Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
Online Users |
There are currently 415 online users. » 0 Member(s) | 411 Guest(s) Applebot, Bing, Google, Yandex
|
Latest Threads |
Fr. Ruiz: Renewal of the ...
Forum: Rev. Father Hugo Ruiz Vallejo
Last Post: Stone
Today, 04:56 AM
» Replies: 15
» Views: 1,171
|
Interview with the Editor...
Forum: The Recusant
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 07:15 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 111
|
Purgatory Explained by th...
Forum: Resources Online
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 09:03 AM
» Replies: 37
» Views: 3,503
|
Last Sunday after Penteco...
Forum: Pentecost
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 08:57 AM
» Replies: 5
» Views: 11,640
|
Fr. Hewko's Sermons: Twen...
Forum: November 2024
Last Post: Stone
11-23-2024, 10:30 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 90
|
Fr. Hewko's Sermons: Feas...
Forum: November 2024
Last Post: Stone
11-23-2024, 10:27 PM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 116
|
The Catholic Trumpet: Whe...
Forum: Articles by Catholic authors
Last Post: Stone
11-23-2024, 07:06 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 95
|
Bishop appointed by Commu...
Forum: Socialism & Communism
Last Post: Stone
11-22-2024, 04:57 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 95
|
Dr. Marian Horvat: The Tw...
Forum: General Commentary
Last Post: Stone
11-22-2024, 04:52 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 114
|
German [District] Superio...
Forum: The New-Conciliar SSPX
Last Post: Stone
11-22-2024, 04:48 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 137
|
|
|
"It Just Sort Of Appeared" - Fauci Comes Clean Over 'Science-less' Six-Foot-Distancing Rule |
Posted by: Stone - 01-14-2024, 06:48 AM - Forum: Pandemic 2020 [Secular]
- No Replies
|
|
"It Just Sort Of Appeared" - Fauci Comes Clean Over 'Science-less' Six-Foot-Distancing Rule
ZH [emphasis ZH]| JAN 13, 2024
Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Epoch Times
You still bump into the stickers from time to time: “Six Feet of Distance.” It’s weird and anachronistic at this point. No one pays any attention anymore. Still it would be nice to know where this came from. Oddly, we don’t really know.
Anthony Fauci was asked this question this week in U.S. House hearings on the COVID response.
Incredibly, he didn’t really know how this came about.
“It just sort of appeared,” he told the subcommittee, which was an unusual answer since he otherwise said 100 times that he could not remember anything. Here, however, he admits there was never any science behind it.
That’s extremely peculiar.
This rule governed all social interaction for two years and more.
It wrecked every manner of things, made people feel diseased and isolated, made meetings impossible, and gave rise to a whole ritual of interaction that was utterly alien to the normal human way, including elbow bumps and water-gun baptisms.
It was why schools were so delayed in reopening. They could not guarantee that students would stay apart. It’s why airports were so crowded. Everyone was trying to avoid everyone else. It’s why park benches were roped off, why restroom stalls were operating at 50 percent, and why you could not hold weddings and funerals. This stuff was enforced at all levels of society.
And yet here is the “nation’s leading infectious disease scientist” who took charge of the pandemic response saying that he has no idea where this idea came from.
Back in March 2021, the New York Times, of all egregious venues, got curious about this too. Reporter Emily Anthes asked around the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) about the mandate and the science behind it.
She quotes Dr. Ashish Jha, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health.
Quote:“It never struck me that six feet was particularly sensical in the context of mitigation. I wish the C.D.C. would just come out and say this is not a major issue.”
She wrote that the origin of the six-foot distancing recommendation is something of a mystery.
“It’s almost like it was pulled out of thin air,” said Linsey Marr, an expert on viral transmission at Virginia Tech University.
The journal Clinical and Infectious Diseases even did a large study comparing six feet and three feet of distance. It was published in March 2021. The authors found no statistically significant difference in infection rates. None. They concluded:
Quote:“Lower physical distancing requirements can be adopted in school settings with masking mandates without negatively affecting student or staff safety.”
Nothing happened. We were stuck with six feet.
Once it became an enforced ritual, nothing mattered.
Now we know that not even Anthony Fauci knows where it came from.
But come on. Someone had to order this. Who did it? Some low-level bureaucrat? Someone yet unnamed? Whoever it is knows who he or she is. Lots of people know. But no one is speaking up. It seems like there should be a way to get to the bottom of this.
Most likely, it resulted from nothing but irrational germophobia and a made-up way to satiate that impulse. But consider this: one person’s personal eccentricity thus became a rule for the whole nation and world, without a single study to say nothing of a vote or opinion poll. It was just cray cray on mega-steroids, and yet some vendors became very rich printing signs and stickers for millions of businesses, churches, airports, and schools around the country.
It probably happened like the sudden mask mandate in St. Louis, Missouri, last week. Some low-level bureaucrat said it should be done and it was done. There was outrage all around, which is very good news. Beautifully, the whole thing was repealed in 24 hours, and the person who caused all this to happen was ridiculed and denounced. How dare she presume to tell everyone else what to do?
Well, that kind of thing ruled us for two years and longer, just bureaucrats making stuff up. Some of it was impractical but it was also very expensive and damaging. For example, the Plexiglas that suddenly went up everywhere actually trapped pathogens into smaller spaces and inhibited ventilation, in contradiction to their other mandates. Arguably, this mandate made the spread worse. It certainly didn’t mitigate the virus.
It seems as if all these edicts were sort of busy work to keep us alarmed and occupied with stupid antics until the virus arrived. That’s why Fauci didn’t care about them. It’s why the CDC wasn’t particularly interested in the supposed science behind any of this stuff. There never was any science. It was nothing but the imposition of irrational capers on the population to mark time until the great shot arrived. To top it off, the shot didn’t work!
Looking back—and many people don’t want to look back because it is too painful—it seems as if the whole of the public was sold a bill of goods in the name of science. It was baloney no matter which way you slice it. Some of us knew it at the time and called it out. We were denounced, attacked, and censored for saying so.
Is it any wonder that government, media, and science generally are in complete disrepute today, across the whole population and all over the world?
This is why there needs to be some discovery and accountability. We need to know where this stuff came from.
It didn’t come from the air or clouds. It was a decision made by human beings, somewhere and based on something. We should know what it is.
If Fauci doesn’t know, who does? The CDC has had three heads during this time: Robert Redfield, Rochelle Walensky, and now Mandy Cohen. They should tell all they know. If they don’t know, they should name the names of others who they think might have done this. Then Congress should ask those people and get them to say who they think it is. We should do this with every single idiotic protocol issued during that period, whether six feet, masks, sanitizer, one-way grocery isles, church closures, Plexiglas, and anything else.
The deeper truth is that the entire paradigm is drawn from the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) response to SARS-1 in 2003, which was then embraced by the World Health Organization (WHO).
That’s its real origin: it is a communist tactic of political control using infectious disease as the excuse.
This stuff traumatized the nation and the world. It broke everything. Now we have doors flying off airplanes only to find out later that the manufacturer had to lay off lots of mechanics during lockdowns. We have political upheaval in Ecuador, which had very hard lockdowns that demoralized everyone. We have huge absenteeism in public schools everywhere because the kids can no longer be bothered to go to class. We have a massive shortage of actual workers who know how to do stuff because they gave up and retired.
