| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 266 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 262 Guest(s)
Applebot, Bing, Facebook, Google
|
|
|
| St. Dominic Savio’s Prophecy Regarding England |
|
Posted by: Stone - 10-30-2022, 07:06 AM - Forum: Catholic Prophecy
- No Replies
|
 |
St. Dominic Savio’s Prophecy on England
Excerpt from The Life of Dominc Savio by John Bosco, online book. Chaps X, IX
TIA | October 29, 2022
Many Catholics are unaware of a vision that St. Dominic Savio (1842-1857) had about England in 1857, the year of his death. The boy was born in Piedmont, in northern Italy and never set foot on English soil, which was Anglican protestant. Nonetheless, He had a great interest in the return to the Faith of this apostate country which once had proudly bore the title Our Lady’s Dowry.
Dom Bosco remarks in his biography of the Saint that he often heard Dominic Savio state: "How many souls there are in England awaiting our assistance. There is nothing that would please me more, had I the strength and virtue, than to go there and help, by preaching and good works, to gain them to Jesus Christ." He frequently lamented the lack of zeal for this mission.
![[Image: H237_Sta.jpg]](https://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/images_F-J/H237_Sta.jpg)
A Statue of the Saint in the St. Dominic Savio Retreat Center in Bollington, Cheshire, England
He asked Dom John Bosco, founder of the Oratory he attended in Turin, to deliver the message he had received to Pope Pius IX. Don Bosco believed it important enough that in 1857, the very year of Dominic Savio’s death, he related the message to that Pope.
It is Dom Bosco himself who relates to us the incident in his well-known book The Life of Dominic Savio:
Quote:It was remarkable that he often spoke about the Sovereign Pontiff, and expressed the desire of being able to see him as he had something of great importance to tell him.
As he had repeated this on several occasions, I one day asked him what the important matter was. He replied: "If I could have an interview with the Pope, I would tell him, that in spite of the great tribulations which he has to endure at present, he should never slacken in his special solicitude for England. For God is preparing a great triumph for Catholicism in that kingdom."
I asked him, "Why, what grounds have you for that statement?"
"I will tell you, but do not mention it to others, for they might think it ridiculous. But if you go to Rome, tell Pius IX for me.
“This is why I think so. One morning, during my thanksgiving after Communion, I had a repeated distraction, which was strange for me. I thought I saw a great stretch of country enveloped in a thick mist and it was filled with a multitude of people. They were moving about, but like men who, having missed their way, are not sure of their footing.
"Someone nearby me said: 'This is England.'
“I was going to ask some questions about it when I saw His Holiness Pius IX as I had seen him represented in pictures. He was majestically clad, and was carrying a shining torch with which he approached the multitude as if to enlighten their darkness. As he drew near, the light of the torch seemed to disperse the mist, and the people were left in broad daylight.
"'This torch,' said my informant, 'is the Catholic religion which is to illuminate England.'"
When I was in Rome in 1858, I related this vision to the Holy Father, who was greatly interested and said: ‘What you have told me confirms me in my resolution to do all that is possible for England, which has long been the object of my special care. What you have related is, at the very least, the counsel of a devout soul.’”
There are many other facts of a somewhat similar nature, but which are out of place in a small biography like this. I have left them on record, so that when, in the opinion of others, their publication is demanded, they may be given to the world.
The Pope had rightly stated his great interest in and concern for England. In May 1850, His Holiness Pius IX granted 200 days indulgence to all who would offer a devout prayer, as for example, one Hail Mary, – for the conversion of England.
That same year he issued Universalis Ecclesiae, a papal bull that reestablished the Catholic Diocesan Hierarchy in England, which had been wiped out after the death of the last Marian Bishop in the reign of Elizabeth I. Even though the Pope knew the bull would arouse great anti-Catholic feeling among English Protestants, he did not waver in his resolve.
Thus England could send 13 English Bishops to the Vatican Council I, which the Pope convoked in 1869. The U.S. was represented by 48 Archbishops and Bishops, and one Abbot.
|
|
|
| Landmark Russian ANTI Sodomy Law Passes Unanimously |
|
Posted by: SAguide - 10-29-2022, 10:17 PM - Forum: General Commentary
- No Replies
|
 |
Landmark Russian Sodomy Law Passes
Unanimously - Promotion in Any Way of Homosexuality or Transgenderism Soon Illegal
LGBT propaganda is a weapon of attack on our foundations, values and traditions, a silent and cold-blooded killer that destroys souls.
Link
The bill, passed in the first reading, has been authored by 388 deputies, including the Chairman of the State Duma Vyacheslav Volodin and all faction leaders, and provides for a ban on promoting non-traditional sexual relations, or preferences, among Russian citizens of all ages, both adults and minors. The existing legislation bans the LGBT promotion among minors only.
"You and I are taking this decision solely in the interests of our citizens, in the interests of our country," Vyacheslav Volodin said.
According to public opinion polls, 16 percent of Europeans aged 14-29 identify themselves as LGBT. In US, in the state of Maryland alone, the promotion of non-traditional relations resulted in the number of schoolchildren who are undecided as to their gender, increased almost six times in two years. Today they make up 45% of all kids attending school.
"We must do everything we can to protect our children and those who want to live normal lives. Everything else is sin, sodomy, darkness, and our country is fighting against it," the speaker said.
In recent days, I often hear the question of how appropriate and relevant these initiatives are today, when we are involved in the special military operation? Is banning LGBT demonstrations and propaganda so important for the country at the moment?
I answer: absolutely! And, I am ready to explain, why.
First, there is a phrase "hybrid warfare", which we use all the time. This means that the battle is fought not in the battlefield alone, but also in the economic sphere, in the information space. There is a serious fight for the hearts and minds of our young people going on at this moment. So, even if you win in the battlefield, you can lose the battle for future generations.
LGBT propaganda is a weapon of attack on our foundations, values and traditions, a silent and cold-blooded killer that destroys souls.
Secondly, we are witnessing the unprecedented rise in the spread of this phenomenon and its propaganda over the recent years: it has made its way everywhere - books, movies, visual arts, theater, television. The offensive is waged in all fronts.
Thirdly, as in the case of warfare, there is a time for defense, and there is a time to attack. Now is the time for decisive action, there is no more time to lose. Neither can we retreat, for what is currently at stake, are the souls of our children, their future, the future of all Russia and Russian civilization. These are not just big words: if we look at Europe, we can see the consequences of their falling in for these so-called ‘values’. They opted for beautiful slogans about tolerance and freedom, and turned away from God and His commandments, they gave up their own interests, they gave up traditional family values and accepted homosexual marriage. All this led to the blurring of European national identity and social degradation.
Russia is now becoming a world outpost in the struggle against the spread of godlessness, obscurantism and perversion. We are fighting for the future of humanity in which a child should have a Mother and a Father, not parent #1 and parent #2; a future in which a boy born as a boy, grows into a man, not into a lady with bright make-up.
When I am talking about these legislation amendments, I intentionally speak only of children, although the proposed initiatives remove this age restriction and aim at banning the non-traditional relations’ propaganda for all ages. The existing legislation, unfortunately, proved inefficient: publishers and film distributors by-passed it, and children and teenagers easily gained access to this kind of information, which affects their immature psyche. The proposed legislation introduces heavy fines for all attempts to promote the interests of the global LGBT lobby, whereas foreign nationals involved in such activities, will be deported from our country.
This is the first step in a values-based break with the West. We also need to get out of the World Health Organization, which has drawn a list of 40 genders; we need to take off the yoke of the WTO and other Western institutions that impose globalist values on Russia.
And, we need to start building our Russian civilization on the basis of the traditional values shared by our multinational people - love for our Motherland, respect for our elders, preserving the family and raising new healthy generations of our children.
|
|
|
|
| In Re: SJ is a Dishonest, Deceitful Buffoon who Needs to Stop Writing Garbage |
|
Posted by: Stone - 10-29-2022, 11:52 AM - Forum: True vs. False Resistance
- Replies (4)
|
|
Dear friends of The Catacombs,
Last month (September), Fr. Edward MacDonald of the Fake Resistance circulated and promoted a letter by a layman named Mr. Sean Johnson. This letter was a supposed provide a kind of rebuttal to comments made by Fr. Hewko on the topic of the New Mass, specifically those comments made here.
Just a cursory look shows that Mr. Johnson's Comments are so filled with error that: 1) it is a great tragedy to see such errors uttered by a supposedly long-standing traditional Catholic in the first place; and 2) that such error-laden comments are further promoted and encouraged by a priest(!).
These errors are the fruit of Bishop Williamson's teaching. This is particularly tragic in Fr. MacDonald. He used to be quite strong in defending against the New Mass and standing up for the Faith. But just a few years of swallowing the slow poison of Bishop Williamson's errors has caused him a great slide away from what the Church and the old-SSPX taught on this subject and now he is a perfect echo-chamber for those same errors he used to fight against. That is the real tragedy. And he is advising poor souls to do the same.
I am disinclined to post Mr. Johnson's letter in it's entirety here as it is so error laden. Rather, here is a link to a PDF of those Comments. I also discovered that this letter and Fr. MacDonald's comments were already published anonymously on another forum. And of note, even on that other forum which is very pro-Bp. Williamson, several commentators castigated both Mr. Johnson and His Excellency for their erroneous stance on the New Mass.
Mr. Greg Taylor, editor of The Recusant, has done quite a thorough job in answering Mr. Johnson and shows very well how Fr. MacDonald too has changed his stance on the New Mass, once vehemently preaching against it, to now make all sorts of allowances for it in echoing his leader of the Fake Resistance, Bp. Williamson.
Mr. Taylor's well-researched reply follows [PDF here]:
In Re:
Sean Johnson is a Dishonest, Deceitful Buffoon who Needs to Stop Writing Garbage
By
Greg Taylor
24/10/22
What joy. Another inept and dishonest attempt to defend the indefensible. Entitled, with typically Sean Johnson-esque long-winded pomposity: “In Re: Some Recent Comments of Fr. Hewko on +Williamson and the New Mass, By Sean Johnson 7/20/22” (Why “in re” – is he now studying to become a lawyer?), anyone who things that my title is a little harsh might wish to recall that this is the man who, in his last attempt to defend his hero, took Bishop Williamsons words:
“While the new religion is false, it’s dangerous, it strangles grace and it’s helping many people to lose the Faith: at the same time, there are still cases where it can be used and is used still to build the Faith.”
And twisted them into:
“The new religion is false, and it strangles grace.”
Adding as his own commentary:
“Conclusion: the new Mass is bad.” Yes he is dishonest, yes, he is without question deceitful; he is a man who will allow himself any number of liberties in serving the one overriding goal of defending his hero. That he is also a buffoon, the reader will have to determine for himself, although the fact that he is still wasting everyone’s time with these poor quality arguments is a fact which hardly counts in his favour.
Anyone who is not already familiar with Sean Johnson’s club-footed attempts to sanitise Bishop Williamson’s scandalous and delinquent new teaching may wish first of all to familiarise himself with The Recusant 36, particularly pages 38-54. In the meantime, let me add that Sean Johnson seeking yet again to defend his Great Hero is something which would not, on its own, have motivated a response. I have surely said all that need be said on the topic. Since, however, he has also taken it upon himself to use this as an opportunity to attack Fr. David Hewko for having the nerve to disagree with the Great One (and to attack him secretly, in private, and not in public, it should be added!) a response follows.
The infantile “Valid-Means-You-Can-Always-Get-Grace-From-It!” argument Most of Sean Johnson’s arguments appear to be nothing new. Perhaps he thinks everyone has already forgotten the last time he tried to defend Bishop Williamson? He repeats his novel reading of Session VII of the Council of Trent, which seems to run something like this:
“If anyone saith that a sacrament, regardless of any other circumstance whatever, not excluding the sacrilegious manner in which it is confected, so long as it is valid only, will not always give grace, let him be anathema.”
Or perhaps:
“If anyone saith that a valid Mass will not always and everywhere be a source of grace to those who assist at it, let him be anathema.”
Needless to add, the Council of Trent says nothing of the sort. What it does say is that the sacraments do actually contain the grace they signify and are not mere outward signs or empty symbols as the Protestants assert - something which is utterly irrelevant to the debate and which nobody, least of all Fr. Hewko, has ever denied.
He even mentions in passing, the idea of there being such a thing as, “an obex gratiae (i.e., obstacle to grace)” …but it never occurs to him that such an obex might be the circumstances in which a sacrament is confected, such as a valid Mass said outside the Church, or a valid Mass said in a deliberately sacrilegious manner so as to deliberately offend to God, in the manner of apostate Masonic clergy or Satanists. In the buffoonish theology of Mr. Sean Johnson, every Masonic or Satanic (but nonetheless valid) Mass, no matter how mocking or insulting a parody, is nonetheless an occasion where you and I can go to receive grace. It is absurd. He even goes so far at one point as to state, that:
“…there can be validly confected sacraments which do not transmit the grace which they infallibly contain, but only because of the poor disposition of the recipient.”
Where does he find justification for the words “only because”? And how certain is he that there could be no other reason why a valid sacrament might not be a source of grace? Were one to find a validly ordained apostate Catholic priest-turned-Anglican (such as Fr. Peter Morgan, post c.1980) using the Tridentine Missal, could one receive grace by going along to his Anglican church? Can one go along to the schismatic Orthodox and receive grace from their valid sacraments? In the fourth century, was the way to receive grace to get oneself to the nearest Arian Mass? Were the Chinese Catholics of the 1970s and 1980s supposed to go to one of the many certainly valid Tridentine Masses offered by the certainly valid priests of the Communist Party -controlled ‘Patriotic Association’? Has the Church really been getting it wrong all these years? A quick panorama of the Catholic martyrs of all eras and nations is all that is needed to see how utterly absurd this argument really is.
The closest Mr Johnson comes to answering this, is when he says:
“So for example, should an Eastern rite Catholic in the state of grace mistakenly walk into a Greek Orthodox church (i.e., he has maintained his good disposition) and receive communion, Trent applies, and he infallibly receives the transmission of sanctifying grace.”
That one little word, “mistakenly,” is quite telling. Suppose he went there deliberately and not mistakenly? (Improbable, you say? Perhaps. But then, who knows, perhaps he had just been reading Sean Johnson and had been confused into thinking that a valid sacrament is always a source of grace for the faithful regardless of any other considerations…). Would such a Catholic who deliberately took himself along to a schismatic Orthodox Mass receive sanctifying grace? And if not, why not, given that it is (in the example above) a valid sacrament? I don’t think the lady in Mahopac was “mistakenly” going to the New Mass believing it to be the Traditional Mass, was she? Why must Sean Johnson qualify his example with the word “mistakenly”? Could it be that he knows full well that a Catholic may not avail himself of sacraments outside the Church, however “certainly valid” they may be and however piously he may assist at that Mass? That validity and personal disposition aren’t enough, in other words? In which case what are the implications for assisting at the New Mass, not least given that the New Mass is an illegitimate, schismatic non-Catholic rite and intrinsically offensive to God?
I have now twice waded through Mr. Sean Johnson’s buffoonery and yet I cannot see this addressed anywhere. What he does say is that, because the Council of Trent teaches that a sacrament contains the grace it signifies and is not a mere empty symbol, therefore as regards the question of the New Mass: “Mother Church already definitively decided this matter 450 years ago at the Council of Trent.” This is so infantile as to be laughable. The same Council of Trent emphatically condemns changing the traditional sacramental rituals into new man-made ones, which is an exact definition of
the New Mass.
False Distinctions
He furthermore makes a great deal out of distinguishing the sacrament itself from the ritual (as does Fr. Edward MacDonald, it seems), as though it were not always a sin to separate the two in practice. “Fr. Hewko,” he complains, “tends not to distinguish between the rite of Mass and the sacrament, and often seems to use them interchangeably.”
That is because, in practice, they are interchangeable, just as sacrament of matrimony will always in practice involve the ritual of matrimony, for instance. Again, he chastises Fr. Hewko for not sharing his own made-up distinctions:
“Fr. Hewko continuing to conflate rite and sacrament, when he should be distinguishing between the two.”
One cannot “conflate” two things which necessarily always go together. The Mass happens using a rite, and the New Rite is what makes the New Mass the New Mass, just as the Tridentine Rite is what makes the Tridentine Mass the Tridentine Mass. In reality, the one at fault is Sean Johnson himself, for treating as separate two things which in reality cannot be separated. Of course, a priest could always, in theory, pronounce the words of consecration whilst sitting at the breakfast table in his dressing-gown with half a granary loaf and half-drunk glass of cheap wine in front of him, and produce what one could call a valid sacrament. But to do so will always be a sacrilege and nobody could ever obtain grace from willingly participating in such a serious sin. The whole point about the New Mass is that it is little better than that: even if it is sometimes valid, it is always being done outside of a Catholic ritual, in a profane and even heretical context and is therefore always displeasing to God. Why this is so hard for some people to grasp, I cannot quite understand.
Sean Johnson calls this “a condemned theory of sterile sacraments” though what is really “a theory” (we will leave the condemning to him) is his insistence that a valid sacrament will always give grace, something which they Church has never taught, which no Saint has ever taught, no Father, no Doctor, no Pope and no Council (Trent included) has ever come close to teaching and the very serious implications of which are denied by the entire history of the Catholic Church not to mention common sense.
Likewise, his distinction between the Mass and Holy Communion is equally a false one and not one which the reader will find any Catholic theologian making before the Council. The priest’s communion is an essential part of the Mass – without it, Mass has not been celebrated, even if he managed to confect a valid sacrament by pronouncing the words of consecration over valid matter with the right intention. Likewise, every Holy Communion received by the faithful necessarily comes from the Mass. The true doctrine is that the Mass is both a sacrifice and a sacrament. The Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist is not just Holy Communion, the Mass itself is part of the sacrament. Holy Communion always comes from a Mass and a Mass always produces Holy Communion. The other six Sacraments are received in the instant that they are confected, but the Holy Eucharist is confected before It is received. Thus the idea that at a Mass which is schismatic and offensive to God, Holy Communion may nonetheless be received as a source of grace, is not a Catholic one; it betrays a failure to understand the nature of the Mass, not to mention a certain measure of desperation to square the circle in making Bishop Williamson’s continued pronouncements seem somehow orthodox when an increasing number of priests and faithful can see that they are nothing of the sort.
Finally, it might be useful to recall that grace can only come through the Church. Therefore whether we are talking about Mass said by a schismatic priest (a Greek Orthodox, for instance) or in a schismatic rite (such as the New Mass), we are not talking about a Mass at which grace would come through the Catholic Church. Both the New Mass and a Greek Orthodox Mass are schismatic, though for different reasons: the former due to the rite used, the latter due to the celebrant.
Again, this seems fairly obvious to me, and if an amateur like me can grasp it, without any seminary training, then a priest such as Fr. MacDonald surely ought to be able to as well, even if Mr. Sean Johnson apparently cannot.
The “Poisoned Meat” Argument and the Archbishop Lefebvre quote from April 1974
A large part of Mr. Sean Johnson’s writing is his re-use Mr. Samuel Loeman’s unfortunate attempt to make Archbishop Lefebvre a forerunner of Bishop Williamson, by finding one quote from April 1974. Samuel Loeman, in fairness to him, appears to have realised that something had gone wrong with Bishop Williamson and left-off trying to defend him some time ago. Even Mr. Johnson has to admit, in presenting the quote, that: “the present version was lifted from Cathinfo, as Samuel’s blog has now been closed.” May all blogs go the same way. A pox on blogs, say I.
In any case, this was all thoroughly answered when it first appeared, and what was written back then still stands. We will not go over all the old ground: the attempt to make Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Williamson agree with each other is as hilarious as it is inept. Anyone who wishes to know more may wish to reread The Recusant 42, p.30 ff where it has been dealt with already.
