Saturday, August 10, 2019

The Devil in the City of Angels




I am a subscriber to Saint Joseph Communications, and over the last few weeks had been receiving emails concerning the forthcoming publication of a book titled: The Devil In the City of Angels - My Encounters With the Diabolical. The following is from one of the promotional emails—it is now on the Tan Books website, as well as the front flap of the dust cover:

“I went from an indifferent apathetic Sunday Mass attending Catholic Christian to an on fire Catholic Christian in a few short years. What reignited my faith? The many encounters I had with the occult and diabolical.” 

So says renowned Catholic apologist and retired veteran of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, Jesse Romero. Now for the first time in print, Romero reveals the harrowing details of his experiences with the demonic while working for the LASD. Discover the true stories of spiritual warfare being waged in the streets and alleys of L.A., including: 

·         Romero’s encounters with Richard Ramirez, the infamous “Night Stalker” 

·         How the Rosary drove out a demon that had taken hold of a young man 

·         What happened when inmates involved in the occult would try to say “Jesus is Lord”

·         How a young man who had committed suicide returned to beg his parents for prayers to release him from the pains of Purgatory 

…and much more. 

I ordered, received and read the book earlier this week. This contribution is quite informative, and could only have been written by one who has personally experienced the extraordinary events that are related within its pages. Included in the book are nine actual encounters with demons, five encounters with practicing witches, what the Bible has to say about witchcraft, a chapter on the new cult Santa Muerte, and one on Santeria.

I recommend this book to anyone interested in how Satan and his followers are attempting to advance his kingdom of darkness in our day—it is truly an 'eye-opener'.


Grace and peace,

David

12 comments:

Rory said...

Hi Dave!

I think you might find this interesting and in keeping with the subject matter:

https://www.crisismagazine.com/2019/fetid-fruits-of-the-black-mass

You probably have all of Malachi Martin's (MM) book except Windswept House because it seems like a novel. But in the article referenced above, there is a claim that MM said it was 90% fact and 10% fiction.

I like to substantiate that claim. Regardless, I think I want to re-read Windswept in light of developments in my own thinking since I read it perhaps 15 or more years ago. It might be more believable today than it was then.

David Waltz said...

Hi Rory,

Thanks much for the link. Some very disturbing information for sure! I have started rereading Martin's The Final Conclave, which I first read a good three decades ago. Once finished, I then want to read for the first time Martin's Windswept House. When I have finished both books, I hope to share some of my thoughts with you.

BTW, I found four of Martin's books online. The following are the links:

Windswept House

The Final Conclave

Decline and Fall of the Roman Church

Hostage to the Devil


Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

Hi Rory,

My reflections on Martin’s books has been somewhat delayed. Last Thursday, I purchased a new computer to replace my aging, eight year old one that has been over-heating of late. Installing all of my programs and files has been quite a chore, but it is finally done, and I am now enjoying the benefits of a computer that has three times the storage capacity, and four times the speed of my old one. Now, Martin’s books.

I finished my second reading of The Final Conclave Monday evening. The following are some of my thoughts on the tome. [Note: referenced page numbers will be from the US edition (1978 – my hardback edition), immediately followed by the UK edition, which is the version that is available online in PDF and other formats.]

The first 111/123 pages are primarily historical in nature, focusing on the papacy of Paul VI. I found the following to be quite informative:

>>As far back as the 1930s Giovanni Montini as a young ecclesiastic had been profoundly influenced by a single attitude that would, thirty years later, go a long way toward making him a Pope unlike any Pope before him. It was an attitude first made popular and then repudiated by a French philosopher of great popular appeal, Jacques Maritain. Montini, in fact, willingly wrote an introduction for the Italian edition of Maritain's Integral Humanism.

