| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 487 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 484 Guest(s)
Applebot, Bing, Google
|
| Latest Threads |
Fr. Hewko's Sermons: Pro...
Forum: September 2025
Last Post: Deus Vult
5 hours ago
» Replies: 0
» Views: 17
|
Apologia pro Marcel Lefeb...
Forum: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
Last Post: Stone
11 hours ago
» Replies: 37
» Views: 12,426
|
Fr. Hewko's Sermons: Holy...
Forum: September 2025
Last Post: Deus Vult
Today, 08:40 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 48
|
Feast of the Holy Name of...
Forum: Our Lady
Last Post: Stone
Today, 08:38 AM
» Replies: 5
» Views: 15,924
|
Oratory Conference: Instr...
Forum: Conferences
Last Post: Deus Vult
Yesterday, 12:31 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 124
|
Bishop Schneider: Vatican...
Forum: Pope Leo XIV
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 06:56 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 159
|
The Catholic Trumpet War-...
Forum: The Catholic Trumpet
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 06:51 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 179
|
Fr. Hewko: Devotion of t...
Forum: September 2025
Last Post: Deus Vult
09-10-2025, 07:08 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 139
|
Queen Emma Asks for the O...
Forum: Resources Online
Last Post: Stone
09-10-2025, 08:35 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 213
|
Oratory Retreat Conferenc...
Forum: Conferences
Last Post: Deus Vult
09-09-2025, 09:15 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 197
|
|
|
| The Catholic Trumpet Video: The Conciliarization of the SSPX |
|
Posted by: Stone - 02-06-2025, 01:26 PM - Forum: The Catholic Trumpet
- Replies (2)
|
 |
Operation Suicide – The Conciliarization of the SSPX
Part I
In Part I, we cover:- Archbishop Lefebvre’s mission—why the SSPX was founded and what it stood for.
- The warning signs of betrayal—how the seeds of compromise were planted years before 2012.
- The GREC conspiracy—a secretive effort to bring SSPX under Vatican II’s control.
- The shift in doctrine—how SSPX leadership prepared its priests and faithful for submission.
|
|
|
| Spanish priest could face criminal charges for denying Communion to homosexual politician |
|
Posted by: Stone - 02-06-2025, 09:29 AM - Forum: Global News
- No Replies
|
|
Spanish priest could face criminal charges for denying Communion to homosexual politician
The openly homosexual mayor of a town in Segovia, Spain, claims he was denied Holy Communion due to his same-sex relationship.
The Diocese of Segovia insists the decision was in line with Church discipline while the priest stands accused of ‘discrimination.’
Feb 5, 2025
(LifeSiteNews) — A Catholic priest in Spain could face criminal charges for denying the Eucharist to an openly homosexual politician.
“[Denying Communion] is contrary to the Spanish constitution,” socialist Equality Minister Ana Redondo said in an interview in January, the Pillar reports.
She claimed that the Catholic Church “cannot, even if there is no specific law, be subtracted from the constitutional rules, the principle of equality and non-discrimination of Article 14.”
“You can not discriminate against an LGTBI citizen and require him to choose either his faith or his sexual condition,” she added. “This is clearly discriminatory and I hope there will be a [legal] challenge.”
Redondo responded to a statement from the socialist mayor of the small town of Torrecaballeros in the province of Segovia. On January 11, Ruben Garcia wrote on X that his parish priest had denied him Holy Communion because of his public homosexual relationship.
Garcia said he had been denied the Eucharist “because of my sexual condition and living with my partner.”
He accused parts of the Catholic Church in Segovia of “homophobia” and lamented that “to the Church of Segovia, the spring of Francis has not arrived.”
Garcia implied that Pope Francis would disapprove of the denial of the Holy Eucharist in this case, given his past support for the LGBT agenda, including allowing the “blessing” of same-sex couples.
The Pillar reports that another homosexual couple has alleged that they were denied Holy Communion by the same priest, Father Felicien Malanza Munganga, from the Congo.
In a statement published by the Spanish Socialist Worker’s Party (PSOE) on January 12, they asked the incoming bishop of Segovia to “end sexual orientation-based discrimination in the Segovian Church.”
The PSOE hinted at possible legal action, stating that “legislation in our country has typified hate crimes based on sexual orientation and we are convinced that this situation will end at the root, since no one wants to walk down that path.”
The Diocese of Segovia published a statement in response to the PSOE, saying that the priest did not act in a “homophobic and discriminatory way.”
“In compliance with his ministry and following the rules of the universal Church on the reception of Holy Communion, [the priest] was forced to deny Communion of same-sex people who live in a matrimonial way, which can also happen between heterosexual people without a matrimonial bond.”
“This is not homophobia or discrimination, as Communion is not being denied because of the homosexual condition, but to defend the sacred character of the Eucharist,” the statement continues.
The diocese said that Segovia PSOE’s demand is a “defamatory judgment” and an “inadmissible interference in internal matters of the Church, and an attack against religious freedom as guaranteed in the Constitution.”
“Catholics know that, to receive the Eucharist, whether they are homosexuals or heterosexual, some objective conditions of morality are required, and the Church has the authority to deny Communion when they are not followed, especially if it causes a scandal among the faithful, as it happened in the Segovia cases.”
The Catholic Church has always forbidden individuals who are unrepentant of mortal sins to receive Communion, in accordance with the words of St. Paul, who writes in the first letter to the Corinthians: “Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.”
Paragraph 915 of the Code of Canon Law states: “Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.”
Spanish church under attack for ‘conversion therapy’
The Church in Spain could face legal persecution due to its apostolic teaching and practice on marriage and the family on other accounts as well.
Spain’s Minister of Equality Redondo also said in the interview that she would meet the Spanish bishop to discuss the issue of seven Spanish dioceses being accused of supporting “conversion therapy” for homosexuals, which is illegal and punishable by a fine in Spain. Many dioceses have denied that charge and said that they merely held talks with people previously engaged in homosexual activities.
