| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 318 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 315 Guest(s)
Applebot, Bing, Google
|
|
|
| Pope joins with global companies to promote capitalism in line with UN’s pro-abortion goals |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-11-2020, 10:08 AM - Forum: Global News
- Replies (1)
|
 |
Pope joins with global companies to promote capitalism in line with UN’s pro-abortion goals
The new partnership aligns the Vatican with the UN, which supports 'universal access to sexual and reproductive health care services' such as contraception and abortion.
VATICAN CITY, December 10, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Pope Francis joined forces with major global corporations such as the Rockefeller Foundation and Bank of America to promote a new “economic system” of capitalism based on the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals.
Launched on December 8, the feast of the Immaculate Conception, the Vatican partnership with the “Council for Inclusive Capitalism with the Vatican” is apparently a response to Pope Francis’s desire “to build inclusive and sustainable economies and societies.” The Council describes itself as “a movement of the world’s business and public sector leaders who are working to build a more inclusive, sustainable, and trusted economic system that addresses the needs of our people and the planet.”
A press release on the group’s website hailed the news as “historic,” adding that the group is “inspired by the moral imperative of all faiths.” The new partnership “signifies the urgency of joining moral and market imperatives to reform capitalism into a powerful force for the good of humanity.”
“The Council invites companies of all sizes to harness the potential of the private sector to build a fairer, more inclusive and sustainable economic foundation for the world,” the statement added.
The Council is headed by the self-styled “Guardians for Inclusive Capitalism,” titans of business with “more than $10.5 trillion in assets under management, companies with over $2.1 trillion of market capitalization, and 200 million workers in over 163 countries.” They meet annually with both Pope Francis and Cardinal Peter Turkson.
Among the 27 Guardians are CEOs, chairmen, presidents, and other high ranking officials from companies such as Mastercard, DuPont, the U.N, Johnson & Johnson, VISA, BP, Bank of America, and The Rockefeller Foundation.
According to its own guiding principles, the Council declares that “capitalism must evolve to promote a more sustainable, trusted, equitable, and inclusive system that works for everyone.” Its various members must commit to “promoting sustainable, inclusive, strong and trusted economies around the world,” saying it will “define and implement” its various actions.
The numerous commitments of the Council are divided into four categories: “People, Planet, Principles of Governance, Prosperity.” As part of its overall vision, the Council proposes “Equality of opportunity for all people to pursue prosperity and quality of life, irrespective of criteria such as socio-economic background, gender, ethnicity, religion or age.”
A number of companies' commitments reflect this, with specific policies relating to net carbon emissions and racial issues.
All actions, however, are fundamentally to promote “environmental, social, and governance measures” in order to “achieve the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.” The Council “challenges business and investment leaders of all sizes” to adopt its principles.
Pope Francis previously expressed support for the U.N’s Goals, despite the U.N. calling for “universal access to sexual and reproductive health care services, including for family planning, information and education, and the integration of reproductive health into national strategies and programs,” which includes contraception and abortion.
Speaking to the Council for Inclusive Capitalism, Pope Francis said, “An economic system that is fair, trustworthy, and capable of addressing the most profound challenges facing humanity and our planet is urgently needed. You have taken up the challenge by seeking ways to make capitalism become a more inclusive instrument for integral human wellbeing.”
Lynn Forester de Rothschild, founding and managing partner of Inclusive Capital Partners and of whom the Council is the brainchild, said in a statement, “Capitalism has created enormous global prosperity, but it has also left too many people behind, led to degradation of our planet, and is not widely trusted in society. This Council will follow the admonishment of Pope Francis to listen to ‘the cry of the earth and the cry of the poor’ and answer society’s demands for a more equitable and sustainable model of growth.”
Forbes noted the irony of the news, since the very people whom the Pope is partnering with are “the people that the pope points to when he calls out wealth inequality.”
Alliance as a part of the Pope’s Great Reset support?
This latest alliance between the Vatican and global corporations would appear to be the next step in the Pope’s desire to conform global politics to the United Nations. In 2019, he made a speech advocating for globalist world practices, calling for “globalization to be beneficial for all.”
Referring to a “supranational common good,” the Pope added that “there is need for a special legally constituted authority capable of facilitating its implementation.”
The Pope once again signaled his concern that the U.N Sustainable Development Goals be implemented. “There is a risk of compromising already established forms of international cooperation, undermining the aims of international organizations as a space for dialogue and meeting for all countries on a level of mutual respect, and hindering the achievement of the sustainable development goals unanimously approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 25 September 2015.”
Earlier this year at an event called “New Forms of Solidarity,” the Pope spoke to national finance ministers as well as the director of the International Monetary Fund. He suggested that “We have to choose what and who to prioritize.”
Pope Francis will now be able to directly affect such global policy and financial decisions since the Council’s alliance with the Vatican means that it is now under the “moral guidance” of the Pope.
Only days ago, Pope Francis used the phrase build back better,” the slogan that has become synonymous with globalist polices. The phrase is the name of Joe Biden’s website, BuildBackBetter.gov, on which he claims to be “restoring American leadership.”
LifeSite’s Patrick Delaney noted in a Nov. 2 report how Biden’s campaign plans align with a radical international socialist plan called “The Great Reset.” Globalist elites have characterized the “Great Reset” as a plan to "push the reset button" on the global economy.
Klaus Schwab, head of the World Economic Forum, is a prominent proponent of the Great Reset, stating, “In short, we need a ‘Great Reset’ of capitalism.” Schwab has published a book titled “COVID-19:The Great Reset,” in which he outlines the “changes” necessary for a more “sustainable world going forward.”
LifeSite’s John-Henry Westen has also noted that Pope Francis’s opinion piece published in The New York Times on Thanksgiving Day “echoed the sentiments of Joe Biden and other pushers of the so-called Great Reset, calling for the world to ‘build a better, different, human future.'”
The Pope’s piece “reads like a page from Biden’s Build Back Better campaign,” commented Westen. He pointed out that the name of “Jesus” or “Christ” never appears in the piece, and “God” is mentioned only once, assisting in the push for the new agenda.
|
|
|
| Pope joins with global companies to promote capitalism in line with UN’s pro-abortion goals |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-11-2020, 10:08 AM - Forum: Great Reset
- No Replies
|
|
Pope joins with global companies to promote capitalism in line with UN’s pro-abortion goals
The new partnership aligns the Vatican with the UN, which supports 'universal access to sexual and reproductive health care services' such as contraception and abortion.
VATICAN CITY, December 10, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Pope Francis joined forces with major global corporations such as the Rockefeller Foundation and Bank of America to promote a new “economic system” of capitalism based on the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals.
Launched on December 8, the feast of the Immaculate Conception, the Vatican partnership with the “Council for Inclusive Capitalism with the Vatican” is apparently a response to Pope Francis’s desire “to build inclusive and sustainable economies and societies.” The Council describes itself as “a movement of the world’s business and public sector leaders who are working to build a more inclusive, sustainable, and trusted economic system that addresses the needs of our people and the planet.”
A press release on the group’s website hailed the news as “historic,” adding that the group is “inspired by the moral imperative of all faiths.” The new partnership “signifies the urgency of joining moral and market imperatives to reform capitalism into a powerful force for the good of humanity.”
“The Council invites companies of all sizes to harness the potential of the private sector to build a fairer, more inclusive and sustainable economic foundation for the world,” the statement added.
The Council is headed by the self-styled “Guardians for Inclusive Capitalism,” titans of business with “more than $10.5 trillion in assets under management, companies with over $2.1 trillion of market capitalization, and 200 million workers in over 163 countries.” They meet annually with both Pope Francis and Cardinal Peter Turkson.
Among the 27 Guardians are CEOs, chairmen, presidents, and other high ranking officials from companies such as Mastercard, DuPont, the U.N, Johnson & Johnson, VISA, BP, Bank of America, and The Rockefeller Foundation.
According to its own guiding principles, the Council declares that “capitalism must evolve to promote a more sustainable, trusted, equitable, and inclusive system that works for everyone.” Its various members must commit to “promoting sustainable, inclusive, strong and trusted economies around the world,” saying it will “define and implement” its various actions.
The numerous commitments of the Council are divided into four categories: “People, Planet, Principles of Governance, Prosperity.” As part of its overall vision, the Council proposes “Equality of opportunity for all people to pursue prosperity and quality of life, irrespective of criteria such as socio-economic background, gender, ethnicity, religion or age.”
A number of companies' commitments reflect this, with specific policies relating to net carbon emissions and racial issues.
All actions, however, are fundamentally to promote “environmental, social, and governance measures” in order to “achieve the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.” The Council “challenges business and investment leaders of all sizes” to adopt its principles.
Pope Francis previously expressed support for the U.N’s Goals, despite the U.N. calling for “universal access to sexual and reproductive health care services, including for family planning, information and education, and the integration of reproductive health into national strategies and programs,” which includes contraception and abortion.
Speaking to the Council for Inclusive Capitalism, Pope Francis said, “An economic system that is fair, trustworthy, and capable of addressing the most profound challenges facing humanity and our planet is urgently needed. You have taken up the challenge by seeking ways to make capitalism become a more inclusive instrument for integral human wellbeing.”
Lynn Forester de Rothschild, founding and managing partner of Inclusive Capital Partners and of whom the Council is the brainchild, said in a statement, “Capitalism has created enormous global prosperity, but it has also left too many people behind, led to degradation of our planet, and is not widely trusted in society. This Council will follow the admonishment of Pope Francis to listen to ‘the cry of the earth and the cry of the poor’ and answer society’s demands for a more equitable and sustainable model of growth.”