No, Mr. Johnson. Finding one quote from Archbishop Lefebvre from the early days, a mere three and-a-half years into the life of the SSPX, a quote from so far back in time that Franco’s Spain and Salazaar’s Portugal were still in power when he said it, and the new Mass had still not yet been introduced in some parts of the world – that isn’t going to help you. Not least because Bishop Tissier’s biography of Archbishop Lefebvre makes it explicitly clear that not long after this his position hardened against the New Mass.
In passing, let me say that the analogy of poisoned meat has always struck me as one which doesn’t really work, whether Archbishop Lefebvre or anyone else is the one using it. Common sense ought surely to suggest that if you are starving, eating poison is hardly going to help matters. But I digress. We have no qualms in saying that we disagree with the opinion of Archbishop Lefebvre tentatively expressed in April 1974. Why? Because post- April 1974 and for the rest of his life, Archbishop Lefebvre disagreed with Archbishop Lefebvre, and rather more forcefully too!
That is without mentioning the fact that what Archbishop Lefebvre is clearly talking about and what Bishop Williamson has been talking about are different in a number of ways. Bishop Williamson wasn’t talking about what one might be allowed to do in extremis; he wasn’t talking about someone who has no other alternative (the person whom he was addressing had already admitted to having a weekly Traditional Mass nearby). He didn’t just “slip on a banana skin” as one priest would have it.
He didn’t give an ill-advised permission just the one time. Nor did he content himself with the notion that grace can pass through the New Mass in some circumstances. On the contrary, over the months which followed, he would go on to reiterate and develop his novel pro- New Mass thesis in talk after talk and in several Eleison Comments emails, none of which have ever been addressed by Sean Johnson (or Samuel Loeman, or Fr. MacDonald… or any of Bishop Williamson’s would-be defenders, from what I can see.) To add to Mahopac, New York, we also have Vienna Virginia; and Veneta Oregon; and Houston Texas; and Emmett Kansas… we could go on. And he doesn’t just say that it’s fine for conciliar Catholics to attend the New Mass. He explicitly says that Traditional Catholics can go there too and receive grace from the New Mass if they like, as long as they are “careful” and “judge the priest”(!) He tells his audience of Traditional Catholics that if their children and grandchildren end up keeping the Faith it will be by attending the New Mass. He also elaborates his notion that Our Lord positively does not want all those conciliar Catholics who attend the New Mass to become Traditional, but would rather save them in and through the new religion.
That is what Sean Johnson ought to be defending, and if he were honest, what he would be defending. But he isn’t honest. And not content with making a buffoon of himself in public in this unworthy cause a few years ago, he is still at it in private where he doubtless hopes nobody will notice and call him on his nonsense.
Were he honest, Sean Johnson would also begin by admitting frankly that Fr. Hewko’s position is no different to Bishop Williamson’s own position until relatively recently. He ought, were he honest, to let his reader know that Bishop Williamson used to say this concerning attendance at the New Mass:
“Take for instance the Novus Ordo Mass. The New Rite as a whole so diminishes the expression of essential Catholic truths...that it is as a whole so bad that no priest should use it, nor Catholic attend it. … if I say that the new Mass must always be avoided, I am telling the truth.”
(Eleison Comments #387 – emphasis ours)
“The New Mass is in any case illicit. In any case, it’s designed to please Protestants, it’s designed to undo Catholicism. It’s intrinsically offensive to God, it’s intrinsically evil. That’s how it was designed and that’s how it turned out. … If the New Mass is valid but illicit, may I attend? NO! The fact that it’s valid does not mean it’s ok to attend.”
(See audio recording, here)
Clearly the old Bishop Williamson disagrees with the new Bishop Williamson. But we aren’t allowed to disagree with the new Bishop Williamson.
In passing, I don’t recall Mr. Sean Johnson taking Bishop Williamson to task in public for saying this sort of thing back in the day. Why might that be, I wonder? Could it be that he used to agree with the old Bishop Williamson? And is he prepared to state now, unequivocally, that he regards the old teaching of Bishop Williamson as wrong, and that he was wrong too for agreeing with it?
Archbishop Lefebvre post-1974 doesn’t count!
As regards what Archbishop Lefebvre said post-1974, Sean Johnson has this to say:
“What changed in later years was not +Lefebvre’s theology (i.e., grace passes/grace does not pass), but his prudential directive regarding Novus Ordo Mass attendance (i.e., you can go/you cannot go).”
This sounds very much like the neo-SSPX when it tells people that they can get the experimental and unnecessary covid injections. It’s prudential, you see. The intelligent reader will suspect that the distinction is a bogus one. What we’re being asked to believe is that Archbishop Lefebvre maintained, to his dying day, that the new Mass is a source of grace, but that he decided nonetheless to tell people not to go, even if they had no other Mass available in the entire country.
Does that make any sense? Does that sound at all probable? Or could it be that there is no real distinction, that Sean Johnson is misusing the virtue of Prudence or doesn’t understand it correctly? Whereas Mr. Sean Johnson would have us believe that Archbishop Lefebvre, despite telling people not to go to the New Mass, in fact did not change “his theology (i.e. grace passes)” - in reality we see the Archbishop little more than two years later, declaring in front of a massive hall packed with thousands of faithful and all the world’s press taking down his every word in the hope of a juicy headline, that:
“…A union between the Church and the Revolution and subversion is, for the Church, an adulterous union, adulterous. And that adulterous union can produce only bastards. And who are those bastards? They are our rites: the rite of the Mass is a bastard rite, the sacraments are bastard sacraments – we no longer know if they are sacraments which give grace or which do not give grace.”
Does that not sound as though Archbishop Lefebvre, at the very least, is having serious doubts about whether there is any grace to be had from the “bastard rite of Mass”, and doubts serious enough to air them in front of the world? This is hardly the behaviour of one who held to his dying day the notion that grace always flows from the New Mass, as Mr. Sean Johnson would have us believe.
Could it perhaps be that Bishop Tissier de Mallerais was telling the truth when he wrote that, from 1974 onwards:
“Little by little the Archbishop’s position hardened: this Mass with its ecumenical rite was seriously ambiguous and harmful to the Catholic Faith.”
(Biography of Marcel Lefebvre, p.464 ff.)
Does that sound like a “prudential directive” (whatever that is supposed to mean!), or does it sound like a judgement regarding the New Mass itself?
To continue with Bishop Tissier’s account, he tells his reader that, from saying that one could assist occasionally at the New Mass, by the late 1970s Archbishop Lefebvre:
“considered that it was bad in itself and not only because of the circumstances in which the rite was performed (e.g. a table instead of an altar or communion in the hand.)”
(Ibid.)
…and that by 1981 Archbishop Lefebvre was writing to people that:
“This Mass is not bad in a merely accidental or extrinsic way. There is something in it that is truly bad.” (Ibid.)
Once again, is that a judgement about the New Mass itself? Or is it only a “prudential directive regarding Novus Ordo Mass attendance” from a man who is nonetheless convinced that the New Mass gives grace to those who assist at it? Why does Bishop Tissier nowhere indicate that, despite telling people those sorts of things, Archbishop Lefebvre nevertheless believed the New Mass to be a source of grace? Why is the reader left to take Sean Johnson’s word for it?
Besides, there remains the unfortunate fact that if, as our unfortunate buffoon maintains, a valid Novus Ordo Mass is an “infallible” source of grace, then one can’t very well tell people not to go. If on the other hand, one arrives at the conclusion that the New Mass is “intrinsically evil,” “intrinsically offensive to God,” “a schismatic rite,” “a danger to the Catholic faith” and something “in itself sinful” which “no faithful should attend,” then all huffing and puffing in the world about theology and prudential directives and “obices gratiae” and all the rest, won’t change the fact that it needs to be avoided; nor will it change the fact that for a supposedly “Traditional” bishop to go about advising unsuspecting souls that they should attend it as a means of obtain grace from it, is a serious lapse of charity, a serious delinquency and utterly indefensible.
As though his misrepresentation of Archbishop Lefebvre were not already misleading and dishonest enough, our buffoon rounds off this section of his deceit by dismissing out-of-hand as “sophistries” what he calls:
“the same old, well-refuted, out of context and/or misunderstood quotes from ‘Open Letter to Confused Catholics’ and/or ‘A Bishop Speaks’ ”
Coming from the man who was caught so flagrantly twisting Bishop Williamson’s own words to make them seem the opposite of what they in fact said (as noted above in the introduction), nobody need take any lessons in “sophistries” or “out of context quotes” from Sean Johnson! Besides which, we
have already provided three quotes above from Bishop Tissier’s biography of Archbishop Lefebvre, so it will be interesting to see the knots he ties himself into trying to claim that those words are “misunderstood”; but in the meantime, here is one such quote. Perhaps this is what he has in mind?
“The New Mass, even when said with piety and respect for the liturgical rules, is [still] impregnated with the spirit of Protestantism. It bears within it a poison harmful to the Faith.”
(Open Letter to Confused Catholics, p.29)
Surely the meaning is quite clear. What is there to misunderstand there? What possible context could convert the Archbishop’s clear meaning into anything other than what he plainly says?
Or perhaps what he had in mind was the following:
“Your perplexity takes perhaps the following form: may I assist at a sacrilegious Mass which is nevertheless valid, in the absence of any other, in order to satisfy my Sunday obligation?
The answer is simple: these Masses cannot be the object of an obligation; we must moreover apply to them the rules of moral theology and canon law as regards the participation or the attendance at an action which endangers the faith or may be sacrilegious.
The New Mass, even when said with piety and respect for the liturgical rules, is subject to the same reservations since it is impregnated with the spirit of Protestantism. It bears within it a poison harmful to the faith. That being the case the French Catholic of today finds himself in the conditions of religious practice which prevail in missionary countries. There, the inhabitants in some regions are able to attend Mass only three or four times a year. The faithful of our country should make the effort to attend once each month at the Mass of All Time, the true source of grace and sanctification, in one of those places where it continues to be held in honour.”
(Ibid., Ch.4)
Are those words somehow “out of context?” Or perhaps what he has in mind is this?
“It must be understood immediately that we do not hold to the absurd idea that if the New Mass is valid, we are then free to assist at it. The Church has always forbidden the faithful to assist at the Masses of heretics and schismatics, even when they are valid. It is clear that no one can assist at sacrilegious Masses or at Masses which endanger our Faith.”
(Archbishop Lefebvre, 08/11/1979)
And yet that “absurd idea” is precisely what Sean Johnson is asking us to accept, and claiming that it is the infallible teaching of the Council of Trent, too! (People with poor reading comprehension should not presume to tell others what the Council of Trent really means!)
And here is some more Archbishop Lefebvre, this time not from the two sources about which our buffoon has complained (notice the way he tried sneakily to rule them out in advance! What is that, if not deceitful?) Ask yourself whether these words are in any way “out of context” or “misunderstood,” or whether, on the contrary, the Archbishop is perfectly capable of making himself quite clear and only a deceitful buffoon would pretend not to understand.
“So, I also advise you to have this in your library, this book by Salleron, and to give it to the people who are hesitant, who say: ‘But, even so, we know brave priests who are good and who are trying to say the New Mass well etc.…’ Read this! You will see! It is the New Mass in itself! It is not about the priest who is saying it. It is not because he says it piously or anything that the new rite changes.
…
Because people are still asking us those questions: ‘I don’t have the Mass of St. Pius V on Sunday, and there is a Mass said by a priest that I know well, a holy man, so, wouldn’t it be better to go to the Mass of this priest, even if it is the New Mass but said with piety, instead of just staying away?’
No! That’s not true! That is not true! Because this rite is bad, is bad, is bad! This is the reason why this rite is bad, it is poisoned! It is a poisoned rite! Mr. Salleron says it very well here: ‘It is not a choice between two rites that would be good! This is a choice between a Catholic Rite and a practically Protestant rite!’ It’s harmful to our Faith, the Catholic Faith! So, it is out of the question to encourage people to go to Mass in the New Rite, because slowly, even without realizing it, they end up ecumenist! It’s strange, but it’s like that. It is a fact.”
(Conference at Écône, 11th April, 1990)
Here, moreover is Bishop de Castro Mayer, writing to his friend Archbishop Lefebvre.
“It seems to me preferable that scandal be given rather than a situation be maintained in which one slides into heresy. After considerable thought on the matter, I am convinced that one cannot take part in the New Mass, and even just to be present one must have a serious reason. We cannot collaborate in spreading a rite which, even if it is not heretical, leads to heresy. This is the rule I am giving my friends.”
(Bishop de Castro Mayer, Letter to Archbishop Lefebvre, 29th Jan. 1970)
By the 1980s, Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer were working openly together, sending joint letters of protest to Rome and happily allowing the world’s press to associate the two of them. Here it seems that Bishop de Castro Mayer did not take as long as Archbishop Lefebvre to “harden” against the New Mass, but there can be little doubt that by the 1980s they were in agreement and not record exists of Archbishop Lefebvre expressing disagreement with his comradein-arms on the question of the New Mass and its attendance.
Claiming Michael Davies as an ally?
When Fr. Hewko points out that “Abp. Lefebvre said that he believed the New Mass doesn't fulfil the Sunday obligation” (which is true, he did say that, again and again, as did the SSPX! See below…), Sean Johnson is so desperate to twist Archbishop Lefebvre into Bishop Williamson’s (new) image and likeness, that rather admitting the obvious truth of Fr. Hewko’s claim, he resorts to a quote from Michael Davies in the year 1980 to try to show that, in fact, Archbishop Lefebvre never really meant to say such a thing!
But - would you believe it? - this very quote of Michael Davies has already been dealt with by none other than… guess who..?!? That’s right! …Bishop Williamson! From way back in 1996, we read:
“Q: But does not Michael Davies say that attending the Novus Ordo Mass fulfils one’s Sunday duty? And that Archbishop Lefebvre said the same thing?
A: When Michael Davies says it, it is because he claims that the officially promulgated Novus Ordo Mass cannot be intrinsically evil, otherwise the Catholic Church would be defectible.
When Archbishop Lefebvre said it, he meant that the Novus Ordo Mass is objectively and intrinsically evil, but Catholics unaware of, or disbelieving in, that evil, because of the rite’s official promulgation, may subjectively fulfil their Sunday duty by attending the new Mass. The third Commandment says, thou shalt keep the Sabbath holy, not, thou shalt attend a semi-Protestant Mass.”
(Bishop Williamson, Letters of the Rector of St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, December 1, 1996)
Remember that Archbishop Lefebvre himself said in one of his later conferences that the New Mass:
“…does not oblige under pain of grave sin. We are never forced to do something which would tend to diminish our Faith. It’s not possible. God cannot force us to do that. On the other hand, we are seriously obliged to do everything possible to attend the Mass of St. Pius V, the Catholic Mass. There, the obligation remains, but not for a rite that is almost Protestant. On the contrary, there is an obligation not to go.”
(Écône, 11th April, 1990 – emphasis ours)
Compare with the Bishop Williamson of 2022 who positively advises even traditionally-minded souls who have begun to understand the great evil of the New Mass, that they should find a “decent Novus Ordo priest” somewhere nearby, even if it is one who is “forced to say the new Mass”.
Condemning the late Fr. Pulvermacher OFM
The late Fr. Carl Pulvermacher OFM was regarded, rightly, as a giant of the early decades of the SSPX and one of the ‘founding fathers’ of its apostolate in the USA, a man to whom many souls today owe a great deal for having helped their parents and grandparents, and in some cases, great-grandparents, to return to Tradition.
But Sean Johnson knows better. And with the supercilious air of superiority proper to one who has acquired a little learning and as a result thinks he knows it all, he proceeds to belittle and chastise this great man and to pour scorn on the memory of him.
“Fr Hewko,” he informs his reader, “thinks to find an ally in the independent Capuchin, Fr. Carl Pulvermacher (an early editor of the Angelus).”
First of all, Fr. Hewko doesn’t “think to find” an ally in Fr. Pulvermacher: he does find an ally in him. Secondly, Fr. Carl Pulvermacher wasn’t as “independent” as all that. He worked hand-in-glove with the SSPX from the very early days. He lived in a property of the SSPX, at Queen of Angels in Dickinson, Texas, until 1991, and The Angelus of which he was editor, was a publication of the SSPX, the main publication really. And he wasn’t just “an early editor” – he was the founder the one who ran it for the better part of two decades. When he died in 2006, it was none other than Bishop Williamson who said his requiem, again in the SSPX church in Dickinson, Texas. Fr. David Hewko was also present along with several other SSPX priests, and helped shovel the dirt onto Fr. Pulvermacher’s coffin at the end of the ceremony.
Mr. Johnson is forced to admit that what Fr. Pulvermacher wrote in The Angelus (and more than once, it ought to be added) concerning the New Mass is the same as what Fr. Hewko says: no grace to be had, it’s not Catholic, don’t go there.
And since he is clearly unable to accuse Fr. Pulvermacher of sedevacantism, he instead tries to focus the attention of his reader on the fact that there were some laity who found Fr. Pulvermacher’s statements controversial. Fr. Pulvermacher, he tells us, “ended up on the receiving end of the ire of orthodox traditionalists who knew better.”
And again:
“What Fr. Hewko does not mention is the scandal that [Fr. Pulvermacher’s] response generated, including responses from several Angelus readers (correctly) alleging that his opinion was heretical.”
Oh really, “several” readers? How many, exactly? Two? Three? Four perhaps? Alleging correctly that what Fr. Pulvermacher wrote (more than once!) was heretical? Did any of Fr. Pulvermacher’s fellow priests write and tell him that he was spreading heresy? Virtually all the priests of the North American SSPX, as well as others in England, Australia and elsewhere would surely have been readers of The Angelus and would therefore have read these “heretical” words too – did they write in protest? Perhaps they all told their faithful not to read The Angelus any more, and told their chapels not to sell it in the repository? What about Fr. Pulvermacher’s superiors in the SSPX? One cannot have a priest spreading heresy in his publication and defending it! Did they rebuke him for his “heretical” obstinacy? Perhaps they removed him as editor and transferred him to somewhere where he could do less harm and perhaps be re-trained and shown the error of his ways? Did they make The Angelus magazine publish a correction in subsequent issues, stating clearly that the New Mass does “infallibly” give grace, that to say otherwise is “heretical” and apologising for the “heretical” words of its erstwhile editor? No? Hm. I wonder why not.
Who were these “several” faithful, what were their names? Surely these unsung heroes deserve to go down in the annals of Catholic history for being the only ones to spot heresy when so many others, including every one the priests of the SSPX, had failed to do so!
What are the chances that, as is usually the case, there were one or two newcomers to Tradition who, although having a great love for the Traditional Mass, yet still for whatever reason did not fully grasp the problem of the New Mass or the seriousness of the evil which they had just left behind? That couldn’t possibly be what really happened, could it?
Of course not. Sean Johnson knows better than Fr. Pulvermacher, he knows better than Fr. Pulvermacher’s superiors, he knows better than every one of those SSPX priests who buried Fr. Pulvermacher including Fr. Hewko. And for all that Sean’s former playmate Samuel Loeman used to shout and scream that The Recusant accuses everyone of heresy left, right and centre (which was never true and still isn’t), yet here we see a real-life, genu-wine example of a layman, an ignorant layman who because he has a little learning think he knows it all, a layman who is on a holy crusade to defend a man whom he thinks can do no wrong, accusing of heresy a genuinely holy priest who was a pillar and foundation of the SSPX in the USA. If only Fr. Carl Pulvermacher had had Sean Johnson there alongside him in the 1970s and 80s to correct him and put him right! He continues:
“The point being that Fr. Hewko had to go all the way back nearly 40 years to find another non-sedevacantist priest who shared his opinion prior to +Williamson’s 2015 Mahopac comments, and this priest appears to have made the same error as Fr. Hewko.”
