Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
Online Users |
There are currently 704 online users. » 0 Member(s) | 702 Guest(s) Bing, Google
|
Latest Threads |
Oratory Conference: Merc...
Forum: Conferences
Last Post: Deus Vult
3 hours ago
» Replies: 0
» Views: 19
|
Fr. Hewko's Sermons: Pro...
Forum: September 2025
Last Post: Deus Vult
9 hours ago
» Replies: 0
» Views: 32
|
Apologia pro Marcel Lefeb...
Forum: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 10:07 AM
» Replies: 37
» Views: 12,459
|
Fr. Hewko's Sermons: Holy...
Forum: September 2025
Last Post: Deus Vult
Yesterday, 08:40 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 56
|
Feast of the Holy Name of...
Forum: Our Lady
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 08:38 AM
» Replies: 5
» Views: 15,944
|
Oratory Conference: Instr...
Forum: Conferences
Last Post: Deus Vult
09-11-2025, 12:31 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 135
|
Bishop Schneider: Vatican...
Forum: Pope Leo XIV
Last Post: Stone
09-11-2025, 06:56 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 172
|
The Catholic Trumpet War-...
Forum: The Catholic Trumpet
Last Post: Stone
09-11-2025, 06:51 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 198
|
Fr. Hewko: Devotion of t...
Forum: September 2025
Last Post: Deus Vult
09-10-2025, 07:08 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 156
|
Queen Emma Asks for the O...
Forum: Resources Online
Last Post: Stone
09-10-2025, 08:35 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 227
|
|
|
Pope Leo’s Sacrilege at St. Peter’s |
Posted by: Stone - 09-07-2025, 07:38 AM - Forum: Pope Leo XIV
- No Replies
|
 |
Leo’s Sacrilege at St. Peter’s
While Tradition is Sidelined, Sodomy is Celebrated
![[Image: https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.ama...x1080.jpeg]](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/%24s_!p_Fe!,w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fce947eca-1cfa-49de-846e-d2a875b8c141_1080x1080.jpeg)
Chris Jackson via Hiraeth in Exile [Not all images from original included below for decency's sake] | Sep 07, 2025
No More Benefit of the Doubt
The mask has slipped. For years, Catholic conservatives pleaded for “prudence,” urging us to give the papal revolutionaries the benefit of the doubt. Now there is no doubt left. This September, Leo XIV gave his blessing not to the 8,000-strong Latin Mass pilgrims who packed Rome with prayer, but to a handful of rainbow activists led by the ever-present Fr. James Martin.
As the pilgrims of Tradition were shunted to the margins, the Vatican rolled out the red carpet for Sister Lucy Caram, who has defended abortion and mocked the Holy Family, and for Martin, whose “bridge-building” means lowering the drawbridge for Gomorrah. This is apostasy dressed in the language of compassion.
The Porn Curator of St. Peter’s Academy
If you thought the Academy for Life was corrupted under Francis, wait until you meet the new head of the Vatican’s Academy of Fine Arts: Cristiana Perrella.
Her résumé is a parade of degeneracy. Exhibits celebrating nightclub culture as the beating heart of “queer identity.” Pornographic cinema posters from Italy’s red-light boom. Photographs of naked men urinating on other men, with plastic bags over their heads, described by Perrella as “poetic, elegant, and melancholic.”
This is who Leo XIV has chosen to “promote and preserve Catholic tradition in the arts.” The 16th-century founders of the Academy must be rolling in their tombs, watching their institution turned into a showcase for sodomy and sadomasochism.
The Dicastery for Culture and Education, steered by Cardinal José Tolentino de Mendonça, made sure Perrella’s star kept rising. Once again, the same circle of “LGBT-friendly” prelates pushes their protégés into places once meant to guard the sacred.
The Abomination in the Gesù
September 6th, Rome’s Church of the Gesù, the mother church of the Jesuits, where St. Ignatius of Loyola and St. Robert Bellarmine lie buried, hosted a spectacle unthinkable even a decade ago.
Bishop Francesco Savino, vice president of the Italian Bishops’ Conference, presided over a Mass for an international LGBT pilgrimage. More than 1,000 people attended, waving rainbow flags and rainbow crosses. Religious sisters and brothers fanned themselves with rainbow-colored fans. The recessional ended in applause and embraces.
And there, in the sanctuary above the tomb of St. Robert Bellarmine, the great defender of the papacy against Protestant heresy, a rainbow cross was lifted high as if it were the new sign of salvation.
Savino’s homily preached “living truth over dead truth.” In other words, apostolic doctrine is lifeless dogma, while sodomy celebrated in public liturgies is “living truth.” He dared to pit “Peter and the Apostolic College” against what the Apostolic College has always taught, as though St. Paul’s condemnations of impurity now mean the opposite.
What would Ignatius say, whose Spiritual Exercises taught mortification of the senses to conquer sin? What would Bellarmine say, who bled for the defense of Catholic doctrine? Their silence in the grave thunders louder than Savino’s homily.
The Holy Door Profaned
The Associated Press captured the same scandal in glowing tones: “Over 1,000 LGBTQ+ Catholics and their families participated in a Holy Year pilgrimage to Rome, celebrating a new level of acceptance in the Catholic Church after long feeling shunned, and crediting Pope Francis with the change.”
Pilgrims marched through the Holy Door of St. Peter’s Basilica as if their defiance of the moral law were now sacramental. One participant, flanked by his “husband,” said the experience felt “epic, like I was able to touch the hand of God.” Another declared, “Pope Francis influenced me to return back to church. Pope Leo only strengthened my faith.”
The pilgrimage was not underground or marginal. It was listed in the Vatican’s official calendar of events for the Holy Year. Trans activists, American groups like DignityUSA and Outreach, Brazilian networks, even an Italian group of trans women, all took part in a procession that climaxed in rainbow crosses, rainbow chants, and rainbow tears of joy.
Twenty-five years ago, DignityUSA was detained in Rome as a threat to the Holy Year. Today, they are celebrated as honored pilgrims, openly thanked for their “gifts to the church.” What changed? Not doctrine, which still calls these acts intrinsically disordered. What changed was the will to enforce doctrine. What changed was Rome.
St. Peter’s Profaned
As part of the same LGBT pilgrimage, rainbow activists paraded into St. Peter’s Basilica itself. Some wore shirts declaring “F*ck the rules.” Others brandished rainbow accessories, making a mockery of the Holy Door and the basilica consecrated by the blood of martyrs.
The very space where Peter was crucified upside down for refusing to deny Christ is now used to flaunt sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance. And still Rome smiles. Still Rome applauds.
The Pattern and the Signs
The pattern is clear. Traditional Catholics are marginalized, their Masses restricted, their pilgrimages sidelined. Meanwhile, the revolutionaries are not only tolerated but enthroned in the very heart of the Church.
And yet, God has not abandoned His flock. Bishop Earl Fernandes of Columbus has spoken firmly for tradition. And in Naples, the blood of St. Januarius flowed once more.
The saints remain faithful. The martyrs still intercede. Miracles still erupt from the veins of Heaven’s defenders. Rome may have chosen rainbows over redemption, but Heaven still answers with blood.
|
|
|
Holy Mass in New Hampshire - September 14, 2025 |
Posted by: Stone - 09-07-2025, 07:31 AM - Forum: September 2025
- No Replies
|
 |
Holy Sacrifice of the Mass - Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross
w/ Commemoration of the Fourteenth Sunday after Pentecost
![[Image: ?u=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-Mo-...b041f372f0]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-Mo-qilFCYvo%2FTnBTiK5t3WI%2FAAAAAAAALEE%2Fy6cleCK8ZN4%2Fs640%2F9_14_exaltation%2Bof%2Bthe%2Bcross.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=c31c8eebd81798c0f547af4e3feba29e8cb16aaca816ecba9bd136b041f372f0)
Date: Sunday, September 14, 2025
Time: Confessions - 10:00 AM
Holy Mass - 10:30 AM
Location: The Oratory of the Sorrowful Heart of Mary
66 Gove's Lane
Wentworth, NH 03282
Contact: 315-391-7575
sorrowfulheartofmaryoratory@gmail.com
|
|
|
Vatican welcomes ‘LGBT pilgrims’ as it scrubs references to SSPX pilgrimage |
Posted by: Stone - 09-02-2025, 07:06 AM - Forum: Vatican II and the Fruits of Modernism
- Replies (3)
|
 |
Vatican welcomes ‘LGBT pilgrims’ as it scrubs references to SSPX pilgrimage
In the very city of Rome, under the shadow of St. Peter's Basilica, a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance is celebrated under the name of 'inclusion.'
