Welcome, Guest
You have to register before you can post on our site.

Username
  

Password
  





Search Forums

(Advanced Search)

Forum Statistics
» Members: 307
» Latest member: zaanthnytts7072
» Forum threads: 7,117
» Forum posts: 13,193

Full Statistics

Online Users
There are currently 229 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 226 Guest(s)
Applebot, Bing, Google

Latest Threads
Fr. Hewko's Sermons: St. ...
Forum: July 2025
Last Post: Deus Vult
3 hours ago
» Replies: 0
» Views: 6
Fr. Hewko's Sermons: Feas...
Forum: July 2025
Last Post: Deus Vult
9 hours ago
» Replies: 0
» Views: 34
The Love of Eternal Wisdo...
Forum: Resources Online
Last Post: Stone
11 hours ago
» Replies: 2
» Views: 56
Louis Veuillot: The Liber...
Forum: Uncompromising Fighters for the Faith
Last Post: Stone
Today, 07:17 AM
» Replies: 40
» Views: 7,846
Apologia pro Marcel Lefeb...
Forum: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
Last Post: Stone
Today, 07:11 AM
» Replies: 29
» Views: 6,982
The Catholic Trumpet: Fig...
Forum: The Catholic Trumpet
Last Post: Stone
Today, 07:03 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 34
The Catholic Trumpet: Rev...
Forum: The Catholic Trumpet
Last Post: Stone
Today, 06:58 AM
» Replies: 9
» Views: 3,488
Leo’s War on Consecrated ...
Forum: Pope Leo XIV
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 07:51 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 87
Convicted Child Porn Prie...
Forum: Vatican II and the Fruits of Modernism
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 07:41 AM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 150
Half of Polish Priests Sa...
Forum: Anti-Catholic Violence
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 07:38 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 67

 
  Irony in latest Covid Study
Posted by: Stone - 01-15-2022, 08:44 AM - Forum: Health - No Replies

It is said that because of our 24-hour news cycle, things that were reported just a month before are 'old news,' that we can barely remember them. 
Which works to the advantage of those who are pulling out the carpets from under us in a variety of topics (not that anyone here took the cannabis study results seriously). 
But it certainly does give the appearance, once again, that it's all rigged in favor of the big companies. 


[Image: signal-2022-01-14-091245-001.jpg]

Print this item

  Davos Agenda 2022 and Attendees
Posted by: Stone - 01-15-2022, 08:12 AM - Forum: Great Reset - No Replies

The Davos Agenda 2022 brings together world leaders to address the state of the world


WEFORUM.ORG [adapted - not all hyperlinks included below] | 13 Jan 2022
  • The Davos Agenda virtual event will take place 17-21 January 2022.
  • It will feature heads of state and government, CEOs and other leaders to address critical challenges.
  • Discover more on the event page here.
The Davos Agenda virtual event offers the first global platform of 2022 for world leaders to come together to share their visions for the year ahead.

The week long virtual event, taking place on the World Economic Forum website and social media channels 17-21 January 2022, will feature heads of state and government, CEOs and other leaders. They will discuss the critical challenges facing the world today and present their ideas on how to address them.

The event will also mark the launch of several Forum initiatives including efforts to accelerate the race to net-zero emissions, ensure the economic opportunity of nature-positive solutions, create cyber resilience, strengthen global value chains, build economies in fragile markets through humanitarian investing, bridge the vaccine manufacturing gap and use data solutions to prepare for the next pandemic.

“Everyone hopes that in 2022 the COVID-19 pandemic, and the crises that accompanied it, will finally begin to recede," said Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum. "But major global challenges await us, from climate change to rebuilding trust and social cohesion. To address them, leaders will need to adopt new models, look long term, renew cooperation and act systemically. The Davos Agenda 2022 is the starting point for the dialogue needed for global cooperation in 2022.”


How to follow the Davos Agenda 2022


Davos Agenda 2022 participants

World leaders delivering “State of the World” Special Addresses will include:
  • Narendra Modi, Prime Minister of India
  • Kishida Fumio, Prime Minister of Japan
  • António Guterres, Secretary-General, United Nations
  • Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission
  • Scott Morrison, Prime Minister of Australia
  • Joko Widodo, President of Indonesia
  • Naftali Bennett, Prime Minister of Israel
  • Janet L. Yellen, Secretary of the Treasury of the United States
  • Yemi Osinbajo, Vice-President of Nigeria
  • Xi Jinping, President of the People's Republic of China
  • Olaf Scholz, Federal Chancellor of Germany


The programme will also feature speakers including:
  • Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General, World Health Organization (WHO)
  • Fatih Birol, Executive Director, International Energy Agency
  • José Pedro Castillo Terrones, President of Peru
  • Ivan Duque, President of Colombia
  • Anthony S. Fauci, Director, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health of the United States of America
  • Yasmine Fouad, Minister of Environment of Egypt
  • Kristalina Georgieva, Managing Director, International Monetary Fund (IMF)
  • Alejandro Giammattei, President of Guatemala
  • Al Gore, Vice-President of the United States (1993-2001) and Chairman and Co-Founder, Generation Investment Management
  • Paulo Guedes, Minister of Economy of Brazil
  • Paula Ingabire, Minister of Information Communication Technology and Innovation of Rwanda
  • Paul Kagame, President of Rwanda
  • John F. Kerry, Special Presidential Envoy for Climate of the United States of America
  • Christine Lagarde, President, European Central Bank
  • Guillermo Lasso, President of Ecuador
  • Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, Director-General, World Trade Organization (WTO)
  • Abdulaziz Bin Salman Bin AbdulazizAl Saud, Minister of Energy of Saudi Arabia
  • Nicolas Schmit, Commissioner for Jobs and Social Rights, European Commission
  • François Villeroy de Galhau, Governor of the Central Bank of France
  • Sarah bint Yousif Al-Amiri, Minister of State for Advanced Technology, Ministry of Industry and Advanced Technology of the United Arab Emirates
  • Carlos Alvarado Quesada, President of Costa Rica, Office of the President of Costa Rica


Davos Agenda 2022 sessions and launches

Conversations will focus on critical collective challenges across several key areas:


Climate action

Climate action failure, extreme weather and biodiversity loss are ranked the top three most-severe risks for the world over the next decade, according to the Forum’s Global Risks Report 2022, published 11 January 2022.

[Image: responsive_large_webp_Wq9i9cLnKhiv7EJExQ...oonIQ.webp]

Top 10 risks by severity

For a brief moment, a drop in emissions in 2020 proved climate action is possible – and the collective response to COVID-19 is evidence that, if we work together, it’s not too late to save the planet. This requires reaching net zero, achieving the energy transition, committing to circular economies and sustainable consumption and – above all – putting climate and nature at the heart of recovery plans.

What to watch:


Pandemic recovery

Now in the third year of the COVID-19 pandemic, the rapid development of vaccines is a scientific achievement for the ages, but the Omicron variant shows why we must prioritize universal global distribution – or risk negative health, economic and geopolitical outcomes. Addressing antimicrobial resistance, disparities in health coverage and outcomes, and the importance of mental healthcare for all (and especially our global health workforce) are key to ensuring we'll have resilient, efficient and equitable healthcare systems by the time the next pandemic comes knocking.

What to watch:


Economic and social resilience

After decades of progress in addressing poverty and income inequality, COVID-19 set us back – bringing the first rise in extreme poverty in a generation. Governments have rolled out some of the largest social spending program ever seen, but vaccine inequality and inflation – especially rising food and energy prices – threaten to widen the gaps even more. To truly recover, we must not only stabilize economies but also ensure they’re resilient and fair, providing social mobility, jobs and equitable opportunities for all.

Increasingly business recognizes the value of doing long-term good – and over the past year, has laid the groundwork for action with commitments to net zero, social justice and shared ESG metrics. Now, as we embark on the next phase of recovery, it’s important to put these plans into action and truly implement stakeholder capitalism to ensure the recovery touches not only the company’s shareholders, but also its employees, customers, suppliers, local communities and society at large.

On 7 January, Klaus Schwab published his latest book, The Great Narrative, co-authored with Thierry Malleret. Based on interviews with 50 of the world's leading thinkers, the book explores how we can build a more inclusive, sustainable and resilient future.

On 26 January, the Forum will release its Global Competitiveness Report 2021-2022.

What to watch:



Global cooperation

The recent years have seen deepened political and social divides as well as a heightened mistrust of institutions and the spread of misinformation and disinformation. We must renew our commitment to global cooperation and shared prosperity – from vaccine equity to wherever the new era of global space exploration may take us.

At the same time, the shocks of COVID-19 accelerated the digital transformation of business and society ­– and innovations in vaccines, therapeutics, diagnostics and contact tracing have helped us to address the pandemic’s worst impacts. Looking ahead, technology holds the keys to solving the biggest challenges ahead of us: decarbonizing energy, diagnosing and treating disease, securing our food supply and helping small businesses and entrepreneurs everywhere survive and thrive.

But this rapid digital transformation is not without risk, as we’ve seen cybercrime spike and digital divides widen in the past two years, too. We must work together to balance innovation and responsibility to ensure the digital transformation is driving growth and innovation, and not creating harm.

The Forum will release the Global Cybersecurity Outlook 2022 report on 18 January.

What to watch:


How to follow the Davos Agenda 2022
The event will be livestreamed across the Forum's website and social media channels. All content will be shared using the official event hashtag #DavosAgenda.

Print this item

  Abp. Viganò: Delicta Mea - About the Holy Apostolic Mass
Posted by: Stone - 01-14-2022, 12:19 PM - Forum: Archbishop Viganò - No Replies

Abp. Viganò urges priests to learn the Latin Mass: It ‘unites us to the Saints and Martyrs of the past’
Do you want to please God or the one who keeps you away from Him? 
The question, at its root, is always this: the choice between the gentle yoke of Christ and the Adversary’s chains of slavery.

Fri Jan 14, 2022
(LifeSiteNews) – You who permit yourselves to prohibit the Holy Apostolic Mass, have you ever celebrated it? You who from the height of your liturgical cathedrae are piqued about the “old Mass,” have you ever meditated on its prayers, its rites, and its ancient and sacred gestures? I have asked myself this many times in the past few years: because I myself, even though I knew this Mass since I was very young; even though I had learned to serve it and respond to the celebrant when I was so little that I was still wearing boys’ knickers, I had almost forgotten it and lost it. Introibo ad altare Dei. Kneeling in winter on the ice-cold steps of the altar, before going to school. Sweating on hot summer days under my altar boy’s vestments. I had forgotten that Mass, even though it was the Mass of my ordination as a priest on 24 March 1968: an era in which one could already perceive the signs of the revolution that shortly thereafter would deprive the Church of her most precious treasure, imposing a counterfeit ritual in its place. 

