| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 776 online users.
» 1 Member(s) | 771 Guest(s)
Applebot, Bing, Google, Yandex, Sacrificium
|
|
|
| Fr. Coleridge [1887]: The Delight of God: His Eternal Design for the Blessed Virgin Mary |
|
Posted by: Stone - 09-05-2024, 12:08 PM - Forum: Our Lady
- No Replies
|
 |
The Delight of God: His eternal design for the Blessed Virgin Mary unveiled in prophecy
Preparing for the feast of the Nativity of Our Lady: Fr Henry James Coleridge explains how God had delighted in his plans for the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Incarnation from all eternity.
![[Image: https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.ama...2x775.jpeg]](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F0c90bcd7-4ad1-45e0-85b6-b13d26b608e2_1372x775.jpeg)
Our Lady, Seat of Wisdom. Wiki Commons.
WM Review | Sep 04, 2024
As we are approaching the feast of the Nativity of Our Lady,
we will be publishing a few meditations on her role in God’s divine plan for redemption.
The Design of God
From Mother of the King – Mary During the Life of Our Lord
Fr Henry James Coleridge, 1886, Ch. I, pp 1-7
Words applied to Mary by the Church
The Church on more than one occasion applies to our Blessed Lady the great words which are found in the Book of Proverbs, spoken there of the Wisdom of God.
Quote:“The Lord possessed me in the beginning of His ways, before He made anything from the beginning. I was set up from eternity, and of old, before the earth was made. The depths were not as yet, and I was already conceived, neither had the fountains of waters as yet sprung out. The mountains with their huge bulk had not as yet been established. Before the hills I was brought forth,”1 (and the rest.)
The truth which is contained in this application is beyond all question, and might have been assumed as true, if we had not this especial sanction for believing it from the authority of the Church. For His own work “is known to the Lord from the beginning,” as St. James said in the Council of Jerusalem.2
In this there is no difference between the design of God with regard to Mary and His design concerning any other of His creatures. The difference lies in the importance of the design in this case over that of any other, in the greatness of the work of God which He determined to perform, in the treasures of wisdom and power and love which He chose to lavish upon this work rather than on any other, that is, in the supreme beauty of the plan, and the mighty attributes of power and holiness and mercy which He intended to exert in its execution.
Design of God for Our Lady
This design of God is the foundation of the whole greatness and glory of this Blessed Mother. It derived its pre-eminent beauty and greatness from the close union between the Mother and the Son in the great decree of the Incarnation.
In that decree it is impossible to separate them. The Incarnate Son, according to the decree of the Most Blessed Trinity, must have a Mother, and she with all her graces and glories is, for His sake, a part of the decree itself. It being once settled that God was to become Man by the way of generation from a Mother, that Mother belongs to the decree of the Incarnation as much, though not so directly, as the Sacred Humanity itself.
The designs of God are all supremely beautiful in the degree which belongs to each, and this design of the Incarnation was the greatest of all God's designs, and was to issue in the greatest and most beautiful of all His works. He could give nothing more than Himself, and thus the Divine Maternity of Mary is a work which cannot be surpassed.
It is therefore one of those most beautiful of the works of God in which He Himself takes an actual part, as in the Sacred Humanity of our Lord, the redemption of the world, and the beatification of the saints by the possession of Himself in Heaven.
God’s delight in His plans
We know that in earthly designs, as when some great genius endeavours to express his thoughts in music or in poetry, a sculptor in marble, or a painter on his canvas, the idea itself is far more beautiful than its expression.
That idea itself also, as well as its expression, grows in perfection and magnificence with the progress of time, as it germinates and expands and ripens in the mind which has conceived it, or in the vehicle which is used for its outward manifestation.
But in the designs of God there is absolute perfection and fulness and ripeness from the very first. For God must conceive at once with the highest possible beauty, and when He sets His hand to the accomplishment of His plan there is no possible lack of power or resource in carrying it out.
Thus the magnificent designs of God in the formation of the Sacred Humanity and in its Hypostatic Union with the Eternal Son were for ever present to Him, and were carried out by Him with perfect and faultless integrity in the time which He had appointed. The pre-existence of these glories and beauties in His mind is what is dwelt upon in the passage from the Wise Man of which mention has been made.
It gives a dignity and grandeur to the design itself, which is said to have been before all other things in the mind of God — before them, not chiefly in the order of time, but rather in the order of His counsels from eternity, in which other things depend on and are chosen in relation to this, not this in relation to and for the sake of other things. For our Lord is the end and final cause of the whole creation.
The words of Scripture which have been quoted represent God to us as contemplating with intense delight from the beginning this great and marvellous plan, a part of which was the creation of Mary and all the gifts and glories which were to find their home in her.
This simple truth contains the whole foundation of what we are familiar with in the private devotions and sacred solemnities of the Church and her children, in which the truths which we have received concerning our Lord and His Blessed Mother find their natural expression in the honour and love which we pay to both.
Nothing that her most devout servants have ever said of the greatness of Mary, but rests on this truth. And we may surely feel that we are bound on our own part to correspond in our measure with this contemplation, so to speak, of God, and that what He has dwelt on so lovingly from all eternity must be one of the most profitable and legitimate subjects for the occupation of such intelligence as He has given to us.
Predictions and anticipations
Another consideration concerning this design of God as to our Blessed Lady, may well be founded on what we have inherited in the prophetic anticipations and predictions which relate to our Lord and His Mother.
For it is the rule of God's dealings with us to prepare His great works beforehand, and to execute them in the time which He has chosen, and moreover not to do this suddenly and without warning to us, but on the contrary, after preparing us also for them by various kinds of prediction.
Many reasons may be given for this arrangement of God, for the predictions concerning the Incarnation and its fruits were necessary as the objects and food of faith and hope, and thus they supported the spiritual life of those who lived before the execution of the design, as well as after it. In the one case previous knowledge, in the other knowledge subsequent to the execution, was necessary for men.
But it is a distinct truth, when we set ourselves to count up what God has done for us in this respect, that He not only dwelt Himself with the utmost complacency from all eternity on His great work of love and mercy and power, and with a contemplation which included us also as the objects of the ineffable love which was therein embodied, but also that He broke the revelation of His exceeding beneficence to us long beforehand, from the very beginning of His dealings with our race, gradually increasing the splendour and clearness of the manifestation as the time drew nigh, and making it all the while the source of infinite spiritual blessings to our souls.
The design of God for the creation of Mary is one thing, and His merciful and tender consideration for us in revealing it beforehand is another.
Revelation of His counsel
It belongs therefore to our subject to consider this revelation of the counsel of God in the second place, after the conception of the design of infinite mercy in the Eternal Mind.
It begins with the creation of a helpmate to Adam in the person of Eve, who was to be called by a name which did not perfectly befit one who was the author of all our woe, “the Mother of all living.”
She was so-called for the sake of Mary, who was to be the second and truer Eve, as our Lord was to be the second Adam. Thus the fountain of prophecy rises from the ground in the garden of Paradise, and the human race starts on its weary pilgrimage through successive ages with the vision before it of a Mother between whom and Satan an endless and truceless warfare was set by the hand of God Himself, and whose Child was to be the deliverer of the race whose nature He was to take from her.
Various anticipations
This original prophecy made faith in the coming redemption possible to man, and so served as the foundation of hope and religion, and the means of reconciliation with God.
In the course of ages it grew into a great stream, and as streams widen as they move onwards by the addition of numberless affluents, so did this prophecy widen more and more in the course of generations by the specification of its details, as it came to be revealed more and more precisely to what nation and tribe and family the promised Deliverer was to belong, and it came to be a matter of notoriety when and where He should come into the world.
This kind of preparation for the fulfilment of the promise was accompanied by the appearance, from time to time, in the history of the chosen people, of events which foreshadowed the deliverance itself, its manner and its effects, as well as by the presence of a series of heroic characters reflecting beforehand the features of the future Messias, anticipating portions of His career, as well as the singular holiness of His Life.
At the same time we find in the stream of these predictions and anticipations, constantly recurring references to the figure of the Mother who appears by His side in the original promise. She herself is made the subject of a fresh series of anticipations of the same kind with Him.
Thus when the Blessed Mother is honoured in Christian devotion by the side of her Son, it is the delight of the religious soul to see how all has come about, as St. Paul says to St. Timothy, "according to the prophecies going before on" her,3 the history interpreting the prophecies, and the prophecies shedding a light of their own on the history.3
Thus, while Noe and Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and Joseph, Moses and Josue, Samson and Samuel, David and a long succession of saints and heroes after him down to the Machabean defenders and deliverers of the people, handed on each in his own way, the various features of His character or the various offices which He was to fulfil as…
- Lawgiver
- Prophet
- King
- Captain
- Teacher
… and while the perpetual sacrifices offered in the Temple, as in the Tabernacle before the Temple was built, spoke continually to the people of the great work of redemption which was to be accomplished by Him and of the application of its fruits for the various needs of the soul, so was there, by the side of this stream of prediction concerning the Son, another running parallel with it concerning the Mother who was to be associated with Him in her measure and degree.
She was prefigured in holy women who had borne prominent parts in great deliverances, Mary her namesake the sister of Moses, or Jael the destroyer of Sisera, or the good Queen Esther, who saved the Jews in their captivity, or the chaste and valiant Judith.
She was seen in the bush that burned and was not consumed, in the fleece of Gedeon, in the cloud that arose out of the sea at the prayer of Elias, and in the Ark of the Covenant, the perpetual treasure of the sanctuary, as well as in the prophecies which spoke clearly of her incommunicable privilege of Virgin Maternity and fruitful Virginity.