Aug 29, 2025
(LifeSiteNews [slightly adapted - not all hyperlinks included from original]) — Friends, what does it mean when the Vatican welcomes open promoters of sexual perversion into its Jubilee celebrations?
That’s right, a group of over 1,000 so-called “LGBTQ Catholics” are about to descend upon Rome next week for the Jubilee year.
It’s organized by an Italian group called “La Tenda di Gionata” – the Tent of Jonathan, now that is likely a repugnant and disgusting reference to the friendship between Jonathan and King David – and this group has been very active over the years. It’s not the first time they’ve been to Rome as a group either. On their website, there are articles about their experiences at Pride festivals, including in Rome.
But before we can really dig into this pilgrimage, let’s begin as we always do with the Sign of the Cross – and consider another pilgrimage that’s just taken place over in Rome.
Many of us were delighted when we saw the Vatican Jubilee website include a listing for the Traditional Latin Mass SSPX pilgrimage to Rome, which just took place a few days ago.
Some said that such a listing wasn’t significant: that the Italian language Jubilaeum 2025 site just included everything that was happening, without regard for approval or disapproval on the part of the site.
Not so, said others. The Catholic Herald in the UK referred to it as “a rare moment of visible accord.”
The pilgrimage itself was an amazing sight. LifeSiteNews’ Dr. Maike Hickson was there, and witnessed nearly 8,000 Catholics and 680 priests and religious of the SSPX entering the Holy Doors of St. Peters Basilica there, singing the Creed and Te Deum and other beautiful hymns.
St Peter’s Basilica even put out seating for them, and let them use the microphone system. The day before, the SSPX pilgrims had Masses in the catacombs, and in the Park behind the Colosseum. [...]So, it’s understandable that many were also dismayed when the reference to the SSPX was removed from the Vatican Jubilee website.
Now, the point here is the LGBT “pilgrimage,” not the SSPX one – but stay with me. The removal definitely seemed like a de-legitimization, and undermined the idea, expressed by the Vatican office itself around the same time, that “inclusion” – on the website – “does not imply endorsement.”
But if that’s so, why delete the SSPX pilgrimage?
It’s also obviously false to say that inclusion doesn’t imply endorsement. If the KKK or the American Nazi Party were planning a Jubilee pilgrimage to Rome this year, with 8,000 pilgrims like that SSPX pilgrimage, do we really think they’d be included in the website event listings? Of course not.
Obviously I’m not comparing the SSPX to those groups. I’m just saying that, even if inclusion does not imply endorsement, it does imply something. It implies that a group is basically inside the Overton Window of acceptable thought. It means they’re “allowed,” while others are pushed out.
And that is why it is so troubling that this Tent of Jonathan, this La Tenda di Gionata group, is being listed on the Vatican Jubilee website.
While the SSPX is outside the window of acceptable thought, this homosexualist group is clearly inside it for the Leo XIV Vatican.
Alessandro Previti, one of the organisers of the event, told the “LGBTQ Catholic Ministry” Outreach:
Quote:“The core objective is to be there, to pray, to pray together and to feel part of the church, to be welcome as we are, for who we are.”
The Mass for this group – oh, yes, there is a Mass for them – will be celebrated inside the Church of the Gesù by Bishop Francesco Savino, vice president of the Italian Bishops’ Conference. Savino himself called the event:
Quote:“[an] irreversible sign reminding us that the Gospel is not a manifesto for chosen few, but a love letter addressed to the whole human family.”
This sort of event even got an endorsement from Cardinal Cobo, vice president of the Spanish bishops’ conference. Cobo wrote a letter to the Global Network of Rainbow Catholics – another LGBT group, which met in Madrid last week, and is supporting the Jubilee events.
Here’s what he said:
“In the context of the Jubilee Year, in which the Church opens its doors to those who journey together in hope, I hope that the event you are preparing will help prepare you more deeply to ‘enter the Holy Door’ and that it will lead to a deeper encounter with Christ.”
Here’s another interesting thing: last year, Tenda di Gionata was also deleted from the Vatican Jubilee website temporarily – before being reinstated. And when confronted with criticism over these listings, Archbishop Rino Fisichella, the Vatican’s Jubilee coordinator, declared:
“We include all those who ask us to experience faith… Therefore, I don’t see why anyone should be excluded.”
What does it say about the so-called “Church of inclusion,” when the Society of Saint Pius X is first listed, then deleted, while LGBTQ activists are celebrated as honored pilgrims – and reinstated after they were deleted?
And as the SSPX News site asked: “Does Fisichella believe that the pilgrims who came with the Society of Saint Pius X were not there to experience faith? Why were they there then? What does he criticize them for?”
As I said before, this is really not about the SSPX. It’s not like we’re calling for the Jubilee website to relist their event, or for the Church to be like a circus or a zoo, made up of groups which hold diametrically opposed beliefs, and practice diametrically opposed religions. We’re not begging the Vatican to give the SSPX a corner in their big tent in which they can do their little thing.
No, it’s about us saying clearly: under Leo XIV, the Vatican is making space for homosexualist groups, and celebrating them as honored pilgrims, and treating their heterodoxy and heresy as if they were legitimate opinions – and this is unacceptable. [Emphasis The Catacombs] The treatment of the SSPX – and what I said about the KKK – simply makes that worse and more obvious.
It’s unacceptable, but it isn’t a surprise. Leo XIV himself said, as Cardinal Prevost in 2023, that his earlier condemnations of the “homosexual lifestyle” had shifted under Francis – “there’s been a development” he said, such that “we are looking to be more welcoming and more open, and to say all people are welcome in the Church.”
I’m sorry, we all know what that means. He even attributed this “development” to Francis and made clear that he had adopted it for himself.
No, friends. God does not bless sin – let alone one of the four sins that cry to heaven for vengeance. The Church does not hand over her altars to those who deny her moral teaching and publicly celebrate sin. As Saint Paul warned: “You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.” (1 Cor. 10:21)
Yet there, in the very city of Rome, under the shadow of St. Peter’s Basilica, a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance is celebrated under the name of “inclusion.”
All are included. Anyone can walk through the Holy Doors for the Jubilee. But the Holy Door of eternal life is not open to anyone who feels like it – it’s open only to those who have the supernatural faith, hope and charity of Christ, and persevere in the grace of God.
Whatever these churchmen do, let’s resolve for ourselves to walk through that door, whatever it costs us – and offer reparation for these sins and our own, and pray for the conversion of those involved in this sordid story.
|
|
|
The Catholic Trumpet: Neo-SSPX Confirms What Resistance Catholics Have Always Known |
Posted by: Stone - 08-29-2025, 08:39 AM - Forum: The Catholic Trumpet
- No Replies
|
 |
Neo-SSPX Confirms What Resistance Catholics Have Always Known
![[Image: rs=w:1280]](https://img1.wsimg.com/isteam/ip/df55e1a9-c854-4d0b-a2a9-94177954436c/IMG_0029.png/:/cr=t:0%25,l:0%25,w:100%25,h:100%25/rs=w:1280)
The Catholic Trumpet [slightly adapted and reformatted] | August 27, 2025
Note: On 22 August 2025, the Neo-SSPX issued an open letter to Cardinal Arborelius in response to his statements of 15 August 2025. This letter confirms many of the positions long defended by faithful Catholics and illustrates of the True SSPX Resistance that no matter how much one compromises in pursuit of recognition or security, Modernist Rome and the devil will always strike, demonstrating the necessity of steadfast fidelity to the true Catholic Faith.
For decades, Catholics outside the post-2012 Neo-SSPX have consistently warned of a profound crisis in the Church. They exposed the infiltration of the Society and the practical agreement made with Rome under then Superior Bishop Fellay, an arrangement that accepted the Novus Ordo Mass as legitimately promulgated and endorsed the Second Vatican Council in a condemned spirit of evolution cloaked as tradition. Archbishop Lefebvre explicitly refused to subject his priests or the faithful to such compromises.
Lefebvre understood that true obedience to the Church cannot include submission to error or heresy. Catholics have a duty to separate themselves from the conciliar Church, which is no longer the Catholic Church, and to preserve the integrity of the Faith. As he declared in 1974: “It is therefore impossible for any conscientious and faithful Catholic to espouse this reformation and to submit to it in any way whatsoever. The only attitude of fidelity to the Church and to Catholic doctrine appropriate for our salvation is a categorical refusal to accept this reformation.” Faithful Catholics have always defended this principle, recognizing that the salvation of souls depends upon access to the sacraments administered according to the traditional rites and the unwavering teaching of the Catholic Faith.