"Be a witness by service," runs the idea, "but do not think that any other initiative is possible, practical or called for." In practical terms, what integral humanism has to say is that all men and women are naturally good; they will respond to the good and reject the evil if they are shown the difference. The function of Jesus' Church at this stage in human history is merely to bear witness to that difference, not to make superhuman efforts at Catholicizing politics, economics, literature, science, education, social life, or any of the other aspects of human society. Only to witness by service to men and women-without any distinction of creed or race-this is the task of the Church in today's world where a new unity among human beings has emerged; a world which of itself excludes Christianity and the central authority of the Pope as the Vicar of Jesus and the center of world unity.>> (Page 20/23)

On the next page, Martin writes:

>>This integral humanism of Paul 6 permeated the entire policy of his Pontificate.>>

Martin goes on to show that Paul the VI had a definitive disdain for Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. As you well know, it was Paul VI who first promulgated the Novus Ordo (New Order) of the Mass. Pages 31-39/36-46 focuses on Paul VI’s view/s of Lefebvre.

Another important point that Martin drives home was Paul VI’s belief that Marxism would be victorious over the West. This flawed outlook, and his embracing of ‘integral humanism’, were clearly foundational to his liberal views and policies.

The portion of the book after the first 111/123 pages is a fictional portrayal of the future 82nd conclave. The following in particular caught my eye:

>>If to be Christian means professing and maintaining belief in a divine creation of the universe from nothing, in the efficacy of Christ's death as the unique redemption for all mankind from sin and from Hell; and, further, in belief in the Sacraments, in the divinity of Jesus, in his Resurrection, in life after death, in the existence of the soul as immortal and really distinct from the body, then such churches or sects are not Christian at all.>> (Page 150/170)

Will touch on Windswept House in the near future.


Grace and peace,

David

Rory said...

I have seen Paul VI in an unfavorable light, but not quite as sinister as Fr. Martin. I haven't see him as decisively committed to throwing out the supernatural for the natural. I have seen him as indecisive. Double-minded about it. Unlike Pope Francis, who never disappoints communists, gays, Muslims, and left wingers everywhere, the official acts and published proclamations of Paul VI are a mixed bag that ultimately infuriated both sides.

I have thought he was merely misinformed by subordinates who despised Abp. Lefebvre. I'll try to share this holiday weekend why I have tended toward this view. Admittedly, there may be more back story than the sources I have consulted have been aware of.

Have I told you that my Lisa (Baptist at the time) was in Rome when Paul VI died in 1978, and viewed his body? May he rest in peace, poor soul. (I don't have any faith in these uncatholic beatifications and canonizations that are going on for 20th century humanists and commies.)

Did you know that they are throwing in a beatification for John Henry Newman? Sure. They can misuse his "development of doctrine" to mean something entirely different, as though Bergoglianism is a legitimate development from Apostolic Tradition. Who would question it? Yeah. If doctrine can develop, the sky is the limit. What is now right used to be wrong. Doctrinal development. No thank you, I love the real Cardinal Newman. I reject the endorsement of the current apparent inhabitant of the papal throne.

Rory

Later.

Rory

David Waltz said...

Hi Rory,

Thanks much for taking the time to comment; you wrote:

==I have seen Paul VI in an unfavorable light, but not quite as sinister as Fr. Martin. I haven't see him as decisively committed to throwing out the supernatural for the natural. I have seen him as indecisive. Double-minded about it. Unlike Pope Francis, who never disappoints communists, gays, Muslims, and left wingers everywhere, the official acts and published proclamations of Paul VI are a mixed bag that ultimately infuriated both sides.==

I am anything but an expert on Paul VI. When I return from back east, I need to read what he had published during his pontificate.

==I have thought he was merely misinformed by subordinates who despised Abp. Lefebvre. I'll try to share this holiday weekend why I have tended toward this view. Admittedly, there may be more back story than the sources I have consulted have been aware of.==

Looking forward to your further thoughts on this issue. I will have my tablet, so I will be able to read what you post; but will not attempt further comments until my return.

==Have I told you that my Lisa (Baptist at the time) was in Rome when Paul VI died in 1978, and viewed his body? May he rest in peace, poor soul. (I don't have any faith in these uncatholic beatifications and canonizations that are going on for 20th century humanists and commies.)==

No, this is the first time that you have related this to me. What was a young Baptist woman doing in Rome in 1978?

==Did you know that they are throwing in a beatification for John Henry Newman?==

Yes.

