| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Forum Statistics |
» Members: 306
» Latest member: rbcj8941
» Forum threads: 7,075
» Forum posts: 13,115
Full Statistics
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 318 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 315 Guest(s)
Applebot, Bing, Google
|
| Latest Threads |
The Catholic Trumpet: Wit...
Forum: The Catholic Trumpet
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 09:03 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 50
|
Apologia pro Marcel Lefeb...
Forum: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 08:51 AM
» Replies: 21
» Views: 5,394
|
Louis Veuillot: The Liber...
Forum: Uncompromising Fighters for the Faith
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 08:28 AM
» Replies: 28
» Views: 5,027
|
Vatican announces new vot...
Forum: New Rite Sacraments
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 08:24 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 35
|
Fr. Ruiz Sermons: Saints ...
Forum: Fr. Ruiz's Sermons June 2025
Last Post: Deus Vult
06-29-2025, 01:28 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 57
|
Fundraiser For The Orator...
Forum: Rev. Father David Hewko
Last Post: Stone
06-29-2025, 08:25 AM
» Replies: 2
» Views: 471
|
Third Sunday after Pentec...
Forum: Pentecost
Last Post: Stone
06-29-2025, 08:19 AM
» Replies: 5
» Views: 14,916
|
June 29th - Feast of Sts....
Forum: June
Last Post: Stone
06-29-2025, 08:17 AM
» Replies: 4
» Views: 10,993
|
England’s First Martyr St...
Forum: The Saints
Last Post: Stone
06-29-2025, 08:13 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 51
|
Please pray for Mr. Means
Forum: Appeals for Prayer
Last Post: Stone
06-29-2025, 06:16 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 93
|
|
|
| A Chronology: Archbishop Lefebvre on the New Mass |
|
Posted by: Stone - 09-27-2022, 05:30 AM - Forum: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
- Replies (1)
|
 |
Archbishop Lefebvre and the new Mass
![[Image: lefebvre_1988.jpeg?itok=PtchMvcO]](https://sspx.ca/sites/sspx/files/styles/dici_image_full_width/public/audio_image/lefebvre_1988.jpeg?itok=PtchMvcO)
Computer translated from the French: by the Abbé Raphaël d'Abbadie - Fideliter - May-June 2017 [slightly adapted]
How did the founder of the Society of St. Pius X judge the Mass of Paul VI? On this question, everything has been said and its opposite. These are the very words of Archbishop Lefebvre who will decide the debate. Let us revive them.
It is known that the new Mass was elaborated with the help of Protestant "observers", so as not to displease the "separated brethren" who hate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. If Bishop Lefebvre did not fail to react very early to the harmfulness of this reform, taking an active part in the drafting of the Brief Critical Examination of Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci, 1 it took nevertheless several years to arrive at The position which is today that the Fraternity. This article attempts to describe its evolution.
Let us note at the outset that this long time reveals all the pastoral prudence of the missionary archbishop, who is faced with an absolutely new problem in the Church, and at the very least thorny: this new rite is full of ambiguity Calculated to satisfy the heretics, an ambiguity which does not, however, render it strictly invalid or formally heretical ... How can a faithful respond to such a ritual, which is more promulgated by Pope Paul VI? To remain a good Catholic, should he become a Protestant? The Bishop's reply is based on a statement of the facts (which he had foreseen): the fruits of this reform have produced (and still produce), throughout the years, all their bitterness. Thus the attitude of the founder of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X becomes more and more categorical. For clarity, it seemed good to distinguish three periods in the evolution of the position of Archbishop Lefebvre.
A DANGEROUS RITE
We can first distinguish an early period in the attitude of the prelate of Ecône: in his eyes, this Mass constitutes a new and perilous ritual which does not suppress the mass of always (1969-1974).
Upon the implementation of the Novus ordo, in November 1969, Archbishop Lefebvre announced to his seminarians that he would keep the traditional Mass (2). He only uses the time given by Rome, which intends to make the reform compulsory only at the end of 1971. But on this date he explains his refusal of the reform:
"If we ever took the Novus ordo missæ, we would no longer have vocations: the tree would dry up as if we had put the ax to the root."
However, he still believes that when a faithful can not attend an everlasting Mass, he can not dispense with the new Mass, as long as it is celebrated by a "worthy and faithful" priest. This precision is important because in his theological and doctrinal acumen, the Bishop denounced in 1971 the danger inherent in this reform with a Protestant tendency:
"We can therefore ask ourselves very legitimately so insensibly the Catholic faith in the eternal truths of the disappearing Mass, the validity of the Masses does not disappear too. The intention of the celebrant was that of the new conception of the Mass, which in a short time would be none other than the Protestant conception. The Mass will no longer be valid. "(5)
What he confirms in 1973:
"It is understood that our attitude will become more and more radical as time passes, disability spreading with heresy." (6)
And in 1975, it brings this frightening precision:
"All these changes in the new rite are truly perilous, because little by little, especially for the young priests, who no longer have the idea of sacrifice, real presence, transubstantiation and for which all this does not mean Nothing more, these young priests lose the intention of doing what the Church does and no longer say valid masses. Certainly the elderly priests, when they celebrate according to the new rite, still have faith forever. They said mass with the elder for so many years, they keep the same intentions, one can believe that their mass is valid. But to the extent that these intentions disappear, to this extent, the masses will no longer be valid. "(7)
A RITE THAT DOES NOT [OBLIGE]
In a second time, Bishop Lefebvre sees in the new Ordo missæ a new harmful ritual that can not oblige (1975-1979). On May 5, 1975, on the Feast of St. Pius V, the Bishop made the decision to maintain the traditional Mass at all costs. His judgment becomes more categorical as to the new Mass:
"It does not oblige for the fulfillment of the Sunday duty."
This seems to be an application of his famous declaration of 21 November 1974, which it is worth recalling. He affirms his adherence "to eternal Rome, mistress of wisdom and truth", but also his refusal "to follow the Rome of neo-modernist and neo-Protestant tendency which was clearly manifested in the Second Vatican Council and after The Council in all the reforms which have sprung from it. All these reforms have contributed and are still contributing to the demolition of the Church, the ruin of the priesthood, the annihilation of sacrifice and the sacraments, and the disappearance of religious life. No authority, even the highest in the hierarchy, can compel us to abandon or diminish our Catholic faith clearly expressed and professed by the magisterium of the Church for nineteen centuries. This reform, proceeding from liberalism, from modernism, is entirely poisoned; It emerges from heresy and ends in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical. It is therefore impossible for any conscientious and faithful Catholic to adopt this reform and to submit to it in any way whatsoever. The only attitude of fidelity to the Church and to Catholic doctrine for our salvation is the categorical refusal of acceptance of the reform ... "(10).
On August 29, 1976, in a famous homily he pronounced in Lille, Monseigneur did not mince his words and treated the new rite of "bastard mass." He explains:
"It is precisely because this union desired by the liberals, between the Church and the Revolution and subversion, is an adulterous union, only of this adulterous union can come only bastards! And who are these bastards These are our rites, the laugh of the new Mass is a bastard ritual! The sacraments are bastard sacraments: we do not know whether these sacraments give grace or do not give it. "(11)
If such remarks today shock our modern mentalities and seem scandalous to them, let us remember that they are only the fruit of a legitimate indignation. The real scandal resides in the reform itself which, by usurping the titles of the everlasting Mass, distorts the holy sacrifice, cuts off the souls of grace and takes them away from faith. So the judgment of Bishop Lefebvre is more and more severe: it is to preserve those who have not yet been contaminated by the modernist virus of this reform:
"We conform to the evolution which is gradually taking place in the minds of the priests, we must avoid, I would say almost in a radical manner, all assistance to the new Mass."
Only certain exceptions are permitted:
"It is a duty to abstain usually, to accept assistance only in exceptional cases: marriage, burials, and only if one has the moral certainty that the Mass is valid and not sacrilegious." (13)
The following year, Archbishop Lefebvre again explained, on the basis of reality, the attitude to be taken with regard to the new Mass:
"It is therefore dangerous, especially practiced regularly. It slowly and corrupts faith slowly but surely. It would be impossible, therefore, to attend only rarely and for grave reasons, by endeavoring to avoid all that would oblige us to make some odious concessions. "
We see the classical distinction which the Church gives for assistance to non-Catholic rites, and which the Monseigneur will apply to the new mass in 1979. This is what will now be the object of our study.
