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

Username
  

Password
  





Search Forums

(Advanced Search)

Forum Statistics
» Members: 310
» Latest member: BlueRidgeMountaineer
» Forum threads: 7,108
» Forum posts: 13,177

Full Statistics

Online Users
There are currently 323 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 319 Guest(s)
Applebot, Bing, Google, Yandex

Latest Threads
Louis Veuillot: The Liber...
Forum: Uncompromising Fighters for the Faith
Last Post: Stone
9 hours ago
» Replies: 37
» Views: 7,291
Convicted Child Porn Prie...
Forum: Vatican II and the Fruits of Modernism
Last Post: Stone
10 hours ago
» Replies: 0
» Views: 31
Pope Leo XIV Appoints Pro...
Forum: Pope Leo XIV
Last Post: Stone
10 hours ago
» Replies: 0
» Views: 17
Which is Novus Ordo, whic...
Forum: New Rite Sacraments
Last Post: Stone
11 hours ago
» Replies: 0
» Views: 37
Fr. Ruiz Sermons: 2025 07...
Forum: Fr. Ruiz's Sermons July 2025
Last Post: Deus Vult
Yesterday, 10:20 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 66
Fr. Hewko's Sermons: Fift...
Forum: July 2025
Last Post: Deus Vult
Yesterday, 10:16 AM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 137
St. Alphonsus Liguori: Da...
Forum: Pentecost
Last Post: Stone
07-13-2025, 06:39 AM
» Replies: 7
» Views: 12,011
Sixth Sunday after Pentec...
Forum: Pentecost
Last Post: Stone
07-13-2025, 06:38 AM
» Replies: 6
» Views: 14,273
Holy Mass in New Hampshir...
Forum: July 2025
Last Post: Stone
07-13-2025, 06:34 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 102
Holy Mass in Tennesee [Na...
Forum: July 2025
Last Post: Stone
07-12-2025, 12:25 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 128

 
  This author may have discovered the original painting of Our Lady by St. Luke
Posted by: Stone - 08-29-2024, 07:25 AM - Forum: General Commentary - No Replies

This author may have discovered the original painting of Our Lady by St. Luke
LifeSiteNews is pleased to present the latest great discovery of author Paul Badde, who has been able to locate the painting that, 
most probably, Saint Luke himself painted of Our Lady.

[Image: Screenshot-2024-08-28-at-2.33.24-PM.png]

Author and journalist Paul Badde with the painting of Our Lady potential created by St. Luke
Maike Hickson / LifeSiteNews

Aug 28, 2024
(LifeSiteNews) — Paul Badde is a journalist and author who has been specially blessed with some stunning discoveries. For some reason, it has come to him to help Christianity recover amazing images and items of our beloved Catholic faith. He also played a historic role in helping to thwart the papal election of Jorge Bergoglio in 2005.

LifeSiteNews has mentioned in the past Badde’s report on the discovery of the Holy Face of Manoppello, a veil that contains an imprint of the face of Jesus Christ and stems most probably from the moment of His Resurrection. It is a silken veil that is kept in a church in the Abruzzo mountains of Italy and that contains no traces of paint on it. That is to say, it is not man-made. Due to Badde’s discoveries, it was none other than Pope Benedict XVI who, in 2006, made a pilgrimage to this true face of Our Lord.

But not only that. Among other things, Badde was able to locate in Jerusalem the very judgement stone upon which Jesus Christ Himself might have been judged by Pontius Pilate on Good Friday. It is an exciting story, and LifeSite recommends that our readers listen to it here

[Image: Screenshot-2024-08-28-at-4.06.00-PM.png]

The ‘Advocata’ painting of Our Lady

In his latest great discovery, Paul Badde has been able to locate the painting that, most probably, Saint Luke himself painted of Our Lady. The painting is the mother painting and icon of many other paintings in the West and in the East that have the reputation of being related to St. Luke.

Paul Badde even goes so far as to say that this was the beginning of the Christian West’s abandonment of the Jewish ban on images of God and human beings. This original painting is called “Advocata,” and it is to be found in a hidden monastery on Monte Mario in Rome. Since the 11th century, it has had the reputation of being been painted by St. Luke.

Similar to his discovery of the Holy Face of Manoppello, Paul Badde met people along the way who helped him find the original icon of Our Lady. His quest took some twenty years, which he now describes in a spell-binding manner in Die Lukas-Ikone (a new book in German).

[Image: Screenshot-2024-08-27-at-12.42.15-PM.png]

Author Paul Badde with his new book (Credit: Maike Hickson)

During his work as a journalist in Jerusalem at the beginning of the second millennium, Badde met on Mount Zion the icon painter Father Bernhard Maria Alter, OSB a priest who assured him that there existed in Rome on Monte Mario one special painting of Our Lady – the “true original icon” related to the other paintings. Many other paintings are said to have been painted by St. Luke but clearly date to periods after the life of Our Lady here on earth. Yet, as Badde is able to show, this one painting is datable by way of technique (wax technique) and style (similar to Egyptian paintings from Fayum that date back to the first centuries AD), and is thus traceable to the lifetime of Our Lady and St. Luke themselves. In addition, there is a text which mentions a special painting of Our Lady that was carried through water, and the icon of St. Luke does have clear signs of water damage. 

In his new book, Paul Badde takes us back to the time when he started his quest and how it progressed. It is a striking and exciting story. Multiple times, for example, he and his wife Ellen visited the Monte Mario hill in Rome where the painting was located, finally finding it by accident more than anything!

On All Souls’ Day last year, Paul Badde was so kind as to lead me to that very monastery and to the “Advocata,” in front of which he gave an explanation of the ordeal.

At the time, he was still writing his book, and it has just now been released in the German language by Christiana Verlag. Translated from German, the book is aptly titled, The Icon of St. Luke: Rome’s Hidden Wonder of the World.

The painting that Paul Badde discovered a few years ago in Rome is called “Advocata,” or “Advocata Nostra,” and it is kept in Santa Madonna del Rosario, a Dominican monastery where the sisters preserve and venerate this icon, along with some major relics of great Dominican saints, including relics of St. Dominic himself, St. Catherine of Siena, and St. Thomas Aquinas. Over the altar of the church is a painting of Our Lady handing St. Dominic the rosary. Could one imagine St. Dominic seeing Our Lady in a vision, that same face that is on this icon?

The painting of the “Advocata” is stunning. Our Lady is beautiful, and to look at her touches the heart. Our Lady serenely looks out of the picture and into the eyes of the onlooker. She is a mature woman who has seen suffering. But she is serene and pure. And she does not hold a baby in her arm, which makes sense if one were to consider that St. Luke would have painted her after the Passion, Crucifixion, and Resurrection of her Son. Instead, her hands are lifted upward, in parallel fashion, as if she were holding something. Badde is able to show that there exist many copies of that depiction of Our Lady with the same gesture and appearance in different places in Italy and elsewhere (such as, for example, in Freising, Germany), not at least in the grottos under St. Peter’s. That Advocata painting must have been considered to be special to be copied so many times – another hint it is truly the “original icon.” 

Moreover, since the Advocata icon must have traveled, most probably together with the Shroud of Turin and the Holy Veil of Manoppello, to Constantinople, there are numerous icons in the East that very closely resemble that of the Advocata. A further sign of the importance of this icon. Given the widespread nature of the image, it follows that people must have known that it was one of the key icons of early Christianity. Here is an example of a newly discovered Fresco from before the 8th century from the Greek isle of Naxos, that has a stunning resemblance to the Advocata. Another copy of the Advocata can be discovered in the 11th century painting by a Byzantine painter, here. Looking at these images, one could easily posit that much of the iconography of Our Lady in the East has been influenced by this original icon of St. Luke. 