The lockdowns and everything associated with them utterly broke the world. The COVID response set the whole of the civilized world on fire. At the very least, we are owed an explanation for all this, starting with six feet of distance. If we cannot get to the bottom of where this came from, there’s no hope for sorting out the rest of the rigamarole. The investigations have to start somewhere. They should not stop for at least 5–10 years!
|
|
|
Holy Mass in Canada [Ontario] - January 21, 2024 |
Posted by: Stone - 01-13-2024, 09:38 AM - Forum: January 2024
- No Replies
|
|
Holy Sacrifice of the Mass - Third Sunday after Epiphany
Date: Sunday, January 21, 2024
Time: Confessions - 5:30 PM
Holy Mass - 6:00 PM
Location: Barry's Bay area, Ontario - contact number below for details
Contact: 315-391-7575
|
|
|
Holy Mass in Pennsylvania [Erie area] - |
Posted by: Stone - 01-13-2024, 09:23 AM - Forum: January 2024
- No Replies
|
|
Holy Sacrifice of the Mass - Feast of Sts. Fabian & Sebastian
Date: Saturday, January 20, 2024
Time: Confessions - 11:30 AM
Holy Mass - 12:00 PM
Location: 932 West 8th Street
Erie, PA 16502
Contact: (814) 746-5879
|
|
|
Paula Haigh: History and Some Historians |
Posted by: Stone - 01-13-2024, 06:45 AM - Forum: Articles by Catholic authors
- No Replies
|
|
History and Some Historians
Creatorem Coeli et Terram [emphasis - The Catacombs] | February 14, 2014
In an early work, THE KINGSHIP OF CHRIST, according to the principles of St. Thomas Aquinas, (1931), Father Dennis Fahey, a Holy Ghost father who died in 1955, explored the "real history of the world", and found that this real, true history of the world is the account of the acceptance or rejection, by the world, of God's plan for the restoration of the Divine Life. In other words, it is the story of God's undoing of the awful consequences of Original Sin, taken in conjunction with man's response to God's overtures...(page 33). This acceptance or rejection of God's plan for order can be most accurately gauged by the degree to which any particular culture or community not only refuses to hinder, but positively works to favor the attaining of man's final end, - union with God in His inner supernatural life. (pg.37)
This does not mean that the world of culture becomes like a monastery. It does mean, however, that the world's customs and entertainments, it's serious businesses and even it's wars, are characterized more by virtue than by vice, or by the encouragement of what leads to virtue, - such as prayer, rather than by what leads to vice.
Father Fahey cites the world of Medieval Europe as having exemplified, probably, the closest any society could come to being "the best of all possible worlds" - inasmuch as in Medieval Europe "the State then grasped the formal principle of ordered social life in the actual world - and in which an institution such as the Inquisition - or any similar police force for keeping "law and order" - was set up to defend the hold of the world on order against the fomentors of disorder", (page 38) And, of course, the given principle accepted by all was that man in society, redeemed by Our Lord, is not able to live as God wants him to live - unless he accepts the supernatural and supra-national Catholic Church - the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ our Lord. It is only in and from this one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic church, that people find the sources of the interior life, from which proceed the external forms of a culture. But the modern world has turned aside from order and is suffering for its apostasy and disorder. (page 39). This great truth needs to be proclaimed unequivocally. And today we must begin with the restoration of truth in the natural sciences, because there is no theology, but only an abstract or sentimental fideism, without a true foundation in the natural sciences.
The medieval world possessed such a sound foundation in its Geocentric Cosmology. Cosmology, which defines the Structure of the Universe and the fixed centrality of earth, is the necessary essential of the entire body of knowledge we know as the Natural Order. It is this natural order upon which Grace builds the entire edifice of the Supernatural Order of Divine Grace - producing the Elect and those beacons of light for us, the Saints. Any historian who omits in-depth consideration of the relations between the natural sciences and theology, will not give us true or reliable history. It was first Copernicus - and then his popularizer, Galileo, who first cut the umbilical cord binding the natural sciences to Theology - by way of Holy Scripture. Without the guidance of the theologians of the Church, the natural sciences were bound to go astray, and so they did. The end result is precisely what the encyclical Pascendi describes as the subjugation of faith to science - a science falsely so called, (1 Tim. 6:20). This is a crime of the greatest magnitude - the synthesis of all heresies - overturning in men's minds the very hierarchy of reality.
It is true that Father Fahey himself never focused on the relation of science to theology as indicated in Pascendi (1907). His focus was the deep disorder introduced by Luther's erroneous doctrine of Grace, in effect making prayer meaningless - and his emphasis upon the individual - making the concept of the common good meaningless. And so it has been with all historians following Father Fahey. The emphasis has been upon the social order and its concomitant political and social disorders coming down from the sick heads of state. It has been left for the secular historians such as Arthur Koestler, Thomas Kuhn, and Alexandre Koyre, with a host of others, to focus on the Copernican Revolution and its far-reaching effects on all aspects of culture and civilization. I appeal especially to Arnaud de Lassus, Father Paul Kramer, Dr. John Rao - and all who write about our current crisis of faith, to turn their scholarly efforts towards what appears to be a great conspiracy of silence, forbidding the exposure of "the operation of error" (2 Thess. 2:10) - which has overwhelmed the natural sciences in all their disciplines. Pascendi warned us of modernisms "Law of Evolution" - whereby everything - the Church, her Dogmas - her Worship - Her Sacred Scriptures, even her Faith itself - must change or die. (#26). This is the lie upon which modernism is based.
This "synthesis of all heresies" - can only be confronted and combated and eventually overcome and destroyed beneath Our Lady's heel - by a synthesis of all truths - which is the deposit of faith. Nothing new is needed in this battle. On the contrary, it is all there in the First Article of the Creed:
The existence of God as Creator of heaven and earth. We need only to make these truths shine forth in all their real splendor.
Kyrie, eleison.
|
|
|
Our Lady of Fatima, Destroyer of All Heresies |
Posted by: Stone - 01-13-2024, 06:37 AM - Forum: Articles by Catholic authors
- No Replies
|
|
Our Lady of Fatima, Destroyer of All Heresies
Mary, Destroyer of All Heresies blog | April 20, 2021
Our Lady is the Destroyer of all heresies. St. Pius X called Modernism 'the compendium of all heresies'. The roots of Modernism are in agnostic philosophy - an agnosticism supported by the Copernican assertion that the Church was wrong about her geocentric cosmology. If the Church was wrong about so fundamental and foundational a matter, she cannot be trusted with the far weightier matters of faith and morals. This was the conclusion of the Church's enemies (and too many of her own sons) when Galileo Galilee advanced the idea of a mobile earth spinning diurnally and orbiting the sun. Yet our Lady of Fatima gave us a miraculous sign to demonstrate once and for all that the Church was not wrong to condemn heliocentrism, but that she had faithfully handed down what she received from the Holy Fathers.