==Sure. They can misuse his "development of doctrine" to mean something entirely different, as though Bergoglianism is a legitimate development from Apostolic Tradition. Who would question it? Yeah. If doctrine can develop, the sky is the limit. What is now right used to be wrong. Doctrinal development. No thank you, I love the real Cardinal Newman. I reject the endorsement of the current apparent inhabitant of the papal throne.==

I seriously doubt that most of the liberals and progressives in our day who appeal to Newman have actual read his Essay On the Development of Christian Doctrine. Newman’s section, “Genuine Development contrasted with Corruptions", is clear enough to prevent the rampant misuse of his theory of development that we are seeing in our day—but it seems the liberals and progressives have completely ignored that extended section of his book—can you spell ‘sophistry’?


Grace and peace,

David

Rory said...

Sorry about the deletion of my early remarks about Michael Matt's call to "unite the clans"...I want to give this subject more thought before endorsing it so quickly as I did on first sight. It is being talked about all over and I need to think it through more. Maybe there will be some time on Monday for an update. No work!




Rory said...

One of the bulwarks against heresy which is definitively held by Catholic Tradition, was obscured in the middle of the 20th Century by Vatican Council II. It has always been the goal of the enemies of the true faith (the infiltrators Malachi Martin talks about) to promote the lie that freedom of public worship and a freedom to promulgate heresy poses no threat to the interests of Catholic Church or of the Catholic state, assuming Catholic claims are true.

The document of the Council which deals with relations between church and state is called Dignitatis Humanae. The first sentence of the document is an unproven appeal to the idea that modern man has advanced and evolved beyond his predecessors as to their apprehension of the nature of humanity and what follows from that. We aren't told that this assertion is to be seen as a result of a theological development.

Contemporary man is becoming increasingly conscious of the dignity of the human person; more and more people are demanding that men should exercise fully their own judgment and a responsible freedom in their actions and should not be subject to the pressure of coercion but be inspired by a sense of duty.

The assertion, that "contemporary man has become increasingly conscious of the dignity of the human person" is never defended. It is just left out there like it is some wise judgment that no one could question. But it is an outrageous claim; a slap in the face of charitable activities by saintly Catholic prelates, priests, princes, and people for two millenia who had a deeper understanding of the dignity of man than billions of contemporary men who are demanding what they don’t understand.

Who is "contemporary man" that any Catholic should prefer his view of man's dignity to that which fills pages of the lives of saints? They appeal to the fact that "More and more people are demanding..." So what? Since when does apostolic revelation take heed to what more and people, who don’t even care about Catholic Tradition demand? “Human dignity” as discussed in in the document excludes such basic problems as the wounds of original sin, and the subsequent darkness of the intellect which contemporary man must deal with, no less than every other man. I am confident that this appeal to “human dignity” has its origin not in the teaching of the Apostles, but from secular thinkers who despise the Catholic Church, and ultimately from the devil, who is concerned to see to the eternal damnation of "contemporary man".

Rory

David Waltz said...

Hi Rory,

I am back from the cruise and starting to get back into my ‘regularly routine’. Your last post on 09-02-19 concerning Dignitatis Humanae , is somewhat ‘providential’ given the book I started reading while waiting at the airports—Pontiff by Gordon Thomas and Max Morgan-Witts—see this LINK.

I discovered this tome while doing some online research concerning Martin’s The Final Conclave, receiving a copy before heading out on the cruise. I am 177 pages into the book and have found it to be an excellent supplement to Martin’s The Final Conclave and Windswept House. I plan to finish the book this week; and now that I have internet access again, check the accuracy of the details and information provided.

From what I have read so far, it sure seems to support the concerns that you and Martin have concerning the general direction that Vatican II and its supporters are attempting to lead Catholic Church into—a direction which is beginning to look more like a heretical development rather than a faithful one. More on this later, the Lord willing…

BTW, I found the following treatment earlier this morning, and thought that you would find it of interest:

Dignitatis Humanae – Vatican II’s Declaration on Religious liberty


Grace and peace,

David

Rory said...