Importance of these decrees
It is not here the place to trace out all the details of the prophetic and typical anticipations either of our Lord or of His Blessed Mother. But the fact itself is worthy of our devout remembrance.
It shows us the great importance of this particular arrangement in the designs of God. It shows us the delight which He had in the decree of His love concerning Mary. It shows us how He thought fit to prepare the chosen people and the world at large for her position in the coming Kingdom.
It makes her at once an object of the most intense and grateful veneration, founded, not only on what she is, but also on what God in various ways said of her before He called her into the world.
We can have no higher ambition, no more dutiful desire, than that we should think and feel about the great works of God, as far as that is possible to us, with an estimation and appreciation, an intelligence and devotion, which may correspond to His own thoughts concerning those great works, in which He has not only shed out His power and manifested His holiness, but in which He has also been so exceedingly and ineffably merciful to us and beneficent to us.
There is something deficient in our correspondence to His condescensions when we do not try to stretch our feeble minds, our purblind intelligences, and above all our narrow and cold hearts, as far as may be, to take in and understand and give thanks for all that He has done for us. We are so blind and lost in the things of sense, that we are inclined to think that our intelligences and hearts have been given us to be used on them alone, and that it is a kind of invasion of the rights of this lower world to use these gifts on the things of God for which they were in truth given us.
And we may be sure also that we shall gain and rise in spiritual strength and in blessings of every kind, if we thus exert ourselves to do what we can in these respects.
Thus, then, we may lay the foundation of our considerations concerning Mary and God's dealings with and in her, by the devout contemplation of the eternal designs of God in her respect, and of the great mercy by which He determined not only to lavish on her so large a magnificence of His treasures, but also to prepare our minds by proclaiming beforehand how great she was to be as the chosen vessel of His mercies.
|
|
|
| The Recusant: Bp. Williamson promotes Novus Ordo Divine Mercy ‘Messages from Heaven’ |
|
Posted by: Stone - 09-05-2024, 05:35 AM - Forum: True vs. False Resistance
- No Replies
|
|
Taken from The Recusant #62 - Autumn 2024 [slightly adapted]:
Before you ask, same answer as before. We’ll stop pointing it out when he stops doing it. In the meantime, here is the latest scandal from the Great One. Expect no response from the Fake Resistance except total silence in public, and a weasel-worded defence in private.
Bishop Williamson promotes Novus Ordo Divine Mercy ‘Messages from Heaven’
Yes, you are reading that right.
In a series of four Eleison Comments spanning late April and early May 2024, (“Remarkable Messages” I, II, III & IV) the bishop effectively promotes some “revelations” given to a Novus Ordo nun who belongs to “the Mission of Divine Mercy,” a community dedicated to spreading the bogus, condemned “Divine Mercy” message.
The first of these three begins by informing the reader that:
Quote:“When it comes to apparitions and messages supposedly coming from Heaven, to be prudent is certainly wise…” (https://stmarcelinitiative.org/remarkable-messages-i/)
...but then proceeds immediately to warn:
Quote:“But one can be excessively prudent, especially when the normal Church Authority is itself in confusion.” (Ibid.)
So when it comes to crazy old ladies or Novus Ordo nuns telling everyone that Our Lord Himself is personally appearing to them with messages for the whole world, to be prudent is certainly wise, but on the other hand one ought not to be “excessively prudent”..? Have I understood that correctly?
Prudence is of course one of the four cardinal virtues and the idea that one can have an excess of any virtue is so ridiculous on its surface that we need not spend too long on it. Ought one also to avoid being “excessively just,” perhaps? If applied also to the theological virtues, can one also be guilty of “excessive” Faith, Hope and Charity? The idea is absurd.
In reality, this apparently contradictory and foolish opening statement is merely a rather clumsy attempt to prime the reader for what is to follow. “Yes, we should be wary of false apparitions, but just not in this case!” is in effect what he is seeking to say. He then proceeds to throw caution to the wind:
Quote:“Let us give to a series of recent Messages coming from backwoods Texas, USA, a hearing. The series began with an introductory Message supposedly from Our Lady – let the “supposedly” be taken for granted and not repeated in everything quoted henceforth in these ‘Eleison Comments’ from these Messages.” (Ibid.)
Why would we “give them a hearing” when no evidence has yet been given for their being authentic? (In fact, there are grounds for being very suspicious - read on!) He then says that he has: “no authority to guarantee the Texas Messages’ authenticity,” but that he is going to quote them at length for his readers anyway, adding, rather dishonestly: “Let readers judge on their own.”
The trouble that by quoting this supposed “message from Heaven”, Bishop Williamson has already put his finger in the scale and signalled to his readership that he thinks they are, or might well be, genuine. Most people would not expect Bishop Williamson to be quoting the message at length if he doubted its authenticity, nor would he dedicate four weeks in a row to quoting and discussing them.
We will not quote it at length. The gist is as follows. Generic end-of-the-world talk, the devil is doing battle with God, blah blah. An affirmation that the message itself is a crucial means of fighting back (in other words, the message talks about “these words” - itself in other words.
The claim that “there is no shepherd” - so, sedevacantism? Lots of generic talk about how everyone is “wounded” and needs “healing”. Finally, another self-endorsement: “Blessed is he who receives these Words and allows them to bear their fruit” - “these words” being another self-reference.
That was the “first message” as quoted by Bishop Williamson. The next Eleison Comments deals with the second message, which this time “is from God the Father.” Ha ha ha! Well, well. We won’t quote it either. Like the first message, it is all generic stuff which people will be able to “read into” - light vs darkness, truth vs falsehood, priests are being deceived and need to wake up, bishops aren’t doing their job properly, and so forth.
As with the first message, there is nothing about Vatican II, the New Mass, or any of it, in fact there is no specific detail about anything. Why might that be, do you think? To me at least it seems clear: specific details are easier to debunk that generic “truth and light” talk. By giving maximum generic fluff and minimum specific detail, the author of the “messages” makes it as easy as possible for the reader to “interpret” the meaning and thus find that it agrees with whatever he already thinks. Bishop Williamson sort of (almost!) does this at one point where there is a reference to “small battalions” of God’s army which remain spread across the world. He says:
Quote:“In the “small battalions” can anyone not recognise the scattered remnants of the so-called ‘Resistance’? ” (https://stmarcelinitiative.org/remarkable-messages-ii/)
Interesting words from one who has claimed consistently since 2014 (at least in public: earlier in private) that he doesn’t believe in the Resistance. Even here he has to use speech marks and “so-called” before he can bring himself to utter the dreaded R word..! But leaving that aside, notice how he says that it “could” mean the Resistance. Yes, but it also “could” mean the proponents of “Saint” Faustina and her condemned “Divine Mercy” devotion. It “could” mean conservative novus ordo or indulty types who don’t like Pope Francis and long for the halcyon days of Pope Benedict, or “Saint John Paul the Great”..! It could mean so many things. Why does Garabandal come to mind? These bogus messages always sound alarming at first glance, but on closer inspection one notices that the language is actually quite vague, rather like a tabloid horoscope - there’s plenty of room for the reader to fill in his own “interpretation”. Like Garabandal too, one is left with the impression that the messages are basically “preaching to the choir” and telling people what they want to hear.
A Dubious Provenance
But enough of the bogus contents. It is nothing more or less than one would expect after all. If the messages don’t mention Vatican II or the New Mass that can hardly be a surprise, indeed it would be surprising if they did condemn the New Mass given that they come from a Novus Ordo community!
And who knows - given his continual promotion of the New Mass, perhaps Bishop Williamson wouldn’t be so keen on these messages either!
What else can one gather? The community calls itself “The Mission of Divine Mercy” and is located in rural Texas. What a curious name. Could it just be a coincidence? Not at all. The whole purpose of this community is to spread “Saint” Faustina’s condemned devotion and bogus “revelations”. Their website, curiously enough, does not say anything about the Divine Mercy devotion, but the newsletters are full of it. A quick look at some of the pictures on the website tells the same story.
The founder is one Father John Mary Foster, a priest who used to be a member of the Community of St John, a somewhat “conservative”-looking Novus Ordo religious order founded in 1978 and heavily pushed by John-Paul II during the 1980s and 90s. Following the death of its founder it emerged that it had been the seat of all kinds of sexual abuse and that its founder had been a monster, a manipulative cult leader who took sexual advantage of a great many young women over several decades.
But we digress. Fr John Mary Foster, according to his own website, joined the Community of St John in 1981 and studied in Fribourg, meaning that, whilst not a founder-member, he was one of the early members and would almost certainly have known personally Fr. Marie Dominique Philippe, the founder who also taught at Fribourg, and may even have been one of his inner circle. Yet if there is a story there, it has yet to be told. As far as we are aware, there is no further connection between the two. Foster presumably left the Community of St John back in 2001, when the then- bishop of San Antonio, Texas gave his approval for the current “community” (the Mission of Divine Mercy) to be founded within his diocese.
The community is small and eclectic, as the website makes clear. It comprises a priest, a brother, two nuns, a layman and a lay woman. Notice that the idea of mixing up lay and religious, male and female, is itself something very Novus Ordo. What is also worth noting is
that the “community” seems to have started out about this size and seems not really to have grown in the last twenty-odd years. Doubtless the “messages” from heaven will have given them new hope that all that might be about to change. A cynic might suggest that the new community had not been the success its members had hoped and that these divine “messages” smack of a desperation - but far be it from us to suggest such things!