These warnings were dismissed by the Neo-SSPX, its supporters, and those who unquestioningly follow it, often portrayed as mere preference or obstinacy. In reality, these Catholics acted to protect the Church from the infiltration of Modernist doctrine and to ensure the integrity of the priesthood that was meant to safeguard the traditional Faith.
The Neo-SSPX letter to Cardinal Arborelius, issued on 22 August 2025, now confirms what these faithful Catholics long understood. The Society openly acknowledges that it has relied upon modernist popes to legitimize its activities. Faculties granted by Popes Benedict XVI and Francis for hearing confessions and celebrating marriages are cited as justification for their pastoral work. These privileges were obtained through long-standing dialogue and practical arrangements with Rome, demonstrating that the Neo-SSPX has relied upon conciliar authority to maintain its operations.
The letter also emphasizes support from conciliar bishops. Bishop Athanasius Schneider is invoked to dismiss claims of schism, while Bishop Vitus Huonder is highlighted for his personal connection to the Society, his public admiration of Lefebvre, and the affirmation from Pope Francis that the Neo-SSPX is not in schism. These admissions reveal the Society’s dependence on compromised figures to establish legitimacy. The reliance on Modernist authority to defend their existence and activities confirms the very compromise that faithful Catholics have consistently opposed.
Through these acknowledgments, the Neo-SSPX demonstrates the consequences of the post-2012 trajectory: practical acceptance of Vatican II, alignment with modernist Rome, and justification of their presence using faculties and endorsements from authorities whose fidelity to Tradition is doubtful. Every claim of pastoral care or canonical standing is inseparably linked to this compromise. The letter, in its own words, confirms the warnings the faithful have tirelessly issued for decades.
The 2025 letter is therefore not merely a statement of fact. It is an inadvertent admission that the post-2012 Neo-SSPX has followed a path Archbishop Lefebvre refused to sanction. It underscores the duty of Catholics to avoid compromising with Modernist structures and to reject any allegiance to a conciliar Church that denies fundamental Catholic truths. For the salvation of souls, Catholics must maintain clear separation from this conciliar Church, adhering instead to the unadulterated teachings and sacraments of the true Catholic Faith.
As +Archbishop Lefebvre stated:
Quote:“That Conciliar Church is a schismatic church because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship… The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or the faithful adhere to this new church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Reflections on his suspension a divinis, July 29, 1976)
The Neo-SSPX letter follows in full. Its contents speak for themselves, confirming the positions long held by faithful the True Resistance Catholics and providing a clear example of the compromises inherent in the post-2012 Society. The letter is both a warning and a vindication: a warning that reliance on conciliar authorities undermines the Faith, and a vindication of those who have resisted compromise and defended the traditional priesthood, the sacraments, and the integrity of the Catholic Church.
Your Eminence,
We have taken note of the two statements concerning our priestly fraternity that were made public by Your Eminence on the Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Animated by the zeal for the salvation of souls and in the spirit of filial devotion to our Holy Mother the Church and Her institutions we would like to make our thoughts and intentions known in the form of an open letter that we hope will foster a greater understanding for the nature of our work and benefit many of the Catholic faithful in Sweden.
Standing of the pastoral activities of the FSSPX according to Church authorities
No. 6 of Your Eminence's Clarification states that the sacraments celebrated by our priests are “valida sed illicita” - valid but illicit (i.e. inadmissible). We are grateful for this clarification, which shows, for the benefit of all the faithful, that Your Eminence agrees with us that all our sacraments are valid.
Concerning the liceity (admissibility) of the sacraments celebrated by our priests, we would like to point out that on 1st September 2015 “motivated by the need to respond to the good of these faithful”, the Holy Father Pope Francis granted faculties for hearing confessions validly and licitly to all the priests of our priestly fraternity. At first, this was granted for the duration of one year (the Year of Mercy) and then in the Apostolic Letter Misericordia et misera, dated 20 November 2016, extended until further notice for “the pastoral benefit” of the faithful who attend our churches. These faculties have not been revoked by the Holy See to date.
The Church and the Holy Father certainly do not consider it a “good of the faithful” or a “pastoral benefit” to reassure those faithful who are about to do what is objectionable or inadmissible. But as Confessions are usually heard immediately before Holy Mass, it stands to reason that most of the faithful who come to our priests for Confession have the intention of attending Holy Mass celebrated by one of our priests immediately afterwards.
Furthermore, in the letter of the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei” signed 27 March and published 4 April 2017, the Holy Father's decision to authorize Local Ordinaries the possibility to grant faculties for the celebration of marriages of faithful who follow the pastoral activity of the FSSPX was promulgated. The letter explicitly mentions that the purpose of this decision was “to reassure the conscience of the faithful” and that the Mass celebrated following such a marriage ceremony, “may” or “is to be” celebrated by a priest of the FSSPX. Now, the Church and the Holy Father do not reassure the conscience of those who do something inadmissible or objectionable.
Therefore, it is evidently not the view of the Holy See that it is inadmissible or objectionable to follow the pastoral activities of the FSSPX.
In No. 2 of Your Eminence's Clarification, it is stated that the FSSPX does not live and work in communion with the Holy See. This statement is manifestly false and amounts to a grave calumny. The members of the FSSPX are Catholics in virtue of their baptism, Catholic faith and submission to the authority of the pope. This submission, however, does not imply a limitless obedience.
Your Eminence's use of the expression “not living and working in communion with the Holy See” amounts to the accusation that we are in schism. As false as this accusation is, it is at least a clear and precise statement concerning canonical status: someone in schism is separated from the Church. But in the very same sentence it is also said that our canonical status is unclear. How can we at the same time be in schism and in a canonical status that is “unclear”?
Statements by the Holy Fathers Benedict XVI and Francis, and especially their way of dealing with matters concerning our priestly fraternity as matters internal to the Church, clearly show that they considered us as Catholics and part of the Church. Examples of this are the doctrinal discussions between the Vatican and the FSSPX from 2009 to 2012 and the faculties granted by Pope Francis in 2015, 2016 and 2017.
It has been clearly emphasized, especially by Pope Benedict XVI, that the “problem” between the Holy See and the FSSPX is of a doctrinal, not disciplinary nature. In other words, the reason why our fraternity is denied an official canonical status is not some refusal on our part to recognize the pope, to live in communion with the rest of the Church, that we keep doing things without permission, or in bad faith or anything of that nature. Pope Benedict XVI stated in the Letter to the Bishops of 10 March 2009: “the problems now to be addressed are essentially doctrinal in nature and concern primarily the acceptance of the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar magisterium of the Popes”. In the letter of 1 September 2015, Pope Francis stated concerning the FSSPX: “From various quarters, several Brother Bishops have told me of their good faith and sacramental practice”.
Well-respected bishops of the Church have expressed support for the FSSPX, defended its adherence to the Church's traditional teachings and advocated its recognition by Church authorities.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider has been reported in the press as stating that only “a very narrow, legalistic view of the reality of the Church” could lead one to believe the FSSPX is schismatic and that those who state as much are “putting the letter of the Canon Law above the importance, the primary importance of the fullness of the Catholic faith and of the traditional liturgy.” Further, that the FSSPX continually exhibits “canonical community with the Pope” by praying for the pope during Mass and offering other public prayers for him and that the lack of a canonical recognition is not a barrier to Catholics receiving sacraments from FSSPX clergy.
Particularly telling is the story of Bishop Vitus Huonder, former diocesan Bishop of Chur in Switzerland, who was tasked by Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller, then Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, to initiate dialogue with the FSSPX. This mandate led to regular contact with members of the FSSPX, allowing him to understand our fraternity from within, moving beyond media portrayals. His journey culminated in his retirement to our house in Wangs, Switzerland, a decision made with the explicit permission and blessing of Pope Francis. In a series of video talks, he expressed deep admiration for our founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. He also stated that Pope Francis personally told him the FSSPX is not in schism. Bishop Huonder died on Easter Wednesday, 2024, and was buried in Écône alongside Archbishop Lefebvre.
In No. 3 of the Clarification, the often-heard contention is made that the FSSPX is not in full communion with the Holy See and the Pope. The use of the expression “full communion” in this context is a novelty and the distinction between “full” and “imperfect” communion is an innovation of the second Vatican Council. The Church's traditional teaching is very simple: Catholics belong to the Church by fulfilling the three classic conditions: baptism, Catholic faith, submission to the hierarchy. The FSSPX acknowledges the authority of the pope, and its priests pray for him at every Mass. True obedience consists in accepting the authority of the pope as pope, in praying for him, and respecting his person while actively resisting any bad orientations he might wish to impart to the Church. Such is the attitude of the FSSPX, and we are therefore indeed in a state of submission to the pope.