[Image: Screenshot-2024-08-27-at-12.53.58-PM.png]

The Madonna as Advocate (Haghiosoritissa) (Credit: Wikimedia Commons)

In Badde’s view, this original Advocata icon that influenced so many other paintings and icons must have been created by Saint Luke at the time of the First Council of the Apostles in the year 48, when the Apostles came together in Jerusalem in order to settle questions of the Faith. It was most probably here that St. Luke met Our Lady for the first time. She had lived, since the death of Her Son, in Ephesus, together with St. John the Evangelist. Though there are no historical documents to prove it, Badde’s reconstruction would make sense. There is, however, another key element that convinced me as a reader. 

Badde tells us that St. Dominic, when his first Dominican sisters refused to move into a new building, the San Sisto Vecchio monastery in Rome, without that very painting of Our Lady, carried it in the 13th century by foot to the new monastery. That is to say, even then the painting was already held in the highest esteem. I wonder whether St. Dominic recognized, when carrying that painting, the Blessed Mother on it. 

But that is not the key of the story. During their research, Badde and his wife had learned that the painting had been restored in 1960, and in the historical records of that restoration, they were able to learn that Our Lady earlier on held some sort of white linen or cloth in her extended, outstretched hand. This discovery led him to think that perhaps there would be other paintings from the time of St. Dominic with hints of that original image of the hand that is now covered up with gold.

So Paul Badde and his wife went to see a painted crucifix in the Basilica of San Domenico in Arezzo that was painted only some 40 years after St. Dominic had carried the Advocata himself. On that crucifix is painted a small copy of the Advocata, in a different gesture, but with a white veil in her hands.

That white veil is important. It could show that Our Lady had been painted by St. Luke as the “Advocata” with the cloth of Jesus’s Face on it, that very cloth that Badde was blessed to discover, with the help of others of course, in Manoppello. 

It would make perfectly sense to think that Our Lady would only want to be painted as the “Christbearer”, that is, as the woman who bore Christ. In her humility, she would not have wanted a portrait of herself, for the sake of herself. She only would have wanted to be the one who holds a depiction of Her Son in her hands or arms. That is at least how the author of this article could picture it.

There exist very old texts in the East that speak about Our Lady having in her possession after the death of her Son a cloth in front of which she would kneel and pray. In our pious imagination, that would have been the Face of Manoppello. After offering up Her Son at the First Mass, on Calvary, she would certainly would have wanted to keep that image of Him that was found in the tomb on the day of His Resurrection. We recall how St. John describes the scene when he entered the tomb: he “saw (the linens and the sudarium, the head cloth) and believed” (John 20:8).

He might not have necessarily believed had there been just the linen cloths lying in the empty tomb. Remember even the linen that we call today the Shroud of Turin became only more clearly visible at the end of the 19th century. But he might have seen the face of Our Lord on that one cloth, “sudarium,” that convinced him of the fact that Our Lord had risen. 

It can then also be assumed that, should St. Luke have met Our Lady first at the First Council of the Church in Jerusalem, he would have also seen, for the first time, the image of Our Lord on that cloth. The very fact that Our Lord chose to leave an image of His behind, surely convinced St. Luke that the old Jewish law that forbids any images of God or even of any human being was being rescinded herewith by God Himself. And Our Lady would have known that from that first Easter on.

Heinz Liechti, a Catholic who admires Paul Badde’s work on these holy images and has done his own research in this field, shared with LifeSite the following insight: “The epochal insight of Paul Badde’s Advocata book is that he can prove [the images of] Manoppello and Advocata in such a way that it is clear that this sequence, M+A, led to the overthrow of the Jewish prohibition of images.” That is to say, the two true faces of God and His Mother left behind on earth did away with the Jewish ban on images of God and man and opened up the path to Christian paintings as we know them.

Also important is another aspect that came from correspondence with Mr. Liechtl: when one compares both images of the Advocata and of Manoppello, one sees a clear resemblance between God and His Mother, especially the eyes: they have the same color, and their pupils are even in nearly the same position on both images! Next to it, one sees in both set of eyes the white under the black pupils, which is also a striking resemblance. Both faces have beautifully formed eyebrows, as well. 

[Image: Screenshot-2024-08-28-at-11.18.39-AM.png]

Credit: Heinz Liechti

Thus, the white veil in the hands of the Advocata – the remnants of which have been again covered up by some golden plates after its restoration – gives us a strong hint that it truly could have been that that painting was created by St. Luke during Our Lady’s lifetime. She was holding her Son’s face in her hands.

[Image: Screenshot-2024-08-28-at-11.27.22-AM.png]

An Eastern depiction of Our Lady holding a veil

To return to Paul Badde’s book on the Advocata. He points out that it is St. Luke, of all Evangelists, who reveals the most about Our Lady in the entire New Testament.  Speaking of all the five Joyful Mysteries of the Holy Rosary, Badde explains that “all these stories and their contemplation we owe to St. Luke.” Also the more detailed story of Christmas, as we contemplate it every year anew, stems from St. Luke who himself was not blessed with the meeting of Our Lord. This fact could be used as an argument that St. Luke met Our Lady during her lifetime and learned elements of her life from her directly.

Admittedly, many aspects in this story are yet to be proven. For example, while we can say that the painting method stems from the first centuries, the wood panel of the painting has not yet been dated. Further research into many of these aspects should be done. Thanks to Paul Badde’s hard work that took place over the course of some twenty years, this research can now be done.

In the meantime, I highly recommend an English-speaking publisher to translate this book into English so that our readers can read it for themselves. And I highly recommend that our readers, next time they are in Rome, visit the small Dominican church Madonna del Rosario on Monte Mario, and pay their respects to the most stunning painting of Our Lady, the Advocata.

Print this item

  Archbishop Lefebvre and Conciliar Sacraments – Did he doubt them?
Posted by: Stone - 08-28-2024, 09:13 AM - Forum: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre - No Replies

Archbishop Lefebvre and Conciliar Sacraments – Did he doubt them?
The Church cannot approve rites which are harmful or out of harmony with the faith.
This is precisely what Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre said of the conciliar rites. So how did he resolve the question?

[Image: https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.ama...0x675.jpeg]

Image: The Tomb of Pope Leo XIII (Fr Lawrence Lew OP) with superimposed image of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (Wiki Commons) both under CC 2.0.

WM Review | Aug 27, 2024


Introduction

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre stated on several occasions that both the Novus Ordo and the accompanying reforms to the other sacramental rites are essentially harmful in themselves, incentives to impiety, and fail to serve as a profession of the Catholic faith. In one classic text, he said:
Quote:“All these reforms, indeed, have contributed and are still contributing to the destruction of the Church, to the ruin of the priesthood, to the abolition of the Sacrifice of the Mass and of the sacraments…

“It is impossible to modify profoundly the lex orandi without modifying the lex credendi. To the Novus Ordo Missae correspond a new catechism, a new priesthood, new seminaries, a charismatic Pentecostal Church—all things opposed to orthodoxy and the perennial teaching of the Church.

“This Reformation, born of Liberalism and Modernism, is poisoned through and through; it derives from heresy and ends in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical. It is therefore impossible for any conscientious and faithful Catholic to espouse this Reformation or to submit to it in any way whatsoever.

“The only attitude of faithfulness to the Church and Catholic doctrine, in view of our salvation, is a categorical refusal to accept this Reformation.”1

However, Catholic teaching and theology tells us that this is impossible for the Church’s approved sacramental rites, which are examples of universal disciplinary laws and thus fall under “the secondary object of infallibility.”

The only route out of this dilemma is to exonerate the Church of responsibility for these reforms. We must, in other words, say that these reforms do not come to us from the Church or with her approval or sanction.