Redondo said she expects Spain’s Constitutional Court to “clarify in a ruling to what extent this affects the principle of equality and non-discrimination.”
“There is no law that forbids ecclesiastical rules, but these ecclesiastical rules must be interpreted under the Constitution and under the principle of equality,” she stated.
|
|
|
|
| France: Arson Attacks on Churches Up 30% |
|
Posted by: Stone - 02-06-2025, 08:45 AM - Forum: Anti-Catholic Violence
- No Replies
|
|
France: Arson Attacks on Churches Up 30%
![[Image: d1xo8c3a13qphz5bfctg6yv1097al59stzatfou....85&webp=on]](https://seedus2043.gloriatv.net/storage1/d1xo8c3a13qphz5bfctg6yv1097al59stzatfou.webp?secure=I2lXsGRWRaMrkF7nKCjuvg&expires=1739034185&webp=on)
gloria.tv | February 6, 2025
French police have recorded a "decrease" in the number of anti-Christian attacks last year.
Although they were "down 10%", there were still 770 incidents in 2024, more than two for every day of the year.
For the second year in a row, churches were particularly targeted, write the French media.
Nearly 50 (!) arsons or attempted arsons of Christian places of worship were recorded in 2024.
In 2023 there were 38, an increase of more than 30%. The arson attacks on churches in New Caledonia during the riots were particularly striking.
In mainland France, two fires particularly affected the church last year.
On 2 September, the church of Saint-Omer burned, its roof and steeple completely destroyed by the flames.
On 3 October, the church of Saint-Hilaire-le-Grand in Poitiers suffered two simultaneous fires and damage, with three statues broken and decapitated.
Thefts from churches are also on the rise, with 288 incidents recorded in 2024 compared to 270 the previous year, an increase of 7%.
On average, there are five thefts from churches every week.
Several masses were disrupted last year, especially at Christmas. In Bordeaux, two drunk people interrupted a Christmas mass.
In Saint-Germain-en-Laye, a Muslim shouted 'Alla Akbar' during the service before climbing on the altar and exposing his buttocks to the congregation.
Last year, an attack by a Muslim was foiled thanks to police action. On 5 March 2024, they arrested a 62-year-old man, a member of ISIS, which is officially supported by the West in Syria, who was planning to attack a church.
|
|
|
|
| Vatican II called for a common date for Easter in the East and West |
|
Posted by: Stone - 02-01-2025, 08:58 AM - Forum: Pope Francis
- No Replies
|
|
So many errors of Pope Francis are rooted in Vatican II.
From the very liberal America Magazine, The Jesuit Review:
Vatican II called for a common date for Easter in the East and West. Will it ever happen?
![[Image: 20230930T0930-SYNOD-ECUMENICAL-VIGIL-176...k=DjrEYSDJ]](https://www.americamagazine.org/sites/default/files/styles/article_image_750_x_503_/public/main_image/2025/01/29/20230930T0930-SYNOD-ECUMENICAL-VIGIL-1766235.JPG.JPG?itok=DjrEYSDJ)
Pope Francis meets with Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople in the library of the Apostolic Palace at the Vatican Sept. 30, 2023, ahead of an ecumenical prayer vigil for the Synod of Bishops in St. Peter's Square. (CNS photo/Vatican Media)
America Magazine [Adapted, Emphasis The Catacombs] |January 29, 2025
On Jan. 25, closing out the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, Pope Francis said that the Catholic Church was open to accepting a common date for Easter “that everyone wants.”
“Everyone” in this case refers to the other [non-Catholic/Orthodox] Christian churches. It is a call that, while it may seem groundbreaking, actually goes back to the Second Vatican Council.
In an appendix to Vatican II’s 1963 Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, “Sacrosanctum Concilium,” Pope Paul VI wrote, “the Sacred Council would not object if the feast of Easter were assigned to a particular Sunday of the Gregorian Calendar, provided that those whom it may concern, especially the brethren who are not in communion with the Apostolic See, give their assent.” Essentially, this means that if the other Christian churches can agree on a common date for Easter, the Council would agree to that date—even if it meant changing how the Roman Catholic Church calculated the date of Easter.
Why do we celebrate Easter on different dates?
Since the Council of Nicea in 325, Easter has been celebrated in both the Eastern [Orthodox] and Western [Catholic rite] churches on the Sunday after the “Paschal full moon,” which is essentially the first full moon after the spring equinox—though this is based on historical approximations of when the full moon is, as well as when the equinox falls.
The difference between the dates came about with Pope Gregory XIII’s reform of the calendar, which created the Gregorian calendar that most of the world uses today. Gregory had changed the calendar because the previous calendar—the Julian calendar, established by Julius Caesar—was increasingly out of sync with the movement of the sun, meaning its approximate date for the spring equinox was drifting further and further from the actual equinox.
However, following Gregory’s reform, the Eastern [Orthodox] churches stuck with the Julian calendar for calculating the date of Easter. (There have also been a few reforms to the Julian method of calculating Easter.) As a result, the Eastern and Western dates of Easter can fall as far as four weeks apart.
Of course, the terms “Eastern” and “Western” are imprecise, and there are many exceptions. In general, the Roman Catholic Church, the Protestant churches and Eastern Catholic Churches celebrate Easter on the same date—though some Eastern Catholic Churches follow the Julian calendar for the sake of unity with the Orthodox churches.
Following the Julian calendar are most Eastern Orthodox churches and most Oriental Orthodox churches, though there are exceptions. Complicating matters further is that not all Eastern Christians celebrate Easter on the same date. Because of the diaspora of Eastern Christians in the Western world, some have begun to follow the Western method of calculating Easter—resulting in the funny, if a little absurd, case of the Canadian Ukrainian Catholic bishops sending out an Easter message last year dated both March 31 and May 5.