AN ILLEGITIMATE RITE
Finally, in a third stage (beginning in 1979), Bishop Lefebvre became more severe: he presented this Mass as a harmful ritual to which one could not participate. In a note on the Novus ordo missæ and the pope, written in 1979, Archbishop Lefebvre recalls and clarifies the Fraternity's position with regard to liturgical reform:
"These new Masses not only can not be the object of an obligation for the Sunday precept, but we must apply to them the rules of moral theology and canon law which are those of supernatural prudence in relation to participation Or assistance to a perilous action for our faith or possibly sacrilege. "(15)
Monseigneur does not want to judge the subjective fault of those who participate in such masses (16). But by appealing to the rules of Canon Law, he relies on Canon 1258. The latter forbids active assistance to a [non]Catholic rite (that is, to participate as the followers of this ritual), but allows, in certain exceptional cases (civility at a funeral etc.), purely passive assistance, provided that the scandal is dismissed.
Let us note in passing that this Canon is completed by Canon 2316, which considers as suspect of heresy the one who actively assists a [non]Catholic ritual. We see how the Monseigneur now judges the New Rite: it must be assimilated [viewed as] to the rituals of heretics and schismatics. It is only the application of what he said in 1974:
"This reform, which springs from liberalism, from modernism, is entirely poisoned; It emerges from heresy and ends in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical. "
To those who oppose him that one can not prevent a faithful from actively attending a new Mass, as long as it is valid, Monseigneur answers now, strong of the canonical principle that we have just stated:
"Let us immediately destroy this absurd idea: if the new Mass is valid, we can participate in it. The Church has always forbidden to attend the masses of schismatics and heretics, even if they are valid. It is evident that we can not participate in sacrilegious masses, nor in masses that place our faith in danger. "(18)
As for those who, recognizing the excellence of the traditional Mass, find it merely "better" than the new ritual, they are, according to the Archbishop, "so-called" traditionalists "..." :
"We do not accept this at all. To say that the new Mass is good, no! The new Mass is not good! If it was good, tomorrow we should take it, it's obvious!" (19)
No, for Monseigneur there is no possible equality between the everlasting Mass and the new Mass. They are diametrically opposed. Indeed,
"Mass is the flag of the Catholic faith... [It] puts aside all the errors of Protestantism, Islam, Judaism, modernism, materialistic, socialist and communist secularism. There can be no mistake in our Holy Catholic mMss. The Mass is anti-ecumenical, in the sense in which ecumenism is understood since the Council: the union of all religions in a syncretism of prayer without dogmas, of morality with imprecise laws, agreeing on equivocal slogans: rights of the Human dignity - religious freedom. The New Mass, on the other hand, is indeed the flag of this false ecumenism, which represents the annihilation of the Catholic religion and the Catholic priesthood. "
He also confirmed in 1983 that "these are more than sufficient grounds for not conferring on him the titles reserved for the Catholic Mass for ever, regardless of the rites." (21)
Finally, in 1985, Archbishop Lefebvre addressed all the puzzled Catholics in these terms, summarizing what we have just said:
"Your perplexity then perhaps takes the following form: can I attend a Sacrilegious Mass, but which is valid, if there is no other, and to satisfy the Sunday obligation? The answer is simple: these masses can not be the object of an obligation; We must also apply to them the rules of moral theology and canon law as regards the participation or assistance in a perilous action for the faith or possibly sacrilege. The new mass, even if it is said with piety and respect for liturgical norms, falls under the same reservations since it is imbued with a Protestant spirit. "(22)
CAUTION OF A PRELATE
We were able to follow the long journey of Archbishop Lefebvre, who has not been as fast as some other heroes of Tradition, to arrive at the same conclusions as them.
We have understood that its apparent slowness has been linked to the complexity of the new Rite itself. But this delay can only increase his credibility: a prudent man, of a tried faith, has taken his time to judge of something so serious. No one can accuse Archbishop Lefebvre of haste. The position he has adopted is wise, based not only on the experience of facts, but on the principles of the Church of forever. This herald of Christ the King thus knew how to give the crisis a clear and sure answer, because Catholic.
It is because he understood that "Satan reigns by the ambiguity and incoherence which are his means of fighting and which deceive men of little faith." (24)
Also, in this same wake and to keep this same fidelity, Monsignor Bernard Fellay declared in 2006:
"As long as Vatican II and the new Mass remain the norm, an agreement with Rome is a suicide." (25)
Notes
(1) - Cf. Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Marcel Lefebvre, a lifetime, Clovis, 2002, pp. 419 et seq.
(2) - Ibid., P. 441.
(3) - Ibid., P. 488.
(4) - Ibid., P. 442. Archbishop Lefebvre insisted on this point in 1972 with his seminarians: "If a pious priest finds himself saying the new Mass by making it as traditional as possible, it is good that you attend it to satisfy the Sunday precept. "(Ibid., 490).
(5) - A bishop speaks, DMM, p. 143.
(6) - Monsignor Tissier, op. Cit., P. 490.
(7) - A bishop speaks, op. Cit., Pp. 285-286.
(8) - Monsignor Tissier, op. Cit., P. 508, note 3. It was the very day of the funeral of Father Calmel, a great defender of Tradition.
(9) - Ibid., P. 490.
(10) - Declaration of 21 November 1974, in A Bishop speaks, op. Cit., Pp. 270 ff. It should be noted that two years later, in an interview book prefaced by himself (No, Interviews of José Hanu with Archbishop Lefebvre, Stock, 1977), Monseigneur acknowledged that he had drawn up this statement with indignation, He adds, "this declaration remains, in fact, always more current and more true in the light of the ever more bitter fruits of the Council" (p.
(11) - Sermon of August 29, 1976 in Lille, in Ecône, pulpit of truth (Iris, 2015), pp. 997-998.
(12) - Monsignor Tissier, op. Cit., P. 491.
(13) - The Master Stroke of Satan, St. Gabriel, 1977, p. 46.
(14) - The Mass of Always, Clovis, 2006, p. 392.
(15) - Ibid., P. 391.
(16) - Ibid., P. 397.
(17) - Declaration of 21 November 1974, in A Bishop speaks, op. Cit., Pp. 270 ff.
(18) - See the Mass of the Almighty, Clovis, 2006, p. 391.
(19) - Ibid., P. 379.
(20) - Letter to friends and benefactors, February 1982.
(21) - Letter to friends and benefactors, March 1983.
(22) - Open letter to perplexed Catholics, Albin Michel, 1985, pp. 42-43.
(23) - As an example, what Mgr de Castro Mayer asserted in January 1970, ie only a month after the entry into force of the Novus ordo: "After careful reflection, I am convinced that Can not participate in the new mass and even, to be there, one must have a serious reason. We can not collaborate in the dissemination of a rite which, although not heretical, leads to heresy. "(Letter from Bishop de Castro Mayer to Archbishop Lefebvre, in Bishop Tissier, p.
(24) - The Master's Stroke of Satan, St. Gabriel, 1977, p. 9.
(25) - "Vatican II, The authority of a council in question", Vu de Haut, n ° 13, autumn 2006, p. 8.
|
|
|
| Pro-life Catholic clinic in Denver area vandalized, suspect quickly arrested |
|
Posted by: Stone - 09-27-2022, 04:53 AM - Forum: Anti-Catholic Violence
- No Replies
|
|
Pro-life Catholic clinic in Denver area vandalized, suspect quickly arrested
![[Image: denver-vandalism-2.png?w=670&h=447]](https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/storage/image/denver-vandalism-2.png?w=670&h=447)
Graffiti on the exterior of Bella Health + Wellness in Englewood, Colorado, on Sept. 25, 2022. | Courtesy of Bella Health + Wellness
CNA Denver, Colo., | Sep 25, 2022
A suspect was quickly arrested in the vandalism of a Denver-area Catholic pro-life medical clinic. It is not clear whether the clinic was targeted for its pro-life Catholic mission, though the various graffiti included a reference to Satan and a stylized depiction of a devilish character.
“We are sad to have to share that our clinic was just vandalized,” Bella Health + Wellness medical group said Sept. 25 in a 3 p.m. Facebook post including some photos of the vandalism. “If you could take a moment today to pray for our mission, our team and their families, and our patients, we would be grateful!”
The medical group sought help to repair the building before patients arrived Monday morning.
![[Image: denver-vandalism-1.jpg?w=600]](https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/storage/image/denver-vandalism-1.jpg?w=600)
The Englewood clinic’s front double-glass doors normally show the words “Bella Health + Wellness,” among other words. Spray-painted red lines obscured most of the words.
Near the doors, the building was spray painted in red with phrases of what appeared to be graffiti slang including the phrase “IC Redall is boy.”
A large dumpster alongside the building was tagged with large graffiti and the word “Satan” next to a multicolored, devilish-looking spray-painted face.