Forbes noted the irony of the news, since the very people whom the Pope is partnering with are “the people that the pope points to when he calls out wealth inequality.”
Alliance as a part of the Pope’s Great Reset support?
This latest alliance between the Vatican and global corporations would appear to be the next step in the Pope’s desire to conform global politics to the United Nations. In 2019, he made a speech advocating for globalist world practices, calling for “globalization to be beneficial for all.”
Referring to a “supranational common good,” the Pope added that “there is need for a special legally constituted authority capable of facilitating its implementation.”
The Pope once again signaled his concern that the U.N Sustainable Development Goals be implemented. “There is a risk of compromising already established forms of international cooperation, undermining the aims of international organizations as a space for dialogue and meeting for all countries on a level of mutual respect, and hindering the achievement of the sustainable development goals unanimously approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 25 September 2015.”
Earlier this year at an event called “New Forms of Solidarity,” the Pope spoke to national finance ministers as well as the director of the International Monetary Fund. He suggested that “We have to choose what and who to prioritize.”
Pope Francis will now be able to directly affect such global policy and financial decisions since the Council’s alliance with the Vatican means that it is now under the “moral guidance” of the Pope.
Only days ago, Pope Francis used the phrase build back better,” the slogan that has become synonymous with globalist polices. The phrase is the name of Joe Biden’s website, BuildBackBetter.gov, on which he claims to be “restoring American leadership.”
LifeSite’s Patrick Delaney noted in a Nov. 2 report how Biden’s campaign plans align with a radical international socialist plan called “The Great Reset.” Globalist elites have characterized the “Great Reset” as a plan to "push the reset button" on the global economy.
Klaus Schwab, head of the World Economic Forum, is a prominent proponent of the Great Reset, stating, “In short, we need a ‘Great Reset’ of capitalism.” Schwab has published a book titled “COVID-19:The Great Reset,” in which he outlines the “changes” necessary for a more “sustainable world going forward.”
LifeSite’s John-Henry Westen has also noted that Pope Francis’s opinion piece published in The New York Times on Thanksgiving Day “echoed the sentiments of Joe Biden and other pushers of the so-called Great Reset, calling for the world to ‘build a better, different, human future.'”
The Pope’s piece “reads like a page from Biden’s Build Back Better campaign,” commented Westen. He pointed out that the name of “Jesus” or “Christ” never appears in the piece, and “God” is mentioned only once, assisting in the push for the new agenda.
|
|
|
|
| Fr. Hewko: 2018 - 2019 - On Ambrose Moran |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-11-2020, 08:54 AM - Forum: Rev. Father David Hewko
- Replies (5)
|
|
The following notable posts and threads are taken from the Archived Catacombs:
Father begins speaking about Bishop(?) Ambrose at minute mark: 09:50 and finishes at minute mark: 21:40:
Highlights:- Fr. Hewko exhorts us to pray first and foremost to pray to know God's will, that we ask God to show us clearly His will in this matter, so there is no doubt and no question.
- He notes that there are some objective, reasonable concerns surrounding Bp. Ambrose.
- Fr. Hewko spoke about the openness of Archbishop Lefebvre in discussing his plans and concerns over the years. The investigation should be handled as the Archbishop handled things in responding to the concerns of the faithful.
- He reminds us that Fr. Pfeiffer is still conducting his investigation. Fr. Hewko also reminds us that any thorough investigation takes times and should not be done hastily, that this investigation should go very slow, weighing things carefully.
+ + +
Comments from the member O.L. of Fatima Chapel, exactly one year after this sermon:
Quote:When Fr. Hewko delivered that sermon here at Our Lady of Fatima Chapel in Massachusetts, he addressed the great trepidation and anxiety of the faithful by announcing his own grave reservations regarding the legitimacy of William Moran. And then, as S.A.G mentioned, Father requested everyone's prayers. So, a special novena to Our Lady of the Rosary was promptly organized; and soon the suspicions of fraudulence were confirmed, as important nuggets of information slowly came to light - like an onion's layers being peeled away! And isn't this how our heavenly Mother usually works? As Father himself later stated: it was all attributed to the power of Our Lady of the Rosary. The novena began in October - the month of the Holy Rosary, and then Father began his new mission of The Sorrowful Heart of Mary this past February 11th - the feast of Lourdes.
We continue to offer great thanks to Almighty God through the intercession of His Immaculate Mother, for granting Father the special graces of clarity and resolve to stand up for the truths of the Faith and assist the faithful in avoiding occasions of doubt ...all the while continuing the authentic mission of Archbishop Lefebvre. May the Immaculata guide and protect us always!
Regina Sacratissimi Rosarii - Ora pro nobis
|
|
|
|
| Fr. Hewko: 2017 Fr. Hewko - The French Revolution and the Juring Priests |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-11-2020, 08:46 AM - Forum: Sermons by Date
- No Replies
|
|
Fr. Hewko makes several important points in this excellent sermon:
He starts out by talking about the Vendée, he notes that there were three main tactics against the Vendée that were implemented when massacring and fighting them in the field were not successful.
The first was that they attempted to use their own priests against them. They convinced a few compromising priests to sign an oath to the Masonic French government. They then sent these 'juring' priests back to the Vendée– to preach peace to the Vendée people and get them to lay down their arms. But these good people would not receive these priests and would not attend their Masses. In our times, these were the Fraternity of St. Peter. They were sent to confuse and pull away souls from the SSPX. They would say the same Latin Mass, wear the same vestments, but they were wolves in sheep's clothing as they were infected with a modernist Conciliar Church spirit.
When this first tactic was not successful, the second tactic implemented was the Masonic government itself attempted to strike a peace agreement with the Vendée Catholics. This is similar to the Conciliar Church making overtures to the SSPX to get them to become regularized and stop fighting for Tradition.
The third tactic was to take out the leadership of the Vendée. They did this by making a massive manhunt for the last Vendée general, General Charette. With a wide swath of soldiers, they hunted and eventually caught General Charette and eventually executed him. This is the Conciliar Church trying to get the last of the Resistors. (Those priests and faithful who saw through the charade and speak out against it. - Any thoughts who these could be?)
[...]
I am pleased to hear him explain the details, to reveal the similar maneuvering now in Catholic tradition.
Just as U.S. American history school books and movies leave out the truth and important facts concerning the involvement of Freemasonry, so too in France, Spain, Mexico and no doubt other countries do too.
A 70 plus yr. old Novis Ordo Catholic neighbor who was born, raised, and educated in France was surprised when she recently read some books on the Vendée to learn about the uprising of the Catholics there. Her sister who still lives in the Vendée region wasn't aware of this part of their history. She knew when she read it, that it was true. She purchased more of the books to have her family read them to know the truth. Her grandson is a history teacher and he also wanted the same books as he told her he never read about the Vendée uprising in all his years of history study.
Unless people know history, they find it had to believe when it's happening right in front of them. However even if they do know the history, when they are attached to personalities of some people involved they can refuse to believe it.
Archbishop Lefebvre wrote of the parallel between the crisis in the Church and the French Revolution noting that it is not simply a metaphorical one, but because they do not see blood flowing, many do not believe.
|
|
|
|
| Fr. Hewko: 2013 Letter - 'One Does Not Play with the Faith!' |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-11-2020, 08:35 AM - Forum: Rev. Father David Hewko
- No Replies
|
|
“ONE DOES NOT PLAY WITH THE FAITH!” - Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
By Fr. David Hewko
November 8, 2013
Feast of Four Crowned Martyrs
1. COMMON OBJECTION: “But Abp. Lefebvre never rejected the Protocol of May 5, 1988! In fact, he was pleased with most of its contents except for the fact that Rome didn’t give him a bishop for consecrating. The April 15, 2012 Doctrinal Declaration was similar to it.”
REPLY: Let the holy Archbishop speak for himself:
• When asked what he thought about Dom Gerard accepting the proposals of the Pope, he said, “At our last meeting, he asked me if I could accept the Protocol [of May 5, 1988] THAT I MYSELF REFUSED...We must no longer discuss with the Roman authorities. They only want to bring us back to the Council, we must not have a relationship with them!”(Controverses, No. 0, September 1988, Le Rocher No. 84).
• Regarding the May 5, 1988 Protocol…”If only you knew what a night I passed after signing that infamous agreement! Oh! How I wanted morning to come so that I could give Fr. du Chalard my letter of retraction which I had written during the night.” (Marcel Lefebvre, Bp. Tissier de Mallerais p. 555).
• Our true believers—those who understand the problem—feared the steps I took with Rome. They told me it was dangerous and that I was wasting my time. Yes, of course, I hoped until the last minute that Rome has to show a little bit of loyalty. One cannot blame me for not doing the maximum. So now, to those who say to me, you must agree with Rome, I can safely say that I went even farther than I should have gone! (Abp. Lefebrve, 1990, Fideliter, No. 79, p. 11).
• “I said to him [Cardinal Ratzinger, who became Pope Benedict XVI] ‘Even if you grant us a bishop, even if you grant us some autonomy from the bishops, even if you grant us the 1962 Liturgy, even if you allow us to continue running our seminaries in the manner we are doing it right now—we cannot work together! It is impossible! Impossible! Because we are working in diametrically opposing directions. You are working to de-Christianize society, the human person and the Church, and we are working to Christianize them. We cannot get along together!’” (Marcel Lefebvre, Bp. Tissier de Mallerais, p. 548).
• “Someone once advised me, ‘Sign, sign [the May 5, 1988 Protocol] that you accept everything; and then you can continue as before!’ No! ONE DOES NOT PLAY WITH THE FAITH!”…To ask this of us is to ask us to collaborate in the disappearance of the Faith. Impossible!” (They Have Uncrowned Him, Abp. Lefebvre, ch. 31, p. 230).