For those unfamiliar with the controversy, it concerns the Church's biblical cosmology. [...] Paula Haigh (+2015) explains:
Quote:The medieval world possessed such a sound foundation in its Geocentric Cosmology. Cosmology, which defines the Structure of the Universe and the fixed centrality of earth, is the necessary essential of the entire body of knowledge we know as the Natural Order. It is this natural order upon which Grace builds the entire edifice of the Supernatural Order of Divine Grace - producing the Elect and those beacons of light for us, the Saints. Any historian who omits in-depth consideration of the relations between the natural sciences and theology, will not give us true or reliable history. It was first Copernicus - and then his popularizer, Galileo, who first cut the umbilical cord binding the natural sciences to Theology - by way of Holy Scripture. Without the guidance of the theologians of the Church, the natural sciences were bound to go astray, and so they did. The end result is precisely what the encyclical Pascendi describes as the subjugation of faith to science - a science falsely so called, (1 Tim. 6:20). This is a crime of the greatest magnitude - the synthesis of all heresies - overturning in men's minds the very hierarchy of reality.
The Church put the full weight of her magisterial authority behind the condemnation of heliocentrism as formal heresy. The Church was right. There isn't and there never was any proof for heliocentrism. The miracle of the sun at Fatima was our Lady's way of demonstrating that the defeat of Modernism will only be achieved by recovering the Church's full and plenary power for proclaiming the complete record of revelation to a world that had been plunged into philosophical futility and meaninglessness. For, if the earth were some insignificant planet cast into a random corner of the universe drifting aimlessly towards oblivion as the modern philosophers postulate, what good was religion? On October 13th, 1917 the sun danced; not the earth, not the cosmos. 70,000 people saw it, to include many atheists. Our Lady is the Destroyer of All Heresies, and the miracle of the sun is a great sign for us to believe as the Church had always taught - that we occupy a privileged place in the very center of the cosmos in which God became man in her virginal womb.
In Psalm 18, the sun is depicted as an athlete running the way "from the end of heaven, and his circuit even to the end thereof" to illustrate the movement of the sun around the earth. This Psalm clearly tells the reader that the 'language' spoken by the heavens is (a) universal; and (b) understood by all. The plain evidence of the phenomena is that the sun circles the earth daily. No one has ever observed the earth circling the sun or spinning on an axis. As if to emphasize how irrefutable and infallible this phenomena is, the Psalmist then discourses about the perfection of the Law of the Lord. The entire Psalm moves in perfect motion through four themes:
(1) The heavens declare the glory of God.
(2) The sun circles the earth.
(3) The Law of the Lord is perfect.
(4) Whoever keeps the just judgments of the Lord will be kept from sin.
Lest we think this is a simplistic and primitive way of exegeting the divine Word, let us take a Doctor of the Church, St. Robert Bellarmine for our guide:
Quote:"Second. I say that, as you know, the Council [of Trent] prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe. Now consider whether in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators." (Letter to Foscarini, 1615)
Vatican I (1869-1870) infallibly confirmed the teaching of Trent:
Quote:Now since the decree on the interpretation of holy scripture, profitably made by the council of Trent, with the intention of constraining rash speculation, has been wrongly interpreted by some, we renew that decree and declare its meaning to be as follows: that in matters of faith and morals, belonging as they do to the establishing of christian doctrine, that meaning of holy scripture must be held to be the true one, which holy mother church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true meaning and interpretation of holy scripture. 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.
The philosophy condemned by Pope St. Pius X in the 1907 encyclical Pascendi gregis (On the Doctrines of the Modernists) is agnosticism, the belief that man could not know for certain whether there is a God, and that His will is likewise unknowable (this is condemned at Vatican I, ch. i, 3). St. Pius X counted among the chief of the doctrines of the Modernists the vile and antibiblical idea of evolution. The evolution championed by Teilhard de Chardin which has wounded the faith of the Church so deeply to this very day presumes upon the Church's loss of authority in supposedly interpreting the first chapters of Genesis incorrectly. If the earth was not created on the first day and the sun, moon and stars on the fourth as lights and signs for the times and seasons to benefit man, which the Church had always taught, then the Church was wrong about the foundational passages of Sacred Scripture. If she was wrong about this, then surely she could be in error about the cosmos being created in six days. Thus the way for Modernism is paved, not by true science, nor by sound philosophy, but by a demonically animated skepticism: "...hath God said...?" (Genesis 3,1)
This wound was inflicted upon the Church not by Darwin, but by Nicholas Copernicus, who, like Teilhard was a priest who rejected the testimony of the Holy Fathers infallibly confirmed by the Council of Trent. In summary, there is no Darwin and no Teilhard without the monstrous error of heliocentrism, which three Popes rightly condemned as a formal heresy for its opposition to the Patristic consensus.
Our Lady of Guadalupe
The Mother of God performed another miracle in 1531 by imprinting her image on the tilma of St. Juan Deigo, a miracle that resulted in an astonishing conversion of no less than six million Aztecs who were at the time in the thrall of the most barbaric forms of idolatry imaginable. In this image, our Lady is clearly depicted as being clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet as Sacred Scripture reveals (Apoc. 12, 1). In both Scripture and the miraculous icon of Guadalupe, the Mother of Christ is being encompassed by the sun, a symbolic rendering of the sun orbiting the earth, represented by our Lady, the pinnacle of the earth's created order.
No wonder then that of all the signs at her queenly disposal she, the Seat of Wisdom, chooses the dance of the sun at Fatima. This sign unambiguously indicates the movement of the sun, just as the miracle requested by Josue in the Old Testament (cf. Josue 10,13). Perhaps through this sign our Heavenly Queen is showing mankind that all the errors of Russia which were then as now flooding the world could be staunched by her Immaculate Heart; that she who is Mediatrix of all graces could obtain for the Church that glorious defeat of the compendium of all heresies, Modernism. As St. Pius X recognized her in his encyclical on Modernism as the Destroyer of All Heresies, the Blessed Virgin Mary restores that wisdom which had been so long abandoned and rejected by men under the delusion of the heliocentric cosmos which rendered the Church's interpretation of the Word of God to be wrong. If this sign is received in good faith from our Lady of Fatima, the shame of 'persecuting science' with 'faulty biblical exegesis' would be remedied and the Church vindicated in her treatment of the entire Galileo affair, which at present time serves as an embarrassment and a humiliation.
There is no heresy of Modernism without the doctrine of evolution infecting the human element of the Catholic Church. There are no evolutionary toxins wounding sacred doctrine without the stigma of wrongly interpreting Genesis. And that stigma was first applied not by the adepts of Darwin, but of Copernicus.
Our Lady is showing us at Fatima that the way back to orthodoxy (and true militancy) is to recover the correct philosophical moorings that the Fathers of the Church handed down to us, which is to say, the earth is stable at the center of the cosmos, and is the theater of redemption in which God became man in the Virgin's womb.
|
|
|
Benedict XVI: Pope of Evolution |
Posted by: Stone - 01-13-2024, 06:23 AM - Forum: The Architects of Vatican II
- No Replies
|
|
Benedict XVI: Pope of Evolution
Mary, Destroyer of All Heresies blog [emphasis in the original] | January 2, 2024
As the Catholic world mourns the death of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, baptized Josef Aloysius Ratzinger (may he rest in peace), his contributions to the Church and her theology will certainly receive fitting attention.
The late Pope's theology was formed decisively during the inter-war period when foment for Ressourcement theology reached its zenith in Europe. Ressourcement as the French epithet suggests entailed a return to the primary sources of Christian faith - the Scriptures, the Fathers, the early Greek and Latin theologians.