Well, that Mass that the conciliar reform cancelled and prohibited in my first years of Priesthood remained as a distant memory, like the smile of a distant loved one, the gaze of a missing relative, the sound of a Sunday with its bells, its friendly voices. But it was something that had to do with nostalgia, youth, the enthusiasm of an era in which ecclesiastical commitments were still to come, in which everyone wanted to believe that the world could recover from the aftermath of the Second World War and the threat of Communism with a renewed spiritual momentum. We wanted to think that economic well-being could somehow be accompanied by a moral and religious rebirth of our nation [Italy]. Despite the revolution of 1968, the occupations, terrorism, the Red Brigades, and the crisis of the Middle East. Thus, amidst the thousand ecclesiastical and diplomatic commitments, the memory of something had crystallized in my memory that in fact remained unresolved, which had been “momentarily” set aside for decades. Something that patiently waited, with the indulgence that only God uses toward us. 

My decision to denounce the scandals of American Prelates and the Roman Curia was the occasion that led me back to consider, under another light, not only my role as Archbishop and as Apostolic Nuncio, but also the soul of that Priesthood which service first in the Vatican and lastly in the United States had in some way left incomplete: more for my being a priest than for the Ministry. And what up until then I had not yet understood became clear to me due to an apparently unexpected circumstance, when my personal safety seemed to be in danger and I found myself, against my will, having to live almost in hiding, far from the palaces of the Curia. It was then that that blessed segregation, which today I consider as a sort of monastic choice, led me to rediscover the Holy Tridentine Mass. I recall very well the day when, instead of the chasuble, I put on the traditional vestments with the Ambrosian cappino and the maniple. I recall the fear that I felt in pronouncing, after almost fifty years, those prayers of the Missal that re-emerged from my mouth as if I had just recited them shortly before. Confitemini Domino, quoniam bonus, in the place of the Psalm Judica me, Deus of the Roman Rite. Munda cor meum ac labia mea. These words were no longer the words of the altar boy or the young seminarian, but the words of the celebrant, of I who once again, I would dare say for the first time, celebrated before the Most Holy Trinity. Because while it is true that the Priest is a person who lives essentially for others – for God and for his neighbor – it is equally true that if he does not have the awareness of his own identity and has not cultivated his own holiness, his apostolate is sterile like the clanging cymbal.

I know well that these reflections can leave those who have never had the grace of celebrating the Mass of all time unmoved, or even arouse condescension. But the same thing happens, I imagine, for those who have never fallen in love and who do not understand the enthusiasm and the chaste transport of the beloved towards his beloved, or for those who do not know the joy of getting lost in her eyes. The dull Roman liturgist, the Prelate with his tailored clerical suit and his pectoral cross in his pocket, the consultor of the Roman Congregation with the latest copy of Concilium or Civiltà Cattolica in plain sight, looks at the Mass of Saint Pius V with the eyes of an entomologist (the science that studies insects), scrutinizing that pericope just as a naturalist observes the veins of a leaf or the wings of a butterfly. Indeed, I sometimes wonder if they don’t do it with the asepticity of the pathologist who cuts open a living body with a scalpel. But if a priest with a minimum of interior life approaches the ancient Mass, regardless of whether he has ever known it before or is discovering it for the first time, he is deeply moved by the composed majesty of the rite, as if he has stepped out of time and entered the eternity of God. 

What I would like to make my brothers in the Episcopate and the Priesthood understand is that that Mass is intrinsically divine, because one perceives the sacred in a visceral way: one is literally taken up into heaven, into the presence of the Most Holy Trinity and the celestial Court, far from the clamor of the world. It is a love song, in which the repetition of the signs, the reverences, and the sacred words is not in any way useless, just as a mother never tires of kissing her son, or a bride never tires of saying, “I love you” to her husband. Everything is forgotten there, because all that is said and sung in it is eternal, all the gestures that are performed there are perennial, outside of history, yet immersed in a continuum that unites the Cenacle, Calvary, and the altar on which the Mass is celebrated. The celebrant does not address the assembly, with the concern of being understandable or being nice or appearing to be up-to-date; rather, he addresses God: and before God there is only the sense of infinite gratitude for the privilege of being able to carry with him the prayers of the Christian people, the joys and sorrows of so many souls, the sins and shortcomings of those who implore forgiveness and mercy, gratitude for graces received, and suffrages for our dear departed. One is alone, and at the same time one feels intimately united with an endless host of souls that crosses time and space. 

When I celebrate the apostolic Mass, I think of how on that same altar, consecrated by the relics of the Martyrs, so many Saints and thousands of priests, using the same words that I say, repeating the very same gestures, making the same bows and the same genuflections, wearing the same vestments. But above all, receiving Holy Communion with the same Body and Blood of Our Lord, to whom we have all been assimilated in the offering of the Holy Sacrifice. When I celebrate the Mass of all time, I realize in the most sublime and complete way the true significance of what doctrine teaches us. Acting in persona Christi is not a mechanical repetition of a formula, but the awareness that my mouth utters the same words that the Savior pronounced over the bread and wine in the Cenacle; that as I elevate the Host and Chalice to the Father, I repeat the immolation that Christ made of Himself on the Cross; that in receiving Holy Communion I consume the sacrificial Victim and feed on God Himself, and I am not participating in a party. And the entire Church is with me: the Church Triumphant which deigns to unite itself to my imploring prayer, the Church Suffering that awaits it in order to shorten souls’ stay in Purgatory, and the Church Militant that strengthens herself in the daily spiritual battle. But if, as we profess with faith, our mouth is really Christ’s mouth, if our words in the Consecration are really those of Christ, if the hands with which we touch the Sacred Host and the Chalice are Christ’s hands, what respect ought we to have for our body, keeping it pure and uncontaminated? What better incentive is there to remain in the Grace of God? Mundamini, qui fertis vasa Domini. And with the words of the Missal: Aufer a nobis, quæsumus, Domine, iniquitates nostras: ut ad sancta sanctorum puris mereamur mentibus introire

The theologian will tell me that this is common doctrine, and that the Mass is exactly that, regardless of the rite, I do not deny it, rationally. But while the celebration of the Tridentine Mass is a constant reminder of an uninterrupted continuity of the work of the Redemption studded with Saints and Blesseds, the same thing does not happen, it seems to me, with the reformed rite. If I look at the table versus populum, I see there the Lutheran altar or the Protestant table; if I read the words of the Institution of the Last Supper in the form of narration, I hear the modifications of Cranmer’s Common Book of Prayer, and the service of Calvin; if I glance through the reformed calendar, I find that the same saints who cancelled the heretics of the Pseudo-reform have been removed. And the same is true for the songs, which would horrify an English or German Catholic: hearing the hymns of those who martyred our priests and trampled the Blessed Sacrament in contempt for “papist superstition” sung under the vaults of a church ought to make us understand the abyss that exists between the Catholic Mass and its conciliar counterfeit. To say nothing of the language: the first ones to abolish Latin were the heretics, in the name of giving the people a greater comprehension of the rites; a people whom they deceived, contesting revealed Truth and propagating error. Everything is profane in the Novus Ordo. Everything is momentary, everything accidental, everything contingent, variable, and changeable. There is nothing of the eternal, because eternity is immutable, just as the Faith is immutable. Just as God is immutable. 

There is another aspect of the traditional Holy Mass that I would like to emphasize, and that unites us to the Saints and Martyrs of the past. Since the times of the catacombs up until the most recent persecutions, wherever a priest celebrates the Holy Sacrifice, even in an attic or a cellar, in the woods or in a barn, or even in a van, he is mystically in communion with that host of heroic witnesses of the Faith, and the gaze of the Most Holy Trinity rests on that improvised altar; before it all the angelic hosts genuflect adoringly; all of the souls in purgatory gaze toward it. In this too, especially in this, each of us understands how the Tradition creates an indissoluble link between the centuries, not only in the jealous custody of that treasure, but also in facing the trials that it entails, even unto death. In the presence of this thought, the arrogance of the present tyrant, with his insane decrees, ought to strengthen us in fidelity to Christ and make us feel that we are an integral part of the Church of all times, because we cannot win the palm of victory if we are not ready to fight the bonum certamen.

I would like my confreres to dare to do the unthinkable: I would like them to approach the Holy Tridentine Mass not so as to be pleased with the lace of an alb or with the embroidery of a chasuble, or because of a mere rational conviction about its canonical legitimacy or about the fact that it has never been abolished; but rather with the reverential fear with which Moses approached the burning bush: knowing that each one of us, upon coming down from the altar after the Last Gospel, is in some way interiorly transfigured because there he has encountered the Holy of Holies. It is only there, on that mystical Sinai, that we can understand the very essence of our Priesthood, which is the giving of Oneself to God, above all; an oblation of all of himself together with Christ the Victim, for the greater glory of God and the salvation of souls; a spiritual sacrifice which draws strength and vigor from the Mass; self-renunciation in order to make way for the High Priest; a sign of true humility, in the annihilation of one’s own will and abandonment to the will of the Father, following the Lord’s example; a gesture of authentic “communion” with the Saints, in the sharing of the same profession of faith and the same rite. And I would like not only those who have celebrated the Novus Ordo for decades to have this “experience,” but above all the young priests and those who carry out their ministry in the front line: the Mass of Saint Pius V is for indomitable spirits, for generous and heroic souls, for hearts burning with Charity for God and one’s neighbor. 

I know well that the life of the priests today is made up of a thousand trials, of stress, of the feeling of being alone in fighting against the world, in the disinterest and ostracism of Superiors, of a slow wear and tear that distracts from recollection, from the interior life, and from spiritual growth. And I know very well that this feeling of being under siege, of finding oneself as a sailor who is alone and has to pilot a ship through a storm, is not the prerogative of traditionalists or progressives, but is the common destiny of all those who have offered their lives to the Lord and to the Church, each with their own miseries, with economic problems, misunderstandings with the Bishop, criticisms from their confreres, as well as the requests of the faithful. And also those hours of solitude, in which the presence of God and the companionship of the Virgin Mary seem to vanish, just as in the dark night of Saint John of the Cross. Quare me repulisti? Et quare tristis incedo, dum affligit me inimicus? When the demon winds insidiously between the internet and the television, quærens quem devoret, taking advantage of our weariness by betrayal. In those cases, which we all face just as Our Lord did in Gethsemane, it is our Priesthood that Satan wants to strike, presenting himself persuasively like Salomé before Herod, asking us for the gift of the Baptist’s head. Ab homine iniquo, et doloso erue me. In the trial, we are all the same: because the victory that the Enemy wants to win is not only over the poor souls of the Baptized, but over Christ the Priest, whose Anointing we carry. 

For this reason, today more than ever, the Holy Tridentine Mass is the sole anchor of salvation of the Catholic Priesthood, because in it the priest is reborn, each day, in that privileged time of intimate union with the Blessed Trinity, and from it he draws indispensable graces so as not to fall into sin, to progress along the way of holiness, and to rediscover the healthy balance with which to face his Ministry. Anyone who believes that all this can be liquidated as a mere ceremonial or aesthetic question has not understood anything about his own priestly Vocation. Because the Holy Mass “of all time” – and it truly is this, just as it has always been opposed by the Adversary – is not an obliging lover who offers herself to anyone, but rather a jealous and chaste Bride, as jealous as the Lord is. 

Do you want to please God or the one who keeps you away from Him? The question, at its root, is always this: the choice between the gentle yoke of Christ and the Adversary’s chains of slavery. The response will appear clear and limpid to you in the moment in which you too, marveling at this immense treasure that has been kept hidden from you, discover what it means to celebrate the Holy Sacrifice not as pathetic “presiders of the assembly,” but rather as “ministers of Christ and dispensers of the Mysteries of God” (1 Cor 4:1).