2. COMMON OBJECTION: “But Bp. Fellay just imitated the Archbishop! He sought a possible agreement, signed some documents, realized Rome wasn’t cooperative, and wouldn’t accept the Second Vatican Council and the New Mass. So things are back to square one!”
REPLY: Firstly, Abp. Lefebvre had hopes, with traditional-minded Cardinals in Rome to bear some influence on the Pope (i.e., Cardinals Oddi, Bacchi, Ottaviani, Gagnon, etc.). They’re all dead now.
Secondly, Abp. Lefebvre did not sign a DOCTRINAL Declaration (a Protocol was a preliminary step) excusing Vatican II, saying it “deepens” and “enlightens” certain aspects of Church doctrine, and doctrines “not yet conceptually formulated.” He did not sign a document saying that religious liberty and “other affirmations of Vatican II must be understood in the light of the whole uninterrupted Tradition.” That the New Mass and New Sacraments are legitimately promulgated, the New Code and New Profession of Faith are acceptable. These he never would have signed!
3. COMMON OBJECTION: “Since the October 13, 2013 Conference of Bishop Fellay things are back to normal, seeing that he called the New Mass “bad,” that “we don’t accept the Council,” etc.
REPLY: Did these optimists forget the principle of non-contradiction? “A thing cannot be and not be at the same time in the same place.” If Bp. Fellay really didn’t want an agreement, then why does the General Chapter Statement and 6 Conditions, binding the SSPX to seek an agreement, still exist officially in writing? (This, to the exclusion of Abp. Lefebvre’s most prudent principle, namely, “No agreement until Rome comes back to Tradition). In other words, the “For Sale” sign is still on the front lawn of the SSPX, regardless of how much “verbal fog” there is! For decrees of such weight, they must be cancelled out with decrees of equal weight. The Faith is being played with, here, and that means eternal souls! A General Chapter to rectify the errors and publicly reject all the compromises, is absolutely necessary. Along with this, a Statement publicly announcing the same, with the public rejection of the 6 Conditions and April 15, 2012 Document to prove the “conversion” to the old position of the SSPX.
4. COMMON OBJECTION: “But the April 15, 2012 Doctrinal Declaration was ‘withdrawn’! It’s a dead letter!”
REPLY: To “withdraw” (for a time) is not the same thing as to publicly reject, retract and correct. If it is truly withdrawn, in the sense of “withdrawn forever,” then why was it printed in the March, 2013 Cor Unum showing all the priests that it is, indeed, official? Why is Fr. Daniel Themann’s Conference in St. Marys, Kansas on April 16, 2013 that justifies the April 15th Doctrinal Declaration, still being promoted worldwide? If it is true that “things are back to normal now” then where’s the apologies (or better, gratitude) to the Bishop and priests who were expelled and silenced? At least a
home and health insurance can be given back to some of the Resistance priests in their 70’s who warned the Superiors of the SSPX that this is all a danger to the Faith. Where’s the public retraction to the liberal statements in Interviews that continue to be quoted in recent SSPX articles, such as “95% of the Council is acceptable” (on September 3, 2013); or, “Religious Liberty of the Council is limited” (in fact, it’s a heresy condemned many times by the Pre-Council Popes); or “the errors of the Council are not really from the Council but from the general interpretation of it?”
5. COMMON OBJECTION: “You SSPX, Marian Corps Resistance priests are just exaggerating matters and making mountains out of mole hills!”
REPLY: The Roman Catholic Faith comes from above. Christ the King is not an option! Public Revelation must be believed to save our souls. If anyone, be he pope, bishop or priest compromises or puts the Faith in danger, then, like St. Paul to St. Peter, there had better be a strong resistance and
opposition!
St. Thomas Aquinas warned that inferiors have a duty to publicly rebuke superiors who play with the Faith, Abp. Lefebvre and Bp. de Castro Meyer were the only two, out of 2,300 bishops in the world, to openly resist the Vatican II Popes, in defense of Catholic Tradition.
If playing with the Faith endangers one’s eternity and placing the one True Faith (outside of which there is no salvation) in serious danger (by the liberal compromises in the documents and 6 Conditions officially signed and sent from Menzingen to Modernist Rome) then, truly, every single baptized Catholic is obliged to resist and demand more than a mere verbal: “I didn’t mean it.”
It’s a contradiction to say one rejects Vatican II, when the official documents from Menzingen say the 2nd Vatican Council is only “tainted with errors,” and accept the Council as “deepening” and “enlightening” Catholic Tradition (cf. General Chapter Statement and Doctrinal Declaration 2012).
It’s a contradiction to say the New Mass is “bad” when the official documents signed by the Superior General and Assistants declare it’s “legitimately promulgated”! (Which is the same as declaring it “legitimate,” …which is one step from celebrating it!).
It’s a contradiction to say with passing words that “things are back to the way they were under Abp. Lefebvre” when the 2012 documents clearly express a desire of openness to the Conciliar Church, as long as they grant us our Traditional Altars in the Ecumenical Pantheon, (cf. 1st Sine Qua Non Condition). Or, as the notorious General Chapter Statement of July 14, 2012 put it: “We have DETERMINED and APPROVED the necessary conditions for an eventual CANONICAL NORMALIZATION,” regardless of Rome’s return to Tradition!
It’s a contradiction for the Superior General to say in the Sydney, Australia Conference in August, 2012, explaining that he SIGNED the Doctrinal Declaration of April 15, 2012; and he also said, “This text…I was told—the Pope was satisfied with it.” And to say in his October Conference of 2013 that he did not sign it. Either this is a true lapse of memory or a bold lie. What are we to think?
It’s a contradiction to try to use Abp. Lefebvre to defend the new liberal ideas presented in the documents sent to Rome, when he clearly opposed such a direction, especially in his last three years. In fact, he laid down clear guidelines for every future Superior General to follow: “…Supposing that Rome calls for a renewed dialogue, then, I will put conditions. […] I will place the discussion at the DOCTRINAL LEVEL: ‘Do you agree with the great encyclicals of all the popes who preceded you? Do you agree with Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Immortale Dei and Libertas of Leo XIII, Pascendi Gregis of Pius X, Quas Primas of Pius XI, Humani Generis of Pius XII? Are you in full communion with these Popes and their teachings? Do you still accept the entire Anti-Modernist Oath? Are you in favor of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ? IF YOU DO NOT ACCEPT THE DOCTRINE OF YOUR PREDECESSORS, IT IS USELESS TO TALK!” (Abp. Lefebvre, Fideliter, Nov-Dec 1988).
These are the clear-cut conditions Abp. Lefebvre laid down, but these were abandoned for the more complying 6 Conditions…all in the name of “prudence”! As he himself frequently preached “…One does not dialogue with Error, with the Freemasons, with the Destroyers of Christ’s Social Reign and their father, the Devil!” (Abp. Lefebvre, Sermon in Martingy, December 8, 1984).
If people’s bank accounts were played with the way the True Faith is now, there would be a universal outcry. How much more should we love Christ, the True God, more than filthy lucre? How must we, sons of Martyrs, be up in arms with anyone who dares to play with the Faith as a negotiating item for steps towards an agreement, with authorities that crush the Faith! (Let it be noted well, Pope Benedict XVI was far more successful in this deception than even the reigning Pope Francis!).
Enough. Let the father have the last words:
Why I Refused to Put Myself in their Hands – Archbishop Lefebvre
Interview w/ CONTROVERSES
CONTROVERSES: Archbishop, the consecrations that you performed last June 30th have raised quite a stir. Curiously, it is not the “silent” faithful, but the main spokesmen of various traditional associations that have expressed their disapproval of your decision to ensure the future of Tradition. How do you explain their declarations of unwavering commitment to the See of Peter?
ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE: Actually, I do not really see which traditional associations expressed their disapproval of the consecrations. In general, the people who expressed their disapproval were not entirely with us and were not attending our organization, but had a certain sympathy for Tradition while professing unconditional submission to Rome. It is imperative to know that today Rome is at the service of the revolution and therefore terribly anti-traditional.
That is why I refused to put myself in their hands. They only wanted that, by recognizing my mistakes, I help them continue their revolution in the Church – no more, no less. All those who have left us are not aware of the situation and believe in the good will and the rectitude of thought of the bishops or cardinals in Rome. Nothing is further from the truth! ‘It is not possible for them to lead us into the revolution,’ say those who agree with the Pope and his bishops. Well, that is exactly what will happen.
C: In some newspapers like 30 Jours dans l’Eglise and Le Monde, Vie actuelle and others, Cardinals Ratzinger and Oddi gave interviews in which they admit, to cite just Cardinal Oddi, that “you had not been wrong on all counts,” which makes some people say that there is a certain change inside the Roman curia. What is your opinion?
ABL: If we read the interview of Cardinal Ratzinger, we must from now on take care to apply the Council properly, not to err in its application and be careful not to repeat the errors that we might have made. He does not speak about changing its principles. Even if he comes to the point of admitting that the fruits of the last council are not the ones he expected, he opts to go back to the basic principles and to do it in a way in which there will be no more difficulty in the future. Thus, they did not understand what the return to Tradition that we are demanding means, and consequently they do not want to return to the Tradition of the predecessors of John XXIII.
C: These days, we often hear about “living Tradition.” What do you think is the meaning of this expression?
ABL: Well, let us take the condemnation of us that the pope made in the Moto Proprio.[ii] This condemnation is based on “an erroneous concept of Tradition.” In fact, the pope, in the Motu Proprio, condemns us because we do not accept “living Tradition.” But the way in which this “living Tradition” is understood was condemned by Saint Pius X in his encyclical Pascendi against modernism, because it entails an evolution based on history, which destroys the notion of dogma, defined for always.