Or it could be that Fr. Pulvermacher made no error. Has that occurred to anyone? Of course it hasn’t. Because then we’d have to admit that what Sean Johnson’s hero said was, er, wrong. Notice also the sly innuendo. Fr Hewko is trying “…to find another non-sedevacantist priest” who agrees with him. The clear implication being that there may be others more recent, or even current, who agree. But they don’t count, being sedevacantist. Who are they? We don’t know. Sean Johnson is potentially accusing quite a few priests of being sedevacantist but he names no names and provides no evidence. He just allows the shadow of suspicion to fall over every one of them. This is the level of charity, the level of honesty with which we are faced. Is it only the late Fr. Pulvermacher who agrees with Fr. Hewko?
The claim that Fr. Hewko’s having quoted from Fr. Pulvermacher must be because no other priest in almost forty years would have agreed is a laughable fantasy, a fantasy in which we are invited to believe that every single SSPX priest for forty years has been thinking and talking about the New Mass exactly along the lines of Bishop Williamson and his court jester.
“That’s why he had to go back 40 years to find an ally in Fr. Pulvermacher.” And what about all the priests alive today who agree with Fr. Hewko? What about Dom Rafael Arizaga OSB, who says the same? Does he not count? What about Fr. Hugo Ruiz? What about Fr. Sretenovik? Or Fr. Vargas? Or Fr. Persie? Or Fr. de Merode? Are they all sedevacantists? Even Fr. Edward MacDonald himself, though he now promotes Sean Johnson’s writings, as recently as 2016 emphatically disagreed with him (see below).
What about Fr. Paul Kramer’s conference in 2013, laying out exactly how and why the New Mass is a totally illegitimate, schismatic, non-Catholic rite which nobody should ever attend? Why didn’t Sean Johnson object when it was published only a day or two later, or in the years immediately following? What about the conferences given around the year 2000 by the late Fr. Gregory Hesse? Was Fr. Hesse a secret sedevacantist, perhaps? Doubtless he too would have benefitted from having Sean Johnson by his side to point out how “heretical” he was being! Was Fr. Gaudron, when he published his Catechism of the Crisis in the Church also a sedevacantist? Was he also writing and publishing heresy? And when Angelus Press translated it into English and sold it worldwide, were they all guilty of being “heretical” too? Perhaps the ghost of Fr. Carl Pulvermacher lived on at Angelus Press!
Likewise, the old SSPX - by Sean Johnson’s standard, we ought to condemn those priests as “heretical” or at best as having seriously misled the faithful. On the old US district website sspx.org (see below) we see the SSPX telling the faithful that the New Mass is: “a danger to our faith, and, as such, evil, given that it lacks the good which the sacred rite of Mass ought to have” and that, “any Catholic who is aware of its harm, does not have the right to participate.” This is in flat contradiction to Bishop Williamson’s teaching that “the New Mass is ambiguous [and] can be what you make of it: a priest can celebrate it decently, a faithful can attend it devoutly” and that therefore even a Traditional Catholic who is well aware of the evil of the New Mass can and sometimes should choose to attend it as a means of obtaining grace. Those two positions are irreconcilable.
Likewise, according to Fr. Peter Scott, the then- SSPX US District Superior, writing in 1997 in The Angelus, since the New Mass “is in itself sinful,” since “it is never permitted to knowingly and willingly participate in an evil or sinful thing,” that therefore “for a person aware of the sacrilege involved” in the New Mass or “who understands that the New Mass is insulting to Our Divine Saviour” to go there to get grace would be “opportunism … even if it were the only Mass available” because “the end does not justify the means.” What could be clearer? And yet that is precisely what Bishop Williamson continues to advise unsuspecting faithful to do! How can those two positions be reconciled? They cannot.
Either the New Mass is evil, a danger to our faith and something which we have no right to attend; or it is something which might be sufficiently good that we can and sometimes should attend it and get grace from it. But perhaps the SSPX was guilty of “heretical” teaching too? Perhaps Fr. Peter Scott lack the true and enlightened understanding of the Council of Trent as propagated by Mr. Sean Johnson? That at any rate would explain why for years and years they did nothing at all about the “heretical” teaching of one of their most respected priests, Fr. Carl Pulvermacher!
The old Bishop Williamson too, it seems, was in agreement with the old SSPX. Was the old Bishop Williamson, the one who used to teach that the new Mass is “intrinsically evil” and “intrinsically offensive to God” also guilty of “heretical” teaching? Or perhaps there is a way in which something intrinsically evil and intrinsically offensive to God can nevertheless be a source of grace which we should make use of in order to sanctify ourselves? When the old Bishop Williamson taught that, “the fact that it’s valid does not mean it’s OK to attend” – why didn’t some priest or other, or even Sean Johnson himself, step in and correct him and point out that the faithful can attend and can receive grace from attending (per the new Bishop Williamson)? Of course, if the old Bishop Williamson was also wrong on this point and in need of Sean Johnson’s correction, then that might explain why he was the one who offered a requiem for the “heretical” Fr. Pulvermacher at Dickinson, Texas in 2006.
Even the present day Avrillé Dominicans, of whom Sean Johnson used once to claim to be a supporter (and perhaps still does, for all I know), when asked about the new Mass by the faithful, responded with an article using a quote from Fr. Gaudron’s Catechism of the Crisis in the Church still visible on their website today, which states that:
“Even if the New Mass is valid, it displeases God [and] …must therefore be rejected. Whoever understands the problem of the New Mass must no longer assist at it … The new Mass is one of the principal sources of the current crisis of the faith. It is therefore imperative that we distance ourselves from it.”
Are the Avrillé Dominicans not aware that, according to the Council of Trent, the new Mass infallibly gives grace to all who attend it? Perhaps Sean Johnson should write and point it out to them, showing them how Fr. Gaudron got it so wrong. On the other hand, if they are aware, how can they be so foolish, so reckless as to tell people to that they must, as an imperative, distance themselves from and no longer assist at an “infallible” source of grace? It doesn’t really make any sense, does it?
Unless the old SSPX, the old Bishop Williamson, the Avrillé Dominicans, Fr. Hewko and Fr. Pulvermacher are all correct and it is Sean Johnson who has got it wrong. But that can’t be. Because then the new version of Bishop Williamson would also have to be wrong.
It’s ridiculous. If this is the sort of nonsense which Sean Johnson has become used to writing, no wonder he wants to keep it secret and prefers circulating it by private email to publishing it online where everyone can see! These are the depths of buffoonery and deceit to which the man is reduced by the overriding need to defend his Great Hero. Who knows what Bishop Williamson may come out with next, which Sean Johnson will then feel the need to attempt to defend!?
This latest piece of buffoonery finishes with a reference to Fr. Pfeiffer, whose relevance is less than clear, and an equally bizarre claim that he has not spoken to Fr. Hewko since “Fr. Hewko … and Fr. Pfeiffer went to war with +Williamson nearly two years before Mahopac.” My memory of that time is still fairly lucid: I was in contact with all the parties mentioned both in person and at a distance and I am certain that nobody had “gone to war” with anybody. I’m not quite sure whether Sean has acquired faulty information from somewhere or if it is perhaps his memory playing tricks on him. And if it is true, as he seems to imply, that he has refused even to speak to Fr. Hewko since 2013, then that is a scandal in its own right. Bishop Williamson’s public delinquency at Mahopac took place in June 2015. Just under two years prior would bring us to August or perhaps September 2013. September 2013 was when the seminary in Kentucky, founded at the suggestion of Bishop Williamson and with his promise of support, opened its doors for the first time. This seminary would then become Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko’s joint effort for a few years to come. In December 2013, Bishop Williamson paid it a friendly visit: a video of him offering Mass on their main altar and preaching the sermon is still around somewhere on the internet. Shortly after (perhaps early 2014) he also visited some of Fr. Hewko and Fr. Pfeiffer’s larger Mass centres in the United States and conferred the sacrament of confirmation. Shortly before he left to go to America, he preached a sermon in London in which he said that he supported Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko’s efforts and wished them luck. Plenty of people who were there will remember it, and again there is an audio recording somewhere. But Sean Johnson had already by that point decided that Fr. Hewko was reprobate and to be shunned? That may be true, though why he would want to brag about it is anybody’s guess.
In any case, he has already occupied far too much of my time and yours. He is a deceitful buffoon and the enabler of a delinquent and misleader of souls. He needs to stop writing this sort of garbage.
Sean, please, don’t embarrass yourself any further. Give it a rest.
Greg Taylor
Feast of the Blessed Martyrs of Douai
* * * * * * *
“His Excellency prefaced his remarks about the Novus Ordo Mass with the statement that what he was about to say was heresy for traditionalists.
Therefore, he has pre-judged and pre-condemned himself. He is guilty by his own admission. He said that he was going to stick his neck out and people
could chop it off. Thus he has given permission for people to attack what he has said. Those attacking him on this matter do so with his authorisation.”
(Fr. Edward MacDonald, letter to Sean Johnson, 2016)
“Objective truth is above masters and people alike, so that if the people have the truth on their side, they are superior to their Masters if the Masters do not have the truth. ... In brief, if they are right, they have the right.”
(Bishop Williamson, Eleison Comments #366)
“If you are following me, it is because you are following not me but true Catholic doctrine. If one day I cease giving you true Catholic doctrine or change what I teach, leave me!”
(Archbishop Lefebvre, in various conferences to his seminarians at Écône)
“In condemning us you condemn all your own ancestors - all the ancient priests, bishops and kings. … For what have we taught, however much you may qualify it…that they did not uniformly teach? To be condemned with these lights - not of England only, but of the world - by their degenerate descendants, is both gladness and glory to us. God lives; posterity will live; their judgement is not so liable to corruption as that of those who are now going to sentence us to death.”
(St. Edmund Campion)
“Woe to you who command others! If so many are damned by your fault, what will happen to you? If few out of those who are first in the Church of God are saved, what will happen to you?”
(St. Leonard of Port Maurice)
“I do not speak rashly, but as I feel and think. I do not think that many bishops are saved, but that those who perish are far more numerous.”
(St. John Chrysostom)
“If traitors have arisen from among the very clergy themselves, let not this undermine your confidence in God. We are saved not by names, but by mind and purpose, and genuine love toward our Creator.”
(St. Basil the Great)
“The fort is betrayed even of them that should have defended it.”
(St. John Fisher)
“We must remember that if all the manifestly good men were on one side and all the manifestly bad men on the other, there would be no danger of anyone, least of all the elect, being deceived by lying wonders. It is the good men, good once, we must hope good still, who are to do the work of Anti-Christ and so sadly to crucify the Lord afresh . . . Bear in mind this feature of the last days, that this deceitfulness arises from good men being on the wrong side.”
(Fr Frederick Faber)
“He that sees another in error and endeavours not to correct it, testifies himself to be in error”
(St. Leo the Great)
“bonum est confidere in Domino quam confidere in homine.”
(Ps. 117, 8)
“haec dicit Dominus: maledictus homo qui confidit in homine, et ponit carnem brachium suum, et a Domino recedit cor eius.”
(Jer. 17, 5)
What has become of Fr. Edward Macdonald?
Back in 2016, when Sean Johnson first wrote an article attempting to defend Bishop Williamson’s new teaching on the Novus Ordo, Fr. MacDonald responded with a letter to him which ran thus:
Quote:“Dear Mr. Johnson, I do not understand why you are defending Bishop Williamson.
• His Excellency prefaced his remarks about the Novus Ordo Mass with the statement that what he was about to say was heresy for traditionalists. Therefore, he has pre-judged and pre-condemned himself. He is guilty by his own admission.
• He said that he was going to stick his neck out and people could chop it off. Thus he has given permission for people to attack what he has said. Those attacking him on this matter do so with his authorisation. Therefore we should not think that we have to counter their arguments. It is curious that being an Englishman he did not offer to be hanged, drawn and quartered, rather than having his head chopped off which is more appropriate for a Frenchman.
In my view these two reasons preclude a defence of His Excellency.
• His Excellency said that the Novus Ordo Mass was designed to destroy faith. There is plenty of empirical evidence to show that is was well designed and has successfully destroyed the faith of millions. Nothing is perfect and some people who attended the Novus Ordo Mass for many years managed to keep the faith. They are the exception. In those cases it is usually due to some other practise of theirs, e.g., morning and night prayers, the rosary, the little office…
Regarding the Archbishop Lefebvre quote, on page 2 of your document.
The Archbishop is talking about the pastoral care of one either saying the Novus Ordo Mass or actively assisting at it. He says that for some it may be NOT be subjectively a sin. It is OBJECTIVELY a sin. I would say that almost always someone attending the Novus Ordo Mass is not guilty of grave sin. If they knew it was evil they would not attend. (In the seminary we were taught that it is intrinsically evil.)
“We admit that there is serious matter (materia grave) and that there is full consent. But if there is no knowledge, no knowledge of the seriousness of the sin, then the person is not aware of the grave matter (materia grave). They do not commit a subjective sin.”
This is not at all what Bishop Williamson said.
Note also, that the Archbishop is speaking of people who are ignorant. This woman did not want to be ignorant. She wanted to know. Probably she expected and wanted His Excellency to tell her why she should not go to the Novus Ordo Mass. She was not completely ignorant as she did know about the traditional Mass and was at the Bishop’s conference.
Bishop Williamson’s Criterion
According to His Excellency how do we know if we can attend the Novus Ordo Mass. “IF it nourishes your Faith”. This criterion is no good. It cannot be assessed. How do I know if my Faith is nourished or not? I don’t know. I do not even know if I am in the state of grace. If I am not in the state of grace my faith is dead and cannot be nourished. If I am in the state of grace I am incapable of measuring my faith. Faith is a supernatural reality. While we are in the wayfarer state our minds are limited to what is sensible. We cannot measure supernatural things. Do I have “little faith” or do I have “great faith”? Do I have more faith today than yesterday? I don’t know.
We do know that Catholic sacraments infallibly give grace and with an increase of grace there is an accompanying increase of the virtues. Worthily receiving Holy Communion at the Traditional Mass certainly nourishes my faith. Also if I assist at Mass in a dignified manner with attention and devotion it will nourish my faith. This is not the case with the NO Mass.
Another quote from Archbishop Lefebvre more pertinent than yours.
“Your perplexity takes perhaps the following form: may I assist at a sacrilegious Mass which is nevertheless valid, in the absence of any other, in order to satisfy my Sunday obligation? The answer is simple: these Masses cannot be the object of an obligation; we must moreover apply to them the rules of moral theology and canon law as regards the participation or the attendance at an action which endangers the faith or may be sacrilegious.
The New Mass, even when said with piety and respect for the liturgical rules, is subject to the same reservations since it is impregnated with the spirit of Protestantism. It bears within it a poison harmful to the faith. That being the case the French Catholic of today finds himself in the conditions of religious practice which prevail in missionary countries. There, the inhabitants in some regions are able to attend Mass only three or four times a year. The faithful of our country should make the effort to attend once each month at the Mass of All Time, the true source of grace and sanctification, in one of those places where it continues to be held in honour.”
(Open Letter to Confused Catholics, Ch.4)
If we cannot attend the Novus Ordo Mass on days of obligation, a fortiori, we cannot attend it on weekdays.
The Novus Ordo Mass, even when said devoutly bears within it a poison harmful to the faith.
It poisons the faith. It is incapable of nourishing the faith. This was known long before Archbishop Lefebvre said it. Many priests who rejected the changes of the 60s already said this in 1969.
For many years, perhaps still now, the Novus Ordo Mass was/is said at Holy Family Church in Detroit, on the high altar, the priest having his back to the people, in Latin, following all the rules, with dignity and presumably devotion. The Communion rail is there and people kneel for Communion received on the tongue. However we cannot go there. Fr. Bonfil (I believe that is his Christian name) the priest there rejected all of the changes of the 60s. In the late 60s we traditionalists starting going there. However in about 1970 or 71 the Novus Ordo Mass was imposed on Holy Family Church. Fr. Bonfil left and cared of us traditionalists. He also invited the SSPX to come. When they came in 72 or 73 he retired to Italy. Fr. Bonfil taught that we could no longer attend Mass at Holy Family Church because now it was the Novus Ordo Mass. It is poison for the Faith. The answer to the question “if it nourishes your faith” is that the Novus Ordo Mass cannot and does not nourish anyone’s faith. Therefore it cannot nourish the woman’s faith.
Therefore she cannot go to it. In this case His Excellency gave bad advice. Most good priests do from time to time. The Church is infallible, priests and bishops are not. It is not a disaster because all traditional Catholics knew that he was wrong. Certainly none of the faithful in Ireland think him correct. [One woman] was certain that His Excellency was drunk when making these remarks.”
(Fr. Edward MacDonald, Letter to Sean Johnson - See The Recusant 36, p.35 ff.)
And yet now Fr. MacDonald recommends an article by the very same Mr. Johnson, seeking still to defend Bishop Williamson, an article which uses largely the same fallacious arguments reheated for the purpose.
Is this the same man? Or are we witnessing an example of what happens when one is offered by Providence an opportunity to defend the Faith in public and instead one chooses to keep silent through motives of cowardice or personal convenience? Either way, the alarming but undeniable fact is that Fr. MacDonald has changed, he has slid. As with Bishop Williamson, I think we’re going to have to agree with the old Fr. MacDonald and disagree with the new Fr. MacDonald. The old Fr. MacDonald was right. The new one is a liberal.
The Old SSPX:
“However, regardless of the gravity of the sacrilege, the New Mass still remains a sacrilege, and it is still in itself sinful. Furthermore, it is never permitted to knowingly and willingly participate in an evil or sinful thing, even if it is only venially sinful. For the end does not justify the means. Consequently, although it is a good thing to want to assist at Mass and satisfy one’s Sunday obligation, it is never permitted to use a sinful means to do this. To assist at the New Mass, for a person who is aware of the objective sacrilege involved, is consequently at least a venial sin. It is opportunism.
Consequently, it is not permissible for a traditional Catholic, who understands that the New Mass is insulting to Our Divine Savior, to assist at the New Mass, and this even if there is no danger of scandal to others or of the perversion of one’s own Faith (as in an older person, for example), and
even if it is the only Mass available.”
(Fr. Peter Scott, “Questions & Answers”, The Angelus, September 2002)
“Now, even if one wanted to contest the heretical elements of the New Mass, the sole refusal to profess Catholic dogmas quintessential to the Mass renders the new liturgy deficient. It is like a captain who refuses to provide his shipmen with a proper diet. They soon become sick with scurvy due, not so much to direct poison, as from vitamin deficiency. Such is the new Mass. At best, it provides a deficient spiritual diet to the faithful. The correct definition of evil – lack of a due good – clearly shows that the New Mass is evil in and of itself regardless of the circumstances. It is not evil by positive profession of heresy. It is evil by lacking what Catholic dogma should profess: the True Sacrifice, the Real Presence, the ministerial priesthood.”
(“Is the New Mass Legit” published on www.sspx.org May 25, 2011)
“[The New Mass is] a danger to our faith, and, as such, evil, given that it lacks the good which the sacred rite of Mass ought to have. By their fruits you shall know them:
We were promised the Novus Ordo Missae would renew Catholic fervour, inspire the young, draw back the lapsed and attract non-Catholics.
Who today can pretend that these things are its fruits? Together with the Novus Ordo Missae did there not instead come a dramatic decline in Mass attendance and vocations, an “identity crisis” among priests, a slowing in the rate of conversions, and an acceleration of apostasies? So, from the point of view of its fruits, the Novus Ordo Missae is not a rite conducive to the flourishing of the Church’s mission.
Does it follow from the apparent promulgation by the popes that the Novus Ordo Missae is truly Catholic? No, for the indefectibility of the Church does not prevent the pope personally from promoting defective and modernist rites in the Latin rite of the Church. Moreover, the Novus Ordo Missae:
• was not properly promulgated (and therefore does not have force of law; cf., [vi] above),
• the old Roman Mass (aka, the Tridentine or traditional Latin Mass) was not abolished or superseded in the constitution Missale Romanum, hence in virtue of the of Quo Primum (which de jure [by law] is still the liturgical law and therefore the offcial Mass of the Roman Rite), it can always be said (principle 19),
• and lastly, the constitution Missale Romanum does not engage the Church's infallibility.