Pick up the Missal, ask for help from a priest friend, and ascend the Mountain of the Transfiguration: Emitte lucem tuam et veritatem tuam: ipsa me deduxerunt, et adduxerunt in montem sanctum tuum, et in tabernacula tua. Like Peter, James, and John, you will exclaim: Domine, bonum est nos hic esse – “Lord, it is good that we are here” (Mt 17:4). Or, with the words of the Psalmist that the celebrant repeats at the Offertory: Domine, dilexi decorem domus tuæ, et locum habitationis gloriæ tuæ.

Once you have discovered it, no one will be able to take away from you that through which the Lord no longer calls you servants, but friends (Jn 15:15). No one will ever be able to convince you to renounce it, forcing you to be content with its adulteration that was brought to birth by rebellious minds. Eratis enim aliquando tenebræ: nunc enim lux in Domino. Ut filii lucis ambulate. “For once you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk then as children of the light” (Eph 5:8). Propter quod dicit: Surge qui dormis, et exsurge a mortuis, et illuminabit te Christus. “Wherefore he says: Awake, O sleeper, and rise from the dead, and Christ shall enlighten you” (Eph 5:14).

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop

January 2nd, 2022
Sanctissimi Nominis JESU


Print this item

  German Health Minister: Compulsory Vaccinations are Necessary
Posted by: Stone - 01-14-2022, 10:07 AM - Forum: Global News - No Replies

Print this item

  The Supreme Court’s Ruling On Vaccine Mandates Is Frighteningly Weak
Posted by: Stone - 01-14-2022, 10:02 AM - Forum: Pandemic 2020 [Secular] - No Replies

The Supreme Court’s Ruling On Vaccine Mandates Is Frighteningly Weak
Justices Roberts and Kavanaugh both acquiesced in the Biden Department of Health and Human Services’ power grab.

[Image: 1280px-Tuesday_afternoon_12_January_2021...00x675.jpg]

The Federalist | January 14, 2022


It’s long been axiomatic in the legal profession that tough facts make bad law. Yesterday’s forked decisions from the Supreme Court in two vaccine mandate cases now add a corollary to that principle: Quick cases make milquetoast opinions.

The Supreme Court heard the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and Medicare/Medicaid mandate cases in tandem on an expedited basis last Friday. Although court observers expected lightning-fast decisions, the opinions in National Federation of Independent Business v. Department of Labor and Biden v. Missouri didn’t drop until Jan. 13.

The high court issued both decisions as per curium, or “by the court,” unsigned opinions, with a 6-3 majority staying the OSHA de facto vaccine mandate in National Federation and a 5-4 majority in Biden v. Missouri allowing the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ rule requiring vaccines for medical facility workers to take effect. Justices John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh switched sides to join the court’s leftist members in the Medicare/Medicaid case, with Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito issuing separate dissents joined by Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch in Biden v. Missouri.

In National Federation, the six-justice majority entered a stay to prevent OSHA’s “emergency temporary standard,” requiring employers with 100 or more employees to either compel their employees to become vaccinated or to test weekly for Covid and wear masks at work, from going into effect. The court concluded that­ the employers, states, and other entities and individuals challenging the rule were “likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the Secretary lacked authority to impose the mandate.”

The nine-page majority opinion methodically detailed the backdrop to the Biden administration’s OSHA work-around and the procedural history. That saw the case going from the Fifth Circuit, where the federal appellate court had stayed the rule, to the Sixth Circuit, where after all of the cases challenging the rule were joined the Cincinnati-based court removed the stay.

After laying out these details, the National Federation court then analyzed the rule at issue and concluded that the challenge to OSHA’s emergency vaccine mandate was likely to succeed because the federal agency “lacked authority to impose the mandate.”

While correct, the majority opinion said little of matter. Yes, “administrative agencies are creatures of statute” and “have only the authority that Congress has provided.” And, no, in passing the Occupational Safety and Health Act in 1970, Congress did not plainly authorize OSHA “to order 84 million Americans to either obtain a COVID–19 vaccine or undergo weekly medical testing at their own expense.”

Merely adding that OSHA’s rule was “no ‘everyday exercise of federal power,’ but “instead a significant encroachment into the lives—and health—of a vast number of employees” that required Congress to “speak clearly” provided little upgrade to the opinion: Given the breadth of the overreach and the offense to our constitutional republic, passion was required, not pedanticism.


Justice Gorsuch’s concurrence, joined by Justices Thomas and Alito, dabbled more directly in first things, from the separation of powers to federalism to self-governance.

“There is no question that state and local authorities possess considerable power to regulate public health,” Gorsuch began, before stressing that “the federal government’s powers, however, are not general but limited and divided.” Thus, the federal government must both “invoke a constitutionally enumerated source of authority” and “act consistently with the Constitution’s separation of powers.”

On this latter point, Gorsuch provided a much-needed exposition. Article I of the U.S. Constitution provides that “the national government’s power to make laws” belongs “with the people’s elected representatives.” If Congress seeks to provide its legislative powers to unelected officials, Justice Gorsuch continued, it must do so clearly and purposefully.

“But the Constitution imposes boundaries here,” he stressed, for “if Congress could hand off all its legislative powers to unelected agency officials, it ‘would dash the whole scheme’ of our Constitution and enable intrusions into the private lives and freedoms of Americans by bare edict rather than only with the consent of their elected representatives.”

Called the non-delegation doctrine, it prevents “government by bureaucracy supplanting government by the people,” Gorsuch wrote, quoting the late Justice Antonin Scalia, before stressing the importance of that principle to the case at hand: If OSHA had the power to mandate vaccines or testing, as it asserted, “that law would likely constitute an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority.”

Sadly, Gorsuch’s concurrence could not garner the agreement of the majority of justices, leaving the bland opinion put forth for the court in National Federation to control.

The real tragedy came, however, in the companion case of Biden v. Missouri. That case was argued the same day, but with the Supreme Court ruling on Jan. 13 that the Department of Health and Human Service’s vaccine mandate for medical facilities receiving Medicare and Medicaid funding could go into effect.

While at first blush the cases seem substantially different, with National Federation concerning an emergency rule issued by OSHA and Biden v. Missouri addressing a mandate applying only to recipients of federal Medicare and Medicare funds, at the core the cases involve identical concerns: Whether Congress did, or could, grant unelected bureaucrats such broad power over Americans.

Unlike the National Federation case, in Biden v. Missouri, Justices Roberts and Kavanaugh both acquiesced in the Department of Health and Human Services’ power grab, based on “a hodgepodge of provisions.” Justice Thomas exposed that reality in his dissent, which Justices Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett joined.

The mandatory vaccination rule issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) failed to find statutory support in the governing statutes, Justice Thomas explained. While Congress authorized the CMS to “publish such rules and regulations . . . as may be necessary to the efficient administration of the [agency’s] functions,” and to “prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the administration of the insurance programs,” the vaccine mandate has no more than a “tangential” connection to the management of Medicare and Medicaid, Thomas wrote.

Nor did the various random statutory provisions grant HHS the authority to “require[] millions of healthcare workers to choose between losing their livelihoods and acquiescing to a vaccine they have rejected for months,” Justice Thomas explained, before stressing: “Vaccine mandates also fall squarely within a State’s police power, and, until now, only rarely have been a tool of the Federal Government. If Congress had wanted to grant CMS authority to impose a nationwide vaccine mandate, and consequently alter the state-federal balance, it would have said so clearly. It did not.”

‘Today, however, most federal law is not made by Congress. It comes in the form of rules issued by unelected administrators.’

Congress’s failure to expressly authorize the CMS to mandate vaccines at Medicare- and Medicaid-funded facilities represented but one of the problems with the rule. Justice Alito, in a separate dissent joined by Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Barrett, added to the analysis a discussion of CMS’s failure to comply with the notice-and-comment mandates Congress established before agencies could promulgate regulations. That violation, Alito explained, doomed the vaccination mandate because there was no “good cause” to sidestep those requirements.

In finding the CMS violated the notice-and-comment rule, Alito stressed, as did Gorsuch in his National Federation concurrence that, “under our Constitution, the authority to make laws that impose obligations on the American people is conferred on Congress, whose Members are elected by the people.”

“Elected representatives solicit the views of their constituents, listen to their complaints and requests, and make a great effort to accommodate their concerns,” Justice Alito continued, noting, “today, however, most federal law is not made by Congress. It comes in the form of rules issued by unelected administrators.” Under these circumstances, then, the notice-and-comment period proves indispensable, Alito explained—unless, that is, you are the Biden administration.


The Biden v. Missouri dissents, however, did not go far enough. The same separation of powers problems plaguing the OSHA regulation apply equally in the context of the CMS rule. Yet the dissenting justices gave short shrift to those concerns.

The question is, why? Also, why did Gorsuch’s concurrence in the OSHA case only garner three votes, including his own? Was it the procedural posture of the case: A hearing not on the merits but on the propriety of a stay? Was it the time crunch? Was it a desire for more detail and nuance?

Or was it because reaching a truly conservative five-justice majority is as elusive as an end to this pandemic.

Print this item

  Parents Horrified As School Hosts ‘SATAN Club’ For Children
Posted by: Stone - 01-14-2022, 08:57 AM - Forum: Against the Children - No Replies

Parents Horrified As School Hosts ‘SATAN Club’ For Children
Satanists are targeting kids as young as six years old

[Image: Screenshot-2022-01-14-at-12.03.36.jpg]

Summit News [abbreviated]| 14 January, 2022


Parents in Illinois were shocked to discover that their children’s school approved an event for children organised by the Satanic Temple.

The event, titled ‘Satan Club’ held at Jane Addams Elementary School in Moline vowed to introduce children to “a scientific, rationalist, non-superstitious worldview.”

Satan club is intended for children from grades 1-5, meaning that presumed satanists are targeting kids as young as six years old.

A flier promoting the event, posted to Facebook by one parent, noted that all involved had been “vetted” by the Satanic Temple and had passed criminal background checks.

Well, that’s comforting then.

It also notes that “the Satanic Temple is a non-theistic religion that views Satan as a mythical figure representing individual freedom,” and that the club “does not attempt to convert children to any religious ideology.”

“Hey Kids, let’s have fun at After School Satan Club!” the flier states:



Yeah, no thanks.

Among other posts prompting their rampant advocacy for abortion and Hailing Satan for 2022, the Satanic Temple is promoting the kids’ clubs:





The Illinois school provided more information, claiming that it was just renting out a space to the organisation:



Many expressed anger and disbelief that the school would allow the organisation in.