In 2025, Easter will fall on the same date in the Eastern and Western churches. Pope Francis hopes that this could provide an opportunity for Christians to begin celebrating Easter on the same date going forward.
While Easter has fallen on the same date as recently as 2017, Francis is strengthening the push for a common date for Easter starting this year because of the Jubilee Year 2025. This Jubilee Year has a special focus on Christian unity because it marks the 1,700th anniversary of the Council of Nicea, the first Christian ecumenical council. The pope plans to travel to Nicea, in modern-day Turkey, in May to celebrate the anniversary with Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople, with whom he has a friendly relationship.
Can Christians agree on a common date?
In “Sacrosanctum Concilium,” the council fathers said they would agree to a common date for Easter provided that the other Christian churches could agree on one. Pope John Paul II later affirmed this, saying that the Catholic Church would acquiesce to a common agreed-upon date, and Francis has repeated it several times as well.
The question is: Can Christians agree on a common date? And how would such an agreement come about?
An agreement would require that not only the Roman Catholic Church, but also the Protestant churches come to an agreement with Eastern churches, which is difficult since many Protestant churches are decentralized in their governance. In the past, the World Council of Churches has made a number of efforts to push toward a common date for Easter among Eastern and Protestant churches, but so far none have led to a resolution.
A key question will be whether Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill, who is influential in a number of Orthodox Churches, will be able to come to an agreement over the date of Easter with Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I. The two have been in tension over the Russia-Ukraine war for years, and the Ukrainian Catholic Church recently changed the date of Christmas to align with the Western calendar, distancing itself from the Russian Orthodox Church.
It seems likely that the Vatican will do what it can to facilitate dialogue between the different traditions for a common date behind the scenes, since Pope Francis has had his eye on the goal of achieving a common date for Easter in 2025 for years. The Ecumenical Patriarch, who is the de facto leader of many Eastern churches, shares this goal. He told the Orthodox Times last year that it is a “scandal to celebrate separately the unique event of the one Resurrection of the One Lord.”
The patriarch said he is “optimistic, as there is goodwill and willingness on both sides.”
|
|
|
|
| Kolbe Center: Pope Pius XI’s understanding of the Catholic Doctrine of Creation |
|
Posted by: Stone - 02-01-2025, 08:31 AM - Forum: Church Doctrine & Teaching
- Replies (2)
|
|
How Pope Pius XI defended the history of Genesis, special creation of St. Adam
Before becoming Pope Pius XI, Fr. Achille Ratti wrote a theological work supporting Adam’s special creation – an argument he upheld throughout his life, countering growing scientific and theological shifts toward evolution.
![[Image: icon-family-tree-Christ.png?w=431&ssl=1]](https://i0.wp.com/kolbecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/icon-family-tree-Christ.png?w=431&ssl=1)
Jan 30, 2025
LifeSiteNews [Adapted and reformatted - The Catacombs]
Editor’s note: This article is Part 1 of a four-part study of Pope Pius XI’s understanding of the Catholic doctrine of creation as opposed to the modern scientific proposition of the evolution of mankind.
(Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation) — One of the wonderful things about the Kolbe apostolate has been the way that members of our leadership team have been inspired to research different topics relevant to our mission, resulting in all kinds of fruitful discoveries.
In recent months, researcher Christian Bergsma has brought to our attention a document that highlights the Church leadership’s vigorous defense of the literal historical truth of the first chapters of Genesis well into the 20th century.
In this article we will focus on a treatise[1] written by the Rev. Achille Ratti, the future Pope Pius XI, toward the end of the 19th century. Though he wrote it before becoming pope, Pius XI defended this work during his pontificate, according to his close friend Cardinal Ernesto Ruffini:
Quote:Our Holy Father, Pope Pius XI, in private audiences, from time to time recalled with pleasure this work of his (“which cost him no little labor”), and reconfirmed his conclusions.[2]
Theological arguments for the special creation of Adam
Dr. Kenneth Miller is typical of Catholic intellectuals who teach our young people that the Fathers and Doctors of the patristic era did not read Genesis as history and that this is a recent, “fundamentalist” misinterpretation, stating:
Quote:Great theologians of the early centuries of the Christian era, like Saint Augustine, did not read Genesis as history. It’s only in the last hundred years, mostly in the United States, that you have people coming up with a radically different view.
As the recipient of the Laetare medal at Notre Dame University in 2014, “the oldest and most prestigious honor given to American Catholics,” according to Notre Dame’s president, Michael O. Garvey, one would think that Dr. Miller would be able back up his claims, but St. Augustine himself made clear that he agreed with the rest of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church that Genesis is written “from beginning to end in the style of history.”
In keeping with this historical interpretation of Genesis, at the beginning of his treatise, the future Pope Pius XI sets forth his plan to demonstrate the direct and immediate creation of the body of St. Adam, first from theology and then from natural science. He asks:
Quote:What is to be held of the first origin of man as regards the body, according to faith and sound theology?
The answer is this: It is clear from divine revelation that the first parents, not only regarding the soul, but also regarding the body, were formed by God himself, not by simple concurrence, but by direct and immediate action, although not creative.