Considering what has been said, are we obliged in conscience to attend the Novus Ordo Missae?
If the Novus Ordo Missae is not truly Catholic, then it cannot oblige for one’s Sunday obligation.
Many Catholics who do assist at it are unaware of its all-pervasive degree of serious innovation and are exempt from guilt. However, any Catholic who is aware of its harm, does not have the right to participate. He could only then assist at it by a mere physical presence without positively taking part in it, and then and for major family reasons (weddings, funerals, etc).”
“Consequently, the new missal no longer propagates the ‘lex credendi’ of the Church but rather a doctrine that smacks of heterodoxy. That is why one cannot say that the reformed rite of Mass of 1969 is ‘orthodox’ in the etymological sense of the word: it does not offer ‘right praise’ to God.
Equally, one cannot say that the rite of Mass resulting from the reform of 1969 is that of the Church, even if it was conceived by churchmen. And lastly, one cannot say that the new missal is for the faithful ‘the first and indispensable source of the true Christian spirit,’ where the Church
‘communicates in abundance the treasures of the depositum fidei, of the truth of Christ.’ In light of these serious deficiencies, ‘the only attitude of fidelity to the Church and to Catholic doctrine appropriate for our salvation is a categorical refusal to accept this reformation.
(“The Problem of the Liturgical Reform”, The Society of St. Pius X, 2001, Angelus Press, 122ff. – emphasis ours)
“I affirm that the new rite of Mass does not, it is true, formulate any heresy in an explicit manner, but that it departs “in a striking manner overall as well as in detail, from the Catholic theology of the Holy Mass”, and for this reason the new rite is in itself bad.
That is why I shall never celebrate the Holy Mass according to this new rite, even if I am threatened with ecclesiastical sanctions; and I shall never advise anyone in a positive manner to take an active part in such a Mass.”
(Extract from an Oath taken by SSPX priests at their ordination – emphasis ours)
“Is it permitted to take part in the New Mass?
Even if the New Mass is valid, it displeases God in so far as it is ecumenical and protestant. Besides that, it represents a danger for the faith in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It must therefore be rejected. Whoever understands the problem of the New Mass must no longer assist at it, because he
puts voluntarily his faith in danger, and, at the same time, encourages others to do the same in appearing to give his assent to the reforms.
How can a valid Mass displease God?
Even a sacrilegious Mass celebrated by an apostate priest to mock Christ can be valid. It is however evident that it offends God, and it would not be permitted to take part in it. In the same way, the Mass of a Greek Schismatic (valid and celebrated according a venerable rite) displeases God insofar
as it is celebrated in opposition to Rome and to the unique Church of Christ.
Can one attend the New Mass however when it is celebrated in a worthy and pious manner by a Catholic priest with a faith that is absolutely certain?
It is not the celebrant who is called into question, but the rite that he is using. It is unfortunately a fact that the new rite has given very many Catholics a false notion of the Mass, which is closer to that of the protestant last supper than that of the Holy Sacrifice. The new Mass is one of the principal sources of the current crises of the faith. It is therefore imperative that we distance ourselves from it.”
Bishop Williamson: Then and Now
Then:
“The New Mass is in any case illicit. In any case, it’s designed to please Protestants, it’s designed to undo Catholicism. It’s intrinsically offensive to God, it’s intrinsically evil. That’s how it was designed and that’s how it turned out. … If the New Mass is valid but illicit, may I
attend? NO! The fact that it’s valid does not mean it’s ok to attend.”
“Take for instance the Novus Ordo Mass. The New Rite as a whole so diminishes the expression of essential Catholic truths...that it is as a whole so bad that no priest should use it, nor Catholic attend it.”
(Eleison Comments #387)
Now:
“I do not say that every person should stay away from every single Novus Ordo Mass.”
(Mahopac, New York, July 2015)
“I do not say to everybody inside the Novus Ordo, priests and laity, I don’t say: ‘You’ve got to get out!’ ”
(St. Catherine’s Ontario, Canada, Nov. 2014)
“I’m sure you ask yourselves: What kind of world are my children going to have to grow up in? How are they going to keep the Faith? Very good question. By prayer and Charity and by frequenting the sacraments, so long as they are still available, so long as it’s at all still possible to reach the sacraments. And some Novus – I’ve got into quite a lot of controversy for saying this, but it’s true – there is no question that some Novus Ordo Masses are valid. And if they’re valid, if the consecration is valid, then it’s defined by the Council of Trent that grace passes, ex opere operato is the strict phrase.”
“Bishop Williamson: There are a number of decent priests still operating as decent priests inside the Novus Ordo… if you look somewhere in your area within reach of your car’s petrol tank, your gasoline tank, you will find, somewhere, you will find a decent Novus Ordo priest.
… I believe there are some who do understand it and who still want to practice as good priests. Now, they’re forced to celebrate the New Mass.
. . .
Interviewer: People who go to those [Novus Ordo] Masses, in the vast majority of cases, are of a liberal mindset, they go into the church and come out and answer a survey saying: abortion is acceptable in some circumstances, homosexuality is acceptable, this is acceptable. You, your excellency, are asking me, in this heresy, in this just absolute cesspool of heresy, to try to maybe find some priest which I don’t even think exists, to hear my confession. But to me it is so obvious that this whole thing is fake! How can I participate in it? It’s fake! This has nothing to do with Vatican I, it has nothing to do with the teachings of Pius X, it’s got nothing to do with Pius IX, it has nothing to do with Thomism. It’s Protestantism and Communism. So how can I even approach this as an honest Catholic?
Bishop Williamson: OK, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, I understand where you’re coming from. I only say, I think there’s a little more white around you and available if you look for it than you believe. … Now you say that the Novus Ordo is all completely gone and rotten. I understand and you can’t afford to eat a half-poisoned cake. I understand. But if the cake is halfpoisoned then there’s half of it that isn’t poisoned. … I’m obviously not pushing the new religion. What I'm saying is that there is still part valid in the new religion along side all that is fake. I may well admit readily that in many cases there’s much more fake than there still is validity. That’s not the question. The question is what you should do where you are. And have you got to stay away from every anything that’s got anything to do with the Novus Ordo. My answer to that absolute question is: no. You don’t have to stay absolutely away. I’m not saying follow the new religion. I’m saying you’re young and you’re strong, you can drive around the diocese. That SSPX priest probably knows some conservative priest in the area, probably. Ask him.”
(
Does the New Mass fulfil my Sunday Obligation?
“If the Novus Ordo Missae is not truly Catholic, then it cannot oblige for one’s Sunday obligation.”
(Most Asked Questions of the Society of St. Pius X, Angelus Press, 1997)
“Heresy, or whatever clearly favours heresy, cannot be matter for obedience.”
(Sixty-Two Reasons… by The Priests of Campos)
“These New Masses are not only incapable of fulfilling our Sunday obligation, but are such that we must apply to them the canonical rules which the Church customarily applies to communicatio in sacris with Orthodox Churches and Protestant sects. Must one conclude further that all these Masses are invalid? As long as the essential conditions for validity are present (matter, form, intention, and a validly ordained priest), I do not see how one can affirm this. ”
(Archbishop Lefebvre, 08/11/1979)
“We can exceptionally [attend the New Mass], as it Canon Law says for things like Orthodox ceremonies, for some reasons we can assist passively. For a wedding, funerals of parents or things like that, where we feel obliged to be present and we cannot do otherwise, we assist passively. We don’t receive communion, we are not participating in the Mass, but we are doing it more out of politeness towards the people who assist at it, than for assisting at the sacrifice of the Mass. Those are conditions that are already mentioned in Canon Law, the old Canon Law. But attending it as one’s Sunday Mass, no! It is better to stay home reading and going once a month. Make the effort to go once a month and do 100 km if necessary, to attend the Catholic Mass! Like in the missions, we were visiting our faithful’s three times a year. We could not do more! That was the average. This didn’t mean that they were bad Christians. They could not do otherwise. It is not an impossible thing.
People say: ‘But am I not committing a grave sin by not going to Mass?’ Not at that Mass! It does not oblige under pain of grave sin. We are never forced to do something which would tend to diminish our Faith. It’s not possible. God cannot force us to do that. On the other hand, we are seriously obliged to do everything possible to attend the Mass of St. Pius V, the Catholic Mass. There, the obligation remains, but not for a rite that is almost Protestant. On the contrary, there is an obligation not to go.
I’m a little surprised, you know. Sometimes, I receive a lot of requests for consultations from our priests who are in the priories and some are asking me: “What should one reply to a person who says he cannot have the Mass of St. Pius V and who believes that he is under the obligation to go to a New Rite Mass, said by a good priest, a serious priest who offers all the guarantees almost of holiness? etc.” But I don’t understand why they can’t answer this themselves! They don’t find the conclusion by themselves and they feel obliged to ask me such a thing. It’s incredible! So you see, there are still some who hesitate. This is unbelievable!”
(Archbishop Lefebvre, Conference at Écône, 11th April, 1990 – emphasis ours)
“So, if someone asks me: ‘I only have Mass of St. Pius V once a month. So what should I do on the other Sundays? Should I go to the New Mass if I do not have the Mass of St. Pius V?’ - I reply: ‘…Listen, I cannot advise you to go to something which is evil. Myself, I would not go because I would not want to take in this atmosphere. I cannot. It is stronger than me. I cannot go. I would not go. So I advise you not to go.”
(Archbishop Lefebvre, Spiritual Conference at Écône, 25th June, 1981)
“We understand quite well what troubles you may experience in the circumstances in which you are living, without a good Mass. In fact, in such cases Monseigneur Lefebvre recommends rather to stay at home and pray the rosary in the family and to read the old Mass in the missal than to go to a New Mass…”
(Response to a letter to Archbishop Lefebvre asking for advice, 27th April, 1982.
The “circumstances in which you are living” were that there was not a single traditional Mass in the entire country. See The Recusant 40 p.10.)
“That shows you why the new rite which Paul VI himself called: “Novus Ordo Missae,” the “New Order of Mass,” is not a work of the Church. And it cannot be considered the Latin Roman Rite, because the Latin Roman Rite is bound in the old Roman Missal. So what do you call it? Well I call it a schismatic new rite. What does schism mean? Schisma in Greek means a cut. You cut yourself off from the Church. … You cut yourself off from the Church, you leave the Church in short. A “schismatic act” is not necessarily a formal schismatic act by declaration, so that you can be considered a schismatic, but it is something that cuts off something with the Church. Now against Church Tradition and against the Council of Trent, against Quo Primum and against the interpretation of 400 years of Papacy, Paul VI wrote up a new rite. Therefore, that has to be considered a schismatic rite.”
“Paul VI came up with a new Protestant rite that was also written by six Protestant pastors who were present, but the point is that he did it, and the point is that this way he committed a schismatic act because that’s an act against the unity of the Church. Now, publishing a schismatic rite is bad enough in itself. Don’t forget that until Vatican II you were not allowed to satisfy your Sunday duty attending a Russian Orthodox or Greek orthodox Mass. Now, ever since the Great Schism in 1054 the Church has recognised the validity all the seven sacraments in both the Greek Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church. So the Church has recognised ever since the Great Schism that every single Russian Orthodox Mass presumably is valid. But you are still not allowed to satisfy your Sunday duty there, for a simple reason. The Russian Orthodox deny the Papal Infallibility, they deny the authority of the Pope, they deny the Immaculate Conception, they deny the Assumption. They deny all the Councils except seven or four; they fight each other [over whether to] accept the first seven or the first four Ecumenical Councils. They are heretics and schismatics, so you can’t go there. How can you fulfil your Sunday duty by attending an act that’s not pleasing to God? It’s absurd! Now the new Mass, the so-called “New Mass” of Paul VI, not only is schismatic, as you can see from the Council of Trent and what else I’ve said, it is also doubtful … So you can’t go there because it’s schismatic. You also can’t go there because it is doubtful. And that’s why, as Archbishop Lefebvre of blessed memory said you’d rather stay home than go to the New Mass.”
Fr. Carl Pulvermacher, OFM:
Q. “What was wrong with going to the Catholic Church on Sunday and Holy Days - refusing to pray or read Novus Ordo prayers, but reading and praying the true, traditional Mass prayers and not financially supporting them? Could I go to Church, ignore the changes, etc., and do what I have been for the past few years? I am not participating in their Novus Ordo Missae service, but attending church where this is going on.”
A. “Many Catholics there are who feel the way you do. Missing church on Sunday is frightening - a real shocker to most good Catholics. Shall we judge them severely - those Catholics who do this? I strongly recommend that people stay away from this new service, which is not our Mass. Going
unwillingly only encourages those who go along with it. Also, I believe the Novus Ordo is heretical and leads to apostasy from the Faith.”
Q. “We started going to our parish church (Novus Ordo, of course) on the Sundays there was no traditional Mass here. My question is this. Is it wrong to go to our parish church when the traditional Mass is only available so infrequently? Is it wrong to receive Communion or any other Sacrament in the Novus Ordo church? […]” S. P., Kasson, Minn.
A. “Here we get down to the bare facts. In all questions like this I always advise people to avoid attending the New Mass, as well as the altered Sacraments. I do not say they are always invalid. However, this alone doesn't make them good. The New Mass is not grace-giving. It is not our Catholic Mass. The only reason it was created was to destroy our true Mass.”
(The Angelus, March, 1984 )
Q. Several people objected to my saying, in last month's column, that the New Mass was not gracegiving. “It is heresy to hold a valid Mass is not grace giving.”
A. “First of all, there is a difference between validity and grace-giving. I believe the one may be present without the other. Surely, I do not claim that in every case the New Mass is invalid. I hate to make comparisons but I know you would agree that a valid Satanic mass (Black Mass) would not be grace giving.[…] I have yet to see a single Catholic who has truly benefitted from the New Mass. Never have I seen a Novus Ordo convent or a monastery where religious life was not in a state of decline. When we had the True Mass, normal progress was seen. When we adopted the Novus Ordo, we have seen normal decline. I dare any person - cleric or lay – to prove the grace-givingness of the New Ordo liturgy!”
(The Angelus, April 1984)
Q. “If I were to take your advice I would not attend a Mass from one year to another. If we lived in happier times and the Tridentine Mass was as available as the other, then I would go all the way with you. But, sad to say, this is not the case…I’m afraid if people took your advice they would eventually drift away from the Church and lose their faith...I am sorry to say that I believe your advice to be totally wrong and immeasurably harmful.” F. G., Hants, England.
A. “My advice was, and still is, the same. It seems to be insane to say: “Don't go to the Novus Ordo Mass even under the best of circumstances!" I do not deny that in some cases it could be valid. It might be said with some dignity by a validly ordained, sad, old priest. […] The devil hates our Holy Mass and he will do anything to stop it or slow it down. He can even make us feel sorry for the New Mass and for the good priests who obediently say it with sorrow. I am sure there are many good Catholics who go to it with sorrow because they want to be obedient children of Holy Mother Church. I will not judge them, or you - God knows all things. However, because of what I know of the New Mass, I shall never advise anyone to go to it, even if it is sometimes valid. I do not want to give advice that is wrong or harmful.”
(The Angelus, May 1984)
|
|
|
|
| 21 Things St. Louis de Montfort Said About the Rosary and Marian Devotion |
|
Posted by: Stone - 10-29-2022, 07:28 AM - Forum: The Saints
- Replies (1)
|
|
21 Things St. Louis de Montfort Said About the Rosary and Marian Devotion
![[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.michaeljournal.org%...ipo=images]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.michaeljournal.org%2Fimages%2Farticles%2F390%2Ftotus-tuus-ego-sum.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=1f90d285bd73907981deed7464e2641d412933cacc59378cf8ca8ccc775ba12d&ipo=images)
NCR | April 27, 2016
April 28 marks the 300th anniversary of the death of St. Louis Marie Grignion de Montfort, one of the most important promoters of Marian devotion, the Rosary, and consecration to Our Lady as a sure means of growing in grace and in love for Jesus her Son and our Lord. [...]
On this tercentenary of St. Louis de Montfort, his writings and teachings remain ever fresh and inspiring. Let’s look at 21 of them from his works Treatise of True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin, The Secret of the Rosary, and The Love of Eternal Wisdom.
(1) “It is through the most Blessed Virgin Mary that Jesus Christ came into the world, and it is also through her that he will reign in the world.”
(2) “Our entire perfection consists in being conformed, united and consecrated to Jesus Christ. Hence the most perfect of all devotions is undoubtedly that which conforms, unites and consecrates us most perfectly to Jesus Christ. Now, since Mary is of all creatures the one most conformed to Jesus Christ, it follows that among all devotions that which most consecrates and conforms a soul to our Lord is devotion to Mary, his Holy Mother, and that the more a soul is consecrated to her the more will it be consecrated to Jesus Christ.”
(3) “It would hardly be possible for me to put into words how much Our Lady thinks of the Holy Rosary and of how she vastly prefers it to all other devotions. Neither can I sufficiently express how highly she rewards those who work to preach the devotion, to establish it and spread it, nor on the other hand how firmly she punishes those who work against it.”
(4) “If priests and religious have an obligation to meditate on the great truths of our holy religion in order to live up to their vocation worthily, the same obligation, then, is just as much incumbent upon the laity — because of the fact that every day they meet with spiritual dangers which might make them lose their souls. Therefore they should arm themselves with the frequent meditation on the life, virtues and sufferings of Our Blessed Lord — which are so beautifully contained in the 15 mysteries of the Holy Rosary.”
(5) “If I were asked by someone seeking to honor our Lady, ‘What does genuine devotion to her involve?’ I would answer briefly that it consists in a full appreciation of the privileges and dignity of our Lady; in expressing our gratitude for her goodness to us; in zealously promoting devotion to her; in constantly appealing for her help; in being completely dependent on her; and in placing firm reliance and loving confidence in her motherly goodness.”
(6) “The Rosary is the most powerful weapon to touch the Heart of Jesus, Our Redeemer, who loves His Mother.”
(7) “If you say the Rosary faithfully until death, I do assure you that, in spite of the gravity of your sins you shall receive a never-fading crown of glory. Even if you are on the brink of damnation, even if you have one foot in hell, even if you have sold your soul to the devil as sorcerers do who practice black magic, and even if you are a heretic as obstinate as a devil, sooner or later you will be converted and will amend your life and will save your soul, if — and mark well what I say — if you say the Holy Rosary devoutly every day until death for the purpose of knowing the truth and obtaining contrition and pardon for your sins.”
(8) “If then we are establishing sound devotion to our Blessed Lady, it is only in order to establish devotion to our Lord more perfectly, by providing a smooth but certain way of reaching Jesus Christ.”
(9) “As she was the way by which Jesus first came to us, she will again be the way by which he will come to us the second time though not in the same manner.”
(10) “Since she is the sure means, the direct and immaculate way to Jesus and the perfect guide to him, it is through her that souls who are to shine forth in sanctity must find him. He who finds Mary finds life, that is, Jesus Christ who is the way, the truth and the life…Mary then must be better known than ever for the deeper understanding and the greater glory of the Blessed Trinity.”
(11) “In these latter times Mary must shine forth more than ever in mercy, power and grace; in mercy, to bring back and welcome lovingly the poor sinners and wanderers who are to be converted and return to the Catholic Church; in power, to combat the enemies of God who will rise up menacingly to seduce and crush by promises and threats all those who oppose them; finally, she must shine forth in grace to inspire and support the valiant soldiers and loyal servants of Jesus Christ who are fighting for his cause.”
(12) “Mary must become as terrible as an army in battle array to the devil and his followers, especially in these latter times. For Satan, knowing that he has little time—even less now than ever—to destroy souls, intensifies his efforts and his onslaughts every day. He will not hesitate to stir up savage persecutions and set treacherous snares for Mary's faithful servants and children whom he finds more difficult to overcome than others.”