Tradition, according to them, is something that lives and evolves. This “living Tradition” is now the Vatican II Church. It is very serious and denotes a modernist spirit. This new doctrine, because that is what it is, is formally condemned by Pope Saint Pius X. The Church carries Tradition with it. We cannot say something contrary to that which the popes declared in the past. We cannot allow such a thing. It is impossible.
C: Do you think this is why, for last twenty years or so, there have been no more acts of infallibility?
ABL: For the Second Vatican Council, Pope Paul VI did not use the principle of dogmatic infallibility. He was satisfied with declaring it pastoral. The conciliar popes are unable to use their doctrinal infallibility because the very foundation of infallibility is to believe that a truth must be fixed forever and can no longer change: it must remain as it is. John Paul II, even more than Paul VI, does not believe in the immutability of truth.
The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary was defined by Pope Pius XII in 1950. It is now an immutable dogma. For them, no! Over time, there are new scientific explanations, developments of the human mind, progress that alters truth. Therefore, one could possibly say something other than what the popes have said. In an interview with Pope John Paul II, I asked him if he accepted the encyclical Quas Primas of Pius XI, on the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ. He replied, “I think the Pope would not write it in the same way today.” These are our current leaders. We certainly cannot put ourselves in their hands.
C: Among those who have accepted the proposals of the Pope, there is Dom Gérard. What do you personally think of his decision?
ABL: At our last meeting, he asked me if he could accept the protocol that I myself refused. I told him that his situation was not the same as mine, that the Society has spread throughout the world, while he is responsible only for his monastery. “You may be able to defend yourselves more easily. But I am not for an agreement. I believe that at present, an agreement is bad.”
And I even wrote to him. We must no longer discuss with the Roman authorities. They only want to bring us back to the Council; we must not have a relationship with them. Dom Gérard replied that his case was different and that he would try anyway. I do not approve. The last time that we saw each other, I told him:
Quote:“Dom Gérard, you will do what you want, and I will say what I want. For the people, your submission to Roman authority is your separation from Écône and Archbishop Lefebvre. From now on, you will seek your support from other bishops. Up to this point, you turned to me; well, now it is over. I consider you like I do the priests who have left us. We will no longer have a relationship because you have dealings with those who persecute us. You have put yourself in other hands.”
Five years ago already, Dom Gerard made a statement in his newsletter to benefactors in which he said that he wanted to be more open to those who are not like us, to no longer remain in sterile criticism, to receive everyone in the hope of having them participate in Tradition. This he did, and now he is a prisoner of all these people, of these writers, the media, teachers, like Bruckberger, Raspail; he preferred them to us. He is now in the hands of modernists.
C: How do you judge the proposals made to the Prior of the monastery of Barroux?
ABL: For them, their goal is to divide Tradition. They already have Dom Augustin,[iii] they have de Blignières,[iv] and now they have Dom Gérard. This weakens our position still further. It is their goal: divide to make us disappear.
Cardinal Ratzinger said in an interview given to a Frankfurt newspaper that it is unacceptable that there are groups of Catholics who are attached to Tradition in such a way that they are no longer in perfect agreement with that which all the bishops of the world think. They do not want to admit our existence. They cannot tolerate us in the Church. Dom Gérard does not want to believe this.
C: Marc Dem just published a beautiful book dedicated to Dom Gérard and his work. This publication seems to come at a bad time for the Prior, who is described in it as one of the pillars of the reconstruction of Christianity, faithful to Tradition and to Your Excellency.
ABL: I congratulated Dom Gérard for this book and he replied, “Do not talk to me about it, I do not want to hear about it, it is not I who wrote it, it is Marc Dem.” All this because Marc Dem presented Dom Gérard as he was originally, as a soldier and fighter for the Faith.
C: Contacts with Rome are not broken. It even appears that talks could resume this fall. Can you talk about that?
ABL: These are fabrications. If ever there were a willingness from Rome to resume discussions, this time, I will be the one to set down the conditions. As Cardinal Oddi said, “Archbishop Lefebvre is in a strong position.” That is why I will demand that the discussions concern doctrinal points. They have to stop with their ecumenism, they have to bring back the true meaning of the Mass, restore the true definition of the Church, bring back the Catholic meaning of collegiality, and so on.
I expect from them a Catholic, and not a liberal, definition of religious liberty. They must accept the encyclical Quas Primas on Christ the King, and the Syllabus (Pius IX). They must accept all this, because this is from now on the condition determining all new discussions between us and them.
C: In conclusion, after all the events of this summer, what advice do you give your faithful?
ABL: The only goal that the faithful must have in front of them is the universal reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ over individuals, families, cities; there is no other religion that can remain under this reign.
If it happens that I teach you something other than this, do not listen to me. As Saint Paul says: “If an angel from heaven or myself would teach you a doctrine contrary to what I taught you before, do not follow me, let me be anathema.” The good Catholic sense of our faithful has made it that 90% - and still more, I think – continue to follow us. This was confirmed by the pontificate of Benedict XVI, which has never ceased to defend the same line.
[ii] The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, "comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth". But it is especially a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church, belonging to the Bishop of Rome and to the main body of Bishops, that is contradictory. No one can remain faithful to Tradition while breaking the ecclesial link with him to whom Christ, in the person of the apostle Peter, entrusted the ministry of unity in His Church. (Apostolic letter "Ecclesia Dei" of the supreme pontiff John Paul II, given Motu Proprio, July 2, 1988, No. 4)
[iii] Dom Augustin-Marie Joly (1917-2006), founder of the Abbey of Saint-Joseph de Clairval, in Flavigny, recognized as a monastery of diocesan right on February 2, 1988.
[iv] Fr. Louis-Marie de Blignières founded the Society of Saint Vincent Ferrer in 1979. In 1987, this community within the traditional sphere of influence, “realizing that their doctrinal position on the issue of religious liberty in Vatican II was not correct,” took steps toward Rome in order to try to obtain canonical recognition. Following the consecrations of 1988, their small group was recognized as a Religious Institute of Pontifical Right. (cf. Fr. Dominique-Marie de Saint Laumer, new prior of the Society of Saint Vincent Ferrer as of September 2011, in La Nef No. 239, July –August 2012).
“Let us not set foot in the opposing camp, because we would thus be giving the enemy a proof of our weakness, which the enemy would try to interpret as a sign of weakness and a mark of complicity!”
---St. Pius X
FOOTNOTES
1. Learn from the enemy, as well! A Modernist, Cardinal Decourtray, known for his friendly ties with leading Freemasons, had this revealing comment on December 4, 1988 at a meeting held in Lourdes, France: “If Abp. Lefebvre had confirmed the signature given on May 5, 1988, it would have shown that he was willing to accept all of Vatican II, along with the authority of the current Pope and local bishops it united. In fact, if Abp. Lefebvre did not accept the Protocol proposed to him, it is precisely because he suddenly understood its real meaning. ‘They wanted to deceive us,’ he said. That meant: ‘They wanted us to accept the Council!’” (Card. Decourtray, Progress in Fidelity to the Council, Bishops’ Meeting in Lourdes, Dec. 4, 1988).
Also, speaking of the compromising declaration that the ex-SSPX priests joining St. Peter’s Fraternity had to sign in 1988, the same Cardinal said: “The diverse points of this declaration are nearly those of the Protocol, refused on May 6 by Abp. Lefebvre.”
Let all those who argue that Abp. Lefebvre never retracted the May 5, 1988 Protocol think again!
“Contra factum, not fit argumentum!”
2. “We are forced to choose. Naturally, in our time of liberalism many people cannot understand that we can defend opinions that can seem “outdated,” “antiquated,” “medieval,” etc. But the doctrine of the Church is the doctrine of the Church. When the popes condemned liberty of thought, liberty of conscience, liberty of religions, they explained why they condemned them. Leo XIII wrote long encyclicals on the subject. One only has to read them [to understand the reasons for these condemnations]; the same applies for Pope Pius IX and Pope Gregory XVI. Again, all of this is based on the Church’s fundamental principles, on the fact that the Church is truth, the only truth. This is the way it is; you either believe it or you don’t, of course, but when you believe, then you have to draw the consequences. That is why, personally, I do not believe that the declarations of the Council on liberty of conscience, liberty of thought, and liberty of religion can be compatible with what the popes taught in the past. Therefore, we have to choose. Either we choose what the popes have taught for centuries and we choose the Church or we choose what was said by the Council. But we cannot choose both at the same time since they are contradictory.” (Abp. Lefebvre, Press Conference, September 15, 1976; from Itineraires, entitled “La condemnation sauvage de Mgr. Lefebvre,” April 1977, p. 299).
Source: The Recusant
|
|
|
|
| Fr. Hewko: 2014 Open Letter to SSPX Priests - Unfurl the Catholic Banner |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-11-2020, 08:24 AM - Forum: Rev. Father David Hewko
- No Replies
|
|
Fr. David Hewko - Unfurl the Catholic Banner! Open Letter to SSPX Priests September 25th, 2014
Two years ago, the Doctrinal Declaration (April 15, 2012) which compromised on major points of DOCTRINE and signed by Bishop Fellay was sent to Rome with the hopes of an agreement. As of Bishop Fellay's meeting on September 21, 2014 (as reported by Della Sala Stampa of the Vatican Press) it is glaringly evident that the "full reconciliation" or agreement is decidedly established, the only question is when.