After 7 p.m. on Sunday, Bella’s social media reported that the Englewood Police Department had made an arrest. Its Facebook post said “huge thanks to the Englewood Police Department.”
Bella is a nonprofit medical practice that operates in alignment with Catholic teaching. Archbishop Samuel Aquila of Denver praised the practice at its December 2014 launch. It offers full OB-GYN care with a specialization in NAPRO technologies as well as family primary care, including pediatrics.
According to its website, Bella served more than 1,700 patients in 2021 and provided almost $250,000 in free care. It says 382 babies were born with Bella’s assistance, 981 Medicaid patients were served, and another 622 patients were served in partnership with Marisol Health, the pro-life medical centers of Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Denver.
“Bella has a mission to protect life-affirming, dignified health care,” the clinic says on the front page of its website. “We believe providers and patients deserve to act according to their own medical consciences.”
|
|
|
|
| New Zealand Prime Minister Calls For A Global Censorship System |
|
Posted by: Stone - 09-27-2022, 04:43 AM - Forum: Global News
- No Replies
|
|
New Zealand Prime Minister Calls For A Global Censorship System
ZH | SEP 26, 2022
Authored by Jonathan Turley,
New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is the latest liberal leader to call for an international alliance to censor speech. Unsatisfied with the unprecedented corporate censorship of social media companies, leaders like Hillary Clinton have turned from private censorship to good old-fashioned state censorship. Speech regulation has become an article of faith on the left. Ardern used her speech this week to the United Nations General Assembly to call for censorship on a global scale.
Ardern lashed out at “disinformation” and called for a global coalition to control speech. After nodding toward free speech, she proceeded to lay out a plan for its demise through government regulation:
Quote:But what if that lie, told repeatedly, and across many platforms, prompts, inspires, or motivates others to take up arms. To threaten the security of others. To turn a blind eye to atrocities, or worse, to become complicit in them. What then?
This is no longer a hypothetical. The weapons of war have changed, they are upon us and require the same level of action and activity that we put into the weapons of old.
We recognized the threats that the old weapons created. We came together as communities to minimize these threats. We created international rules, norms and expectations. We never saw that as a threat to our individual liberties – rather, it was a preservation of them. The same must apply now as we take on these new challenges.
Ardern noted how extremists use speech to spread lies without noting that non-extremists use the same free speech to counter such views. To answer her question on “how do you tackle climate change if people do not believe it exists” is that you convince people using the same free speech. Instead, Ardern appears to want to silence those who have doubts.
While referring to a global censorship coalition as a “light-touch approach to disinformation,” Ardern revealed how sweeping such a system would likely be. She defended the need for such global censorship on having to combat those who question climate change and the need to stop “hateful and dangerous rhetoric and ideology.”
Quote:“After all, how do you successfully end a war if people are led to believe the reason for its existence is not only legal but noble? How do you tackle climate change if people do not believe it exists? How do you ensure the human rights of others are upheld, when they are subjected to hateful and dangerous rhetoric and ideology?”
That is the same rationale used by authoritarian countries like China, Iran, and Russia to censor dissidents, minority groups, and political rivals. What is “hateful” and “dangerous” is a fluid concept that government have historically used to silence critics or dissenters.
Ardern is the smiling face of the new generation of censors. At least the old generation of censors like the Iranians do not pretend to support free speech and openly admit that they are crushing dissent. The point is that we need to be equally on guard when censorship is pushed from the left with the best of motivations and the worst of means.
As the great civil libertarian Justice Louis Brandeis once said, “the greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.”
|
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre 1990: Concerning the New Mass |
|
Posted by: Stone - 09-26-2022, 11:12 AM - Forum: Sermons and Conferences
- No Replies
|
|
Extract from the conference of April 11th, 1990, given in Écône by His Excellency, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
on the Oath of fidelity to the positions of the SSPX. (Part II, about the N.O.M)
Taken from here [adapted, emphasis mine].
So, concerning the Rite of the Mass, you have three small articles on it:
"I admit that the Masses celebrated according to the new rite are not all invalid, in view of the bad translations, of [its] ambiguity ..."
You have on that subject some explanations from the book of Mr. Salleron, those are in my opinion, probably the best ones which were given and the most complete. He really made a study on Novus Ordo. It's hard to do it more perfectly and more completely then what he did very courageously. He is not afraid to say in which way the Novus Ordo is equivocal. There are three chapters, one after the other, which show that it is equivocal and it is clear that the Novus Ordo favors heresy. For those reasons, the Novus Ordo is a failure. There are three chapters which are very well written for us now.
Also, his whole analysis of the Novus Ordo and the whole history with all very well studied documents are really enlightening. If someone is still adhering to the Novus Ordo after having read that book, it is because he will never understand anything. Besides, that is why I brought it with me to the Holy Office. And then, when they talked with me about the Novus Ordo they interrogated me. “So concerning the Novus Ordo; how is it that you say some rather serious things about it?” So, I can assure you they asked me questions. It's shocking... “Do you maintain that a faithful Catholic can think and affirm that a sacramental Rite, especially the one of the Mass, approved and promulgated by the Pope, can be nonconforming with the Catholic faith or favor heresy?” I said: “Well here! You are holding the book. It’s not even my words, you see! But I agree absolutely with what he says: equivocal Mass, Mass favoring heresy ...”
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. “But, even so, [in] the Novus Ordo, we know priests who are brave, who are good and who are trying say it well etc.…” Read this! You will see! It is the Novus Ordo in itself! It is not the priest who is saying it. It is not because he says it piously or anything that the New Rite changes. It is not because it changes anything in the Rite of the Mass. It is obvious that this new Rite is a Rite that has been made only to draw us closer to the Protestants! That is clear! Finally, clear!
On this subject, reread also the article by Father Boyer in the supplement of the Catholic Theological Dictionary. After the table of contents, there are a few articles and in particular a very long article by Father Boyer who was my teacher at the Gregorian, who is now dead, and who was very highly regarded, a man of value who was, for some time, Secretary of the Secretariat for Christian unity. Basically, I think he was named in this Secretariat to give a slightly more traditional image and to give some confidence to the people. As you know, Father Boyer was a respected man, highly regarded in Roman circles and among teachers. He wrote a long article on ecumenism, an article very well documented where he quotes some phrases of Pope Paul VI requesting that we go as far as possible in suppressing everything that can hinder the Protestants in our ceremonies, excluding, obviously, what might be contrary to the Faith. But, I do not see how we can change the texts of our Mass and diminish them without harming the Faith? It is not possible! The Mass is everything! Once we remove what bothers the Protestants, how can we say that we are not going to touch the Faith? It is contradictory. They are unbelievable orders, and that is literally written by Father Boyer. So what do you want to do?
"And that's why I never will celebrate the Mass according to the New Rite, even under threat of ecclesiastical penalties and I will never advise anyone positively to participate actively in such a mass."
Because people are still asking us those questions: “I have not 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 be better to go to the Mass of this priest, even if it is the New Mass but said with piety instead of retaining myself?”
No! That's not true! This 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 Rite poisoned! 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 rite practically, neighboring the Protestantism!” Its harm our Faith, the Catholic Faith!
So, it is out of 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. Then, ask them questions on ecumenism, on what they think of the relations with other religions and you will see! They are all ecumenist. For the priest himself, the fact of saying this [New] Mass and celebrating it in a constant manner, even without thinking about anything, about its origin, or why it was made, turns him and the people who assist to it ecumenist. And, if we are asking them about ecumenism, their answer will be: “But of course! We can be saved in all religions, it's obvious! This is the New Mass, the Novus Ordo Missae.
Of course, that's why it is said: “in a positive manner to participate actively at such a Mass." But we can eventually, for reasons, as it is written in Canon Law like Orthodox ceremonies, assist passively. For a wedding, parent’s funerals 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 to it, than for assisting at the sacrifice of the Mass. Those are conditions that are already mentioned in the Canon Law, the old Canon Law. But attending to [the Novus Ordo] in order to replace 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 [in Africa] 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 it otherwise. It is not an impossible thing. So we say: "But am I not doing 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 an act that tends to diminish our faith. It's not possible. God cannot force us to do an act like this. 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 Mass of the New Rite, said by a good priest, a serious priest who offers all the guarantees almost of holiness? etc. “But, I do not understand how they cannot answer this by 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!