Obligation of registering sacraments
In No. 5 of the Clarification it is stated that sacraments celebrated by our priests (which are admitted to be valid - see above) cannot be entered into the sacramental records of the diocese and that this will affect the possibility for the faithful to receive baptismal and confirmation certificates.
Catholic sacramental theology and Canon Law impose an unequivocal obligation to keep track of the reception of certain sacraments, especially those that can only be received once without sacrilege, such as Baptism, Confirmation and Holy Orders.
Canon law (535 §2) prescribes that notations of confirmation, marriage, reception of sacred orders, etc. are always to be noted on a baptismal certificate.
We cannot imagine that Your Eminence really intends to forbid valid confirmations to be entered in the sacramental records and included on baptismal certificates, as this will inevitably lead to confusion and uncertainty as to whether a member of the faithful has or has not received the sacrament of Confirmation and therefore pose the risk of sacrilegious repetition of the conferral of Confirmation. Such a policy would clearly be against the prescriptions of Canon Law and would amount to an abuse of power making life difficult and causing fear and uncertainly for Catholic faithful who have no other wish than to profess their Catholic Faith and live in full accordance with it.
We will of course assure the faithful concerned that a confirmation certificate can always be obtained directly from us, should the Catholic Diocese of Stockholm actually choose to ignore the theology and Law of the Church in this matter.
State of grave spiritual necessity
The Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X considers the carrying out of those of its pastoral activities that lack the approval of church authorities to be justified by the existence of a state of grave spiritual necessity caused by the current crisis in the Church.
For their salvation and sanctification souls are in need of the true, unadulterated Catholic Faith and the sacraments of the Catholic Church celebrated in the dignified, awe-inspiring and uplifting rites of the traditional Missal, Ritual and Pontifical that truly lead hearts and minds to the realm of the supernatural and the things of God, as they have done for centuries for so many of the Church's most loved and venerated Saints.
Every member of the Church has the right to receive from it the doctrine and the sacraments necessary for salvation. This includes the right to be warned against errors that put the faith in danger as well as the right to be taught the fulness of the Catholic faith.
In the Church of today, many errors previously condemned by the Church's magisterium are being allowed to spread practically unchecked, with an immense number of contemporary theologians and even bishops and cardinals openly denying or questioning the dogmas of the Catholic Church. The liturgical reforms have led to a loss of respect for the sacred, as the new forms largely fail to lift the soul to God and rather bring what should be considered sacred and approached with respect and awe down to the level of the mundane and everyday. The practice of receiving Holy Communion in the hand and standing not only occasions many sacrileges, but is also at least partly responsible for the loss of faith of many Catholics in Christ's Real Presence in the Blessed Sacrament.
Referring to the situation of the Church in 1972, Pope Paul VI said in a homily that “from some fissure the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God”. In his 2003 apostolic exhortation Ecclesia in Europa, Pope John Paul II lamented a widespread erosion of faith marked by practical agnosticism, religious indifference and a forgetting of Christian heritage – describing it as a silent apostasy on the part of people who have all that they need and who live as if God does not exist. Benedict XVI publicly decried the “process of secularization” that “has produced a grave crisis of the sense of the Christian faith and of belonging to the Church”.
In our view, the preaching of modern Ecumenism and Religious Liberty have been especially far-reaching in its harmful consequences. A true ecumenism aims to lead souls to enter into the true Church founded by Jesus Christ, but the modern and false type of ecumenism which was promoted by the Second Vatican Council is concerned with achieving a purely human reconciliation, ignoring the need to reconcile men with God by leading souls to the means of salvation found only in the Catholic Church. Religious liberty, as taught by the Second Vatican Council, denies the rights of Our Lord Jesus Christ as King.
Many fundamental truths of the Catholic Faith are unfortunately ignored or denied in large parts of the Church, such as the infallibility of divine revelation, the importance of sanctifying grace, the reality of Hell, the power of the devil, the need for spiritual fight and the social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
If the normal hierarchy (pastor, bishop, etc.) do not fulfill their duty, the faithful find themselves in a state of necessity that allows them to have recourse to any Catholic priest. Because of the necessity, this priest then receives directly from the Church what is called supplied jurisdiction, in order to minister to the faithful. We have always maintained that in the current crisis, supplied jurisdiction empowers traditional priests to baptize, hear the confessions of, marry, etc., Catholics who otherwise would not depend on them.
The fact that some errors are condemned, (parts of) Catholic truth is preached and the traditional liturgy is allowed to be celebrated in some places especially provided, often in an unstable manner, for faithful who have a “personal preference” or happen to be “attached to the vetus ordo”, as it is often expressed, clearly does not change the fact that the state of grave spiritual necessity remains. For the defense of the liturgical and doctrinal Tradition of the Church is nothing more nor less than the defense of the integrity of the Catholic Faith, which is the common good of the Church; by this very fact it entails the fight against modern errors which challenge fundamental truths of the Faith and thus endanger the common good of the Church. When this common good of the Catholic Faith is considered by the authorities as the object of a simple personal attachment, a state of necessity exists.
The supreme Law of the Church is the salvation of souls. The Law of the Church, just like any other just law, allows for exceptions in exceptional circumstances. Civil law forbids breaking windows, but it is not wrong to break a window in order to save an infant from a burning building. It is similarly not wrong to help feed the starving flock even if it can only be done at the cost of the disapproval of Church authorities, whose approval would have been required in normal circumstances. In the light of this, we cannot agree with Your Eminence's statement in No. 6 of the Clarification that sacraments celebrated by our priests are unauthorised and therefore should never be celebrated and avoided by the faithful. The circumstances themselves give the authorisation that is lacking from responsible authorities, making these celebrations both valid and licit.
The FSSPX provides access to the mentioned means of salvation to many thousands of Catholic faithful around the world with its priories, churches, chapels, novitiates and priestly seminaries, and we strive to do the same for souls hungry and thirsty for sanctification in Sweden and the other Scandinavian countries as well. We are especially eager to find worthy vocations to the Catholic priesthood and religious life and help them on their path to a life consecrated to God.
Our priests always pray for the Pope and the local Bishop at the beginning of the Canon of Holy Mass. We do what we do, not in the spirit of division or rebellion, but with the sole aim of the glory of God, the preservation of the invaluable treasures of the Catholic Faith and Sacraments, handed to our Mother the Church by Almighty God Himself, and the salvation and sanctification of souls. We have no other wish than to help Your Eminence and the other responsible pastors fulfil Your holy duty in the care for souls.
Most respectfully, Your humble servants in Christ the King and Mary Immaculate,
Father Karl Stehlin FSSPX
District Superior for Poland and Scandinavia
Father Håkan Lindström FSSPX
Priest responsible for the Scandinavian apostolate
22 August 2025, on the Feast of the Immaculate Heart of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
|
|
|
Cardinal Cupich, Fr. James Martin ignore Minnesota shooter’s transgenderism |
Posted by: Stone - 08-29-2025, 08:31 AM - Forum: Vatican II and the Fruits of Modernism
- No Replies
|
 |
Cardinal Cupich, Fr. James Martin ignore Minnesota shooter’s transgenderism, call for more gun control
The clergymen called for more gun laws after the Minnesota church shooting, but ignored the perpetrator’s gender confusion,
anti-Christian hatred, and potential demonic possession.
Cardinal Blase Cupich
Franco Origlia/Getty Images
Aug 28, 2025
(LifeSiteNews [not all hyperlinks from original included]) — Cardinal Blase Cupich and Father James Martin, S.J., have called for stricter gun control laws in the wake of the deadly shooting of schoolchildren in Minnesota, without referencing the shooter’s “transgender” identity and mental illness or the spiritual roots of his attack.
“Robin” Westman, born Robert Westman, on Wednesday morning fired into Annunciation Catholic Church where schoolchildren were gathered, killing two and injuring 17 others, leaving one adult and five children in critical condition as of Thursday morning. Westman killed himself following the shooting.
Videos and writings from Westman show he was consumed by leftist hatred and mentally ill by his own admission. Footage he filmed captures him laughing maniacally as he focuses with his camera on an image of the face of Jesus Christ, crowned with thorns, atop a shooting target on his wall.
The video footage shows him proceeding to pick up an array of gun magazines painted with messages such as “Where is your God?” and “Pain and hate.” One gun reads, “Take this, all of you, and eat,” in a mockery of Christ’s words at the Last Supper said at the consecration during Mass.