This conclusion – that the reformed rites do not come from the Church and not enjoy her approval or sanction – was expressed and implied by the Archbishop and other SSPX figures on several occasions.

However, this solution comes at a price.

Once we have acknowledged that, because of their harmful, evil or non-Catholic nature, these reformed rites cannot have come to us from the Church or with her approval or sanction, we must also recognise that these rites do not come with the Church’s guarantees of validity either.

In this piece, we will see what Archbishop Lefebvre had to say about the validity of the reformed sacramental rites, and how he more or less recognised the practical effects of the conclusion mentioned above.


The harmfulness of the reformed rites and prima facie guarantees of validity

As noted elsewhere – and as is obvious – only rites which come to us from the Church enjoy her guarantees of validity. There is no theological principle which allows us to say that the Church’s liturgical rites are infallibly valid but not infallibly safe and Catholic.

Therefore, as mentioned, if we do hold these rites to be unsafe and uncatholic, then we must also acknowledge that by that fact, they also lack the Church’s sanction – and therefore we have no prima facie grounds for asserting that they are valid.

This is the same thing as saying that they are subject to prima facie doubt.

In his 1956 book on a related topic, Anglican Orders and Defect of Intention, Fr Francis Clark writes:
Quote:“The only formulae that infallibly and necessarily contain the essential significance of a sacrament are those which have been canonised by being instituted by Christ and His Church for that purpose.”2

In his bull on Anglican orders and liturgical changes, Pope Leo XIII himself wrote:
Quote:“… f the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church and of rejecting what the Church does, and what, by the institution of Christ, belongs to the nature of the Sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the Sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the Sacrament.”3

The English bishops explained this further in 1898, in defence of the same bull:
Quote:“… in adhering rigidly to the rite handed down to us we can always feel secure; whereas, if we omit or change anything, we may perhaps be abandoning just that element which is essential.”4

What would these nineteenth century bishops have made of our situation, in which [i]all the sacramental rites were radically reformed, and in which four were changed in their essentials?

Regarding changes of sacramental form, Clark writes:
Quote:“Where, however, a new liturgical form is introduced and no such canonised formula [“instituted by Christ and His Church”] is employed, there cannot be certainty of its validity until its credentials have been established, and it has been acknowledged, expressly or implicitly, by the universal Church.”5

In a footnote appended to this text, Clark continues:
Quote:“Only the Church as a whole, the Mystical Body of Christ and the guardian of His sacraments, has the power to decide that with final certainty.”6

We cannot evade the force of this point by claiming that the Church has already decided the matter by her promulgation and customary usage of these rites: this evasion is cut off to us, if we are also claiming that these rites are harmful, non-Catholic, and to be rejected.

In any case, this would give rise to another problem, as the promulgation of a sacramental rite by the Roman Pontiff is itself a definitive judgment of the goodness, safety and validity of the rites.

If they had been promulgated or sanctioned by the Roman Pontiff, then they would have had the approval of the Church – and it would therefore be impossible to say that they are harmful or fail to express the Catholic faith.

Nonetheless, without presuming to solve this problem, the negative qualities of the reformed rites require us to hold back from having recourse to a resolution based around authoritative promulgation of these rites.


Archbishop Lefebvre’s own concerns about validity

As discussed previously, doubts about the validity of these reformed sacramental rites are apparent in Archbishop Lefebvre’s words and actions.

Even if he himself did not always personally embrace such doubt, his pastoral practice demonstrated that he clearly understood the situation, and wished to accommodate the faithful by providing them with certainty and peace.

Speaking of Confirmation, he said:
Quote:“It is at the request of the faithful, attached to Tradition, that I use the old sacramental formula, and also for safety's sake, keeping to formulas which have communicated grace for centuries with certainty.”7 (Emphasis added)

[ ... The remainder of this article is behind a paywall.]

Print this item

  Fr. Coleridge [1887]: The Church's debt to the Immaculate Heart of Mary
Posted by: Stone - 08-25-2024, 07:08 AM - Forum: Our Lady - No Replies

The Church's debt to the Immaculate Heart of Mary
Although the Blessed Virgin Mary sometimes seems to be in the background in the New Testament narrative, 
Her influence quietly pervades the events – including the events following the Ascension.

[Image: https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.ama...7x909.jpeg]

Pope Pius XII’s consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary – Fr Lawrence Lew OP.


WM Review | Aug 22, 2024


From:  Mother of the Church – Mary in the First Apostolic Age
Fr Henry James Coleridge, 1887, pp 312-5.

It is in the last Gospel, written by the disciple whom our Lord loved, and to whom He commended His Mother from the Cross, that we find, not so much fresh details which no one but our Blessed Lady could have communicated, as, in the first place, the breathing of a spirit of closeness with our Lord all through which is characteristic of her.

And in the second place, [we find] the two great mysteries, as they ought to be called, which especially reveal her power in the Kingdom of her Son, namely, the beginning of “signs” at her prayer at the marriage at Cana, and her presence by the side of the Cross while our Lord hung upon it till His Death.

It is on the second of these especially that our Lady’s great position as the Mother of the Church is founded.

She had long passed away from earth when St. John wrote his Gospel, and he had then seen the Apocalyptic vision of the woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.1

Mary is not mentioned in this Gospel except on these two occasions, the two mysteries which as it were connect the opening of the history with the end, while the sublime words and deeds with which the interval is filled up are just those connected with the great sacramental truths on which her heart loved to dwell.


The Passion and the Immaculate Heart

There is another subject, filling a very large space in each of the four Gospels, as to which it is quite certain that our Blessed Lady was the highest authority, and in the prominence of which in the narratives we may trace her guiding hand.

This subject is, of course, the Passion.

The only Apostle, besides St. Peter, who witnessed anything of what passed in the houses of Annas and Caiphas, must have been St. John. It is doubtful whether he witnessed what passed before Pilate and Herod, or the scourging and crowning with thorns, and all that followed.

But it is certain that our Blessed Lady was more familiar with the details of the Passion than anyone, that she either witnessed them herself or was aware of them by that special gift which enabled her to keep the Sacred Heart of our Lord company in all its sufferings, that she ever afterwards made them the continual subject of meditation and prayer, honouring each word and act and wound and insult of our Lord with a particular devotion, that in truth, the Passion was her constant and engrossing occupation, save that her remembrance of it did not prevent her from attending to the many calls which were made on her charity and her prudence.

We may therefore assume that, although we may not be able to trace her influence in particular points, still our debt to her in the history of the Passion is enormous.

And it may be added that it is likely that we owe to her faithful memory and habit of tender devotion the traditions concerning the Holy Places, the Way of the Captivity, the Way of the Cross, and others, as well as the beginning of the veneration of the relics of the Passion.


Our debt to Our Lady

In these and in a thousand other ways, the children of the Church of our Lord may see what is some part of their debt to His Blessed Mother, during the years when she was left on earth an exile from Heaven, for the sake of that Church which He loved so well.

She was the first to practise that life of retirement and prayer for the needs of the world, which is the great earthly support of the Kingdom of God, and which is now carried on in hundreds of cloister homes, the inmates of which delight above all things in counting themselves as her children.

She lighted up in the world’s worst days the glorious beacon of the Virgin life, the rays of which illuminate the whole of Christendom, and which has raised marriage to a higher level than it could have attained, if it had not had by its side this witness of something higher and more heavenly.

Her prayers and her counsels were of incalculable help to St. Peter, and the others of the Twelve, and they helped to bring to their side as a more fruitful labourer than any, the great Apostle of the Gentile world, the great trophy of the prayer of St. Stephen, who also was her beloved child.

Her motherly heart took in the whole flock of the converted heathen, as she had sung in her Magnificat of the promises to Abraham, that in his seed all the nations of the earth were to be blessed.