This movement was a counterreaction to the renewal of Scholastic philosophy and theology of St. Thomas Aquinas. The renewal dubbed 'neo-scholasticism' by its opponents represented a legitimate call for a return to St. Thomas as the best viable option to combat the super-heresy of Modernism. This renewal begun by Pope Leo XIII is laid out in profoundly specific action plans in Pope Pius X's encyclical Pascendi Domenici gregis (On the Doctrines of the Modernists):
Quote:In the first place, with regard to studies, We will and ordain that scholastic philosophy be made the basis of the sacred sciences. It goes without saying that if anything is met with among the scholastic doctors which may be regarded as an excess of subtlety, or which is altogether destitute of probability, We have no desire whatever to propose it for the imitation of present generations (Leo XIII. Enc. Aeterni Patris). And let it be clearly understood above all things that the scholastic philosophy We prescribe is that which the Angelic Doctor has bequeathed to us, and We, therefore, declare that all the ordinances of Our Predecessor on this subject continue fully in force, and, as far as may be necessary, We do decree anew, and confirm, and ordain that they be by all strictly observed. In seminaries where they may have been neglected let the Bishops impose them and require their observance, and let this apply also to the Superiors of religious institutions. Further let Professors remember that they cannot set St. Thomas aside, especially in metaphysical questions, without grave detriment. (Pascendi gregis #45)
Reaction to Pope Pius X's encyclical was both strong and divisive; it resulted in the excommunication of some of Modernism's chief luminaries (Fr. George Tyrrell, S.J. and Fr. Alfred Loisy) and drove many of its adepts underground. Chafed by the restrictions of neo-scholasticism, some ventured a way around them by appeal to primary sources which when exegeted carefully could circumvent St. Thomas. The movement aimed to find a way to entertain the modern philosophies that sprang up after the French revolution; philosophies that more adequately reflected the juggernaut of the profane sciences and the progress it purported to hail.
The immovable object for the innovators was the twice dogmatically defined prohibition on exegeting Scripture against the consensus of the Church Fathers:
Quote:Now since the decree on the interpretation of holy scripture, profitably made by the council of Trent, with the intention of constraining rash speculation, has been wrongly interpreted by some, we renew that decree and declare its meaning to be as follows: that in matters of faith and morals, belonging as they do to the establishing of Christian doctrine, that meaning of holy scripture must be held to be the true one, which Holy Mother Church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true meaning and interpretation of holy scripture.
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."
-Vatican Council, Chapter II, On Revelation
Moreover that same ecumenical council established strict rules about the applications of philosophy:
Quote:7. Therefore we define that every assertion contrary to the truth of enlightened faith is totally false [34].
8. Furthermore the Church which, together with its apostolic office of teaching, has received the charge of preserving the deposit of faith, has by divine appointment the right and duty of condemning what wrongly passes for knowledge, lest anyone be led astray by philosophy and empty deceit [35].
9. Hence all faithful Christians are forbidden to defend as the legitimate conclusions of science those opinions which are known to be contrary to the doctrine of faith, particularly if they have been condemned by the Church; and furthermore they are absolutely bound to hold them to be errors which wear the deceptive appearance of truth.
(Session III, chapter iv)
Parenthetically, we may remind the reader that historically and traditionally philosophy encompassed a great deal of subject matter - which included natural sciences, metaphysics, and what we now think of as psychology. The adage in the Church: philosophy is the handmaid of theology.
Quote:For in the vast and varied abundance of studies opening before the mind desirous of truth, everybody knows how the old maxim describes theology as so far in front of all others that every science and art should serve it and be to it as handmaidens. (Leo XIII., [i]Lett. ap. In Magna, Dec. 10, 1889).
In his analysis of Modernism, St. Pius X concludes that the primary error in the system flows from its agnostic philosophy, which is condemned in the Council of the Vatican, 1869-1870. Likewise in a similarly urgent encyclical promulgated by Pope Pius XII in 1950, Humani generis warns that
Quote:6. Such fictitious tenets of evolution which repudiate all that is absolute, firm and immutable, have paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy which, rivaling idealism, immanentism and pragmatism, has assumed the name of existentialism, since it concerns itself only with existence of individual things and neglects all consideration of their immutable essences.
Forty-three years earlier St. Pius X had warned against the disastrous effects of evolutionism in his 1907 encyclical:
Quote:To finish with this whole question of faith and its shoots, it remains to be seen, Venerable Brethren, what the Modernists have to say about their development. First of all they lay down the general principle that in a living religion everything is subject to change, and must change, and in this way they pass to what may be said to be, among the chief of their doctrines, that of Evolution. To the laws of evolution everything is subject - dogma, Church, worship, the Books we revere as sacred, even faith itself, and the penalty of disobedience is death.
...Consequently, the formulae too, which we call dogmas, must be subject to these vicissitudes, and are, therefore, liable to change. Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. An immense collection of sophisms this, that ruins and destroys all religion. Dogma is not only able, but ought to evolve and to be changed. This is strongly affirmed by the Modernists, and as clearly flows from their principles." (Pasc. 36, 13)
The theory of evolution cannot be reconciled with the early chapters of Genesis without doing violence to Sacred Scripture. While this is disputed by many, the cleavage generally falls into opposing camps, one that says scientific theory must submit to the revealed Word of God, the other that claims Scripture must be reinterpreted in order to accommodate scientific theory. The Church has always taught that true science cannot oppose what God has revealed, "who can neither deceive nor be deceived" (Vatican I).
The Modernists obviously opted for the latter in the borrowing from the protestants a new biblical pseudo-science known alternately as the 'historico-critical' method or form criticism. It is condemned by Pope Leo XIII in Providentissimus Deus and by St. Pius X in Pascendi.
The great prophet of evolution was in fact a student of the aforementioned Fr. Tyrrell in England. Teilhard de Chardin's grotesque theology-fiction (epithet ascribed by Etienne Gilson) generated an impressive series of books, tracts, and articles which were suppressed by his own order (Society of Jesus) for their explosive content, forbidding Teilhard to publish or to teach. Yet his ideas caught on rapidly through an underground network of enthusiasts, and for some proposed a promising synthesis of Catholic religion and evolutionary theory. Teilhard's insistence on the primacy of evolution left no room for dissent:
Quote:Is evolution a theory, a system or a hypothesis? It is much more: it is a general condition to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must bow and which they must satisfy henceforward if they are to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light illuminating all facts, a curve that all lines must follow.
- Teilhard de Chardin, Christianity and Evolution, p. 130.
Obviously in the face of such ideological absolutism, Scholastic philosophy seemed dusty, irrelevant, and overcome by events. The conviction among the partisans of Ressourcement was so intense that Fr. Josef Ratzinger was impelled to say
Quote:I want to emphasize again that I decidedly agree with [Hans] Kung when he makes a clear distinction between Roman theology (taught in the schools of Rome) and the Catholic Faith. To free itself from the constraining fetters of Roman Scholastic Theology represents a duty upon which, in my humble opinion, the possibility of the survival of Catholicism seems to depend.
(Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, from a chapter in the book Zum Problem Unfehlbarkeit – “The Problem of Infallibility”, a series of essays edited by Karl Rahner and published in 1971)
Here the tensions are displayed clearly and openly: For a new and relevant Catholicism to emerge Roman Scholastic theology must be overcome. For Ratzinger, the contestation was existential; the survival of the Catholic faith depended on it.