What is the Story Behind The Community of St John?
The history of the Community of St John is something of a rabbit-hole itself. Well-known in France, though less so in English-speaking countries, it was founded in 1978 by Fr Marie Dominique Philippe, OP. Conservative Novus Ordo, its members venerated their founder as something of a living Saint, right up to his death in 2006. In the last ten years it emerged that the founder had in fact been a serious sexual predator (young women, not boys). The male congregation still exists and has taken serious steps to erase the founder and all his influences from their constitution, reading and daily life. The congregation of nuns was dissolved by Benedict XVI, and Rome told reporters that the sisters had suffered manipulation which amounted to “sexual slavery” at the hands of senior priests of the order. The new male superiors commissioned an independent inquiry into what had really been going on. What came out was more horrific and far -reaching than anyone had suspected, reaching all the way back to the late 1940s.
Marie-Dominique Philippe had a biological brother, also a Dominican priest, Fr Thomas Philippe OP, who would later co-found “l’Arche” with Jean Vannier. Both priests had a blasphemous and heretical theology, which they taught in secret to an inner-circle and which they used to justify their own damnable conduct. Their uncle, also a Dominican priest, Fr Thomas Dehau OP, and their sister, Mother Cécile Philippe OP, were also part of the scandal. The former was, it seems, the main influence on his niece and two nephews. The latter used her position as superior of the Bouvines convent to supply her brothers with young female novices for sexual acts. When she was deposed, she was also found guilty of having sometimes supplied herself (incest) and of in effect having taken the place of her brothers (homosexuality). When one young woman, Anne de Rosanbo, became pregnant, she had an abortion which Fr Thomas Phillipe arranged for her.
The lurid details (yes, there are more), are horrific; more horrific still is the secret theology, a blasphemous heresy termed by some “porno-mysticism,” according to which, among other things, Our Lord had sexual relations with his Blessed mother. The Philippe brothers, it emerged, had been secretly teaching this to their inner-circle since at least the late 1940s.
When the Holy Office got wind of things in the 1950s, both priests (their uncle was dead by this point) were ordered into seclusion, suspended from any public ministry, and forbidden from any contact with each other or any of their little circle (they called each other the “tout-petits”). They seem to have secretly disobeyed. Fr Marie-Dominique Philippe, future founder of the Community of St John, was also forbidden from contact with any religious communities.
All of this remained largely [unknown] until it all came out around ten years ago. That was back in the 1950s. What happened after that is a familiar story. In the 1960s and 70s Rome turned a blind eye, and the Philippe brothers’ influence began to spread again. In the 1980s and 90s they were promoted enthusiastically by John-Paul II as founders of “new movements” which heralded the “renewal” of the Council. Hmm… why does that all sound so familiar? Why is one suddenly reminded of Legionaries of Christ? ...of the Divine Mercy? Community of St John? L’Arche..? There are so many examples that always seem to follow that pattern.
Further Reading:
https://freres-saint-jean.org/wp-content...n_2023.pdf
(Community of St John, full investigation report, in French)
https://brothers-saint-john.org/wp-conte...EALING.pdf (Summary of the above report in English)
https://commissiondetude-jeanvanier.org/...ex.php/en/
home-english/ (Full investigation report, commissioned by l’Arche, in English translation)
A Novus Bogus vibe...
Even without the condemned “Divine Mercy” permeating everything, the uncomfortable fact remains that this is a Novus Ordo community, whose only priest offers the New Mass. On their FAQ page, one can read the following:
“Do you offer the Traditional Latin Mass?
No. We offer the Novus Ordo Mass.”
Is further proof of Novus Ordo-ness needed? Maybe they’ve become “more Traditional” in recent years..? Well, let us take a look at one further piece of evidence on their own website.
Two years ago was the funeral of Margaret Foster, the mother of Fr John Mary. It has been given its own page on their website. The picture tells its own tale: white vestments and a white pall over the coffin. Beneath the audio file, a summary of the sermon is given thus:
• “John Mary states that without his mother, Margaret Foster, the Mission of Divine Mercy would not be here.
• Father recalls the importance of Purgatory which is a great school of love, where God’s children learn how to love what they were not able to learn during their life on earth.
• Purgatory is where souls are healed, made whole, restored in order to become the living tabernacle of His love and fullness.
• Our own lives, especially at these difficult ends, can be a special union with Jesus in His own suffering.
• Father introduces us to his mother, Margaret Foster.”
Purgatory being a place where souls are “healed” and “restored” - it all just sounds so, well, Novus Ordo, doesn’t it? Of course, there’s a sense in which that is true, but it is an incomplete explanation. Why is there no talk of expiation, of suffering, of paying the debt owed due to sin? Moreover, if she’s in purgatory, why the white vestments? So their theology is also Novus Ordo - meaning that even if they were one day to offer the Traditional Mass, what good would the Traditional liturgy be along side modernist, novus ordo doctrine?
Lifesite News, to their shame, have also been promoting these “messages” both on their own website (See here, for instance: “To view LifeSiteNews’ coverage of the alleged prophecies, click the following links: message one; message two; and message three.” etc. “Meet the Nun who allegedly received messages from heaven” reads another headline...) and via social media. And please, don’t anybody try to point to the word "allegedly” as though that somehow makes everything alright. As with Bishop Williamson, there has to be just enough equivocation to allow them to claim afterwards, should they ever need to, that they in fact never wholeheartedly endorsed these “messages”. But as with Bishop Williamson, is there any way they would be giving these “messages” so much free advertising if they thought they were false? Since they have now been given free publicity by both Bishop Williamson (four weeks in a row) and by LifeSite News, we must hope and pray that not too many otherwise well-meaning souls will be taken in by this.
Conclusion
What is one to conclude from all this? Bogus “messages” from a dubious Novus Ordo source are after all nothing new. What matters here is the response. John Henry Westen, owner of Lifesite News, ought really to know better. It would be wise for Catholics to be a little circumspect in future and take what he says with a pinch of salt. And if you get those begging-letter emails from him, don’t give him a penny, at least not until he has come clean and apologised for promoting this rubbish. In the meantime there are far more deserving causes for you to save your hard earned pennies towards. But he is only a layman, albeit one with rather more influence than most.
Bishop Williamson - let us say it again - is a bishop and therefore the responsibility and culpability are immeasurably greater in his case. Just think of all the souls led astray as a result: Our Lord will know where to place the blame for all of us when we die. It is enough to make one shudder. Anyone inclined to wonder whether we are exaggerating, go and have a look for yourself: the second and third Eleison Comments (https://
stmarcelinitiative.org/remarkable-messages-ii/ and https://stmarcelinitiative.org/remarkablemessages-iii/) are about 80% quoting directly from the “messages” without a single word of qualification or criticism. The fourth one is about 90% quotation, the only words by Bishop Williamson himself being the following:
Quote:“This fourth (and last for the moment) Message from Texas is specially appropriate for Catholics today, both by its understanding of their distress, and by its appealing for their trust. It is these ‘Comments’ that have highlighted certain words in black. By all means read the original Messages at mdm.”(https://stmarcelinitiative.org/remarkable-messages-iv/)
Tell me that that isn’t promotion. So let’s just add this to the list of why nobody should have anything to do with Bishop Williamson or allow him to influence them in any way (including being influenced by those who are working with him). Pederastic housemates, sending new converts to Tradition back to the new Mass, promoting Valtorta’s “Gospel as revealed to me” - another bogus “revelation” which like the “Divine Mercy” was condemned by the Holy Office in the days before Vatican II but then became widespread after Vatican II. Here we see him promoting not only a bogus revelation - the fact that the messages are certainly fake can be almost taken as read. What matters is that their provenance is a New Mass apostolate dedicated to spreading the condemned “Divine Mercy” messages and devotion. In promoting their messages, Bishop Williamson is promoting them. There is no way around that. So we must add to the list his, in effect, promotion of the condemned “Divine Mercy”. Where will this end?
As usual, don’t hold your breath waiting for any kind of response: a public silence is all we have come to expect. Although Bishop Williamson’s various errors and scandals have been documented here over the past nine years, only one or two of his unfortunate followers (Samuel Loeman, Sean Johnson, Hugh Akins...) have ever tried to defend him, and that was some seven years ago. Since then they seem to have given up and gone home and who can blame them? It is all so obviously wrong. Kyrie Eleison.
|
|
|
|
| The Catholic Trumpet: Lessons from the Vendée for Today’s Resistance |
|
Posted by: Stone - 09-05-2024, 04:03 AM - Forum: Uncompromising Fighters for the Faith
- No Replies
|
|
Lessons from the Vendée for Today’s Resistance
The Catholic Trumpet [slightly adapted] | September 3, 2024
During the French Revolution, the Church faced a ruthless assault. In 1790, the Civil Constitution of the Clergy forced priests into a schismatic allegiance, splitting them into “jurors” who swore allegiance to the state and “refractory priests” who remained faithful to Rome. The latter were persecuted, exiled, and often executed. This period witnessed the rise of a clandestine “Church of the Catacombs,” where faithful priests and laity risked their lives to preserve the True Faith amidst a hostile environment.
Today, we find ourselves in a similarly dire situation within the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). The doctrinal compromises of recent SSPX leadership echo the betrayal of the “jurors” during the French Revolution. The 2012 Doctrinal Declaration, which sought to align the SSPX with modernist Rome, represents a grave departure from Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s steadfast opposition to the errors of Vatican II. Just as the priests of the Vendée resisted the schism imposed by the Revolutionary government, so too must we resist the doctrinal errors and compromises that threaten to undermine the SSPX’s mission.