(13) “Never will anyone who says his Rosary every day become a formal heretic or be led astray by the devil.”
(14) “Never will anyone who says his Rosary every day be led astray. This is a statement that I would gladly sign with my blood.”
(15) “When the Holy Rosary is said well, it gives Jesus and Mary more glory and is more meritorious than any other prayer.”
(16) “[True devotion to Our Lady] is trustful, that is to say, it fills us with confidence in the Blessed Virgin, the confidence that a child has for its loving Mother. It prompts us to go to her in every need of body and soul with great simplicity, trust and affection. We implore our Mother's help always, everywhere, and for everything. We pray to her to be enlightened in our doubts, to be put back on the right path when we go astray, to be protected when we are tempted, to be strengthened when we are weakening, to be lifted up when we fall into sin, to be encouraged when we are losing heart, to be rid of our scruples, to be consoled in the trials, crosses and disappointments of life. Finally, in all our afflictions of body and soul, we naturally turn to Mary for help, with never a fear of importuning her or displeasing our Lord.”
(17) “As all perfection consists in our being conformed, united and consecrated to Jesus it naturally follows that the most perfect of all devotions is that which conforms, unites, and consecrates us most completely to Jesus. Now of all God's creatures Mary is the most conformed to Jesus. It therefore follows that, of all devotions, devotion to her makes for the most effective consecration and conformity to him. The more one is consecrated to Mary, the more one is consecrated to Jesus.|
(18) “That is why perfect consecration to Jesus is but a perfect and complete consecration of oneself to the Blessed Virgin, which is the devotion I teach; or in other words, it is the perfect renewal of the vows and promises of holy baptism.”
(19) “By this devotion we give to Jesus all we can possibly give him, and in the most perfect manner, that is, through Mary's hands.
(20) “The Blessed Virgin, mother of gentleness and mercy, never allows herself to be surpassed in love and generosity. When she sees someone giving himself entirely to her in order to honor and serve her, and depriving himself of what he prizes most in order to adorn her, she gives herself completely in a wondrous manner to him. She engulfs him in the ocean of her graces, adorns him with her merits, supports him with her power, enlightens him with her light, and fills him with her love. She shares her virtues with him — her humility, faith, purity, etc. She makes up for his failings and becomes his representative with Jesus. Just as one who is consecrated belongs entirely to Mary, so Mary belongs entirely to him.”
(21) “St. Thomas assures us that, following the order established by his divine Wisdom, God ordinarily imparts his graces to men through Mary. Therefore, if we wish to go to him, seeking union with him, we must use the same means which he used in coming down from heaven to assume our human nature and to impart his graces to us. That means was a complete dependence on Mary his Mother, which is true devotion to her.”
|
|
|
|
| Vatican’s new synodal document calls for ‘female diaconate’ and ‘radical inclusion’ |
|
Posted by: Stone - 10-29-2022, 07:24 AM - Forum: Vatican II and the Fruits of Modernism
- No Replies
|
|
Vatican’s new synodal document calls for ‘female diaconate’ and ‘radical inclusion’
The Synod on Synodality, now officially extended until 2024, called for a 'permanent aggiornamento' in light of the Second Vatican Council.
![[Image: Synod-team-810x500.jpg]](https://www.lifesitenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Synod-team-810x500.jpg)
Pope Francis with the Synod team. L-R: Cdl. Jean-Claude Hollerich, Fr. Giacomo Costa, Cdl. Mario Grech, Bp. Luis Marín de San Martín, Sr. Nathalie Becquart. October 14, 2022.
Screenshot/Twitter
Oct 27, 202
VATICAN CITY (LifeSiteNews) – The Vatican has unveiled the document to guide the next stage of the Synod on Synodality, which presents calls for more inclusion of the divorced and “re-married,” LGBT groups, and proposes a “female diaconate.”
The 45-page document was presented at a press conference at the Holy See Press Office, October 27, by the Synod on Synodality team: Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich (relator general of the Synod), Cardinal Mario Grech (general secretary of the Synod of Bishops), Professor Anna Rowlands, Father Giacomo Costa (consulter of the General Secretariat of the Synod), and Monsignor Piero Coda (secretary general of the international theological commission).
READ: Head of German bishops’ conference says Vatican synod document is ‘encouragement’ for Synodal Way
Formation of document
The contents of the working Document for the Continental Stage of the Synod (DCS), entitled “Enlarge the space of your tent,” will now guide the next stage of the Synod on Synodality, which has been extended until 2024.
The document itself was compiled by a group of “experts,” theologians, laity, and bishops over the course of a number of days in September. As LifeSiteNews previously reported, these “experts” comprised a number of individuals who both oppose the Traditional Mass and support contraception.
The DCS is a summary of the numerous reports submitted by 112 of 114 bishops’ conferences, along with 17 of the 23 Roman Curial dicasteries, and from all of the Eastern Catholic churches.
The authors noted that the document is not “a conclusive document, because the process is far from over,” nor is it part of the “Church’s Magisterium, nor is it the report of a sociological survey.” Instead, “it remains a theological document in the sense that it is oriented to the service of the Church’s mission: to proclaim Christ dead and risen for the salvation of the world.”
READ: Pro-contraception theologian, controversial papal biographer writing key document for Synod on Synodality
Writing that the synod has so far produced “abundant fruits, new seeds that promise new growth,” the document added that “there is no lack of clear expressions of rejection,” with “skepticism about the actual effectiveness or even the intent of the synodal process” also expressed in the quotations drawn from the examined reports.
Church must be ‘more welcoming’ to LGBT and ‘remarried’
The document drew from the various diocesan reports to refer to groups of people who felt “neglected and excluded.” Among those who “feel a tension between belonging to the Church and the experience of their own affective relationships,” the document listed:
- remarried divorcees
- single parents
- people in polygamous marriages
- LGBTQ people, etc.
“All in need of a more welcoming Church,” the document stated.
READ: Vatican synod website celebrates homosexuality and child adoption by same-sex couples
Addressing such an aspect, Cardinal Grech stated during the press conference that “at this moment we are not taking any position” when asked about the pro-LGBT images shared by the synod’s social media accounts. Instead, he repeated that the synod was a process of being a “listening Church.”
Role of women and ‘female diaconate’
Much attention is given to the role of women in the new document, including calls for female ordination.
The document stated that there was a dual need to draw “men to a more active membership in the Church and enable women to participate more fully at all levels of Church life.”
Addressing the assembled media at the press conference, Rowlands stated that “the question of the diaconate for women came up repeatedly, across many, many reports.”
Rowlands was supported by the text of the DCS, which noted that many submitted reports:
Quote:[A]sk the Church to continue discerning on a series of specific issues, namely the active role of women in the governance structures of the Church bodies, the possibility for women with adequate training to preach in the parish setting, the female diaconate. Much more diverse positions are expressed with regard to the ordination of women to the priesthood, which some syntheses call for, while others consider the question closed.
The heterodox Women’s Ordination Conference welcomed these sections of the DCS saying that it was “encouraged” by the promotion of the “near universal calls for women in governance, women preachers, and ‘a female diaconate.’”
Pope John Paul II had already condemned female ordination, writing in his 1994 Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis: “I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”
The Polish pope also quoted from Pope Paul VI’s 1975 letter to the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, in which the former pontiff wrote that “the exclusion of women from the priesthood is in accordance with God’s plan for his Church.”
Questions of liturgy and Eucharist
The aspect of the Church’s liturgy was also addressed, with the DCS highlighting how the liturgy can be linked to “the situation of indigenous peoples. Their spirituality, wisdom and culture have much to teach us.”
Renewed calls for female roles in ministry were reflected in this aspect also, with the document stating that questions raised in the various reports ranged “from the redesign of a liturgy that is too centered on the celebrant, to the modalities of active participation of the laity, to the access of women to ministerial roles.”
READ: Cardinal Müller says Pope Francis’ Synod is a ‘hostile takeover of the Church’ in explosive interview
Additionally, the DCS stated that “many reports echo the pain of not being able to access the sacraments felt by remarried divorcees and those in polygamous marriages. There is no unanimity on how to handle these situations.”
Highlighting a report from the U.S., the document also noted that “many regret the restrictions on the use of the 1962 Missal.” This aspect, however, was not expanded upon or addressed further.
Synod a continuation of Vatican II’s ‘aggiornamento’
The Synod on Synodality has already been compared to the Second Vatican Council, and described by commentators as promoting a “parallel church.”
Such a description was supported by the text of the new document, which noted that the “conversion and reform” of the synod “translates into an equally continuous reform of the Church, its structures and its style, in the wake of the desire for a permanent ‘aggiornamento,’ a precious legacy of the Second Vatican Council to which we are called to turn on its 60th anniversary.”
In an apparent abandonment of adherence to Catholic doctrine or principles, the document stated, when describing the way forward, that:
Quote:The message of the synodal journey is simple: we learn to walk together and sit together to break the same bread, so that everyone can find their place. Everyone is called to take part in this journey, no one is excluded. This is what we feel called to do in order to credibly proclaim the Gospel of Jesus to all peoples. This is the road we seek to follow for the continental stage.
In what is one of the rare occasions of a description of synodality itself, the DCS outlines how the synod deals with the many “tensions” highlighted during the event: “[A] synodal spirituality can only be one that welcomes differences and fosters harmony, and that draws from the tensions the energy to move forward.”
Next steps in synodal process
The synod is still in a “listening phase,” said Anna Rowlands, with the next stages still being a continuation of this “listening.”
However, the DCS calls on the Church to already begin implementing a process of change: “All the institutions of the Church are called to question themselves on how to integrate the synodal impulse into the exercise of their functions and mission, renewing their structures and procedures or introducing new ones.”
Following the release of the new text, bishops around the world are now to draw up their own local reflections on the document.
After this, seven continental meetings of bishops’ conferences will take place, to be held in Africa, Oceania, Asia, the Middle East, Latin America, Europe, and North America.
With all the resulting documents from these meetings having been compiled, they will in turn form the basis of the working document (Instrumentum laboris) – finalized by June 2023 – for the Synod of Bishops to be held at the Vatican, October 4 through 29, 2023.
READ: Vatican’s Synod on Synodality will consult non-Catholics, lapsed Catholics
As with the original Preparatory Document, the DCS called for the futures stages of the synod to give “particular attention” also to “representatives of other religions and faith traditions; and of people without religious affiliation.”
|
|
|
|
| "Bravo, Fr. Hewko and Fr. Ruiz!" |
|
Posted by: Stone - 10-28-2022, 09:12 AM - Forum: Rev. Father David Hewko
- No Replies
|
|
Bravo, Fr. Hewko and Fr. Ruiz!
October 27, 2022 by Tony La Rosa
“We have to distance ourselves from these (False Resistance) bishops and wait for a better day.”
The above are the words of Fr. David Hewko in the sermon below. Father recounts that he and Fr. Hugo Ruiz have decided to distance themselves from the four False Resistance bishops (Bishops Williamson, Faure, Thomas Aquinas, and Zendejas). I was glad to hear a public and explicit statement from Fr. Hewko on this matter and his speaking on behalf of Fr. Ruiz. Thank you, Fathers.
I cannot leave out Fr. Rafael, O.S.B. He has been solid since the beginning in refusing to mingle with the False Resistance and publicly preaching the same.
|
|
|
|
| Abp. Viganò: The post-Vatican II church has almost entirely eclipsed the Church of Christ |
|
Posted by: Stone - 10-28-2022, 08:58 AM - Forum: Archbishop Viganò
- Replies (1)
|
|
Abp. Viganò: The post-Vatican II church has almost entirely eclipsed the Church of Christ
'There is something terribly self-centered, typical of Luciferian pride, in claiming to be better than those who preceded us.'
![[Image: vigano17322-810x500.jpg]](https://www.lifesitenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/vigano17322-810x500.jpg)
Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò
KCRD Radio 98.3 / YouTube
Oct 27, 2022
Editor’s Note: Below follows the full text of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò’s latest essay titled “REPETITA JUVANT: How with its own self-referentiality the ‘conciliar church’ places itself outside of the path of the Tradition of the Church of Christ.”
(LifeSiteNews) — With the prosopopoeia that distinguishes ideological propaganda, the recent Bergoglian panegyric on the occasion of the sixtieth anniversary of the Opening of the Ecumenical Council Vatican II did not fail to confirm, beyond the empty rhetoric, the total self-referentiality of the “conciliar church,” that is, of that subversive organization born almost imperceptibly from the Council and which in these sixty years has almost totally eclipsed the Church of Christ by occupying her highest levels and usurping her authority.
The “conciliar church” considers itself heir to Vatican II apart from the other twenty Ecumenical Councils that preceded it over the centuries: this is the main factor of its self-referentiality. It disregards them in the Faith, proposing a doctrine contrary to that taught by Our Lord, preached by the Apostles and transmitted by the Holy Church; it disregards them in Morality, derogating from principles in the name of situational morality; finally, it disregards them in the Liturgy, which as a prayerful expression of the lex credendi has wished to adapt itself to the new magisterium, and at the same time has lent itself as a most powerful instrument for indoctrinating the faithful.
The faith of the people has been scientifically corrupted through the adulteration of the Holy Mass carried out through the Novus Ordo, thanks to which the errors contained in nuce in the texts of Vatican II took shape in the sacred action and spread like a contagion.
But if on the one hand the “conciliar church” is keen to reiterate that it wants nothing to do with the “old Church,” and even less with the “old Mass,” declaring both of them distant and unproposable precisely because they are incompatible with the phantom “spirit of the Council;” on the other hand, it confesses with impunity the loss of that bond of continuity with the Traditio which is the necessary prerequisite – willed by Christ himself – for the exercise of authority and power by the Hierarchy, whose members, from the Roman Pontiff to the most unknown Bishop in partibus, are Successors of the Apostles and as such must think, speak, and act.
This radical break with the past – evoked in dark shades by the primitive speech of the one who coins neologisms such as “backwardness” and hurl anathemas against “grandmother’s lace” – is obviously not limited to external forms – with all that they are precisely the form of a very precise substance, not tampered with by chance – but extends to the very foundations of the Faith and the Natural Law, reaching a real subversion of the ecclesiastical institution, such as to contradict the will of the divine Founder.
To the question “Do you love me?” the Bergoglian church – but even before that the conciliar church, with less shamelessness, but always playing on a thousand distinctions – “questions itself about itself,” because “Jesus’ style is not so much to give answers, but to ask questions.” We might ask ourselves, if we take these disturbing words seriously, what does Divine Revelation and the earthly ministry of Our Lord, the message of the Gospel, the preaching of the Apostles and the Magisterium of the Church consist of, if not answering the questions of sinful man, who is himself to ask questions, to thirst for the Word of God, and needs to know eternal Truths and to know how to conform to the Will of the Lord to attain happiness in Heaven.
The Lord does not ask questions, but He teaches, admonishes, orders, and commands. Because He is God, King, Supreme and Eternal Pontiff. He does not ask us who is the Way, the Truth, the Life, but indicates Himself as the Way, the Truth, and the Life, as the Gate of the flock, as the Cornerstone. And in turn He emphasizes His obedience to the Father in the economy of Redemption, showing us His holy submission as an example to imitate.
Bergoglio’s vision overturns relationships and subverts them: the Lord asks Peter a question which Peter, in answering, knows very well what it means in practice to love Our Lord. And the answer is not optional, nor can it be negative or elusive, as the “conciliar church” does when – in order not to displease the world and not appear to be out of fashion – it gives greater importance to the seductions of transient and deceptive ideologies, refusing to transmit in its integrity what its Head has commanded it to teach faithfully. “Do you love me?” the Lord asks the inclusive Cardinals, the synodal Bishops, the ecumenical Prelates; and they answer like the wedding guests: “I bought a field, and I must go and see it; please consider me excused” (Lk 14:18). There are much more pressing, much more rewarding commitments from which to obtain prestige and social approval. There is no time to follow Christ, much less to feed His sheep, even worse if those sheep are stubborn in their “backwardness,” whatever that means.
For this reason, there are no other Councils except their Vatican II; which, by the fact of being the only one to which they appeal shows itself at the same time to be extraneous, if not completely opposite in form and content, to what all Ecumenical Councils are: the one voice of the one Master, of the one Shepherd. If the voice of their council is not compatible with that of the Magisterium that preceded it; if public worship cannot express itself in the traditional form because they consider it in contradiction with the “new ecclesiology” of the “new church,” the rift between before and after exists and is undeniable; and indeed, they are proud of it, presenting themselves as innovators of something that non est innovandum. And so that people do not see that there is a credible and safe alternative, everything that represents and recalls the past must be denigrated, ridiculed, trivialized and finally removed, being the first to apply that cancel culture that today has been adopted by woke ideology. From this we can understand the aversion to the ancient liturgy, to sound doctrine, to the heroism of holiness witnessed by works and not enunciated in fatuous soulless proclamations.
Bergoglio speaks of a “church that listens”; but precisely because “for the first time in history, it dedicated a Council to questioning itself, to reflecting on its own nature and mission,” he shows that he wants to do it himself, so that he can renounce the heritage of Tradition and deny his own identity, “for the first time in history,” precisely. This self-referentiality starts from the assumption of a “better” that is to be implemented in place of a “worse” that is to be corrected, and this does not concern the weaknesses and infidelities of its individual members, but “its own nature and mission,” which Our Lord has established once and for all and which it is not up to His Ministers to question. Yet Bergoglio affirms: “Let us return to the Council to come out of ourselves and overcome the temptation of self-referentiality, which is a worldly way of being,” while the principle of “returning to the Council” is precisely the most brazen proof of its self-referentiality and rupture with the past.
Thus the centuries of greatest expansion of the Church – during which it clashed with heretics and made more explicit the doctrine concerning the truths they challenged – are considered an embarrassing parenthesis of “clericalism” to be forgotten, because we find all those same errors in the deviations of the Council. The remote past – that of the supposed Christian antiquity, the “primitive centuries,” the “fraternal agape” – in the conciliar narrative is substantially a historical forgery, which deliberately hides the virile witness of the first Christians and their Pastors who were persecuted and martyred because of their Faith, their refusal to burn incense at the statue of Caesar, their moral conduct in contrast with the corrupt customs of the pagans. That consistent witness, even of women and children, should shame those who desecrate the House of God by worshipping the pachamama to indulge the Amazonian delusions of the green deal, giving scandal to the simple and offending the divine Majesty with idolatrous acts. Is it not this self-referentiality, which has now reached the point of violating the First Commandment in order to pursue its own ecumenical rantings?
Let us not be deceived by these seductive words, which are not thrown out casually: the Church of Christ has never been “self-referential,” but Christocentric, because She is the Mystical Body of which Christ is the Head, and without the Head She cannot subsist. On the other hand, its desolately worldly version, devoid of supernatural horizons, that defines itself as the “conciliar church” is inexorably self-referential. It exercises its power over the deception of presenting itself as a proponent of a return to the purity of its origins after centuries in which it supposedly closed itself in “in the enclosures of comforts and convictions,” and at the same time pretending to be able to adulterate the teaching that Christ commanded to transmit faithfully.
What supposed “comforts” have distinguished the two-thousand-year history of the Bride of the Lamb, if we look at the uninterrupted persecution She has suffered, the blood shed by Her martyrs, the battles waged against Her by heretics and schismatics, and the commitment of Her ministers to spreading the Gospel and Christian morality? And what possible difficulties can there be for a church that questions itself without any convictions, genuflects zealously to the demands of the world, follows green ideology and transhumanism, blesses homosexual unions, says it is ready to welcome sinners without any demand to convert them, and agrees with the powerful of the earth even in endorsing vaccination propaganda while hoping to survive on its own?
There is something terribly self-centered, typical of Luciferian pride, in claiming to be better than those who preceded us, wrongly reproaching them for an authoritarianism that the one who speaks is the first example of, with purposes diametrically opposed to the salvation of souls.