Print this item

  TRADITIONIS CUSTODES: What We Can Learn from English Catholic Resistance
Posted by: Stone - 01-13-2022, 11:25 AM - Forum: Vatican II and the Fruits of Modernism - No Replies

This is a rather good article. It is important to note however that in his conclusion Mr. Jackson, similar to the Ecclesia Dei, Indult, and the conciliar-SSPX communities, focuses first and foremost on the Latin Mass. But the True Mass is the perfect expression of the true Faith and it is for this reason it has been mercilessly attacked many times. Fr. Hewko reminded us of this important distinction in his latest newsletter when he quotes Archbishop Lefebvre:

Quote:...That’s what makes our opposition [ to current Rome ], and that’s why we cannot get along. This is not primarily the issue of the Mass, because the Mass is just one consequence of the fact that they wanted to get closer to Protestantism and thus transform worship, sacraments, catechism, etc. The real fundamental opposition is the Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ! “Oportet Illum regnare,” St. Paul tells us, “He must Reign!” They say: “No!” We say: “Yes!” with all the Popes! ( Abp. Lefebvre, “Fideliter” p. 70, 1993).

Another frequent hallmark of these communities is to focus solely on the errors of Pope Francis - erstwhile blatantly ignoring the preceding Conciliar popes that paved the way for Pope Francis to act as he does, Paul VI being the most nefarious as he is the pope under which Vatican II and all it's errors, including the New Mass, were promoted. Pope Francis could not do as much damage as he does if 50+ years of Conciliar ravages, for example the Assisi prayer meetings under JPII and Benedict XVI, hadn't already occurred. May God have mercy on their souls!





TRADITIONIS CUSTODES: What We Can Learn from English Catholic Resistance

[Image: 6cb9db145574ef4172342e43118f19ee_L.jpg]

Written by  Chris Jackson | Remnant Columnist
January 6, 2022


As the potentially dark days of Traditionis Custodes approach us, it might be opportune to remember a time long ago when the Latin Mass was changed and then eventually violently suppressed by liturgical reformers. [Note: It would be wise here to note that the author is a bit loose with the phrase, "the Latin Mass was changed and then eventually violently suppressed by liturgical reformers." He glosses over the fact that those 'reformers' were creating a different religion, later condemned formally by the Church. An important and likely parallel - one Archbishop Lefebvre and many other clergy and laity have not failed to point out.]

Those reformers were part of the English Reformation. The goals, policies, and tactics of these so-called reformers may ring a bell. The quotations used in this article are taken from the book, “Elizabeth and the English Reformation: The Struggle for a Stable Settlement of Religion,” written by William P. Haugaard in 1968.

The process began by minor alterations of the Latin Mass:
Quote:In the first year the Privy Council, ruling in the name of the king, altered the ordinary liturgical and devotional life of Englishmen more than Henry had ever done or permitted. Injunctions, largely brand new, accompanied a royal visitation of the kingdom. These introduced a series of reforms which prescribed a greater use of English scripture in church services and ordered the destruction of images which gave occasion to ‘idolatry’. The following year the Council used the difficulty of determining such images as an excuse for ordering wholesale iconoclasm...

At the behest of the government, Parliament passed a bill ordering holy communion to be given in two kinds. In implementing the act, the Council took the opportunity to introduce into the Latin Mass the 1548 ‘Order o£ Communion’, a series of vernacular devotions which later became an integral part of the Prayer Book Eucharist... The first Prayer Book of 1549 reformed the traditional services by replacing Latin with English, by eliminating many old ceremonies, and by changing certain theological emphases of the rites... The Elizabethan bishop Richard Cox had been one of Cranmer’s assistants in drafting the book.


The reforms then went further:
Quote:Less than nine months before Edward VI died, Englishmen heard a new revision of their vernacular liturgy read in their churches. To the 1549 rites, Cranmer added didactic exhortations, simplified ceremonies and vestments, and rearranged the Eucharist to move the English Lord’s Supper a further step away from the Latin Mass.


Ironically, one reform of the Novus Ordo Mass common in churches today, the reception of Holy Communion while standing, was so repugnant to one of the lead reformers, Thomas Cranmer, that he refused to implement it:
Quote:Cranmer stubbornly refused a last-minute Council request to eliminate kneeling to receive communion, but he did agree to an added rubric in black print which declared that kneeling implied no ‘real or essential presence’ of Christ in the eucharistic elements.


See if these other reforms sound familiar:
Quote:The ‘Six articles’ would have required that ‘in all parish churches the minister in common prayer turn his face towards the people; and there distinctly read the divine service appointed, where all the people assembled may hear and be edified’. This would have been an explicit interpretation of the rubric in the 1552 Prayer Book, dropped in 1559, which had ordered the officiant at the office to be in such place and ‘so turn him as the people may best hear’. A little more vaguely, the ‘Seven articles’ directed the minister to stand ‘in such convenient place of the church, as all may hear and be edified’. The Elizabethan Book had rather directed the minister to be in the ‘accustomed place’, unless the bishop ordered otherwise. The characteristic Reformation stress on edification underlay the request —a stress that was often insensitive to the advantage of an architectural setting that suggested the mutual participation of officiant and congregation in an act of praise directed toward God. To many of the precisians, any focusing of congregational attention on the holy table was suspect because it recalled the idolatry which they believed had been practised before images and the reserved sacrament.


The following reform might be useful for Pope Francis as he has repeatedly refused to kneel for Our Lord in the Eucharist. However, he would have to make a canonical exception that would still enable him to kneel to wash the feet of non-Christians on Holy Thursday. In addition, we see in this “optional” reform the insidiousness of the “optional practices” of the Novus Ordo Mass such as Communion in the Hand, Eucharistic Ministers, etc. which have all now become standard practice:
Quote:Another set of proposed alterations in the Prayer Book are found only in the documents prepared during the course of Convocation itself. Kneeling at communion had been unpopular with the more militant reformers ever since John Knox had preached against it before the king in 1553. Both the ‘Seven articles’ and the more widely supported ‘Six articles’ would have left kneeling at communion to the discretion of the ordinary. Although the ‘ Six articles’ mentioned ‘age, sickness, and sundry other infirmities’ as the reasons for introducing an option to receive without kneeling, it was obviously horror at those who ‘superstitiously both kneel and knock’ which led them to make the demands. As if any priest with die slightest sense of his pastoral responsibilities has ever refused to communicate a parishioner physically incapable of kneeling! The discretion left to the ordinaries would have probably meant that the majority of bishops would have gladly granted the option and that the others would have been under importunate pressure from zealous reformers in their dioceses to do likewise. The precisians knew that it would not take too long to turn the option into a prohibition of kneeling.


The following reform is reminiscent of Francis’ encyclical, Amoris Laetitia, his approval of Joe Biden receiving Communion, and the sacramental theology of Cardinal Blaise Cupich who once opined that we are all unworthy of Holy Communion, and then somehow concluded that we all should receive It. Of course, this Eucharistic generosity doesn’t apply to rigid Traditional Catholics who should leave the Church before Communion:
Quote:The second distinctive proposal of the ‘Twenty-one articles’ would have required all those who did not intend to receive communion to leave the church before the general confession. By not permitting non-communicating attendance at the Supper itself, the proposal stressed the importance of full participation in the sacramental rite—a stress shared by all sixteenth-century reformers, but not expressed by all in such a regulation.


The government thought that they were offering sufficient concessions to the prisoners’ consciences; the prisoners judged otherwise, and in the Tower they remained until the government relaxed its requirement.

The following change in law is reminiscent of the incremental Vatican II liturgical reformers who always like to keep the door open to future “developments” of their reform until the old order is completely gone as well as the leftist priests of the Novus Ordo who want to be free to innovate and violate even the Novus Ordo rubrics with no consequence:
Quote:They asked that the thirty-fourth Article of Religion, on traditions of the church, be changed to mitigate the section which states that those who break traditions and ceremonies of the church ‘ought to be rebuked openly...as one that offendeth against the common order of the Church, and hurteth the authority of the magistrate, and woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren’. On principle, the precisians would have disliked the inclusion of any such defence of ceremonies in a formal confession of doctrine, but their protest here seems much more practical. Even assuming that the ‘Seven articles’ were adopted as they hoped, apparently even these modifications of the Prayer Book would not have satisfied many of them, and they wanted to be assured that they might change or omit rubrical ceremonies without danger of violating the official doctrinal articles. In effect, these clergy wanted to retain the right of conscientious disobedience to the prescribed liturgy without jeopardizing their ministries in the church. They dared not ask for more sweeping changes in the liturgy than the relatively few points they proposed, but they served notice that even these proposals would not satisfy tender consciences that the Church of England really had returned to ‘the godly purity and simplicity used in the primitive church’.


It is interesting to note that when certain jailed Catholic bishops were offered their freedom if they would simply attend the reformed rite without actively participating in it, they still refused:
Quote:Just as English envoys abroad were instructed to attend Latin rites while refraining from active participation or sacramental communion, apparently Elizabeth and her government thought that the bishops ought to be willing to attend the Prayer Book offices. Officials were not prepared at the beginning of 1561 to release the bishops without a demonstrable act of obedience. According to Sander, when Heath had been offered liberty in exchange for mere attendance at service, the former archbishop replied,

“In principle it is the same to be schismatic in one point as to be schismatic in all, and therefore he was minded to countenance none of these doings either by word or deed, nor to suffer his back to be seen where none could read his heart.”


The government thought that they were offering sufficient concessions to the prisoners’ consciences; the prisoners judged otherwise, and in the Tower they remained until the government relaxed its requirement.

The following may be a premonition of the state of the Latin Mass in our own future:
Quote:Secret Latin Masses had continued in the homes of some of the gentry, and the first major attack on the practice came in April 1561 when Cecil ordered the arrest of almost two dozen ‘mass-mongers’ including two of Queen Mary’s councillors.


The laws against the Latin Mass then began reaching fever pitch:
Quote:The precisians, moreover, wrote into their prospectus, ‘General notes’, two items which the Lower House picked up in ‘ Articles for government’ almost without change and these were specifically directed at Roman Catholics:

Whosoever shall at any time hereafter say mass, or procure mass to be said, or willingly suffer it to be said in his house, and.. .be lawfully convicted. . .within 2 years.. .shall be judged in law a felon and shall suffer the pains of death and forfeiture of goods...

Whoever shall hear mass and be.. .convicted.. .within 2 years... shall forfeit for every mass that they shall hear 100 marks, if they be worth so much, and if they be not, then they shall forfeit all their goods and chattels...

[Image: Martyrs_2.jpg]

Faced with such a dilemma as attendance at the reformed rite or penalties such as imprisonment or death, the Spanish ambassador to England petitioned Rome on their behalf to see if an exception could be made under the circumstances as the reformed Rite, like the Novus Ordo, did not contain anything openly heretical, although what was omitted was telling:

Quote:Many Englishmen loyal to the papacy thought they might, without offence, obey the provisions of the Uniformity Act requiring them to attend church. In the summer of 1562 some of them requested de Quadra to obtain an authoritative Vatican judgment. The Spanish bishop himself clearly argued in favour of a qualified permission:

“What.. .has to be considered.. .is the great unusualness and novelty of the case,.. .it being here prohibited by law to be a Catholic and capital punishment assigned to anyone here who will not live as a heretic.... That .. .which they call Common Prayer.. .contains no false doctrine or anything profane, because it is entirely Scripture or prayers taken from the Catholic Church (although from some of them everything has been omitted that mentions the merits and intercession of the Saints), so much so that leaving aside the sin of dissimulation and the harm that would accrue from the example, the act of taking part in this [worship] is not in its nature evil. The Communion is not before us now. They only ask if they can attend this service of Common Prayer which I have mentioned.”

