Walt explains why the Muslim jihadists want to kill us

Last week -- before yesterday's tragic events in Brussels -- Agent 6 e-mailed me to express his lack of understanding of why the ISIS (and al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, al-Shabaab and Taliban) terrorists keep killing people.

Speaking of the Muslim terrorist attack on a Canadian Forces recruiting office, our esteemed agent calls it "a sordid story. One wonders what went through the mind of Ayanie Hassan Ali before the attack. What did he really hope to accomplish in the name of Allah? And he was born and raised [in Canada]! Could be a result of too much inbreeding through his heritage. Will raise suspicion for anyone with a beard."

Last night I heard a "security expert" giving his explanation for the Muslims' attacks on Westerners. He said that in Europe and North America, Muslims are "marginalized" and the victims of discrimination, demonization and (of course) Islamophobia. He made a thinly veiled reference to Donald Trump and others who preach "exclusion".

That's rubbish! Totally! A big black crock! The answer to Agent 6's question, and the contradiction to the politically correct explanation of the "expert", is to be found in what Ayanie Hassan Ali shouted as he knifed the soldiers. "Allah told me to do this," he yelled. "Allah told me to come here and kill people!"

The celebrators of diversity were quick to say that was just the rant of one deranged individual, not representative of the feelings of the vast majority of "moderate Muslims". That's rubbish too! Rewind to October 2014 when two "homegrown, radicalized Muslims" killed two Canadian soldiers in separate incidents in Ottawa and St-Jean-sur-Richelieu. Not long before the attacks, a young Canuck fighting in the sandpit for ISIS posted a video warning "We're coming to get you!" -- referring to not just the Great Satan but the British, Canadians, Australians and any others who would dare to wage war on them, or stand in the way of their jihad to establish a New Caliphate in the Middle East.

That's pretty much the truth of it. The Islamic terrorists -- ISIS (or whatever we're calling it today), al-Qaeda and the rest of them -- have declared jihad (holy war) on all Christians and other unbelievers, and are exhorting their followers and sympathizers in every country to "kill the infidels, wherever they may be found!"

"Wherever they may be found" includes Paris, Madrid, London, New York, Boston, Ottawa, Toronto, San Bernardino... and now Brussels. This shouldn't come as a surprise. See "Turkish President Erdoğan predicted Brussels bombings last Friday!", WWW 22/3/16. And please, let's stop saying it's because we're being mean to Muslims. The Islamic extremists want to kill us... because Allah's telling them to!

Footnote: On the Vatican Insider web page, Andrea Tornielli quotes the Catholic Patriarch of Jerusalem, Archbishop Fouad Twal, as taking issue with the US announcement that a genocidal campaign against Christians is taking place in the Middle East. "The statement comes too late, when everything has already happened," said the prelate. "Everyone has either escaped or [is] dead."

Vaticanistas contradict each other on Medjugorje

When it comes to controversies about and within the Roman Catholic Church, it's often hard to know who to believe. What's going on inside the Vatican? One "Vaticanista" tells you one thing. Another tells you another. So it has been, this week, with the alleged apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary at Medjugorje.

The authenticity of the "seers" claims that Our Lady visits them regularly was cast into doubt by the bishops of what was then Yugoslavia in 1991, and has been investigated by a special commission of the Vatican ever since. On Thursday, Walt passed on a report by Vatican journalist Gianluca Batile, who averred that a meeting of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith held on June 24th had found that the Medjugorje sitings were not of supernatural origin, and had made a negative report to the Pope.

Now, noted Vaticanista Andrea Tornielli -- quoted here as an authority more than once in the past -- has, in his Vatican Insider blog, denied that the CDF has issued its report, or even met to discuss the findings of the special commission chaired by Camillo Cardinal Ruini.

Citing "authoritative Congregation sources", Sig. Tornielli reports that the Medjugorje issue was not discussed at the most recent feria quarta meeting of the prelates who are members of the CDF. He goes on to say that their next meeting will not be scheduled until the fall, possibly after the meeting of the Synod of Bishops coming up in October.

The timing of the feria quarta has been a subject of confusing reports. Earlier this month, Pope Francis had seemed to indicate that the meeting may already have taken place, although, in his usual vague manner, said that he was not sure of the timing. Then Fr. Federico Lombardi -- director of the Vatican press office and chief flak-catcher for the Pope -- told reporters that he did not expect a decision from the CDF for "a few months".