A further sign of self-referentiality is the desire to impose on the Church a democratic structure that subverts the essentially monarchical (indeed, I would say imperial) system desired by Christ. There is, in fact, a teaching Church (Ecclesia docens) composed of the Pastors under the guidance of the Roman Pontiff, and a learning Church (Ecclesia discens) composed of the People of God, the faithful. The cancellation of the hierarchical setting – which Bergoglio defines as “the ugly sin of clericalism that kills sheep, does not guide them, does not make them grow” – aims at another and much more serious deception, indeed at a real subversion within the ecclesial body: pretending to be able to share the power of those who have the responsibility of transmitting the authentic Magisterium with those who, not ordained and therefore not assisted by the grace of state, have the right to be led into safe pastures. The word magister carries within itself the ontological superiority – magis – of those who teach over those who learn what they are still ignorant of. And the shepherd certainly cannot decide along with the sheep in which direction he will take them, because as a flock they do not know where to go and are exposed to the assaults of wolves. To make believe that questioning oneself “about one’s own nature and mission” can represent a return to one’s origins is a colossal lie: “You are my friends if you do what I command you,” Christ said (Jn 15:14). And so must His Ministers also command, who as such, as long as they remain subject to Him, exercise the vicarious authority of the Head of the Mystical Body. They are Ministers (from minus, indicating hierarchical inferiority) in the etymological sense of servants, subject to the authority of their Master; so that the Catholic hierarchy is Magistra in teaching only what as Ministra she has received from Christ and jealously guards.
We have confirmation of this democratic and anti-hierarchical vision of the “conciliar church” above all in its liturgy, in which the ministerial role of the celebrant is almost denied in favor of the “priestly people” theorized by Lumen Gentium and put in black and white in the heretical formulation of art. 7 of the Institutio Generalis of the Montini Missal of 1969: “The Lord’s Supper, or Mass, is the sacred synaxis or assembly of the people of God, presided over by the priest, to celebrate the Lord’s memorial. Christ’s promise therefore applies eminently to this local assembly of Holy Church: ‘Where two or three are gathered in my name, I am in the midst of them’ (Mt 18: 20).” What is this, if not self-referentiality to the point of modifying the very definition of the Mass along the lines of that “spirit of the Council” and in contradiction with the dogmatic Canons of the Council of Trent and of the entire Magisterium prior to Vatican II?
The Church is not and cannot be democratic or “synodal” as some like to euphemistically call her today: the holy People of God does not “exist to shepherd others, all others,” but rather so that there may be a Hierarchy that assures them of the supernatural means to reach the eternal goal, and so that “all others” – many, but not all – may be led into the one fold under the guidance of the one Shepherd by God’s Providence. “And I have other sheep that are not of this fold; these also I must lead” (Jn 10:16).
The strong denunciation made by Cardinal Mueller of the threat posed by the heretical approach of synodality – whose ominous fruits are already visible – is justified in this sense and testifies to the grave malaise of so many Pastors torn between fidelity to Catholic orthodoxy and the evidence of the betrayal taking place by its most unworthy contemporary custodians. They could perhaps not have been against the “conciliar church” and against the “council” – in quotation marks – until its devastating impact on the life of the individual members of the faithful, on the entire ecclesial body and on the world became evident. But today, faced with the evidence of the most complete and disastrous failure of Vatican II and the unfortunate choice to abandon Sacred Tradition, even the most prudent and moderate are forced to recognize the very close correlation between the goal that was set, the means that were adopted and the result that was obtained. Indeed, precisely in consideration of the goal it wanted to achieve, we should ask ourselves if what was enthusiastically announced to us as a “conciliar springtime” was not a pretext, behind which in reality the unspeakable plan against the Church of Christ was hidden. The faithful not only do not participate with greater awareness in the Holy Mysteries as they had been promised, but have come to consider them superfluous, bringing attendance at Mass to the lowest levels. Nor can it be said that young people find anything exciting or heroic in embracing the priesthood or religious life, since both have been trivialized, deprived of their specificity, of the sense of offering and sacrifice after the example of Our Lord, which every truly Catholic action must bring with it. Civil life has become barbaric beyond words, and along with it public morality, the sanctity of marriage, respect for life and the order of Creation. And these propagandists of Vatican II respond with the challenges of bioengineering, of transhumanism, dreaming of mass-produced beings connected to the global network, as if manipulating human nature were not a satanic aberration unworthy even of hypothesis. We hear them pontificate that “the exclusion of migrants is disgusting, it is sinful, it is criminal,” while NGOS, Caritas, and welfare associations profit from the trafficking of illegal immigrants at the expense of the State and refuse to welcome Italians themselves, who have been abandoned by the institutions and harassed by the crises induced by the System. They urge “sovereignist” nations to disarm and make citizens ashamed of their identity, but theorize the lawfulness of sending weapons to Ukraine, to a government that is a puppet of the New World Order, financed by globalist bodies and major elite organizations.
Another very serious theological error that adulterates the true nature of the Church lies in the essentially secularist foundations of conciliar ecclesiology, not only with regard to the vision of the institution and its role in the world, but also for having broken the bond of hierarchical complementarity between the spiritual authority of the Church and the civil authority of the State, both of which have their origin in the Lordship of Christ. This theme, apparently complex in its almost initiatory treatment by the scholars of Vatican II, was the subject of a recent intervention by Joseph Ratzinger (here) which I plan to address in a separate essay.
“You who love us” – said Bergoglio in his homily for the “Memorial of Saint John XXIII” – “free us from the presumption of self-sufficiency and from the spirit of worldly criticism. Prevent us from excluding ourselves from unity. You who lovingly feed us, lead us forth from the enclosures of self-referentiality. You who desire that we be a united flock, save us from the forms of polarization and the “isms” that are the devil’s handiwork.” These are words of an unheard of impudence, almost mocking. Well, the time has come for the clerics and faithful of the “conciliar church” to ask themselves whether the “conciliar church” is not the first one to presume that it can be self-sufficient, to feed worldly criticism by mocking good Catholics as rigid and intolerant, to deliberately exclude itself from unity in Tradition, and to proudly sin by self-referentiality.
+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop
|
|
|
|
| EU commits to possibility of future COVID lockdowns, mask mandates with ‘legally binding’ treaty |
|
Posted by: Stone - 10-27-2022, 02:14 PM - Forum: Global News
- No Replies
|
|
EU commits to possibility of future COVID lockdowns, mask mandates with ‘legally binding’ treaty
The document emphatically reinforces the EU’s commitment to a new “legally binding” pandemic treaty with a “reinforced WHO at its centre”
and commits over half a billion euros to making it happen.
![[Image: shutterstock_1995561578-810x500.jpg]](https://www.lifesitenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/shutterstock_1995561578-810x500.jpg)
Rarrarorro/Shutterstock
Oct 27, 2022
(The Daily Sceptic) – The European Union (EU) has set out its commitment to the continued use of lockdowns, mask mandates, vaccine passports, and other restrictions this winter to control the spread of COVID-19, and also to the creation of a “legally binding” global pandemic treaty with a “reinforced WHO at its centre.”
The document, published on September 2 and titled “EU response to COVID-19: preparing for autumn and winter 2023,” was prepared by the EU Commission (the EU executive) and sent to the EU Parliament. It reveals how much in thrall to the new biosecurity orthodoxy the EU leadership is and bodes ill for the future management of contagious disease in the bloc and globally.
On lockdowns and other restrictions, it proposes a framework of “key indicators to assess when deciding on reintroducing non-pharmaceutical measures.” These indicators include severe disease and hospital occupancy data, and importantly are stated to relate not just to COVID-19 but to influenza as well, making this potentially part of normal winter disease management, continuing indefinitely.
It suggests mask mandates as a “first option to limit community transmission,” giving a preference for FFP2 masks.
Quote:[Face mask] use in closed public spaces, including public transport, can be a first option to limit community transmission. Recent evidence shows that FFP2 face masks, which are readily available in the EU/EEA, have a stronger protective effect than medical masks or cloth masks in the community. Member States are therefore strongly encouraged to consider their use in specific settings.
The document recommends the pre-emptive imposition of work-from-home and gathering limits before any rise in infections to try to avoid the “need for more disruptive ones such as lockdowns, closing businesses and schools, stay-at-home recommendations and travel restrictions.” It stresses the need for “political commitment” to make lockdowns and other measures work.
Quote:Other measures such as working from home or limiting the size of mass gatherings have proved effective to limit transmission of the virus. When implemented ahead of increases in cases, these measures can avoid the need for more disruptive ones such as lockdowns, closing businesses and schools, stay-at-home recommendations and travel restrictions. Political commitment and community engagement are key for the success and the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical measures.
The one welcome aspect of the document was the clear statement to avoid disrupting children’s education and lives any further, though even here school closures were not ruled out.
Quote:The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the lives of children and adolescents affecting their everyday routines, education, health, development and overall well-being. It is therefore important to keep in mind the negative impacts of school disruptions on the health and development of children. The implementation of measures at schools should be aimed to be kept at a minimum and the further loss of learning should be prevented.
The document discourages travel restrictions – freedom of travel and the elimination of internal borders being an article of faith for the EU. However, it recommends use of the EU Digital COVID Certificate (i.e., vaccine passport, though it also recognises natural immunity) wherever travel restrictions are “necessary,” boasting about how widely it is already used.
Quote:Member States can make use of the EU Digital COVID Certificate in case the epidemiological situation this autumn and winter makes it necessary for countries to temporarily reintroduce travel restrictions. The EU Digital COVID Certificate Regulation, which has been extended until June 2023, provides the necessary framework to manage the impact of restrictions on free movement and to facilitate travel. It ensures that citizens can benefit from interoperable and mutually accepted certificates of COVID-19 vaccination, test and recovery. In principle, holders of valid EU Digital COVID Certificates should not be subject to any additional restrictions when travelling within the EU.
The EU Digital COVID Certificate has been a major success in providing the public with a tool that is accepted and trusted across the EU (and in several third countries) and in avoiding fragmentation of multiple national systems. As of August 1st 2022, 75 countries and territories from across five continents are connected to the EU Digital Certificate system (30 EU/EEA Member States and 45 non-EU countries and territories), and several more countries have expressed interest in joining the gateway or are already engaged in technical discussions with the Commission. This makes the EU Digital COVID Certificate a global standard.
The EU Digital COVID Certificate system is sufficiently flexible to adapt to the evolution of the COVID-19 response. Possible adaptations to the validity period of certificates issued for the first booster may become necessary in light of further scientific evidence and the evolution of the pandemic.
What this fails to mention, of course, is any rationale for the passes. What’s the point of restricting the travel of the unvaccinated (or not-sufficiently-vaccinated) when the vaccinated are no less likely to spread the disease? This key question is entirely unaddressed.
On vaccination, the document provides 15 “objectives,” “priorities,” and “actions” for COVID-19 vaccination strategies. These include the “priority” of encouraging take-up of the original vaccine (that’s right, for the extinct COVID strains) among all eligible children and adolescents, and an action point of making sure family doctors are spending enough of their time vaccinating people (don’t they have anything else to do?).
It suggests administering boosters as often as every three months, implying they are little use after six months. It also encourages governments to counter “misinformation” in the media and online to ensure “clear, consistent and evidence-based messaging demonstrating the continued safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines.” It links worries about vaccine safety with “anti-Western and anti-EU narratives” and with websites which also go off-narrative on the Ukraine war. The vaccine action points include (emphasis mine):
- Continue national COVID-19 vaccination strategies using the currently available vaccines to reduce hospitalizations, severe disease, and death.
- Close vaccination coverage gaps. Improving vaccine uptake of the primary vaccination course and first booster dose among eligible individuals, including eligible children and adolescents according to national vaccination schedules, remains a priority. This is of particular importance for population groups at higher risk of severe outcomes and for countries with lower vaccination rates.
- Maintain sufficient vaccination capacities, either by reactivating vaccination centres or by using other resources, such as general practitioners.
- Prioritise the administration of an additional booster dose (second or subsequent) for specific population groups: people aged 60 years and over and individuals of any age at risk of severe disease (e.g. individuals with underlying comorbidities, immunocompromised individuals, and pregnant women). The boosting of healthcare workers and long-term care facility personnel should also be considered. Subsequent boosters could be administered as early as three months after the previous one, and priority should be given to people who received their last booster more than six months ago.
- Closely monitor the effectiveness and safety of the [new and] adapted vaccines once widespread rollout commences. If needed, national vaccination strategies should be adapted when more evidence on the performance of these vaccines becomes available.
- Implement and, if possible, coordinate effective communication initiatives and strategies to promote uptake of additional vaccine doses, and promote completion of the primary series by those who have not yet done so. Clear information should be provided around the rationale for recommendations, and the benefits of the primary course and boosters for different population groups, including for those who already had the disease.
- Ensure that capacity is in place to regularly update public communication strategy, based on epidemiological developments, changes in the public’s perceptions and attitudes of the ongoing pandemic and COVID-19 vaccination, including the capacity to monitor and swiftly respond to false or misleading information.
- Increase vaccine confidence by monitoring and addressing the public’s questions and concerns, explaining the science behind the recommendations and debunking mis- and dis-information in the mainstream media and on social media.Clear, consistent, and evidence-based messaging demonstrating the continued safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines is key. Target hard-to-reach population groups through tailored communication and draw on health professionals and community leaders as trusted sources of information.
- Address the political dimension of vaccine hesitancy and disinformation campaigns linked to anti-Western and anti-EU narratives. Particular challenges include channels where disinformation is circulating in relation to other crises, especially the Russian military aggression against Ukraine.
The document emphatically reinforces the EU’s commitment to a new “legally binding” pandemic treaty with a “reinforced WHO at its centre” and commits over half a billion euros (equivalently, dollars and pounds) to making it happen.
Quote:Lastly, the EU believes it is vitally important to build on the lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic and to strengthen the global health architecture – with a reinforced WHO at its centre. The EU is determined to be a driving force in the negotiations on a new, legally binding, international agreement on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response and on targeted amendments to strengthen the International Health Regulations 2005. These complementary processes are a priority for the EU and provide a historic opportunity to find multilateral solutions to common challenges, based on the principles of collective solidarity, equity, fairness, inclusiveness and enhanced transparency. Moreover, the new Financial Intermediary Fund (FIF) for Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response, to which Team Europe has already pledged at least €588 million ($587 million), will provide funding to support pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, including the implementation of the amended International Health Regulations and the new international agreement on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.
The document also trails a forthcoming “EU global health strategy” which “will provide the political framework with priorities, governance and tools, enabling the EU to speak with one influential voice and making the most of Team Europe’s capacity to protect and promote health globally.”
This is a very disturbing document. For those of us who still hold to the evidence-based pandemic strategies of pre-2020, premised only on mitigating impacts by expanding emergency healthcare capacity and finding safe and effective treatments, and not imposing intrusive, harmful, and unproven methods of trying to prevent the spread of a disease that is anyway harmless to most people, this bodes ill indeed for the current direction of travel in Europe and globally.
|
|
|
|
| St. Basil: Homilies on Creation |
|
Posted by: Stone - 10-26-2022, 09:05 AM - Forum: The Saints
- Replies (8)
|
|
St. Basil: Homilies on Creation
HOMILY I: In the Beginning God made the Heaven and the Earth
1. IT is right that any one beginning to narrate the formation of the world should begin with the good order which reigns in visible things. I am about to speak of the creation of heaven and earth, which was not spontaneous, as some have imagined, but drew its origin from God. What ear is worthy to hear such a tale? How earnestly the soul should prepare itself to receive such high lessons! How pure it should be from carnal affections, how unclouded by worldly disquietudes, how active and ardent in its researches, how eager to find in its surroundings an idea of God which may be worthy of Him!
But before weighing the justice of these remarks, before examining all the sense contained in these few words, let us see who addresses them to us. Because, if the weakness of our intelligence does not allow us to penetrate the depth of the thoughts of the writer, yet we shall be involuntarily drawn to give faith to his words by the force of his authority. Now it is Moses who has composed this history; Moses, who, when still at the breast, is described as exceeding fair;(2) Moses, whom the daughter of Pharaoh adopted; who received from her a royal education, and who had for his teachers the wise men of Egypt;(3) Moses, who disdained the pomp of royalty, and, to share the humble condition of his compatriots, preferred to be persecuted with the people of God rather than to enjoy the fleeting delights of sin; Moses, who received from nature such a love of justice that, even before the leadership of the people of God was committed to him, be was impelled, by a natural horror of evil, to pursue malefactors even to the point of punishing them by death; Moses, who, banished by those whose benefactor he had been, hastened to escape from the tumults of Egypt and took refuge in Ethiopia, living there far from former pursuits, and passing forty years in the contemplation of nature; Moses, finally, who, at the age of eighty, saw God, as far as it is possible for man to see Him; or rather as it had not previously been granted to man to see Him, according
to the testimony of God Himself, “If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream. My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house, with him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently and not in dark speeches.”(4) It is this man, whom God judged worthy to behold Him, face to face, like the angels, who imparts to us what he has learnt from God. Let us listen then to these words of truth written without the help of the “enticing words of man’s wisdom”(5) by the dictation of the Holy Spirit; words destined to produce not the applause of those who hear them, but the salvation of those who are instructed by them.
2. “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”(1) I stop struck with admiration at this thought. What shall I first say? Where shall I begin my story? Shall I show forth the vanity of the Gentiles? Shall I exalt the truth of our faith? The philosophers of Greece have made much ado to explain nature, and not one of their systems has remained firm and unshaken, each being overturned by its successor. It is vain to refute them; they are sufficient in themselves to destroy one another. Those who were too ignorant to rise to a knowledge of a God, could not allow that an intelligent cause presided at the birth of the Universe; a primary error that involved them in sad consequences. Some had recourse to material
principles and attributed the origin of the Universe(2) to the elements of the world. Others imagined that atoms,(3) and indivisible bodies, molecules and ducts, form, by their union, the nature of the visible world. Atoms reuniting or separating, produce births and deaths and the most durable bodies only owe their consistency to the strength of their mutual adhesion: a true spider’s web woven by these writers who give to heaven, to earth, and to sea so weak an origin and so little consistency! It is because they knew not how to say “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” Deceived by their inherent atheism it appeared to them that nothing governed or ruled the universe, and that was all was given up to chance.(4) To guard us against this error the writer on the creation, from the very first words, enlightens our understanding with the name of God; “In the beginning God created.” What a glorious order! He first establishes a beginning, so that it might not be supposed that the world never had a beginning. Then be adds “Created” to show that which was made was a very small part of the power of the Creator. In the same way that the potter, after having made with equal pains a great number of vessels, has not exhausted either his art or his talent; thus the Maker of the Universe, whose creative power, far from being bounded by one world, could extend to the infinite, needed only the impulse of His will to bring the immensities of the visible world into being. If then the world has a beginning, and if it has been created, enquire who gave it this beginning, and who was the Creator: or rather, in the fear that human reasonings may make you wander from the truth, Moses has anticipated enquiry by engraving in our hearts, as a seal and a safeguard, the awful name of God: “In the beginning God created”–It is He, beneficent Nature, Goodness without measure, a worthy object of love for all beings endowed with reason, the beauty the most to be desired, the origin of all that exists, the source of life, intellectual light, impenetrable wisdom, it is He who “in the beginning created heaven and earth.”