He also asked for terms of absolution for those who repented of their conformity to the established religion.

At the same time the Portuguese ambassador asked for a similar decision at the Council of Trent. The Office of the Inquisition and the Council’s committee which had been assigned the inquiry both gave the same answer: under no conditions might the faithful attend the Prayer Book offices. The resolute stand of the imprisoned bishops was vindicated by the highest councils of the Roman Church.


In conclusion, the most remarkable thing about English Catholic resistance to these reforms is that their spirit of resistance did not emanate from blind obedience or loyalty to the pope, but from the Latin Mass, their Catholic Faith, their devotions, and Tradition.

Quote:By 1560 the Roman Catholic authorities actively began to persuade their English adherents not to compromise with the independent national church. Their task was formidable, for it was not, by and large, respect for papal authority which led men and women to reject the national church and her new ways. Rather, they loved the familiar pattern of church life: the Latin Mass, the regular shriving, the invocation of favourite saints, the anointing on the death-bed, the liturgical petitions for family and friends who had died. To them, these things, with the teachings that underlay them, belonged to the heart of the Christian faith, and they would not give them up.

Print this item

  Biden Admin Compiling Database Of Religious Objectors To Vaccine Within Obscure Agency
Posted by: Stone - 01-13-2022, 09:28 AM - Forum: Socialism & Communism - No Replies

Biden Admin Compiling Database Of Religious Objectors To Vaccine Within Obscure Agency

[Image: ih_210909_covid_vaccine_cross_religious_...k=MZQ9fc46]


ZH | JAN 12, 2022n administration, the Pretrial Services Agency, announced an Orwellian tracking scheme on Tuesday that could serve as a model for the entire US government to collect the names and "personal religious information" of federal employees who make "religious accommodation requests for religious exception from the federally mandated vaccination requirement," according to the Daily Signal.

Quote:"The primary purpose of the secured electronic file repository is to collect, maintain, use, and—to the extent appropriate and necessary—disseminate employee religious exception request information collected by the Agency in the context of the federally mandated COVID-19 vaccination requirement," according to the Federal Register.

The announcement does not explain why the agency needs to create this list except to say that it will “assist the Agency in the collecting, storing, dissemination, and disposal of employee religious exemption request information collected and maintained by the Agency.” In other words, the list will help the agency make a list.

The announcement also does not say what the agency will do with this information after it has decided an employee’s religious accommodation request.

And neither does the announcement explain why the Biden administration chose to test this policy in an agency with a majority-black staff, who are both more religious and less vaccinated than other groups. So much for the president’s commitment to “racial equity.” -Daily Signal

The Signal suggests that the Biden administration is using the tiny agency as a test bed for deploying the database across the entire US government - noting that the announcement was relegated to an obscure group and given just 30 days for public comment.

Meanwhile, the US government has treated religious exemptions as a joke.

Take the Department of Defense, for example—which has failed to grant a single religious exemption on behalf of any service members requesting one for the federal vaccine mandate. A group of Navy SEALS was recently successful in its federal lawsuit against the Biden administration on claims that its conscience rights under the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act were violated.

From the outset of his administration, Biden voiced support for passage of the patently faith-hostile Equality Act—a bill that would gut the Religious Freedom Restoration Act entirely when it intersects with LGBTQ+ protections and entitlements in public accommodations.

The president also swiftly revoked the Mexico City policy that had been reinstated by former President Donald Trump, thereby ensuring that religious Americans would be forced to fund abortions overseas by way of their tax dollars, despite their religious objections to the act. -Daily Signal

In short: be a good citizen or you go on a list...

Print this item

  Quebec to force unvaccinated to pay financial penalty
Posted by: Stone - 01-12-2022, 10:11 AM - Forum: Socialism & Communism - Replies (1)

Quebec to force unvaccinated to pay financial penalty

By Associated Press | Jan. 11, 2022


MONTREAL (AP) - The premier of the French-speaking Canadian province of Quebec says adult residents who refuse to get vaccinated against COVID-19 will be charged a financial penalty.

Premier Francois Legault says that not getting vaccinated leads to consequences for the health care system and not all Quebecers should pay for that.

He said Tuesday the levy will only apply to people who don’t qualify for medical exemptions.

It’s the first time a government in Canada has announced a financial penalty for people who refuse to be vaccinated against COVID-19.

Legault says the amount of the penalty hasn’t been decided but will be “significant.”


Video: https://www.wcax.com/video/2022/01/12/qu...l-penalty/

Print this item

  SSPX formally refuses to take a stand on the vaccines: Transcript
Posted by: Stone - 01-11-2022, 03:02 PM - Forum: Pandemic 2020 [Spiritual] - Replies (2)

NB: The following is a transcription done by a professional transcribing service of Fr. Pagliarani's recent conference (published January 5, 2022) on the subject of the vaccines. I have not double-checked the accuracy of the transcription word for word. Please do keep in mind too that English is not Fr. Pagliarani's native tongue.

As an aside, the SSPX missed the irony in entitling this Conference by Fr. Pagliarani, "The Superior General of the SSPX Clarifies the Vaccine Debate" because in reality, the SG did nothing of the kind. He simply stated repeatedly that the SSPX makes no stand on the topic. The comments to the video are rather interesting too...




Father Pagliarani (00:00):
I think it is worth it to spend few words about vaccines. It is a big issue. I can see that many of you are starting now to take some notes. It's a complicated issue. The theme of this talk is the mission of the Society. So, we will see what's the relation, if there is any, between the mission of the Society and the vaccines.


Father Pagliarani (00:37):
The Society of Saint Pius X seems too prudent about this question. Why the Society doesn't speak up about this problem? That all humanity now is kneeling, is exhausted because of this problem all over the world. Why Society doesn't speak up? The question is legitimate. We will try to answer this question. I will try to explain. So I'm going to settle the issue. And I'm going to answer the 1,000, 1,000, 1,000s of problem, objection, raised up in the Web. Huh? You can spend your entire life if you want, to have a complete idea of what's going on, updating yourself, I hope every day, because every day there are new elements.


Father Pagliarani (01:48):
But the question is really complicated. We don't deny this, not at all. But I want just to let you know why the Society's prudent. Another term without settling the issue, we will try to put this issue at its place. This is the purpose of this few words.


Father Pagliarani (02:19):
Well, until one year ago, mankind was come concerned about COVID only. Is it made in China? Was made in Taiwan? Does it kill? Does it not? Does it exist? Is it an influence like others? People in the hospital, they've been killed or they died out of COVID. Oh, all these questions, they have been very, very common until one year ago. They attract all the attention.


Father Pagliarani (03:05):
Right now I don't say that we forgot about the COVID, but right now all the attention is spent, paid to the vaccine issue. And that's understandable in a way. The governments, they try to impose the vaccine to everybody. It provokes a general excitement, and most of all provokes two camps, people who are against and people who are in favor. There are not a lot of people neutral. And the Web provides all the necessary information, tools to both of these groups.


Father Pagliarani (04:05):
So there is a general panic because of the danger of the vaccine in itself. But there is another panic, especially in people who are pro-vaccines, because mankind cannot go back to normality without the mandatory vaccine for everybody. So you see that the [electus 00:04:33], it's quite strong. As a result you should get the COVID. Your lungs are weakened, but people without COVID, doesn't keep upside of the problem. People without COVID are, in a way more stressed, than the sick ones.


Father Pagliarani (05:03):
So let's try to step aside for a few minutes of this very complicated situation, of these two camps, if you prefer, trying to analyze a bit deeper what's going on. Right now the great debate is around the side effects. The side effects of a vaccine produced very, very quickly, too quickly. It is true. And related to this medical issue, there is a political issue. How can the governments, the authorities impose such a vaccine, which is not tested enough? You know that normally for a new vaccine, you need seven to eight years. I leave it to the doctors the details about all this. Seven, eight years, for a complete testing, experimentation.


Father Pagliarani (06:19):
Everything was done very, very quickly. Why? Because there is a business behind. There are several countries that were producing their own vaccine, and they gave up a few, six months ago, because when the universal vaccinations started, they realized that they were going to lose the market. So there is a big business behind.


Father Pagliarani (06:55):
The side effects as a consequence of this lack of experimentation are not known enough. This is the first problem, but there is another problem, also a medical problem. This vaccine, it seems it doesn't last. It doesn't work enough. So, medical side, and again, political side. Political problem related to the first one. The authorities are making vaccinations mandatory, and they have to convince two kind of people. First of all, they have to convince the non-vaccinated people. They have to tell them, to explain to them that it's working. It's worth to receive the vaccine. And that's the only way we can get out from the crisis. This is the message for people not yet vaccinated.


Father Pagliarani (08:14):
But for people that they already got at least one, the vaccine, they have explain that they need a second, a third injection. Why? Because it doesn't work. So, the first one, they have to be convinced that it works. The second one, that it doesn't work enough. They are talking already about of course the third injection and then a booster every year. But they don't know how long it will last, this problem.


Father Pagliarani (08:55):
So, let's get to the point. Is it complicated? Yes. Is it a bit crazy, all this? Yes. Yes. Is the stress that right now is on the entire humanity, is it understandable? Yes. Yes. Is it legitimate to question all this? Yes. Is it legitimate to be against mandatory vaccination? Yes. Yes.


Father Pagliarani (09:38):
But this problem, this big problem, is related to a medical issue. This is the first reason why the Society of Saint Pius X is not entering straight into this debate. Of course, a priest can give a suggestion, can advise, but the Society as such is not entering into this debate. The mission of the Society is not to settle medical issues. The mission of Society is not to give an answer about all the possible side effects of the vaccine. And that's not only for COVID, even for other drugs. If they produce a new vaccine against chicken pox, and it seems there are some side effects or that vaccine is not tested enough, well, this is not the problem of the Society of Saint Pius X.


Father Pagliarani (11:17):
This is, I repeat, I stress, it's a medical problem that we cannot transform into a theological problem. Again, a priest can give a suggestion, can advise on a personal basis. Of course. You see on the opposite. Let's take another drug. There is a new drug produced against a cold that it seems has no problem, a normal drug against a normal cold. Well, if the Society states this drug is okay, and then that drug will provoke allergies, for instance, the Society is going to respond about the allergies. But what is the mistake? Mistake would be the Society expressed ourself on a particular topic, which doesn't correspond to our mission. This is the main reason, but there are other reasons why the Society, again, is kind of stepping aside. Doesn't want to enter straight into the debate.


Father Pagliarani (13:00):
It's a problem of globalism. Globalism, conspiracy. It seems that globalism conspiracy started one year ago with the vaccines. So now it's clear through the vaccine, there is a worldwide, universal authority imposing the same drugs for the same illness all over the world. That's globalism. Finally, the globalism did show up. The monster did show up. Be careful, because if all the attention is paid to this particular problem, and I repeat, we don't deny that it is a big problem, the risk is to forget that conspiracy started 300 years ago against the Church.