The so-called “Fake Resistance,” which claims to uphold traditional values while engaging in compromises, mirrors the duplicity of the Revolutionary jurors. Their attempts to reconcile with modernist principles and their failure to uphold the unchanging truths of the Catholic Faith betray the very spirit of true resistance.
In light of these betrayals, the faithful are called to persevere in the spirit of the Vendée martyrs. As those heroic souls defended their faith against overwhelming odds, so must we remain vigilant and unyielding in our defense of the Catholic tradition. We must reject false resistance and continue to uphold the true teachings of the Church, preserving the legacy of Archbishop Lefebvre and the unadulterated faith of our forebears.
Echoes of Faith: The Vendée Martyrs
![[Image: rs=w:1280]](https://img1.wsimg.com/isteam/ip/df55e1a9-c854-4d0b-a2a9-94177954436c/vendee3.jpg/:/cr=t:0%25,l:0%25,w:100%25,h:100%25/rs=w:1280)
Many priests who remained true to Rome were exiled or forced into hiding, clandestinely ministering to their flock. Thus emerged the “Church of the Catacombs,” where Mass was celebrated and sacraments administered in barns, basements, castle moats, and the woods. The faithful, alongside their priests, understood the peril of their situation; yet they chose death over the denial of Christ and His Holy Church.
As the Republic advanced with relentless fury, it sought to eradicate any vestige of Christianity from French society. The “god of Reason” was enthroned in the cathedral of Paris, and Christian names were systematically replaced with secular designations. Religious education was outlawed, and the Julian calendar was supplanted with a Republican one, eliminating the sacred seven-day week and displacing Sunday as the day of rest, the Lord’s Day. The days of the week were stripped of any reference to Saints, instead named after animals, plants, and tools of labor. Religious feast days were supplanted by Republican celebrations, while churches were desecrated and bell towers removed.
In September 1792, the systematic massacre of priests commenced, with citizens being incentivized to betray them; a bounty was offered for the denouncement of clergy.
In response to this tyranny, movements sprang forth across France, including the Vendée, rising as a new crusade to defend the rights of God. One venerable Vendéen recalled, “Despite our outrage, we did nothing as long as they left us with our priests and churches. But upon witnessing their evils against God, we rose to defend Him.”
The faith was deeply rooted among the Vendéens, particularly following the Monfortian missions, which instilled in their hearts a profound love for the Cross, the Blessed Sacrament, and the Rosary. When the Revolution unleashed its hatred toward Christ upon society and the Church, the people bravely rose to defend their beloved faith, even at the cost of martyrdom. Armed not with weapons but with the beads of their Rosaries, some battalions recited it three times daily.
Faced with Republican cannons, these noble souls had only their staffs. Against gunfire, they wielded sickles! Lacking military uniforms, they were united by a singular emblem: the Sacred Heart embroidered in red on their chests and the initials of Jesus Christ the King adorning their caps.
The Republican army, driven by hellish rage, descended upon the Vendée. The orders from Paris were clear: exterminate the Vendée and transform it into a vast cemetery, serving as a grim warning to all of France. The so-called “infernal columns” lived up to their name, marching into the Vendée and unleashing horror and death, slaughtering the population indiscriminately. General Westermann, infamously known as the butcher of the Vendée, recounted the atrocities following the battle of Savenay in December 1793, where 6,000 Vendée prisoners were brutally exterminated: “Following orders, I crushed children under horses, slaughtered women... I did not take a single prisoner... I exterminated them all.” A staggering three hundred thousand men, women, and children fell victim to this reign of terror. Accounts of extreme cruelty abound, such as those by General Amey in Mortagne, who roasted Vendéens and their children alive in bread ovens to ensure they “did not light the way for more bandits.” More than twenty drowning posts were established along the Loire, with three thousand women cast into the waters in Pont-au-Baux alone.
With generous hearts, the Vendéens charged into battle, offering themselves as living sacrifices. Some donned their finest attire, as if for a wedding, confident that beyond death, the Heart of Jesus would be their only homeland.
Conclusion
The plight of the Vendée during the French Revolution serves as a poignant reminder of the need for unwavering fidelity to Christ and His Church amidst adversity. The compromises and doctrinal deviations within the SSPX today parallel the historical schism of the “jurors.” The so-called “Fake Resistance” that engages in half-measures and compromises cannot be allowed to dilute the true Catholic Faith. The faithful must follow the example of the Vendéen martyrs, holding fast to the unchanging truths of the Church and rejecting any attempts to reconcile with modernist errors. In this battle for the purity of the Faith, let us move forward with courage and conviction, ever vigilant and steadfast in our resistance against the tide of modernism.
|
|
|
|
| Pope Francis skips Sign of the Cross to impart blessing ‘valid for all religions’ |
|
Posted by: Stone - 09-05-2024, 02:44 AM - Forum: Pope Francis
- Replies (1)
|
|
Pope Francis skips Sign of the Cross to impart blessing ‘valid for all religions’
Pope Francis' deliberate avoidance of making the sign of the cross when imparting a closing blessing to young people in Indonesia has raised eyebrows. Others have praised him for being sensitive to the local Muslim culture.
![[Image: PF-Jak.jpg]](https://www.lifesitenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/PF-Jak.jpg)
Pope Francis gestures to the sky, during a meeting with Scholas Occurrentes in Jakarta.
Vatican News stream/screenshot
Sep 4, 2024
JAKARTA, Indonesia (LifeSiteNews) — Concluding a meeting with young people of different creeds in Jakarta, Pope Francis gave a blessing without invoking the Trinity, which he said was “valid for all religions.”
At the close of his first full day of appointments in Indonesia, Pope Francis took part in an assembly of participants of the Scholas Occurrentes community, an international organization launched by Francis in Argentina in 2001.
Having engaged in a back-and-forth dialogue with some of the young people involved, the Pope announced he would impart a final blessing. With the group being composed of a number of different religions – Scholas is not a Catholic organization – Francis’ blessing assumed a multi-religious nature.
“I would like to give a blessing. A blessing signifies to say well, to wish something well,” he began. Continuing his prayer of blessing to the assembled crowd, which included Catholics and Muslims, Francis added:
Quote:Here, you are from diverse religions, but we have only one god, he is only one.
And in union, in silence, we shall pray to the lord and I shall give a blessing for all, a blessing valid for all religions.
May God bless each of you.
May he bless all your desires.
May he bless your families.
May he bless you present (here).
May he bless your future. Amen.
In closing, Francis did not make the Sign of the Cross as is standard practice for a Catholic cleric when giving a blessing, or did he invoke the name of the Holy Trinity.
Indonesia is composed of a heavily Islamic population: 87% are Muslim with only 3% being Catholic. Given this fact, Francis’ avoidance of making the Sign of the Cross or invoking the name of the Trinity was praised by TV streaming translators, who lauded his sensitivity in the predominantly Muslim nation.
However, Catholic teaching denotes that “the Church imparts blessings by invoking the name of Jesus, usually while making the holy Sign of the Cross of Christ.”
The Sign of the Cross, which invokes by name each of the three persons of the Trinity, is a markedly Christian action since other creeds professing one god – Islam and Judaism – do not accept God as Trinity.
Traditional catechetical manuals outline that the Sign of the Cross “is the outward sign which distinguishes the Christian from other men.” The liturgical rubrics also note how the sign of the cross is a key part of a blessing.
The Sign of the Cross’ use in the Catholic Church dates back to the earliest days, as attested to by St. Basil the Great, who wrote that the practice was handed down from the Apostles who “taught us to mark with the sign of the cross those who put their hope in the Lord.”
The profound significance and importance of the Sign of the Cross was recently expounded on by Francis himself during his June 4 Sunday Angelus address for the feast of the Holy Trinity.
Speaking to the crowd in St. Peter’s Square, Francis commented:
Quote:By tracing the cross on our body, we remind ourselves how much God loved us, to the point of giving his life for us; and we repeat to ourselves that his love envelops us completely, from top to bottom, from left to right, like an embrace that never abandons us. And at the same time, we commit ourselves to bear witness to God-as-love, creating communion in his name.
During his 2023 Angelus address, Francis urged Catholics to make the Sign of the Cross in order to promote knowledge of God: “Does one breathe the air of home, or do we resemble more closely an office or a reserved place where only the elect can enter? God is love, God is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and he gave his life for us. This is why we make the Sign of the Cross.”
Francis’ recent decision not to use the Sign of the Cross when addressing the Scholas group has sparked some controversy and been critiqued as promoting religious “syncretism.” As already noted, his trip to Indonesia particularly will be marked by a focus on interreligious dialogue in the heavily Muslim nation.
|
|
|
|
| St. Michael the Archangel statue in Brazil will be largest Christian monument in the world |
|
Posted by: Stone - 09-05-2024, 02:39 AM - Forum: General Commentary
- No Replies
|
|
St. Michael the Archangel statue in Brazil will be largest Christian monument in the world
The St. Michael the Archangel sculpture in Brazil will tower over the city of São Miguel Arcanjo, and will stand at 187 feet high, making it the largest Christian statue in the world.
![[Image: shutterstock_2219998951-810x500.jpg]](https://www.lifesitenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/shutterstock_2219998951-810x500.jpg)
St. Michael the Archangel statue sits atop Castel Sant'Angelo, Rome, Italy
Viacheslav Lopatin/Shutterstock
Sep 4, 2024
SÃO MIGUEL ARCANJO, São Paulo (LifeSiteNews) — Construction has begun on the St. Michael the Archangel sculpture which will tower over the city of São Miguel Arcanjo in Brazil.