In his manifesto, he apologizes to his family and friends but commits to his homicidal and suicidal intention, which he said he had been contemplating for years: “Unfortunately, due to my depression, anger, and twisted mind, I want to fulfill a final act that has been in the back of my head for years,” he wrote.
His mother, who used to work at Annunciation Catholic School according to CBS News, applied for his name change from Robert to “Robin” on his behalf as part of his effort to identify as a female in 2020, when he was still a minor.
A number of observers believe Westman demonstrated demonic influence, if not outright possession. Podcaster Will Spencer has shared a picture from Westman’s journal in which the young man depicted himself facing a demon in the mirror. He wrote as a caption in Russian, “Who?” “When will this end?” “Help me!” and “I don’t want to.”
A former classmate of his, Josefina Sanchez, told ABC5 she had seen red flags in the past. “When you see something erratic, it doesn’t leave your mind … so he would put up his hand and praise Hitler,” Sanchez said.
“I think that’s a spiritual battle,” Sanchez said of the manifesto videos. “I don’t think it’s this world, it’s demonic, I’m sorry, it is. I think we need Jesus. He needed Him.”
Catholic author Daniel O’Connor referred to Westman as “possessed” and lamented that his mother had signed off on his name change. “Cooperating with another’s sin or deception is not love, it is hatred. It hands that person over to his demons,” remarked O’Connor on X.
Instead of raising questions about Westman’s gender dysphoria, a manifestation of mental illness, or about the state of his soul, the heterodox Jesuit priest Fr. Martin and Cdl. Cupich of Chicago responded to the shooting by calling for more restrictive gun control laws.
“Pray for an end to gun violence and for sensible gun control laws,” wrote Fr. Martin, also calling for prayers for the children killed and their family and friends.
The archbishop of Chicago issued a statement following the shooting suggesting the availability of guns should be restricted and that social service programs should be more amply funded by the government, without referring to Westman’s gender dysphoria or spiritual maladies.
“The facts are clear. Guns are plentiful and common sense attempts to limit their availability have been largely rejected in the name of a freedom not found in our constitution,” claimed Cupich in a statement shared to X by liberal Catholic theologian Rich Raho. “Cutbacks in funding for healthcare and for social service programs will only exacerbate a national mental health crisis and increase alienation.”
“Please pray and please act. Now,” Cupich added at the end of his statement.
Cardinal Timothy Dolan was criticized for saying the Minnesota shooting was caused by “gun violence” without mentioning Westman’s transgenderism or anti-Christian sentiments. He wrote on X, “We join in compassionate solidarity with the countless families of the city of Minneapolis, Annunciation Catholic School, and beyond who have been touched by an unthinkable grief caused by mind numbing gun violence which has become all too common.”
A remarkably high number of mass murderers (or aspiring murderers) of late have not identified with their sex. This summer, 18-year-old “Felix” Winter, a girl identifying as male, was sentenced to six years in prison after admitting to two charges related to planning a school shooting in the U.K. In 2023, gender-confused female Audrey “Aidan” Hale murdered six people at a Presbyterian private school in Tennessee.
The Aberdeen shooter Snochia Mosley also identified as “transgender”; the Colorado Springs shooter Anderson Lee Aldrich identified as “non-binary”; the Iowa shooter Dylan Butler identified as “gender fluid”; Denver shooter Alec McKinney identified as “transgender”; and Philadelphia shooter Kimbrady Carriker photographed himself wearing female clothing and jewelry, and with a feminine hairstyle.
The identification with a “gender” other than one’s own sex meets the most basic criterion for mental illness, as a self-perception that defies and contradicts reality – although a cultural shift among leftists have led to the denial that transgenderism is a mental illness.
However, studies and anecdotal evidence still indicate that transgender identification often stems from mental health issues, including trauma. One such study concluded, as a number of detransitioners have attested, that “[T]here is strong evidence that children and adolescents who identify as transgender have experienced significant psychological trauma leading to their gender dysphoria.”
|
|
|
The Recusant: Is John Henry Newman a Saint? Is He a Doctor of the Church? |
Posted by: Stone - 08-28-2025, 07:41 AM - Forum: In Defense of Tradition
- Replies (1)
|
 |
The following is taken from pages 30-42 of this issue of The Recusant [slightly adapted and reformatted]:
Is John Henry Newman a Saint?
Is He a Doctor of the Church?
The short answer is, no. There is enough to be wary of with Newman, enough to at least give any sensible Catholic pause for thought and in any case, Novus Ordo conciliar canonisations aren’t worth the paper they’re written on. These modern canonisations are proposed to us by men who don’t believe in real Saints, just as the miracles which confirm them are not real miracles and are proposed to us by men who don’t believe in real miracles. John Henry Newman is as much a Saint as Paul VI or John Paul II. The first part of this article will deal with the question of real Saints and conciliar “Saints”; the second part with Newman himself.
Part 1: When is a Saint not a Saint?
Remember that [the] Novus Ordo calendar removed many genuine Saints as though they no longer existed and were therefore no longer to be venerated. Take, for instance, the Fourteen Holy Helpers: few modern Catholics have even heard of them today, although they were venerated for centuries and were the object of widespread popular devotion across Christendom. Their feast was removed from the calendar and some of them lost individual feast days too and became in effect “un-canonised,” including some very popular Saints. That did not stop modernist Rome casting doubt on whether they had ever even existed to begin with, declaring that the stories about them were mere fables, not really worthy of belief in other words. Here, for instance, is what Paul VI’s Rome had to say concerning St. Barbara:
Quote:“Memoria S. Barbarae, Saeculo XII in Calendario romano ascripta, deletur: acta S. Barbarae sunt omnino fabulosa et etiam de loco ubi passa sit summa inter peritos est dissentio.”
[“The feast of St. Barbara, added to the Roman Calendar in the Twelfth Century, is to be removed. The life of St. Barbara is totally legendary and even the place of her martyrdom is not agreed-upon by experts.”] (Calendarium Romanum, 1969, p.147).
And similarly, concerning St. Catherine of Alexandria:
Quote:“Memoria S. Catharinae, saeculo XII in Calendario romano ascripta, deletur: non solum Passio S. Catharinae est omnino fabulosa, sed de ipsa persona Catharinae nihil certum affirmari potest.”
[“The feast of St. Catherine, added to the Roman Calendar in the Twelfth Century, is to be removed. Not only is the martyrdom of St. Catherine entirely legendary, but nothing certain can be asserted about the person of Catherine herself.”] (Ibid.)
By the way, it is difficult to appreciate what is conveyed by those words “omnino fabulosa” which keep cropping up. A total fable. A complete fairytale. Not in any way true, in other words, not just an exaggeration, but a total, utter fabrication. And it is not just St. Catherine of Alexandria and St. Barbara who are treated his way: St. Christopher is another example of a very popular Saint who was nonetheless removed completely from the calendar, as well as St. Dorothy, St. Pius I, and many more besides. Others, such as St. George and St. Valentine, were demoted to a commemoration in certain local places only, which had much the same effect as removing them altogether. In the motu proprio presenting his new calendar (Mysterii Paschalis, 1969), Paul VI cites - you’ve guessed it! - Vatican II as his justification, quoting the following passage from Sacrosanctum Concilium, §111:
Quote:“Lest the feasts of the saints should take precedence over the feasts which commemorate the very mysteries of salvation, many of them should be left to be celebrated by a particular Church or nation or family of religious; only those should be extended to the universal Church which commemorate saints who are truly of universal importance.”
Even the secular media has picked up on this from time to time. Here, for instance, is a 2014 article from ABC News:
Quote:“The Catholic Church removed 93 saints from the universal calendar and revoked their feast days in 1969 when Pope Paul VI revised the canon of saints and determined that some of the names had only ever been alive as legends or not enough was known about them to determine their status. […] Among Catholicism’s most popular saints, Christopher was listed as a martyr. […] But there wasn’t enough historical evidence the man ever existed, so Pope Paul VI dropped him.” (‘Once a Saint, Always a Saint? Kind Of - Unless You're Demoted’ - here)
Another remarkable victim of the modernists is St. Philomena. One of the most popular Saints of the last two centuries, the Curé of Ars, St. John Vianney, had a particularly strong devotion to her. She was not only removed from the calendar, but modern Rome since then has cast doubt on whether she even existed at all to being with! And yet, like St. Christopher, St. Barbara and the others she still has her own following and devotion to her is still alive and well today, despite her attempted assassination and un-canonisation by modernist unbelievers. One of the important proofs of Sainthood is a cultus, a following, and an enduring
one.