And that, you will see, will be mandatory for those who have left us. For the FSSP, for Dom Gerard, even if they never say the New Rite themselves, even if they have our convictions, they will be obliged, to consider the New Rite with the same value as the traditional rite! In practice, when they will receive the priests who will come to see them, they will be obliged to let them say their Mass and tell them: "No problem. But of course, say your Mass." This is fatal! They cannot do otherwise. Look at the cohabitation of the two rites with Father Lafargue! In Paris there, with Father Veuillet! And beware! Father Lafargue and Father Veuillet must not go tell the others that their mass is bad or say: "you must come with me, you must come with us." It is well marked in the contracts. The two Rites are valid, do not criticize ... So, this is not possible. It is impossible otherwise. They are trapped!
|
|
|
|
| St. Augustine: On [Religious] Seditions |
|
Posted by: Stone - 09-25-2022, 01:27 PM - Forum: The Saints
- No Replies
|
|
St Augustine - On Seditions
“Often, too, Divine Providence permits even good men to be driven from the congregation of Christ by the turbulent seditions of carnal men. When for the sake of the peace of the Church, they patiently endure that insult or injury, and attempt no novelties in the way of heresy or schism. They will teach men how God is to be served with a true disposition and with great and sincere charity. The intention of such men is to return when the tumult has subsided. But if that is not permitted because the storm continues or because a fiercer one might be stirred up by their return, they hold fast to their purpose to look to the good even of those responsible for the tumults and commotions that drove them out. They form no separate sects of their own, but defend to the death and assist by their testimony the faith which they know is preached in the Catholic Church. These the Father who seeth in secret crowns secretly. It appears that this is a rare kind of Christian, but examples are not lacking. So Divine Providence uses all kinds of men as examples for the oversight of souls and for the building up of his spiritual people.”
St. Augustine, Of True Religion, 6,11
|
|
|
|
| God Wishes to Reveal & Honor Mary in These Latter Times |
|
Posted by: Stone - 09-25-2022, 07:35 AM - Forum: Our Lady
- Replies (1)
|
|
God Wishes to Reveal & Honor Mary in These Latter Times
Taken from True Devotion to Mary, trans. by Fr. William Faber,
London: 1863, Part One, No. 49
![[Image: NiZwaWQ9QXBp]](https://imgs.search.brave.com/XpqdxGq_sqpXJSNX22ipEhgC7o1vXwoB7x4ashjKHfU/rs:fit:354:225:1/g:ce/aHR0cHM6Ly90c2Uy/Lm1tLmJpbmcubmV0/L3RoP2lkPU9JUC5v/YkVyamhCd2FXcjR1/UEZDTTAtQ2lBSGFK/NiZwaWQ9QXBp)
St. Louis Grignion de Montfort, the Prophet of the Latter Times, stresses the essential role of Mary in the crisis we are facing today. This coincides with the doctrine always held in the Holy Church that she, as Co-Redemptrix, has received an almost infinite power for dispensing the fruits of Redemption. She is the mighty helper of the Catholic people, the restorer of the world, the impregnable rampart of the Church, the solid foundation of the Faith.
May Her glorious past in destroying heresies and toppling the evil give us confidence for the future.
St. Louis Grignion de Montfort
It is by Mary that the salvation of the world has begun, and it is by Mary that is must be consummated. Mary has hardly appeared at all in the first coming of Jesus Christ, in order that men, as yet but little instructed and enlightened on the Person of her Son, should not remove themselves from Him, in attaching themselves too strongly and too grossly to her.
This would have apparently taken place, if she had been known, because of the admirable charms which the Most High had bestowed even upon her exterior. This is so true that St. Denys the Areopagite has informed us in his writings that when he saw our Blessed Lady, he should have taken her for a Divinity in consequence of her secret charms and incomparable beauty, had not the Faith in which he was well established taught him the contrary.
But in the second coming of Jesus Christ, Mary has to be made known and revealed by the Holy Ghost, in order that by her Jesus Christ may be known, loved and served. The reasons which moved the Holy Ghost to hide His Spouse during her life and to reveal her but a very little since the preaching of the Gospel, subsist no longer.
God, then, wishes to reveal and recognize Mary, the masterpiece of His hands, in these Latter Times. ...
Being the way by which Jesus Christ came to us the first time, Our Lady will also be the way by which He will come the second time, though not in the same manner. Mary must shine forth more than ever in mercy, in might and in grace in these Latter Times to come:
In mercy, to bring back and lovingly receive the poor strayed sinners who shall be converted and shall return to the Catholic Church;
In might, against the enemies of God, idolaters, schismatics, Mohammedans, Jews, and souls hardened in impiety who shall rise in terrible revolt against God to seduce all those who shall be contrary to them, and make them fall by promises and threats;
And finally, she must shine forth in grace, in order to animate and sustain the valiant soldiers and faithful servants of Jesus Christ, who shall do battle for His interests. Holy Mary must be terrible as an army ranged in battle, principally in these Latter Times.
It is principally of these last and cruel persecutions of the Devil, which shall go on increasing daily till the reign of Antichrist, that we ought to understand and celebrated the prediction and curse of God, pronounced in the terrestrial Paradise against the Serpent: I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed.
|
|
|
|
| The Meat Replacement Hypothesis |
|
Posted by: Stone - 09-23-2022, 08:59 AM - Forum: General Commentary
- No Replies
|
|
The Meat Replacement Hypothesis:
The plot to eliminate animal protein is well ahead of your plans to keep eating it.
American Mind [adapted - emphasis mine] | September 22, 2022
Farmers across the world are in open revolt against their governments. In India, thousands of farmers have stormed New Delhi, alleging collusion between the Prime Minister and major agricultural corporations. In the Netherlands, new restrictions on nitrogen emissions from fertilizer that threaten to destroy farmers’ livelihoods have driven battalions of tractors into the streets—and conflicts with the police. In Sri Lanka, the President’s sudden decision to ban chemical fertilizers and impose universal organic farming recently led to massive protests and the collapse of their government. Similar environmentalist policies are about to be imposed in Ireland and Canada, where just last year truckers shut down the city of Ottawa over COVID vaccination mandates.
Writing for National Review, Andrew Stuttaford predicts an impending farmer’s uprising in Canada in response to what he calls Canada’s “war on beef.” The phrase echoes a common belief on the American right that leftists seek to hyper-regulate or outright ban animal protein in the same way they do guns or fossil fuels. The Foundation for Economic Education began talking about a “war on meat” as early as 2019. Senator Joni Ernst referenced “the left’s war on meat” to advocate her TASTEE Act last year. John Daniel Davidson of The Federalist recently warned that “America is Next” for a farmer uprising, due to the climate policies that Democrats are imposing here. Ultimately, many Americans have come to agree that this war on meat is a conspiracy of globalist elites, attributing even everyday agricultural misfortunes such as fertilizer scarcity, diesel fuel price hikes, widespread food processing and crop fires, and supply chain disruptions to a purposeful agenda.
The concern is warranted. Upending the meat industry for environmental or health reasons should not be a serious policy debate. Ranchers and farmers are the only source of the nutritious, whole protein that nearly every culture includes in its cuisine. For all but the most religious vegan or “food activism” theorist, there is little doubt that including animal protein in your diet keeps you leaner and stronger, alive longer, and free of chronic illness.
Eat the Bugs
I presented the question of a “war on meat” to John Cain Carter, a cattle rancher whose operations in Texas and Brazil led him to establish the well-known rainforest conservation organization Aliança da Terra. Through his advocacy, he is deeply familiar with the world of pro-environment NGOs, but despite working in the same field, he does not view them positively. Groups like the World Wildlife Fund, Greenpeace, The Nature Conservancy, The Rockefeller Foundation and others are engaged, says Carter, in a “siege on the beef business” and “an attack exquisitely planned as far back as the 1950s.”
“These groups want to wipe out independent family ranches in advance of corporate takeover,” Carter said, “And they push for policies that increase input costs and keep commodity prices stagnant while inflation rises.” And governments, he continued, are more than happy to oblige “under the auspices of climate change, animal welfare, and endangered species to restrict grazing rights, control water usage, and enact other regulations.” In essence, Carter was describing a hostile, focused agenda that was neither accidental nor disorganized.
Many governments and influential NGOs regularly call for the end of meat-based diets, and take steps to ensure that meat is eaten less. Most notoriously, World Economic Forum chair Klaus Schwab has made reducing meat consumption an essential element of the WEF’s “Great Reset” plan. Along with the WEF, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the EU’s “Green Deal” call for less meat-based diets. Germany, Denmark, and Sweden have proposed a meat tax as a way to reduce carbon emissions from cows. All of these measures focused on the meat industry as a significant driver of climate change.
Texas cattle rancher Bart Simmons, who has built a social media presence to counter what he calls “elite anti-meat messaging,” considers such arguments pernicious. “The anti-meat movement effectively tied methane from cattle as a cause for climate change early on in the debate, and it stuck,” Simmons told me. “The EPA attributes only 1.9% of America’s greenhouse gases to methane and nitrous oxide from beef cattle, less than a tenth of other industries like electricity or transportation.” If there is a war on beef, it’s misguided.