The St. Michael the Archangel sculpture, being built in São Miguel Arcanjo, a rural northern region of the state of São Paulo, will stand at 187 feet high, which will make it the largest Christian statue in the world.
“It will be a great strength for the devotees of St. Michael to be able to be here in the city consecrated by him, to be able to pray at his feet and to be able to live this experience of going to Monte Gargano being in Brazil,” parish priest and rector of the Basilica of St. Michael the Archangel Fr. Márcio Giordany Costa de Almeida told Catholic news outlet Aleteia.
“All this is integrated into the concept of the project and will strengthen the devotion to St. Michael the Archangel in the country,” he added.
Set to be completed in 2026, the statue will be the largest Christian statue in the world. Currently, the statue of St. Rita, in Santa Cruz, Rio Grande do Norte, is said to hold this position standing at 184 feet, including the base.
The sculpture will depict the archangel holding a sword in his right hand and a scale in his left, while standing on top of a large pedestal.
The project is part of a religious complex called “The Archangel’s Grotto.” The grotto, which will have a 12,000-seat capacity, will include confessionals, a Marian grotto, a candle room, a miracle room, a museum of sacred art, a devotional pavilion, and an auditorium. The area will also have a food court and a parking lot.
The location for the grotto was chosen based off of an Italian sanctuary in Monte Gargano, where St. Michael appeared four times.
“A partnership was established with Monte Gargano in October last year. We became sister churches. We presented the project to them, and they liked it very much! The idea is to bring Monte Gargano to Brazil,” Fr. Márcio Giordany Costa de Almeida explained.
Additionally, the people of Brazil have a special devotion to St. Michael, who guarded them during the Constitutionalist Revolution of 1932.
According to local oral tradition, the archangel appeared there three times during the Revolution to keep the two armies apart and tell them when the war had ended.
St. Michael is the angel typically associated with battle, since he fought Lucifer and the other fallen angels, forcing them into hell.
|
|
|
|
| Bishop Williamson: Then Or Now? |
|
Posted by: Stone - 09-04-2024, 08:32 AM - Forum: True vs. False Resistance
- No Replies
|
|
Taken from The Recusant #62 - Autumn 2024 [slightly adapted]:
Of course, as always there will be no public answer to this question. But that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be asked:
Bishop Williamson: Then Or Now?
If you speak to someone who tells you that he is a supporter of Bishop Williamson, you have the right to probe a little deeper. Try the following question: which Bishop Williamson do you support: the Bishop Williamson of back then or the Bishop Williamson of now?
THEN:
Here is what the old Bishop Williamson used to say concerning the New Mass:
- “Take for instance the Novus Ordo Mass. The New Rite as a whole so diminishes the expression of essential Catholic truths...that it is as a whole so bad that no priest should use it, nor Catholic attend it.” (Eleison Comments #387)
- “The New Mass is in any case illicit. In any case, it’s designed to please Protestants, it’s designed to undo Catholicism. It’s intrinsically offensive to God, it’s intrinsically evil. That’s how it was designed and that’s how it turned out. … If the New Mass is valid but illicit, may I attend? NO! The fact that it’s valid does not mean it’s ok to attend.” (See The Catacombs; see also audio, here)
That was the old Richard Williamson, the one whom Archbishop Lefebvre chose to become a bishop. Had he spoken back then the way he speaks now, he would not have been chosen and would in all likelihood have been disciplined and, if obstinate, thrown out. The new Richard Williamson contradicts the old Richard Williamson. If you side with the old Richard Williamson, then the cult followers, sycophants and hangers-on of the new Bishop Williamson will attack you for it, including behind your back. If you are a priest who sides with the old Bishop Williamson, then you can expect the new Bishop Williamson to maintain a sacramental blockade against your faithful.
NOW:
What does the new Bishop Williamson teach concerning the same question?
- “Bishop Williamson: There are a number of decent priests still operating as decent priests inside the Novus Ordo… if you look somewhere in your area within reach of your car’s petrol tank, your gasoline tank, you will find, somewhere, you will find a decent Novus Ordo priest. … I believe there are some who do understand it and who still want to practice as good priests. Now, they’re forced to celebrate the New Mass. …
Interviewer: People who go to those [Novus Ordo] Masses, in the vast majority of cases, are of a liberal mindset, they go into the church and come out and answer a survey saying: abortion is acceptable in some circumstances, homosexuality is acceptable, this is acceptable. You, your excellency, are asking me, in this heresy, in this just absolute cesspool of heresy, to try to maybe find some priest which I don’t even think exists, to hear my confession. But to me it is so obvious that this whole thing is fake! How can I participate in it? It’s fake! This has nothing to do with Vatican I, it has nothing to do with the teachings of Pius X, it’s got nothing to do with Pius IX, it has nothing to do with Thomism. It’s Protestantism and Communism. So how can I even approach this as an honest Catholic?
Bishop Williamson: OK, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, I understand where you’re coming from. I only say, I think there’s a little more white around you and available if you look for it than you believe. … but don’t believe that you’re up against a world in which everything is either black or, well I’m sorry, in which all of the grey is all black. No, if it’s grey, then there’s some white mixed in with the black. It’s your business to sort out the white from the black, to frequent the white as you say, not to frequent the black, not to go along with the black, not to go along with this fake religion as you quite rightly say. The new religion of Vatican II is a fake religion, no question about it, and it’s at war with the true religion. I’m obviously not saying go along with the new religion. What I’m saying is: I do believe in the terrible mixture of grey and black that exists, in this vale of tears, that’s almost everywhere in this vale of tears … Now you say that the Novus Ordo is all completely gone and rotten. I understand and you can’t afford to eat a half-poisoned cake. I understand. But if the cake is half-poisoned then there’s half of it that isn’t poisoned. And if you’re using your mind a point comes when you can begin to distinguish what is poisoned and what isn’t. So when you come to applying - the principles are absolute but their application is - the principles are in black and white, no mixture, but the application is in a world of greys, so when it comes to applying the principles you’ve got to - [talks about Novus Ordo miracles] . . .
I’m obviously not pushing the new religion. What I'm saying is that there is still part valid in the new religion along side all that is fake. I may well admit readily that in many cases there’s much more fake than there still is validity. That’s not the question. The question is what you should do where you are. And have you got to stay away from every anything that’s got anything to do with the Novus Ordo. My answer to that absolute question is: no. You don’t have to stay absolutely away. I’m not saying follow the new religion. I’m saying you’re young and you’re strong, you can drive around the diocese. That SSPX priest probably knows some conservative priest in the area, probably. Ask him.” (Youtube interview, 4th August, 2022)
- “There are cases where even the Novus Ordo Mass can be attended with an effect of building one’s Faith instead of losing it. … Be very careful with the Novus Ordo … But, exceptionally, if you’re watching and praying, even there you may find the grace of God. If you do, make use of it in order to sanctify your soul.” (Mahopac, New York, 28th June 2015)
- “I do not say that every person should stay away from every single Novus Ordo Mass.” (Ibid.)
- “I don’t say to everybody inside the Novus Ordo, priests and laity, I don’t say: ‘You’ve got to get out!'" (St. Catharine’s, Ontario, 5th November 2014)
- “The Novus Ordo is false, but it’s not only false, it’s part true part false. The false part is very dangerous, but the true part enables souls to keep the Faith.” (Veneta Oregon, 19th September, 2016)
- “Therefore, it seems to me, if James is convinced that to save his soul he must stay in the Newchurch, I need not hammer him to get out of it.” (Eleison Comments #348)
- “As an essential part of the subjective and ambiguous religion, the Novus Ordo Mass can be what you make of it. A priest can celebrate it decently, a Catholic can attend it devoutly.” (Eleison Comments #447)
- “Question: Then, does it mean that those knowing what they know, such as the souls here could go to that [Novus Ordo Mass] and expect to receive grace?
- Bishop Williamson: If anybody here who knows what the Novus Ordo means went back to the Novus Ordo - pffff! - then [pause] - why would they want to go back?
[laughter] Well, it’s, I would - they can receive grace. But they have to judge the priest…” (Emmett, Kansas, 18th September, 2016)
- “I’m sure you ask yourselves: ‘What kind of word are my children going to have to grow up in? How are they going to keep the Faith?’ Very good questions. By prayer and Charity and by frequenting the sacraments, so long as they are still available, so long as it’s at all still possible to reach the sacraments. And some Novus - I’ve got into quite a lot of controversy for saying this, but it’s true - there is no question that some Novus Ordo Masses are valid. And if they’re valid, then it’s defined by the Council of Trent that grace passes, “ex opere operato” is the strict phrase.” (Vienna, Virginia, 20th May 2016)
Summary
Bishop Williamson Then: The New Mass is evil! Don’t go to it!
Bishop Williamson Now: Go to the New Mass! You’ll Get Grace There!
Conclusion:
Catholics who live in contradiction are Catholics who are living a lie. One characteristic of the truth is that it does not change, because God does not change. If someone who used to tell you that the New Mass is evil and must be avoided now says that you can go to it and receive grace there, that person has gone astray and you must not listen to his advice.
|
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre 1988: Conference in Sierre, Switzerland |
|
Posted by: Stone - 09-03-2024, 08:50 AM - Forum: Sermons and Conferences
- No Replies
|
|
Taken from The Recusant, Issue #62 - Autumn 2024 [slightly adapted]:
This conference was given by Archbishop Lefebvre at the priory in Sierre, Switzerland, on 27th November 1988, just a few months after the episcopal consecrations. The title (“Le libéralisme, le pire ennemi de l’Église”) and subtitles are from Fideliter in which it first appeared. The remainder of the text is as it was spoken. The translation is our own.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:
“Liberalism, the Church’s Worst Enemy!”