Explaining the phrase, “although not creative,” Christian Bergsma notes:
Quote:Ratti distinguishes the formation of the body as “not creative” in the strict sense that the body was not called into being out of nothing like the soul was, but rather was formed from the material of mud and the rib. St. Thomas Aquinas defines creation in the unequivocal sense as the original emanation of each thing into being from nothing:
Quote:“‘To create is to make something from nothing’… we must consider not only the emanation of a particular being from a particular agent, but also the emanation of all being from the universal cause, which is God; and this emanation we designate by the name of creation … it is impossible that any being should be presupposed before this emanation. For nothing is the same as no being. Therefore as the generation of a man is from the ‘not-being’ which is ‘not-man,’ so creation, which is the emanation of all being, is from the ‘not-being’ which is ‘nothing.’[3]
However, per Aquinas, the whole man, as a composite of both body and soul, can be said to have been created out of “not-man” in that immediate and simultaneous action, as he was brought from a state of non-being into being in all of his principles:
“Creation does not mean the building up of a composite thing from pre-existing principles; but it means that the ‘composite’ is created so that it is brought into being at the same time with all its principles … for creation is the production of the whole being, and not only matter.”[4]
The literal and obvious sense of Scripture must be believed
Like the Fathers and Doctors before him, the future Pope Pius XI takes as his starting point that the sacred history of Genesis gives a divinely inspired account of the creation of the first human beings in which the literal and obvious sense should be believed unless it would detract from “purity of life or soundness of doctrine.” In the words of St. Augustine:
Quote:In the first place, then, we must show the way to find out whether a phrase is literal or figurative. And the way is certainly as follows: Whatever there is in the Word of God that cannot, when taken literally, be referred either to purity of life or soundness of doctrine, you may set down as figurative.[5]
Using these criteria, Christian Bergsma rightly poses and answers a critical question:
Quote:Is the formation of the body from mud impossible to reconcile with purity of life or sound doctrine? Certainly not. Pope Leo XIII likewise cites “the rule so wisely laid down by St. Augustine – not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires…[6] Does reason or necessity compel us to believe that an all-powerful God could not create a body from mud? Certainly not! Therefore, we ought to take the words literally.
The age of the universe
Having established that the direct and immediate creation of Adam, body and soul, must be believed as, at a minimum, Catholic doctrine, if not, as some authorities believe, Catholic Faith, Ratti addresses the question of the timing of Adam’s creation:
Quote:It remains to say a few things about the antiquity of human origin. Holy Scripture nowhere expressly presents a complete chronology which extends to the creation of Adam; but what it sparsely reports presents no little difficulty, especially if one considers the discrepancies between the Hebrew text and the Septuagint and Samaritan versions; but the Vulgate version follows the Hebrew text.
Even greater and far more numerous discrepancies occur among the Fathers and ecclesiastical writers. Cardinal Meignan counts one hundred and fifty different calculations, none of which can be called reprobate; in fact, Des Vignoles collected more than two hundred different indications of the time from Adam to Christ, the minimum of which he counts as 3,483 years, the maximum as 6,984. It is true that in all the aforesaid calculations, a common foundation was sought in the Holy Scriptures themselves. For, after certain minor difficulties, it was seen that the following numbers of years could be gathered from inspired books.
From Adam to Noah’s flood:
according to the Vulgate and Hebrew text… 1,656
according to the Samaritan text… … … … 1,306
according to the Septuagint… … … … … … 2,242
From Noah’s flood to Abraham’s birth:
according to the Vulgate… … … … …292 or 293
according to the Samaritan text… … … … … 942
according to the Septuagint… … … … … … 1,183
From Abraham to Christ’s birth:
with hardly a few decades of difference… 2,190
Having said this, it follows that neither Holy Scripture nor Tradition contains a chronology of the human race that is at least completely defined. Here again, it is certainly possible to follow any of the chronologies received here and there in the Church.
This is a remarkable passage – remarkable because we find the future Pope Pius XI defending the common teaching of all the Fathers and Doctors of the Church that the Scriptures provide a basis, though not a precise formula, for calculating universal chronology, when Catholic intellectuals were abandoning this teaching in droves in the name of “science.” As Christian Bergsma observes:
Quote:Though they posited various dates for Christ’s birth, all the Fathers and ecclesiastical writers who mentioned the subject taught a recent creation as a matter of faith in Scripture, in opposition to the old-earth mythologies of the pagans (not, as some have said, simply due to their ancient scientific conceptions). The Church teaches:
“In consequence, it is not permissible for anyone to interpret holy Scripture in a sense contrary to this, or indeed against the unanimous consent of the Fathers. [7]
Even modernist bible scholar M.J. Lagrange had to admit the substantial sensus fidelium on the young earth within the Church over the centuries, regardless of the differing proposed dates. Lagrange found himself arguing that the ancient Fathers had been right to interpret Genesis 1-11 as teaching a young chronology, because the text indeed does teach it, even though it is not true, and that God intentionally used their errant belief in the historicity Genesis 1-11 to bring them to spiritual truths, as they would not have otherwise been able to grasp them if he had explained them at that time in a manner fitting with what we now “know” through science.
This is heresy, because we are bound to hold that whatever Scripture teaches is inerrant, and that such inerrancy extends not just to spiritual truths but also to statements touching history and the natural world[8]. However, in defending this position Lagrange aptly exposed the ridiculous inconsistency of those “concordists” who try to defend one tenet of Scripture (i.e., the universal flood) by denying that another tenet (i.e., the young chronology) was ever upheld by the Church:
“Then came the turn of the philologists. It seemed to them that there would never have been time enough for the formation of languages had the Deluge swallowed up all mankind … but, in point of fact, the arguments of the scientists were only conclusive if biblical chronology were upheld…And so, when the universality of the Deluge was defended by this [concordist] school, they held that biblical chronology was non-existent. They went so far as to foster the delusion that Catholic opinion had never admitted a chronology, because it did not agree as to its limits: as though the differences of opinion, reached as the result of so much painful effort, did not suppose a common groundwork known to all.“[9] (emphasis added)
By the very admission of this preeminent modernist, to believe that the tradition of the Church on the biblical chronology was either non-existent, insubstantial, or due to mistaken exegesis, is delusional, but to accept an old universe is to believe that Scripture teaches falsehood. Therefore, the best option for a pious Catholic is to believe in the young universe – “young” only in relation to the uniformitarian extrapolations of naturalists, and not in relation to any objective chronology of the world.
Part 2 of the series on Pope Pius XI’s study of creation can be found below.
Reprinted with permission from the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation.