This is especially true when we scrutinize what would replace meat in the global diet. The famous expression “we will not eat the bugs” has become a canned response to global initiatives focused on protein derived from crickets or mealworms. But the meat replacement industry is even more technologically savvy: Bill Gates, Richard Branson, and other billionaires have begun heavily investing in laboratory meat products (which they ironically call “clean meat”) grown from stem cells, soy, gelatin, and genetically-engineered yeast. An NYU researcher has even proposed making modifications to human bodies to make us smaller and allergic to meat, specifically citing the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as a motivation. On the economic side, one of the WEF’s favored startups, Doconomy, has introduced a “carbon credit card” which will shut off if the user purchases too much meat. Such climate-conscious financial practices align well with the World Bank’s Food Systems 2030 plan, which shares the same views on global agriculture.
Meat Coupons
It’s not extreme to call this trend a “War on Meat” and to point out that it is being waged by leftist elites. The top left-aligned newspaper The New York Times has called meat-eating racist, the Soros- and Ford-funded organization Open Democracy has called it “far-right”, and President Joe Biden has called for reducing red meat consumption by 90 percent. Agriculture and diet have now become a partisan struggle.
On the other hand, most leftists still eat meat, and anti-meat messaging still occupies a fairly small political niche. In fact, even the globalist organizations mentioned above are not always anti-meat in their official statements and documents. The WEF acknowledges that meat is and always will be a core part of many diets, and ought to be, given its nutritional value. The EU’s Nutri-Score, which is part of the Green Deal, rates meat products very highly as healthy choices, despite the overall program attacking meat consumption.
Whatever the urgency or seriousness of this conspiracy against meat, it would be a mistake to ignore the elites’ anti-meat trend or think it doesn’t affect us personally. Food is never just an individual choice. The unprecedented bounty of the twenty-first century creates the illusion that food supplies are infinite. But this is not the case: meat abounds because demand is high. As meat demand falls—as it has significantly in the United Kingdom and the United States—the meat supply soon follows. If you’re not convinced, go to a few grocery stores and try to buy a jabuticaba or a cherimoya—you’ll find they are not in stock, since there is no demand for them.
As NGOs and the media attack meat from a consumption side, governments across the world attack the farming and ranching profession itself. The tax proposals that have caused the uprisings in The Netherlands and Sri Lanka are just the tip of the iceberg. In the United States, a staggering number of farmers are retirement age, with an entire career spent paying off overleveraged farm land, equipment, and supply purchases, only to have their revenue subject to the whims of price control, weather, and state and federal policies. Meanwhile, while student loans for college attendees are being forgiven, there is no such debt jubilee for farmers—in fact, agricultural debt is treated far worse.
The availability of meat is not solely a matter of government policy, either. America’s farmers generally use methods of raising cattle that enervate instead of replenishing the soil. In order for meat to be plentiful and good-quality, soil must be nutrient-rich and provide diverse vegetation for grazing. Rotational and multispecies grazing are solutions that should be more widely adopted to ensure healthier livestock and reduce the need for fertilizer and pesticide.
Whether or not there is a conspiracy against meat, pro-agriculture reforms must be a national priority. Getting to the bottom of a globalist scheme does nothing to solve the ongoing farming crisis, but neither nor does throwing up our hands as if nothing can be done against elite global planners, who desire to remake the world, but so far lack the coercive power to carry it out.
Saving Meat
Meat lovers should fortify the industry with some concrete steps. First, more robust marketing of healthy, high-quality meat is needed to counter anti-meat messaging. This will protect supply for meat by driving up demand. This is already common among independent sources like fitness and nutrition influencers, cooking and lifestyle magazines, and local trade groups. Like-minded health and wellness institutions and professionals must continue speaking the truth and countering false narratives about meat, before the anti-meat perspective becomes orthodoxy.
Secondly, the policy posture of federal regulatory agencies must refocus against toxic, exploitative food producers—not small farmers. The power of federal agencies like the FDA and USDA should be limited to their original purposes of truth-in-labeling and the protection of the food supply. The current confusion and industry invasion of meat replacements is a direct outgrowth of these agencies’ arrogating the magisterial authority to define specific types of foods. Billionaire-backed laboratory meat startups and green ideologues have pushed the USDA to allow controversial substances like the cultured tissue of fetal bovine serum to be speciously labeled “meat.”
Lastly, meat advocates must push for government policies focused on bolstering meat production and training more farmers. Even the most anti-meat globalist understands that meat is an industry employing millions of people—and the Sri Lankan revolt has demonstrated once and for all what happens when a “Great Reset” is attempted all at once. There is an opening for meat’s defenders to pass legislation that can financially incentivize certain types of healthy farming and make it possible for more young Americans to train in agricultural trades. If the current presidential administration can openly debate the cancellation of billions of dollars of student loan debt, surely we can discuss debt relief for small farmers, many of whom have mortgaged their land and remain buried in long-term interest payments.
Two things can be true at once: powerful forces can be leading opposition to healthy meat consumption, and the meat industry can do more to protect itself. To prevent meat from becoming a rare and prohibitively expensive luxury item, meat producers and consumers must work together to stop punitive legislation and propaganda from destroying meat-based nutrition. Simultaneously, strengthening and reforming the industry must become a policy and a cultural priority. Diet is the root of America’s national health—and we must strive to protect our high-quality protein from livestock agriculture.
|
|
|
|
| World Economic Forum cites compliance with COVID mandates to promote ‘climate change’ lockdowns |
|
Posted by: Stone - 09-22-2022, 05:55 AM - Forum: Great Reset
- No Replies
|
|
World Economic Forum cites compliance with COVID mandates to promote ‘climate change’ lockdowns
The WEF suggested COVID-19 lockdowns have created an environment in which
the ‘lack of social acceptance and political resistance’ to climate restrictions may be overcome.
![[Image: klaus-schwab-810x500.jpg]](https://www.lifesitenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/klaus-schwab-810x500.jpg)
Klaus Schwab speaks as part of SWITCH GREEN during day 1 of the Greentech Festival at Kraftwerk Mitte aired on September 16, 2020 in Berlin, Germany. Photo by Getty Images/Getty Images for Greentech Festival
Sep 21, 2022
GENEVA, Switzerland (LifeSiteNews) — The World Economic Forum is boasting that mass compliance with draconian COVID-19 mandates “demonstrated the core of individual social responsibility” and helped pave the way for upcoming “climate”-related restrictions.
Headed by German engineer, economist, and COVID-19: The Great Reset author Klaus Schwab, the WEF made the connection in a September 14 report associated with its ongoing 2022 Sustainable Development Impact Meetings.
Quote:BREAKING: Davos launching new push for permanent “climate change” lockdowns: “The lockdowns aren’t for them, the lockdowns are for YOU.”
pic.twitter.com/nweQNmVqqN
— Jack Posobiec ?? (@JackPosobiec) September 20, 2022
The WEF report suggested moves to track and restrict personal carbon usage has had “limited success due to a lack of social acceptance, political resistance, and a lack of awareness and fair mechanism for tracking ‘My Carbon’ emissions.”
However, the document noted that the unprecedented response to COVID-19 has created an environment in which that “lack of social acceptance and political resistance” may be overcome.
“A huge number of unimaginable restrictions for public health were adopted by billions of citizens across the world,” the report read. “There were numerous examples globally of maintaining social distancing, wearing masks, mass vaccinations and acceptance of contact-tracing applications for public health, which demonstrated the core of individual social responsibility.”
According to the report, that compliance “could help realise ‘My Carbon’ initiatives for shaping the future towards smart and sustainable cities.”
RELATED: COVID was just the beginning: Climate lockdowns are the next stage of the Great Reset agenda
The authors of the paper pointed out that the ascendency of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and “Smart” technology emerging from the so-called Fourth Industrial Revolution have provided platforms whereby personal consumption of energy can be monitored and limited.
The document cited “major advances in smart home technologies, transport choices with carbon implications,” and “the roll-out of smart meters” that the WEF said helps people choose “to reduce their energy-related emissions.”
The WEF also touted “the development of new personalized apps to account for personal emissions, and better personal choices for food and consumption-related emissions.”
While the language used in the WEF’s report suggests that individuals will be able to voluntarily opt into programs limiting their alleged carbon emissions, the notion has generated concern that consumers might not always have the choice.
Earlier this month, roughly 22,000 Colorado residents were prevented from adjusting their thermostats after their opt-in “smart” thermostat company locked the devices at 78 degrees F° during a heat wave, citing a local “energy emergency.”