This year has been full of sensational events and serious decisions, both for me and for you, who are suffering the consequences because of your attachment to the Society and to Tradition. Why such decisions? Because the situation is very serious. It is not twenty years old, but it is very old.
THE SUPPORTERS OF THE ALLIANCE BETWEEN THE CHURCH AND THE REVOLUTION
After the French Revolution, some wanted to come to terms with the principles of the Revolution and compromise with the enemies of the Church; others refused this arrangement because Our Lord Jesus Christ warned us: ‘He who is not with me is against me’. If you are for the reign of Jesus Christ, then, you are against His enemies. To begin with, there were those who claimed that it was possible not to speak of Our Lord while continuing to love Him, so that they could make alliances and pacts. But the popes, right up to the Second Vatican Council, disapproved.
JESUS CHRIST ONLY GOD, ONLY KING
Our Lord is our King, our God. He must therefore reign supreme, not only in private over our persons, but also in our families, our villages and the whole country. In any case, whether we like it or not, one day He will be our Judge: when He comes on the clouds to judge the whole world, all men will be on their knees, Buddhists, Muslims, everyone. For there are not many gods, but only one, as we sing in the Gloria: Tu solus sanctus, Tu solus Altissimus Jesu Christe. He came down from heaven to save us, He reigns in heaven, we will see Him when we die.
DIVISION AMONG CATHOLICS - THE ‘LIBERAL CATHOLICS’
The French Revolution brought about a real division, which had already begun with the Protestants. A whole class of intellectuals rose up against Our Lord, in a veritable diabolical plot against His reign, which they no longer wanted to hear about.
They allowed us to honour Him in our chapels and sacristies, but not outside them. Our Lord was no longer to be spoken of in the courts, or in schools, or in hospitals - in a word, anywhere. They would say, for example: ‘You offend Buddhists with your Lord Jesus Christ. Since they don't believe in it, leave them alone. Why put Jesus Christ everywhere?’ But Our Lord has the right to reign everywhere, and in Catholic countries He is the master. And we must try to make Him reign as much as possible, to convert those who do not yet know and love Him, so that they too become His subjects, and so that in heaven they recognise their Master.
Thus, since the French Revolution, Catholics have been divided between those who accept that Our Lord should be honoured in families and parishes, but not outside them, and those who want Our Lord to reign everywhere. The former, to justify no longer talking about Our Lord in society, relied on the freedom to believe or not to believe. But that's not true, we're not free to believe what we want. Our Lord said it well: ‘He who believes will be saved; he who does not believe will be condemned.’ Of course we can misuse this freedom, but then we are disobeying and moving away from God. So morally we are not free, we must honour Our Lord and follow His teachings.
THE POPES HAVE CONDEMNED THE LIBERALS
These are the people who have been called liberals because they were in favour of freedom, leaving everyone the right to think what they want according to their conscience. But the popes have always condemned this liberalism, stating emphatically that there is no more freedom of conscience than there is freedom to do good or evil. Of course we can disobey. A child can disobey his parents, but does he have the right to do so? Obviously not.
It's the same thing with religion. We must all obey Our Lord, and therefore the only true religion. Of course there are people who disobey, but we must try to convert them and bring them to obey Our Lord, the only true God, who will judge us all. Now this liberal current was developed by Catholics like Lamennais who was a priest, hence a division within the Church itself. But popes such as Pius IX, Leo XIII, Saint Pius X, Pius XI and Pius XII have always condemned these liberals as the worst enemies of the Church because they detach people, families and states from Our Lord Jesus Christ.
When Our Lord is no longer present in schools, hospitals, justice systems or governments, when He is absent from the public atmosphere, then we have apostasy and atheism. People get into the habit of no longer thinking about Our Lord because He is nowhere to be seen, and little by little this forgetfulness spreads, even into families.
At the moment, in which restaurants or hotels, for example, do you find the Cross of Our Lord? Personally, I travel a lot, and only in Austria have I found a beautiful crucifix in certain restaurants, or a beautiful image of the Blessed Virgin in the hotel room. Elsewhere it’s all gone, and yet there was a time when there used to be no house without a crucifix. Now even good Catholics are afraid to put one in their homes, for fear of the reaction of those who don't like the Christian religion. That’s where we’re getting to by gently driving Our Lord away.
ENEMIES WITHIN THE CHURCH
Saint Pius X, at the beginning of the century, said that now the enemies of the Church are no longer only outside, but also within. By this he meant those Catholics who no longer want the public reign of Our Lord.
But that was not all. Since there were even modernist professors in the seminaries who wanted to adapt to the modern world, with its rejection of Our Lord and its apostasy, Saint Pius X asked that they be removed from the seminaries so that they would not influence the seminarians who, once they became priests, would in turn spread bad doctrines. And Saint Pius X was right, because that’s what happened. The bishops didn't want to pay any attention and these modern ideas were slowly introduced into the seminaries, then into the clergy and finally everywhere. In the name of freedom they stopped talking about Our Lord and apostasy ensued!
In 1926, I was at the seminary in Rome, more than sixty years ago, under Pius XI, who was also fighting and condemning priests who were in favour of secularism. In that year, a ‘Week Against Liberalism’ was held in Rome, during which two small books were published: Libéralisme et Catholicisme by Father Roussel and Le Christ Roi de Nations by Father
Philippe.
Here is the introduction to the first:
Quote:‘We want Jesus Christ, Son of God and Redeemer of mankind, to reign not only over the individual, but over families large and small, over nations and the entire social order; this is the great thought that unites us especially this week.’ - this was in 1926 - ‘From this social reign of Jesus the King, a reign legitimate in itself and necessary for us, there is no more formidable adversary by its cunning, its tenacity, its influence, than modern Liberalism’.
The enemy has been named: these liberals who want freedom of thought. If everyone has the right to his own thoughts, no one should offend his neighbour by displaying his own, so we must say nothing more, and we no longer have the right to speak of Our Lord.
HOW CAN WE STILL BE MISSIONARIES?
So how can we be missionaries if we can no longer speak of Our Lord? It’s impossible; and in a nation that is 95% Catholic, we will no longer be allowed to speak of Our Lord because 5% are Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist or Muslim. It’s unbelievable, and yet that’s how it is. In Catholic schools, because there is one Jew, two or three Muslims or Protestants, the crucifixes are taken down, Our Lord is no longer spoken of, and prayers are no longer said before classes, because this could disturb non-Catholics. So Our Lord no longer has the right to exist because two or three disagree with Him. So what are the origins of this liberalism, its main manifestations, its logical development?
How can it be qualified and refuted? These are the questions to which Father Roussel gives the answers in his very interesting book, which we give to all our seminarians so that they are aware of these modern errors. This liberalism, secularism and lack of public submission to Our Lord have spread despite the Popes, because bishops and priests have not listened to them enough. The second little book published to mark this ‘Week Against Liberalism’ in Rome is the ‘Catechism of Divine Rights in the Social Order’ under the title ‘Christ, the King of Nations’ by Father Philippe, a Redemptorist, whose preface reads as follows:
Quote:‘The Catholic Week at the beginning of 1926, organised by the Apostolic League, entrusted us with a desire, that of possessing a catechism setting out the fact and nature of the kingship of Jesus Christ; it is in response to this desire that these pages are being published. Under the pretext of following the lights of conscience alone, we have got into the habit of leaving the fulfilment of all duties to the free disposition of conscience: the rights of truth and especially those of the Supreme Truth are trampled underfoot.
Our catechism calls for a great act of faith, the act of faith in God and in Jesus Christ intervened by authority. People must know that in all relations between man and man, between society and society, between country and country, in everything that constitutes the innermost being of a nation, they depend on God and on Jesus Christ. On this point, as on the very existence of God, we must all bow our heads and repeat the Creed with all our soul. God has blessed our work, and in less than six months we were able to sell out our first edition, thanks to the self-imposed propaganda of our zealots’.
All this was happening in 1926!
FREEMASONRY
Even then, priests were resisting, by fighting against the invading apostasy and defending Our Lord against the secularisation of all institutions. Leo XIII, in his encyclical Humanum Genus, wrote that the Freemasons’ aim was to deChristianise everything, especially institutions, and that they wanted to remove Our Lord from everywhere. All this developed in spite of the Popes, and led to the Second Vatican Council.
THE PREPARATION OF THE COUNCIL: THE LIBERAL BISHOPS
Here too there was division, even within the Church. These liberals, who no longer wanted Our Lord to be spoken of in society and who, on the contrary, wanted freedom for all religions and all systems of thought, created opposition between the cardinals right from the preparation of the Council. The Holy See had set up commissions, headed by the ‘Central Preparatory Commission for the Council,’ of which I was a member.
It sat from 1960 to 1962, and was made up of seventy cardinals and around twenty archbishops and bishops, and if I sat on it, it was in my capacity as President of the Assembly of Archbishops and Bishops of French West Africa. Pope John XXIII often presided over our meetings.
But I must say, it was like a battlefield. Who was going to win? The liberals or the true Catholics who were with all the popes in their condemnation of liberalism? On the one hand, some wanted the Church to declare publicly their thesis on freedom, the neutrality of public bodies, and the absence of Our Lord Jesus Christ from public life. On the other hand, there were strong reactions to the contrary. Shouldn't we Catholics have the right to have our own Catholic States, so as not to offend the Muslim, Buddhist and Protestant religions that are expanding? And all this under the pretext of not doing them wrong, when they themselves are busy doing it publicly?