Wherever in the Old World or in the New there are children of the Church, there are the fruits of the motherly prayers of Mary for the application of the merits of her Son. The centuries which were yet to be, while she remained on earth, were in her heart, as the generations yet unborn are in her heart now.

She has had a share in securing to us, who live so long after her time, and many of whom have been born outside the pale of the Church, the blessings of the Apostolical teaching, and of the Catholic Unity, in which our souls have been kept or into which they have been guided. When we contemplate the Sacred Passion, when we read the words and actions of our Divine Lord, she has been before us in our devotion and our study, and the very words in which the incidents have come down to us may come almost immediately from her.

She was the first devout worshipper of the Crucifix, the first loving and reverential communicant, the first to assist piously at the offering of the Adorable Sacrifice, the first Adorer of the Blessed Sacrament.

And in that particular and special privilege which consists in bearing the cross of sorrow after our Lord, she kept Him company most faithfully while His life lasted, and, as we have seen, she had her own unique cross to bear for the sake of His children, which she took up with courage and self-renouncement so marvellous for the fifteen years about which our thoughts have been now engaged.

May she win us the grace to know the gift which God has given us in her, and to use this inestimable treasure as He would have us use it!

Print this item

  Holy Mass in New Hampshire - September 1, 2024
Posted by: Stone - 08-25-2024, 06:30 AM - Forum: September 2024 - No Replies

Holy Sacrifice of the Mass - Fifteenth Sunday after Pentecost

[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse3.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3...ipo=images]



Date: Sunday, September 1, 2024


Time: Confessions - 10:00 AM
             Holy Mass - 10:30 AM


Location: The Oratory of the Sorrowful Heart of Mary 
                     66 Gove's Lane
                     Wentworth, NH 03282


Contact: 315-391-7575                    
                  sorrowfulheartofmaryoratory@gmail.com

Print this item

  Vatican II and the Deformation of Catholic Consciences
Posted by: Stone - 08-25-2024, 06:13 AM - Forum: General Commentary - No Replies

Vatican II and the Deformation of Catholic Consciences


[Image: fa4c80ae29d2cb399cab4dc49d434971_L.jpg]

Robert Morrison/Remnant Columnist | August 22, 2024

“It is impossible to speak with veracity of liberty, of conscience, of the dignity of the human person except by reference to divine law.” (Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, from his September 1965 intervention read at the Second Vatican Council)

In the eyes of those who want to impose their wicked agendas on society, the problem posed by Catholicism has always been about how to overcome properly formed consciences. If a Catholic has a properly formed conscience, and a firm determination to follow it, he or she would rather die than accept evils forbidden by the Catholic Church. Throughout the centuries, our enemies have ventured to solve this problem in two general ways: by coercing or manipulating us into abandoning our determination to follow our consciences, and by trying to deform our consciences. To a large extent, the Vatican II revolution has achieved both of these objectives for our enemies.

Many Catholics today no longer understand that we must properly form our consciences, so it is worthwhile to review what the Church has always taught on the topic. As with so many other questions, the three volume Radio Replies series — which presents the answers to thousands of questions addressed by Fr. Leslie Rumble and Fr. Charles Carty on their 1930s radio program — provides solidly a Catholic answer to the question of whether a person’s conscience is supposed to be infallible:
Quote:“No. A man’s conscience is not always necessarily a true conscience. A man can warp his conscience. And just as he can form a wrong judgment in literature, science, economics, business, or sport, so he can form a wrong judgment as to what is correct moral conduct or evil moral conduct. A conscience is right when it is in harmony with God’s law. If it is not in harmony with God’s law, then it is an erroneous conscience. And we know by experience that men have often done evil under the impression that they were right. When conscience is in error, however, so that a man does wrong in good faith, we have to ask whether that man is responsible for his lack of knowledge or not. If he is responsible, because ignorant of things he ought to know or was obliged to know, he cannot be excused from sin.” (Volume 3, question 994)

So our consciences are right only when they are in conformity with God’s law; and acting in conformity with an erroneous conscience is sinful if we ought to have known, or were obliged to have known, the truth. For most Catholics who have reached the age of reason, then, it is difficult to escape blame for acting in accordance with an erroneous conscience because we are generally obliged to know (or seek) the truth about faith and morals.

How, then, has the Vatican II revolution deformed consciences? For an initial candid insight into the question, we can look to Frank Sheed’s 1968 book about the aftermath of Vatican II, Is It the Same Church?, in which he describes the impact of disagreements among bishops at the Council:
Quote:“It was for great numbers of Catholics a shattering experience to learn that the bishops were divided — indeed, if the journalists were to be believed, bitterly divided. It was one thing to accept decisions issuing from the successors of the Apostles in all the majesty of their oneness. It was not at all the same thing when the decisions were arrived at by a majority, after — if the journalists were to be believed — lobbying and recriminations not unlike those of politicians anywhere.” (p. 63)

With this subtle but vital insight, Sheed evoked the reality that Catholics trust the Catholic Church to form their consciences because we rightly see the Church as safeguarding the truths Our Lord wants all of us to believe and abide by. But if we see the bishops opposing each other, or their predecessors, on fundamental matters of faith and morals, Catholics may doubt whether the Church is actually the most important truth-teller in the world. Sheed continued by layering on two other factors: the contemporaneous debate over contraception and the Council’s ecumenical treatment of non-Catholics:

Quote:“The effect of all this is to make the old unquestioning acceptance a great deal harder, especially in a matter like Contraception which can affect people continually, immediately, sometimes agonizingly, as doctrinal teachings do not. Any who are not convinced by the Pope’s utterance on it may feel that their personal decision is for their own conscience to make. And while the Second Vatican Council speaks most lucidly upon the rights of men outside the Church to follow their conscience, I have not found that it discusses the relation of the Catholic conscience to her own teachings or commands if it feels them contrary to it.” (pp. 63-64)

Before the Council, Catholics generally knew that there is no salvation outside the Church (absent the ordinary exceptions) and that they were bound to follow all of the Church’s immutable teachings. For countless Catholics, the Council completely undermined these basic truths. And so we see Sheed — whose books are still found in Traditional Catholic bookstores — pondering whether a Catholic needs to follow Church teaching when it conflicts with his or her conscience.

Beyond Sheed’s assessment of how the Council discussions shaped overall Catholic sentiment about the human conscience, we can look at Vatican II’s Declaration on Religious Liberty, Dignitatis Humanae, which states:

Quote:“On his part, man perceives and acknowledges the imperatives of the divine law through the mediation of conscience. In all his activity a man is bound to follow his conscience in order that he may come to God, the end and purpose of life. It follows that he is not to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his conscience. Nor, on the other hand, is he to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience, especially in matters religious.”

Although the document elsewhere encouraged Christians to “attend to the sacred and certain doctrine of the Church” in the formation of their consciences, the passage above is the one that was both the focal point of battles between bishops and the innovation that set the tone for post-Conciliar teaching. And in this passage there is no hint whatsoever that a soul could go astray by following an erroneous conscience.

