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

Username
  

Password
  





Search Forums

(Advanced Search)

Forum Statistics
» Members: 299
» Latest member: samnthativanov1016
» Forum threads: 6,880
» Forum posts: 12,826

Full Statistics

Online Users
There are currently 146 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 142 Guest(s)
Applebot, Bing, DuckDuckGo, Google

Latest Threads
Oratory Conference: “Who...
Forum: Conferences
Last Post: Deus Vult
Today, 07:52 AM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 159
Fr. Ruiz: 2025 04 20 EL E...
Forum: Fr. Ruiz's Sermons April 2025
Last Post: Deus Vult
Yesterday, 08:22 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 64
St. Alphonsus Liguori: Da...
Forum: Easter
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 06:38 AM
» Replies: 7
» Views: 10,011
Easter Week [Monday thru ...
Forum: Easter
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 06:38 AM
» Replies: 8
» Views: 24,069
Pope Francis has died age...
Forum: Pope Francis
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 06:35 AM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 183
Fr. Hesse: Decline of Cha...
Forum: Add'nl Clergy
Last Post: Stone
04-20-2025, 05:45 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 131
Keeping the Faith Without...
Forum: Articles by Catholic authors
Last Post: Stone
04-20-2025, 05:43 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 138
Easter Sunday
Forum: Easter
Last Post: Stone
04-20-2025, 04:52 AM
» Replies: 7
» Views: 20,215
St. Gregory the Great: Se...
Forum: Easter
Last Post: Stone
04-20-2025, 04:47 AM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 6,656
Dom Guéranger: The Histor...
Forum: Easter
Last Post: Stone
04-20-2025, 04:45 AM
» Replies: 2
» Views: 4,788

 
  March 19th - St. Joseph
Posted by: Elizabeth - 02-06-2021, 11:13 PM - Forum: March - Replies (10)

[Image: ciZwaWQ9QXBp]

Saint Joseph
Spouse of the Blessed Virgin, Virginal Father of Jesus and Patron of the Universal Church
(† 30)

Saint Joseph was by birth of the royal family of David, but was living in humble obscurity as a carpenter, until God raised him to the highest office ever accorded a mortal man, by choosing him to be the spouse of the Virgin Mother, the virginal father and guardian of the Incarnate Word. Joseph, says Holy Scripture, was a just man. He was innocent and pure, as became the husband of Mary; he was gentle and tender, as one worthy to be named the father of Jesus; he was prudent and a lover of silence, as became the master of the holy house; above all, he was faithful and obedient to divine calls.

His conversation was with Angels rather than with men. When he learned that Mary bore within Her womb the Lord of heaven, he feared to take Her as his wife; but an Angel bade him put his fear aside, and all doubts vanished. When Herod sought the life of the divine Infant, an Angel told Joseph in a dream to fly with the Child and His Mother into Egypt. Joseph at once arose and obeyed. This sudden and unexpected flight must have exposed both him and his little Family to many inconveniences and sufferings; the journey with a newborn infant and a tender virgin was long, and the greater part of the way led through deserts and among strangers. Yet Saint Joseph alleges no excuses, nor inquires at what time they were to return.
Saint Chrysostom observes that God treats in this way all His servants, sending them frequent trials to clear their hearts from the rust of self-love, but intermixing with afflictions, seasons of consolation. It is the opinion of the Fathers that when the Holy Family entered Egypt, at the presence of the Child Jesus all the oracles of that superstitious country were struck dumb, and the statues of their gods trembled, and in many places fell to the ground. The Fathers also attribute to this holy visit the spiritual benediction poured on that country, which made it for many ages fruitful in Saints.

After the death of King Herod, of which Saint Joseph was informed in another vision, God ordered him to return with the Child and His Mother into the land of Israel, which our Saint readily accomplished. But when he arrived in Judea, hearing that Archelaus had succeeded Herod in that part of the land, and apprehensive that the son might be infected with his father's vices, he feared to settle there, as he would otherwise probably have done, for the education of the Child. Therefore, directed by God through still another angelic visit, he retired into the dominions of Herod Antipas in Galilee, and to his former habitation in Nazareth.

Saint Joseph, a strict observer of the Mosaic law, journeyed each year at the time of the Passover to Jerusalem. Our Saviour, in the twelfth year of His age, accompanied His parents. Having participated in the usual ceremonies of the feast, the parents were returning with many of their neighbors and acquaintances towards Galilee, and never doubted that Jesus was with some of the company. They traveled on for a whole day's journey before they discovered that He was not with them. But when night came on and they could find no trace of Him among their kindred and acquaintances, they, in the deepest affliction, returned with the utmost haste to Jerusalem. We are left to imagine their tears and their efforts to find Him. After an anxious search of three days they discovered Him in the Temple, discoursing with the learned doctors of the law, and asking them such questions as aroused the admiration of all who heard Him. His Mother told Him with what grief and earnestness they had sought Him and asked, Son, why have You dealt with us in this way? Behold, Your Father and I have searched for You in great affliction of mind. The young Saviour answered, How is it that You sought Me? Did You not know that I must be about My Father's business? In this way Jesus encourages all young persons who are called to serve God to persevere in that high vocation, whatever the cost. But we are told that although He had remained in the Temple unknown to His parents, in all other things He was obedient to them, returning with them to Nazareth, and living there in all dutiful subjection to them.

As no further mention is made of Saint Joseph, he must have died before the marriage feast of Cana and the beginning of our divine Saviour's ministry. We cannot doubt that he had the happiness of the presence of Jesus and Mary at his death, praying beside him, assisting and comforting him in his last moments; therefore he is invoked for the great grace of a happy death and the spiritual presence of Jesus in that hour.

Print this item

  Secretive international banking group may enforce Great Reset ‘green’ agenda on world
Posted by: Stone - 02-06-2021, 08:58 PM - Forum: Great Reset - No Replies

Secretive international banking group may enforce Great Reset ‘green’ agenda on world
Adherence, or not, to green policies, could determine whether an individual or a business is allowed access to finances.

[Image: schwab_prince_william_and_david_A_1_810_500_75_s_c1.jpg]
Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum, Prince William, and David Attenboroughscreenshots / YouTube

WASHINGTON, D.C, February 5, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – The U.S. Federal Reserve has recently joined a little-known international conglomerate of central banks, all fundamentally committed to enforcing the “green,” eco-friendly dictates of the anti-life, global governance Paris agreement, in line with the Great Reset.

Such a move has raised alarming concerns about the influence which banks will exert in enforcing green policies as part of the World Economic Forum’s so-called Great Reset. For instance, one of the goals of this all-powerful, world-banking conglomerate appears to be to decimate the entire fossil fuel industry and the many thousands of industries and millions of jobs related to it.

In September, LifeSiteNews co-founder Steve Jalsevac warned that COVID-19 is being used as a means to implement extreme, globalist policies to promote the green agenda. He noted the “shocking climate change connection to the Wuhan virus mitigation policies and that it is really about implementing the extreme Paris Climate Change Accord policies and UN Sustainable Development goals, the ‘Great Reset,’ and world depopulation goals.”

“Lockdowns have led to massive, man-made carbon dioxide and pollution drops. The globalists are forcing people to see what the world would look like if there were fewer people in the world, as though we will all be positively impressed with empty streets and highways, no cruise liners on the seas, and few aircraft in the skies. It is downright evil.”

In December 2020, the U.S. Federal Reserve Board announced that it had joined the Network of Central Banks and Supervisors for Greening the Financial System (NGFS), which is an international group of “Central Banks and supervisors” with the purpose of transforming the global economy in alignment with green, sustainable policies.

Noting the move, the New York Times wrote that it was a welcome success for Democrats, who had been pushing for this, and described it as an “evolution” for the Federal Reserve in terms of paying much closer, and more public attention to “extreme weather events” and their potential “risk to the financial system.”

Reporting on the news, Breitbart observed how it was peculiar that the left, particularly the green movement, had greeted the Federal Reserve’s move with “applause,” given that historically the left had been “mostly hostile to big financial institutions, seeing them as pillars of Capital.”


The NGFS and its commitment to the Paris Climate Agreement

The almost unknown NGFS was born at the Paris “One Planet Summit” in December 2017, with the aim of: “strengthening the global response required to meet the goals of the Paris agreement and to enhance the role of the financial system to manage risks and to mobilize capital for green and low-carbon investments in the broader context of environmentally sustainable development.”

Its focus is the role which “climate change” will have upon the economy, the financial system, and banking.

However, the group is not limited to forming policies for internal discussion, but also seeks to implement them outside its members. “The Network defines and promotes best practices to be implemented within and outside of the Membership of the NGFS and conducts or commissions analytical work on green finance.”

Whilst the NGFS is an organization which has not moved into the public consciousness, it is by no means inconsequential. In its three years of existence, it has gone from starting with only eight members to having now grown to 83 members, with an additional 13 banks listed as “observers.” The member banks are some of the most influential in the world, with national and international names such as: “Bank of Canada; Bank of England; Banque de France; Dubai Financial Services Authority; European Central Bank; Japan FSA; People’s Bank of China; Swiss National Bank; U.S. Federal Reserve.”

Meanwhile, amongst the observer banks are names such as the “Bank for International Settlement; European Investment Bank; International Monetary Fund; World Bank and the International Finance Corporation.”

“Adhering” to the NGFS entails “a political commitment from an institution and also implies the will and capacity to actively contribute to the work.” The group’s first comprehensive report from 2019 offers an example of what sort of work the NGFS is actually involved in. It plans to “globally cooperate with policy makers, the financial sector, academia and other stakeholders to distil best practices in addressing climate-related risks.”

“Climate change” and “climate-related risks are a source of financial risk,” the group declared. “We need to take action and we cannot and will not do this alone. We will globally cooperate with policy makers, the financial sector, academia and other stakeholders to distil best practices in addressing climate-related risks.”

As part of its action, the NGFS released six recommendations to banks and policymakers, based upon the 2015 Paris Agreement, outlining the path to a “low-carbon economy,” and calling ultimately for “‘net zero’ to prevent further climate change.”

The most well-known goals of the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement, which the NGFS holds as its operating standard, are to “limit global warming,” reduce the effect of “climate change,” and to enact policies which further this goal throughout the world.

The third aim is less known, however, and pertains directly to the financial element of the agreement, ensuring that the future of global finance is directly connected to the various climate change efforts laid down in the Paris agreement. It reads: “Making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development.”