So who knows? If I were a betting man, I'd go with Sig. Tornielli's account, and I'll tell you why. There are so many Catholics who believe fervently in the authenticity of Medjugorje that for the Vatican to deny it now would cause yet more Catholics to become disaffected with the mainstream Church and join the ranks of the traditionalist dissidents. QED.

Third Secret of Fatima document genuine, BUT...

In today's "Vatican Insider" blog of La Stampa, noted Vaticanista Andrea Tornielli reports that a respected Portuguese paleographer has confirmed the authenticity of the document said to containn the famous Third Secret of Fatima. But, he notes, questions remain as to whether the "vision of the bishop in white" text released by the Vatican in 2000 is the complete document.

Professor Maria José Azevedo Santos, of Coimbra University, examined the document, which is held in the archives of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and proclaimed it "a genuine, true document, written by Sister Lucia" (the principal Seer of Fatima). Although the document is not signed, Doctor Santos said that the handwriting clearly matched other writings known to be in Sister Lucia's own hand.

The document became the focus of controversy immediately on its publication in 2000. The version shown and "interpreted" by since disgraced Cardinal Bertone described a vision of a bishop dressed in white, seen being killed by soldiers in front of a cross on top of a hill. The text contains no words of Our Lady of Fatima to explain the vision.

Cardinal Bertone said the Third Secret belonged to the past, and implied that the vision referred to the attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II. The late pope said he recognized himself as the "bishop dressed in white" who was killed, but did not even attempt to explain how, if this was the case, he was still alive. Cardinal Ratzinger, as he then was, told journalists there was no "official explanation".

However, when he visited Fatima in 2010 as Benedict XVI, the "Pope Emeritus" was more cautious in his comments, suggesting strongly the possibility of the prophesy not yet being complete. For more on this astonishing volte-face, see "Vindication: The Latest Chapter in the Story of Fatima", which references the best book on the controversy, Christopher Ferrara's The Secret Still Hidden.

You can buy The Secret Still Hidden from the Fatima Shoppe ($9.95) -- tell them Walt sent you -- or read it free online.

Pope Francis to move on Third Secret of Fatima?

Walt found it passing strange that Father Nicholas Gruner, founder director of an Apostolate dedicated to Our Lady of Fatima, should have been so positive about the election of Pope Francis. Successive popes from Pius XI to Benedict XVI have been perplexed by the Third Secret revealed by Our Lady to the late Sister Lucia. The closer it got to 1960 -- the year by which Our Lady said the Secret must be revealed -- the more nervous the Vatican got.

Fatima experts, such as Walt's old buddy Christopher A. Ferrara, Esquire, believe that the Third Secret foretells the apostasy and corruption which stain the mainstream Roman Catholic Church today. We can call the collapse of the Church and the departure from the True Faith the poisoned fruits of Vatican II. But Pope John XXIII, who instigated the Council, read the secret and in his wisdom (?) set it aside, saying the Blessed Virgin must have been talking about somebody else or some other time.

That's been the Vatican party line ever since. We've seen more than half a century of lies and cover-ups orchestrated by the Vatican Secretaries of State, notably Cardinals Casaroli, Sodano and the evil Bertone. And all of the post-Conciliar popes have toed the line. That includes Paul VI, who famously said that, through Vatican II, "the smoke of Satan has entered the Church"...but did nothing about it.

The Message of Fatima does not just concern the ruination of the Church. Our Lady warned of wars and other catastrophes -- manmade and natural -- which would result in the annihilation of millions of souls. Unless, that is, the Pope (in union with all of the bishops, acting together at the same time) fulfilled a very simple request. She asks them to consecrate Russia (specifically) to Her Immaculate Heart. If that is done, She promises, Russia will be converted to the Faith and become an instrument of peace.

Because of the Vatican's policy of Ostpolitik (devised by the Secretariat of State, not by any pope), not one of the popes who have known of Our Lady's request have dared to do as She asks. During World War II, Pius XII attempted a consecration of "the world". John Paul II performed another act of consecration of the world in 1984, but on 25 March of that year admitted in a prayer to the Blessed Virgin that the consecration of Russia remained undone.