3. Do not then imagine, O man! that the visible world is without a beginning; and because the celestial bodies move in a circular course, and it is difficult for our senses to define the point where the circle begins, do not believe that bodies impelled by a circular movement are, from their nature, without a beginning. Without doubt the circle (I mean the plane figure described by a single line) is beyond our perception, and it is impossible for us to find out where it begins or where it ends; but we ought not on this account to believe it to be without a beginning. Although we are not sensible of it, it really begins at some point where the draughtsman has begun to draw it at a certain radius from the centre.(1) Thus seeing that figures which move in a circle always return upon themselves, without for a single instant interrupting the regularity of their course, do not vainly imagine to yourselves that the world has neither beginning nor end. “For the fashion of this world passeth away”(2) and “Heaven and earth shall pass away.”(3) The dogmas of the end, and of the renewing of the world, are announced beforehand in these short words put at the head of the inspired history. “In the beginning God made.” That which was begun in time is condemned to come to an end in time. If there
has been a beginning do not doubt of the end.(4) Of what use men are geometry–the calculations of arithmetic–the study of solids and far-famed astronomy, this laborious vanity, if those who pursue them imagine that this visible world is co-eternal with the Creator of all things, with God Himself; if they attribute to this limited world, which has a material body, the same glory as to the incomprehensible and invisible nature; if they cannot conceive that a whole, of which the parts are subject to corruption and change, must of necessity end by itself submitting to the fate of its parts? But they have become “vain in their imaginations and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.”(1) Some have affirmed that heaven co-exists with God from all eternity;(2) others that it is God Himself without beginning or end, and the cause of the particular arrangement of all things.(3)
4. One day, doubtless, their terrible condemnation will be the greater for all this worldly wisdom, since, seeing so clearly into yam sciences, they have wilfully shut their eyes to the knowledge of the truth. These men who measure the distances of the stare and describe them, both those of the North, always shining brilliantly in our view, and those of the southern pole visible to the inhabitants of the South, but unknown to us; who divide the Northern zone and the circle of the Zodiac into an infinity of parts, who observe with exactitude the course of the stars, their fixed places, their declensions, their return and the time that each takes to make its revolution; these men, I say, have discovered all except one tiring: the fact that God is the Creator of the universe, and the just Judge who rewards all the actions of life according to their merit. They have not known how to raise themselves to the idea of the consummation of all things, the consequence of the doctrine of judgment, and to see that the world must change if souls pass from this life to a new life. In reality, as the nature of the present life presents an affinity to this world, so in the future life our souls will enjoy a lot conformable to their new condition. But they are so far from applying these truths, that they do but laugh when we announce to them the end of all things and the regeneration of the age. Since the beginning naturally precedes that which is derived from it, the writer, of necessity, when speaking to us of things which had their origin in time, puts at the head of his narrative these words–“In the beginning God created.”
5. It appears, indeed, that even before this world an order of things(1) existed of which our mind can form an idea, but of which we can say nothing, because it is too lofty a subject for men who are but beginners and are still babes in knowledge. The birth of the world was preceded by a condition of things suitable for the exercise of supernatural powers, outstripping the limits of time, eternal and infinite. The Creator and Demiurge of the universe perfected His works in it, spiritual light for the happiness of all who love the Lord, intellectual and invisible natures, all the orderly arrangement(2) of pure intelligences who are beyond the reach of our mind and of whom we cannot even discover the names. They fill the essence of this invisible world, as Paul teaches us. “For by him were all things created that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible whether they be thrones or dominions or principalities or powers”(3) or virtues or hosts of angels or the dignities of archangels. To this world at last it was necessary to add a new world, both a school and training place where the souls of men should be taught and a home for beings destined to be born and to die. Thus was created, of a nature analogous to that of this world and the animals and plants which live thereon, the succession of time, for ever pressing on and passing away and never stopping in its course. Is not this the nature of time, where the past is no more, the future does not exist, and the present escapes before being recognised? And such also is the nature of the creature which lives in time,–condemned to grow or to perish without rest and without certain stability. It is therefore fit that the bodies of animals and plants, obliged to follow a sort of current, and carried away by the motion which leads them to birth or to death, should live in the midst of surroundings whose nature is in accord with beings subject to change.(4) Thus the writer who wisely tells us of the birth of the Universe does not fail to put these words at the head of the narrative. “In the beginning God created;” that is to say, in the beginning of time. Therefore, if he makes the world appear in the beginning, it is not a proof that its birth has preceded that of all other things that were made. He only wishes to tell us that, after the invisible and intellectual world, the visible world, the world of the senses, began to exist.
The first movement is called beginning. “To do right is the beginning of the good way.”(1) Just actions are truly the first steps towards a happy life. Again, we call “beginning” the essential and first part from which a thing proceeds, such as the foundation of a house, the keel of a vessel; it is in this sense that it is said, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom,”(2) that is to say that piety is, as it were, the groundwork and foundation of perfection. Art is also tile beginning of the works of artists, the skill of Bezaleel began the adornment of the tabernacle.(2) Often even the good which is the final cause is the beginning of actions. Thus the approbation of God is the beginning of almsgiving, and the end laid up for us in the promises the beginning of all virtuous efforts.
6. Such being the different senses of the word beginning, see if we have not all the meanings here. You may know the epoch when the formation of this world began, it, ascending into the past, you endeavour to discover the first day. You will thus find what was the first movement of time; then that the creation of the heavens and of the earth were like the foundation and the groundwork, and afterwards that an intelligent reason, as the word beginning indicates, presided in the order of visible things.(4) You will finally discover that the world was not conceived by chance and without reason, but for an useful end and for the great advantage of all beings, since it is really the school where reasonable souls exercise themselves, the training ground where they learn to know God; since by the sight of visible and sensible things the mind is led, as by a hand, to the contemplation of invisible things. “For,” as the Apostle says, “the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made.”(1) Perhaps these words “In the beginning God created” signify the rapid and imperceptible moment of creation. The beginning, in effect, is indivisible and instantaneous. The beginning of the road is not yet the road, and that of the house is not yet the house; so the beginning of time is not yet time and not even the least par-title of it. If some objector tell us that the beginning is a time, he ought then, as he knows well, to submit it to the division of time–a beginning, a middle and an end. Now it is ridiculous to imagine a beginning of a beginning. Further, if we divide the beginning into two, we make two instead of one, or rather make several, we really make an infinity, for all that which is divided is divisible to the infinite.(3) Thus then, if it is said, “In the beginning God created,” it is to teach us that at the will of God the world arose in less than an instant, and it is to convey this meaning more clearly that other interpreters have said: “God made summarily” that is to say all at once and in a moment.(3) But enough concerning the beginning, if only to put a few points out of many.
7. Among arts, some have in view production, some practice, others theory.(4) The object of the last is the exercise of thought, that of the second, the motion of the body. Should it cease, all stops; nothing more is to be seen. Thus dancing and music have nothing behind; they have no object but themselves. In creative arts on the contrary the work lasts after the operation. Such is architecture–such are the arts which work in wood and brass and weaving, all those indeed which, even when the artisan has disappeared, serve to show an industrious intelligence and to cause the architect, the worker in brass or the weaver, to be admired on account of his work. Thus, then, to show that the world is a work of art displayed for the beholding of all people; to make them know Him who created it, Moses does not use another word. “In the beginning,” he says “God created.” He does not say “God worked,” “God formed,” but” God created.” Among those who have imagined that the world co-existed with God from all eternity, many have denied that it was created by God, but say that it exists spontaneously, as the shadow of this power. God, they say, is the cause of it, but an involuntary cause, as the body is the cause of the shadow and the flame is the cause of the brightness.(1) It is to correct this error that the prophet states, with so much precision, “In the beginning God created.” He did not make the thing itself the cause of its existence.(2) Being good, He made it an useful work. Being wise, He made it everything that was most beautiful. Being powerful He made it very great.(3) Moses almost shows us the finger of the supreme artisan taking possession of the substance of the universe, forming the different parts in one perfect accord, and making a harmonious symphony result from the whole.(4)
“In the beginning God made heaven and earth.” By naming the two extremes, he suggests the substance of the whole world, according to heaven the privilege of seniority, and putting earth in the second rank. All intermediate beings were created at the same time as the extremities. Thus, although there is no mention of the elements, fire, water and air,(5) imagine that they were all compounded together, and you will find water, air and fire, in the earth. For fire leaps out from stones; iron which is dug from the earth produces under friction fire in plentiful measure. A marvellous fact! Fire shut up in bodies lurks there hidden without harming them, but no sooner is it released than it consumes that which has hitherto preserved it. The earth contains water, as diggers of wells teach us. It contains air too, as is shown by the vapours that it exhales under the sun’s warmth(1) when it is damp. Now, as according to their nature, heaven occupies the higher and earth the lower position in space, (one sees, in fact, that all which is light ascends towards heaven, and heavy substances fall to the ground); as therefore height and depth are the points the most opposed to each other it is enough to mention the most distant parts to signify the inclusion of all which fills up intervening Space. Do not ask, then, for an enumeration of all the elements; guess, from what Holy Scripture indicates, all that is passed over in silence.
8. “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” If we were to wish to discover the essence of each of the beings which are offered for our contemplation, or come under our senses, we should be drawn away into long digressions, and the solution of the problem would require more words than I possess, to examine fully the matter. To spend time on such points would not prove to be to the edification of the Church. Upon the essence of the heavens we are contented with what Isaiah says, for, in simple language, he gives us sufficient idea of their nature, “The heaven was made like smoke,”(2) that is to say, He created a subtle substance, without solidity or density, from which to form the heavens. As to the form of them we also content ourselves with the language of the same prophet, when praising God “that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.”(3) In the same way, as concerns the earth, let us resolve not to torment ourselves by trying to find out its essence, not to tire our reason by seeking for the substance which it conceals. Do not let us seek for any nature devoid of qualities by the conditions of its existence, but let us know that all the phenomena with which we see it clothed regard the conditions of its existence and complete its essence. Try to take away by reason each of the qualities it possesses, and you will arrive at nothing. Take away black, cold, weight, density, the qualities which concern taste, in one word all these which we see in it, and the substance vanishes.(4)
If I ask you to leave these vain questions, I will not expect you to try and find out the earth’s point of support. The mind would reel on beholding its reasonings losing themselves without end. Do you say that the earth reposes on a bed of air?(1) How, then, can this soft substance, without consistency, resist the enormous weight which presses upon it? How is it that it does not slip away in all directions, to avoid the sinking weight, and to spread itself over the mass which overwhelms it? Do you suppose that water is the foundation of the earth?(2) You will then always have to ask yourself how it is that so heavy and opaque a body does not pass through the water; how a mass of such a weight is held up by a nature weaker than
itself. Then you must seek a base for the waters, and you will be in much difficulty to say upon what the water itself rests.
9. Do you suppose that a heavier body prevents the earth from failing into the abyss? Then you must consider that this support needs itself a support to prevent it from failing. Can we imagine one? Our reason again demands vet another support, and thus we shall fall into the infinite, always imagining a base for the base which we have already found.(3) And the further we advance in this reasoning the greater force we are obliged to give to this base, so that it may be able to support all the mass weighing upon it. Put then a limit to your thought, so that your curiosity in investigating the incomprehensible may not incur the reproaches of Job, and you be not asked by him, “Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened?”(4) If ever you hear in the Psalms, “I bear up the pillars of it;”(5) see in these pillars the power which sustains it. Because what means this other passage, “He hath founded it upon the sea,”(6) if not that the water is spread all around the earth? How then can water, the fluid element which flows down every declivity, remain suspended without ever flowing? You do not reflect that the idea of the earth suspended by itself throws your reason into a like but even greater difficulty, since from its nature it is heavier. But let us admit that the earth rests upon itself, or let us say that it rides the waters, we must still remain faithful to thought of true religion and recognise that all is sustained by the Creator’s power. Let us then reply to ourselves, and let us reply to those who ask us upon what support this enormous mass rests, “In His hands are the ends of the earth.”(1) It is a doctrine as infallible for our own information as profitable for our hearers.
10. There are inquirers into nature(2) who with a great display of words give reasons for the immobility of the earth. Placed, they say, in the middle of the universe and not being able to incline more to one side than the other because its centre is everywhere the same distance from the surface, it necessarily rests upon itself; since a weight which is everywhere equal cannot lean to either side. It is not, they go on, without reason or by chance that the earth occupies the centre of the universe. It is its natural and necessary position. As the celestial body occupies the higher extremity of space all heavy bodies, they argue, that we may suppose to have fallen from these high regions, will be carried from all directions to the centre, and the point towards which the parts are tending will evidently be the one to which the whole mass will be thrust together. If stones, wood, all terrestrial bodies, fall from above downwards, this must be the proper and natural place of the whole earth. If, on the contrary, a light body is separated from the centre, it is evident that it will ascend towards the higher regions. Thus heavy bodies move from the top to the bottom, and following this reasoning, the bottom is none other than the centre of the world. Do not then be surprised that the world never falls: it occupies the centre of the universe, its natural place. By necessity it is obliged to remain in its place, unless a movement contrary to nature should displace it.(3) If there is anything in this system which might appear probable to you, keep your admiration for the source of such perfect order, for the wisdom of God. Grand phenomena do not strike us the less when we have discovered something of their wonderful mechanism. Is it otherwise here? At all events let us prefer the simplicity of faith to the demonstrations of reason.
11. We might say the same thing of the heavens. With what a noise of words the sages of this world have discussed their nature! Some have said that heaven is composed of four elements as being tangible and visible, and is made up of earth on account of its power of resistance, with fire because it is striking to the eye, with air and water on account of the mixture.(1) Others have rejected this system as improbable, and introduced into the world, to form the heavens, a fifth element after their own fashioning. There exists. they say, an aethereal body which is neither fire, air, earth, nor water, nor in one word any simple body. These simple bodies have their own natural motion in a straight line, light bodies upwards and heavy bodies downwards; now this motion upwards and downwards is not the same as circular motion; there is the greatest possible difference between straight and circular motion. It therefore follows that bodies whose motion is so various must vary also in their essence. But, it is not even possible to suppose that the heavens should be formed of primitive bodies which we call elements, because the reunion of contrary forces could not produce an even and spontaneous motion, when each of the simple bodies is receiving a different impulse from nature. Thus it is a labour to maintain composite bodies in continual movement, because it is impossible to put even a single one of their movements in accord and harmony with all those that are in discord; since what is proper to the light particle, is in warfare with that of a heavier one. If we attempt to rise we are stopped by the weight of the terrestrial element; if we throw ourselves down we violate the igneous part of our being in dragging it down contrary to its nature. Now this struggle of the elements effects their dissolution. A body to which violence is done and which is placed in opposition to nature, after a short but energetic resistance, is soon dissolved into as many parts as it had elements, each of the constituent parts returning to its natural place. It is the force of these reasons, say the inventors of the fifth kind of body for the genesis of heaven and the stars, which constrained them to reject the system of their predecessors and to have recourse to their own hypothesis.(2) But yet another fine speaker arises and disperses and destroys this theory to give predominance to an idea of his own invention.
Do not let us undertake to follow them for fear of falling into like frivolities; let them refute each other, and, without disquieting ourselves about essence, let us say with Moses “God created the heavens and the earth.” Let us glorify the supreme Artificer for all that was wisely and skillfully made; by the beauty of visible things let us raise ourselves to Him who is above all beauty; by the grandeur of bodies, sensible and limited in their nature, let us conceive of the infinite Being whose immensity and omnipotence surpass all the efforts of the imagination. Because, although we ignore the nature of created things, the objects which on all sides attract our notice are so marvellous, that the most penetrating mind cannot attain to the knowledge of the least of the phenomena of the world, either to give a suitable explanation of it or to render due praise to the Creator, to Whom belong all glory, all honour and all power world without end. Amen.
|
|
|
|
| US citizens were given secret Covid “decree violation” scores |
|
Posted by: Stone - 10-26-2022, 07:47 AM - Forum: Socialism & Communism
- No Replies
|
|
US citizens were given secret Covid “decree violation” scores
Mass surveillance during the first months of the US lockdowns.
Reclaim the Net | October 25, 2022
Voter analytics firm PredictWise harvested location data from tens of millions of US cellphones during the initial Covid lockdown months and used this data to assign a “Covid-19 decree violation” score to the people associated with the phones.
These Covid-19 decree violation scores were calculated by analyzing nearly two billion global positioning system (GPS) pings to get “real-time, ultra-granular locations patterns.” People who were “on the go more often than their neighbors” were given a high Covid-19 decree violation score while those who mostly or always stayed at home were given a low Covid-19 decree violation score.
Not only did PredictWise use this highly sensitive location data to monitor millions of Americans’ compliance with Covid lockdown decrees but it also combined this data with follow-up surveys to assign “Covid concern” scores to the people who were being surveilled. PredictWise then used this data to help Democrats in several swing states to target more than 350,000 “Covid concerned” Republicans with Covid-related campaign ads.
In its white paper, PredictWise claims that Democrats were able to “deploy this real-time location model to open up just over 40,000 persuasion targets that normally would have fallen off” for Mark Kelly who was running for Senate at the time and has now been elected.
“PredictWise understood that there were potential pockets of voters to target with Covid-19 messaging and turned high-dimensional data covering over 100 million Americans into measures of adherence to Covid-19 restrictions during deep lockdown,” the company states in the white paper.
PredictWise doesn’t provide the exact dates when this location data was collected but its white paper does note that the data was collected during Covid lockdowns and used during Senator Kelly’s 2020 election campaign. State-level US lockdowns began on March 15, 2020 and Kelly was elected on November 4, 2020 so the data appears to have been collected during the first few months of this 11 month period.
Location data and survey data are just two of the many types of data PredictWise claims to have access to. According to its white paper, PredictWise also tracks “telemetry data” (which is “passively sourced cell-phone data”), media consumption data, and unregistered voter data (which contains verified data on over 50 million unregistered voters that’s updated daily and sourced from credit files and portal registration data). Additionally, PredictWise claims that “Crate&Barrel” (which seems to be a reference to the online furniture and home decor shopping portal Crate & Barrel) is one of the portal registration data sources it has access to.
In total, PredictWise says its data “tracks the opinions, attitudes, and behaviors” of over 260 million Americans – a figure that represents 78% of the entire US population of 333 million.
PredictWise uses the data it collects to create scores on 13 issue preference clusters and 7 value-frame, or psychometric clusters. These clusters use more than 30 million behavioral data points. PredictWise also claims to be able to use this data to predict the party of unregistered voters.
Many apps on your phone have pivoted to selling your location data to coronavirus researchers and others
This mass surveillance of location data and lockdown compliance is just one of the many examples of the large-scale data harvesting that occurred during the pandemic. Private companies tracked the everyday activities of citizens, pushed remote learning surveillance technologies, increased surveillance in the workplace, and more. Meanwhile, governments ushered in numerous forms of surveillance such as forcing citizens to wear ankle bracelet trackers, secretly surveilling vaccine recipients via their phones, and combining vaccine passports with digital IDs.
|
|
|
|
| Pope Francis joins ecumenical leaders in Rome to promote peace in the ‘spirit’ of 1986 Assisi meetin |
|
Posted by: Stone - 10-26-2022, 06:17 AM - Forum: Pope Francis
- No Replies
|
|
Pope Francis joins ecumenical leaders in Rome to promote peace in the ‘spirit’ of 1986 Assisi meeting
Pope Francis has attended the past three ecumenical events, promoting his 'blasphemous' form of brotherhood at each one.
![[Image: pope-santegidio1-810x500.jpg]](https://www.lifesitenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/pope-santegidio1-810x500.jpg)
Pope Francis chats with Sayyed Abu Al-Qasim Al-Dibaj of the World Pan-Islamic Jurisprudence Organization
Oct 25, 2022
VATICAN CITY (LifeSiteNews) – Pope Francis joined numerous ecumenical leaders on Tuesday at the Colosseum to take part in an interfaith prayer meeting entitled “The Cry for Peace,” which was held in the “spirit of” the 1986 inter-religious meeting led by John Paul II at Assisi.
Pope Francis closed the three-day conference on its last day, taking part in two key events. Inside the Colosseum, he joined ecumenical leaders for a prayer service, then outside the ancient walls of the Colosseum he joined leaders from various religions, including Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, on the stage.
While Francis attended the Christian prayer service inside the Colosseum, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto and Tenrikyo leaders held their own prayer services simultaneously.