While the “smart” thermostat company, Xcel, emphasized to the media that the program was voluntary and incentive-based, residents said they were surprised and upset to find they couldn’t control their home temperature.
“To me, an emergency means there is, you know, life, limb, or, you know, some other danger out there — some, you know, massive wildfires,” a customer told ABC 7 Denver. “Even if it’s a once-in-a-blue-moon situation, it just doesn’t sit right with us to not be able to control our own thermostat in our house.”
Quote:22,000 people in Colorado had their thermostats locked by their utility company in 90 degree weather due to an ‘energy emergency.’
People will read stories like this, still want a refrigerator that connects to the internet, and somehow believe our grid is ready for 100% EVs.
— Lauren Boebert (@laurenboebert) September 5, 2022
This week, The Great Reset: Global Elites and the Permanent Lockdown author Marc Morano told LifeSite’s John-Henry Westen that lockdowns, restrictions, and even planned economic collapse are all part of the “climate” agenda.
“The COVID lockdowns were literally a version of what they’ve called for for decades in the climate movement,” Morano said. “I attend every United Nations climate summit, and I’m going to the one in Egypt this year … and what these summits call for … is the ‘degrowth movement,’ or ‘planned recessions’ … to fight global warming. And what that means is the government imposes slower economic growth or forces a recession to lower emissions.”
Over the summer, the WEF argued that pushing forward an “clean energy transition,” partly by hiking up already record-breaking gas prices, would be necessary for both saving democracy and staving off environmental catastrophe.
U.S. President Joe Biden, who has presided over skyrocketing inflation and historically high gas prices, drew backlash in May when he suggested that the high cost of fuel was part of an “incredible transition.”
|
|
|
|
| Sorrowful Heart of Mary Newsletter - September 2022 |
|
Posted by: Stone - 09-21-2022, 10:38 AM - Forum: Sorrowful Heart of Mary
- No Replies
|
|
✠
![[Image: cf23d8fd-dae2-45f8-8a1f-2886fc31fba8.jpg]](https://files.constantcontact.com/189ca5c9701/cf23d8fd-dae2-45f8-8a1f-2886fc31fba8.jpg)
September 2022
Dear Faithful,
Cardinal Pie of Poitiers (d. 1886) used to say “The Catholic Church is intolerant when it comes to principles of the Faith, but tolerant and charitable in practice; while Liberals, on the contrary, are tolerant when it come to principles (e.g. “coexistence” of all beliefs), but intolerant in practice.”
We can see this applied to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, when it came to upholding principles of the Faith he was intolerant of error and boldly accused the Second Vatican Council of introducing novel principles against the Faith (e.g. Ecumenism, Pluralism, Religious Liberty, etc.) and stood opposed to them. But when it came to people, he was gentle and tolerant with their shortcomings, his kindness stands out in the memory of all who knew him.
But with Liberals, as an example, we can just look at Pope Francis who is tolerant of pagan idols (e.g. Pachamama) in the name of Vatican II’s teaching on “inculturation;” he tolerates Protestantism, divorce, sodomy, Modernism and just about every evil under the sun! But with Traditional Catholic people he is absolutely intolerant, calling them “backward,” “obstacle to the progress of Vatican II,” “blind bats,” and his favorite, “rigid.” He shuts down “conservative” Novus Ordo religious houses and seminaries adopting the Latin Mass and punishes outspoken “conservative” Novus Ordo bishops. Pope Paul VI did the same by “intolerantly” leveling a phony suspension on Abp. Lefebvre, while at the same time “tolerantly” prostrating himself before a schismatic orthodox bishop. Then Pope John Paul II followed suit, by “intolerantly” punishing Abp. Lefebvre with an illegal excommunication while at the same time “tolerantly” receiving the pagan ritual-mark of Shiva on his forehead! Indeed, Liberals are tolerant with errors but intolerant when it comes to Truth and Catholics faithful to Tradition!
The same applies in civil society. Catholics and most honest men rooted in the Natural Law, defend the unborn and are intolerant of contraception and abortion; while, on the other hand, Liberals are tolerant of every error and vice under the label of “pro-choice”, but intolerant with unwanted babies, and resort to every sort of cruelty dripping with blood, in order to exterminate them by abortion! Indeed, LIBERALISM DRIPS WITH BLOOD!
FIRSTLY, UNITY IN THE FAITH!
This brings us to the absolute importance of the primacy of the Faith; the primacy of Doctrine! To survive this apostate age, the Catholic must be unshakably rooted in the Truth! We must never give any attention to those incorrectly calling traditional Catholics “schismatics," in fact, after fifty-seven years since the Council, we should be used to it! Let us never forget that the profession of the Faith is always the first foundation for true unity! This bond of unity is built on the solid, unchanging principles of the Catholic Faith. All unity in the Catholic Church must first be founded on this rock on which Christ said to build. It is the rock on which St. Peter’s successors are commanded to stand and not build on the sands of Modernism!
Pope Leo XIII, in his Encyclical Satis Cognitum, speaks about the true unity of the Church, saying: “Such great and such absolute concord among men must have as its necessary foundation, the union of understanding and agreement of intelligences; from which will naturally flow the harmony of men’s wills and agreement in action. This is why, according to the Divine Plan, Jesus wanted the unity of the Faith to exist in His Church; for Faith is the first of all bonds that unites men to God and it is due to this that we are called ‘faithful’.”
Pope Pius XI repeated the same idea when he said in his Encyclical condemning false ecumenism, Mortalium Animos: “Since charity is founded on an honest and sincere faith, it is the unity of the Faith which must be the principle bond uniting the disciples of Christ.”
From this insistence of the traditional Magisterium, it is clear there is a much higher foundation for unity in the Church than just a nebulous “unity of communion” or “unity of luv”: it is the unity of Faith! The foundation for all unity in the Catholic Church is firstly built on the Faith!
From this it is clear that Traditional Catholics are anything but “schismatics” or their own “marginalized church” because the first real schismatics are heretics. “Heresy," says Cardinal Billot, “is schism, for it directly opposes the unity of the Faith.” So, one can go against the “unity of communion” without going against the unity of the Faith, but one cannot go against the unity of Faith without going against the “unity of communion,” since the former is the foundation for the latter. The unity of all members professing the Catholic Faith is the fundamental basis on which rests all other unity of the Pope, bishops, priests and laity.
THOSE WHO DEVIATE FROM THE FAITH MAKE THE SCHISM
Now, looking closely at the situation of the Church since the Second Vatican Council, we see all those in positions of authority are imbued with Liberalism and Modernism; extending from Abp. Annibale Bugnini and Cardinal Ratzinger to Pope John XXIII and Pope Francis. They have imposed reforms that destroy the Church because they oppose the Traditional Faith, Mass, and Sacraments. Thus, they have broken with the Tradition of many centuries which is, ultimately, the unity of Faith; and the “unity of communion” they are always trying to achieve is only a “pseudo-unity” because it has lost its true foundation.
The Modernist hierarchy, as Modernist, is heretical: it is opposed to the unity of Faith by the spreading of its errors and promotion of their pseudo-unity or “unity of communion.” In other words, as Abp. Lefebvre often repeated, it is the Conciliar Church that is truly schismatic, because it seeks a unity that is no longer a Catholic unity!
Abp. Lefebvre didn’t mince words when he said: “The Conciliar Church is practically schismatic. [...] It’s a virtually excommunicated Church, because it’s a Modernist Church” (Fideliter, 70, p. 8). Again, “The Pope wants to make a unity outside the Faith. It’s a communion. A communion with whom? With what? How?... it’s not a unity anymore. This can only be done in the unity of Faith” (Fideliter, 79, p.8).
AND THE POPE?
As Cardinal Journet explains, in his pre-Vatican II work, Church of the Incarnate Word (vol. II, p. 839 sq.), the Pope himself can sin against the ecclesiastical communion by breaking the unity of leadership. This would happen if he did not fulfill his duty and denied the Church the direction she is entitled to expect from him in the name of Someone greater than himself, namely, Christ, Her founder and invisible Head. And this is, unfortunately, the painful situation in which we find ourselves ever since the Council ended, in 1965. If Abp. Lefebvre stayed away from any agreement with the Modernist hierarchy and the Conciliar Church, it was out of fidelity to Tradition, by refusing to join the real schism and breaking with the unity of Faith, as it has always been believed in the Church.