John Paul II had plenty of flatterers and sycophants while he was still alive, and he died adored and praised by the world. Not a good sign! Tony Blair and Bill Clinton were among those who attended his requiem. Hence there was no shortage of people who wanted him declared a Saint immediately (“Santo Subito!” - remember?). But a mere twenty years on, how often does one hear his name mentioned? Outside of Polish Novus Ordo Catholic parishes, is he not all-but forgotten already? And who has ever had a devotion to Paul VI or John XXIII..!? The very idea is absurd! Those men never had a cultus and never will! And yet we are asked to believe that they are Saints, by the very same modernists who tell us that St. Christopher, St. Catherine, St Philomena and others not only aren’t Saints, but weren’t even real people…? Does that sound reasonable to you? The men who openly admit that they don’t believe in real Saints are nonetheless going to tell us who is to be regarded as a Saint from now on! And whom do they propose for our veneration? Men such as John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II…! No thanks. You can keep your bogus, conciliar “Saints” - I’ll stick with the real ones, the ones which generations of our forefathers venerated for hundreds of years, thank you very much!
Regarding the details of the removal of Saints from the calendar and general “de-canonisation” which went on in the 1960s (some of which was already happening on the eve of Vatican II in the Tridentine calendar!) a great deal more could be said, but we shall not spend too long on it since it was not really meant to be the focus of this article, fascinating and horrifying though it is.
Suffice it to say that the usual suspects are not very hard to find. An article from late 2020 by one Peter Kwasniewski which appeared on the website of the conservative / novus “New Liturgical Movement” provides some interesting and useful insight on this question and is perhaps worth quoting from here briefly. Among other things, the article identifies more than 300 Saints who were removed or demoted and provides tables showing which changes were made on which days of the year. And just see how long it takes before you spot the name which you knew all along was going to pop up!
Quote:“That the thinning out of the sanctoral cycle had long been on Bugnini’s mind is evident from his 1949 article in Ephemerides Liturgicae, “Per una riforma liturgica generale” (“Towards a General Liturgical Reform”). Bugnini pressed the need for “a reduction of the Sanctoral . . . which requires not only a reduction of the present calendar, but also fixed and prescriptive norms to prevent new Saints’ days from piling up again.”
Yves Chiron summarizes:
Quote:‘A list of thirteen saints or groups of saints was already drawn up for elimination from the universal calendar, with no justification for any of them (Saint Martin for example), whereas the calendar was supposed to abbinare (“pair together”) fourteen more Saints “because their life and work were alike or close to it,” for example Saint Thomas Becket and Saint Stanislaus or Saint Peter Canisius and Saint Robert Bellarmine.’ (Annibale Bugnini: Reformer of the Liturgy, p.34)”
(https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/20...moval.html)
By the way, next time you visit continental Europe keep an eye out for St. Martin: you see his name everywhere. France is covered with hundreds, if not thousands of churches, chapels and shrines to him and there are dozens of villages and towns named after him in Southern Germany and Austria. In that part of the world at least, it is hard to imagine a Saint who is more deeply embedded within Catholic culture! But then, this is the infamous Fr. Annibale Bugnini and his friends whom we are talking about, so it probably shouldn’t surprise us that much…
The same article quotes the memoires of the well-known “liturgical reformer” Fr. Louis Bouyer, who was nonetheless horrified to see just how far some on his own side were taking things (also found in the excellent article by Dr Carol Byrne, here):
Quote:“I prefer to say nothing, or little, about the new calendar, the handiwork of a trio of maniacs who suppressed, with no good reason, Septuagesima and the Octave of Pentecost and who scattered three quarters of the Saints higgledypiggledy, all based on notions of their own devising! Because these three hotheads obstinately refused to change anything in their work and because the pope wanted to finish up quickly to avoid letting the chaos get out of hand, their project, however insane, was accepted!” (Ibid.)
What is Canonisation?
Behind all this, underlying the question, is something which it is difficult to put one’s finger on, an attitude which itself is wrong. There is more than a whiff of the “because I say so” type of argument which reeks of voluntarism and nominalism. Let us remind ourselves: it is the Saint that makes the canonisation, not the canonisation which makes the Saint. Let that sink in for just a moment. Is a Saint a Saint because Rome says he’s a Saint? Or does Rome say he’s a Saint because he is one? Which comes first, the reality, or the word, the pronouncement, the description of the reality? In previous centuries canonisation was simply a matter of popular acclamation; then it was done more formally, at a diocesan level by the local bishop; in the middle ages it became something reserved to the Holy See.
Over time, the requirements understandably became stricter. The process which emerged in the modern era was something resembling a court case. The soul in question had to be proven a Saint beyond all doubt and was regarded almost as though guilty until proven innocent: not a Saint until proven a Saint. The prosecution, so to speak, was the famous advocatus diaboli. But that was not all. Several other criteria had to be met which were regarded as sine qua non, the first of which was a popular cultus among the faithful; another was some miracles. These things, if they exist, are facts. The canonisation itself was nothing more than a formal recognition of those already-existing facts.
Therefore, the real Saints are the ones who have a real following, who have worked real miracles, whom Divine Providence allows to become known and prayed-to all over the world and to become a central part of Catholic life and culture. The old, recently-removed Saints, in whom modern Rome appears no longer to believe, all pass the test with flying colours. Despite the machinations of the modernists, Catholics all over the world still give their children names such as Catherine, Philomena or Christopher; many people still pray to them, still wear their sacramentals and ask them for aid. Schools and parishes all over the world still bear their names, some of the finest artwork ever created depicts their lives and deaths and in some cases even whole nations, states or cities are under their patronage or have been named after them.
And there is no shortage of modern-day miracles either: as mentioned above, the Curé of Ars alone procured many miracles through the intercession of St. Philomena. More than eleven years ago, these pages (“On Recent Canonisations” - Recusant 16, May 2014) cast doubt on the supposed canonisations of the late popes John XXIII and John Paul II.
It was pointed out that the lives of these men were very far from being that of a Saint and that they were each a very bad example to follow. It was further pointed out that several ominous “coincidences” (if such they be) had accompanied the “canonisation” of John Paul II. The ugly bent-forwards crucifix which stood atop a hill as a memorial of his visit had suddenly collapsed, killing a man who was praying to him beneath it; that when his relics visited Lourdes, the sanctuary was soon underwater following the worst flooding in its history.
The same article suggested good reasons why one cannot simply say, “Canonisations are infallible!” and leave it at that - far from it. The object of infallibility is doctrine, that is, things to be believed by us, and necessary for our salvation. A canonisation on the other hand, is not a matter of doctrine necessary for our salvation: it is a saying that someone is a Saint, which means not only that the person in question is in heaven, but that he or she is an example which you or I can follow and learn from as a means of achieving heaven ourselves. That is why not one single baptised infant has ever been canonised, despite there being presumably tens– or even hundreds-of-thousands of candidates (newly baptised babies die all the time, there is even one in our family). They are certainly in heaven, you can pray to them, but they are never canonised, no statues of them will ever be seen in churches, no feast days in the calendar. Why? Because there is no life to follow: they died too young to give an example for anyone to follow. That is also why it is such a scandal for even the conciliar church to claim that Paul VI or John Paul II are Saints.
If that were true, then we can get to heaven is by kissing the koran, inviting pagans and devilworshippers into a Catholic church to pray to their false gods, putting statues of Buddha on top of tabernacles; punishing good men such as Marcel Lefebvre while simultaneously promoting sexual predators like Marcial Maciel or MarieDominique Philippe; suppressing the true Mass which nourished countless true Saints, and giving everyone a Masonic, Protestant communion service with a Jewish offertory prayer… we could go on. The very thought is monstrous.
So on the question of a cultus, a genuine following and devotion among the faithful, the real, old-fashioned Saints win hands down, despite the disadvantage of their having been removed from calendars, their demotion and all the rest. The conciliar Vatican II “Saints” usually have little or no cultus, despite the fact that it always used to be regarded as a sine qua non, an essential prerequisite to becoming a Saint.
Likewise, on the question of leading a life of heroic virtue, a life which is such a good example that if followed by you and I it will lead us to heaven too, we see the same thing. Many of these the conciliar “Saints” (the conciliar Popes, Faustina, Escriva, et al.) fail spectacularly. Their lives were such that they would never, could never have been canonised before Vatican II. The real Saints, by contrast, led such exemplary lives that many today find it hard to believe and doubt is cast not only on their lives and deaths, but even on their very existence.