Fr. Valan Raja Kumar, SSPX-MC, put it simply: "The SSPX died two years ago (2012); now (2014) they are discussing the burial place and time." Catholic Tradition is tottering to its fall! The betrayal of the SSPX Superiors to Our Lord Jesus Christ, God and King, has been consummated. The evidence is clear. It is an established fact. Dress it up in terms of "prudence," "practical negotiations," "unilateral recognition of tolerance," etc., the fact is obvious to all who have eyes to see, the old SSPX is essentially over.
As an appeal to all the priests of the Society of St. Pius X and all the faithful as well, have the resounding words of Archbishop Lefebvre been forgotten so soon? Has the combat for Catholic Tradition crumbled to the new version of "Trad-Ecumenism" with the liberal Catholic positions such as St. Peter's, Ecclesia Dei, Una Voce, etc., etc.? Have the SSPX priests agreed to trade in their boxing gloves for ballerina slippers; traded the "sword of the spirit" for the "fables" of Liberal Catholicism; the defense of the true Christ the King for "religious freedom within the Conciliar Church"? (cf. 1st Condition for Agreement with Rome, 2012).
Whatever happened to the stand of Abp. Lefebvre? "It seems to me, my dear brethren, that I am hearing the voices of all these Popes--since Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XI, Pius XII--telling us: 'Please, we beseech you, what are you going to do with our teachings, with our preaching, with the Catholic Faith? Are you going to abandon it? Are you going to let it disappear from the earth? Please, please continue to keep this treasure which we have given you! Do not abandon the faithful, do not abandon the [Catholic] Church! Continue the [Catholic] Church! Indeed, since the Council, what we [popes] condemned in the past the present authorities have embraced and are professing! How is it possible? We have condemned them: Liberalism, Communism, Socialism, Modernism, Sillonism.'
"All the errors which we [popes] have condemned are now professed, adopted and supported by the authorities of the [Conciliar] Church. Is this possible? Unless you do something to continue this Tradition of the Church which we [popes] have given you, all of it shall disappear. Souls will be lost!" (Abp. Lefebvre, Consecration Sermon, June 30, 1988).
Indeed, all of Catholic Tradition will be "swamped" and "come to naught" (Abp. Lefebvre) when Tradition puts itself under these Modernist authorities.
How long will the watch dogs (i.e. priests) be silent while the SSPX Superiors submit Our Lord's flock to the wolves? Obedience to such a cooperation is a grave sin! Now is the last hour to escape this trap and turn from the Conciliar Church's snare. Unfurl the Catholic banner and proclaim the Truth against this apostate age!
"The Truth needs no disguise," said St. Pius X, "our flag must be unfurled; only by being straightforward and open can we do a little good, resisted no doubt by our enemies, but respected by them." (St. Pius X, October 20, 1912 Letter to Fr. Ciceri).
Let us hold high the great Declaration of 1974 that doesn't pretend to excuse Vatican II or "accept 95% of it," or "simply wish its correction." NO! NO! NO! "Even if all its acts are not formally heretical," said the Archbishop about the Council, "it comes from heresy and results in heresy!" (cf. 1974 Declaration).
"This fight between the Church and the Liberals and Modernism is the fight over Vatican II. It is as simple as that! and the consequences are far reaching. "The more one analyzes the documents of Vatican II, and the more one analyzes their interpretation by the authorities of the Church, the more one realizes that what is at stake are not merely superficial errors, a few mistakes, ecumenism, religious liberty, collegiality, a certain Liberalism, but rather a wholesale perversion of the mind, a whole new philosophy based on modern philosophy, on subjectivism." (Abp. Lefebvre, Econe Address, Sept. 6, 1990, Seven months before his death).
Let us SSPX priests stand by the clear words of Abp. Lefebvre which resound like a trumpet over the battlefield of doctrine: "The only attitude of fidelity to the Church and to Catholic doctrine, is a categorical refusal to accept the reform!" (Abp. Lefebvre, 1974 Declaration). And how close should we get to Modern Rome? "It is, therefore, a strict duty for every priest wanting to remain Catholic to separate himself from the Conciliar Church for as long as it does not rediscover the Tradition of the Church and of the Catholic Faith!" (Abp. Lefebvre, Spiritual Journey, p. 13).
This position has been abandoned by Bp. Fellay and all those now following the path of Operation Suicide. They no longer heed the urgent warning: "It is dangerous to put oneself into the hands of Conciliar Bishops and Modernist Rome! It is the greatest danger threatening our people!" (Abp. Lefebvre, Fideliter, July-August 1989). [cf. See 5th Condition]. In the June 2014 Letter of Dom Tomas Aquinas, OSB, he repeats Abp. Lefebvre's emphasis that the heart of the fight of Catholic Tradition is not firstly the Mass, but Christ's Kingship!
"It is this point, where our opposition lies and the reason why there is no possibility of an agreement. The question is not so much about the Mass, because the Mass is just one consequence of the fact that they wanted to get closer to Protestantism, and thus changing the worship, Sacraments, Catechism, etc. "The real, fundamental opposition is against the Reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ! 'Oportet Illum regnare!' St. Paul tells us Our Lord came to reign. They [Modernist Rome] say 'No!' We say: 'Yes!' with all its consequences!" (Abp. Lefebvre, Fideliter No. 70, 1993).
Dom Bruno, OSB explains the history of the fall and compromise of the Benedictine Monastery of Le Barroux (cf. The Recusant, issue #19, August 2014) while a handful of priests thought to stay and "fight from within." These priests and monks opposed the Liberal direction towards an agreement with Modernist Rome and vowed they would never say the New Mass. Eventually, they did because of the pressure, "unity" placed above the Truth, "personalities" of superiors put above unchanging principles, and they all fell to the new Liberalism and New Mass!
"That was what Fr. De Blignieres did too. He has changed completely. He who had written an entire volume condemning Religious Liberty, he now writes in favor of Religious Liberty! That's not being serious. One cannot rely anymore on men like that, who have understood nothing of the doctrinal question." (Abp. Lefebvre, Fideliter, No. 79, 1991).
Finally, please read the recent Letter of Dom Rafael, OSB dated September 15, 2014. In it, he quotes Bp. De Castro Mayer's insistence that the virtue of Faith, being the foundation of all supernatural life, has to be uncompromising. Any tolerance for error opens the door to all error and heresy! He also quotes the great Cardinal Pie of Poitiers saying: "Battles are won or lost at the DOCTRINAL LEVEL. The error of the French Catholics was to wait and see what the consequences of the French Revolution would be, before reacting, before fighting back against these errors."
So now, it is criminal to wait until the practical agreement between the SSPX and the Conciliar Church is "fully reconciled" before rising up against this toleration of false doctrines. It is putting the practical agreement above Christ the King, above His Divinity, above His Honor, His Doctrine, His Catholic Church! This is the heart of the whole crisis: Our Lord Jesus Christ is GOD. Christ is KING. "Every spirit that dissolveth Jesus is not of God: and this is Antichrist." (I Jn. 4:3). Vatican II dissolves the Divinity and Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ in its very documents!
Therefore, Vatican II is of the spirit of the Antichrist. Now, --the Doctrinal Declaration (April 15, 2012). --the General Chapter Statement (July 14, 2012). --the Six Conditions for the Agreement (July 17, 2012). --the Letter of Bp. Fellay and 2 Assistants to the 3 Bishops (April 14, 2012). --the CNS Interview (May 11, 2012). --the DICI Interview (June 8, 2012). --the La Liberte Interview (May 11, 2001). --the Meeting with Cardinal Muller (September 21, 2014). --the expulsion of Bp. Williamson and numerous priests, the silences and punitive transfers since 2012. All the above proves that the SSPX leaders are now willing to accept Vatican II "in the light of Tradition," the New Mass as "legitimately promulgated," the heresy of Religious Liberty of the Council as "limited, very limited" and "reconcilable with the Magisterium," the New Code, the New Profession of Faith (1989), all of which constitute the "30 pieces of silver" for the Agreement with Modernist Rome.
Agreement or no agreement, these concessions dissolve Our Lord Jesus Christ. The "30 pieces" was paid and never rejected. Only one option remains for any Traditional Catholic priest: It is to openly oppose this Modernism and Operation Suicide of reconciliation with the Conciliar Church. Finally, we have the model before us, and how we should act: "If my work is of God, He will guard it and use it for the good of His Church. Our Lord has promised us, the gates of Hell shall not prevail against her. "This is why I persist, and if you wish to know the real reason for my persistence, it is this. At the hour of my death, when Our Lord asks me: 'What have you done with your episcopate? What have you done with your episcopal and priestly grace?' I do not want to hear from His lips the terrible words: 'You have helped to destroy the Church along with the rest of them." (Abp. Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics, p. 163).
O Immaculate Heart of Mary, Crusher of all heresies, pray for us!
+ + +
Fr. Hewko's above letter may be found in The Recusant, Issue 21 (October 2014).
|
|
|
|
| Fr. Hewko: 2012 Open Letter to Bishop Fellay, Priests, and Faithful |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-11-2020, 08:15 AM - Forum: Rev. Father David Hewko
- No Replies
|
|
OPEN LETTER TO HIS EXCELLENCY BISHOP FELLAY,
SOCIETY PRIESTS, RELIGIOUS AND FAITHFUL
November 8, 2012
Feast of the 4 Holy Crowned Martyrs
When Catholics during the Protestant Revolution were told: “Accept the Oath of Supremacy or death!” most Catholics took the Oath. But the Lord God was pleased to raise up an army of martyrs and a saint-pope who condemned the rising errors at the Council of Trent.