Fast forward to 26 June 2000, when the then Secretary of State, Cardinal Sodano, released his "interpretation" of the Third Secret of Fatima, with an introduction by Cardinal Bertone. Cardinal Ratzinger (as he then was) followed Sodano in pronouncing the Fatima prophecy "a thing of the past". The intent of this tale about "the bishop dressed in white" was clearly (in Mr. Ferrara's words) "to consign Fatima to the dustbin of history".

Strangely enough, after he became Benedict XVI, Pope Ratzinger reversed himself. On 11 May 2010, en route to Portugal for a visit to the Fatima shrine, the Holy Father rejected "the universally disbelieved Sodano/Bertone 'interpretation'". (Ferrara's words)

Rather, said Benedict, the Third Secret prophesies what is happening in the Church today, and predicts future events in the Church which are still developing day by day. "The greatest persecution of the Church does not come from enemies outside, but arises from sin in the Church." Sin in the Church... the smoke of Satan... just as Paul VI said!

Not three years later, Benedict XVI found himself physically and mentally incapable of resisting the enemies with in the Church any longer, and threw the torch to whoever might be his successor. Perhaps it was through divine intervention that Cardinal Bergoglio was chosen, for it turns out that Pope Francis is a friend of Our Lady of Fatima. One of his first acts, the day after his election, was to go to pray at the Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore.

We do not know what the Pope said to the Blessed Virgin or what She made him understand. But this week we learn, from Vatican Insider (written by leading Vaticanista Andrea Tornielli) that the Holy Father has asked José Cardinal Policarpo, Archbishop of Lisbon, to dedicate his pontificate to Our Lady of Fatima!

Cardinal Policarpo confirmed the Pope’s request at a meeting of the Portuguese bishops’ conference. He said that the Pontiff had twice asked him to make the consecration. The cardinal suggested that the entire bishops’ conference could join in the act of consecration.

This is an extremely significant move by the Holy Father. It shows that he believes in the Fatima Message, and acknowledges the correctness of what Benedict XVI said, that the Message of Fatima is still valid today.  (Tornielli says the prophecy could apply not only to the Church's struggle against the totalitarian regimes of the East, but the paedophilia scandal as well.)

What will be Pope Francis' next step? Could it be that he will finally command all the world's bishops to join him in the Act of Consecration of Russia that Our Lady of Fatima requested? Let us pray so, because that is Heaven's Key to World Peace.

Further reading: "A Prelude to the Consecration of Russia?" by Christopher A. Ferrara, Esquire.

Recommended blog: Fr. West's Catholic Blog, and in particular "Queen Esther and Our Lady of Fatima - Homily for Thursday of the First Week of Lent"

New tests date Shroud of Turin to time of Christ

Andrea Tornielli has been mentioned in WWW before as one of the preeminent Vaticanistas (Vatican watchers). It is rumored that the "Pope Emeritus", as they want us to call Benedict XVI, used to turn to Sr Tornielli's "Vatican Insider" blog to make sure he was getting the straight goods from the Great Prevaricator (Cardinal Bertone).

Sr Tornielli's column of March 26th has an extremely interesting report on the results of fresh experiments on the Shroud of Turin, conducted at the University of Padua. The latest tests confirm that the Shroud does indeed date back to the 1st Century A.D. -- the time of Our Lord Jesus Christ.   This makes its compatible with Catholic tradition, which holds that the cloth with the image of the crucified man imprinted on it is the very one Jesus' body was wrapped in when he was taken down from the cross.

The study was made by Giulio Fanti, a professor of mechanical and thermal measurement, who cooperated with Saverio Gaeta to produce a new book, Il Mistero della Sindone ("The Mystery of the Shroud"), which cites the evidence of the new tests, conducted on fibres taken from the Shroud.

Further testing was required because some years ago a different group of researchers, after making Carbon-14 tests, claimed that the cloth was manufactured in medieval times. It now appears that the fibres tested previously were taken from a part of the Shroud that had been repaired following a fire around the 13th century. But the medieval dating was at odds with the style of painting used by artists of that period. Moreover, analysis of the "paint" itself failed to match any pigments or dyes known at that time or this.

The research conducted more recently included three new tests, two chemical ones and one mechanical one. The average dating of the three tests is 33 BC ±250 years -- 95% certain and 100% compatible with the historic date of Jesus' death on the cross.

Click here for more details of this and other stories on the Shroud of Turin.   And -- believe it or not -- there’s an app for that! It’s called "Sindone 2.0" and you can get a free preview (in Italian) of the app in operation by viewing the video clip in this article from Oggi.