In Protestant states, for example, people are publicly Protestant. The Swiss canton of Vaud has written into its constitution that Protestantism is the state religion. The same is true of Sweden, Norway, England, Holland and Denmark, where Protestantism is the only religion publicly recognised by the State.
THE LIBERALS ABOLISH CATHOLIC STATES
So shouldn't we have the right to have our own Catholic states too? The Swiss canton of Valais was 90% Catholic. Since the Liberals won at the Council, and now dominate in Rome, they asked Monsignor Adam (whom I knew well and who was a good friend), via the nuncio in Berne, to do away with the Catholic canton of Valais. The Valais Constitution stated that the Catholic religion was the only religion publicly recognised by the State; in short, it was an affirmation that Our Lord Jesus Christ was the King of the Valais. And Monsignor Adam, favourable as he was to Tradition, he who had fought during the Council in favour of the social reign of Our Lord, wrote a letter to all his faithful, asking the State of Valais to change its constitution and become officially neutral.
I asked about this and was told that it had come from the Nuncio. So I went to see him in Berne and he confirmed that Bishop Adam had indeed acted on his orders. ‘And you're not ashamed to ask that Our Lord Jesus Christ no longer reign in the Valais?’ ‘Oh, but now it’s no longer possible, you understand, it’s no longer possible.’
And Protestants, are you going to ask them to stop recognising their Protestantism as an official religion in the canton of Vaud or in Denmark?
And don't we Catholics have the right to have states in which the Catholic religion is the only one publicly recognised? - ‘Ah, that's no longer possible!’ - What about the magnificent encyclical Quas Primas, in which Pius XI reminds us that Our Lord Jesus Christ must reign in all states and over all nations? - ‘Oh, the Pope wouldn't write that now!’ Oh, for example! This encyclical was written in 1925 by Pius XI to remind all bishops of the doctrine on the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and now some bishops are doing exactly the opposite.
And that, unfortunately, is what has happened: officially, the canton of Valais is no longer a Catholic state. The Church is no longer recognised, in the same way as any other private association, just like other religions, which have the right to organise themselves in the Valais.
CARDINAL BEA, SPOKESMAN FOR THE LIBERALS
How did it happen?
One day Cardinal Ottaviani and Cardinal Bea brought us two booklets worth their weight in gold. These two booklets represent the two camps in the Church: one is the French Revolution and the other is Catholic Tradition. One is that of Cardinal Bea, a liberal, the other that of Cardinal Ottaviani, prefect of the Commission.
In his document, Cardinal Ottaviani talks about ‘religious tolerance’. In other words, if there are other religions in Catholic states, we tolerate them but we do not give them the same freedoms as the Church, just as we tolerate sins or errors, because we cannot expunge everything.
There has to be a certain tolerance in society, but that doesn't mean we approve of evil. When the time came for Cardinal Ottaviani to present his document to the Central Preparatory Commission for the Council, which simply repeated the doctrine still taught by the Catholic Church, Cardinal Bea stood up and said he was against it. Cardinal Ruffini of Sicily intervened to stop this little scandal of two cardinals violently opposing each other in front of everyone else. He asked that the matter be referred to the higher authority, i.e. the Pope, who was not presiding over the session that day. But Cardinal Bea said no, I want us to vote on who is with me and who is with Cardinal Ottaviani.
So the vote was taken. The seventy cardinals, the bishops and the four superiors of religious orders who were there were divided roughly in half. Virtually all the Latin cardinals, Italians, Spaniards and South Americans, were in favour of Cardinal Ottaviani. On the other hand, the American, English, German and French cardinals were for Cardinal Bea. The Church was thus divided on a fundamental theme of its doctrine: the Reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
But that was our last session, and one wondered what the Council itself would be like if half of the seventy cardinals were in favour of Cardinal Ottaviani’s religious tolerance, and the other half were already in favour of Cardinal Bea’s religious freedom, which referred to the French Revolution and the Declaration of the Rights of Man. Well, at the Council there was also a struggle, and it has to be said that the liberals won. What a scandal! And so came this new religion, descended more from the French Revolution than from Catholic Tradition, this famous ecumenism where all religions are on the same footing. Now you can understand the current situation, it stems from the victory of the liberals at the Council. There was, however, vehement opposition, but since the Pope practically sided with freedom, then it was the liberals who took over the positions in Rome and who still occupy them.
I have always opposed this, along with Monsignor Sigaud, Monsignor de Castro Mayer and many other members of the Council. For we cannot allow Our Lord to be uncrowned. The Church is founded on the principle that Our Lord must reign on earth as He reigns in Heaven. Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven, yes, may the will of Our Lord be done everywhere and not just in families. But now that liberalism reigns in Rome, the liberalism that our authors in 1926 described as the Church's worst enemy, we are witnessing the demolition of the Church.
There really is a rupture. But we are in communion with all the popes up to the Council, whereas Cardinal Bea gives no reference in his document. He could not refer to any pope, since his doctrine is new and, on the contrary, has always been condemned by them. In Cardinal Ottaviani's brochure, there are more pages of references than text, references to popes, councils and the entire doctrine of the Church. Religious tolerance is very much in line with Tradition.
The Church's faith has always been to preach the truth, and to tolerate error because it cannot do otherwise, while striving to be missionary, to reduce error and bring people back to the truth. But it has never said that you have as much right to be in error as in truth, that you have as much right to be a Buddhist as a Catholic. It’s not possible, or else the Catholic religion is no longer the only true religion. This is a fundamental catastrophe for the Church; we experienced this struggle at the Council and we are still experiencing it today.
THE CONSEQUENCES OF NEUTRALITY
Because when the Catholic Church is no longer the only one recognised, there are inevitably serious consequences, as can be seen in Valais, for example. Religions have become subservient to the state, whereas before it was the state that was subservient to religion, and governments have become the masters of religions. By affirming that the Catholic religion was the only one publicly recognised, Our Lord reigned, and the State could not do what it wanted. But now, with neutrality, religions are like simple private associations within the state, and the state can abolish them or intervene as a master, just as it prevents certain sects from setting up, for the time being, in Valais. Soon, however, permission will probably be granted to build Buddhist temples or mosques. When the State was Catholic, it refused the public temples of other religions. It tolerated private practice, but avoided the scandal of temples attracting Christians to these false religions. It protected the faith of its citizens.
Then, of course, there is immorality, because all these religions have morals that run counter to those of the Church: polygamy, divorce and other practices that run counter to Christian marriage. Protestantism, Buddhism... these are immoral religions, and their immorality ends up penetrating Catholics too. This is why the Catholic states made it a law to prevent them.
But in all the states that recognised only the Catholic Church - Colombia, Brazil, Chile, etc. - Rome intervened to allow all religions freedom. The result was the invasion of sects from North America with lots of dollars and money. Previously, in order to protect the faith of their fellow citizens, states prevented the entry of all these sects. But once the state no longer has a religion, and the Church demands that all religions be admitted, the doors are open. And we are witnessing an incredible invasion, Moonies, Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, so much so that the bishops themselves met in South America to discuss the seriousness of the situation.
Some say forty million, others sixty million South American Catholics have joined sects since 1968, i.e. since the Council! This is the terrible consequence of Cardinal Bea’s position: the apostasy of millions and millions of Catholics. And we're seeing the same thing everywhere else, like in France where we’re seeing more and more Catholics switching to Islam, sects or Masonic lodges.
This is general apostasy, which is why we are resisting, but the Roman authorities would like us to accept it. When I spoke to them in Rome, they wanted me to recognise religious freedom like Cardinal Bea. But I said no, I can't do that. My faith is that of Cardinal Ottaviani, faithful to all the popes, and not this new and still-condemned doctrine.
That’s our opposition, and that’s why we can't agree. It’s not so much the question of the Mass, because the Mass is precisely one of the consequences of the fact that they wanted to move closer to Protestantism and therefore transform worship, the sacraments, the catechism, etc…
THE BASIS OF OUR POSITION
The real fundamental opposition is the Reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
‘Opportet Illum regnare’, Saint Paul tells us, Our Lord came to reign. They say no, and we say yes, along with all the popes. Our Lord did not come to be hidden inside houses without coming out. Why missionaries, so many of whom were massacred? To preach that Our Lord Jesus Christ is the only true God, to tell the pagans to convert. So the pagans wanted to make them disappear, but they didn't hesitate to give their lives to continue preaching Our Lord Jesus Christ. But now we’re meant to do the opposite, telling the pagans: ‘Your religion is good, keep it as long as you are good Buddhists, good Muslims or good pagans!’ That’s why we can't get along with them, because we are obeying Our Lord who said to the apostles: ‘Go and teach the Gospel to the ends of the earth’.
That's why we shouldn't be surprised that we can't get along with Rome. This will not be possible as long as Rome does not return to faith in the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ, as long as it gives the impression that all religions are good. We clash on a point of the Catholic faith, just as Cardinal Bea and Cardinal Ottaviani clashed over it, and as all the popes clashed with liberalism. It’s the same thing, the same current, the same ideas and the same divisions within the Church.
But before the Council, the popes and Rome supported Tradition against liberalism, whereas now the liberals have taken their place. Obviously they are against traditionalists, so we are persecuted. But we are at peace because we are in communion with all the popes since Our Lord and the Apostles. We are keeping their faith, and we're not going to switch now to the revolutionary faith in the Declaration of the Rights of Man. We do not want to be sons of 1789, but sons of Our Lord, sons of the Gospel.