The soundness of their teaching is something which will no doubt be at the forefront of the minds of many readers, and so it should be. Unsound teaching, let alone actual heresy, is something which in saner times meant that an investigation into the candidate’s life could not go ahead, never mind the beatification or canonisation itself, as the John Vennari article makes clear elsewhere in these pages. Strictly speaking, the false teaching of these bogus “Saints” is itself enough to say with certainty that they are not Saints. But since many of our acquaintance will not accept that, and since many of us will at some point experience doubt or scruples, let us continue to spell it out in detail. Miracles are the last thing to consider.
A real canonisation in the old days used to require two miracles, after all the other criteria had been met. Two genuine miracles. The new, bogus “canonisations” require only one, and often it is a “miracle” of highly dubious quality. Again, refer to the John Vennari article elsewhere in these pages to see details of the “miracle” used for Mother Theresa: it was as dodgy as a nine-bob note, the doctors involved and even the lady’s husband said it wasn’t a miracle!
In previous years, these pages have contained a close-up look into other conciliar “miracles”- long-time readers might recall our examination of the Buenos Aires “eucharistic miracle” from the 1990s (in Recusant 34, p.26) and that it most certainly did not stand up to close scrutiny! We have neither the time, nor the resources, nor even the patience to examine each and every so-called “miracle” approved by the conciliar authorities, but should it be necessary? How many definitely bogus “miracles” do we need to see until we decide to treat them all with extreme caution? Finally let us consider this. The men approving these “miracles” don’t believe in actual real miracles, even when they are contained in Sacred Scripture! The feeding of the five-thousand? No, you see, what the gospel-writer wished to emphasise in telling this story was that the real miracle was when everyone learned to share. The crossing of the Red Sea? No, you see it was really called the “Reed Sea” because it was like a marsh… Those are things I have heard from conciliar priests with my own ears (as have many of you too, no doubt). We could go on. The point to bear in mind here is this. Just as we are being asked to accept new “Saints” from men who don’t believe in real Saints, we also are being asked to believe in bogus “miracles” by men who cast doubt on real miracles.
In case all of that is all a bit much to remember, below is a handy table for ease of reference! It is of course worth remembering that the other scandal regarding conciliar “canonisations” is the sheer number. John Paul II earned a reputation as a veritable “Saint factory,” canonising hundreds in one go. His successors are no better. Not only does this practice severely damage the prestige and credibility of the Church in the eyes of Catholics and non-Catholics alike, it also defeats the very point of a canonisation: how can you possibly have a devotion to these new “Saints” when it would take forever just to read their names, never mind learn a bit about
them? The whole point of Saints is that they are held out to us as an example to follow; you can’t hold out a couple of hundred examples in one go and expect to be taken seriously.
The Recusant patent “How-Bogus-Is-My-Saint?” Calculator
![[Image: Capture2.png]](https://i.postimg.cc/cJQMRnkq/Capture2.png)
But beyond that, it has yet another unfortunate side-effect, in that it means that many genuine Saints may well be mixed in with the conciliar “Saints.” The first canonisation done by Pope Francis, for instance, was of more than 800 people in one go. They were the inhabitants of Otranto who were killed by the Turks in 1480 for refusing to convert to Islam: martyrs. At a cursory glance, it may well be that some or all of them really are martyrs, and therefore Saints.
But can we be certain? And which ones? Does anyone have the time or patience to try to find out? To take one more example, in 2001 John Paul II canonised a group of 233 martyrs of the Spanish Civil War. Again, there were many Catholics who died for the Faith at the hands of the communists at that time, so it is not inconceivable that at least some of them, many of them even, are genuine Saints and martyrs. But again, doesn’t it just leave one frustrated and demoralised? How certain can anyone be that there wasn’t the odd semi-degenerate “rightwinger” whom the reds rounded up with a load of Catholics into the same firing-squad and buried in the same pit? So the answer is it is probably a mixture, but very difficult to say.
And then there are men such as Padre Pio. Well, they couldn’t very well not canonise him, could they? They know full well that his presence in amongst all those other conciliar “Saints” will lend them credibility. And what about the Forty Martyrs of England and Wales? Well, they were of course martyrs at the hands of the English Protestant regime, they were beatified in 1929 and most of the work for their canonisations was surely done before the Council, so despite the fact that the actual canonisation wasn’t done until 1970, surely one can take them as being genuine Saints who were always going to be canonised, even had Vatican II and the crisis in the Church never happened.
We could go on, but all this really means is that the conciliar “Saints” are a bit of a mixed bag, to put it mildly. Some unmistakably genuine Saints have probably been given a conciliar “canonisation” (what an insult to them - they’ll need to be given a real canonisation when the crisis is over!). Then there are others who may well have been Saints. Then there are a lot of highly dubious “Saints” and finally there are those who are definitely not Saints. So a conciliar canonisation doesn’t necessarily mean that the person is a Saint. But it doesn’t necessarily mean that he isn’t a Saint either. What a mess.
Where does Newman fit into all this?
All of which is by way of demonstrating that just because the conciliar church says that Newman is a Saint, that doesn’t really mean anything. It means is that he is somewhere on the spectrum of conciliar Saints, somewhere between Padre Pio at one end and Paul VI at the other. Newman may not be a Paul VI, but he may not necessarily be a Padre Pio either. So what are we to make of him? It doesn’t help that he has long been someone whom all sides seem to be trying to claim. The liberals and modernists claim that he is one of them. The “conservatives” of various sorts say that the liberals are twisting things and that really, Newman is on their side. Readers of a certain age who made their way out of the Novus Ordo to Tradition may well be reminded of similar debates which used to surround John Paul II and Benedict XVI while they were alive and on the papal throne. In the 1980s, 90s and early-2000s, John Paul II’s encyclicals would have the more orthodox soundbites quoted by people who were still trying to remain faithful inside the Novus Ordo (a shrinking constituency which has now all-but disappeared in this country); whereas out-and-out modernists and politically correct semiMarxists could quote other passages from the very same encyclical. Many conservative Novus Ordo people became Traditionalists after realising that the liberals and modernists actually had a point: John Paul II really was a modernist and a liberal, and not the conservative they had always thought him to be. Well, is it possible that something similar is going on with John Henry Newman? With that in mind, let us briefly look at some of the criteria mentioned above.
1. An Exemplary Life of Heroic Virtue
Compared to many of the worst conciliar “Saints” Newman comes out looking pretty good here. He certainly didn’t have the love of luxury, or outbursts of bad temper of a Josemaria Escriva, for instance. But then, he was a Victorian, who lived (1801-1890) a good three generations before the latter, so that is as one might expect: people back then knew far better how to behave. Nor does one find in his writing the shameless self-praise of a “Saint” Faustina, whose fake apparition made her sound more exulted than even the Blessed Virgin Mary. That is as it should be, too; but then, we are setting the bar rather low, aren’t we?
One thing which does need mentioning here is the accusations of some kind of latent homosexuality. A not very flattering picture of him was painted by Geoffrey Faber, the nephew of Newman’s colleague Fr. Frederick Faber. Since then, all sorts of “gay rights” people (Peter Tatchell, for instance) have tried to claim Newman as one of their own. Critics point to his friendship with Fr. Ambrose St. John, one of his disciples who together with him left the Anglican religion, entered the Catholic Church and became an Oratorian priest. They often point to the fact that Newman asked to be buried in his friend’s grave. His defenders say that it was a passionate friendship and nothing more. Well, it is true that there can be such a thing as a passionate friendship and it is also true that we shouldn’t always go to the lowest common denominator and assume something sexual which might have been nothing of the sort. The Victorian era, an age not that long past and yet unimaginably more innocent than our own, understood this far better than we do today: only a degenerate age such as our own will automatically equate love with lust. And it is true that the endorsement of “gay rights” activists such as Tatchell means very little. And Geoffrey Faber, by the way, was a non-Catholic who seems to have been a disciple of Sigmund Freud; furthermore, one of the things he seems to have a problem with, in common with many Anglicans of Newman’s day (Charles Kinglsley, for instance), is the very idea itself of clerical celibacy. So we can probably take what he says with a pinch of salt.
All of which is to say that Newman is almost certainly not guilty of this particular charge, but in passing we should perhaps add that it would have been nice to known for certain, and that had there been a proper, thorough investigation of his life and morals, with a Devil’s Advocate and all the rest, greater certainty might have been possible. As things stand, however, since the modern Vatican changed the entire process, the matter won’t have been looked-into as it once would have been, effectively robbing the man himself of a proper defence.
Other than that, the main points of Newman’s life seem to be what one would expect. He sacrificed his position in the establishment of his day, and undoubtedly lost friends and family connections when he converted. This is what one would expect and is what happened to all English converts in those days, but it is still something which counts in his favour. There are others who point to the fact that he had already got himself into trouble within the (so-called) Church of England due to his position within the Oxford Movement and Tract 90 in particular, and that therefore he didn’t give up as much as, say, Henry (later Cardinal) Manning who had been at the height of his popularity when he left the Anglican religion and became a Catholic. There is doubtless some truth in that, too.