Father Pagliarani (14:09):
What's globalism, though? Globalism is this idea, this project, this intention to replace the Catholic Church with another universal authority. You know very well what I'm talking about, but let's not forget the origin of this conspiracy against the Church, which is affecting the entire humanity. Let's put in our terms the current crisis, the current problems, inside this entire picture. But to keep the entire picture, you can focus only about the present problem, talking about the present problem only. You cannot. And we have not the right to lose the entire picture.


Father Pagliarani (15:12):
Another point which I think is important, let's keep a supernatural perspective. [inaudible 00:15:20], it's normal, you are a priest. It's normal that you talk always about supernatural perspective, but here, the problem is the vaccine, and is a liquid, so there is nothing supernatural. Oh, the COVID, as every pandemic throughout history, COVID is also a punishment allowed by divine providence in order to purify us.


Father Pagliarani (15:55):
Because there is danger. I said at the beginning, we got tradition. We kept tradition, but we are not necessarily better than the others. We are sinners also. And if there is a universal punishment, it's for us also. If God allowed COVID it's not just for the sinners, for the sins of the others, it's for ours also. We die also, traditional people and priests die also out of COVID.


Father Pagliarani (16:32):
But I go back to the problem of globalism. Pay attention. During this year, thanks to the attention paid to the vaccine, which absorbed again for different reason, the entire humanity, the worst loss against the natural order. They have been approved in many, many countries. In Europe right now, in Western Europe, in every country, the same-sex marriage is approved, except one country, because there's still a debate. But our focus is not there.


Father Pagliarani (17:37):
Since our focus is somewhere else, it is much easier to promote and to approve all those laws. They are the main expression of globalism, of the destruction of the natural order. The order that the Church was keeping, was protecting, in order to create a new world with new laws, with the new authority, with or without COVID, with or without vaccines. This project didn't, I repeat, didn't start two years ago. It's much older.


Father Pagliarani (18:29):
And last reason, thank you for your patience and your attention also. There is another reason, again, why the Society steps aside. It's this anti-vaccine alliance. It is very heterogeneous. There are Catholics, but there are people with, without special political or religious creed, but there are people from the right side in this alliance against the vaccines, and mostly people from the extreme left to use a political language. Anarchist, the green. [inaudible 00:19:38] the green? The green are the people committed to the safeguard of, not the creation, of Earth, the ecologists.


Father Pagliarani (19:54):
This is a good left, extreme left. They know what they are talking about. They have targets which are very, very clear. Those kind of parties are quite strong in Europe. They're against the vaccine. In the name of what? In the name of what? In the name of individual freedom, human dignity, human rights. In other terms, with my body, I do whatever I want. With my life, I do whatever I want. So I decide if I take or not the vaccine.


Father Pagliarani (20:41):
We find again the same slogans of the '60s, of the '70s, of a particular class of women, "With my belly, I do whatever I want." You see? We find again the same principles of the new order started 300 years ago in the name of human rights, human dignity.


Father Pagliarani (21:18):
Let's be careful. On the other side, the pro-vaccine also, I think, it's good to stress this point, it's a paradox. They fight in the name of the same principles, in the name of human rights, in the name of freedom. Why? The conclusion is the same, but the principles are the same, but the conclusions is not the same. They want the mandatory vaccine in order to go back to normality, because if the others that don't take the vaccine, I'm touched in my freedom. I'm limited in my freedom. So I cannot travel. I cannot go on holiday. I cannot earn money as I used to do before. I cannot enjoy life. Why? Because I still have to put a mask or other restriction because of the others.


Father Pagliarani (22:26):
So I want to impose to the others in the name of human rights, the mandatory vaccine. In other terms, I don't want to have any restrictions because of the others. So, we all take the vaccine. It's a paradox, the same principles are on one side and on the other side. Shall we enter into this debate? Shall we take simply a part into this debate, entering [stride 00:23:07], the Society of Saint Pius X, for the reasons I gave. And other reason, of course that we don't have the time here to develop. Prefer, I repeat, to step aside.


Father Pagliarani (23:26):
But of course, it's a big issue. The issue is not settled. As I said, we leave present and live the future to Divine Providence. And we are sure that Divine Providence as well has never abandoned us in our struggle, fight for Tradition, is not going to abandon us in the middle of these new crisis. Thank you for your attention.


Speaker 2 (24:03):
The first question is about vaccines, which probably surprises no one. So the question, and a lot of these will be addressed to the panel and occasionally, at least initially to an individual, but everyone's happy to weigh in. The question, Father Pagliarani, is more or less in the end, is there official position of the Society on vaccines, on the COVID vaccine, whether it's the articles that have been published in the past or your talk? In light of your talk yesterday, is the only position the question of moral principles? Yeah. I thought I'd start with an easy one.


Father Pagliarani (24:52):
Yes, in my talk yesterday, I tried to focus on the main debate, the nowadays debate, which is on the side effects. And as I said, as a consequence, the political problem, how can an authority impose that vaccine which is not tested, which is not sure?


Father Pagliarani (25:29):
Of course, there are also moral questions, especially for this link with fetus, the cells coming from abortions. The Society, why this Society gave this particular answer and why the Society on that particular point didn't step aside, as we are doing now for the main present debate, well, question is quite easy to understand. People are faithful, as us. If I am a father, I have a family, I am the only one earning money. I don't have another solution. If I'm obliged to take the vaccine, am I doing anything immoral? Because if it is immoral, I will refuse the vaccine, and I will entrust the future of my family to Divine Providence.


Father Pagliarani (26:50):
So they ask this question, this specific question. The Society... You know the answer, the Society [esteems 00:27:03] that it is legitimate to accept the vaccine. Nevertheless, it remains a prudent decision. Anyone has to take into consideration the dangers for his health and so on.


Father Pagliarani (27:24):
So to go back to this controversial, I acknowledge the question is extremely delicate. As soon as we mention the word abortion, we feel repulsion. We feel... Of course, we don't want to have anything to do with that. It's clear. And we cannot have anything to do with that. But the principle that the Society apply, I try to explain maybe better, this point, is that it is in some circumstances legitimate to take advantage of the evil of others.


Father Pagliarani (28:20):
I will give you some examples. It is legitimate provided you don't corporate to the bad action. So the Society doesn't push anybody to receive the vaccine, but at the same time, the Society doesn't condemn. And that was the meaning of that article. Doesn't condemn somebody who in his personal, particular condition, situation will receive the vaccine.


Father Pagliarani (29:04):
I try to give you some examples of this principle, which is a classical principle of theology. St. Thomas Aquinas also is using this principle, is teaching this principle. You know that you can take out the cornea of somebody who is dead, even two, three hours after death. Is it legitimate to take out the cornea from somebody who is dead? Yes. Yes. There is not a problem that we can find with the organs, right? It is a tissue.


Father Pagliarani (29:48):
So, can you take out the cornea from somebody who was killed? Question. Yes. Provided you don't kill him on purpose to take out the cornea. That's the point. That's the point. You are taking advantage of a martyr. Somebody was killed. And without that sin, [honorable 00:30:26] sin, you couldn't take out the cornea, but of course you don't cooperate in any manner to that bad action.


Father Pagliarani (30:42):
Another example, if it can be useful for you, can the district of the United States of America donate your money for the building of a mosque? Of a synagogue? I think no, and I hope we are all agree. Can the district of the US receive as a donation a mosque in order to transform the mosque into a church?


Speaker 2 (31:25):
The answer is yes.


Father Pagliarani (31:29):
Yes. In the south of Spain, you have cathedrals that they were a mosque, and they kept something of the old ancient mosque. So, it's another example we could... Of course, we could multiply the examples.


Speaker 3 (31:51):
The Pantheon.


Father Pagliarani (31:51):
The Pantheon?


Speaker 3 (31:51):
The Pantheon.


Father Pagliarani (31:52):
The other example, obviously in Rome, the churches that were used, the Pantheon. I mean, Christians were martyred there, and yet it was used.


Speaker 4 (32:11):
There are dozens and dozens of churches in Rome built on pagan temples. Can I just give us a footnote to the Superior's remarks? Until Catholic answers had our own statement with respect to the vaccine up on catholic.com, I was very happy to refer to people the article, the first one in particular, with respect to the vaccine, which is thoroughly consistent with Catholic moral theology.


Father Pagliarani (32:38):
Yes, but it is understandable that when we mention abortion, there is a repulsion, right? To us, abortion. I'll give you another example. The last one, if you allow me, because the question is important, something that will fill you the same repulsion. Can you eat the meat? Or it's not anymore a modern problem. Some meat offered to the idols? The question arised 2,000 years ago. In the pagan rites, they used to offer, sacrifices, of course, and a part of the meat then was consumed by the offerers. And that meat was sold in the market.


Father Pagliarani (33:45):
Or maybe, whether you were invited from a pagan, and it was serving you, that meat offered the day before to the idols. So a matter, as a part of a pagan sacrifice. So can you eat that meat? Could they eat that meat, if you prefer? Because the Jews, they were scandalized. As [inaudible 00:34:16] said, "Yes, you can provide." You take to consideration the very fact that you could scandalize others, but this is another matter. But they could eat that meat.


Father Pagliarani (34:32):
Of course, a pagan's rite was the abomination for a Jew, like for us also. Nevertheless, they could eat that meat. So, it's understandable. It's understandable. Again, the [phase 00:34:53] of the abomination of abortion, right? There is this repulsion, but I take advantage of this explanation to try to make you understand why the Society was prudent. And again, if anyone is obliged, or there are particular situation, needs, well, the Society esteems that it's just taking advantage of a big sin of somebody else, but he doesn't participate to that sin.

Print this item

  Military Docs about Gain of Function Contradict Fauci testimony
Posted by: Stone - 01-11-2022, 11:36 AM - Forum: Pandemic 2020 [Secular] - Replies (1)

Military Documents about Gain of Function contradict Fauci testimony under oath






Project Veritas watermarked Documents

Print this item

  mRNA pioneer Dr. Robert Malone warns of ‘full-on media warfare’ to implement Great Reset agenda
Posted by: Stone - 01-11-2022, 09:27 AM - Forum: Great Reset - No Replies

mRNA pioneer Dr. Robert Malone warns of ‘full-on media warfare’ to implement Great Reset agenda
'People were coming to me talking about the ‘Great Reset,' And I was like, ‘Ah, this crazy talk,’ but then it’s all documented and then you see it being deployed … Here it is — they’re proud of it. They don’t hide it.'

[Image: Malone-810x500.jpg]
Dr. Robert Malone

Mon Jan 10, 2022
FRONT ROYAL, Virginia, (LifeSiteNews) – Heavily-censored virologist and mRNA pioneer Dr. Robert Malone  contends that the populace is in an asymmetric information war with the mainstream media, which seeks to implement the ‘Great Reset’ agenda outlined by the World Economic Forum (WEF).

“This is full-on media warfare, information warfare, political warfare, 21st century, like we’ve never seen before, and coordinated globally,” Malone said in a Jan. 1 interview with Kristi Leigh. “The other thing for me has been the personal journey of coming to terms with what the World Economic Forum really represents, and I really resisted that.”

“People were coming to me talking about the ‘Great Reset,’” he continued. “And I was like, ‘Ah, this crazy talk,’ but then it’s all documented and then you see it being deployed … Here it is — they’re proud of it. They don’t hide it. This is the vision. It is a full-on globalist totalitarian vision with the money in control.”