Correcting errors of Vatican II chief problem in SSPX-Rome talks

Sunday seems to be a good day to look at what's happening in and to the Roman Catholic Church. This week sees the confirmation of what Walt and so many others long suspected. According to leading Vaticanista Andrea Tornielli, the chief obstacle to the return of the Society of St. Pius X to the bosom of Holy Mother Church is the former's insistence on being free to criticise and correct the errors of Vatican II.

So says a letter from Fr. Christian Thouvenot, the SSPX Secretary General, to its District Superiors. Sr Tornielli says the letter, dated 18 July, was not intended for publication. He also says Fr. Thouvenot's views were confirmed by the new Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Archbishop Gerhard Müller, in an interview with the Catholic News Agency.

In his letter, Fr. Thouvenot revealed that the SSPX had set certain conditions for signing the "doctrinal preamble" that would allow for the "regularization" of the Society. First among these conditions was the insistence that the SSPX would remain free to "correct the promoters of the errors or the innovations of modernism, liberalism, and Vatican II and its aftermath."

The SSPX also demands the right to use the traditional Latin liturgy of 1962 exclusively. That should be no problem for the Vatican, since Pope Benedict XVI's moto proprio Summorum Pontificum allows for the use of the traditional liturgy.

However, the determination of the SSPX to correct the teachings of Vatican II poses a major problem in continued negotiations with the Vatican. Both Fr. Thouvenot's letter and the concluding communiqué published at the end of the Society’s General Chapter refer to the errors of modernism and the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council.

But in the interview with CNA, Archbishop Müller said, "The assertion that the authentic teachings of Vatican II formally contradict the tradition of the Church is false." Note the use of the weasel word "authentic". What does that mean? Out of the other side of his mouth, the archbishop allowed that there is room for discussion of how the Vatican II documents should be properly understood. "The purpose of dialogue [with the SSPX]," he said "is to overcome difficulties in the interpretation of the Second Vatican Council."

Is the Prefect saying, then, that the "Doctrinal Preamble" -- a text that was debated and closely examined by cardinals of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and then approved by Pope Benedict -- is subject to further debate and change? Stay tuned.

SSPX reply to Rome -- start of a sell-out?

The number of people who know what's really going on at the highest levels of the Roman Catholic Church is very small. One such is Andrea Tornielli, a "Vaticanista" whose conclusions and predictions are accurate almost as often as Walt's. (Lifetime pct .983)

In yesterday's Vatican Insider, Signor Tornielli opines that the "positive response" of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) to the "doctrinal preamble" presented to them by the Holy See last September could form the basis for reconciliation between the traditionalist group and the mainstream Church.

The response, which Tornielli says has only a few minor alterations to the most recent version of the document, will be reviewed by the Ecclesia Dei commission, which is responsible for relations between the Vatican and traditional Catholics, as well as by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. If they find no fault in it, the document will be forwarded to Pope Benedict XVI for a final decision which would presumably result in the lifting of the purported suspensions of the Society's bishops.

But here's the problem. Of the four SSPX bishops, only one -- Bishop Bernard Fellay -- appears fully committed to the reconciliation. The other three -- Tissier de Mallerais, Galarreta, and Williamson -- are opposed to what they see as a sell-out. So are at least 25% of their faithful followers, according to the Italian daily La Stampa.

Both the Vatican and the SSPX are on record as saying Bishop Fellay’s response does not resolve all remaining disagreements between the two sides. Father Federico Lombardi, the director of the Vatican press office, warned reported that "we cannot conclude that a positive outcome has been reached quite yet."

The SSPX issued a statement saying that the latest development in a 3-year series of negotiations must be seen as "a stage and not a conclusion". However, Tornielli and others sympathetic to the SSPX are optimistic about the prospects for resolving the split between the Society and the Holy See.

Signor Tornielli sees it as likely that the Society will be awarded the status of "personal prelature" a new juridical role added to the Canon Law in 1983 and so far adopted only by Opus Dei. Bishop Fellay doubtless sees himself as the first prelate, answerable only to the Holy See.

Will the other three, especially Bishop Williamson, kiss Fellay's ring? Don't be surprised if some or all of them separate from the separated! (Lifetime .pct still .983.)

See also "The Lefebvrians' answer to the Vatican". "Vatican, SSPX reported ready to reconcile", from Catholic World News, has a useful summary of the history and background to the conflict.