References
↑1 De hominis Origine Quoad Corpus, in Msgr. Frederick Sala, Institutiones positive-scholasticæ Theologiæ Dogmaticæ Tomus II: De Deo Uno et Trino – De Deo Creatore (1899), pgs. 197-211. For the original Latin see here. For English and Latin side-by-side, see here.
↑2 Ruffini, The Theory of Evolution Judged by Reason and Faith, trans. Francis O’Hanlon (Joseph F. Wagner, Inc.: New York, 1959), 135–37.
↑3 [St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part 1, q. 45. art. 1.]
↑4 Ibid, Part 1, q. 45, art. 4.
↑5 St. Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, Book 3, Ch. 10.
↑6 Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, 15.
↑7 Vatican Council I, ch. 2 On Revelation, 9.
↑8 Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus, 19-26.
↑9 Lagrange, Historical Criticism and the Old Testament (1905), Lecture IV, pgs. 134-135).
|
|
|
|
| The Catholic Trumpet Podcasts and YouTube Channel |
|
Posted by: Stone - 02-01-2025, 08:07 AM - Forum: The Catholic Trumpet
- No Replies
|
|
The Catholic Trumpet Podcasts and YouTube Channel
![[Image: 42463703-1738184078496-55546940b490f.jpg]](https://d3t3ozftmdmh3i.cloudfront.net/staging/podcast_uploaded_nologo/42463703/42463703-1738184078496-55546940b490f.jpg)
The Catholic Trumpet [adapted and reformatted] | January 31, 2025
About the Podcast
The Catholic Trumpet defends the unchanging Catholic Faith, exposes modernist errors, and proclaims the Kingship of Christ. Rooted in +Archbishop Lefebvre’s theology, we resist Vatican II’s Revolution, the 2012 SSPX betrayal, and the Synagogue of Satan (Apoc. 2:9). Through the Rosary, Marian Consecration, and the uncompromised Latin Mass, we fight for the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart and the restoration of Christendom.
Where to Listen
The Catholic Trumpet is now available on Spotify, ensuring our content reaches more Catholics who seek the truth.
We will continue uploading to YouTube and encourage our listeners to subscribe and like for greater reach. However, we will not rely on secular platforms that censor the truth.
Our home is The Catholic Trumpet. All our audio content is now hosted on our new page: Listen to The Catholic Trumpet
We encourage all Catholics to listen, share, and remain steadfast in the Faith. Now is the time for courage. Now is the time to stand for the Kingship of Christ.
No compromise. No retreat.
Vive le Christ Roi! Vive Marie, Reine du Ciel!
-The ☩ Trumpet
|
|
|
|
| Introduction to The Catholic Trumpet |
|
Posted by: Stone - 02-01-2025, 07:52 AM - Forum: The Catholic Trumpet
- No Replies
|
|
The Catacombs would like to recommend a new traditional Catholic Resistance website, The Catholic Trumpet!
From their About page:
Quote:Who We Are
Welcome to TheCatholicTrumpet.com, your unwavering source for defending Catholic tradition against the modernist compromises within the SSPX, the Fake "Resistance" and beyond. Our mission is to expose the gradual erosion of the true Faith since Vatican II, documenting every betrayal and deviation from the legacy of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. We provide meticulously sourced content from trusted traditional Catholic websites, offering clear warnings for any sources that do not fully align with a true Catholic uncompromising stance.
-The ☩ Trumpet
And from the website's Welcome message:
Quote:Welcome to TheCatholicTrumpet.com
September 2, 2024
Welcome to TheCatholicTrumpet.com, the uncompromising voice in the defense of Catholic tradition and truth. This platform is dedicated to exposing the modernist compromises and deviations within the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) and other similar entities, calling all faithful Catholics to rally against the errors that have infiltrated the Church since Vatican II.
At TheCatholicTrumpet.com, we blow the trumpet on the gradual erosion of the true Faith through false accords, compromises, and the adoption of modernist practices that undermine the legacy of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. Here, we document and analyze every instance of betrayal, compromise, and contradiction that has taken place within the SSPX, standing firm in the spirit of Archbishop Lefebvre's unwavering dedication to the pre-Vatican II Church.
This website is not just a repository of information; it is a clarion call to all traditional Catholics to remain vigilant and steadfast. We provide a wealth of resources, including meticulously sourced documents, critical analyses, and insights into the ongoing battle for the soul of the Church. From the errors propagated by the New Mass to the subtle compromises made in dialogue with modernist Rome, TheCatholicTrumpet.com is your go-to source for the truth.
We extend our heartfelt gratitude to dedicated outlets like TheRecusant.org and TheCatacombs.org, whose hard research and comprehensive sourcing have laid the groundwork for our mission. While we have no official association with these outlets, we are fans of their work and aim to amplify their efforts by providing succinct snippets from their long publications, helping to illuminate the path for those seeking clarity amidst the confusion.
Join us in our mission to restore the true Catholic Faith and resist the tide of modernism. Together, by the grace of Our Lady, we will reclaim the Church and see the reign of Christ the King restored.
-The ☩ Trumpet
|
|
|
|
| Last Interview w/ Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre - 1991 |
|
Posted by: Stone - 01-31-2025, 09:27 AM - Forum: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
- No Replies
|
|
The following is gratefully reprinted from The Recusant September 2014:
Interview with Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
Fideliter No. 79 January-February 1991
“It is no longer just a question of liturgy, as important as it is, that separates us from Rome, but a matter of the Faith.”
On the occasion of the twentieth anniversary of the founding of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X , Archbishop Lefebvre kindly answer the questions we asked him. "It is no longer just a question of liturgy, as important as it is, that separates us from Rome, but a matter of faith." We also note how the prelate destroys the calumnies that have been made against him about the conciliar documents on Religious Liberty and “The Church in the Modern World.”