An internationally-recognized and a distinguished medical scientist, Dr. Malone possesses specialties in virology and vaccines. He is the originator of the mRNA technology now found in the experimental Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 shots. An increasing amount of evidence shows that the shots are harmful and potentially lethal.

Dr. Malone has come under attack by the mainstream media and medical establishment for his criticism of the COVID-19 inoculations and the U.S. government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. In early January, Dr. Malone was featured as a guest on a now viral episode of the Joe Rogan Experience podcast in which Malone described his numerous concerns about the mandatory vaccination regime being imposed by governments worldwide.

“I believe nobody should have vaccine mandates for these experimental products,” Malone said. “I believe it is absolutely contrary to the Nuremberg Code, the Helsinki Agreement, the Common Rule, the Belmont Report,  etc. It is lawless behavior that’s going — full stop.”

Dr. Malone recalled that as an undergraduate in the early 1980s at University of California-Davis that he read books on trans-nationalism and the establishment of the New World Order. However, he remained skeptical and unsure how implementation could ever occur — until now. “[We] see it playing out in real time and in a way in which national sovereignty, governments, are increasingly irrelevant. You know, that’s the thing that folks gotta wake up about. This is not about the vaccine. The vaccine is a symptom.”

Malone said that his long proximity and insider’s view of the politics in medicine did not prepare him for being in the spotlight after he articulated his critiques of COVID-19 vaccines and government mandates.

“I didn’t seek this. I never expected it. I find myself at the center of this storm of the resistance, and that’s what it is, really. … It has profoundly changed my view of the information that we receive,” the doctor said. “I had not been aware before of the information control that is globally coordinated.”

“It’s not about evaluating the truth. It’s about enforcing the narrative.”

Despite big tech and big media’s efforts to offer only singular viewpoints on the pandemic, Malone said that these tactics are galvanizing opposition. “There is a growing cohort of people that are increasingly aware of how thoroughly we’ve been manipulated.”

“This is asymmetric warfare,” he continued. “We’re basically in a guerrilla warfare situation and we gotta play it smart because what I’m seeing is the other side is generally not very smart. They have a big hammer. They’ve got all kinds of resources, but they don’t seem to be very bright.”

Malone said that this growing awareness of the ‘Great Reset’ and the limitations of those pushing it are reasons for encouragement in 2022. He expressed that a change in the “dysfunctional” structure of top-down governance in our large institutions would be one of the noticeable results of this recognition moving forward.

Malone concluded that he tries “really hard to look for the silver lining in things” and said that if humanity  recognizes its interconnectedness and the importance of community, integrity, and human dignity during this moment in history, we will have a ‘A Great Awakening’ in response to the ‘Great Reset.’

Print this item

  Senate Bill Would Force States To Pair Voter ID With Vaccine Passports
Posted by: Stone - 01-11-2022, 09:04 AM - Forum: Socialism & Communism - No Replies

Senate Bill Would Force States To Pair Voter ID With Vaccine Passports

[Image: voter%20id%20vax.jpg?itok=e-HVVHFw]


ZH | JAN 10, 2022


As Democratic lawmakers push America towards vaccine passports to participate in society - they're also pushing to weaken safeguards on voting, under the guise of 'voting rights,' a new Senate bill would force states to pair voter ID requirements with vaccine passports.

Quote:The legislation is the idea of Republican Sen. Kevin Cramer of North Dakota who says if a state forces people to prove their vaccination status, they should also have to prove who they are when they go to vote.

Sen. Cramer says he wants to point out the hypocrisy in Democrats who support vaccine passports but oppose voter ID -Fox5

"It seems just logical that if I had to show Bill Deblasio something that’s personal and private just to have a steak dinner in New York City, the least he should do is require people to prove they are who they say they are before they take on the very important responsibility of voting," says Cramer.

Virginia's newly elected Attorney General Jason Miayes agrees with the idea.

"The standard should be easy to vote and hard to cheat," he tells Fox5. "I think we all should have an interest in making sure that we trust our election system and voter ID is a very simple safe way to do that."

Virginia Governor-elect Glenn Youngkin, meanwhile, says he'll block vaccine passports altogether.

According to the report, Cramer acknowledges that trying to tie voter ID to vaccine passports will be difficult, but he hopes it will at least highlight the hypocrisy from the left.

Print this item

  Transcript for Fr. Pagliarani's December 2021 Angelus Conference
Posted by: Stone - 01-11-2022, 09:01 AM - Forum: The New-Conciliar SSPX - No Replies





It's a great pleasure for me to be here for this conference. They gave me a broad title. The mission of the society, it's a classical title for the Superior. So he can talk a lot. So what we can say, the mission of the society is always the same. This mission is, and to keep this mission, the society has to remain always the same, has to remain what it is. Circumstances changed a lot during the last few years, this year in particular, we will see, but the role of the society is always the same, is to upholding, defending tradition. And the providential role of the society is more and more clear every year. Of course, as Superior General, I am not the best person, in the best position to say that there is not another option, but after the last Motu Proprio Traditionis Custodes, the dismay of a lot of Catholics linked to tradition, the society becomes more and more a point of reference, not only for our faithful, but also for people observing us from outside.


And this conclusion is not because we are better than the others. No, that's not what I meant, but it's because without tradition kept in its integrality, people, they go nowhere, sooner or later, the lack of a doctrinal element, of a liturgical element, of a moral element, will show up and it will bear consequences. So I will try to talk, summarize a little bit the present situation of the society. First of all, we will talk about our present, current relation with Rome. Then I will give you three reasons why the society, as I said, is becoming more and more a point of reference. Our, our communities are growing a lot, all over the world.


About our relation with Rome. What can we say? Because the society had a long negotiation with Rome until 2017. It was a current subject of conversation. Everybody was waiting. What's the next step? Is the society going to be recognized? Is the society going to obtain a Canonical status, a Canonical acknowledgement in the church, in the official church? So this long negotiation had a lot of ups and downs. In 2016 in particular, we heard for the first time from the mouth of a Bishop, was dealing with the society, officially, "Listen after so many years, why should we impose you the council, to accept the council? Since we don't ask people who are going to the parish if they accept the council, why should we, the Vatican, ask you to accept the council?" So you see, we could get the impression that the acceptance of the council was not mandatory anymore. But then the following year, 2017, I don't know what happened.


Out of tiredness, everybody was tired, also in the Vatican. Cardinal Müller now is giving less of orthodoxy even to the Pope. But Cardinal Müller imposed to the society, to accept everything, to accept the council, to accept the new Mass, to accept all the teachings of the popes, even after the council. In other terms, the negotiation went back of 30 years, all of a sudden. A Canonical solution, a Canonical acknowledgement of the society was always submitted to a doctrinal declaration of the society, accepting all these elements and still a Canonical acknowledgement is submitted to this request. Of course, a declaration, a doctrinal declaration that we cannot sign, we couldn't sign and we cannot sign.


So in 2018, we tried to start again, a doctrinal discussion, more free, not necessarily in view of an agreement. But to present, freely, to achieve to present freely our reasons, our question, question of faith. Why there are elements that we cannot accept, errors. We wanted to start again with this discussion. At the same time, we wanted to show that through this discussion, we were recognized in the authority of Rome, of the Pope, because you don't discuss with an authority that you don't recognize. But actually they're not interested about this, at least for the time being. They answered us, "The society as to find first a Canonical status, then we can talk again about doctrine." Yes, you see the problem, the contradiction. A Canonical status is submitted to a doctrinal declaration that we cannot accept.


So we got stuck. We got stuck, but I stress this point. It's not the society that stopped this dialogue. It's Rome. Rome at the present moment, prefer us to procrastinate to another day, another period, when the situation will be more mature, this doctrinal discussion. Why this decision? They realized after so many years, that they didn't manage to convince us. And of course they think that we cannot either convince them. So the discussion for them is not interesting. But for us, it's a question of faith, [inaudible 00:09:12], to give you an example is a question of faith. The Kingship of our Lord' is a question of faith, the liturgical problem, it's a question of faith.


So they prefer to wait, and we have to wait too. So this issue is in the hands of God. Our relation with Rome, we still have relation of course, but not on the doctrinal side. For us, the doctrinal side, is the main one, is the hub of all the other problems. Everything is related to this. So we will wait patiently the occasion to start again with this discussion. Sooner or later, we will have to try again, and our doctrinal position, and the expression of our doctrinal position of tradition, is going on, it's not because we don't discuss it with Rome at the present moment, that through our publication, our conference, is we don't carry on the same struggle. So this particular point is in the Hands of God.


What about the development of the society during this last few years? Many of our chapels, communities all over the world, they had to welcome new faithful. Some communities, now they have double, and others, even more of the faithful they had two or three years ago. And there are even new communities, that they showed up during the COVID crisis. Why? Well, first of all, it was quite easy to understand, the church were closed and the Bishops scared. They imposed restrictions to their priests and to all the priests under their jurisdiction, under their authority, including priests saying the traditional Mass. They imposed for instance, communing the hands, forbidding Communion on the [inaudible 00:12:21].


So at the same time, our priests did all they could to keep our churches open, to assist the faithful, to give the sacraments. We had burials in private homes during the lockdown, not here in the US. They tried to visit the faithful at the hospital, taking some risk also. Our priests, they were free from the authority of the local bishops, and the society of our priests, they have this charisma, this ability to interpret laws, to implement restrictions with the, I would say, common sense. And that allowed, I think, a lot of good that the society could do, according to circumstances. So come before anything else, Supreme [foreign language 00:13:31], I would say in one word, our priest, they were ready. The society was ready for this crisis. They knew already what to do in very different situations.


The restrictions were different in any state, any country. The implementation of restrictions also didn't come at the same time everywhere, but our priests, they were ready. They knew what to do already. I can say I'm proud of them. I'm proud of this. It was a great joy to see, to perceive the zeal of our priest during this crisis. So as a result, the society, as I said, had to welcome new faithful everywhere. And in some new countries also, I mean, countries where the tradition was not known, or very little, well, it exploded during this crisis of COVID, during the lockdown in particular. It's amazing how God is using everything, even COVID. We were so scared of COVID. But God, who allowed COVID, he had his purpose, allowing this virus. God knows how to draw out good even from a virus, an illness.


So we lost some priests, that's the Cross, especially here. We lost, I can say one of our best priests Father [inaudible 00:15:39]. It's a big loss. We have certainly a new intercessor in Heaven. At the same time, God blessed us through this Cross. It is a lesson for the future. We are not going to make anything good with our human perspective only. The development of the society and the service that the society can and provide to the entire church and to every soul, doesn't depend just on our capacity, our abilities, our commitment. We have to keep faithful to our priesthood, to the heritage of the society of Bishop Lefebvre. And then Divine Providence will decide how, when this development of the society, the strife of tradition has to increase again. So obviously the main lesson of this event.