In various interventions during Vatican II, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre sought to persuade his fellow Council Fathers to rectify this erroneous conception of conscience:

November 1963. Archbishop Lefebvre commented on the following passage from the draft of the Declaration on Religious Liberty: “The Catholic Church claims, as a right of the human person, that no one be prevented from carrying out and proclaiming his public and private duties towards God and man . . . according to the light of his conscience even if it is in error.” Here is the archbishop’s reply:
Quote:“The universal order created by God, whether natural or supernatural, is, in fact, in essential opposition to this statement. God founded the family, civil society, and above all the Church, in order that all men might recognize the truth, be forewarned against error, attain to good, be preserved from scandals and thus reach temporal and eternal happiness.” (Lefebvre, I Accuse the Council, pp. 19-20)

December 1963. In remarks sent to the Secretariat of the Council on the draft schema for the Declaration on Religious Liberty, Archbishop Lefebvre wrote the following:
Quote:“This conception of religious liberty derives its origins and form from an opinion which is nowadays widespread among the public, an opinion founded on the primacy of conscience and freedom from all restraint. . . . Conscience cannot be defined without relation to Truth, ordained as it is essentially to that quality. . . . Conscience, liberty, human dignity, only possess rights to the extent to which they are in essential relation with the truth.” (Lefebvre, I Accuse the Council, pp. 24-26)

October 1964. Archbishop Lefebvre’s sixth intervention at the Council also dealt with the Declaration on Religious Liberty:
Quote:“This declaration on religious liberty should be shortened, as several Fathers have already said, in order to avoid the controversial questions and their dangerous consequences. . . . Among the various acts of conscience, the interior acts of religion must be distinguished from the exterior acts, for the external acts can either edify or cause scandal. . . . Attention must be paid to the very grave consequences of this declaration on the right to follow the voice of one’s conscience and act outwardly according to that voice. And, in fact, a religious doctrine logically influences the whole morality. Who can fail to see the innumerable consequences of this order of things? Who will be able to determine the dividing line between good and evil when the criterion of morals in accordance with the Catholic truth revealed by Christ has been set aside?” (Lefebvre, I Accuse the Council, pp. 47-48)

September 1965. Archbishop Lefebvre’s eleventh intervention at the Council also dealt with the Declaration on Religious Liberty:
Quote:“Liberty is given to us for the spontaneous observance of divine law. Conscience is natural divine law inscribed in the heart and, after the grace of baptism, is supernatural divine law. . . . It is impossible to speak with veracity of liberty, of conscience, of the dignity of the human person except by reference to divine law. . . . As the Church of Christ alone possesses the fullness and perfection of divine law, natural and supernatural; as she alone has received the mission to teach this law and the means to observe it, it is in her that Jesus Christ, who is our law, is found in reality and truth.” (Lefebvre, I Accuse the Council, p. 64)

We can see very clearly that Archbishop Lefebvre saw the dangers presented by Dignitatis Humanae’s treatment of the human conscience. As Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais indicated in his biography of Archbishop Lefebvre, the December 3, 1965 commentary of Bishop di Meglio testified to the fact that many other Council Fathers also objected to Dignitatis Humanae:
Quote:“For a notable number of Council Fathers the teaching and practical applications of the schema are not acceptable in conscience. In fact, the fundamental principle of the schema has remained unchanged despite amendments that have been introduced: that is, the right of error . . . Since the declaration on religious freedom has no dogmatic value, the negative votes of the Council Fathers will constitute a factor of great importance for the future studies of the declaration itself, and particularly for the interpretation to be placed upon it.” (pp. 310-311)

Unfortunately, the fact that the declaration had “no dogmatic value” in the eyes of the Council Fathers who opposed it did not stop it from being a justification for monumental changes in what the Conciliar Church teaches about religious liberty and the primacy of even an erroneous conscience.

Some may object that the Council’s innovations related to conscience applied primarily to non-Catholics — this was part of Sheed’s inquiry above. But Dignitatis Humanae’s innovations on religious liberty and conscience were just one part of an overall barrage against how Catholics understood the Faith:
  • As we can see from the interventions on the Declaration on Religious Liberty, bishops clashed over how the Council could contradict what the Church had always taught, throwing into question the reality that the Church is the divinely appointed truth-teller.
  • The Council’s ecumenical push also confused Catholics with its undermining of the reality that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church — if that was no longer the case, why do Catholics have to follow difficult commandments that Protestants neglect?
  • The debates over contraception added an emotionally-charged component to all of this, and effectively normalized the rejection of Catholic moral teaching. Once one could choose to follow an erroneous conscience over Church teaching in one matter, there was no real barrier to doing similarly on any other matter.
  • Shortly after the Council, everything about the Church seemed to change: priests got married, nuns left religious practice, the Mass changed, and previously settled teachings were open to discussion. All of this undermined the belief that the Church is the guardian of the immutable truth that God requires us to follow.
  • Over time, seminaries became increasingly corrupted, leading to poorly formed priests who became the heretical bishops we see today. Once we have openly heretical bishops, then many Catholics find it difficult to believe that they are required to obey the Church’s apparent hierarchy.
Archbishop Lefebvre predicted that there would be “very grave consequences of this declaration on the right to follow the voice of one’s conscience and act outwardly according to that voice.” As is evident today, he was correct. This, however, is no reason to despair: the immutable truths that Archbishop Lefebvre believed then are still true today and always will be. Those who follow those truths will honor God — in fact, one honors God even more when he or she must adhere to immutable truth in opposition to enemies who try to persuade us to abandon it. We also have the mixed blessing of seeing more clearly now than ever that the pre-Vatican II popes were correct: they told us these catastrophes would occur if Catholics abandoned the truth, so each harm of the Vatican II revolution confirms that what they said is still true.

On a more immediate practical level, it is apparent that there is a grave danger in trying to form our consciences without respect to what the Church actually teaches. When we have the openly heretical Cardinal Blase Cupich delivering the invocation at the Democratic National Convention, we have good reason to suspect that demons have more power than ever to distort what the Church teaches. For many of us, though, the real risk is not that we would form our consciences based on the anti-Catholic antics of Francis and Cupich, but that we would conclude that we can no longer turn to Catholic clergy for guidance on moral questions.

It is this latter danger — that we would decide that we could no longer seek counsel from the Church, as represented by good clergy — that seems to pose a real threat today for sincere Catholics who truly want to do God’s will. We face this temptation in many different areas, ranging from our thoughts on Francis to whether we can vote. We know that we cannot seek guidance from heterodox priests, but should also recall one of the evils of Protestantism is that it makes each man his own ultimate judge of religious truth. If it is literally impossible to find a Catholic priest to guide us, then it seems we should not despair because God does not ask us to do the impossible. However, as Archbishop Lefebvre insisted in his September 1965 intervention, we should always try to turn to the Church (represented by the clergy) when questions of faith and morals arise:
Quote:“As the Church of Christ alone possesses the fullness and perfection of divine law, natural and supernatural; as she alone has received the mission to teach this law and the means to observe it, it is in her that Jesus Christ, who is our law, is found in reality and truth.”

Ordinarily we learn what the Church teaches through its shepherds so it seems that we must at least seek to find clergy who can guide us, particularly when trying to apply the Church’s teaching to matters that arise through the challenging circumstances in which we find ourselves today. If this is truly impossible, then we can trust that God will provide. If, however, we neglect to seek advice from the clergy because we want to guide ourselves, it may be the enemy of our salvation (rather than God) who provides.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us!

Print this item

  Nicaragua extinguishes legal status for religious orders
Posted by: Stone - 08-23-2024, 07:55 AM - Forum: Global News - No Replies

Nicaragua extinguishes legal status for religious orders

[Image: 20240102T1558-NICARAGUA-STATE-DEPARTMENT-1770757.jpg]

Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega and his wife, Vice President Rosario Murillo. (OSV News photo/Oswaldo Rivas, Reuters)

August 20, 2024

(OSV News) — The Nicaraguan government has extinguished the legal status of more than 25 Catholic organizations, including religious orders such as the Franciscans, Carmelites and Augustinians, another diocesan Caritas chapter, and lay Catholic groups, as part of an attack on civil society with the closure of 1,500 nongovernmental organizations.

The closures, announced Aug. 19 by the Interior Ministry, targeted religious and civic groups ranging from Protestant churches to the Rotary Club to agricultural producer associations and even the National Chess Federation.