This aim provides the basis for the NGFS’s policies, which link finance to the implementation of the green agenda of the Paris Agreement. Even the NGFS’s self-description, of sharing “best practices” and contributing to the “development of environment and climate risk management in the financial sector to mobilize mainstream finance to support the transition toward a sustainable economy,” closely mirrors the text of the Paris Agreement, as found in Article 7: 7 (a).


Linked to the Great Reset green agenda

All of the NGFS’s green policies and plans align closely with the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) globalist Great Reset. The WEF, founded and led by Klaus Schwab, has used the COVID-19 virus as an opportunity to present its plan of a Great Reset of complete societal alteration and structural shifts. In June 2020 Schwab wrote that the coronavirus outbreak was exacerbating “the climate and social crises,” and that as a result the world would become “less sustainable, less equal, and more fragile.”

The U.K.’s Prince Charles, a major proponent of the Great Reset, echoed Schwab by saying that COVID was “an opportunity we’ve never had before and may never have again.” Considering the planet almost as a person, he said: “Our activities have been damaging her immune system.”

Schwab’s envisaged Reset is underpinned by a focus on a green financial agenda, as he mentions the “withdrawal of fossil-fuel subsidies,” and a new financial system based on “investments” which advance “equality and sustainability,” and the building of a “‘green’ urban infrastructure.” Businesses would be provided with so-called “incentives” to improve their operation in line with “environmental, social, and governance metrics.”

To this end, the WEF partners with the United Nations (U.N.) in effecting the UN’s 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), which are pro-abortion and heavily promoting of a green agenda “to combat climate change.” Schwab has stated that the SDGs are “essential for the future of humanity,” having previously served for five years on U.N. committees for sustainable development planning.

[Image: great_reset_agenda.png]
Great Reset agenda

In order to widely and properly effect the green goals of the U.N. and the WEF, the Great Reset must necessarily be underpinned by a fundamental shift of the financial system in line with green policies. As the International Monetary Fund’s managing director, Kristalina Georgieva, said at the WEF Great Reset conference in June 2020: “We see a very massive injection of fiscal stimulus[.] ... But it is paramount that this should lead to a greener, fairer, smarter world in the future.”

A few months later she repeated her call for financial change linked to climate change policies, saying “macroeconomic policies are central to the fight against climate change.” In fact, in a video from November 2020, the WEF pointed once again to the Paris Agreement, as it promoted “green finance” to “help save the planet.”

Furthermore, an article published on the WEF website that same month outlined how pivotal green-oriented finance was in bringing about the Great Reset. “Strategic investments in ESG [environmental, social and governance] must represent a fundamental tenet of this framework. In building this ‘reset’, a whole range of stakeholders from investors, corporates, governments, financial institutions and consumers must align to create an ecosystem through which we invest in a cleaner, greener future.”

It was in light of all this that Breitbart’s report noted, “NGFS is the global fusion of Big Green and Big Money, also known as Woke Capital…it’s that same Woke Capital that’s been leading the push for ‘The Great Reset’.”


Lockdowns held as a benefit for the world in Great Reset

In understanding the primacy of the green agenda and green finance in the Great Reset, it is important to note the manner in which Schwab has welcomed the various restrictions seen in the last year, as a benefit for the planet. As lockdowns shut down countries across the world and decimated economies, Schwab wrote in TIME in October 2020, pointing to the benefit which came as a result of such unprecedented societal disruption: “the drop in greenhouse-gas emissions, which brought slight, temporary relief to the planet’s atmosphere.”

However, in his recent book, entitled COVID-19: The Great Reset, Schwab wrote that there was still much progress to be made in terms of reducing “carbon emissions.” The 8% estimated reduction in carbon emission which he cited, was termed “rather disappointing,” and he called for a greater, fundamental change. If such a focus on green polices was not adopted, then “the COVID-19 crisis will have gone to waste as far as climate policies are concerned.”

“The COVID-19 crisis cannot go to waste and that now is the time to enact sustainable environmental policies,” Schwab declared. “The climate risk is unfolding more slowly than the pandemic did, but it will have even more severe consequences.”

“Our consumption patterns changed dramatically during the lockdowns by forcing us to focus on the essential and giving us no choice but to adopt ‘greener living’.”


Green agenda adherence will determine financial future

As part of its series of Great Reset articles, TIME published a piece describing a futuristic vision of the year 2023, entirely built around the concept of a huge, financial shift in line with green policies and so-called climate change. It was written by Mariana Mazzucato, a member of the U.N. Committee for Development Policy, and a former member of the WEF Global Agenda Council on the Economics of Innovation.

Mazzucato described a global population which realized the “need for governments to form a coordinated response to climate change and direct global fiscal stimulus in support of a green economy.” The level of societal change which she describes, in order to align the financial system with green ideas, is nothing short of a paradigm shift. She mentions a “green economy” based on “entire supply chains and every stage of technological development,” whilst “at regional, national and supranational levels, ambitious Green New Deal programs rose to the occasion.”

Repeating what is a common theme in Great Reset literature, Mazzucato mentioned how governments would coax, or perhaps tell people how to conform to the green economy: “Governments used procurement, grants and loans to stimulate as much innovation as possible.”

In reality, the plan appears to dramatically limit finances to only those who totally support the radical green agenda.

Adherence, or not, to green policies, could determine whether an individual or a business is allowed access to finances, according the Great Reset architect, Klaus Schwab: “Governments led by enlightened leaders will make their stimulus packages conditional upon green commitments. They will, for example, provide more generous financial conditions for companies with low-carbon business models.”

A recent essay on the WEF website called on “Governments” and “regulators” to use “hard dollars and soft power” in order to “mandate and incentivize” the “sustainable investments” necessary for a “cleaner, greener future.”

Another repeated Schwab’s theme, mentioning that “Banks will play a critical role in supporting the transition to net zero carbon emissions.”

“Companies, and investors doing business with them, will have to respond,” to the emphasis on sustainability, the article proclaimed. “These commitments create new opportunities for climate leaders and increase the pressure on laggards.”

“To stop the climate crisis from further unfolding and end our dependence on fossil fuels, banks must stop financing the fossil fuel industry,” wrote an international banking campaign group called BankTrack.


Are banks to become de facto enforcers of the Great Reset?

The WEF article, calling for an increase in pressure on “laggards” was written by Barry O’Byrne, Chief Executive Officer of Global Commercial Banking, HSBC. It was that same bank, HSBC, which recently announced it plans to take the unprecedented measure of cancelling customers’ accounts, if they entered the bank without a face mask.

A number of other financial “cancellations” have taken place recently, notably aimed at those opposing COVID lockdowns, supporters of former President Trump, and even Trump himself. Whilst such cancellations are not all related to COVID-19 regulations, they demonstrate the measures which banks are already taking to enforce political agendas.

Tucker Carlson recently revealed that Bank of America flagged customers’ purchasing histories and sent it to the federal government in order to attempt to identify people who were involved with the pro-Trump January 6 protest in Washington, D.C.

“Bank of America is effectively acting as an intelligence agency – but they’re not telling you about it,” warned Carlson.

Bank of America identified 211 customers who met “thresholds of interest” – transactions made in Washington, D.C. on January 5 or 6; any purchases for hotels or AirBnbs in D.C., Maryland, or Virginia after January 6; any purchase of weapons or at a weapons-related merchant (“t-shirts included,” noted Carlson) between January 7 and “the upcoming suspected stay in D.C. area around Inauguration Day”; and “airline related purchases” since January 6 – and turned them over to the government.

The heavy-handed actions of these banks have some origin in Klaus Schwab’s writings. Schwab described an example of how the green-based financial future could unfold, saying that climate activists will become “emboldened,” and will “redouble their efforts, imposing further pressure on companies and investors.”

“Let’s imagine the following situation to illustrate the point,” he wrote. “A group of green activists could demonstrate in front of a coal-fired power plant to demand greater enforcement of pollution regulations, while a group of investors does the same in the boardroom by depriving the plant access to capital.”

The scenario described by Schwab is not difficult to imagine, when examining the amount of banks who have committed to advancing green policies. Speaking in December, Lael Brainard of the Federal Reserve’s governing board, shed further light on the amount of money controlled by green-centered banks. Referencing the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), which “provides a consistent global framework for companies and other organizations to improve standardization of climate-related financial disclosures,” Brainard said: “As of October 2020, nearly 1,500 organizations with a combined market capitalization of $12.6 trillion, including financial institutions that own or manage assets of $150 trillion, had expressed their support for the TCFD framework.”

Back in 2019, when its members only numbered 34, (as opposed to the current 83), the NGFS revealed that the banking jurisdiction of its members covered “31%” of the global population, and “44% of the global GDP.” The NGFS adds that now its members are responsible for supervising “all of the global systemically important banks and two thirds of global systemically important insurers.”

Then in its recent progress report from December 2020, the group proposed “selective divestment” and even financial “activity-based exclusions,” for companies that were not in line with climate change polices, or so called “Paris aligned investing.”

“Of course, such discrimination is exactly what NGFS—now including the Fed—has in mind,” wrote Breitbart’s Virgil, “to use the power of discriminatory finance to force industries, companies, and people to go green. Either that or cease to exist altogether.”

Print this item

  TIME admits how 2020 Election was effected via concerted, secretive Cabal
Posted by: Stone - 02-05-2021, 12:33 PM - Forum: General Commentary - Replies (3)

WOW! TIME Magazine Admits in Great Detail How 2020 Election Was Rigged Against Trump by Secret Cabal of Wealthy and Politically Connected Elites


Gateway Pundit | February 5, 2021 


For weeks after the 2020 election President Trump and anyone paying attention argued the election was rigged.

President Trump even warned months before the election that the only way Republicans could lose was in a rigged election.

Trump was right.

And today TIME Magazine even admitted in a long and detailed screed by leftist Molly Ball that a secret cabal of wealthy and politically connected elites joined together to rig the election against Trump.

Via Jack Posobiec.



Rigged.

The Supreme Court is still scheduled to decide on the illegal moves by Pennsylvania officials before the 2020 election.

The alliance of Trump-haters was even behind the illegal moves by far-left swing state officials to change voter laws without consent of the state legislatures.
TIME Magazine cheers this.

It was the definition of “rigged.”