Fr. Ratzinger, a native German subscribed to the philosophy of Georg W. F. Hegel. This system applies a theory of evolution known as dialectics, whereby a thesis is opposed by it's antithesis, and from the dialectic struggle between the two, a new synthesis emerges which itself becomes a thesis, and the process continues indefinitely. There is little room in Hegel's system for St. Thomas, and at the risk of a gross oversimplification, Hegel's philosophy may be considered the ontology of becoming as opposed St. Thomas' philosophy of being.
The biological-historical theory of evolution proposed by Darwin and embellished with Catholic syntax by Teilhard de Chardin provided a basis for Hegelian philosophy in nature. If evolution were true as the modernists proposed, the entire approach to Catholicism and even the God-Man Christ Jesus required a comprehensive reappraisal, leading the editors of the Second Vatican Council's Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et spes) to conclude:
Quote:"Thus, the human race has passed from a rather static concept of reality to a more dynamic, evolutionary one. In consequence there has arisen a new series of problems, a series as numerous as can be, calling for efforts of analysis and synthesis." GS #5)
Fr. Ratzinger remained a convinced evolutionist for his entire life. His effusive praise of Teilhard de Chardin culminated in his characterization of Christ's resurrection as a 'mutation' in his 2006 Easter Sunday sermon. His voluminous writing both as a cleric and a private doctor feature ubiquitous references to Teilhardian concepts such as hominization, complexification, cosmogenesis, and other terminology indigenous to the Jesuit.
As regards creation, Josef Ratzinger ascribed to the documentary hypothesis advanced by the 19th century protestant biblical critics, which proposed that the Scriptures were redacted, edited, complied by various sources conditioned by their own times and circumstances and are not the work of the authors accredited to them by the Church Fathers.
Quote:"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth...."
…these words give rise to a certain conflict. They are beautiful and familiar, but are they also true? Everything seems to speak against it, for science has long since disposed of the concepts that we have just now heard -- the idea of a world that is completely comprehensible in terms of space and time, and the idea that creation was built up piece by piece over the course of seven [or six] days. Instead of this we now face measurements that transcend all comprehension.
…Do these words, then, count for anything? In fact a theologian said not long ago that creation has now become an "unreal" concept; that if one is to be intellectually honest one ought to speak no longer of creation but rather of "mutation and selection." Are these words true?
There were times when Israel was so preoccupied with the sufferings or the hopes of its own history, so fastened upon the here and now, that there was hardly any use in its looking back at creation; indeed, it hardly could. The moment when creation became a dominant theme occurred during the Babylonian Exile. It was then that the account that we have just heard -- based, to be sure, on very ancient traditions -- assumed its present form. Israel had lost its land and its temple. According to the mentality of the time this was something incomprehensible, for it meant that the God of Israel was vanquished -- a God whose people, whose land, and whose worshipers could be snatched away from him. A God who could not defend his worshipers and his worship was seen to be, at the time, a weak God. Indeed, he was no God at all; he had abandoned his divinity. And so, being driven out of their own land and being erased from the map was for Israel a terrible trial: Has our God been vanquished, and is our faith void?
Ratzinger, In the Beginning (editor's note: the people of Israel were exiled because of centuries of idolatry and grave sins, and only went into captivity after the Lord God had mercifully sent His prophets to forewarn and admonish them to repent)
As regards liturgy, where he is highly regarded by some Traditionalists as being a major force in preserving the integrity of the Missal of St. Pius V, he writes
Quote:“The history of the liturgy is constantly growing into an ever-new now, and it must also repeatedly prune back a present that has become the past, so that what is essential can reappear with new vigor. The liturgy needs growth and development as well as purgation and refining and in both cases needs to preserve its identity and that purpose without which it would lose the very reason for its existence[emphasis - The Catacombs]. And if that is really the case, then the alternative between ‘traditionalists’ and ‘reformers’ is woefully inadequate to the situation. He who believes that he can only choose between old and new has already traveled a good way along a dead-end street.”
(Cardinal Ratzinger – 1994 sermon on the occasion of the retirement of his brother, Monsignor Georg Ratzinger, as choirmaster of Regensburg Cathedral)
In a 2006 letter written during his Papacy, Pope Benedict XVI with his eventual decease in view, sweetly and gently thanks God, his parents, siblings, and other supporters for his lifelong blessings and sundry advantages. The longest paragraph is reserved for his ruminations about science.
Without analyzing Ratzinger's theological postulations directly, we can at least pause and ask, where does this leave us in reference to Modernism? Is Modernism no longer a threat to Christian revelation? The fact that Josef Ratzinger came to be the Prefect for the Confratenity of the Doctrine of the Faith - in effect, the supreme chief of theological integrity in the Catholic Church - requires us to ask, what then became of Modernism? What is the dogmatic legacy of Pope Benedict XVI? Can the grave warnings issued by St. Pius X and Pope Pius XII in Pascendi and Humani generis be ignored now? Is a philosophy dependent upon evolution now to be considered not only true, but a replacement for St. Thomas' Scholastic philosophy? Is St. Thomas now opposed to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church? Has the philosophy of becoming overtaken the philosophy of being?
Defenders of the late Pontiff will undoubtedly point to his laudable and and inspiring work of preserving the Traditional Roman liturgy. This is indeed a most profoundly important development for the Church; but we must ask, why did he do it?
In The Reform of the Roman Liturgy by Msgr. Klaus Gamber, Cardinal Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI) wrote:
Quote:J. A. Jungmann, one of the truly great liturgists of our time, defined the liturgy of his day, such as it could be understood in the light of historical research, as a "liturgy which is the fruit of development" . . . What happened after the [Second Vatican] Council was something else entirely: in the place of the liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries and replaced it, as in a manufacturing process, with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product (produit banal de l'instant). [Introduction by Cardinal Ratzinger to La Reforme Liturgique en question (Le-Barroux: Editions Sainte-Madeleine), 1992, pp. 7-8.]
Could the "organic, living process of growth and development over centuries" be in fact a reference to evolution in the mind of Cardinal Ratzinger? Could his contention be with the process of reform (revolution) which disregarded what he esteemed the proper way (evolution)? Could his insistence on subjecting the reforms that proceeded from the Second Vatican Council to a "hermeneutic of continuity" be a reflection of his Hegelian philosophy? Could his primary concern with evolution have driven his moderation of the more radical reforms of the council?
This essay deliberately avoids any consideration of the man Josef Ratzinger, or his prudential decisions in governing the Catholic Church, many which cheered the heart of this author during his pontificate. The real concern for this essay is the threat Modernism continues to pose to the Catholic Church. If Modernism - absolutely dependent on the theory of evolution - is now enshrined at the highest levels of doctrinal authority in the Church, who were its champions? And how can we claim heroic sanctity and virtue for its supporters?
As with Modernism and its offshoots addressed by Pope Pius XII in Humani generis, it is philosophy which is determinative for the formulation of errors. And errors about nature are the most serious, for they distort our ability to reason. We will conclude with St. Thomas:
Quote:It is absolutely false to maintain, with reference to the truths of our faith, that what we believe regarding the creation is of no consequence, so long as one has an exact conception of God; because an error regarding the nature of creation always gives rise to a false idea concerning God.