Fideliter - Since the coronations there has been no more contact with Rome; however, as you told us, Cardinal Oddi telephoned you saying, “Things have got to be sorted out. Make a little act of asking forgiveness to the Pope and he is ready to welcome you.” So why not try this one last approach and why do you think it impossible?
Archbishop Lefebvre – It is absolutely impossible in the current climate of Rome which is becoming worse. We must not delude ourselves. The principles which now guide the conciliar Church are more and more overtly contrary to Catholic doctrine. Before the Commission on Human Rights of the United Nations, Cardinal Casaroli recently declared:
“I want to dwell somewhat on one specific aspect of the fundamental freedom of thinking and acting according to one’s conscience: religious liberty ... the Catholic Church and her Supreme Pastor , who has made human rights one of the major themes of his preaching, have not failed to recall that, in a world made by man and for man, the whole organization of society has meaning only insofar as it is the human dimension a central concern.”
To hear that in the mouth of a cardinal! He does not speak about God! For his part, Cardinal Ratzinger, presenting a discussion paper on the relationship between the Magisterium and theologians, affirms he says “for the first time clearly” that “the decisions of the Magisterium cannot be the last word on the matter as such” but are “a kind of provisional disposition ... the core remains stable but the particular aspects that influence the circumstances of that time may need correction later on. In this regard one can point to
the declarations of the popes of the last century. The anti-modernist decisions rendered a great service but they are now outdated.” And voila, the position on modernism is turned around! These reflections are absolutely insane.
Finally the Pope is more ecumenist than ever. All the false ideas of the Council continue to develop, to be reaffirmed with ever greater clarity. They are hiding less and less. It is absolutely inconceivable that we can agree to work with such a hierarchy.
Fideliter - Do you think the situation has deteriorated even further since the time before the consecrations when you engaged in discussions that led to the drafting of the Protocol of 5 May 1988?
Archbishop Lefebvre - Oh yes! For example the making of the Profession of Faith which is now claimed by Cardinal Ratzinger since the beginning of 1989. This is a very serious matter. Because he asks all those [Traditionalists] who rallied to them [i.e. signed an agreement with Rome - trans] or could do to make a profession of faith in the Council documents and in the post-conciliar reforms. For us it is impossible.
We will have to wait some more before considering the prospect of an agreement. For my part I believe that only God can intervene as humanly we do not any possibility of Rome straightening things out. For fifteen years we dialogued to try to put the tradition back in its place of honour, in that place in the Church which it has by right. We ran up against a continual refusal. What Rome grants in favour of this tradition at present is nothing but a purely political gesture, a piece of diplomacy so as to force people into compromise. But it is not a conviction of the benefits of Tradition.
Fideliter - When we see that Dom Gérard and the Fraternity of St. Peter got to keep the liturgy and catechism without – so they say - have conceded anything, some people who are troubled to find themselves in a difficult situation with Rome, can be tempted to make an agreement in their turn, through lassitude. They have managed, so they say, to get along with Rome without having to relinquish anything.
Archbishop Lefebvre - When they say they don’t have to give anything up, that’s false. They have given up the ability to oppose Rome. They cannot say anything any more. They must remain silent given the favours that have been granted them. It is now impossible for them to expose the errors of the Conciliar Church. Softly, softly they adhere, even be it only by their Profession of Faith that is requested by Cardinal Ratzinger. I think Dom Gérard is about to publish a small book written by one of his monks on Religious Liberty and which will try to justify it. From the point of view of ideas, they begin to slide ever so slowly and end up by admitting the false ideas of the Council, because Rome has granted them some favours of Tradition. It’s a very dangerous situation.
During the audience which he granted to Dom Gérard and a delegation of monks from Le Barroux, the Pope expressed the desire to see them continue to evolve. He didn’t hide what he thought. They must submit more and more to the Archbishop [of their diocese] and they must take care not to act as though the conciliar reforms are less-than appreciated because they have been granted an exceptions to the liturgical rule of the Council. They must also make an effort to bring with them all those who are not yet in obedience to the Holy Father.
These are pressing invitations made to them and it’s this which is the purpose of the privileges granted to them. That is why Dom Gérard wrote to Mother Anne-Marie Simoulin, Father Innocent-Marie, the Capuchins of Morgon and others to try even to influence me. On his return from Rome he launched the offensive to try to convince those who do not follow him to follow in his wake and rally to Rome. All the things that have been granted to them have only been agreed to with the goal of ensuring that all those who adhere to or are related to the Society will break from it and submit to Rome.
Fideliter - Dom Gérard is thus taking on the role that had devolved to Mgr. Perl.
Archbishop Lefebvre - I have had the opportunity to see at least three letters which Mgr. Perl sent in response to people who had written to him. It is always the same. It is essential to make an effort among those who do not understand the need to make an agreement with the Pope and the Council. It's a shame, he wrote, to see that there have been no more agreements.
Fideliter - You have said, concerning Dom Gérard and others: “They have betrayed us. They are now giving a helping hand to those who demolish the Church, the Liberals, the modernists.” Isn’t that a bit harsh?
Archbishop Lefebvre – Not at all, no! They appealed to me for fifteen years. It was not I who went looking for them. It is they themselves who came to me and asked me for support, for ordinations, for the friendship of our priests and at the same time the opening of our priories to help them financially. They took full advantage of us, as much as they were able. We did it with good will and even generosity. I was happy to do these ordinations, to open our houses so that they could take advantage of the generosity of our benefactors... And then, suddenly, they telephone me. We no longer need you; it’s over. We’re going over to the archbishop of Avignon. We’re now in agreement with Rome. We’ve signed a protocol.
It gave us no joyfulness of heart to have trouble with Rome. It wasn’t out of pleasure that we had to fight. We did it out of principle, to keep the Catholic faith. And they agreed with us. They cooperated with us. And then suddenly they abandon the true combat to ally themselves with the demolishers on the pretext that they be given some privileges. That’s unacceptable. They have in practice abandoned the fight for the Faith. They cannot attack Rome.