So were they behind the illegal late-night ballot dumps too? [See also February 5, 2021 article: The TCF Center Election Fraud – Newly Discovered Video Shows Late Night Deliveries of Tens of Thousands of Illegal Ballots 8 Hours After Deadline]

Molly Ball at TIME Magazine reported:
Quote:There was a conspiracy unfolding behind the scenes, one that both curtailed the protests and coordinated the resistance from CEOs. Both surprises were the result of an informal alliance between left-wing activists and business titans. The pact was formalized in a terse, little-noticed joint statement of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and AFL-CIO published on Election Day. Both sides would come to see it as a sort of implicit bargain–inspired by the summer’s massive, sometimes destructive racial-justice protests–in which the forces of labor came together with the forces of capital to keep the peace and oppose Trump’s assault on democracy.

The handshake between business and labor was just one component of a vast, cross-partisan campaign to protect the election–an extraordinary shadow effort dedicated not to winning the vote but to ensuring it would be free and fair, credible and uncorrupted. For more than a year, a loosely organized coalition of operatives scrambled to shore up America’s institutions as they came under simultaneous attack from a remorseless pandemic and an autocratically inclined President. Though much of this activity took place on the left, it was separate from the Biden campaign and crossed ideological lines, with crucial contributions by nonpartisan and conservative actors. The scenario the shadow campaigners were desperate to stop was not a Trump victory. It was an election so calamitous that no result could be discerned at all, a failure of the central act of democratic self-governance that has been a hallmark of America since its founding.

Their work touched every aspect of the election. They got states to change voting systems and laws and helped secure hundreds of millions in public and private funding. They fended off voter-suppression lawsuits, recruited armies of poll workers and got millions of people to vote by mail for the first time. They successfully pressured social media companies to take a harder line against disinformation and used data-driven strategies to fight viral smears. They executed national public-awareness campaigns that helped Americans understand how the vote count would unfold over days or weeks, preventing Trump’s conspiracy theories and false claims of victory from getting more traction. After Election Day, they monitored every pressure point to ensure that Trump could not overturn the result. “The untold story of the election is the thousands of people of both parties who accomplished the triumph of American democracy at its very foundation,” says Norm Eisen, a prominent lawyer and former Obama Administration official who recruited Republicans and Democrats to the board of the Voter Protection Program.

Print this item

  mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are really ‘gene therapy’ and not vaccines: ethicist
Posted by: Stone - 02-05-2021, 10:59 AM - Forum: COVID Vaccines - Replies (2)

mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are really ‘gene therapy’ and not vaccines: ethicist
The media and big pharma are part of a 'propaganda war' creating public confusion with misleading claims, University of Virginia professor David Martin explained.

February 4, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – In direct contrast with mainstream media coverage and the claims of pharmaceutical companies, business ethicist and professor Dr. David Martin, Ph.D said in an interview that “mRNA is not a vaccination. It’s a gene therapy that was originally developed for cancer treatment.” On top of that, Martin described the role the media have played in propagating falsehoods around PCR testing for COVID-19.

Martin said that as part of a “propaganda war” a widespread conflation of terms has been promulgated by media and research institutions, including Johns Hopkins University. According to Martin, the World Health Organization (WHO) correctly distinguished SARS-CoV-2 as a virus and COVID-19 as a set of clinical symptoms, but that confusion has arisen from a false “causal link” made by the media, reporting that SARS-CoV-2 causes COVID-19.

Given that “the majority of people who test positive using the RT-PCR method for testing, for fragments of what is associated with SARS-CoV-2 are not ill at all,” Martin asserted that the “illusion that the virus causes a disease fell apart.” He also noted that, in the event of “5,000 new cases” being announced, for example, there “may be several thousand positive PCR tests, but most of the people who have a positive test will never have a single symptom. Most of the people who have symptoms do not have positive tests.”

To bolster his claim, Martin, who is a Batten Fellow at the University of Virginia’s Darden Graduate School of Business Administration, cited the WHO, which said in February 2020 that “there should not be a conflation between the two of these things. One is a virus in their definition and one is a set of clinical symptoms.”

Further clarifying, Martin said “ ,” including muscle pain, body ache, and fever.

After establishing reliability problems of PCR testing and the conflation of SARS-CoV-2 with COVID-19, Martin explained why he thinks mRNA vaccines are falsely called vaccines, and that they work more like gene therapy.

According to Martin, a vaccination is typically understood as being a treatment “with an attenuated or alive virus,” or a fragment thereof, which “is meant to keep you from getting an infection and it is meant to keep you from transmitting the infection.”

“The problem is that in the case of Moderna and Pfizer, this is not a vaccine. This is gene therapy,” he continued. The Moderna and Pfizer creations send “a strand of synthetic RNA into the human being and is invoking within the human being the creation of the S1 spike protein, which is a pathogen.”

“This is not only not keeping you from getting sick, it’s making your body produce the thing that makes you sick,” Martin added.

The interviewer admitted that this description – that the injection makes one's body produce an effect that makes one sick – sounds somewhat similar to the effect of vaccines.

But Martin countered that it is “not at all” like a vaccine, since “a vaccine is supposed to trigger immunity. It’s not supposed to trigger you to make a toxin.”

“It’s not somewhat different. It’s not the same at all,” Martin explained. “It’s a means by which your body is conscripted to make the toxin that then allegedly your body somehow gets used to dealing with, but unlike a vaccine, which is to trigger the immune response, this is to trigger the creation of the toxin.”

Targeting the pharmaceutical companies behind the supposed vaccinations, Martin alleged that they have manipulated clinical trial methodology to push their “vaccines” through development and production.

“They (pharmaceutical companies) said they could not test for the existence or absence of the virus and they could not test for the transmissivity because they said it would be impractical. The companies themselves have admitted to every single thing I’m saying, but they are using the public manipulation of the word vaccine to co-opt the public into believing they’re getting a thing which they are not getting.”

Instead, Martin warns that an mRNA injection “is not going to stop you from getting coronavirus. It’s not going to stop you from getting sick. In fact, on the contrary, it will make you sick far more often than the virus itself.”

Martin presented data confirming his claim, noting that after receiving their second shot of the jab, “80 percent of people had one or more clinical presentations of COVID-19,” whereas “80 percent of people who have an infection according to RT-PCR have no symptoms at all.”

Explaining what the figures mean, he said that people “will get COVID-19 symptoms from getting the gene therapy passed off as a vaccine. You will get COVID symptoms from that 80 percent of the time. If you’re exposed to SARS-CoV-2 according to RT-PCR (positive PCR test), 80 percent of the time you will have no symptoms at all.”

Looking more closely at the claims emanating from the clinical trials, Martin questioned the integrity of companies developing mRNA “gene therapy technology.”

“A human being is going to be potentially exposed to unclassified, both short-term and long-term, risks of altering their RNA and DNA from exposure to this gene therapy,” Martin warned. Of the 40,000 participants in Moderna’s clinical trial, Martin noted that only a “few hundred people had a few days less severe symptoms with the gene therapy when compared to the other control group.”

Even this, he said, is unreliable information, as the pharmaceutical firms “separate out adverse events from actual COVID symptoms.” This allowed the companies to reclassify “a lot of what would have been considered to be COVID symptoms by calling them adverse events,” giving rise to “this ridiculous 90 percent plus effectiveness.”

“As a result of that, we have both a methodology problem, which by the way, has been criticized by a number of clinical scientists. The bigger problem is that they’re still not measuring viral susceptibility and viral transmission. Those are the two legs of the stool that is (sic) required for anyone to say that they are vaccinating a population for public health reasons.

Martin advised that “this (gene therapy) is not a prophylactic, this is not helping us, we are being told to take a treatment for a disease we don’t have and most likely will not have.”

To demonstrate the absurdity of the situation, Martin likened it to a government health order stating that “everybody needs to take chemotherapy for the cancer they might get ... that’s exactly what is happening.”

“And we are being told that using careful marketing manipulation and propaganda, calling these things vaccines for public health,” Martin warned, saying that “mRNA is a gene therapy … that was originally developed for cancer treatment. This is not a vaccination.”

Turning his attention back to PCR testing, Martin lamented that “the PCR test has never been approved as a diagnostic. It is not diagnostic. There’s nothing about taking a PCR test that does anything other than reinforce a propaganda narrative. It doesn’t tell you anything.”

Martin also pointed out that hospitals are not testing patients for influenza in his view because governments “don’t want to admit the fact that the majority of people who are in hospital, who are sick and who are dying, are experiencing exactly the same thing that’s happened every year, which is influenza-like, flu-like and pneumonia-like illness.”

Martin concluded that the “only reason we are using PCR tests is that governors and the Department of Health and Human Services are maintaining a state of emergency. The second that that state of emergency is lifted in any state or in the country, the PCR test won’t be allowed to be used.”

He explained that the state of emergency allows manufacturers to leapfrog certain regulations “because the emergency use authorization falls with the state of emergency.”

“The gene therapy that Moderna and Pfizer are doing – both of those would be suspended immediately if the state of emergency got lifted.”

Eager to demonstrate that the entire COVID-19 vaccination program is a farce, Martin explained that “if you lift the state of emergency, the whole house of cards falls.”


[Emphasis mine.]

Print this item

  New lawsuit alleges Merck’s Gardasil HPV vaccine caused infertility, seizures
Posted by: Stone - 02-05-2021, 10:46 AM - Forum: Health - No Replies

New lawsuit alleges Merck’s Gardasil HPV vaccine caused infertility, seizures
'One of the hardest things for a mother to hear is your daughter will not be able to have children … People need to know these risks are very real.'

[Image: gardasil_box_810_500_75_s_c1.jpg]


February 4, 2021 (Children’s Health Defense) — Kayla Carrillo was 12 when she received the Gardasil HPV vaccine on Aug. 17, 2012. A happy, talented, physically active girl, Kayla enjoyed playing musical instruments and had early ambitions to study art. 

Marlena Carrillo allowed her daughter Kayla to receive the Gardasil vaccine because she had seen numerous advertisements from Merck vouching for the vaccine’s safety and efficacy in preventing cervical cancer.

A day after the first injection, Kayla had a seizure-like episode which included a staring spell, facial swelling, slurred speech and a severe headache. She later developed severe migraine headaches, abdominal pain and a host of other debilitating health issues. 

Five months after her first shot, Kayla experienced a seizure and was taken to the emergency room. Around this time, she was also coping with irregular menstrual problems, including heavy bleeding at the beginning of each cycle.

Her health continued to deteriorate after she received another dose of the Gardasil vaccine. Just two days after the second shot, Kayla collapsed during P.E. class and was rushed to the emergency department of Children’s Hospital of Orange County.

Kayla has undergone at least one surgery per year on her reproductive organs since the age of 15. Doctors say she will not be able to get pregnant and will not be able to pursue in vitro fertilization (IVF). 

