
prayers they were saying, said out of duty to the rules they were obliged to
go by, for it was a mortal sin not to pray their Breviary every day, for example.

The second nocturne in a prayer in the Breviary that always tells of the lives
of the saints, their miracles, their heroic virtue, and their holiness.  Far too many
priests scoffed at the second nocturne and did not believe what they were being
forced to read.  Is God pleased with the prayers of men who do not believe the
words of the prayers they utter?  

By the time Vat.II came along, it was very common for bishops and cardinals to
be men of the world, at least in heart, to be consumed with the pleasures of the
world.  They all were forced to recite Sacrorum Antistitum every year, which
you ought to know is the same thing as the Oath Against Modernism, and you
should likewise know that this Oath was instituted in 1910 by Pope St. Pius X as
required by all seminarians before they could be ordained, by all seminary
professors of any kind, by all pastors and clerics of any authority in any religious
congregation.  In other words, it was literally impossible for anyone to be a
priest or even a Catholic lay professor in a college, without having taken the Oath.

So how did the thousands of bishops all assembled at Vat.II proceed to do the
very things that Sacrorum Antistitum forbids them to do?  

They had a mental reservation.  

They "took the Oath" but they, as it were, had their fingers crossed behind
their back.  Remember that routine?  That is a Freemason ploy.  You make a
promise keeping your fingers crossed and it means you don't have to keep
your promise.  These clerics did not really believe the words they were saying
when they took the Oath.  

So you can go ahead and say, you can go ahead and think, that "the crisis didn't
officially begin until Vatican II," and that, "Things began going downhill quickly
after John XXIII's election," but that doesn't mean that everything was okay
until John XXIII came along.  

A house of cards is "officially standing" until someone bumps the side of it, or a
gust of wind comes along, or the cat jumps up on the table and makes a little
shake happen.  If Vat.II had tried to happen at the time of Trent or even at
the time of Vatican I, it would never have gotten off the ground.  

Leo XIII was granted a vision.  He overheard a conversation between Our Lord and Satan with Satan claiming that he could destroy the Holy Church if given 100 years.  

80 or so years later Vatican II happened with a couple of key, paramount, changes in the church's "ecclesiology".  

Leo XIII wasn't granted this vision for his own entertainment or just so that he could have something interesting to say the next time he got together with a bunch of clerics for lunch.  These visions are granted for a purpose.  

In response to this vision, Pope Leo XIII wrote the Leonine prayers that were said at the end of Low Mass and were specifically targeted for removal by John XXIII.

If you are not familiar with the FULL VERSION of the Leonine prayers, and you
are impressed with the ABBREVIATED version (that is said after Low Mass - some
Trad priests even say them after High Mass!),  the full version will blow you away.

It's probably on this CI forum somewhere, already.  It's about 10 times longer.

Question:  Why did John XXIII want to aid and abet Satan in his attempt to destroy the Church?  Remember, it's sinful to put yourself in the direct line of temptation just to show off how strong your faith is.  And it's also a bad idea to downgrade your level of devotion or downgrade the level of dignity bestowed on Our Lord and his devout ones.

If that question seems cruel of unfair, then lets rephrase it by asking why Pope John XXIII wants to remove prayers asking for assistance?  Does John XXIII believe as Paul VI did that man's last hope is in the United Nations?  

Did the communists ask John XXIII to remove the prayers?  

Fr. Paul Trinchard explained to me how the Oath Against Modernism (Sacrorum
Antistitum) was removed.  Pope St. Pius X had instituted severe penalties
for anyone who would not take the Oath, but after Vatican II, rectors of
seminaries must have told liberal seminarians, the progressives, the 'movers
and shakers' of the schools, in private of course, that they would not have to
worry about any adverse consequences to not taking the Oath, for otherwise,
those progressive seminarians would have showed up for Oath-Taking-Day,
but they did not.  About 1/3 of the class was missing that day, and the other
2/3 of the class stood there and recited the Oath, as required, in Latin, and
they presumed that the missing 1/3 of the seminarians would therefore not
be getting ordained.  You know, like the several monks this past summer were
refused ordination by +Fellay because they were opposed to his 'deal' with
modernist Rome.  That kind of thing, but the opposite motive.  

So then came ordination day, and behold, all of the class was ordained!  It was
a 'miracle'!  ----NOT.   Like the lifting of the 'excoms' and the 'freeing of the Mass'
were 'miracles' ------NOT.  

Therefore, Said Fr. Paul Trinchard, the next year on Oath-Taking-Day, only a
handful of seminarians showed up, but the ones who did not show got ordained
anyway.  The following year, no one showed up.  The year after that, they did
not bother to have the Oath-Taking-Day.

That is how tradition is extinguished:  in degrees, steps, phases, it takes time.

And the reason that the superiors could have passed down this decision to not
carry out the sanctions was, it was after Vat.II (1966) and everyone could see
that the old ways were crashing down all around.

The old ways were crashing down, and that's why the Leonine Prayers were
removed, too.  It was just too much of the old ways.  After the compromises of
the Missal of John XXIII (a.k.a. 1962) the next wave was to render various
prayers of the Mass in the vernacular (summer of 1964), and then more of them
(summer of 1965), and then no more Prayers at the Foot of the Altar (Psalm 42
or Protestants' Psalm 43), and so on - the 'transitional rite' that Padre Pio was
physically unable to say in 1966, when he had less than 2 years to live.

Why remove them at all?  When I attended my first Traditional Latin Mass, I knew nothing of the Leonine prayers and I was unfamiliar with Pope Leo XIII (I was a novus ordite) and yet when Mass ended and the Leonine prayers started, my response was one of enthrallment and not "Come on, Mass is over, let's get out of here already."  My level of knowledge was low and I thought they were praying the Angelus.  I didn't know anything about the angelus except the word itself.  

Does Pope Leo XIII represent, to the modernists, the ecclesiology of the Traditional Catholic Church and not the ecclesiology of the concilliar church?  Could this explain it?

That is a beautiful post, Capitan.  (that's pablo-speak for captain)  

It seems this is true, that Leo XIII represents to the Modernists the
ecclesiology of Traditional Catholicism, which is opposed to the Conciliar
Church.  

Modernists today, of whom Benedict XVI is the king of them all, think of
this Traditionalism as a poison, actually.  They think, or that is, they
'feel' that if this poison is allowed to grow and to 'work' it will kill their 'life' in
the Church.  And what is their 'life' that they treasure so much?  It is the
'living tradition of Vatican II' which is, basically, Modernism, the sewer of
all heresies.  To them, spiritual sewage is wonderful, literally.

They believe that it is a poison that must be neutralized.  And how do you
neutralize poison?  You do that with an antidote.  How do they develop the
antidote?  Well, that's what B16 was trying to do with the SSPX, and today,
Feb 22nd, +Fellay faces the Di Noia deadline for answering Card. Levada's
letter from last summer, or else Di Noia, the Annoyer, will forthwith drop all
the envelopes into the mailbox, envelopes he has prepared and stamped,
containing his meddlesome offers to the SSPX priests, which is the latest
version of the SSPX antidote that will neutralize the poison of Traditionalism
in the Society of St. Pius X.


Modernists and Neo-Modernists believe that sewage is wonderful, and that's
why we have not only Assisi I, but Assisi II, and we not only have Assisi I
and Assisi II but we also have Assisi III.  The Seraphic Father who founded the
place is no doubt turning over in his grave.  Actually, we could check on that,
because his grave was discovered, after many years of searching, and his
remains were exhumed.  So we could look and see if he's turning over.