The “Il Grido della Pace” (The Cry for Peace) conference began Sunday with addresses from French President Emmanuel Macron and Italian President Sergio Matterella.
READ: Pope Francis calls for ‘more vaccines’ at meeting of world leaders in Rome
It was organized by the Community of Sant’Egidio, based in the Trastevere district of Rome. The conference is the 36th such meeting, following John Paul II’s notorious 1986 inter-religious meeting at Assisi.
Delivering speeches at the various roundtables during the conference were a host of leading figures in both ecclesial and political spheres, including:
- Cardinal Matteo Zuppi – president of the Italian Bishops’ Conference and a longtime supporter of Sant’Egidio
- Vatican Curial officials, including Cardinals Kurt Koch, José Tolentino Calaça de Mendonça, Walter Kasper, Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia
- Shaykh Muhammad bin Abdul Karim al-Issa, the secretary general of the Muslim world league
- Pro-abortion U.N. and Vatican adviser Jeffrey Sachs
- Chief Rabbis from a number of countries
- Muslim “theologians”
- International journalists and TV presenters
The Sant’Egidio community itself is noted to hold a favorable position in Pope Francis’ Vatican, with Zuppi a longtime supporter and ecclesiastical general to the group. Matteo Bruni – also a longtime member of the Community – is the Holy See Press Office director.
Pope Francis has attended the past three events, and at last year’s he called for “peace … fraternity … vaccines” in an event that focused on a call for more COVID-19 injections.
Drawing on Fratelli Tutti and signing of ecumenical pact
Addressing the ecumenical leaders and some hundreds of participants outside the Colosseum, Francis echoed the cry for peace, warning against nuclear war.
![[Image: POPE-santegidio.jpg]](https://www.lifesitenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/POPE-santegidio.jpg)
Pope Francis addressing the Sant’Egidio conference at the Colosseum, 2022. He is flanked by Sayyed Abu Al-Qasim Al-Dibaj of the World Pan-Islamic Jurisprudence Organization and the Chief Rabbi of Rome Riccardo Di Segni
In doing so, the Pope – and other speakers – quoted from his controversial encyclical “Fratelli Tutti.”
Addressing the participants, Francis referenced the “fraternal relations between religions [which] have taken decisive steps forward,” adding that “more and more, we feel that we are all brothers and sisters!”
That text of Francis’s has been described by former Papal Nuncio to the U.S. Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò as promoting a “blasphemous” form of brotherhood without God and pushing “religious indifferentism.”
Viganò added that “religious indifferentism, implicitly promoted in the text Fratelli Tutti, which defines as ‘a good for our societies’ the presence of any religion – instead of ‘the liberty and exaltation of Holy Mother Church’ – denies in fact the sovereign rights of Jesus Christ, King and Lord of individuals, of the societies and of nations.”
After the pope’s speech, the assembled leaders followed his lead in signing an “Appeal for peace 2022,” which called upon political leaders to promote peace. While it was addressed from “the representatives of the Christian Churches and World Religions,” the Appeal did not reference religion.
![[Image: signing-1-scaled.jpg]](https://www.lifesitenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/signing-1-scaled.jpg)
Pope Francis signs the Peace Appeal
‘Spirit of Assisi’ guiding the event
Speaking outside the Colosseum, Sant’Egidio president Marco Impagliazzo referenced the “spirit of Assisi” to be embodied at the event.
Indeed, the annual conference is modeled on the “scandalous” inter-religious 1986 Assisi meeting at which Pope John Paul II prayed together with Orthodox Christians, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and representatives of many other religions.
John Paul II addressed the representatives of the different religions, saying that the event was “the result of prayer, which, in the diversity of religions, expresses a relationship with a supreme power that surpasses our human capacities alone.” He added that “religions are many and varied, and they reflect the desire of men and women down through the ages to enter into a relationship with the Absolute Being,” but did not mention the primacy of the Catholic faith, as taught by the Church. Instead, he referenced the “good of humanity” as the binding theme.
As last year, the event’s logo was a swirling, seven colored rainbow flag topped with a white dove.
Speaking to gloria.tv two years ago, Bishop Athanasius Schneider stated that the 1986 Assisi meeting was a “preparation” for the worship of the Pachamama statues in the Vatican Gardens, as it accustomed Catholics to the “erroneous teaching … that all religions are on the same level.”
That meeting was further described by author Henry Sire as an act of “sacrilege” and “idolatrous worship.”
|
|
|
|
Names of the Deceased for November |
|
Posted by: Our Lady of Fatima Chapel - 10-25-2022, 01:00 PM - Forum: For the Souls in Purgatory
- No Replies
|
 |
Names of the Deceased
November, the Month of the Holy Souls, is right around the corner. Beginning today, and during the entire month of November, Our Lady of Fatima Chapel is accepting names of the deceased to be placed upon the altar for remembrance during every Holy Sacrifice of the Mass offered throughout November.
The names of the deceased placed upon our altar will also be remembered during each Holy Mass offered at all of the SSPX-MC missions; wherever the Holy Sacrifice is scheduled to be offered by the Apostolate during the month of November.
Please send the names of the deceased you wish to be prayed for to:
By Email:
ourladyofatimachapel@gmail.com
By Postal Mail:
OUR LADY OF FATIMA CHAPEL
16 DOGWOOD ROAD SOUTH
HUBBARDSTON, MA 01452
The Western tradition identifies the general custom of praying for the dead dating as far back as the Second Book of Maccabees 12:42-46. The custom of setting apart a special day for intercession for the faithful departed on November 2nd was first established by Saint Odilo of Cluny (d. 1048) at his abbey of Cluny in 998. From Cluny the custom spread to the other houses of the Cluniac order, which became the largest and most extensive network of monasteries in Europe. The custom was soon adopted in several dioceses in France, then spread throughout the Western Church. It was accepted in Rome only in the fourteenth century. While November 2nd remained the liturgical observance, in time the entire month of November became associated in the Western Catholic tradition with prayers for the departed; and the lists of names of those to be remembered being placed in the proximity of the altar on which the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is offered.
The legend connected with its foundation is given by Peter Damiani in his Life of Saint Odilo: A pilgrim returning from the Holy Land was cast by a storm on a desolate island. A hermit living there told him that amid the rocks was a chasm communicating with purgatory, from which perpetually rose the groans of tortured souls. The hermit also claimed he had heard the demons complaining of the efficacy of the prayers of the faithful, and especially prayers from the monks of Cluny, in rescuing their victims. Upon returning home, the pilgrim hastened to inform the abbot of Cluny, who then set November 2nd as a day of intercession on the part of his community for all the Holy Souls in Purgatory.
Requiem aeternam dona eis Domine: et lux perpetua luceat eis quorum animas omnium fidelium defunctorum per misericordiam Dei requiescant in pace. Amen
|
|
|
|
| Abp. Viganò: The Vatican must withdraw its support of the ‘disastrous’ COVID shots |
|
Posted by: Stone - 10-25-2022, 07:53 AM - Forum: Archbishop Viganò
- No Replies
|
|
Abp. Viganò: The Vatican must withdraw its support of the ‘disastrous’ COVID shots
The results that are now emerging from the official data published in all the countries that adopted the mass vaccine campaign are incontestably disastrous.
![[Image: IMG_3909-810x500.jpeg]](https://www.lifesitenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/IMG_3909-810x500.jpeg)
Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò
Oct 21, 2022
Editor’s Note: Below follows the text of a letter sent by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò to Cardinal Luis Ladaria Ferrer, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on the moral character and physical dangers of COVID-19 inoculations and the Church’s instructions to the faithful on their use.
This letter was also addressed to members of the Holy See, including Cardinal Pietro Parolin, Secretary of State of His Holiness; Cardinal Peter Turkson, Chancellor of the Pontifical Academy of the Sciences and the Pontifical Academy of the Social Sciences; and Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, President of the Pontifical Academy for Life.
(LifeSiteNews) – Your Eminence,
Last year, on October 23, 2021, I wrote a letter to the president of the United States Bishops’ Conference, which was also sent to you, in which I expressed – as I have already done publicly – my very strong reservations on various extremely controversial aspects regarding the moral legitimacy of the use of experimental gene serums produced using mRNA technology.
In that letter, which was written with the help of eminent scientists and virologists, I highlighted the need to update the “Note on the morality of using some anti-COVID-19 vaccines,” due to the scientific evidence that had emerged even then and moreover had been declared by the pharmaceutical manufacturers themselves.
Permit me, Your Eminence, to renew my appeal in the light of recent declarations made by Pfizer to the European Parliament and the publication of official data by the world health agencies.
First of all, I remind you that the document from the Dicastery over which you preside was promulgated on December 21, 2020, in the absence of complete data about the nature of the gene serum and its components, and also without any results from the efficacy and safety trials. The subject of the Note was limited to the “moral aspects of the use of the vaccines against COVID-19 that have been developed from cell lines derived from tissues obtained from two fetuses that were not spontaneously aborted.” The Congregation further reiterated: “We do not intend to judge the safety and efficacy of these vaccines, although ethically relevant and necessary, as this evaluation is the responsibility of biomedical researchers and drug agencies.” Safety and efficacy were thus not the subject of the Note, which in expressing an opinion about the “moral aspects of the use” did not deem it appropriate to comment on the “morality of the production” of these drugs.
The safety and efficacy of the individual vaccines should have been established after a period of experimentation, which normally takes several years. But in this case the health authorities have decided to carry out the experimentation on the entire population, departing from the normal practice of the scientific community, international regulations, and the laws of individual nations.
The results that are now emerging from the official data published in all the countries that adopted the mass vaccine campaign are incontestably disastrous: it is emerging that people who have been subjected to inoculation with the experimental serum not only have never been protected from contagion by the virus, nor from grave forms of illness, but they have actually been made more vulnerable to COVID-19 and its variants due to the irreversible compromising of their immune systems caused by mRNA technology. The data also highlights serious short- and long-term effects, such as sterility, the inducement of miscarriages in pregnant women, the transmission of the virus to children through breastfeeding, the development of serious heart conditions including myocarditis and pericarditis, the return of cancerous tumors that had previously been cured, and a whole series of other debilitating diseases. The many cases of sudden deaths – which until recently were stubbornly considered as having no relation to inoculation with the serum – are revealing the consequence of repeated doses, even in people who are young, healthy, and physically fit.
Members of the military, who are rigorously controlled by health personnel for safety reasons, are showing the same incidence of adverse effects after receiving the serum. Countless studies are now confirming that the serum may cause forms of acquired immunodeficiency in those who receive it. Worldwide, the number of deaths and grave pathologies following vaccination is increasing exponentially. These vaccines have caused more deaths than all other vaccines combined in the last thirty years. And not only this: in many nations the number of those who have died after vaccination is significantly higher than the number of those who died from COVID.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (now Dicastery), although not expressing an opinion on the efficacy and safety of the serums, nevertheless defined them as “vaccines,” taking for granted that they would give immunity and protect people against active and passive contagion. But this element has now been disavowed by the declarations that are coming from all of the world health authorities and the World Health Organization (WHO), who now say that those who are vaccinated may become infected themselves and infect other people more seriously than people who are not vaccinated, and also that their immune systems have been drastically reduced if not actually cancelled.
The drugs that have been called “vaccines” thus do not correspond to the official definition of a vaccine, to which the Note presumably refers. A “vaccine” is defined as a preparation which induces the production of protective antibodies by an organism, conferring a specific resistance against a determined infective illness (either viral, bacterial, or protozoal). This definition has now been modified by the WHO, because otherwise it would not have been able to include anti-COVID drugs within the definition of a vaccine, since these drugs do not induce the production of protective antibodies and do not confer a specific resistance against the infectious disease caused by Sars-CoV-2.
It should be pointed out that the presence of graphene oxide both in the batches of the “vaccine” as well as in the blood of those who have been inoculated has now been proven beyond any reasonable doubt, despite the fact that there is no scientific justification for its presence nor for its pharmaceutical use on human beings due to its toxicity. The devastating effects of graphene oxide on the organs of people who have been subjected to inoculation are now evident, and it is likely that pharmaceutical companies will soon be held accountable.
Your Eminence surely already knows that the use of these technologies with self-assembling graphene oxide nanostructures has also been patented in order to allow for the tracking and remote control of subjects, in particular in order to monitor the vital parameters of each patient in a way that is connected to the cloud via the Bluetooth signal emitted by these nanostructures. As proof that this information is not the result of the ruminations of some conspiracy theorists, Your Eminence perhaps knows that the European Union has chosen as winners of a competition two projects dedicated to technological innovation: “The Human Brain and Graphene.” These two projects will each receive one billion euros in funding over the next ten years.
The “vaccines” against COVID-19 have been presented as the only possible alternative to a deadly disease. This was false from the very beginning, and with the perspective of two years it has also been confirmed as false: there were and are alternative treatments, but they have been methodically boycotted by the pharmaceutical companies – because they are inexpensive and not profitable for them – and discredited by scientific publications financed by Big Pharma with articles that were later withdrawn because they were clearly based on falsified data.
Furthermore, COVID-19 has been revealed to be – as was known and as was scientifically evident – a seasonal form of the coronavirus that is treatable and not deadly, a form of flu that causes only a minimal number of deaths among people who already have some other underlying condition. The multi-year monitoring of the coronavirus leaves no doubt in this regard and also eliminates the element of a “health emergency” that was used as a pretext to impose the vaccines.
International norms specify that an experimental drug cannot be authorized for distribution except in the absence of another effective alternative treatment. This is why drug agencies around the world have prevented the use of ivermectin, hyperimmune plasma, and other treatments whose effectiveness has been demonstrated. There is no need to remind Your Eminence that all of these agencies, along with the WHO, are almost entirely financed by pharmaceutical companies and foundations linked to them and that there is a grave conflict of interest at the highest levels.
In the past few days the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, had to answer to the Parliament about the PNRR (The National Recovery and Resilience Plan) funding that was obtained for the laboratories in Italy and Greece where her husband works, without forgetting that the same president refused to provide the European Court of Auditors with the text messages she exchanged with the CEO of Pfizer, Albert Bourla, about supply contracts, messages which still have not been revealed.
The imposition of the experimental serum took place through a coordinated employment of methods that was unprecedented in recent history, using mass manipulation techniques that are well known to psychology experts. In this operation of media terrorism and the violation of the natural rights of individuals, accompanied by intolerable blackmail and discrimination, the Catholic hierarchy chose to take sides with the system, making itself the promoter of “vaccines,” even reaching the point of recommending them as a “moral duty.” The media skillfully used the spiritual authority of the Roman Pontiff and his media influence to confirm the mainstream narrative, and this was an essential element in the success of the entire vaccination campaign, convincing many of the faithful to undergo inoculation because of the trust they have placed in the Pope and his global role.
The vaccination obligations imposed on employees of the Holy See, following the lines of protocols imposed in other nations, have confirmed the Vatican’s absolute alignment with extremely careless and reckless positions that are completely void of any scientific validity. This has exposed the Vatican City State to possible liability on the part of its officials, with a further burden on its treasury; and the possibility should not be excluded that the faithful may bring collective lawsuits against their own pastors, who have been converted into salesmen of dangerous medicines.
After more than two years, the Church has not considered it necessary to make any statement to correct the Note, which in the light of new scientific evidence is now outdated and substantially contradicted by the harsh reality of the facts. Limiting itself strictly to an evaluation of the morality of the use of the vaccines, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has not taken account of the proportionality between the benefits of the gene serum – which have been completely absent – and the short- and long-term adverse side-effects which are now before everyone’s eyes.
Since it is now evident that the drugs sold as vaccines do not give any significant benefit and on the contrary may cause a very high percentage of death or serious diseases even in people for whom COVID is not a serious threat, it is no longer possible to consider valid any attempt to demonstrate a proportionality between risks and benefits, thus eliminating one of the assumptions on which the Note was based: “The morality of vaccination depends not only on the duty to protect one’s own health, but also on the duty to pursue the common good. In the absence of other means to stop or even prevent the epidemic, the common good may recommend vaccination, especially to protect the weakest and most exposed” (n. 5).
We know well that there is no “absence of other means,” and that the serum neither stops nor prevents the epidemic: this makes the mRNA “vaccine” produced with aborted cell lines not only morally unacceptable but also absolutely dangerous for one’s health, and in the case of pregnant women also for the health of their children.
The Church, in expressing a moral evaluation of the vaccines, cannot fail to take into consideration the many elements that contribute to formulating an overall judgment. The Congregation cannot limit itself to the general theory of the moral lawfulness of the drug in itself – a lawfulness that is completely questionable given its ineffectiveness, the absence of tests of its genotoxicity and carcinogenicity, and the evidence of side-effects. Instead, the Congregation must speak out about this fact as soon as possible: now that the complete uselessness of the serums “to stop or even prevent the epidemic” has been demonstrated, it can no longer be administered, and indeed there is a moral obligation for health authorities and drug companies to recall it as something dangerous and harmful, and for the individual faithful to refuse inoculation.
I further believe, Most Reverend Eminence, that the time has come for the Holy See to definitively distance itself from those private entities and multinational corporations that have believed that they can use the authority of the Catholic Church to endorse the neo-Malthusian project of the United Nations’ Agenda 2030 and the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset. It is not tolerable that the voice of the Church of Christ continues to be complicit in a plan to reduce the global population based on the chronic pathologizing of humanity and the induction of sterility; and this is even more necessary in the face of the scandalous conflict of interests to which the Holy See is exposed by accepting sponsorship and funding from the architects of these criminal plans.
It will not escape Your Eminence that there are very serious implications for the Holy Church as a result of her reckless support for the “psychopandemic” narrative. Taking advantage of Francis’ words and addresses to lead the faithful to submit themselves to a serum that has not only proven to be useless but actually gravely harmful has seriously compromised the authority of the Vatican, prompting it to propagate a treatment based on data that has proven to be partial and counterfeited.
This reckless and less-than-transparent behavior involved an interference by the supreme ecclesiastical authority in a field of strictly scientific concern which is instead “the responsibility of biomedical researchers and drug agencies.” After this betrayal, how will faithful Catholics and those who look to the Church as a sure guide be able to consider the Church’s positions as reliable and credible with any amount of serenity or confidence? And how will it be possible to remedy the damage that has been caused to those who, having neither medical training nor competence, have undergone a treatment that has actually compromised their health or led to premature death, for the sole reason that it was recommended to them by the Pope, or their bishop, or their parish priest, who told them that unless they were vaccinated they could not come to church, serve Mass, or sing in the choir?
The Catholic hierarchy has experienced a decline in recent years that is directly proportional to the support it has given to the globalist ideology: its commitment to support the vaccine campaign is not an isolated case, judging by the participation of the Holy See in climate initiatives – which are also based on false assumptions that have nothing scientific about them – and trans-humanistic endeavors.
But this is not the purpose for which Our Lord placed the Church on earth: she must first and foremost proclaim the Truth, keeping herself far away from dangerous involvements with the powerful of the earth, and even more so with those among them who are notoriously hostile to the teaching of Christ and Catholic morality. If the hierarchy does not shake itself away from this obsequious enslavement, if it does not rediscover the courage and dignity to stand up against the mentality of the world, it will be overwhelmed and will fall victim to its own inability to be a stumbling block and a sign of contradiction.
I am certain, Your Eminence, that you will want to consider the particular gravity of these themes, as well as the urgency of an enlightened intervention that is faithful to the teaching of the Gospel and the salus animarum which is and remains the suprema lex of the Church.
In Christo Rege,
+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop
Former Apostolic Nuncio to the United States of America
18 October 2022.
|
|
|
|
|
![[Image: 635a7a2e98c09.jpg]](https://gorthodox.com/storage/uploads/635a7a2e98c09.jpg)
![[Image: f05b195e-59be-4d69-bb0d-f48df45eea74.jpg]](https://gallery.mailchimp.com/ea2da4ca63cd8ed8cba4ddc85/images/f05b195e-59be-4d69-bb0d-f48df45eea74.jpg)