“One of the hardest things for a mother to hear is your daughter will not be able to have children,” says Marlena Carrillo. “Having to be the one to tell your daughter that she won’t be able to get pregnant is a pain that is beyond words. People need to know that these risks are very real. They need to know exactly what they are getting into with Gardasil.”

Kayla’s clinical diagnoses include dysautonomia, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), orthostatic intolerance (OI), small fiber neuropathy (SNF), neuropathy, mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), seizure disorder and endometriosis, among many others.

Due to these and other injuries, Kayla is unable to hold down a job for any significant amount of time. She also cannot drive because of the risks of fainting or having a seizure while driving.

If Marlena had known Gardasil was capable of causing so much damage, she never would have allowed her daughter to receive the HPV vaccine.

This is the seventh Gardasil lawsuit Baum Hedlund and I have filed against Merck challenging the company’s dangerous and defective HPV vaccine for causing severe and life changing injuries.


In addition to Kayla’s case filed this week, we have filed cases on behalf of Michael Colbath of California, Sahara Walker of Wisconsin, Zach Otto of Colorado, Julia Balasco of Rhode Island and two others.

While each case is unique, they share common threads: All of our clients were happy, healthy, bright, active kids with unlimited potential until they received the Gardasil HPV vaccine.

We look forward to getting these cases in front of a jury as soon as possible.

Print this item

  March 18th - St. Cyril of Jerusalem
Posted by: Elizabeth - 02-04-2021, 10:53 PM - Forum: March - Replies (1)

[Image: CyrilJerusalem.jpg]
Saint Cyril of Jerusalem
Bishop, Confessor, Doctor
(315-386)

Saint Cyril was born at or near the city of Jerusalem, about the year 315. He was ordained a priest by Saint Maximus, who gave him the important charge of instructing and preparing the candidates for Baptism. This office he held for several years, and today we still have one series of his instructions, given in the year 347 or 348. They are of singular interest as being the earliest record of the systematic teaching of the Church on the Creed and Sacraments, and as having been given in the church built by Constantine on Mount Calvary. They are solid, simple, profound, precise, and saturated with Holy Scripture, and, as a witness and exposition of the Catholic faith, invaluable.

On the death of Saint Maximus, Cyril was chosen Bishop of Jerusalem. At the beginning of his episcopate a cross was seen in the sky, reaching from Mount Calvary to Mount Olivet, and so bright that it shone at noonday. Saint Cyril gave an account of it to the emperor, and the faithful regarded it as a presage of victory over the Arian heretics.

While Saint Cyril was Bishop of Jerusalem, the apostate emperor Julian resolved to defy the words of Our Lord (Luke 21:6) by rebuilding the ancient temple of Jerusalem. He employed the power and resources of a Roman emperor; the Jews thronged enthusiastically to him and gave munificently. But Cyril was unmoved. The word of God abides, he said; one stone shall not be laid on another. When the attempt was made, a pagan writer tells us that horrible flames came forth from the earth, rendering the place inaccessible to the scorched and frightened workmen. The attempt was made again and again, and then abandoned in despair. Soon after, the emperor perished miserably in a war against the Persians, and the Church had rest.

Like the other great bishops of his time, Cyril was persecuted, and was driven twice from his see; but on the death of the Arian emperor Valens, he returned to Jerusalem. He was present at the Second General Council of Constantinople, and died in peace A.D. 386, after a troubled episcopate of thirty-five years.

Print this item

  March 17th - St. Patrick
Posted by: Elizabeth - 02-04-2021, 10:52 PM - Forum: March - Replies (1)

[Image: 998b34835362193297c1eef11ae70153.jpg]
Saint Patrick
Bishop, Apostle of Ireland
(373-464)

If the virtue of children reflects honor on their parents, much more justly is the name of Saint Patrick rendered illustrious by the innumerable lights of sanctity which shone in the Church of Ireland during many ages, and by the colonies of Saints with which it peopled many foreign countries. The Apostle of Ireland was born in Scotland towards the close of the fourth century, in a village which seems to be the present-day Scotch town of Kilpatrick, between Dumbarton and Glasgow. He calls himself both a Briton and a Roman, that is, of mixed extraction, and says his father was of a good family named Calphurnius. Some writers call his mother Conchessa, and say she was the niece of Saint Martin of Tours.

In his sixteenth year he was carried into captivity in Ireland by barbarians. There he was obliged to shepherd cattle on the mountains and in the forests, in hunger and nakedness, amid snow, rain, and ice. The young man had recourse to God with his whole heart, in fervent prayer and fasting, and from that time faith and the love of God acquired a constantly renewed strength in his tender soul. After six months spent in slavery, Saint Patrick was admonished by God in a dream to return to his own country, and was informed that a ship was then ready to sail there. He went at once to the seacoast, though at a great distance, and found the vessel, but he could not obtain his passage — probably for want of money. Patrick was returning to his hut, praying as he went, when the sailors, though pagans, called him back and took him on board.

Some years afterwards he was again taken captive, but recovered his liberty after two months. While he was at home with his parents, God manifested to him, by divers visions, that He destined him for the great work of the conversion of Ireland. His biographers say that after his second captivity he traveled into Gaul and Italy, and saw Saint Martin, Saint Germanus of Auxerre, and Pope Saint Celestine, and that he received his mission and the apostolical benediction from this Pope, who died in 432. It is certain that he spent many years in preparing himself for his sacred calling. Great opposition was raised to his episcopal consecration and mission, both by his own relatives and by the clergy. They made him great offers in order to detain him among them, and endeavored to affright him by exaggerating the dangers to which he exposed himself amid the enemies of the Romans and Britons, who did not know God. All these temptations cast the Saint into great perplexity; but the Lord, whose Will he consulted by earnest prayer, supported him and he persevered in his resolution.

He therefore left his family, sold his birthright and dignity, and consecrated his soul to God, to serve strangers and carry His name to the ends of the earth. In this disposition he passed into Ireland, to preach the Gospel where the worship of idols still generally reigned. He traveled over the island, penetrating into the remotest corners, and such was the fruit of his preaching and sufferings that he baptized an infinite number of persons. Everywhere he ordained clergymen, induced women to live in holy widowhood and continence, consecrated virgins to Christ, and founded monasteries, not without many persecutions.

Saint Patrick held several councils to regulate the discipline of the Church he had planted. Saint Bernard and the tradition of the country testify that he fixed his metropolitan see at Armagh. He established other bishops, as appears by the acts of a council and various other documents. He not only converted the whole country by his preaching and wonderful miracles, but also cultivated this vineyard with so fruitful a benediction from heaven as to render Ireland a flourishing garden in the Church of God, and a land of Saints. He converted and baptized the kings of Dublin and Munster and the seven sons of the king of Connaught, with the majority of their subjects, and before his death almost the whole island. He founded three monasteries and filled the countryside with churches and schools of piety and learning. He died and was buried at Down in Ulster. His body was found there in a church of his name in 1185, and moved to another part of the same church.

Print this item

  Litany of the Blessed Virgin Mary (Our Lady of Loreto)
Posted by: Hildegard of Bingen - 02-04-2021, 09:38 PM - Forum: Marian Litanies - No Replies

[Image: MJnO_NBwbZ9OfdyGqWgSUa0MU8kCNirwm-HL3avJ...HxLfxOPDmu]

LITANY OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY (OUR LADY OF LORETO)



Lord, have mercy on us. 
Christ, have mercy on us. 
Lord, have mercy on us. Christ hear us. 
Christ, graciously hear us. 
God, the Father of heaven,
Have mercy on us. 
God, the Son, Redeemer of the world: 
Have mercy on us. 
God, the Holy Ghost, 
Have mercy on us. 
Holy Trinity, One God, 
Have mercy on us. 
Holy Mary, pray for us. (repeat at end of each phrase.) 
Holy Mother of God, 
Holy Virgin of virgins, 
Mother of Christ, 
Mother of divine grace, 
Mother most pure, 
Mother most chaste, 
Mother inviolate, 
Mother undefiled, 
Mother most amiable, 
Mother most admirable, 
Mother of good counsel, 
Mother of our Creator, 
Mother of our Savior, 
Virgin most prudent, 
Virgin most venerable, 
Virgin most renowned, 
Virgin most powerful, 
Virgin most merciful, 
Virgin most faithful, 
Mirror of justice, 
Seat of wisdom, 
Cause of our joy, 
Spiritual vessel, 
Vessel of honor, 
Singular vessel of devotion, 
Mystical rose, 
Tower of David, 
Tower of ivory, 
House of gold, 
Ark of the covenant, 
Gate of Heaven, 
Morning star, 
Health of the sick, 
Refuge of sinners, 
Comforter of the afflicted, 
Help of Christians, 
Queen of angels, 
Queen of patriarchs, 
Queen of prophets, 
Queen of apostles, 
Queen of martyrs, 
Queen of confessors, 
Queen of virgins, 
Queen of all saints, 
Queen conceived without original sin, 
Queen assumed into heaven, 
Queen of the most holy Rosary, 
Queen of peace,


Lamb of God, who takest away the sins of the world, Spare us, O Lord.

Lamb of God, who takest away the sins of the world, Graciously hear us O Lord. 


Lamb of God, who takest away the sins of the world, Have mercy on us. 

V. Pray for us, O holy Mother of God.
R. That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.


Let us pray: 

Grant, O Lord God, we beseech Thee, that we Thy servants may rejoice in continual health of mind and body; and, through the glorious intercession of Blessed Mary ever Virgin, may be freed from present sorrow, and enjoy eternal gladness. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.


It is good, and comforting to remember when praying the Litany to the Blessed Virgin Mary, that, as St. Bernard once put it “Mary has made herself all to all, and opens her merciful heart to all, that all may receive of her fullness: the sick, health; those in affliction, comfort; the sinner, pardon, and God, glory.”