“The Church is not the Mystical Body ‘of the Pope’, but of Christ!” (Fr. Roger-Thomas Calmel, OP, About The Church and the Pope, in Itineraires 173, May, 1973, p. 28). Fr. Calmel goes on to say that if it ever happens that the Pope is so deficient in his office as to promote heresy and schism, then it is better to obey Christ and remain faithful to the Church of all time, even if this means enduring the wrath of the current authorities. Abp. Lefebvre preferred to stay clear of this Modernist hierarchy with its false “unity of communion” saying: “To leave, then, the official Church? To some extent, yes, of course! If the bishops are in heresy, it is necessary to leave this environment of the bishops if one does not want to lose his soul. If we move away from these people, it is absolutely the same as with people with AIDS. We don’t want to catch it. They now have ‘spiritual AIDS’, contagious diseases. If you want to stay healthy, we must not go with them” (Conference at Écône, September 9, 1988, cited in Fideliter, 66, p. 28).
CONCLUSION
"So then, who are the real “schismatics”? It is not those who are attached to Tradition. Rather, in reality, it is those who distance themselves from it! If the traditionalists are not “in communion,” it’s only with the Conciliar Church with whom they are not in communion, and that is precisely, their badge of honor! True communion will be restored when Rome returns to Tradition and “re-crowns Our Lord Jesus Christ!” (Abp. Lefebvre). But to seek union with Rome BEFORE the authorities have returned to the unity of the Faith is to abandon our fight, it is - in a certain way - to betray the Truth, by mingling it in with the pluralist and indifferent system orchestrated by the unfaithful hierarchy in charge. This would be the triumph of the new ecclesiology of the Second Vatican Council, with its “subsistit in.” For us, it is not enough for Rome to declare: “the Church of Christ subsists in Tradition;” it must declare: “the true Church of Christ is Tradition.”
Finally, following in the line of Abp. Lefebvre, we never have, nor ever will have, any intention of forming some “parallel Church” or some “petite eglise” (“small church”), independent from the one Christ founded. And that is why we do not seek to establish a parallel hierarchy (a veritable danger with the Thuc line) or to live withdrawn in our own circles and closed to others. We simply desire to steadfastly continue in our duty of professing the Faith and Mass of all time!
Only compromise or contacts endangering the Faith must be avoided. Our chapels and missions are open to all the faithful, the priests’ Mass schedules, sermons and catechisms are publicly available on-line and we are most willing to explain to anyone our position. We do not refuse to meet with others, with necessary prudence, in order to bring them back to Tradition, nor must we be shaken in the face of accusations, such as “being marginalized,” or being a “futile Resistance,” or “renegades” which are nothing but the result of our fidelity to the Faith of all time!
“We are neither schismatics nor excommunicated, we are not against the Pope. We are not against the Catholic Church. We do not have a parallel church. All this is absurd! We are what we have always been, Catholics who simply continue. That’s all! There’s no need to look for Noon when it’s 2:00 AM. We do not make a ‘small church’!” (Abp. Lefebvre, Fideliter, 70, p. 8).
ONE FINAL PRECISION
It must be added that, while speaking of the authorities of the Church as “heretical” or “schismatic,” it does not mean in the canonical sense or that they have necessarily broken from the Church. For this, it would be necessary that their heresy or schism be declared notorious by canon law, which seems almost impossible, since the authorities of the Church must do this.
Nevertheless, their heresy and schism are no less true, they are breaking with Tradition, destroying the Faith and the Mass of all time, and influencing the damnation of many souls. Their schism and heresies continue unchecked and are spreading everywhere without them being publicly declared as notorious by law, which makes it a far more dangerous situation, since they continue ravaging souls within the Church, who, blinded by false obedience, do not even suspect the least danger! We have to just stay away from this Conciliar Church and those who compromise with it, and we must continue to denounce their errors. This was the conduct of Abp. Lefebvre and we maintain that position.
One last, crowning quotation from the very theologian who assisted Abp. Lefebvre during the Second Vatican Council, Fr. Victor-Alain Berto, who died in 1968, who said: “What is a Modernist? He is a man, who no longer has the Faith (since by definition, Modernism is a heresy), but he has his own way of no longer having it! [...] He retains all dogmatic expressions but radically changes their meanings or accompanies them with contradictions - he is not embarrassed by his contradictions. He does not feel the need to leave the Church, on the contrary, his own style of being heretical implies he remains there. A Modernist outside the Church is no longer a Modernist! He is a ‘Liberal’ or a ‘rationalistic Protestant’, he is an ‘unbelieving philosopher’, or an ‘unbelieving exegete’, or an ‘unbelieving historian’, anything but a ‘Modernist!’ The specific mark of Modernism is to be a heretic inside the Church. The plan of action of Modernism is to undermine dogma from within, as termites in a tree [...] The more Modernist he is, the more difficult it is to recognize him, and all the more he knows how to hide and keep up appearances” (Document of Fr. Berto extracted from the personal archives of Abp. Lefebvre).
Let us turn with all our hearts to our Queen of the Most Holy Rosary! To Her has been entrusted our final life preserver in this catastrophe. At Fatima, She said “Only She can help you!” Let us generously fight on, intolerant with Error and tolerant with our neighbors’ faults, and always trusting in Her powerful assistance!
In Christ the King,
Fr. David Hewko
|
|
|
|
| Abp. Viganò: Belgian bishops are rejecting the Catholic Faith with homosexual ‘blessings’ |
|
Posted by: Stone - 09-21-2022, 10:18 AM - Forum: Archbishop Viganò
- No Replies
|
|
Abp. Viganò: Belgian bishops are rejecting the Catholic Faith with homosexual ‘blessings’
Archbishop Viganò said the Catholic bishops of Belgium were promoting a 'sacrilegious rite' after they published a document containing a 'blessing' for same-sex couples.
![[Image: Archbishop_Carlo_Maria_Vigano_2-810x500.jpg]](https://www.lifesitenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Archbishop_Carlo_Maria_Vigano_2-810x500.jpg)
Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò
Sep 21, 2022
(LifeSiteNews) – With great scandal for the salvation of souls and the honor of the Church of Christ, the Bishops’ Conference of Belgium has approved and published a rite for the “blessing” of homosexual unions, brazenly contravening the immutable teaching of the Catholic Magisterium, which considers such unions “intrinsically perverse” and which, as such, not only may not bless them but rather must condemn them as contrary to the natural Moral law.
The ideological basis of this sacrilegious rite is indicated in the subtly deceptive words of Amoris Laetitia, which states that “every person, regardless of sexual orientation, ought to be respected in his or her dignity and treated with consideration.”
RELATED: Catholic bishops in Belgium publish blessing ceremony for same-sex couples
The process of doctrinal and moral dissolution carried out by the Bergoglian sect continues at an unstoppable pace, heedless of the confusion it causes among the faithful and the consequent incalculable damages to souls.
It is now evident, beyond all doubt, that it is absolutely impossible to reconcile the teaching of the Gospel with the deviations of these heretics who abuse their power and authority as Pastors, using it for the very opposite purpose for which Christ instituted the Sacred Hierarchy in the Church.
And what is even more evident is the perverse role reversal that is taking place, in which he who sits in Rome has the task of formulating heterodox principles opposed to Catholic doctrine, and his accomplices in the Dioceses have the role of scandalously applying them, in an infernal attempt to undermine the Moral law in order to obey the spirit of the world.
The shameful excesses of some exponents of the Hierarchy find their origin in a deliberate and intentional plan that comes from the top, which by means of the “synodal path” wants to make the rebellious Episcopate autonomous in spreading errors of Faith and Morals, even as it uses authoritarianism to prevent the faithful Bishops from proclaiming the Truth of Christ.
21 September 2022
Matthæi Apostoli et Evangelistæ, Feria Quarta Quattuor Temporum Septembris
|
|
|
|
| California Gov. Gavin Newsom signs law allowing human bodies to be turned into garden soil |
|
Posted by: Stone - 09-21-2022, 06:11 AM - Forum: Health
- No Replies
|
|
California Gov. Gavin Newsom signs law allowing human bodies to be turned into garden soil
The law doesn’t forbid the sale of such ‘soil,’ or its use in growing food for human consumption.
Tue Sep 20, 2022
SACRAMENTO, California (LifeSiteNews) — California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed controversial legislation over the weekend authorizing the “composting” of human remains for soil. The law will allow the material derived from the decomposed bodies to be sold and used to grow food for human consumption, SFGATE reported.
Signed into law Sunday, The Cemetery and Funeral Act (AB 351) will implement regulatory methods for the state to approve so-called “reduction facilities,” in which dead human bodies are broken down in a process not dissimilar to a household composting system.
Quote:The measure is slated to take effect in January 2027.
Human composting burial legalized in California https://t.co/N6kQPXywrx pic.twitter.com/Yp6U1P2u8M
— New York Post (@nypost) September 20, 2022
California has become the fifth state to legalize the practice, joining fellow West Coast states Oregon and Washington along with Colorado and Vermont.