—Thomas Aquinas, "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[/i]
|
|
|
Bp. Strickland to visit Medjugorje |
Posted by: Stone - 01-13-2024, 05:49 AM - Forum: General Commentary
- No Replies
|
|
Bishop Strickland announced his visit to the site of the false apparitions of Medjugorje, though no doubt well intentioned.
But that is the concern with many of these Novus Ordo trained clergy, they do not easily discern or have knowledge of how the Church has traditionally reacted to such (false) apparitions.
As a reminder of why Medjugorje is to be avoided, here is John Vennari's excellent conference on those false 'messages.'
|
|
|
WEF is ‘Preparing for Disease X’ |
Posted by: Stone - 01-12-2024, 06:28 AM - Forum: Health
- No Replies
|
|
WEF is ‘Preparing for Disease X’
The World Health Organization has issued recent warnings about an unknown “Disease X” that could lead to 20 times more fatalities than COVID-19.
IP | January 11, 2024
Insights from the WEF’s “Preparing for Disease X” session
The session “Preparing for Disease X” is part of the World Economic Forum (WEF) Annual Meeting. The WEF focuses on a long-term strategy for climate, nature, and energy. The session is scheduled for January 17, 2024, from 11:30 to 12:15 CET.
The public speakers for the session are:
- Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General, WHO
- Shyam Bishen, Head, Centre for Health and Healthcare; WEF Geneva
- Roy Jakobs, President and Chief Executive Officer, Royal Philips
- Preetha Reddy, Executive Vice-Chairperson, Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Ltd
- Nisia Trindade Lima, Minister of Health, Ministry of Health of Brazil
- Michel Demaré, Chair of the Board, AstraZeneca Plc
Additionally, in a November 2022 update, the WHO brought together more than 300 scientists to examine evidence related to over 25 virus families and bacteria, including “Disease X.” This term is used to signify an unknown pathogen that could lead to a significant global epidemic.
“Disease X” is a somewhat mysterious term for an illness caused by a currently unknown but serious microbial threat, as . In 2017, the WHO included Disease X in a shortlist of top-priority pathogens for research, alongside well-known diseases like Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and Ebola.
Disease X and the WHO’s proactive approach to research and development
The COVID-19 pandemic, triggered by a novel coronavirus in 2019, is an example of a Disease X, according to WHO. These diseases are believed to originate from the vast pool of viruses circulating in wildlife. They pose a potential risk to humans by crossing over and causing infections to which people have no immunity.
Moreover, the WHO aims to be well-prepared with research and development (R&D) efforts in advance for an unknown disease, allowing for early response.
In response, the WHO established an R&D Blueprint to fast-track the development of various tools for “priority diseases.” The current list includes diseases like COVID-19, Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever, Ebola virus disease, and Marburg virus disease. Lassa fever, Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), SARS, Nipah and henipaviral diseases, Rift Valley fever, and Zika are also on the list.
|
|
|
Abp. Viganò: Fernández’s blasphemous book is yet another fruit of the Vatican II revolution |
Posted by: Stone - 01-12-2024, 06:21 AM - Forum: Archbishop Viganò
- Replies (1)
|
|
Abp. Viganò: Fernández’s blasphemous sex book is yet another fruit of the Vatican II revolution
'If we think of the spousal model that Saint Paul offers us in the most chaste relationship between Christ and the Church (Eph 5:22), Tucho’s unmentionable obscenities reveal to us a soul totally corrupted by vice, and by a vice that with all evidence seems to have been amply experimented.'
Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò
Jan 11, 2024
(LifeSiteNews - emphasis mine) — If, before Vatican II, an official of the Holy Office had been tasked with examining the text of La Pasión Mística to draw up a report on it in view of making a judgment about it, in all probability he would not have dedicated more than “ten, fifteen seconds” to it before throwing it into the stove. But before Vatican II a heretical pornographer would never have aspired, not only to the Sacred Purple of the cardinalate, but not even to the priesthood; nor would his Superiors have ever admitted him to Holy Orders. Víctor Manuel Fernández – known as “Tucho” by the friends of Santa Marta – instead rose to the very top of the Hierarchy, created Cardinal and appointed Prefect of the Holy Office – excuse me, of the “Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith” – by another Argentine heretic, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who, since March 13, 2013, has demonstrated by his governance and teaching actions that he is an emissary of the globalist elite, following the wishes, or rather the mandates, of the Anglo-American deep state. But just when Fernández’s cursus horrorum seemed to reserve him entry into the Conclave as Jorge Mario’s candidate, along came the embarrassing pamphlet dusted off from the shelf, destined to weigh like a tombstone on Tucho’s ambitions.
A cursory reading of La Pasión Mística is difficult and shocking for anyone. The limping prose and the didactic insistence on aspects of copulation are accompanied by descriptions of obscenity that would embarrass even a consummate frequenter of brothels, to the point of wondering if certain details were also the subject of personal experimentation by Tucho Fernández. The most obvious and normal reaction to seeing the obscene pages of this pamphlet is the instinctive disgust one feels for the shameful satisfaction in juxtaposing perversions unworthy of a civilized person to the sphere of spirituality, and this is enough to avoid indulging in dangerous curiosities and throw it into the flames. No complex theological speculations are needed to understand that this insistence on sexuality cloaked in mystical ambitions is one of the incontrovertible signs of diabolical action, as Saint Ignatius teaches. But once we have seen Fernández’s foul work being consumed in the avenging fire, we are left with the feeling of having been somehow stained by his moral filth.
If the condemnation without appeal of this work does not even have to be explained, so obvious is its obscenity, it is nevertheless necessary to ask ourselves some questions about its author and ask ourselves how much the doctrinal and spiritual approach that emerges from La Pasión Mística and Saname Con tu Boca is compatible with the priestly, episcopal and the cardinalatial dignity and the role of Prefect of the Dicastery. Because what shocks the reader is not only the author’s ease in dealing with scabrous topics, but in having dared to take them as a key to understanding the mystical experience, in a blasphemous subversion. In fact, if the Christian soul starts from the union with God, from the bond of pure and spiritual Charity that binds it to its Lord, Creator and Redeemer, to behave accordingly in the face of good and evil; Tucho starts instead from a borderline reality to make it the yardstick of divine life, to interpret the relationships between the Three Divine Persons and the soul in the light of a corrupt and deviant sexuality. In his view it is therefore not the Truth of God that illuminates our moral action, sanctifying it and making it meritorious, but the sinful action of the individual and the couple that determines the very essence of God. We have already had various previews of this inverted vision of the terms, not the least of which is the idea that would like to consider the Commandments as ideal objectives which man is supposedly unable to conform to, according to the situational morality endorsed by the Argentine Jesuit. For Tucho it is not the individual who must obey God, but God who must adapt His requests, His Law, to what the individual decides. It is the mentality of Fiducia Supplicans, which in the absence of any doctrinal basis to legitimize a seriously sinful union, invents a new way of considering the blessings in use in the Church – a “true novelty” – in order to bless what cannot be blessed and ratify what not only cannot be ratified, but must indeed be condemned.
“Let us now ask ourselves whether these particularities of the male and female in orgasm are somehow also present in the mystical relationship with God,” writes Tucho, who does not only speak of the “aggressive grunts” of the man or of “images with violent sexual scenes, images of orgies” which according to the author should entice the man more than the woman, but also of their sacrilegious use as a figure of supernatural love, so that it is no longer the married couple who give themselves in the fruitful marital relationship on the model of divine Charity, but it is the Divine Persons who see themselves reduced to partners in a sexual relationship, with the aggravating circumstance that this reference model is deliberately distorted and distorted by choosing it from the most extreme examples inspired by pornography, an industry managed almost entirely by Rabbi Solomon Friedman’s MindGeek, with the aim of morally corrupting the goyim.