Print this item

  Our Lady of the Bowed Head
Posted by: Hildegard of Bingen - 02-04-2021, 09:29 PM - Forum: Our Lady - No Replies

[Image: cropped-fullsizeoutput_156.jpeg]
Mary miraculously spoke through this image, which was rescued from a trash pile
Our Lady of the Bowed Head

by Larry Peterson | Feb 08, 2020


“The beauty of the images moves me to contemplation, as a meadow delights the eyes and subtly infuses the soul with the glory of God.” St. John Damascene


The story of Our Lady of the Bowed Head begins in Sicily in 1610. A Carmelite monk, by the name of Dominic of Jesus and Mary, was charged with inspecting an old, broken down house to see if it might be suitable to convert into a monastery. As he walked around the grounds, he passed a pile of trash. Giving the debris a cursory look, Friar Dominic kept on walking. Suddenly he stopped. Something or someone was telling him to go back and look closer at the trash.
He heeded the prompt and returned to the garbage pile. He grabbed a broken stick and began separating the mounds of junk. When he saw the edge of a picture frame, he paused. He carefully pushed away the debris that surrounded what he now realized was a painting. Rescuing the artwork from its impending fate, he pulled it out and discovered it was an old oil painting of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
He could not believe someone had thrown such a beautiful picture of the Blessed Mother in the garbage. Friar Dominic wrote that the first thing he did was to apologize to Mary. He said, “I am sorry, dear Mother, that someone has treated thy image in such a terrible manner. I will take it back to the monastery with me and fix it up, and I will give thee the homage which thou so rightly deserve.”
Dominic did indeed, take it back to the monastery, and restore it as best he could. He hung the picture in his cell and every day gave Mary the attention, reverence, and devotion that was due her. He prayed to Our Lady with an increased exuberance asking her for the grace to please Jesus in all things.
One day when Dominic was cleaning his cell, the sunlight happened to land on the picture. Dominic thought there was dust on the painting and went over to clean it. The humble friar felt that he had been remiss in his duties and, raising his eyes to heaven, apologized to Our Lady for having neglected her painting. He even apologized for using the old rag he had.
As he proceeded to dust the picture, Our Lady’s face began to move, and she smiled at the priest. Dominic was not sure what was happening and then Our Lady spoke to him, saying, “Fear not, my son, for your request is granted! Your prayer will be answered and will be part of the reward, which you will receive for the love that you have for my Son Jesus and myself.”
She proceeded to tell him that she would grant him any favor he wanted. He asked for Her to help his friend be released from Purgatory. She told him, “Dominic, my son, I will deliver this soul from Purgatory if you will make many sacrifices and will have many Masses offered for this soul.” Then the apparition of Mary faded away.
The apparition of Our Lady vanished and Friar Dominic knew he had to share the painting with everyone. It was placed in the Oratory of St. Charles located next to the Church of Santa Maria de la Scale.
The painting remained in the Church of Santa Maria de la Scale until Dominic’s death in 1630. Then it was loaned to the Duke of Bavaria, Maximilian. Later it was loaned to Emperor Ferdinand II and then returned to the Carmelite Fathers after Ferdinand’s death in 1655. In 1901 a new church was built in Vienna and the image was given a place of honor there.
Today it is in the monastery Church of Vienna Dobling. On September 27, 1931, it was solemnly crowned by Pope Pius XI – the 300th anniversary of its arrival in Vienna.
Fr. Dominic was declared Venerable by St. Pius X in 1907.

Print this item

  God Wills that all Graces come through Mary
Posted by: Hildegard of Bingen - 02-04-2021, 09:24 PM - Forum: Our Lady - No Replies

God Wills that all Graces come through Mary


Therefore the intercession of Mary is morally necessary for our salvation.

Although not infallibly defined as a doctrine of Church teaching, as are Mary's Immaculate Conception and her Assumption into heaven, St. Alphonsus de Liguori considers it to be a certain truth that all graces come to us through the Mother of God. He copiously demonstrates the reasons for this in his book The Glories of Mary. St Alphonsus (1696-1787), who has been declared a Doctor of the Church, penned this Catholic classic 250 years ago. Following are selected passages from chapter five of The Glories of Mary:

That it is most useful and holy to have recourse to the intercession of Mary can only be doubted by those who have not faith. But that which we intend to prove here is, that the intercession of Mary is even necessary to salvation; we say necessary – not absolutely, but morally. This necessity proceeds from the will itself of God, that all graces that He dispenses should pass by the hands of Mary, according to the opinion of St. Bernard, and which we may now with safety call the general opinion of theologians and learned men. In the words of the saint, “Such is His will, that we should have all by Mary.”

Another author, in a commentary on a passage of Jeremias [Jer. 31: 22], in which the prophet, speaking of the Incarnation of the Eternal Word, and of Mary His Mother, says that “a woman shall compass a man,” remarks, that “as no line can be drawn from the center of a circle without passing by the circumference, so no grace proceeds from Jesus, who is the center of every good thing, without passing by Mary, who compassed Him when she received Him into her womb.” Saint Bernadine says that for this reason, “all gifts, all virtues, and all graces are dispensed by the hands of Mary to whomsoever, when, and as she pleases.” Richard of Saint Lawrence also asserts “that God wills that whatever good things He bestows on His creatures should pass by the hands of Mary.”


TAN Books

That it is not only lawful but useful to invoke and pray to the saints, and more especially to the Queen of Saints, the most holy and ever Blessed Virgin Mary, in order that they obtain us the Divine grace, is an article of faith, and has been defined by general councils, against heretics who condemned it as injurious to Jesus Christ, who is our only mediator. But on the other hand it is impious to assert that God is not pleased to grant graces at the intercession of His saints, and more especially of Mary His mother, whom Jesus desires to see loved and honored by all.

No one denies that Jesus Christ is our only mediator of justice, and that He by His merits has obtained our reconciliation with God. But . . . mediation of justice by way of merit is one thing, and mediation of grace by way of prayer is another. There can be no doubt that by the merits of Jesus, Mary was made the mediatress of our salvation; not indeed a mediatress of justice, but of grace and intercession; as St. Bonaventure expressly calls her “Mary the most faithful mediatress of our salvation.”

There is certainly nothing contrary to faith in this, but the reverse. It is quite in accordance with the sentiments of the Church, which, in its public and approved prayers, teaches us continually to have recourse to this Divine Mother, and to invoke her as the “health of the weak, the refuge of sinners, the help of Christians, and as our life and hope.” In the office appointed to be said on the feasts of Mary, this same holy Church, applying the words of Ecclesiasticus to this Blessed Virgin, gives us to understand that in her we find all hope, “In me is all hope of life and of virtue;” in Mary is every grace, “In me is all grace of the way and of the truth [Eccl. 24:25].” In Mary, finally, we shall find life and eternal salvation: “Who finds me finds life, and draws salvation from the Lord [Prov. 8:35].” And elsewhere: “They that work by me shall not sin; they that explain me shall have everlasting life [Eccl 24: 30-31].” And surely such expressions as these sufficiently prove that we require the intercession of Mary.


[Image: coronation-of-the-virgin-by-fra-angelico.jpg]

By Fra Angelico

And thus, finally, do we understand why the holy Church requires that we should salute and invoke the Divine Mother under the glorious title of “our hope.” The impious Luther said that he “could not endure that the Roman Church should call Mary, who is only a creature, 'our hope;' for,” said he, “God alone, and Jesus Christ as our Mediator, is our hope: and God curses those who place their hope in a creature, according to the prophet Jeremias: 'Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord' [Jer. 17:5].”

But the Church teaches to invoke Mary on all occasions, and to call her “our hope; hail, our hope!” Whoever places his confidence in a creature independently of God, he certainly is cursed by God; for God is the only source and dispenser of every good, and the creature without God is nothing and can give nothing. But if our Lord has so disposed it, as we have proved that He has done, that all graces should pass by Mary as by a channel of mercy, we not only can but ought to assert that she, by whose means we receive the divine graces, is truly our hope. Saint Thomas says that “Mary is the whole hope of our salvation.”

Jesus was the fruit of Mary, as Saint Elizabeth told her: “Blessed are thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of they womb. Whoever therefore desires the fruit must go to the tree; whoever desires Jesus must go to Mary; and whoever finds Mary will most certainly find Jesus. And as we have access to the Eternal Father, says Saint Bernard, only through Jesus Christ, so we have access to Jesus Christ only through Mary: “By thee we have access to the Son, O blessed finder of grace, bearer of life, and mother of salvation, that we may receive Him by thee, Who through thee was given to us.”

Print this item

  Nanotechnology: Johns Hopkins researchers take inspiration from parasitic work for medicine delivery
Posted by: Stone - 02-04-2021, 11:55 AM - Forum: Health - No Replies

Johns Hopkins researchers take inspiration from parasitic work for medicine delivery
"Theragrippers" are tiny, shape-changing machines that deliver medicine efficiently to the GI tract
JHU.edu / Published Nov 25, 2020

Inspired by a parasitic worm that digs its sharp teeth into its host's intestines, Johns Hopkins researchers have designed tiny, star-shaped microdevices that can latch onto intestinal mucosa and release drugs into the body.

[Image: theragripper.jpg?itok=WkKKpauG]
When an open theragripper, left, is exposed to internal body temperatures, it closes on the instestinal wall. In the gripper’s center is a space for a small dose of a drug

David Gracias, a professor in the Whiting School of Engineering, and gastroenterologist Florin M. Selaru, director of the Johns Hopkins Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center, led a team of researchers and biomedical engineers that designed and tested shape-changing microdevices that mimic the way the parasitic hookworm affixes itself to an organism's intestines.

The "theragrippers" are made of metal and a thin, shape-changing film, then coated in heat-sensitive paraffin wax. The devices, each roughly the size of a dust speck, can potentially carry any drug and release it gradually into the body.

The team published results of an animal study this week as the cover article in the journal Science Advances.

Gradual or extended release of a drug is a long-sought goal in medicine. Selaru explains that a problem with extended-release drugs is they often make their way entirely through the gastrointestinal tract before they've finished dispensing their medication.

"Normal constriction and relaxation of GI tract muscles make it impossible for extended-release drugs to stay in the intestine long enough for the patient to receive the full dose," says Selaru, who has collaborated with Gracias for more than 10 years. "We've been working to solve this problem by designing these small drug carriers that can autonomously latch onto the intestinal mucosa and keep the drug load inside the GI tract for a desired duration of time."

Thousands of theragrippers can be deployed in the GI tract. When the paraffin wax coating on the grippers reaches the temperature inside the body, the devices close autonomously and clamp onto the colonic wall. The closing action causes the tiny, six-pointed devices to dig into the mucosa and remain attached to the colon, where they are retained and release their medicine payloads gradually into the body. Eventually, the theragrippers lose their hold on the tissue and are cleared from the intestine via normal gastrointestinal muscular function.

[Image: theragripper-q-tip.jpg?itok=PxQaWhr7]
A theragripper is about the size of a speck of dust. This swab contains dozens of the tiny devices.

Gracias notes advances in the field of biomedical engineering in recent years.