The representatives of the Catholic Church say that everyone is free and that we can bring all religions together to pray, like in Assisi? This is an abomination, and the day when Our Lord gets angry it will be no laughing matter. For if Our Lord punished the Jews as He did, it was because they had refused to believe in Him. He had announced that Jerusalem would be razed to the ground, and Jerusalem was razed to the ground, and the temple has never been rebuilt since. He could well say the same thing now that all His pastors are against Him, they no longer want to believe in His universal reign.
We must remain attached to the doctrine of the Church. Remain attached to Our Lord who is everything to us. He is the Master, he is the one who will judge us as he will judge everyone else. So we must pray for His kingdom to come, even if we are persecuted.
Extraordinary as it may seem, that’s the situation today. I didn't invent it. Why do I find myself almost alone in opposing this liberalism when the vast majority of bishops, even in Rome, are in favour of it? It’s a great mystery. In remaining faithful, as before, to everything the popes have said, one finds oneself almost alone.
If you're with Our Lord, that's the main thing, even if you have to be alone. If you are with all the teaching of the Church over more than twenty centuries, you have nothing to fear. There's nothing to worry about, is there! Thanks be to God! The Good Lord, who knows the future, will set things right one day, because the Church cannot remain in this situation indefinitely.
So let’s put our trust in the Blessed Virgin and Our Lord, and let’s not be discouraged or worried, because we are carrying on the
Church. Let us remain in peace.
May the Good Lord bless you!
+ Marcel Lefebvre
|
|
|
|
| New Amazon rite of the Mass to enter 3-year ‘experimental phase’ |
|
Posted by: Stone - 09-03-2024, 05:09 AM - Forum: New Rite Sacraments
- No Replies
|
|
New Amazon rite of the Mass to enter 3-year ‘experimental phase’
The ‘Amazon rite,’ inspired by local traditions and customs in the region and proposed at the 2019 Amazon Synod, will enter a three-year ‘experimental phase’ in late 2024, a Vatican theologian has said.
![[Image: mass-amazon.jpg]](https://www.lifesitenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/mass-amazon.jpg)
Pope Francis during the closing Mass for the concluding the Synod of Bishops, the Amazon synod.
Vatican News
Sep 2, 2024
VATICAN CITY (LifeSiteNews) — The highly anticipated and controversial Amazon rite of Mass will enter a three year “experimental phase” later this year, a key theologian has attested.
In a new report by Vida Nueva digital, groundbreaking details were revealed about the proposed Amazon rite of Mass – a fruit of the 2019 Amazon Synod held at the Vatican.
While not giving any verbatim quotations, Vida Nueva stated that “the Amazon rite will enter the experimental phase – which will last three years until 2028 – at the end of 2024.”
The news is arguably the most significant development in relation to the Amazon rite since it was proposed back in 2019.
Father Agenor Brighenti, Vida Nueva’s source, serves as the head of the Theological Team of the Latin American and Caribbean Episcopal Council (CELAM) and also advisor to the Ecclesial Conference of the Amazon (CEAMA).
Brighenti additionally serves as coordinator of “the process of elaboration of the Amazon rite for the Ecclesial Conference of the Amazon,” and advocates for the ordination of women to the diaconate and the priesthood, along with married priests. The influential theologian is a key advisor to the current Synod on Synodality.
Amazon rite?
The Amazon rite is a product of the highly controversial 2019 Synod of Bishops on the Amazon, or the Amazon Synod. Among the many proposals raised by the Amazon Synod and its final document are the opening of the clerical state to women and admitting married men to the priesthood, in an attempt to make the Church more appealing to Catholics in the region.
Additionally, based on the Second Vatican Council’s defense of “liturgical pluralism,” the Amazon Synod’s final document called for “a rite for native peoples” which would be based on their “worldview, traditions, symbols and original rites that include transcendent, community and ecological dimensions.”
This “Amazonian rite” would “expresses the liturgical, theological, disciplinary and spiritual heritage of the Amazon,” which would assist the “work of evangelization.”
Details have since been scarce on what the rite might look like; however, Pope Francis has suggested it could be formulated in line with the Zaire rite, which has been in use in the Democratic Republic of the Congo since 1988.
In a preface to a 2020 book on the Zairean rite, Francis wrote that the rite “is considered an example of liturgical inculturation.”
“One feels that in the celebration according to the Zairian rite, a culture and spirituality animated by religious songs with African rhythm, the sound of drums and other musical instruments vibrate, which constitute a true progress in rooting the Christian message in the Congolese soul. It is a joyful celebration,” he commented.
Francis directly linked the Zaire rite – replete with local customs, native dancing, singing and clapping – to the forthcoming Amazon rite:
Quote:The case of the Zairean rite suggests a promising path also for the possible elaboration of an Amazonian rite, in that the cultural needs of a specific area of the African context are received, without distorting the nature of the Roman Missal, to guarantee continuity with the ancient and universal tradition of the Church. We hope that this work can help to move in this direction.
Development
Following calls from liberalizing forces and key campaigners behind the Amazon Synod, a commission was formed to guide the development of such a rite.
In June 2022, the notoriously anti-traditional secretary of the Vatican’s Dicastery for Divine Worship – Archbishop Vittorio Viola – commented that the formation of an Amazon rite was “on the high seas.”
He also highlighted Pope Francis’ comments and linking of “the inculturation of the liturgy” with the “new evangelization.” Just as the Pope had done in his 2020 book preface, Viola linked the Zaire rite to the proposed Amazon rite, attesting that so-called “inculturation” of liturgy is the “new frontier” for the Church.
Results of the various sub-committees studying the proposed rite were presented to the Dicastery for Divine Worship in September 2022. The process was crucially aided by the papal formation of a new episcopal conference in the Amazon region: the Ecclesial Conference of the Amazon (CEAMA) in 2021.
Vida Nueva reported that Brighenti said the proposed Amazon rite was presented to the second assembly of CEAMA this August. After a “phase in communities,” stated Brighenti, the rite will be presented to the Dicastery for Divine Worship.
Currently, the theologian said that some 13 commissions are formulating the rite’s details about “the rituals of the sacraments and also thinking about the liturgical year of the Amazon, the liturgical space, the liturgy of the hours, among others.”
“We hope that it will be accepted and approved by the Church so that the ecclesial communities can express their faith according to their culture and customs in this immense territory of the Amazon,” he said.
Context of news
Brighenti, as noted, is a highly influential theologian in Rome. The fact that he is predicting the rite will officially enter an “experimental phase” before the year is out is a key development for the future of the rite which has found heavy criticism among conservatives and advocacy from liberal voices.
In the meantime, and alongside the quietly developing Amazon rite, the Vatican is currently mulling over another pagan-linked, inculturated rite.
READ: Vatican considering ‘Mayan rite’ of Mass after Mexican bishops overwhelmingly approve it
The Mayan rite proposed by Mexico’s Catholic bishops is now being examined by the Dicastery for Divine Worship. Though the dicastery has been slow in issuing a statement on the rite – much to the consternation of the Mexican bishops – the rite was drawn up with the key involvement of Dicastery Undersecretary Bishop Aurelio García Macías, suggesting that Vatican approval is a mere formality.
LifeSiteNews’ Dr. Maike Hickson has provided an in-depth analysis of the Mayan rite, the draft and final copies of which both she and this correspondent have studied.
The final draft of the Mayan rite contains liturgical actions based on, and drawn from, pagan actions. Such a liturgy would then be at the liberty of the individual cleric involved, who would feel at ease incorporating the wider, accompanying pagan aspects of the rituals which the Vatican would have approved.
Such a style gives an insight into the likely future of a similarly inculturated Amazonian rite.
|
|
|
|
| The Recusant #62 - Autumn 2024 |
|
Posted by: Stone - 09-01-2024, 06:19 PM - Forum: The Recusant
- Replies (1)
|
|
Contents
• An Unpleasant Editorial
• “Liberalism, the Church’s Worst Enemy!” (Archbishop Lefebvre)
• Fr Denis Fahey: The Kingship of Christ and Organised Naturalism
• Bp. Williamson promotes ‘Divine Mercy’ Novus Ordo “revelations”
• Fr Paul Robinson: Spreading More Evolutionist Propaganda
|
|
|
|
|
![[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2Foriginal...ipo=images]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2Foriginals%2Fc3%2Fd0%2Fa7%2Fc3d0a7f61263156b1eace7ab9b1bc832.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=28692e59b49a33873cbdd85809a2a40a48007ed0c4bd1a9f76cece5fc043a7bb&ipo=images)
![[Image: Screenshot-2024-09-05-045926.png]](https://i.postimg.cc/jSSrzGmC/Screenshot-2024-09-05-045926.png)
![[Image: avgfgt1ahydyouugbjltl0qvisqu8k32nbz8dqx....80&webp=on]](https://seedus0275.gloriatv.net/storage1/avgfgt1ahydyouugbjltl0qvisqu8k32nbz8dqx.webp?secure=Y-GGsHYcF5wCbbzqc5XZVw&expires=1725511980&webp=on)
![[Image: 6b5fc817-b779-b80c-bfa4-297d09f576b1.jpg]](https://mcusercontent.com/76ce784d87af5db75a3164d6a/images/6b5fc817-b779-b80c-bfa4-297d09f576b1.jpg)
![[Image: Capture.png]](https://i.postimg.cc/4yNR863f/Capture.png)