If we think of the spousal model that Saint Paul offers us in the most chaste relationship between Christ and the Church (Eph 5:22), Tucho’s unmentionable obscenities reveal to us a soul totally corrupted by vice, and by a vice that with all evidence seems to have been amply experimented.
The horror that a normal person feels when reading the revolting pamphlet is twofold: one’s horror at the indecent and blasphemous contents is combined with the horror of seeing how the current Prefect of the most important Roman Dicastery is not only not ashamed of it, but actually has brazenly tried to justify his literary attempts, which according to him could constitute “a moment of dialogue with young couples who wanted to better understand the spiritual meaning of their relationships”. Because if certain perversions are deplorable and serious in a soul brutalized by vice, they become intolerable when they are made the subject of publication by a priest who is a professor of moral theology – as Tucho was at the time the book was published, before being made a Bishop by Bergoglio.
It is not surprising if, in conjunction with the news of the existence of this pamphlet, the Maltese Archbishop Charles Scicluna – Adjunct Secretary of the Tucho dicastery, former Promoter of Justice of the CDF under Benedict XVI – asked to discuss – rectius: asked to open up for discussion – the topic of ecclesiastical celibacy. If the Prefect of the former Holy Office was able to write and publish such blasphemous obscenities, it is because he wants them to become normality not only for lay people, but also and above all for clerics, so that their moral brutalization precludes them from any even remote possibility of preaching a Gospel that they are the first to contradict, and which, according to another Cardinal, “is not a distillation of truth”. Those who ask to abolish Celibacy do so because it is the last Catholic bastion to protect the Priesthood. Look at the erotic frescoes commissioned by Vincenzo Paglia in the Terni cathedral; Rupnik’s blasphemous and sacrilegious sexual magic rituals; the “chem parties” with prostitutes of the secretary of Cardinal Coccopalmerio, Monsignor Capozzi; the appointments of Ricca in Santa Marta and as Prelate of the IOR [Vatican Bank], of Maradiaga to the Council of Cardinals, of Grech, of Hollerich, not to mention the Substitute of the Holy See, Archbishop Peña Parra; the shame of Fabian Pedacchio, former personal secretary of Bergoglio and “companion” of the Secretary of the Dicastery of Bishops Ilson Montanari; look at the cover-ups of the McCarrick sex scandals that I denounced and how his circle is still found in roles of high responsibility, both in the Vatican and in the United States, with Farrell, Cupich, Tobin, Gregory, and McElroy; Bergoglio’s audiences with transsexuals, well-known homosexuals, and cohabiting lovers: can anyone seriously believe that there is no coherence in this cesspool of vices and perversions with what Tucho wrote in 1998?
The first confirmation of this coherence comes from the enthusiastic approval enjoyed by Bergoglio and his henchmen among the declared enemies of Christ and the Church: Freemasons, globalists, LGBTQ+ and gender activists, promoters of the woke ideology, proponents of neo-Malthusian eugenics, abortionists. How can we believe that those who enjoy the support of Lynn Forester de Rothschild, the Soros’s, the Clinton’s, Bill Gates and Klaus Schwab can at the same time fight in the name of the Gospel of Christ against the infernal ideology that drives these criminal subversives? There are those who have rightly pointed out that, in light of this shameful mass of pseudo-mystical and sacrilegious pornography, all the insistence of Tucho and the Bergoglian sect on the inclusion of sodomites and concubinarists sounds like a shameless and shameless Cicero pro domo sua. Even the simple faithful, with the common sense that comes from being members of the Church, have understood that this mass of perverts only seeks to legitimize the vices of others in order to be able to practice them themselves in broad daylight, after having clumsily hidden them for decades; and that this shameful conflict of interest is so evident in its obscene arrogance that it disqualifies the mellifluous and deceptive declarations of welcome. Because these misguided people do not seek the salvation of lost souls, but cynically use them as a pretext for their own personal gain, to indulge their own vices and those of their accomplices, to fuel the vile network of blackmail that controls rulers, politicians, actors, clerics, journalists, magistrates, doctors, and entrepreneurs from all over the world.
What Fernández writes in La Pasión Mística is not that different from what actually happened on Jeffrey Epstein’s island. But this is not normality, even if it is what the author of the pamphlet would like us to believe, with pseudoscientific petulance: “On a hormonal and psychological level there are no pure males and females.” If these are Tucho’s hormones and psychology, there are however many people who live their affection and marital relationship using reason, free will, and the Grace of God. There are people – and this is what Fernández cannot understand – who have the humility to recognize themselves as weak and fallible, but who precisely because they are aware of their own weakness find in God the strength to resist temptations and grow in virtue, with that heroism that only Charity can inspire and nourish in the hearts of those who do not look at reality from a pool of smelly manure. Virtue: something unknown to the new usurpers of Santa Marta. The silence we have witnessed so far has finally been broken by a choral protest to say the least: the list of entire Episcopal Conferences, of some Cardinals, of diocesan Ordinaries, of associations of clerics and professors of ecclesiastical disciplines who oppose Bergoglio is growing longer every day. And to the grievances of the Clergy are added those of the Catholic laity and even exponents of other religious confessions, tired and exasperated by this mad rush towards the abyss. But if the indignation for Fiducia Supplicans and the concomitant Vatican scandals is right and proper, we must have the courage to recognize that the Argentine Jesuit represents the metastasis of the conciliar cancer, and that his apostasy through synodalism – that is, resorting to methods of control of assemblies in which the totalitarian communist regimes are very expert – is consistent with the ideological foundations laid by the collegiality theorized by Vatican II.
I repeat: we must recognize that a revolutionary process has been underway for over a century; a planned process which then materialized with the subversive action of the neomodernists at the Council and with their seizure of power throughout the post-conciliar period; a process in which all the Popes from John XXIII to Benedict XVI took an active part. If we arrived at the worship of the Pachamama it is because we passed through Assisi; if the Abu Dhabi Declaration was signed and desired by the Holy See, it is because we first tolerated Nostra Ætate and Dignitatis Humanæ; if we have come to hear deaconesses theorized it is because we have suffered in silence the introduction of “extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist” and altar girls. And – let’s say it! – if today the Vatican is reduced to a brothel, it is because since the time of Paul VI there was no desire to nip in the bud the lavender mafia that was encysted in the Vatican, instead favoring those who, being more blackmailable, gave greater guarantees of obedience. The pattern of how the deep church acted to infiltrate the Catholic Church is a mirror image of what the deep state followed to take control of civil governments, as recent news shows us. The sewer from which the infamous pamphlet of the Prefect of the former Holy Office re-emerged is the same from which the scandals of the characters mentioned in Epstein’s list emerge. We need a radical return to the God of the human race, through a purification of civil society and the ecclesial body. We need to oppose this attack with collective action, so that the Papacy may return to being a Beacon of Truth and a Harbor of Salvation, and not the megaphone of the antichristic synarchy of the World Economic Forum.