"We have seen the introduction of dynamic, microfabricated smart devices that can be controlled by electrical or chemical signals," he says. "But these grippers are so small that batteries, antennas and other components will not fit on them."

Theragrippers, says Gracias, don't rely on electricity, wireless signals or external controls. "Instead, they operate like small, compressed springs with a temperature-triggered coating on the devices that releases the stored energy autonomously at body temperature."

The Johns Hopkins researchers fabricated the devices with about 6,000 theragrippers per 3-inch silicon wafer. In their animal experiments, they loaded a pain-relieving drug onto the grippers. The researchers' studies found that the animals into which theragrippers were administered had higher concentrates of the pain reliever in their bloodstreams than did the control group. The drug stayed in the test subjects' systems for nearly 12 hours versus two hours in the control group.

The technology is available for licensing through Johns Hopkins Technology Ventures.

Print this item

  Medical Doctor: Bacterial Pneumonias Rising From Mask Wearing
Posted by: Stone - 02-04-2021, 11:10 AM - Forum: Pandemic 2020 [Secular] - No Replies

Medical Doctor: Bacterial Pneumonias Rising From Mask Wearing


Principia Scientific International | January 25, 2021

A group is suing Tulsa Mayor G.T. Bynum and Tulsa Health Department Executive Director Bruce Dart, saying the city’s mask mandate is harmful to healthy people,” reports Activist Post.

The group includes business owners and two doctors who “are asking the city to immediately repeal the mask mandate which was passed by city council last month.”

At a press conference, optometrist Robert Zoellner said:
Quote:“…the fear factor has got to step back. This idea that I don’t want to give you something that I don’t even know that I have is almost at the point of ridiculous. Let’s use some common sense.”

Dr. James Meehan, MD followed by warning that mask wearing has “well-known risks that have been well-studied and they’re not being discussed in the risk analysis.

Quote:“I’m seeing patients that have facial rashes, fungal infections, bacterial infections. Reports coming from my colleagues, all over the world, are suggesting that the bacterial pneumonias are on the rise.

“Why might that be? Because untrained members of the public are wearing medical masks, repeatedly… in a non-sterile fashion… They’re becoming contaminated. They’re pulling them off of their car seat, off the rearview mirror, out of their pocket, from their countertop, and they’re reapplying a mask that should be worn fresh and sterile every single time.”


Dr. Meehan adds:
Quote:“New research is showing that cloth masks may be increasing the aerosolization of the SARS-COV-2 virus into the environment causing an increased transmission of the disease…”

In conclusion, Dr. Meehan states:
Quote:“In February and March we were told not to wear masks. What changed? The science didn’t change. The politics did. This is about compliance. It’s not about science… Our opposition is using low-level retrospective observational studies that should not be the basis for making a medical decision of this nature.”

Print this item

  NYT calls for a government 'reality czar' to fight 'disinformation and domestic extremism'
Posted by: Stone - 02-04-2021, 09:54 AM - Forum: Socialism & Communism - No Replies

New York Times piece calls for ‘reality czar’ to fight ‘disinformation and domestic extremism’
One commentator quipped that a reality czar would simply be ‘more or less announcing to people 
who believe that the government is out to get them that yes, the government is indeed out to get them.’


NEW YORK, February 3, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — In a move self-described as “draconian,” a New York Times writer has called for Joe Biden to appoint a “reality czar” in order to “tackle disinformation and domestic extremism” with particular reference to election fraud and information about COVID-19.

The suggestion came from Kevin Roose’s column in the Times, laying out the ways in which Biden could solve a “reality crisis.” Roose suggested that the so-called crisis was being promulgated by people who supported former President Donald Trump, believing that he legitimately won the 2020 election, as well as by people who peddled “conspiracy theories” about the origins of COVID-19.

One such conspiracy Roose mentioned was the view that COVID-19 had been created in a lab — a belief which has been strongly supported by scientists, China experts, and the former U.S. Secretary of State. (See here, here, here, here, here, here, and here for further evidence and support of this.)

As a way to rid America of what Roose termed “disinformation and domestic extremism,” he suggested Biden should appoint a “reality czar.”

“It sounds a little dystopian, I’ll grant,” Roose admitted, before presenting quotations from his chosen team of “experts” to support his position.

One of Roose’s “experts,” Dr. Joan Donovan from Harvard’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy, promoted a “truth commission” which would study the “planning and execution of the Capitol siege on Jan. 6,” and avoid listening too much to the “fringe groups that came out in droves for Trump.”

Another “expert,” Renée DiResta, a disinformation researcher at Stanford’s Internet Observatory, suggested that those who promoted “misinformation about Covid-19 and misinformation about election fraud” were often the same people. As such, she suggested that there should be a “centralized task force” which would organize a “single, strategic response.”

This would be bolstered by partnering with “tech platforms,” DiResta said, so that the reality task force could “push for structural changes that could help those companies tackle their own extremism and misinformation problems.”

She mentioned how such a draconian assault on free speech and personal liberties, would thus be “the tip of the spear for the federal government’s response to the reality crisis.”

The commissioner of truth would work in conjunction with Big Tech companies like Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube to unearth users on the platforms who were “amplifying conspiracy theories and extremist views.”

The editor-in-chief of the National Pulse, Raheem Kassim, responded to the news with a simple tweet, comparing the reality czar to the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell’s dystopian novel “1984.”

“Ah, the Ministry of Truth,” he tweeted. “I’ve been waiting for this one.”

Writing for National Review, Jim Geraghty pointed out that a reality czar would simply be “more or less announcing to people who believe that the government is out to get them that yes, the government is indeed out to get them.”

“Has Orwell’s dystopian novel gone from being a prophetic warning to now becoming a Biden administration handbook?” questioned conservative political commentator Dinesh D’Souza.

Not content with his plans, Roose went further, saying that a reality czar would not be enough to “bring back the millions of already radicalized Americans.” He suggested a “social stimulus” whereby people would enroll in “federal programs” to keep them busy and away from the danger of being radicalized online. Unless Biden addresses the “urgent threats” of “conspiracy theories and disinformation … violent unrest and civic dysfunction will only grow,” Roose warned.

Tech giants like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are already leading the way in conducting widespread censorship of conservative views.

As Paul Joseph Watson commented sarcastically for Summit News, “If there really was a truly independent ‘reality czar,’ the media would be big trouble because its entire raison d’être is predicated around distorting reality.”

Print this item

  Fr. Libietis: A Bishop Speaks from Beyond the Grave
Posted by: Stone - 02-03-2021, 11:54 AM - Forum: The New-Conciliar SSPX - Replies (6)

A Bishop Speaks FROM BEYOND THE GRAVE 
The Archbishop’s words on the subject of UNION WITH ROME
Adapted from here.
[Fr. Libietis - Resistance Brochure #1 of 7]

Part 1 of 2
"Recently, there has been much talk and insistence upon Bishop Fellay’s “grace of state” to conduct negotiations with Modernist Rome, as though that grace is an infallible grace that cannot possibly “get things wrong.” Let it be said that ALL CATHOLICS have the grace of state available to fulfill their role in life—popes, cardinals, bishops, priests, husbands, wives, parents, teachers, etc.—yet look at the mess the world is in despite the available “graces of state.”

All this reminds me of Vatican II with its endless talk of the “rights of man” while ignoring the “rights of God.” Let us not focus so much on Bishop Fellay’s “grace of state” as a mere superior general of the SSPX, but let us go higher, and let us look at the “grace of state” of the 1970 FOUNDER of the organization, that Bishop Fellay now leads. The “grace of the founder” is what the future leaders of the organization should follow, if they are going to be true to their “grace of state.” Most, if not all, religious orders, sooner or later, stray from the initial spirit of their founders. Fr. Ludovic Barrielle (the priest chosen by Archbishop Lefebvre to be the spiritual director of his seminary in Ecône) once said that the time it takes for a religious order to start to drift from its founder’s moorings is around 40 years. Today, 40 or so years after the founding of the SSPX, we see serious problems and divisions facing the SSPX (or the NOVUS–SSPX ). When religious orders thus drift away, a reform is usually carried out by some, in order to recapture the original ideals, attitudes and spirit of their founders.

Perhaps the time has come for the SSPX to do the same. But to recapture the Archbishop’s spirit, we must carefully, frequently and zealously read the books in which Archbishop Lefebvre’s words are printed. I remember a traditional priest, a professor of dogmatic theology, once saying: “There are many commentaries and explanations written on the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, but many, if not most of them, merely complicate the simple thought of St. Thomas. Go to the source! Read St. Thomas first, and then, if you cannot understand him, then read the commentary.” Similarly, in these days, when we are being told how to interpret Archbishop Lefebvre by this or that priest, who professes to know the Archbishop’s thought— go first to the source, the Archbishop! What was bad in his day, has become much worse today. What applied then, applies even more today. If he spoke strongly then, he would speak more strongly today! He spoke simply while alive, and he still speaks simply from beyond the grave!

1974:
“We hold firmly with all our heart and with all our mind to Catholic Rome, Guardian of the Catholic Faith and of the traditions necessary to the maintenance of this faith, to the eternal Rome .... We refuse on the other hand, and have always refused, to follow the Rome of Neo-Modernist and Neo-Protestant tendencies which became clearly manifest during the Second Vatican Council, and after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Declaration of November 21, 1974)

1976:
“We are not of this new religion! We do not accept this new religion! We are of the religion of all time; we are of the Catholic religion. We are not of this “universal religion” as they call it today—this is not the Catholic religion any more. We are not of this liberal, modernist religion which has its own worship, its own priests, its own faith, its own catechisms, its own “ecumenical Bible. We cannot accept these things. They are contrary to our faith. It is an immense, immense pain for us, to think that we are in difficulty with Rome because of our faith! We are in a truly dramatic situation. We have to choose an appearance of disobedience—for the Holy Father cannot ask us to abandon our faith; it is impossible, impossible! We choose not to abandon our faith, for in that we cannot go wrong.”  (Archbishop Lefebvre, Ordination Sermon, June 29.1976)


In the days following his ordination sermon Archbishop Lefebvre was informed by Rome that he was suspended “a divinis.” The Archbishop’s reaction to this was:

1976:
“It deprives me of the right inherent ... of celebrating Holy Mass, and of conferring the Sacraments, and of preaching in consecrated places: namely, I am forbidden to celebrate the New Mass, to confer the new sacraments, to preach the new doctrine.”