Recent closures and targeted groups

A source familiar with Nicaragua described the Aug. 19 actions as “an extraordinary effort by the Nicaraguan State to crush nongovernmental organizations across Nicaraguan society.”

The attack from the increasingly totalitarian regime of President Daniel Ortega and his wife, Vice President Rosario Murillo, further eliminated civic spaces beyond their control, while further attacking freedom of worship.

The regime has closed at least 5,000 nongovernmental organizations and silenced independent media since 2018, when protesters took to the streets to demand the president’s ouster — only to be met with violence from police and paramilitaries.

The Aug. 19 closures especially targeted evangelical congregations, many of which were described as modest by independent media.


Impact on Catholic organizations

The assault also continued on the Catholic organizations, putting among the canceled religious orders: the Capuchin Friars Minor, Carmelite Sisters of the Divine Heart of Jesus, the Augustinian monks and nuns, Mercedarian Missionaries of Berriz, the Order of Cistercians of the Strict Observance (also known as “Trappist” Sisters), and the Brothers of Charity.

A pair of Salesian ministries were canceled: the Association of Salesian Cooperators, and the Association of Salesian Women. Other Catholic organizations losing their legal standing were Lumen Christi Catechist Missionaries, the Saint Pio Foundation, and the Association of Base Christian Communities.

The Caritas chapter in the Diocese of Granada was also shut down. The closure follows the Aug. 12 shuttering of the Caritas chapter in the Diocese of Matagalpa — headed by exiled Bishop Rolando Álvarez. The source speaking with OSV News described the targeting of Caritas chapters as an attack as the regime “not wanting anyone but the state or anyone they consider reliable providing services to the citizenry.”


Government’s allegations and asset seizures

The interior ministry alleged that the 1,500 NGO groups losing their registrations had failed to properly report their finances “for periods of between one and 35 years,” along with “hindering” its “control and oversight” over such organizations. The Nicaraguan state effectively seizes the assets of nongovernmental groups that lose their legal standing.

The closure of so many churches and church organizations — evangelical and Catholic — underscored the suppression of religious life under the Sandinista regime.

An Aug. 19 statement from the Centro de Asistencia Legal Interamericano en Derechos Humanos described evangelical churches as “the last places where Nicaraguans can freely meet. Hence, the remaining NGOs still exercise freedom of association in a minimal way.” The human rights group, Colectivo Nicaragua Nunca Más, reported that at least 21 evangelical pastors have been exiled, while three were denied reentry into the country. It has counted the legal cancellations of about 420 Christian organizations.


Suppression of religious life

Nicaragua’s evangelical congregations had been perceived as being less outspoken and not drawing the regime’s ire until recently.

Catholic Churches have long been spied upon, according to sources, with priests having to watch their words, even during homilies. The regime has also forbidden expressions of faith, shuttering Catholic media outlets, canceling church charitable projects and halting processions and patron saint celebrations outside of church property.

Martha Patricia Molina, an exiled lawyer who tracks aggressions against the Nicaraguan Catholic Church, has counted 9,688 attempts at thwarting processions and religious activities since April 2018. Her latest report on church persecution was released Aug. 15 and documented 154 bishops, priests, deacons, seminarians and 91 nuns unable to work in Nicaragua, having fled the country, being forcibly exiled or simply denied reentry after traveling abroad.


Impact on Catholic clergy and laity

Since 2018, nearly 250 priests, nuns, bishops and other members of the Catholic Church were forced out of the country, according to Molina’s report — with three bishops and 136 priests being expelled and arriving either in the United States or the Vatican.

At least 14 lay Catholics are currently imprisoned for religious reasons, Molina told news outlet Confidencial. More shortages have decimated dioceses such as Matagalpa and Estelí — both headed by Bishop Álvarez — along with the Diocese of Siuna, from which Bishop Isidoro Mora was exiled. Both Bishops Álvarez and Mora were exiled in January to the Vatican, along with 17 other churchmen.

The Diocese of Matagalpa has lost more than 80% of its priests, according to Molina, while the Dioceses of Estelí and Siuna have suffered significant losses of clergy.

“Because there are no priests in the area, it’s the laity who are assuming certain roles, such as celebrating the word or visiting the sick to bring them Communion,” Molina said.


Recent developments and exiled priests

The cancellation of 1,500 NGOs came as two more priests were exiled to the Vatican. Fathers Leonel Balmaceda and Denis Martínez were sent to Rome on Aug. 17, according to independent Nicaraguan media.

The Society of Jesus, which was kicked out of Nicaragua in 2023, released a statement on the one-year anniversary of its prestigious Central American University being confiscated and later reopened as a Sandinista-aligned institution, calling for the government to “stop the repression, stop committing systemic human rights violations and release the political prisoners.”

The Aug. 15 statement from the Jesuits’ Central American province continued by urging the government to “accept the search for a rational solution, in which truth, justice, dialogue, academic freedom and the rule of law prevail.”

Print this item

  The Rosary and the Immaculate Heart, Fatima’s two last remedies for the world
Posted by: Stone - 08-23-2024, 07:42 AM - Forum: Our Lady - No Replies

The Rosary and the Immaculate Heart, Fatima’s two last remedies for the world
Sister Lucy of Fatima said the Immaculate Heart of Mary would be our refuge, 
and that the Rosary can resolve any problem, no matter how difficult.

[Image: https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.ama...7x819.jpeg]

Wiki Commons

M. J. McCusker/ WM Review | Mar 01, 2022

Delivered at numerous pro-life rallies across Ireland in 2018. Edited for publication.

It is not unusual for those fighting for any length of time in the pro-life, pro-family movement to be subject at certain times to the temptations of hopelessness and despair. It can often seem as though we are constantly fighting a losing battle, as country after country falls away from the Catholic faith and the natural law and embraces the mass-killing of unborn children, the killing of the elderly and disabled, and the destruction of the structure of family designed and willed by God. In the face of this unparalleled collapse of western civilisation, many members of the hierarchy of the Catholic Church chose to defect from the faith, and from the Church, and chose instead the path of collaboration with evil.

It is common to reassure ourselves, and others, with the following assertions “the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church” or “Our Lady has already crushed Satan’s head”. These assertions are absolutely true, and are the foundations of our confidence, yet unless they lead us to clarity about the actions we are to perform in the present moment they may not be sufficient to deliver us from the temptation of despair. It is important therefore to form some clear resolutions on which to ground our combat for Christ.

In this context it is interesting to note that in recent years, and especially during the centenary year of 2017, a growing number of men and women in the pro-life, pro-family movement are becoming convinced that we must return to the message of Our Lady of Fatima and take seriously her warnings, her requests and her promises.

In 1957 Sister Lucy met with Fr Augustin Fuentes, a Mexican priest who had been appointed postulator of the cause of beatification of her cousins Jacinta and Francisco Marto, the two other seers of Fatima.

She told him:
Quote:“[T]he devil is in the mood for engaging in a decisive battle against the Virgin. And a decisive battle is the final battle where one side will be victorious and the other side will suffer defeat. Also, from now on we must choose sides. Either we are for God or we are for the devil. There is no other possibility.”

She continued:
Quote:“God is giving two last remedies to the world. These are the Holy Rosary and devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. These are the last two remedies, which signifies that there will be no others.”

In his letter to the Ephesians St Paul wrote:
Quote:“[D]raw your strength from the Lord, from that mastery which his power supplies. You must wear all the weapons in God’s armoury, if you would find strength to resist the cunning of the devil.

“It is not against flesh and blood that we enter the lists; we have to do with princedoms and powers, with those who have mastery of the world in these dark days, with malign influences in an order higher than ours.