When Catholics during the French Revolution were told: “Peace at the price of a little incense to the ‘gods’ of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity!” Although most compromised, yet God raised up thousands of martyrs and a faithful Resistance from the Vendee. Then, a Cardinal Pie of Poitiers to combat the Revolution’s “peaceful implementations” of the Napoleonic era. Within a century, faithful Catholics rallied behind the Syllabus of Pope Pius IX, who condemned Liberal Catholicism.
When Catholics were told: “Better Red than dead!” refusing to cooperate in what Pius XI called an “intrinsically evil” economic, political and atheistic system, many did nothing, but millions of Catholics filled the Martyrs’ bleachers in Heaven, and heroic resistance was offered on the part of bishops, priests and laity throughout Russia, Ukraine, Poland, China, Vietnam, Hungary, Spain, etc., etc. In Hungary, the so-called “Peace Priests” were promised their Latin Mass, their churches, incense and vestments as long as they remained silent on the “touchy” issue of Communism. Cardinal Mindzenty, one of the few not to bow down, firmly refused and was imprisoned for 14 years.
When Catholics in Mexico were obliged to conform to the anti-Catholic laws of the Freemasonic government under Calles, many only watched from afar, but there rose up the Cristero Resistance who valiantly resisted them, shouting their: “Viva Cristo Rey!” in opposition to the Federalista’s: “Viva Satanas!”
When Catholics were told: “Obey, and submit to the Vatican II Reforms!” Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Bishop de Castro Mayer, and many priests preferred to appear “disobedient” rather than betray the Faith of Tradition. Unfortunately, most clergy and laity falsely “obeyed” and went along with the enforced directives of Vatican II.
It so tragically happens that, now, 42 years after its founding, the “life-boat” of the Society of St.Pius X is being coaxed with sweets and promises into the “harbor” of Modernist Rome filled with “sunken boats” of numerous traditional communities, once publicly opposing the errors of Vatican II.
The SSPX always resisted openly and valiantly, with the grace of God, up until July 14, 2012, when the new direction towards a practical agreement became a “determined” and “approved” endeavor. This change of principle brought about a whole new orientation in the SSPX policy toward Rome and an official departure from the uncompromising stand of Archbishop Lefebvre, expressed in the Declaration of 1974 and the Statements of 1983 and 2006. Before, it was always: “No practical agreement until there’s a doctrinal agreement;” now, it’s “practical agreement without first the doctrinal agreement.” Dare we say: “Go along to get along? Agree to disagree?” (A small error in the principles leads to disastrous conclusions).
Archbishop Lefebvre was our holy Founder. He not only had the grace of state of a Superior General, but also the grace of state as a Founder of a religious organization, to which he sought to impart his (1) spirit; (2) his principles; and (3) his experience. These were the fruit of many years of leadership in a wide variety of pastures. He was a theologian of high repute (cf. The testimony and praise of Canon Berto, the Archbishop’s episcopal theologian during Vatican II). He was a bishop and later, archbishop (with several bishops subject to him). He was the papal representative for all of French-speaking Africa. He was the Superior General of the largest Missionary Religious Order in the Church. He was a frequent visitor to the Popes in Rome. He was on the Preparatory Commission for the Second Vatican Council. He was a key member of “Coetus Internationalis Patrum” during the Council. He made many interventions during the Council (cf. I Accuse the Council! by Archbishop Lefebvre). He was not afraid to challenge and rebuke both the Council and the Popes of the Council afterwards. He was the man of the Church chosen by Divine Providence to launch the SSPX despite tremendous pressure from inside and outside the Church. His role of saving the Church and Priesthood was prophesied by the Virgin Mary in Ecuador, nearly 350 years ago! From such a man there is much to learn.
Fr. Ludovic Barrielle (so highly revered by the Archbishop) commented in 1982: “I am writing this to serve as a lesson for everyone. The day that the SSPX abandons the spirit and rules of its Founder, it will be lost. Furthermore, all our brothers who, in the future, allow themselves to judge and condemn the Founder and his principles, will show no hesitation in eventually taking away from the Society the Traditional Teaching of the Church and the Mass instituted by Our Lord Jesus Christ.”
Would it not be accurate to say that Archbishop Lefebvre’s spirit, principles, and experience are summarized in the following response as well as warning, made to his sons? When asked about reopening dialogue with Rome in 1988 (after he admitted that signing the May Protocol was a big mistake), he replied: “We do not have the same outlook on reconciliation. Cardinal Ratzinger sees it as reducing us, bringing us back to Vatican II. We see it as a return of Rome to Tradition. We don’t agree; it is a dialogue of death. I can’t speak much of the future, mine is behind me, but if I live a little while, supposing that Rome calls for a renewed dialogue, then I will put conditions. I shall not accept being in the position where I was put during the dialogue. No more!
“I will place the discussion AT THE DOCTRINAL LEVEL: ‘Do you agree with the great encyclicals of all the Popes who preceded you? Do you agree with Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Immortale Dei and Libertas of Leo XIII, Pascendi of Pius X, Quas Primas of Pius XI, Humani Generis of Pius XII? Are you in full communion with these Popes and their teachings? Do you still accept the entire anti-Modernist Oath? Are you in favor of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ? If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, it is useless to talk! As long as you do not accept the correction of the Council, in the light of the doctrines of these Popes, your predecessors, no dialogue is possible! It is useless! Thus the positions will be clear.” (Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican, p. 223, Interview of Fideliter Nov-Dec 1988). [N.B. See more related quotes opposing an agreement, at the end. They far outnumber the few expressing slight hope for some agreement, before 1988.]
Our dear Founder clearly saw “three surrenders” by making a merely practical agreement with Modernist Rome, regardless of the number of conditions, which are: (1) surrender to Rome’s ultimate power of veto on the major decisions of the Society; (2) surrender of the power of veto over any future elected Superior General; and (3) surrender of the power of veto over the names of candidates proposed as future bishops. With these influential powers handed over to the enemies of Jesus Christ, “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.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Dec. 13, 1984 Address to Priests of the French District).
And further: “That is why what can look like a concession, is in reality, merely a maneuver.” And more: “We must absolutely convince our faithful that it is no more than a maneuver, that it is dangerous to put oneself into the hands of Conciliar bishops and Modernist Rome! It is the greatest danger threatening our people! If we have struggled for twenty years to avoid the Conciliar errors, it was not in order to, now, put ourselves in the hands of those professing these errors!” (Archbishop Lefebvre Interview, Fideliter, July-August 1989).
“I said to him [Cardinal Ratzinger who became Pope Benedict XVI] ‘Even if you grant us a bishop, even if you grant us some autonomy from the bishops, even if you grant us the 1962 Liturgy, even if you allow us to continue running our seminaries in the manner we are doing it right now—we cannot work together! It is impossible! Impossible! Because we are working in diametrically opposing directions; you are working to de-Christianize society, the human person, and the Church, and we are working to Christianize them. We cannot get along together!’ Rome has lost the Faith, my dear friends, Rome is in apostasy! I am not speaking empty words! That is the truth! Rome is in apostasy! One can no longer have any confidence in these people! They have left the Church! They have left the Church! They have left the Church! It is certain! Certain! Certain! (Marcel Lefebvre, by Bp. Tissier de Mallerais, p.548. The above is an accurate translation from YouTube audio of the actual voice of Archbishop Lefebvre).
But the objection can be heard: “That’s exaggerated, Father, there’s no agreement yet, and there won’t be one under this pontificate, all is back to normal!”
Such are the words. But why so many actions to the contrary? Why, then, was the General Chapter Declaration of 2012 not amended to conform to all the previous SSPX Declarations? Why were the “6 Conditions” left to remain flimsy and uncorrected? (In other words, why is the “For Sale” sign still out on the front lawn?) Why do the expulsions, silencing, refusal of Holy Communions, threats and punishments not desist for those openly opposing a false agreement? Why the expulsion of Bishop Williamson who openly adhered to the non-compromising line of Archbishop Lefebvre? Why the sigh-of-relief expressed by an SSPX spokesman upon the expulsion of Bishop Williamson: “The decision will certainly facilitate the talks [with Rome]?” (Fr. Andreas Steiner to the German News Agency DPA).
Why, upon the 50th Anniversary of “the greatest disaster in the history of the Church” (Archbishop Lefebvre) Vatican II, the overwhelming silence on the official websites (cf.SSPX.org and DICI) of our Founder’s condemnation of the errors of the Council, unless it be to avoid such “polemical hindrances” towards an agreement? Why the recent “Ecclesia Dei” press release about negotiations still continuing? Why such a minimum reaction, in comparison with that of Archbishop Lefebvre, to the trampling of the First Commandment at Assisi III? Why were the ambiguous interviews of CNS, DICI and YouTube (granted, “cut and paste” but) not promptly corrected and still, as yet, not clarified? (For example: “…We see that, in the discussions, many things which we would have condemned as being from the Council are, in fact, not from the Council, but the common understanding of it [….]. Many people understand wrongly the Council [….] the Council presents a religious freedom that is a freedom that is very, very limited.” (Bishop Fellay, CNS Interview, May 11, 2012, 1:06 until 1:23). What happened to the “I accuse the Council,” pronounced by Archbishop Lefebvre?
Your Excellency, please return to your former preaching of the “Truth in charity!” When you once openly warned the priests of Campos, Brazil not to make a practical agreement with Modernist Rome. You once traced the fall of Campos under Bishop Rifan, and a similar pattern is now engulfing our dear Society! You once said: “For the time being, however, things are not yet at that point (i.e. Rome’s conversion to Tradition) and to foster illusions would be deadly for the SSPX, as we can see, when we follow the turn of events in Campos.” (Bishop Fellay’s Letter to Friends and Benefactors #63, Jan. 6, 2003).