+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop
January 10, 2024
Infra Oct. Epiphaniæ
|
|
|
Pope Francis tells Communists: ‘Don’t back down, don’t give up’ |
Posted by: Stone - 01-12-2024, 06:14 AM - Forum: Pope Francis
- No Replies
|
|
Pope Francis tells Communists: ‘Don’t back down, don’t give up’
‘Imagine he had said that [don't give up] to the Traditional Catholics,’ said John-Henry Westen.
Pope Francis meeting with the Marxist group, January 10, 2024
Vatican News
Jan 11, 2024
VATICAN CITY (LifeSiteNews - adapted) — Hosting a Marxist-Christian dialogue group at the Vatican on Wednesday, Pope Francis urged them to “be open, in dialogue, to new ways,” while avoiding reiterating the Church’s consistent condemnation of Marxism.
Shortly before his weekly general audience on January 10, Pope Francis received a small delegation from the DIALOP group. DIALOP, according to its own description, is a “project of dialogue between Socialists/Marxists and Christians, involving intellectuals, academics, politicians, activists and students from several European Countries.”
In his address, the pope urged the Marxist and Christian attendees to “never lose the ability to dream.”
Quote:Today, in a world divided by war and polarization, we run the risk of losing the ability to dream. We Argentines say, “no te arrugues,” meaning “don’t back off.” This is my invitation to you as well: Don’t back off, don’t give up, and don’t stop dreaming of a better world.
Francis stated that “it is in imagination, the ability to dream, that intelligence, intuition, experience and historical memory come together to make us be creative, take chances and run risks.”
Punctuating the brief address, he gave three “attitudes” which he said would be “helpful for your efforts,” those being: “the courage to break the mould, concern for the less fortunate and support for the rule of law.”
Expanding on having “concern for the less fortunate,” Francis referenced the crimes of “great dictatorships,” mentioning “Naziism” by name, but avoided speaking about the evils of Communism itself.
LifeSite’s John-Henry Westen quipped how Francis’ warm message of welcome to the Marxists is not reflected in his attitude to devotees of the traditional Mass.
Indeed, while the DIALOP group is officially comprised of Marxists and Christians in dialogue, the pope did not mention Christ, Christianity, or the Church’s condemnation of Communism and Marxism at all.
Catholic teaching against Communism is very clear. Writing in Quadragesimo Anno, Pope Pius XI warned the entire Church about “the impious and iniquitous character of Communism.” Describing Socialism as slightly less violent, Pius XI firmly prohibited any attempts to marry Socialism and Catholicism:
Quote:Whether considered as a doctrine, or an historical fact, or a movement, Socialism, if it remains truly Socialism, even after it has yielded to truth and justice on the points which we have mentioned, cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the Catholic Church because its concept of society itself is utterly foreign to Christian truth.
Pius XI also penned such words in Divini Redemptoris:
Quote:Communism is intrinsically wrong, and no one who would save Christian civilization may collaborate with it in any undertaking whatsoever. Those who permit themselves to be deceived into lending their aid towards the triumph of Communism in their own country will be the first to fall victims of their error. And the greater the antiquity and grandeur of the Christian civilization in the regions where Communism successfully penetrates, so much more devastating will be the hatred displayed by the godless.
Pius’ words merely built on the constant teaching of his predecessors. Pius IX’s 1846 encyclical Qui pluribus described Communism as “a doctrine most opposed to the very natural law,” which would usher in “complete destruction of everyone’s laws, government, property, and even of human society itself.”
Pope Leo XIII’s 1878 encyclical Quod Apostolici Muneris condemned Socialism as a “deadly plague that is creeping into the very fibres of human society and leading it on to the verge of destruction.”
Catholic philosopher Edward Feser took particular care to highlight sections from the Church’s teaching on the evils of Socialism, Communism, and Marxism. Even though some more recent [Conciliar] popes have pronounced less boldly and forthrightly on the issues when compared with their predecessors, the constant prohibition of acceptance of, or collaboration with, such ideologies has remained constant.
Pope Benedict XVI’s 2005 encyclical Deus Caritas Est bore especial relevance to Francis’ condoning of the Catholic-Marxist collaboration. The late pontiff noted that Catholic charitable activity must not be done alongside Marxist intervention, but be independent and centrally Catholic:
Quote:Christian charitable activity must be independent of parties and ideologies. It is not a means of changing the world ideologically, and it is not at the service of worldly stratagems, but it is a way of making present here and now the love which man always needs.
Indeed, Leo XIII preemptively condemned the form of Catholic-Marxist collaboration which Francis condoned. Writing in Quod Apostolici Muneris, Leo outlined how societal improvements were to be made by the Church acting without being restrained by outside forces:
Quote:since they know that the Church of Christ has such power to ward off the plague of socialism as cannot be found in human laws, in the mandates of magistrates, or in the force of armies, let them restore that Church to the condition and liberty in which she may exert her healing force for the benefit of all society.
The DIALOP group states of itself that “dialogue is the best way to make a real change and we work to turn the world into a better place to live in,” and Francis in turn praised DIALOP as “a fine program.”
Its link with Francis is perhaps deeper than is fully realized. One of its goals is to pursue deeper relations between the Catholic Church and a little-known organization called the Global Compact on Education (GCE). The GCE is actually a brain child of Pope Francis, which aims to promote education in light with U.N. ideals, including on talking points such as “sustainable” living and “gender equality.”
In recent years, Francis has increasingly aligned himself with globalist entities such as the U.N.; the “Council for Inclusive Capitalism with the Vatican,” which is fundamentally committed to promote “environmental, social, and governance measures” in order to achieve the U.N.’s pro-abortion Sustainable Development Goals; the International Monetary Fund; the COP climate agenda; and the World Economic Forum.
|
|
|
Abp. Viganò rebukes Vatican official’s remarks on blessing homosexual ‘couples’ in St. Peter’s |
Posted by: Stone - 01-12-2024, 06:04 AM - Forum: Archbishop Viganò
- No Replies
|
|
Abp. Viganò rebukes Vatican official’s remarks on blessing homosexual ‘couples’ in St. Peter’s
'Fidelity to Christ is considered by the top leadership of the Bergoglian Hierarchy as rebellion and a reason for division in the Church. In reality, these mercenaries are showing their true face as apostates and heaping coals of fire on their own heads.'
Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò
Thu Jan 11, 2024
(LifeSiteNews) — Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò issued a statement on X, formerly Twitter, on Thursday after a Vatican official announced homosexual “couples” will be allowed to be blessed at St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. Below is the statement published in full.
True Catholics – bishops, priests, religious and laity – oppose Fiducia Supplicans and condemn Bergoglio’s subservience to the Globalist Agenda.
On the other side, his courtiers scurry to demonstrate their cowardly servility. This already happened with the idol of the Pachamama that was devoutly carried on the shoulders of bishops and prelates who consider the adoration of the Blessed Sacrament and the veneration of saints “medieval superstitions.”
Fidelity to Christ is considered by the top leadership of the Bergoglian Hierarchy as rebellion and a reason for division in the Church. In reality, these mercenaries are showing their true face as apostates and heaping coals of fire on their own heads.
The hypocritical simulacrum of false unity erected by conciliar irenicism at the price of Catholic Truth will be torn down, while the Vatican Sanhedrin will sink under the weight of the cowardice of those who think only of pleasing the tyrant.
|
|
|
|