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger apparently held that two canonized popes took their positions against Apostolic Tradition because of the excesses of the French Revolution. According to this theory, just as the Revolution went too far, so the popes, before the pendulum returns to the middle, and Apostolic Tradition, at Vatican II. The link provided by our blog host immediately above, gives a good insight in to the thinking of Cardinal Ratzinger before he was pope:

Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, p. 381: “If it is desirable to offer a diagnosis of the text [of the Vatican II document, Gaudium et Spes] as a whole, we might say that (in conjunction with the texts on religious liberty and world religions) it is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of counter syllabus… As a result, the one-sidedness of the position adopted by the Church under Pius IX and Pius X in response to the situation created by the new phase of history inaugurated by the French Revolution, was, to a large extent, corrected…

Great care needs to be taken here. It is extraordinary that in opposition to the teaching of the Apostles, two canonized popes were blinded by "one-sidedness" and overreacted in matters of faith and morals. Sts. Pius IX and X were in clear opposition to the principles of the document Dignitatis Humanae. Besides the problem of making canonized popes in to muddle-headed reactionaries, the biggest problem with Cardinal Ratzinger's theory is that these popes weren't reacting to the French Revolution. They were bound to hold to the Tradition of the Church, and they did. You don't have to wait until the French Revolution to find more canonized saints who clearly rejected the teaching of Vatican II on Religious Liberty.

Exhibit #1) St. Augustine is a doctor of the Catholic Church, one of the saints whose intercessions are pleaded for in the Litany of Saints, recited every Easter Vigil. He is the author of the Confessions, City of God, and many other scholarly treatises. Let us see what St. Augustine, who in the 4th Century could not have been affected by the French Revolution, has to say to this topic.

"In his two-fold character as man and as prince, the king (the civil authority) must serve God: as man, he serves him by the fidelity of his life; as king, by framing laws which command good and forbid evil. He must act like Ezechias and Josias, destroying the temples of the false gods and the high places that had been constructed contrary to the command of the Lord; like the king of Ninive obliging his city to appease the Lord; like Darius giving up the idol to Daniel to be broken, and casting Daniel's enemies to the lions, like Nabuchodonosor forbidding blasphemy throughout his kingdom by a terrible law. It is thus that kings (the civil authority) serve the Lord as kings, viz: when they do in His service those things which only kings can do."

---Aug. ad Bonifac. Ep. 185 (Epistle 185 of St. Augustine, is excluded from the Hendriksen edition of the Fathers, although there are other letters to Boniface.) This quote taken from the Liturgical Year, by Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., Vol. 14, p.72, St. Bonaventure Publications, year 2000)

In the 4th Century, St. Augustine would have known that the Catholic Church had accepted the patronage of the Emperor Constantine, who built many churches, and who overthrew and destroyed pagan shrines in the Holy Land. This letter would seem to have been a good time to criticize Constantine, as would any Vatican II Catholic, for treating the Catholic religion with favoritism, and more so, for his attacks against non-Catholic religions. I am not sure how Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI could understand St. Augustine. Augustine seems to me to be as guilty of “one-sidedness”, and in need of correction as the two canonized popes who weren’t following the Apostles because according to Ratzinger/Benedict, they were messed up by the French Revolution.

Exhibit #2 will follow in a subsequent post.

Rory said...

Exhibit #2) St. Louis IX, King of France, was born in 1215, and inherited the throne of France in 1226 one year before the birth of St. Thomas Aquinas. Louis died of the plague on a foreign battle field in 1270. A biographer says of Louis that his "death was like his life, simple and great. God called him to Himself in the midst of sorrowful and critical circumstances, far from his own country, in that African land where he had suffered so much; these trials were sanctifying thorns, reminding the prince of his most cherished jewel, the sacred crown of thorns which he had added to the treasure of France. Moved by the hope of converting the king of Tunis to the Christian faith, it was rather as an apostle than a soldier that he had landed on that shore where his last struggle awaited him. 'I challenge you in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of his lieutenant Louis king of France;'" But it would seem that Providence had turned against strong King Louis, for neither was the king of Tunis converted, nor was he defeated. "The Christian army, victorious in every battle, was decimated by a terrible plague. Surrounded by the dead and dying, Louis called to him his eldest son, who was to succeed him as Philip III, and gave him his last instructions.

For sake of space, we cannot review all of the charitable activities to which Louis commended his son as king. We will have to restrict the charitable activities to those which Philip was to follow as it pertained to the interest of religion as supreme legislator for the kingdom of France:

"...Keep up the good customs of thy kingdom. Love all that is good and hate all that is evil of any sort. Suffer no ill word about God or our Lady or the saints to be spoken in thy presence, that thou dost not straightway punish...Exert thyself that every vile sin be abolished from thy land; especially to the best of thy power put down all wicked oaths and heresy."

ibid from exhibit 1, pp. 76, 77, Dom Gueranger list his sources below.