You once told us: “I think Rome’s friendliness towards us is because of its ecumenical mentality. It is certainly not because Rome is now saying to us, ‘Of course, you are right, let’s go.’ No, that’s not the way Rome thinks about us. The idea they have is another one. The idea is an ecumenical one. It is the idea of pluricity, pluriformity!” (Letter to Friends and Benefactors #65, Dec, 8, 2003). This ecumenical mentality has only increased with Pope Benedict XVI (e.g. the scandals of Assisi III, visits to the Mosque, Synagogues, admittance of Anglicans without renouncing their errors, etc.).
As for Rome “changing towards Tradition,” we can recall similar conditions promised to the Le Barroux Monastery to freely preach against Modernism, and have the True Mass, but under the agreement, they collapsed to compromise, accepting the New Mass within 5 years after! As recent as March 2012, the Good Shepherd Institute has been seriously pressured by Rome to teach Vatican II in their seminary and adopt the New Catechism. The Redemptorists in Scotland were officially put under the diocesan bishop as of August 15, 2012. Our dear Founder explained the reason why up to nine traditional communities yielded to compromise the Faith, because “IT IS NOT THE SUBJECTS WHO FORM THE SUPERIORS, BUT THE SUPERIORS WHO FORM THE SUBJECTS.” (Archbishop Lefebvre 1989 Interview One Year After the Consecrations). (“Let him who thinks he stands,…”).
Seeing the sorrowful direction of our dear SSPX now only confirms more and more that it really is determined to enter into an agreement with the Conciliar Church without a doctrinal resolution and, as the 6 Conditions prove, willingly enter an agreement that will, by that very fact, subject the SSPX to Modernist Rome. “We have determined and approved the necessary conditions for an eventual canonical normalization” (General Chapter Statement of SSPX, July 14, 2012). It is not rumors, it is there, “in stone.”
How is it possible for a priest of the SSPX to be true to his anti-Modernist Oath and, therefore, obliged to preach against Modernism, against Rome’s being
infected with Modernism, and the insanity of making a merely practical, impossible agreement with Modernist Rome, and yet consequently, be continually silenced?
Recent events show such priests are subject to punishments by silence, punitive transfers or expulsion. How is it possible for a priest to preach the Truth “in season and out of season” in such an atmosphere?
So, I desire with all my heart to maintain the anti-Modernist Oath I made before the Most Blessed Sacrament and intend to keep it, by keeping the same sense and meaning of the doctrine of the Church of all time. Furthermore, I cannot speak for other priests, but I cannot abandon the clear, unambiguous stand of our Founder, Archbishop Lefebvre (who would doubtlessly fiercely oppose this new direction since July 2012) and choose to appear “disobedient” while, in fact, truly obeying the directives of our Founder.
To our young Catholic people, “be strong, let the Word of God abide in you, and you will overcome the wicked one” (I John 2:14). The Archbishop once said: “Some people call me ‘dissident’ and a ‘rebel,’ and if that means against the Vatican II Council and the Liberal Reforms, then yes, I am ‘dissident’ and a ‘rebel.’” So, I humbly add, that, if, to oppose this direction towards subjecting Catholic Tradition to Modernists who do not hold the integral Catholic Faith (and thereby endangering the eternal salvation of countless souls!) then yes, following Archbishop Lefebvre, I too am “dissident” and a “rebel.” On the contrary, the truth appears to be that the “rebellion” has been committed by SSPX members who favor an agreement and thereby rebel against the principles and tradition of the Society. In good conscience, I cannot follow in that direction.
So, therefore, after several months of much prayer and reflection, it seems clearly the Will of God that I help in the Resistance to the dismantling of Archbishop Lefebvre’s work, by assisting the priests who want to maintain his principles. The present address is:
16 Dogwood Road South
Hubbardston, MA 01452 .
(Warning: Be slow to believe cyberrumors such as “this is a repetition of ‘the 9’ in 1983.” Stay with the actual documents, letters and facts. See especially the well-documented work, Is This Operation Suicide? by Stephen Fox).
Doubtless, I seem bold in expressing myself in this manner! But it is with ardent love that I compose these lines, love of God’s glory, love of Jesus Christ the King, love of Mary, of the souls, of the Society of St. Pius X, of the Church, of the Holy Father, the Pope! Just as the SSPX had always continued the Archbishop’s work, until Rome returns to Tradition; so the SSPX priests of the Resistance will continue his work, with God’s grace, “without bitterness or resentment,” until the leaders of the SSPX return to our Founder’s principles.
Your Excellency, I would be happy to see you when you pass by.
May your Excellency deign to accept my gratitude and the assurance of my most respectful devotion in Our Lord,
Fr. David Hewko
“The greatest service we can render the Catholic Church, the Successor of Peter, the salvationof souls and our own, is to say ‘NO’ to the reformed Liberal Church because we believe in Our Lord Jesus Christ, Son-of-God-made-Man, Who is neither liberal nor reformable!”
-(Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (Sept. 3, 1975, Letter to Friends and Benefactors #9)
“It is, therefore, a strict duty for every priest wanting to remain Catholic to separate himself from this Conciliar Church, for as long as it does not rediscover the Tradition of the Church and of the Catholic Faith.” - (Archbishop Lefebvre (Spiritual Journey, p. 13)
+ + +
Rewind – Fr. David Hewko’s Open Letter to Bishop Fellay – November 8, 2012
|
|
|
|
| Fr. Hewko Statement: August 2019 - On the New Rite of Ordination |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-11-2020, 08:05 AM - Forum: Rev. Father David Hewko
- No Replies
|
|
Statement from Fr. Hewko - August 1, 2019
Quote:If anyone wants to know where I stand, it is with Abp. Marcel Lefebvre. He surpassed the best theologians of his time and he, by far, surpasses all the lay theologians of the internet! That is where I stand, period! He said these New Rites of Pope Paul VI were doubtful, period! He spoke extensively on this, without necessarily falling into sedevacantism. There is an undefinable darkness about this evil which Sacred Scripture calls the "mystery of iniquity", it is, without a doubt, partly what Our Lady of Fatima spoke of in Her Third Secret that was supposed to be revealed in 1960, that is why Abp. Lefebvre said he sees the necessity to conditionally reconfirm and reordain those coming from the New Rite. There is great wisdom in his position, "Neither Modernist nor Schismatic (or sedevacantist)!"
|
|
|
|
| By Rejecting Christ as King, Mas has Created Hell on Earth |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-11-2020, 08:03 AM - Forum: Sermons by Date
- Replies (1)
|
|
From the Archived Catacombs:
Thank you to Erich who posted these perceptive words in the comment section below the video: "It seems to me that man, by rejecting Christ as King, has created hell on earth"
Right principles vs Rights of man
[11:30] Fr. Denis Fahey explains Catholic action: What is Catholic action that we Catholics are supposed to be doing especially the lay people?
While not engaging in party politics, in America we wouldn't be pushing for democrat or republican, but Catholic action aims at what? It aims at preparing men to act as good politicians to work for the common good according to right principles. It seeks them to prepare the consciences of citizens politically and equip them also as Christians and Catholics. In other words Catholic action is to prepare and educate the population towards the Kingship of Jesus Christ.
[18:00 min.] Fr. Hewko: “Be reminded this Declaration of the Rights of Man was put out in 1793 and it was condemned by the Church.”
Excerpt from Fr. Fahey's book The Social Rights of Jesus Christ the King
pg. 138-140
Quote:...Him is such a horrible and mad crime as to be scarcely credible. For He is the origin and source of all good and just as mankind could not be freed from slavery but by the sacrifice of Christ, so neither can it be preserved but by His power”. (same Enclyclical Letter, Tametsi, 1900). When a people which has grasped the truth of the Divine Plan turns against our Lord, by leaving Him out of account and by passing over in silence the rights of the Head of the Mystical Body, it commits apostasy and initiates the most fightful disorder. Having rejected the dependence of mankind on the Sacred Humanity of Jesus, man must necessarily put himself and his own natural life in the place of God. Now it is precisely in this that Rationalism consists and this is exactly what we find in the “Declaration of the Right of Man” of 1789. We behold, on the one hand, social apostasy and the rejection of our Lord Jesus Christ, on the other, the substitution of man for God or the worship of humanity. (1)
The Preamble to this infamous document runs as follows: “The representatives of The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of 1791 and of 1793, made explicit certain points implicitly contained in that of 1789.
...the French people met together in a national assemble, considering that the ignorance, forgetfulness or contempt of the rights of man are the sole causes of public misfortunes and of the corruption of governments, have decided to set forth, in a solemn Delcaration, the natural, inalienable and sacred rights of man, so that this Declaration, being ever before the eyes of all the membrs of society, may unceasingly remind them of their rights and duties….
“Consequently, the National Assembly recognises and declares, in the presence and under the auspices of the Supremem Being, the following rights of man and the citizen.
“Art. I. Men are born free and equal in rights and continue so. Social distinction can be founded only on public utility….
“Art III. The source of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation. No society,no individual, can exercise an authority which does not emanate from it expressly.
“Art IV. Liberty is the power of doing what we will, so long as it does not injure another: The only limits of each man’s natural rights are such as secure the same rights to others; these limits are determinable only by law.
“Art. VI. The law is the Expression of the general will……..
“Art X. No one can be molested for his opinion, even for his religious opinions, provided their manifestation does not trouble the public order established by law.
“Art XI. The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man; therefore every citizen is allowed freedom of speech, of writing, and of printing, but will have to answer for any abuse of that liberty in cases determined by law.”
Only a few of the articles of the Declaration are quoted. They will, however, be quite sufficient to illustrate the Rousseauist-Masonic doctrine of the immanent divinity of man which underlies the whole document. Of course there is a certain vagueness about some of the formulae. This is a well-known Masonic trick to deceive the unwary.