“Take up all God’s armour, then; so you will be able to stand your ground when the evil time comes, and be found still on your feet, when all the task is over.” (Eph 6:10-13)

In this spiritual combat with diabolical forces, God has given us two particular last remedies from his “armoury” – the Holy Rosary and devotion to the Immaculate Heart.

Sister Lucy explained:
Quote:“[I]n the plans of Divine Providence, God always, before He is about to chastise the world, exhausts all other remedies. Now, when He sees that the world pays no attention whatsoever, then as we say in our imperfect manner of speaking, He offers us with ‘certain fear’ the last means of salvation, His Most Holy Mother.”

The message of Fatima is about God sending His Most Holy Mother to warn of the consequences, both for individuals and societies, of our rebellion against Him. By returning to Fatima that we can more fully understand the significance of the two means of victory that God has given to us in our age.

Our Lady appeared at Fatima six times to the three shepherd children, Lucia, Jacinta and Francisco. The apparitions culminated in the great miracle of the sun on 13 October 1917 in which more than 70,000 people witnessed the sun dancing in the sky before plummeting to earth and then returning to its place in the heavens. This great public miracle was a guarantee of authenticity of the visions and message that Sister Lucy was chosen to transmit to the world.

This message concerned the need for mankind to turn back to God in prayer and penance. On 13 June 1917 Our Lady revealed to the children the terrible personal consequences of sin when she showed them a terrifying vision of Hell. She then continued by warning of the devastating consequences that sin has for society as a whole. She said:
Quote:“You have seen Hell — where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them God wants to establish throughout the world the devotion to My Immaculate Heart.

“If people will do what I tell you, many souls will be saved, and there will be peace. The war is going to end.

“But if they do not stop offending God, another and worse war will break out in the reign of Pius XI. When you see a night illumined by an unknown light, know that it is the great sign that God gives you, that He is going to punish the world for its crimes by means of war, hunger, persecution of the Church and of the Holy Father.

“To forestall this, I shall come to ask for the Consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart and the Communion of Reparation on the First Saturdays.

“If they heed My requests, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace. If not, she shall spread her errors throughout the world, promoting wars and persecutions of the Church; the good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, various nations will be annihilated; in the end, My Immaculate Heart shall triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to Me, which will be converted, and a period of peace will be given to the world.”

Mankind has not responded fully to Our Lady’s message.

“Another and worse war” did break out during the reign of Pius XI. And shortly after the apparitions at Fatima ceased the Communists seized power in Moscow and, from the beginning, waged war against the family and against the Church. In Soviet Russia divorce was legalised in 1918 and abortion in 1920. The first sex education programmes, explicitly designed in order to destroy the family and uproot the Catholic faith, were introduced in Hungary in 1919 by the Bolshevik regime of Bela Kun. This “sexual revolution”, first implemented in Russia in the 1920s, has become dominant in the west since the 1960s. It is one of the primary manifestations of the errors of Russia which Our Lady came to warn us about.

When we look back from our vantage point in 2018, we can see that Our Lady’s warnings regarding Russia could not have been more accurate. Russia “shall spread her errors throughout the world, promoting wars and persecutions of the Church”. That one sentence is quite an accurate summary of the history of the twentieth century. In the decades following the Russian Revolution Communist governments were established across the world, and invariably worked for the destruction of the family and of the Church. Countries that escaped Communist regimes have fallen victim instead to insidious subversion, to “cultural Marxism”, the attempt to advance Communism by what one its proponents called “the long march through the institutions”, that is, through the subversion of institutions – schools, universities, charities, governments departments, international organisations, using every means at their disposal to advance atheistic materialism and to expel God from the life of individuals and of society. There is hardly an institution in the west today that has not been subverted to at least some degree in the cause of this revolution, including, tragically, many of the structures of the Catholic Church.

In response to these evils Our Lady called for prayer and penance. And the form of prayer that she urged continuously was the Holy Rosary. At every single apparition at Fatima she requested that the Rosary be said every day. And, after the great miracle of the sun, she revealed herself under of the title Our Lady of the Holy Rosary.

In 1957 Sister Lucy said to Fr Fuentes:
Quote:“The Most Holy Virgin, in these last times in which we live, has given a new efficacy to the recitation of the Rosary. She has given this efficacy to such an extent that there is no problem, no matter how difficult it is, whether temporal or above all spiritual, in the personal life of each one of us, of our families, of the families of the world or of the religious communities, or even of the life of peoples and nations, that cannot be solved by the Rosary. There is no problem I tell you, no matter how difficult it is, that we cannot resolve by the prayer of the Holy Rosary. With the Holy Rosary we will save ourselves. We will sanctify ourselves. We will console Our Lord and obtain the salvation of many souls.”

If we consider how many saints have urged us to pray the rosary, and how much they extolled its great power, how much more encouraged should we be by Sister Lucy’s words that “the Most Holy Virgin, in these last times in which we live, has given a new efficacy to the recitation of the Rosary.”

The second of the great means of deliverance that we have been given is devotion to the Immaculate Heart.

Sister Lucy described the essence of this devotion very simply:
Quote:“… devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, our Most Holy Mother, consists in considering Her as the seat of mercy, of goodness and of pardon, and as the sure door by which we are to enter Heaven.”

Devotion to the Immaculate Heart can be practised in a wide variety of different ways and can be introduced into every area of our lives. However, there are two particular acts that have been specified by Our Lady, one that can be practised by all the Catholics, the other which is reserved to the pope.

Our Lady called on us all to make reparation for offences against her Immaculate Heart through the practice of the five First Saturdays.

This practice consists of carrying out the following acts on the five consecutive First Saturdays with the intention of making reparation for offences against her Immaculate Heart:
  • Going to Confession
  • Receiving Holy Communion
  • Praying at least five decades of the Rosary
  • Meditating on one or mysteries of the Rosary for at least fifteen minutes.

Through this devotion Our Lady has given us a simple means of making reparation for sin and of participating in her victory over Satan.  This devotion leads to deeper participation the fullness of the Church’s liturgical and sacramental life, leading souls as it does to the practice of regular confession, frequent reception of Holy Communion and the practice of mental prayer.

Our Lord, in a later apparition, told Sister Lucy that it was to be practiced on five First Saturdays because there are five principal offences against his mother’s Immaculate Heart:
  • Offences against her Immaculate Conception
  • Offences against her virginity
  • Offences against her motherhood
  • Offences against her sacred images
  • And the offence caused by those who turn her children away from devotion to her.

The second practice requested by Our Lady at Fatima is the consecration of Russia to her Immaculate Heart by the pope in union with all the bishops. Pope Pius XII consecrated the world to the Immaculate Heart, and no doubt many extraordinary graces have been poured out on the world as a result of those consecrations.

Our Lord told Sister Lucy that the consecration of Pius XII in 1942 had obtained the shortening of the Second World War. Yet the consecration requested by Our Lady has not yet been done according to her specific requirements. When it is Russia will be converted as Our Lady promised.

In 1936 Sister Lucy, already troubled by the lack of response to Our Lady’s message, asked Our Lord why he didn’t just convert Russia anyway, even without the consecration. Our Lord’s answered her in a vision and said:
Quote:“Because I want My whole Church to acknowledge that consecration as a triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary so that it may extend its cult later and put the devotion of the Immaculate Heart beside the devotion to My Sacred Heart.”

Our Lord desires that the salvation of the world will come through His Mother’s Immaculate Heart and that we should acknowledge and glorify her for it.

The great sin of the human race in recent centuries has been that man has exalted himself into the place of God. We have placed our trust not in God but in science and technology, political ideologies, economic theories, or, now, even in “New Age” mysticism. All of our attempts at building an earthly utopia, a world without God, have failed and will fail and, in the end, we will be saved from ourselves not by any great or impressive human achievement, but by a simple prayer offered by Christ’s vicar on earth:
Quote:“[I]n the end, My Immaculate Heart shall triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to Me, which will be converted, and a period of peace will be given to the world.”