That was what Father de Blignières did too. He has changed completely. He who had written an entire volume condemning religious liberty, he now writes in favour of religious liberty. That’s not being serious. One cannot rely any more on men like that, who have understood nothing of the doctrinal question. I think in any case they commit a serious mistake. They sinned seriously in acting the way they did, knowingly, and with an unreal nonchalance.
I have heard tell of some monks who intend leaving Le Barroux, saying they can no longer live in an atmosphere of lies. I wonder how they managed to stay as long as this in such an atmosphere.
It’s the same with those who are with Dom Augustin [Superior of the Benedictine Monastery of Flavigny - [trans]. They were even more traditional than us and now they have completely gone over to the other side. For all young people who are there, it’s awful to think of such a reversal. They entered the monastery to be really in Tradition. It was the safest, firmest bastion of Tradition, even more so than the Society. They thought they were guaranteed forever. And then they completely turn their coats... and they stay put! It is inexplicable.
Fideliter – Fr. de Blignières, Fr. de Nantes and Dom Gérard have practically accused you of lying when you say that you didn’t sign two documents of the Council: Dignitatis Humanae on religious liberty and Gaudium et Spes. The journal Sedes sapientiae reproduced a document from the Vatican archives where there is your name written in your hand. What exactly is it and what is this document?
Archbishop Lefebvre - This idea of interpreting signatures as signifying approval of the conciliar documents germinated in the ill-intentioned mind of Fr. de Blignières. Approvals or refusals documents were obviously made for each particular document. The vote was secret, done on individual cards, and made with a special pen that allowed the calculation of electronic votes. The cards were taken in by the Secretaries from the hand of each voter.
The large sheets which were passed around from hand to hand among the Council Fathers and to which everyone added his signature were nothing to do with voting for or against, but signified our presence at this session for voting on four documents. One would really have to take the Fathers who voted against the text for weathervanes, claiming that they approved something that they had refused a half hour before. We see what we can expect from the imagination of those who are weathervanes and adore what they burned before, such as the Fr. de Blignières, Dom Gérard and that windmill par excellence Fr. de Nantes.
Fideliter - Some of the faithful are tempted to keep good relations with those who have rallied, or even attend the Mass or ceremonies that they celebrate, do you think that there Abp. Lefebvre is a danger in that?
Archbishop Lefebvre - I have always warned the faithful vis-à -vis the sedevacantists, for example. There also people say: “The Mass is fine, so we go to it.” Yes, there is the Mass. That’s fine, but there is also the sermon; there is the atmosphere, the conversations, contacts before and after, which make you little by little change your ideas. It is therefore a danger and that’s why in general, I think it constitutes part of a whole. One does not merely go to Mass, one frequents a milieu.
There are obviously some people who are attracted by the beautiful ceremonies, who also go to Fontgombault, where they have taken up the old mass again. They are in a climate of ambiguity which to my mind is dangerous. Once one finds oneself in this atmosphere, submitted to the Vatican, subject ultimately to the Council, one ends up by becoming ecumenical.
Fideliter - The Pope is very popular. He draws crowds; he wants to gather all Christians together in ecumenism, which he says he is making the cornerstone of his pontificate. At first glance this may seem a noble thought, wanting to actually gather all Christians together.
Archbishop Lefebvre - The Pope wants unity outside the Faith. It is a “communion”. Communion with whom? With what? In what? That is no longer unity. This cannot be except in the unity of the Faith. That is what the Church has always taught. That is why there were missionaries, to convert souls to the Catholic Faith. Now you don’t have to convert any more. The Church is not a hierarchical society, it is a communion. Everything is distorted. It is the destruction of the concept of the Church, of Catholicism. This is very serious and it is what explains why many Catholics are abandoning the Faith.
When you add to that all the outrageous comments that were made at the synod on the priesthood, declarations like those of Cardinals Decourtray and Danneels, one wonders how there can be any Catholics left. After Assisi and after similar declarations, we understand that there were many people who go went over to the Mormons, to the Jehovah Witnesses or elsewhere. They lose the Faith, it’s not surprising.
Fideliter - Regarding the synod, Cardinal Lorscheider, announcing that two married Brazilians had been ordained priests, requested that consideration be given to ordaining married men with “life experience”.
Archbishop Lefebvre - All this is being directed against the celibacy of priests. The synod which will be held in Africa will probably be a step towards the abolition of priestly celibacy, that is if God does not intervene first.
Fideliter – People cite as an example the development of Catholicism the considerable increase in the number of vocations in African countries, including Zaire, where there are hundreds of seminarians.
Archbishop Lefebvre - But we must see how they are formed. In these Third World countries there are many children and being a priest is a social promotion. Unfortunately this is not real progress for Catholicism. I'm not saying that everything is negative. But these are all conciliar seminarians, with the New Mass, the introduction of bongo drums, the inculturation in the liturgy. What religion will they have? It will no longer be the Catholic religion, but a kind of religious syncretism with purely exterior manifestations. This is serious, because it means the demolition of all the work done by the missionaries.
Fideliter - Beyond the just the liturgy, you often say, it is now a matter of Faith which makes us oppose modern Rome.
Archbishop Lefebvre - Certainly the question of the liturgy and the sacraments is very important, but it is not the most important. The most important is that of the Faith. For us it is resolved. We have the Faith of all time, of the Council of Trent, of the Catechism of St. Pius X, of all the councils and all the popes before Vatican II.
For years they have tried in Rome to show that everything in the Council was fully consistent with Tradition. Now they are showing their true colours. Cardinal Ratzinger never spoke so clearly. There is no tradition. There is no longer any deposit to be transmitted. Tradition in the Church is whatever the Pope is saying today. You must submit to what the Pope and the bishops say today. That’s what Tradition is for them, the famous ‘Living Tradition’, the only ground of our condemnation.