And now there is another reason which is attracting new faith to the society. It's a new reaction to the official teaching of the Pope, of Pope Francis in particular, of course. Pope Benedict represented the last effort, and I would say also the last illusion to interpret the council and continue with tradition. He was really concerned about that. He was seeking a harmony between the period before the council, the council, and this new period, new era of the church after the council. That's why he tried, for instance, to put the old Mass and the new Mass close, one to each other, in order that they could enrich each other, in order to show this continuity between old Mass and new Mass, for instance, where it didn't work. But most of all, we have to understand that Pope Francis doesn't feel this need anymore, doesn't feel this need at all. His is teaching is clear, and I will say a bit raw.


It draws out the last conclusion of the real council, what the council really meant for the church, it's more and more clear. Of course it was clear before also, but now it's becoming much more clear for everybody. On top of that, Pope Francis is touching morals. Amoris Laetitia is touching the doctrine on marriage. So of course, lay people, faithful, they're much more sensitive to such a problem, such a new teaching, than another teaching, or about more, so to speak, intellectual matters. The problem of religious freedom for instance, doesn't touch normal, lay people, normal faithful as a problem concerning marriage. Even if everything is linked, of course, but people are more sensitive. So the reaction is stronger. The awareness of the doctrinal problem is growing among a lot of faithful. This new reaction of course is attracting, is pushing souls and people to tradition. I would say they start to watch tradition with other eyes, with another side, and by consequence, watch The Society of Saint Pius X, with other eyes.


And then there is another reason, a more recent one, that is giving to The Society of Saint Pius X, I don't say a new role, but is showing better and better what The Society of Saint Pius X means to tradition, to the keeping of tradition. And of course this reason is the Motu Proprio Traditionis Custodes. So we have to spend, I think, few words on this important event. Unfortunately, because of the present [inaudible 00:21:42] linked to the vaccines and other problems, maybe we didn't pay attention enough to the meaning of this Motu Proprio of last July. It doesn't affect The Society of Saint Pius X directly. It affects the Ecclesia Dei communities. And as a consequence of new situation of the Ecclesia Dei community, it has a force repercussion on The Society of Saint Pius X.


Allow me a short foreword. On a personal basis, because of course we are going to talk about the Ecclesia Dei communities. On a personal basis, I have nothing against Ecclesia Dei people, or Ecclesia Dei priests. I do regret their situation, but we have to say when there is an error at the beginning, at the basis, sooner or later, that error will bear consequences, 10 years later, 20 years later, 30 years later. To give an example it's like the marriage of two young people, two teenagers. They want to get married, very young. They're full of illusions, "Full of love," they say, and they don't listen to anybody, especially to the parents. They have no idea of the responsibility they are going to assume.


And of course, they get married and many times, usually, it doesn't work. Sooner or later, a big problem can show up. Why? Because they didn't realize what they are doing. They don't listen. Sorry for this kind of comparison. But I think the Ecclesia Dei communities, they found themselves in the same situation. They are bearing now the consequences of an error they did at the beginning. Of course, we're not here to judge their intentions, but they made a mistake, a big mistake, But again, I have nothing against them on a personal basis. But the paradox is that the Pope himself, if you allow me to use this expression, looks fed up with them. The Pope who is supposed to protect them, it seems doesn't stand them anymore.


First of all, you know that the Ecclesia Dei as such, as a commission, that was meant to protect all the groups, faithful and priest, linked to the traditional Mass, but who, they didn't want to follow the Society of Saint Pius X, well, this commission was meant to protect them. And it was created in 1988. Three years ago, it was suppressed. Not last July, already three years ago. Why? I give you the official explanation? Because the idea of this commission was to reintegrate them in the mainstream of the church. After 30 years, they esteemed, they were reintegrated enough. So they didn't need anymore, in Rome, a special commission protecting them. This is the official explanation.


So we still call them Ecclesia Dei communities, but this name doesn't correspond anymore to a particular reality. Three years later, last July, this Motu Proprio, which shows that not everybody was well reintegrated. And you can see the Pope is not happy at all. Especially if you read the letter of the Pope, which goes with the Motu Proprio, it's an explanation of the Motu Proprio giving us the means, the deep thought, the deep idea of the Pope, he's not happy at all. Why? And here we touch the heart of the problem.


Pope Francis stressed that it cannot stand anymore, the instrumental use of the old Missal. What does he mean? He doesn't tolerate anymore that the old Missal is used as the expression of a spirituality, of a priesthood, of an idea of church, different from the one of the council. It is strictly forbidden to celebrate the old Mass as the expression of a different spirituality. This is the heart of the problem. We go back to the doctrinal problem, a question of faith.


In some particular situation, you could still celebrate the old Mass, provided it's not a parish, and most of all provided, it is clear that don't you stick anymore to any idea of a tradition, different from the one of the Second Council of the Vatican. I can just read few quotations of this letter of the Pope of last July. "I'm saddened that the instrumental use of Missale Romanum is often characterized by rejection, not only of the liturgical reform, but of the Vatican council itself, claiming with unfounded and unsustainable assertions that it betrays the tradition and the true church." This is what we think. And maybe even among Ecclesia Dei people, communities, somebody was thinking in the same way, hopefully.


"Whoever wishes to celebrate with devotion according to earlier forms of the liturgy, can find in the reformed Roman Missal, according to Vatican council Two, all the elements of the Roman Rite, in particular, the Roman Canon, which constitutes one of its more distinctive elements." Well, if the old Mass and the new Mass are the same, where is the problem? See? "A final reason for my decision is this, evermore plain in the words and attitudes of many, is the close connection between the choice of celebration according to the liturgical Books prior to Vatican Council Two, and the rejection of the church, an [inaudible 00:31:03] institution in the name of what is called the true church." Tradition. The [inaudible 00:31:14] to use," our, "Then has been made of this faculty, is contrary to the intention that led to granting the freedom to celebrate the Mass with the Missale Romanum of '62."


And of course, "[Foreign language 00:31:39], "I take the firmer decision to obligate all the norms, instructions, permissions, and customs that precede the present Motu Proprio, and declare that the liturgical Books promulgated by the saintly pontiffs Paul VI and John Paul II, in conformity with the decree of Vatican Council Two constitute the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite." Well, it's quite clear. So in other terms, the traditional Mass, as the expression, I repeat, I stress this point, as the expression of what we stick to, the tradition of the church is not allowed anymore.


Why? We could wonder, why in Rome, eventually they took this decision. I think they felt that something went wrong. Traditional Mass was allowed in order to promote Communion, as they say, to enrich the two Masses, each other, one another. This is the intention most of all of Pope Benedict, but they realize that the old Mass, the celebration of the old Mass generates another conception of liturgy, of the church, of the priests, of Christian life. So as a conclusion, they had to go back, they had to withdraw the permission they had given. If you want to, we can use another expression. The old Mass cannot be used anymore as a banner, as the banner of tradition.


But the problem is that intrinsically the traditional Mass is pushing toward tradition. If a priest is committed, if a priest enter into this rite, into its meaning, sooner or later, he will question himself. He will question the council. So it's more and more clear that the intention, I think, now is important to look backwards. All the concessions, the indulgences that, during these 50 years, that have been made to people who wanted to stick to tradition concerning liturgy in particular, they were a homeopathy. Homeopathy, you try to heal an illness through the same principle of the illness. Like in the vaccine, but this is another issue. So you use the cause of the illness in order to, you give something. You give in a little bit in order to heal what you consider as an illness, as a problem.


But homeopathy doesn't work all the time. We can quote Bishop Roche. You know who is Bishop Roche, he's not just a free thinker, so his thought is an official thought. An official, I would say, interpretation of this reality. Bishop Roche is the present Prefect Of The Congregation Of Worship. He stated a few weeks ago, that Pope John Paul II Ecclesia Dei, and Benedict 16 XVI Summorum Pontificum, I quote, "Were established in order to encourage the Lefebvrists above all, to return to unity with the church." Homeopathy, "I give you something, but the perspective in my mind is not to allow tradition. It's not because I believe in your tradition, I reject this tradition. My purpose is to convince you to join the mainstream of the church."


And I still quote, "It is clear that Traditions Custodes is saying, 'Okay, this experiment has not been and entirely successful.'" Thanks God, "And so time is over. So let us go back to what the Second Vatican Council require of the church.Time is over. Now, we reach such an extent that if we still allow the celebration, freely, the celebration of the Tridentine Mass, the bad effect," so to speak, in their perspective, "Is going to be stronger than the good one. It didn't work, it couldn't work." So it was a parenthesis, another term, it was a parenthesis. It was just a question of time. So for Rome, all these indulgences, they've been a, as I say, homeopathic drug, in order to drag people into the mainstream of the church. And for Ecclesia Dei people, was a mean to give them the illusion they could keep tradition without being persecuted.


What can we say is a conclusion? This use of the Roman Missal, of the old Missal, as a Bishop Roche is describing it. This use is instrumental. This is an instrumental use, the reproach they are making to the ones that, through the traditional Missal, they draw out new conclusion about doctrine, and they are willing to uphold through that Missal a doctrinal statement. That's not an instrumental use. It corresponds to reality, because the Old Mass is a banner of tradition. But this use of the Roman Missal by the Vatican has been an instrumental use, it's not worthy of the church, is not worthy of the church to play with liturgical books.


So as a conclusion. Traditional Mass is our banner, because it's the banner of redemption of the Cross, of the only possible way to sanctify our souls. We prefer to die rather than to lose this banner. And for the [inaudible 00:41:10] this point, I think is important to stress it again, this banner is unique, not only for ourselves, but for the entire church. It's not just a privilege for the Society of Saint Pius X. The Catholic church has only one Mass, because there is only one redemption. And this redemption was expressed, and more, not only expressed, was carried on throughout the history by this Mass.


That's why we stick to this Mass. And we want this Mass, not only for us, not only for our churches, our chapels, for the entire church. You see, they accuse us quite often that we have lost the sense of the church, because we build our churches, the biggest one, the biggest seminary, "Yes, but you build all this for you, and you don't care about the church." This is not true. If we build still the biggest church and the biggest seminary, that's for the church. And if we keep this Mass as unique, that's for the church. Sooner later, we cannot choose the time, unfortunately, only God can do that. Sooner later, this Mass will become, again, the only Mass in the church. Why? In one world, because there is only one redemption.


So the 16th of July was the end, sad end of a long experiment, 30, 40 years of experiment. A last the consideration. How could Bishop Lefebvre take the right decision at the right moment? It's easy for us 50 years later to say, "Yes, he was right." Yes, back in the '80s, back in the '70s, how could Bishop Lefebvre took the right decision at the right moment? How? We see the fruit, we see the result now. It was not so clear at the time.


Well, I think the explanation is quite simple. There is supernatural gift, this capacity to be moved by The Holy Ghost. Even alone, even against everybody, isolated, this sensitivity to what is really the Will of God. It is a sign, I will say infallible sign of Holiness. It is clear more and more now than it was at the time. As I said, we leave present and we leave the future to Divine Providence. And we are sure that Divine Providence as well, has never abandoned us in our struggle, fight for tradition, His not going to abandon us in the middle of this new crisis. Thank you for your attention.

Print this item

  MONOPOLY: AN OVERVIEW OF THE GREAT RESET – FOLLOW THE MONEY
Posted by: Stone - 01-10-2022, 03:49 PM - Forum: General Commentary - No Replies

Print this item