SFGATE noted that California’s law strays from Colorado’s in that it doesn’t forbid the sale of composted human remains or the use of the “soil” for growing fruit and vegetables for human consumption.
Democratic Assembly member Cristina Garcia, who authored the bill, said in June the legislation was meant to help address “climate change and sea-level rise” by giving California residents “an alternative method of final disposition that won’t contribute emissions into our atmosphere.”
Garcia said that since “[t]rees are important carbon breaks for the environment,” she looks forward to “continuing my legacy to fight for clean air by using my reduced remains to plant a tree.”
The practice of destroying the remains of human beings in order to enrich the soil is known by the euphemism Natural Organic Reduction (NOR).
In 2020, NOR company and activist organization Recompose became the first group in the U.S. to open a human composting funeral home. The Kent, Washington facility houses 10 hexagonal cylinders in which deceased human bodies are stored and their decomposition process is hastened, The Seattle Times reported.
According to Recompose, the so-called “reduction” process involves placing the deceased person “in a reusable vessel, covering [the body] with wood chips and aerating it, which creates an environment for microbes and essential bacteria.”
A human body will be “fully transformed into soil” after “about 30 days,” the organization says. “Soil” derived from the corpses can then be “used to enrich garden beds, planted with a tree, divided across multiple locations, or donated to conservation efforts.”
Information provided on Recompose’s website gives some indication into the ideology behind the NOR movement.
According to the site, employees must “[a]dvocate for climate healing, soil health, and environmental justice,” be “anti-racist” and “committed to advocating for and protecting the rights of BIPOC, religious minorities, and undocumented people,” as well as “[e]ngage with the work of queer feminist practices of inclusion and equity.”
Recompose plans to open a California “reduction facility” 2027 after AB 351 takes effect.
Moves to normalize the use of dead bodies to create soil have been heavily criticized by Catholic groups, who argue the practice fails to pay due respect to the sanctity of human life.
Last year, the Colorado Catholic Conference stated it would not support “NOR” since the Catholic Church “teaches that the human body is sacred and the dignity of the human person is the foundation of a moral society.”
Likewise, the ![[Image: 73-f7850e14-5ce2-4e55-ba9d-e56f81a62e0f]](https://www.9news.com/article/features/colorado-legalize-human-composting-dead-body-become-garden-soil/73-f7850e14-5ce2-4e55-ba9d-e56f81a62e0f) said it’s “essential that the body of a deceased person be treated with reverence and respect,” arguing that the “composting” method “is more appropriate for vegetable trimmings and eggshells than for human bodies.”
California’s Catholic Conference has also blasted the allegedly eco-friendly alternative to reverent human burial.
CCC executive director Kathleen Domingo told SFGATE on Tuesday the practice “reduces the human body to simply a disposable commodity.”
Pointing out that NOR was designed for livestock, not human beings, Domingo said the process to break down a human body is equivalent to “a home composting system.”
Moreover, Domingo suggested that spreading composted remains of human beings over trafficked areas “risks people treading over human remains without their knowledge.” In addition, she argued that “repeated dispersions in the same area are tantamount to a mass grave.”
Peter Marlow, executive director of the Archdiocese of San Francisco, told the outlet that San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone also opposes the California law authorizing so-called “human composting.”
Gov. Newsom, however, a self-professed Catholic who has drawn widespread criticism from conservatives for his far-left stance on issues ranging from abortion to the alleged “climate crisis,” signed the bill Sunday without making any public comment.
|
|
|
|
| USDA scattering oral rabies vaccines by air over thirteen states |
|
Posted by: Stone - 09-21-2022, 06:05 AM - Forum: General Commentary
- No Replies
|
|
USDA scattering rabies vaccines for wildlife in 13 states — including Virginia
![[Image: VVPXJIRLLAVXPHS66TNVJ7P5FQ.jpg]](https://www.dailypress.com/resizer/HnrX3gzd9vluFgkBDFoocV17uwo=/800x0/filters:format(jpg):quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/tronc/VVPXJIRLLAVXPHS66TNVJ7P5FQ.jpg)
FILE - USDA wildlife specialist Will Guigou, right, and pilot Thomas Taylor prepare to distribute packets of baited rabies vaccine by helicopter from a container between Guigou's knees Tuesday, Oct. 22, 2013, at Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport's Lovell Field in Chattanooga, Tenn. The U.S. government has begun scattering millions of packets of oral rabies vaccine from helicopters and planes over 13 states from Maine to Alabama. The major aim is to keep raccoons from spreading their strain of the deadly virus to states where it hasn't been found or isn't widespread, said field trial coordinator Jordona Kirby. (Doug Strickland/AP)
The Associated Press via The Daily Press [adapted] | August 26, 2022
NEW ORLEANS — The U.S. Department of Agriculture has begun scattering millions of packets of oral rabies vaccine from helicopters and planes over 13 states from Maine to Alabama.
The major aim is to keep raccoons from spreading their strain of the deadly virus to states where it hasn’t been found or isn’t widespread, said field trial coordinator Jordona Kirby.
The USDA is also continuing tests of a vaccine approved in Canada to immunize skunks as well as raccoons, said Kirby of Wildlife Services, which is part of the agriculture department’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
The major aim is to keep raccoons from spreading their strain of the deadly virus to states where it hasn't been found or isn't widespread, said field trial coordinator Jordona Kirby. (Toby Talbot/AP)
Rabies is spread through an infected animal’s saliva, usually through bites. However, saliva that gets into the eyes, nose or mouth can also infect someone, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Thirteen people in South Carolina were considered potentially exposed in March because they had bottle-fed or given medicine to a sick calf that turned out to have rabies, said Dr. Michael Neault, the state veterinarian.
Globally, the virus kills 60,000 people a year, most bitten by dogs, the World Health Organization states.
That’s about the same number that get shots to prevent rabies in the U.S. after being bitten or scratched by an infected or possibly infected animal, according to the CDC.
State and local pet vaccination laws mean the virus is mostly spread by wildlife in the U.S.
The national rabies control program started in 1997 in Texas, where coyotes were spreading the canine variant of the virus, Kirby said.
She said vaccine drops eliminated that variant in 2004. Three years later, the CDC declared the nation free of canine rabies.
That doesn’t mean unvaccinated pets are safe. Canine rabies is among more than 20 variants — seven found in terrestrial mammals and more than 13 in species of bats, said rabies control program coordinator Richard Chipman.
A bite from an animal infected with any variant can make any other mammal sick. Scratches occasionally do so, since animals lick their paws.
A three-year program in Arizona and New Mexico eliminated a bat rabies strain in foxes, Kirby said. And Texas, with help from USDA, dropped 1.1 million baits along the Mexican border in January to keep coyotes from bringing the canine variant back.
Raccoons are the main rabies reservoir in 18 states along and near the East Coast and skunks in 21 others, according to data from 2020, the latest year available.
Bats made up 31% of the nearly 4,500 animals found with rabies in 2020. But since nearly all of the 40-plus bat species found in the U.S. eat insects and the rest drink nectar or eat fruit, oral vaccines would be much trickier.
Some scientists have speculated that bats could be vaccinated during hibernation, perhaps with a fine mist or with a gel that could be transferred from bat to bat, Chipman said. Early research is testing the idea in vampire bats, which live in Mexico and Central and South America and might spread such a vaccine within a colony by grooming each other.
Rabid wildlife isn’t just a rural problem. A rabid fox on Capitol Hill was caught less than 24 hours after the first report in April. By then, about a half-dozen people had reported bites or nips to U.S. Capitol Police, but others may have gone to other agencies, a Capitol Police spokesperson said by email.
Raccoon rabies campaigns started in August in parts of northern Maine, western Pennsylvania, West Virginia and southwestern Virginia. The 348,000 Raboral V-RG baits in Maine and 535,000 in the three other states are being dropped from planes in rural areas and from vehicles in urban and suburban areas.
In all, about 3.75 million packets — coated with a fishmeal attractant or encased in 1-inch (2.5-centimeter) fish meal cubes — will be distributed in nine states, ending when 1.1 million are dropped in Alabama in October.
The vaccine has been found safe for more than 60 kinds of animals including domestic dogs and cats. Eating a large number of vaccine packets might give dogs an upset stomach but wouldn’t cause any permanent problem, APHIS says.
About 3.5 million doses of the experimental vaccine Onrab are being distributed in parts of Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Tennessee — which also are getting the approved vaccine — plus four other states.
Onrab comes in blister packs with green, marshmallow-flavored coating. Wildlife Services hopes it may be approved next year in spite of lingering pandemic-related delays.
|
|
|
|
|