Finally, it is perhaps worth mentioning that for the life of a Saint, although one expects to find controversy, one does not expect to find quite so much and with all the wrong people. It has been said of Newman that during the latter (Catholic) part of his life, his friends and admirers were all liberals and his enemies anti-liberals. There is some truth to that. And having read some of his correspondence with Fr. Faber (more about whom later), the tone and content of many of his letters is not edifying and betrays a petulance bordering on selfpity which somehow one cannot imagine witnessing from the pen of a genuine Saint. That is, however, only my opinion - the reader may take it or leave it as he wishes.
2. A Popular [u]Cultus[/u]
Even Newman’s promoters have admitted that it is alarming how little devotion to him there is or has ever been in his own country. I have heard it said that he has more of a following in the USA, which is interesting: perhaps a case of a prophet never being accepted in his own home? But it still ought to be a concern to anyone interested, and ought to have been of great interest and great concern to anyone involved in his cause for canonisation. It is not merely that he didn’t have much of a following in England: he had none at all! Nobody was praying to him, nobody had a devotion to him. In this aspect at least, he appears to be more in the Paul VI camp and all the other definitely bogus conciliar “Saints”. And since, as mentioned above, this one really is (or used to be and ought still to be) the first pre-requisite, that ought to concern us all the more. (Perhaps we ought to have made this number 1, instead of 2..?)
What popularity or respect Newman does have today, as in his own day, seems to some degree to arise from the prestige which he brought with him into the Church. Imagine: at a time when Catholics were still a vanishingly small minority in England (maybe two percent, and most of those were Irish immigrant labourers, unskilled and largely un-educated, who had come over for work), and before the steady flow of converts which would follow his own conversion, he was one of the first “big catches” for a Catholic Church which was only just being re-established in England. One can understand and sympathise with an English Catholic in those days who might be pleased and proud of such a well-known, high-profile academic leaving it all behind to enter the Catholic Church. But that doesn’t really help us. In the late-19th and early 20th Centuries, there was no suggestion that Newman had been a Saint and no devotion to him anywhere, from what we can see. What very little exists in recent years appears to have been drummed up by conciliar liberals in the wake of Vatican II.
In summary then: in the old days, before the Vatican II revolution, the lack of a cultus would have meant that Newman would not even have been considered for beatification or canonisation in the first place. And in the days before Vatican II, he had no cultus at all. Therefore, he ought never to have been considered to begin with and on these grounds alone there is good cause to doubt whether he is a real Saint, even if he is a conciliar “Saint.”
3. Genuine Miracles
Oh dear. Have you ever noticed how all the bogus conciliar “Saints” always seem to work medical “miracles”? Both miracles allegedly worked by Paul VI, for instance, involved an unborn child: the doctors predicted it would have a defect but in the end it was born healthy.
Anyone with any experience of these things will tell you that doctors continually make dire predictions about unborn babies which turn out not to be true, especially when they are using it to push the mother into getting an abortion (as was the case here). I have even known it within my own immediate family circle, as I am sure many of you will have too. That the baby is then born perfectly fine and healthy does not in any way mean that a miracle has taken place: it means you can’t trust modern doctors! In a similar vein there is the medical “miracle” allegedly worked by Mother Theresa, details of which are given in the John Vennari article found elsewhere in these pages.
Regrettably, Newman’s “miracles” do appear to be of a similar kind: more of these medical miracles which seem to take place whenever a conciliar “Saint” is made. His beatification miracle was curing a Novus Ordo married deacon of a spinal condition. But details of this supposed “miracle” are surprisingly hard to find in both Catholic and secular press and even the official Oratorian website (https://www.newmancanonisation.com/newmans-miracle) which gives a detailed account of his canonisation “miracle” is silent regarding the prior “miracle” used to beatify him. Why might that be? Well, our suspicions, it seems, are wellfounded and we can be grateful to SSPX priest Fr. Paul Kimball for including them in the introduction to his 2019 book on Newman:
Quote:“On July 3, 2009, Pope Benedict XVI recognised the healing of Deacon Jack Sullivan in 2001 as a miracle for Newman’s beatification, which occurred on September 19, 2010. Now, Mr. Sullivan underwent the operation of ‘...a laminectomy to remove part of the spinal bones that was causing the problem… Although successfully performed in August 2001, this operation left Jack Sullivan in immense pain and he was warned a full recovery might take months. With the new term approaching, Mr. Sullivan was becoming increasingly anxious about returning to class, and just a few days after his operation he tried to get out of bed. Having taken an excruciating few minutes, with a nurse’s help, to get his feet on the floor, he said he leant on his forearms and recited his prayer to Newman. Michael Powell, a consultant neurosurgeon at London’s University College Hospital, said a typical laminectomy took ‘about 40 minutes, and most patients … walk out happy at two days.’ ’ ” (Michael Hirst, Papal Visit: Cardinal Newman’s ‘miracle cure,’ BBC News, September 13, 2010)
Furthermore, the directive de Canonizatione of Prospero Cardinal Lambertini, who was later crowned Benedict XIV, spelt out the rules for working out if a healing was really a miracle from heaven. It is astounding that this miracle has been approved, for it directly violates the third rule of Benedict XIV for the verification of miracles during the process of canonization of Saints, namely, ‘The patient should not be getting medical treatment around the time of the cure.’ (Doctrina de servorum Dei beatificatione et beatorum canonizatione, lib. 4, p.1, c.7, n.1-2.).”
(Cardinal Newman: Trojan Horse in the Church, Fr. Paul Kimball)
This alone was used by the enemies of the Church to pour scorn and ridicule. John Cornwell, author of “Hitler’s Pope,” wrote an article for The Times spelling out in great detail how this miracle did not abide by the Vatican’s own rules and making it look totally ridiculous. Though far too long to quote here, it is well worth a read and we encourage the reader to take a look. The author is a well-known antiCatholic but the worst thing is, he isn’t being dishonest and has clearly done his homework. As to Michael Powell, the London consultant neurosurgeon mentioned above, in 2010 he appeared in a brief segment during a BBC documentary. About 7 minutes in, he can be seen telling Ann Widdecombe:
Quote:“The events that occurred in Jack Sullivan’s case are all explicable, perhaps not so frequently that it would be commonplace, but certainly all of them perfectly reasonable. … To us British neurosurgeons, these are events that don’t at all sound [so] surprising or un-commonplace that it should be considered miraculous.”
Newman’s canonisation miracle appears to be not much better and, like that of Paul VI, it involves a pregnant lady and her unborn child. In this case the mother suffered bleeding during the pregnancy. She stopped bleeding after she prayed to him, and although the doctors said there was a chance that the baby would be born premature, in the end it was born at the right time and was healthy. As Fr. Kimball points out, this too violates the old rules for canonisation miracles, namely the sixth rule, that: “The cure must not come at a time when some natural cause could make the patient think he is cured or which stimulates a cure.”
There is also the fact that at least one of the doctors who lent his name to this “miracle” is a Novus Ordo Catholic who gave a gushing interview to the Novus Ordo press in which he described his deposition in favour of the miracle as a “spiritual experience”:
Quote:“The true spiritual experience was in the stages of the depositions. I literally cried when we were deposing her. It struck to my very heart…”
(https://www.archbalt.org/illinois-doctor...periences/)
Yuck. Now, it might be objected that all this still doesn’t mean that it definitely wasn’t a miracle, that despite all those less-than-encouraging circumstances, it might still have been a miracle anyway. But that would be missing the point: what is required is not a “might-havebeen-a” miracle but an absolutely bullet-proof miracle, one which cannot be explained any other way, since the credibility of the entire process and with it the credibility of the Church (or in this case, the conciliar church) is at stake. And besides which, given all that we have already seen from the conciliar church, do we not have, at the very least, the right, or even the duty, to be a little sceptical? Let us just say that it is a very great shame that these miracle couldn’t have been a little more… unimpeachable. Ah well.
4. Sound doctrine
Newman’s canonisation is almost certainly due to the fact that the modernists recognise in him a man whose thinking paved the way for Vatican II. As mentioned above, “conservative” Novus Ordo Catholics and even some Traditionalists say that he is being misrepresented and “claimed,” in much the same way as the “gay rights” lobby claim him for themselves. On the other hand, that is not the whole story. Despite what his supporters say, there undoubtedly is something not quite right with his teaching, but this is so important that it is worth examining at some length.
|
|
|
|