For example, the uninitiated interpret the first article as follows: Men are free, that is, they can do what the law does not forbid: they may even profess the religion which pleases the; men are equal in rights, that is, all are equal before the law, all are eligible for public offices, all are subject to public duties, to taxes, etc. But the real meaning, the one behind which is the whole driving force of masonry and secret societies generally, is that each man in the sate of nature, to which we must return to be happy, is free and independent like God. All are equally God. Man is born free; that is, unrestrained license is an absolute exigency of human nature; any kind of submission to any man is contrary to nature. As all are equally God, nature demands tht the strictest equality should be realised amongst men, and that, therefore, everyone should have a vote. Accordingly, in a State correctly formed, an absolute social equality should counterbalance natural inequalities. Needless to say the logical consequence is Communism. For if all men are equal, why are some rich and others poor? The right of private property is the greatest cause of social inequality, so it must be abolished.Other distinctions must disappear as well. If all men are equal, the classifications of superiors and inferiors, parents and children, husbands and wives must be eliminated.
|
|
|
|
| Pictures of Fr. Hewko's Ordination |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-11-2020, 07:54 AM - Forum: Rev. Father David Hewko
- Replies (4)
|
|
Pictures of Fr. Hewko's Ordination gratefully 'borrowed' from HERE:
Rev. Fr. David Hewko was ordained on April 21, 1992 in St. Mary’s, Kansas, USA by Bishop Richard Williamson.
(Society St. Pius X, founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre)
Deo Gratias!
|
|
|
|
| Doctor on CNN: Don’t be ‘alarmed’ if elderly die after receiving COVID vaccine |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-11-2020, 07:30 AM - Forum: COVID Vaccines
- No Replies
|
|
Doctor on CNN: Don’t be ‘alarmed’ if elderly die after receiving COVID vaccine
Dr. Kelly Moore said that people 'should not be unnecessarily alarmed if there are reports, once we start vaccinating, of someone or multiple people dying within a day or two of their vaccination who are residents of a long-term care facility.'
December 9, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – A doctor told CNN that nobody should be “surprised” to see reports of “multiple people dying” at long-term care facilities a day or two after having received the COVID vaccination.
Dr. Kelly Moore, associate director of the Immunization Action Coalition, told CNN last week that the COVID-19 vaccines have not been tested on the “frail elderly.”
"Since they haven't been studied in people in those populations, we don't know how well the vaccine will work for them. We know that most vaccines don't work nearly as well in a frail elderly person as they would in someone who is fit and vigorous, even if they happen to be the same age," said Moore.
Moore said that Americans need to be prepared for reports about the elderly dying “a day or two” after receiving the vaccine jab, adding that such deaths are a “normal occurrence” that may have nothing to do with the vaccine since such people “die frequently.”
"We would not at all be surprised to see, coincidentally, vaccination happening and then having someone pass away a short time after they receive a vaccine, not because it has anything to do with the vaccination but just because that's the place where people at the end of their lives reside," Moore said.
"One of the things we want to make sure people understand is that they should not be unnecessarily alarmed if there are reports, once we start vaccinating, of someone or multiple people dying within a day or two of their vaccination who are residents of a long-term care facility. That would be something we would expect, as a normal occurrence, because people die frequently in nursing homes,” Moore added.
Last week, a panel of doctors advising the U.S. Centers for Disease Prevention and Control (CDC) voted to recommend that elderly staff of long-term care facilities be among the first in line to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. Out of the panel of 14 advisers, however, one doctor voted against the recommendation.
Vanderbilt University researcher Helen Keipp Talbot, who studies vaccines in older adults, told the committee ahead of the Dec. 1 vote that data is lacking to support the use of a COVID vaccine for the elderly in long-term care residents.
“I have spent my career studying vaccines in older adults. We have traditionally tried a vaccine in a young, healthy population and then hoped it worked in our frail, older adults. And so we enter this realm of ‘We hope it works and we hope it’s safe.’ And that concerns me on many levels,” Moore said.
Paul Joseph Watson commented at Summit News that there appears to be a double standard when it comes to attributing causes of death to the elderly during COVID times.
Quote:“While deaths in care homes of people who take the vaccine are described as normal and nothing to do with the vaccine, some would suggest that you could make the exact same argument about deaths of those with multiple comorbidities in care homes that were put down to COVID. Many have and have been shouted down for doing so,” he said.
Last week, the German federal government began preparing citizens for deaths that will happen after people are injected with a COVID-19 vaccine, but not necessarily caused by it.
Lothar H. Wieler, president of the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin, the national public health institute in Germany, said Dec. 3 that with an average of 2,500 people dying each day in Germany, it is probable that some will die after having taken the vaccine.Quote:“That means there is the possibility — and it is statistically very probable — that people, in connection with the vaccination, will die. Then it will be extremely important to determine whether the cause of death was the vaccine or another pre-existing disease,” he said. “This is precisely why we need vaccination centers with centralized data collection for tracking side effects,” he added.
Children’s Health Defense is urging the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to “take a cautious approach in approving COVID-19 vaccines that have been developed at ‘warp speed,’” noting that the potential long-term pathologic effects of taking such vaccines remain unknown.
“Unfortunately, conditions such as allergies, autoimmune diseases, neurodevelopmental problems, and cancers are unlikely to be detectable within the short clinical trial follow-up windows,” Robert Kennedy Jr., chairman of Children’s Health Defense, stated in a Dec. 4 open letter to Peter Marks, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.
LifeSiteNews has produced an extensive COVID-19 vaccines resources page. View it here.
[Emphasis mine.]
|
|
|
|
| Canada announces digital immunity passports |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-11-2020, 07:22 AM - Forum: Pandemic 2020 [Secular]
- No Replies
|
|
Canada announces digital immunity passports
ReclaimtheNet | December 10, 2020
Just months ago, such an idea was classed as a conspiracy theory.
The Canadian government will introduce digital immunity passports, the Health Minister of Ontario has confirmed. The idea of immunity passports is facing pushback not only from vaccine skeptics but also people who would like the government to respect their privacy and civil liberties.
In a recent press briefing, Christine Elliot, the health minister of Ontario was asked how the government planned to convince people to take the vaccines. She warned that those who refuse to take the vaccine will face certain restrictions.
While a vaccine will not be mandatory, citizens who won’t hold the passport will be denied access to some aspects of public life. “That’s their choice, this is not going to be a mandatory campaign. It will be voluntary,” Elliot said.
She added that, “There may be some restrictions that may be placed on people that don’t have vaccines for travel purposes, to be able to go out to theatres and other places.”
Elliot was also asked if the government would introduce immunity passports, or some other proof of vaccination. She said:
Quote:“Yes, because that’s going to be really important for people to have for travel purposes, perhaps for work purposes, for going to theatres or cinemas or any other places where people will be in closer physical contact.”
Dr. David Williams, the Ontario Chief Medical Officer of Health also said that a coronavirus vaccination would be necessary for people to be able to move around.
Quote:“What we can do is to say sometimes for access, or ease, in getting into certain settings, if you don’t have vaccination then you’re not allowed into that setting without other protection materials,” he said.
After Elliot’s remarks during the press briefing, The Toronto Sun followed up by speaking to her press secretary, who made it clear that the government was considering multiple options for the “tracking and surveillance” of COVID-19 vaccination status.
This includes exploring developing tech-based solutions while also providing for alternative options to ensure equitable access to any potential ‘immunity passport,’” Alexandra Hilkene, Elliot’s press secretary, said.
According to Brian Lilley, a reporter for The Toronto Sun, the idea of immunity passports will be met with criticism.
“That phrase will set off alarm bells and it should, not just for anti-vaxxers, but for anyone who is concerned about Charter rights and governments running roughshod over them.”
Canada is not the only government or institution that has suggested immunity passports are the way forward for life to get back to the way it was before the pandemic. Government officials and airlines in the US, the UK, and other countries around the globe are also considering the so-called immunity passports or COVID passports.
As the former director of the US CDC noted in an article on the Wall Street Journal published last week, governments will push for the immunity passports despite the legal and ethical concerns.
[Emphasis mine.]
|
|
|
|
|
![[Image: shutterstock_1537731881_810_500_75_s_c1.jpg]](https://assets.lifesitenews.com/images/made/images/remote/https_www.lifesitenews.com/images/local/shutterstock_1537731881_810_500_75_s_c1.jpg)
![[Image: snip-Fr-H-pic-ordination.jpg]](https://sspxmc.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/snip-Fr-H-pic-ordination.jpg)
![[Image: 20200205_075653-400x284.jpg]](https://sspxmc.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/20200205_075653-400x284.jpg)
![[Image: 20200205_075350-1-400x284.jpg]](https://sspxmc.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/20200205_075350-1-400x284.jpg)
![[Image: 20200205_074519-e1581793441313-400x284.jpg]](https://sspxmc.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/20200205_074519-e1581793441313-400x284.jpg)
![[Image: 20200205_080054-400x284.jpg]](https://sspxmc.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/20200205_080054-400x284.jpg)
![[Image: IMG_20200608_221108_378.webp]](https://static.wixstatic.com/media/461638_5bcad7c6dbae48f984cbbe8aa2434a71~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_245,h_143,al_c,q_80,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01/IMG_20200608_221108_378.webp)
![[Image: shutterstock_1298134576_810_500_75_s_c1.jpg]](https://assets.lifesitenews.com/images/made/images/remote/https_www.lifesitenews.com/images/local/Shutterstock/Royalty-free/Non-Editorial/shutterstock_1298134576_810_500_75_s_c1.jpg)