They no longer seek now to prove what they say is consistent with what Pius IX wrote or with what the Council of Trent promulgated. No, all of that is over; it’s outdated, as Cardinal Ratzinger said. It is clear and they could have said so earlier. There was no point in our talking, in our discussing with them. Now is the tyranny of authority, because there are no longer any rules. One can no longer refer to the past.
In a sense things today are becoming clearer. They always give us more reason. We are dealing with people who have a different philosophy to ours, a different way of seeing, who are influenced by all modern subjectivist philosophers. For them there is no fixed truth, there is no dogma. Everything is evolving. That is a totally Masonic concept. This is really the destruction of the Faith. Fortunately, we continue to lean on Tradition!
Fideliter - Yes, but you are alone against everyone.
Archbishop Lefebvre - Yes, it is a great mystery.
Fideliter - In the last newsletter “Introibo” Father André notes that although they say the
New Mass , a dozen bishops provide hope. They are classified as “traditional bishops” by “Episcopal Who's Who.”
Archbishop Lefebvre - Yes, but they are all conciliar. It’s only Bishop de Castro Mayer and myself who have resisted that Council and its applications , whereas at the Council there were 250 of us opposing the errors.
I was recently told to re-read the prophecy of Our Lady of Quito (1), where in the early seventeenth century, the Blessed Virgin Mary gave a revelation to a holy nun about the destruction of morals and the terrible crisis which now afflicts the Church and its clergy (2) announcing to her also that there would be a prelate who would dedicated himself to the restoration of the priesthood. The Blessed Virgin announced that that would happen in the twentieth century. This is a fact. The Good Lord has planned this time in the Church.
Fideliter - You have emphasised that you are convinced that the work you have undertaken is blessed by God, because at several points it could have disappeared.
Archbishop Lefebvre - Yes, that’s right. We have always come under very hard, very difficult attacks. Often people who worked with us, who used to be our friends, have turned against us and have really become enemies. It is very painful, but there is nothing to be done. We realise after some time that those are after us and who are trying to destroy us are sinking, and that we continue, we must believe nonetheless that the line of the Faith and Tradition that we have adopted, that we are following, is imperishable because it is the
Church and because God cannot allow his Church to perish.
Fideliter - What can you say to those of the faithful who still hope in the possibility of an agreement with Rome?
Archbishop Lefebvre - Our true faithful, those who have understood the problem and who have precisely helped us to continue along the straight and firm path of Tradition and the Faith, were afraid of the approaches I made towards Rome. They told me it was dangerous and that I was wasting my time. Yes, of course, I hoped until the last minute that in Rome we would witness a little bit of loyalty. I cannot be blamed for not having done the maximum. So now too, to those who say to me, “You’ve got to reach an agreement with Rome,” I think I can say that I went even further than I should have.
Fideliter - You answer: you do not have to worry, because we are with Tradition, with all the councils before Vatican II, with everything said by all the popes who preceded it...
Archbishop Lefebvre - Yes, obviously if we were inventing something we would be worried that our invention would not endure. But we’re doing nothing new.
A little while ago time I saw a bishop, one of my friends with whom we worked during the council and was in complete agreement with me at that time. And he said: “It is unfortunate that you are in trouble with Rome.” “How can you, who fought at the Council for the same reasons as me,” I answered him, “how can you now be surprised? We held continual meetings together and with others to try to maintain the line of Tradition in the Council. And now you have abandoned all of that. Is what we were doing wrong?”
“See the results of the Council. Can you show me any that are good, that are positive? Where and in what areas have the Council and the reforms that came from it brought about an extraordinary revival in the Church?” He did not answer. There is nothing. Everything is negative.
Fideliter - And the charismatics?
Archbishop Lefebvre – That’s more negative still. It’s the devil, because charismatics come to us to ask us to exorcise them. One has to believe that they are possessed by the devil.
They call the Spirit. What spirit? There are some people among them who are of good will, without doubt, who are striving to pray, to do adoration, no doubt, but the devil is evil. He draws in with one hand, and he grabs with the other.
We’re not done fighting. When I’m gone my successors will still have to fight. But God can do anything. On the political level it would have been difficult to predict a year or two ago what is happening right now. No one imagined that the Iron Curtain would be lifted, that Germany would reunify. Now they say that the collapse of the Soviet empire is near.
I received a letter from a Ukrainian bishop who wanted to contact us, to ask us to help edit a catechism because they no longer have anything. He did more than fifteen years in a Soviet prison with some others. A number of them have now been released. He found his diocese in a terrible state, because everything now belongs to the Orthodox Church. They took everything. So they are trying to recover what they can, but they have against them the Vatican, which is poisoned by this business. The return of these bishops and priests who want to revive the Catholic Church in Ukraine is a nuisance to the Vatican, which above all does not want to get into trouble with the Kremlin and the Orthodox church. This Catholic revival in Ukraine is a nuisance to them. This is what the bishop wrote to me: “There really is a mystery for us surrounding the attitude of Rome.” For us it is not a mystery!
Fideliter - What conclusions can we draw from the Society after twenty years of existence?
Archbishop Lefebvre - The Good Lord wanted Tradition. I am deeply convinced that the Society is the means that God wanted to keep and maintain the Faith, the truth of the Church and what can still be saved in the Church. Thanks also to the bishops around the Superior General of the Society, who fulfil their indispensable role of maintaining the Faith, of preaching the Faith, and of communicate the grace of the priesthood and confirmation, Tradition remains unchanged and a still-fruitful source the divine life.
All this is very comforting and I think we have to thank God and continue to faithfully keep the treasures of the Church, hoping that one day these treasures resume the place they deserve in Rome and they should never have lost.
Interview by Andrew CAGNON
|
|
|
|
|
![[Image: Screenshot-2024-09-04-115823.png]](https://i.postimg.cc/Dzv024Vn/Screenshot-2024-09-04-115823.png)