Humurously, he saw the suspension as a ‘gift’ to prevent him from following all the Modernist changes. He then speaks of Rome’s demand, through Msgr. Benelli’s letter of June 25th 1976, which required the SSPX’s fidelity to the Church of Vatican II.

Msgr. Benelli writes ... “If they have good will and are seriously prepared for a priestly ministry in true fidelity to the Conciliar Church, finding the best solution for them will then be undertaken, but let them also make a beginning through this act of obedience to the Church.” Archbishop Lefebvre continues: “What could be clearer? We must [according to Rome] henceforth obey and be faithful to the Conciliar Church, no longer to the Catholic Church. Right there is our whole problem: We are suspended a divinis by the Conciliar Church, the Conciliar Church, to which we have no wish to belong! 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.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Reflections on his suspension “ a Divinis,”July 29.1976)


1976:
“...our attitude in the face of the upheaval brought about by Vatican II—either we conform to the official directives of those holding positions of authority within the Church ... or we integrally preserve the Church’s treasure.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Letter to Members of the Society, Letter N° 2, Christmas. 1976)


1977:
“We are incriminated because we have chosen the so-called way of disobedience. But we must understand clearly what this way of disobedience consists of. We may truthfully say that, if we have chosen the way of apparent disobedience, we have chosen the way of true obedience...those who follow the new way...they are the ones who have chosen the way of disobedience. Following Tradition is precisely the sign of our obedience.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Poitiers, September 3, 1977)


1978:
“We now know with whom we have to deal. We know perfectly well that we are dealing with a “diabolical hand” which is located at Rome, and which is demanding, by obedience, the destruction of the Church! And this is why we have the right and the duty to refuse this obedience…I believe that I have the right to ask these gentlemen who present themselves in offices which were occupied by Cardinals….. “Are you with the Catholic Church?” “Are you the Catholic Church?” “With whom am I dealing?” If I am dealing with someone who has a pact with Masonry, have I the right to speak with such a person? Have I the duty to listen to them and to obey them?”(Archbishop Lefebvre, 1978, Ordination Sermon, Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre , Vol. 2, p. 209, Michael Davies)


1980:
“I have never changed. I have preached and done what the Church has always taught. I have never changed what the Church said in the Council of Trent and at the First Vatican Council. So who has changed?...It is the enemy, as St. Pius X said, the enemy who is working within the Church because he wants the Church to be finished with her tradition.”(Archbishop Lefebvre, Homily, Venice, 7 April 1980)


1984:
“We are convinced of this, it is they who are wrong, who have changed course, who have broken with the Tradition of the Church, who have rushed into novelties, we are convinced of this. That is why we do not rejoin them and why we cannot work with them; we cannot collaborate with the people who depart from the spirit of the Church, from the Tradition of the Church. I think that it is that outlook that should guide us in our present situation.

Let us not deceive ourselves by believing that by these little braking actions that are given on the right and on the left, in the excesses of the present situation, that we are seeing a complete return to Tradition. That is not true, that is not true! They remain always liberal minds. It is always the liberals who rule Rome, and they remain liberal. There is no rallying to these people. From the moment when we rally ourselves, this rallying will be the acceptance of the liberal principles. We cannot do this, even if certain appeasements are given us, certain satisfactions, certain recognitions, certain incardinations, which could even be offered to you eventually. But as long as one is dealing with people who have made this agreement with the Devil, with liberal ideas, we cannot have any confidence. They will string us along little by little; they will try to catch us in their traps, as long as they have not let go of these false ideas. So, from my point of view, it is not a question of doing whatever one can. Those who would have a tendency to want to accept that will end up being recycled.”  (Archbishop Lefebvre, December 13, 1984, Address to the priests of the French District)


1986:
“In the Church there is no law or jurisdiction which can impose on a Christian a diminution of his faith. All the faithful can and should resist whatever interferes with their faith... If they are faced with an order putting their faith in danger of corruption, there is an overriding duty to disobey.... It is because we judge that our faith is endangered by the post-conciliar reforms and tendencies, that we have the duty to disobey and keep the Tradition. Let us add this, that the greatest service we can render to the Church and to the successor of Peter is to reject the reformed and liberal Church ... I am not of that religion. I do not accept that new religion. It is a liberal, modernist religion....

Christians are divided ... Priests no longer know what to do; either they obey blindly what their superiors impose on them, and lose to some degree the faith, or they resist, but with the feeling of separating themselves from the Pope...Two religions confront each other; we are in a dramatic situation and it is impossible to avoid a choice.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, 1986, Open Letter to Confused Catholics, chapter 18, “True & False Obedience”)

These quotes take us from the beginnings of the SSPX’s 1976 division with Rome, up to 1986 and the preparation for the episcopal consecrations in 1988. In Part Two, we will look at the words of Archbishop Lefebvre in the last 5 years of his life. We recommend that you take time to purchase and read the many sermons, writings and accounts of Archbishop Lefebvre’s life—so as to learn, understand and absorb the spirit of the man, chosen by God, to be the FOUNDER, not just leader, of the SSPX. - Fr. Libietis


[Emphasis - The Catacombs]

Print this item

  Did French bishops just declare war on the traditional Mass?
Posted by: Stone - 02-03-2021, 08:47 AM - Forum: Vatican II and the Fruits of Modernism - Replies (3)

Did French bishops just declare war on the traditional Mass?
The French Bishops’ conference suggests that the 'exclusive use of the extraordinary form' should be revoked.


FRANCE, February 2, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – The French Bishops’ conference (CEF) has produced a report on the application of Pope Benedict XVI’s Motu proprio Summorum Pontificum in France, in order to assess the way in which the Vetus Ordo of the Roman Rite – the so-called “extraordinary form” – is being celebrated and lived out in the Catholic dioceses of France. The survey came as a response to a questionnaire from the Congregation of the Doctrine of the faith that was sent to all countries of the world last April and that should normally have resulted in a worldwide report. The fact that the French Bishops’ conference should have preemptively presented a national synthesis for France has given rise to speculation: is the CEF aiming to bear pressure on Rome’s own, yet to be published appraisal of the usus antiquior in the Latin Church?

If such is the case, that pressure is certainly hostile to the large “traditional” Catholic community in France – so much so that Jean des Tauriers, president of Notre Dame de Chrétienté that organizes the yearly, 20,000-strong traditional pilgrimage from Paris to Chartres, summarized his reaction with this question: “Who can have written such a document? How can the French Bishops’ Conference have produced a document so far removed from commonly agreed terms of language and also from the most elementary charity?”

In a 10-page, unsigned synthesis made available online, among others, by the pro-traditional Mass association “Paix liturgique” (see here), the CEF makes clear that most bishops in France are critical of many aspects of the traditional Roman Rite and of the priests and faithful who are attached to it – especially the young – accusing the Summorum Pontificum community of living out the faith in a “parallel” Church and suggesting that efforts should be made so that all priests who celebrate in the traditional rite should also use the “ordinary form.”

The document reads like a classic progressivist analysis of the situation and contains many disparaging comments ranging from the training of priests in seminaries run by traditional institutes to the negative character traits of young people who prefer the traditional Latin Mass (TLM).

Paix liturgique commented:
Quote:“From a political point of view, the realization of this synthesis is a kind of coup de force. The Roman Congregation itself should have analyzed the responses of the bishops and made a general synthesis of them. However, both the Italian and the French Conferences (and no doubt others as well) have decided to do this work themselves, which makes it possible, according to the usual inclination of bishops' conferences, to draw up a general line, to which a certain number of bishops will not relate, and to formulate wishes that are purported to be those of all.”

Remarkably, the CEF’s synthesis shows that at least 15,000 French Catholics practice their faith in TLM or bi-ritualist parishes and other sanctuaries approved by their local bishop – an under-estimated figure, according to Paix liturgique, whose surveys point to the much higher figure of  67,000, albeit including the faithful who join FSSPX (Priestly fraternity of Saint Pius Xth) Masses.

France has been a historic fighting ground for the TLM since the introduction of the “Mass of Paul VI” in 1969: nowadays, both FSSPX chapels and “Motu proprio” Masses attract not only those who are presented as “nostalgic” of the “old Mass,” but many young people, young families and converts in a country where religious practice has declined catastrophically among the younger generations of the “underprivileged” socio-professional categories.

A certain resentment against the often-flourishing TLM communities can be sensed in the French Bishops’ official synthesis, in particular in its systematic minimization of regular TLM-goers (“20 to 70” per venue in most dioceses where one or two “Motu proprio” Sunday Masses are usually available, although four dioceses offer none at all). Given the hundred or so dioceses existing in France, one wonders why such a supposedly marginal phenomenon should be causing concern to the CEF… Roughly half of the dioceses offering TLM have called on traditional institutes such as the FSSP (Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter) or the ICKSP (Institute of Christ the King). Four “personal parishes” exist in Blois, Laval, Strasbourg and Versailles, solely for the traditional rite.

The diocese of Versailles is an exception or a flagship: 17 “Motu proprio” Masses every Sunday, with 11 in the city of Versailles alone: 9 percent of practicing Catholics (5,500) frequent the TLM there (not counting the FSSPX), according to the document.

To the second question in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s survey regarding the “pastoral need” for the TLM, two-thirds of the French bishops answered that this need does exist. The rest often responded: “The extraordinary form is more an answer to the expectations of some rather than to a pastoral need.” And the CEF commented: “When do the faithful’s expectations become a pastoral need?”

Several bishops noted that they offer Motu proprio Masses to “allow the faithful to retain a bond with the Catholic Church” and to avoid their going to an FSSPX Mass, but, added the CEF:
Quote:“When a place run by the FSSPX is nearby, there is no notable flux of a return to the Catholic Church” – even though the excommunications of the bishops ordained by Bishop Lefebvre in 1988 were lifted by Pope Benedict XVI, and Pope Francis gave its priests the legal power to celebrate marriages and to hear confessions.

As an aside, it should be added that the two strict COVID-19 lockdowns in France last Spring and in November led many Catholics to join more or less underground FSSPX Masses because many diocesan parishes were not offering public Mass.


The CEF voiced another negative comment regarding the principle of offering diocesan TLM: “It often simply maintains the faithful in a particular conception of the Church (rejection of Vatican II, criticism of Pope Francis, hostility to a Church that is too ‘open’).”

While the document does acknowledge that these TLM venues are mostly promoted by “young large families,” it immediately regrets that these faithful find support for their “individualism” and their “cliquishness,” adding that some bishops have questions about the “theological training” priests from the FSSP or ICKSP – although seminarians or young priests who frequented both a diocesan seminary and then a traditional one are often critical of the lack of well-grounded training in the former.