---Geoffrey de Beaulieu; Queen Margaret's Confessor; William de Nangis; Joinville

to be continued...

Rory said...

I doubt that Pope Benedict XVI would be able to see how King Louis' advice to his son was even edifying, much less charitable. He might even have to consider it to be "one-sided"! But wait, we still have 600 years to go before the French Revolution strikes a blow at the Catholic faith making even canonized popes deny the true teaching of the Apostles. Where is the recommendation from St. Louis that the kingdom of France is incompetent to declare itself to be a Catholic nation? Why doesn't the dying saint remind his son that human dignity requires that besides being an article of the Catholic faith, an atmosphere of neutrality towards religion on behalf of civil authority is beneficial to medieval man so he has more freedom to choose?

The simple answer to that question is that the man who regularly hosted St. Thomas Aquinas on his side at the king's table, did not hold to false novelties that did not appear among Catholics until well after the French Revolution! For about 200 years before Vatican II, these non-Apostolic "revelations" were only found in the writings of skeptics and critics of God and the Catholic Church. For those 200 years, no pope dared to deny the Traditions which came from the Apostles, until Pope Paul VI.

I mention the friendship between Thomas Aquinas and Louis IX to suggest that if Thomas Aquinas believed about religious liberty as Rousseau, Voltaire, Hume, Locke and other non-Catholic darlings of modern man, he probably should have said a word of fraternal correction to a terribly misguided King Louis? Aquinas was at least guilty by silent consent if not affirmation.

If only Benedict XVI could come up with two exhibits that show St. Augustine, St. Louis, and St. Thomas Aquinas were aberrations of their times. But he can't. St. Pius IX and St. Pius X believed what they did about the religious obligations of civil legislators because they were committed to the Faith of their Fathers as found in Apostolic Tradition. It is not hard to see who in the Catholic Church was finally affected by the French Revolution, going against Catholic Tradition and the clear and consistent warnings of popes from the times of Napoleon until the Second Vatican Council.

Rory said...

600 years from the death of St. Louis to the Revolution? No, I was off. A little over five hundred from the death of King Louis in 1270 to the French Revolution.

So sad. Dave, one hundred years before the French Revolution took the heads off of another King Louis (XVI) and his queen, a still different King Louis (XIV) was requested to cooperate with the consecration of France to the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

St. Mary Margaret Alacoque was a Visitation sister, an order of nuns formed by St. Francis deSales. On June 17, 1689, Our Lord revealed to Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque that He wanted the King of France, Louis XIV, to consecrate France to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. He and subsequent kings of France hesitated, and eventually forgot about the request. 100 years later to the day, on June 17, 1789, King Louis XVI was placed under house arrest, and four years later Louis and his queen, Marie Antoinette were ignominiously guillotined.

---

In the 20th Century, in a vision of Sr. Lucia of Fatima, Our Lord refers to the heart breaking decision of the kings of France to ignore a simple request of obedience on behalf of the head of state, resulting in the French Revolution. Sr. Lucia is informed that like the king of France in 1689, the popes refuse to make a simple act of faith and obedience when heaven requests that there would be a consecration of Russia to Mary's Immaculate Heart:

At Rianjo, Spain in August 1931, Our Lord communicated to Sister Lucy His dissatisfaction with the Pope’s and the Catholic bishops’ failure to obey His command to consecrate Russia. He said:

Make it known to My ministers, given that they follow the example of the King of France in delaying the execution of My requests, they will follow him into misfortune. It is never too late to have recourse to Jesus and Mary.

In another text Lucy wrote that Our Lord complained to her:

They did not wish to heed My request! Like the King of France they will repent of it, and they will do it, but it will be late. Russia will have already spread its errors in the world, provoking wars and persecutions against the Church. The Holy Father will have much to suffer.


----https://www.romancatholicman.com/our-lady-of-fatima-1917-2017-why-100-years-matters/

And now instead of the French Revolution in France alone we have the French Revolution in the Catholic Church!