The idea of the CEF is clearly to evaluate the priests hailing from the latter, as its document openly states.

The CEF recognizes that the traditional Mass has some positive aspects (question 3) such as a clearer sense of the “sacrificial” aspect, “heartbalm for those who were wounded after Vatican II,” “solemnity” and even: “Celebrating ad orientem could be an antidote to the threat of clericalism.”

But according to the document, the “negative aspects” far outweigh the positive ones, through “wounding the unity of the Church,” criticism of the “conciliar Church,” the “inducing of a parallel Church” of even of “Two Churches.” Individualism, subjectivism and “self-centeredness” are pointed at and the FSSP priests, who refuse any kind of concelebration, are especially singled out. The faithful are accused of not participating in diocesan activities and the use of the traditional calendar and lectionary are pointed at for allowing them “limited access to the Word of God.”

“These faithful are depriving themselves of liturgical riches linked to the reform;” “Reading one’s bilingual missal does not foster union of hearts;” “the poor quality of the sermons” are but some of the criticisms leveled at the TLM communities and their pastors who are deemed to become useless for other tasks as they “specialize” in the Old Rite and in catechism classes that are very different from those dispensed in the official circuit. The faithful are accused of having certain political views (such as monarchism) and of “exerting pressure to get what they want.” The CEF even deplores the “impossibility of organizing common moments of prayer such as Vespers or Adoration” – in a context where many traditional Masses are grudgingly conceded and no time is offered for such celebrations.

Worst of all, according to the CEF, “the authority of the bishop over these communities is next to zero.” The question is, of course, why – when so many Catholic parents realize that the religious education offered in many dioceses does not actually teach their children about the dogmas of the Faith.

The CEF acknowledges that Benedict XVIth’s Motu proprio brought with it a form of appeasement, but adds: “one would have hoped that a dialogue would have been initiated regarding in-depth acceptance of the conciliar teachings.”

“Some bishops have questions about the true communion of these faithful with the Catholic Church,” the document reveals. This is a grave accusation: it implies that people who frequent the TLM within their diocese and under approval of the Church have actually already separated from the Church.

Interestingly, in the commentary on Question 4 regarding the correct implementation of Summorum Pontificum, the CEF notes that the idea of a “stable group” that is allowed to ask for the TLM is not clear: “We can but notice that in many places where the TLM is celebrated, a pole of attraction is established where faithful come from afar, and sometimes even from other dioceses.”

The CEF also condemns the “sometimes critical and suspicious attitude of these communities towards the conciliar Church, beyond the liturgical issue,” “homilies are sometimes revealing of this drift.”

Question 5 asked whether elements of the TLM were being imported into the “ordinary form.” The answer was: “marginally,” with more Latin, old vestments, the adding of signs of the Cross, veiling statues during the Passion weeks, use of the communion-plate… Some bishops attribute the more careful celebration of the New Mass by young priests not to the influence of the TLM, but to “a generational issue.” But the CEF adds: “When some elements are introduced into the ordinary form, they are more often a cause for tensions than of enrichment. ‘Often, extraordinary means exclusive.’”

The CEF glosses over the use of the 1962 missal as required by Summorum Pontificum, but stresses that the bishop of Nîmes finds it “difficult to know whether the prayer for the Jews on Good Friday is effectively recited in the way Pope Benedict XVI modified it, and the same goes for the use of certain prefaces.”

As regards the other Sacraments and catechesis (Question 7), most bishops celebrate confirmations in the traditional rite once a year or once in every two years for these communities, but the CEF notes that many bishops have questions about the Catechism used to prepare for the Sacraments: “This catechesis is often very remote from that offered by the diocese.”

Question 8 asks about the impact of Summorum Pontificum on life in seminaries. The answer, as synthesized by the CEF, reveals that most of the handful of seminaries that are still functioning in France hardly ever offer the TLM: some seminarians left them to join the FSSP, others “train individually thanks to their own network or during a stay at a TLM religious community; others take advantage of their holidays to familiarize themselves with the TLM.”

In other words, many French diocesan seminarians receive little or no training in the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite; bishops are instead stressing the importance of “training to understand the liturgy… in order to obtain a correct comprehension of the ordinary form.” “It would be wrong to give rise… to the belief that there are two forms in the Latin Church between which you can choose. A pedagogy must be devised so that the presentation of the TLM can be made in a non-divisive manner,” summarizes the CEF.

It also remarks: “One bishop suggested that we should think about training a few seminarians for the TLM in order to break free from depending on particular institutes, and especially the FSSP, that exclusively use the extraordinary form.” It adds that “seminarians do not master Latin” – not very surprising, given that Latin is only taught in the traditional way in independent Catholic schools, mostly attached to the TLM: in State-funded schools, Latin is taught – when it is taught! – using “whole language” methods.

The CEF document also reveals that “bishops are attentive to the training given in their seminaries… and they exert vigilance as to the manner in which seminarians live out their attachment to the liturgy.” This sounds like a form of surveillance regarding the possible influence of the traditional rite.

Question 9 asked the bishops to offer their advice regarding the TLM. The CEF noted several major trends. Some spoke of “the wounding of unity” in their diocese, as well as the possibility for an “insidious implementation of parallel pastoral care”: “Some bishops note that these communities are often vindicative; the Motu proprio has often simply bolstered a small minority in its shortcomings and in the cultivation of its particularisms by asking for more and more rights. A world apart, a parallel Church is in formation.”

The CEF also favorably presents the suggestion that the TLM should adopt the new lectionary “to help FSSP and ICKSP priests to enter into the intelligence of liturgical teachings that emerged from the [liturgical] reform but also in that of Verbum Domini or Evangelii Gaudium.

It is not a surprise to learn that the CEF’s document suggests that the “exclusive use of the extraordinary form” should be revoked: it even asserts that the FSSP’s exclusive celebration of the TLM is “a cause for scandal,” grave words that are usually applied to situations where great sins are involved. “One bishop suggested not to incardinate a priest who would refuse to celebrate in the ordinary form.”

The CEF also puts forward a “doctrinal concern,” suggesting that there is “an underlying ecclesiological issue linked to the implementation of the Motu proprio.” “It would be wrong here to forget the moral teaching of the Church – and that includes the reception of Amoris Laetitia.

The CEF would like to see “missionary dynamics” in communities where they are “weak,” in order for them to conform to Pope Francis’ vision. Beyond “personal sensitivity” regarding liturgy, the bishops of France (or at least those who have the upper hand in the CEF) suggest that priests should “work on the link between the Eucharist and apostolic life at the service of a part of the People of God.” They add: “The FSSO could also deploy its zeal in favor of other persons than communities celebrating in the ordinary form” (this is probably a slip of the pen).

In a short comment, fsspx.news noted that the missionary spirit of Novus Ordo parishes remains to be proved:
Quote:“The regular decline of practicing Catholics is a sure witness… It is clear that if the churches are emptying, it is because of doctrinal and moral deficiencies and of the meagerness of the spiritual life being offered by the ‘conciliar’ Church.”

Finally, the CEF suggests several “points of attention” that deserve to be translated in full:
  • Take care not to extend the TLM so as not to induce a wrongful understanding of the place of this form that would end up being considered as a rite.
  • A fragile and identity-conscious youth is easily fascinated by the TLM. It is reinforced in its siege mentality by mediocre sermons and by social media that impoverish thought and reinforce the young in their ideas and even their excesses.
  • Liturgical education (Ars celebrandi) and historical and theological training that insist on ecclesiology (study of the Dogmatic Constitutions and pastoral care according to Vatican II).
  • Verifying the obedience of the communities that celebrate in the extraordinary form.

The questionnaire left the bishops wondering at young people’s “craze” for the extraordinary form; “the scrupulous form,” as the document put it.

It also led them to question Summorum pontificum itself:
Quote:“The publication of the Motu proprio demonstrates commendable intent but it is not giving expected fruits. While it honors a principle of reality, un untiring work for unity appears necessary. The promise of mutual enrichment of the two forms of the one Roman Rite remain largely inchoative. Sterilizing mutual distrust remains. The concern for the unity of the Church is not honored in full by the implementation of the Motu proprio. The implementation of this letter ultimately poses ecclesiological questions rather than liturgical ones.”

Put in plainer terms, the French bishops’ conference is accusing Pope Benedict of having favored a drift towards schism by pandering to anti-Vatican II, self-centered Catholics whose catholicity should now be questioned, their communities watched and the priests who serve them put under scrutiny.

Jean des Tauriers’ comment on what looks like a declaration of war on the part of the CEF underscores an important point:
Quote:“The text in itself is not surprising when one frequents certain French episcopal circles. It represents the historical canal of the progressive reforms, of the great pastoral, liturgical and suchlike experiments of the sixties. In France, these ill-inspired and badly conducted reforms aroused a powerful traditional reaction that created, among other things, Notre-Dame de Chrétienté. Benedict XVI wanted to appease the spirits through an act of reconciliation (the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum of 2007). The reading of this synthesis of the CEF clearly shows that the motu proprio was ultimately never accepted or understood by many dioceses.”

He added:
Quote:“We meet many priests and seminarians in our pilgrimages who do not all come from the so-called ‘Eccesia Dei’ environment. Remember all those conversations with priests, seminarians and sometimes bishops during our pilgrimage. The Catholic friendship that unites us is much more important than the stereotypes being spread by the synthesis. This friendship is the fruit of Benedict XVI’s motu proprio. When he was Cardinal Ratzinger, he assured us that we had our full place in the Church, just as we were, that is, integrally.

“Dear pilgrim friends of Notre Dame de Chrétienté, I understand your resentment in the face of this ill-treatment. You are involved in your workplaces, in schools, in pro-life movements, in the defense of the family, in evangelization. …You fight every day so that your children may receive a Catholic catechism, and Catholic sacraments in an atheistic and anti-Catholic world. You are right to support the priests of communities who give their lives for your souls. Let us neither be discouraged nor divided. This synthesis of the CEF shows no understanding for the difficulty of Christian life in a ‘world that has ceased to be Christian’. This anti-Catholic world, dear friends, is a legacy you have inherited and those who today criticize and judge you, are those who attended in the front row the collapse of the Catholic Church in France!

“The last ‘observant’ French Catholic families have no use for this hatred, this shriveled resentment. They simply ask for the basic charity of the Catholic towards his neighbor and also, for the salvation of our souls, the possibility of carrying on the experiment of tradition.”

[Emphasis mine.]

Print this item