But by God’s power, not man’s.

Sister Lucy warned us already in 1957:
Quote:“… the most Holy Virgin is very sad because no one has paid any attention to Her Message, neither the good nor the bad. The good continue on their way, but without giving any importance to Her Message. The bad, not seeing the punishment of God actually falling upon them, continue their life of sin without even caring about the Message. But believe me, Father, God will chastise the world and this will be in a terrible manner. The punishment from Heaven is imminent.”

And she urges us:
Quote:“… we should not wait for an appeal to the world to come from Rome on the part of the Holy Father, to do penance. Nor should we wait for the call to penance to come from our bishops in our diocese, nor from the religious congregations. No! Our Lord has already very often used these means, and the world has not paid attention. That is why now, it is necessary for each one of us to begin to reform himself spiritually. Each person must not only save his own soul but also help to save all the souls that God has placed on our path.”

“The devil does all in his power to distract us and to take away from us the love for prayer; we shall be saved together or we shall be damned together.”

So let us now turn with renewed hope and confidence to Our Lady, trusting that by making use of the means that she has given us, we will soon participate in the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart!

Print this item

  Left-wing research paper includes ideas on manipulating conservatives into eating less red meat
Posted by: Stone - 08-23-2024, 07:36 AM - Forum: General Commentary - No Replies

Left-wing research paper includes ideas on manipulating conservatives into eating less red meat
The authors suggested nuancing the language to make eating more artificial foods palatable.

[Image: Shutterstock_2250134527.jpg]

Shutterstock


Aug 22, 2024
(LifeSiteNews [slightly adapted, not all hyperlinks included]) — Professors seeking to know how to manipulate people into eating less red meat have released a study on the subject.

Three professors and one Ph.D. student at the University of Southern California published their findings in Climatic Change magazine on August 12. Over 5,000 Democratic, Republican, and Independent Americans were surveyed for the report.

Working under the presumption that red meat is “a major contributor to climate change,” the study wanted to know if changes in language might induce ordinary citizens to reject red meat and eat more “climate-friendly” foods.

The study begins by noting that “people’s attitudes can be influenced by … variations in terminology.” It adds that Americans are most familiar with the terms “climate change” and “global warming.” The more partisan-infused phrases “climate justice” and “climate emergency” are not as well known.

The paper ultimately found that a willingness to eat less red meat fell along partisan lines, with Democrats being more eager to deny themselves the nutrient dense food, which is chock full of vitamins and proteins that aid in muscle growth. Republicans, on the other hand, were “often unresponsive” to changes in terminology.

The paper concludes that “climate change communications may therefore need to go beyond terminology.” It recommended that “effective communication strategies include using compelling everyday language, presenting clear graphs, emphasizing social norms, and making climate-friendly actions the default.”

It added that “efforts to reach Republicans may require messages from Conservative spokespeople, and involving the private sector in climate change mitigation.”

Reducing red meat consumption while promoting fake food and plant-based protein is a top priority for organizations like the World Economic Forum and the Club of Rome. Western oligarchs like Bill Gates as well as U.S.-based companies like Tyson are also investing billions in the movement by pouring money into synthetic eggs and lab-grown chicken, all in the name of purportedly fighting climate change.

But farmers in the Netherlands and a growing number of European countries are refusing to go along with the efforts. In December 2023, Italy’s lower and upper chambers of Parliament passed a bill that bans artificial food for public consumption.

The growth of imitation meat and genetically modified crops has caused many health experts as well as concerned citizens and chefs across the world to worry about the future of food and its impact on human beings.

While groups like the World Economic Forum have long touted them as alternatives that can help curb climate change, others argue they are a tool global elites use to seize control of the food chain and poison human beings with toxic ingredients to ensure a sick population so Big Pharma and the medical industry can reap massive profits.

Print this item

  New study traces Shroud of Turin to time of Jesus in first-century Middle East
Posted by: Stone - 08-23-2024, 07:31 AM - Forum: General Commentary - No Replies

New study traces Shroud of Turin to time of Jesus in first-century Middle East
The new finding that the Shroud of Turin’s fabric is consistent with linens found in Israel during the first century is further evidence that it is the authentic burial shroud of Jesus Christ.

[Image: Untitled-25.png]

Shroud of Turin
Screenshot

Aug 22, 2024
TURIN, Italy (LifeSiteNews) — Researchers have newly traced the Shroud of Turin – long believed to be the burial cloth of Jesus Christ – to Israel during the time of Jesus, discrediting previous theories that the Shroud is only a medieval forgery.

Italian scientists used a wide-angle X-ray scattering (WAXS) method to examine the shroud’s cellulose fibers, yielding data that is “compatible with the hypothesis that the Turin Shroud is a 2000-year-old relic,” the study concluded.

The research team, led by Dr. Liberato De Caro, found that the cellulose in the shroud had a breakdown pattern consistent with other linens from Israel that date back to the first century.

“The data profiles were fully compatible with analogous measurements obtained on a linen sample whose dating, according to historical records, is 55-74 AD, found at Masada, Israel [Herod’s famous fortress built on a limestone bedrock overlooking the Dead Sea],” reads the study, published in the journal Heritage.

According to the researchers, the nature of the cellulose breakdown suggested that the Shroud of Turin was likely kept at a temperature of about 72.5 degrees Fahrenheit and a relative humidity of 55 percent for about 13 centuries before it was brought to Europe.

Preserved in the royal chapel of the cathedral of San Giovanni Battista in Turin, Italy, since 1578, the shroud was thought by some to have been manufactured between 1260 and 1390 after researchers examined the cloth in 1988 using radiocarbon dating.

However, when the team compared the shroud with linens made between 1260 and 1390 AD, their X-ray determined aging did not match up.

In addition, particles of pollen that come from the Middle East were lodged in the linen fibers, appearing to exclude the possibility that the shroud originated in Europe, according to Dr. De Caro.

He said that the error of the 1988 dating is likely due to contamination of the fabric, which he said is a normal occurrence.

“Fabric samples are usually subject to all kinds of contamination, which cannot be completely removed from the dated specimen,” he said, according to the Daily Mail. “If the cleaning procedure of the sample is not thoroughly performed, carbon-14 dating is not reliable,” he added.

The research team dated the shroud’s fabric at Italy’s Institute of Crystallography of the National Research Council, where another group of experts said in 2017 they found evidence that the shroud bore the blood of a man who suffered intensely.

They had identified the substances creatinine and ferritin, found in the blood of victims who suffer severe traumas, such as torture.

It is noteworthy that the shroud’s bloodstains show a man who was scourged on his back, crowned with thorns, and stabbed in the side, all consistent with Scripture’s account of Jesus Christ’s Passion and death.

Scripture also describes how Joseph of Arimathea wrapped the body of Jesus in a linen cloth after he died, and placed him in a tomb: “And Joseph taking the body, wrapped it up in a clean linen cloth. And laid it in his own new monument, which he had hewed out in a rock. And he rolled a great stone to the door of the monument, and went his way.” (Matthew 27:59-60)

An image of Jesus Christ based on the Shroud of Turin, rendered by AI, has recently gone viral.

[Image: LmpwZz93PTEwMjQ]

Print this item

  Archbishop Viganò Interview w/ Il Messaggero - August 20, 2024
Posted by: Stone - 08-22-2024, 06:38 AM - Forum: Archbishop Viganò - No Replies

Interview by Franca Giansoldati
published in 'Il Messaggero' newspaper on August 20, 2024 (p. 10)
Taken from here.


1. A step back in time: in 2011 Pope Ratzinger implored you to accept being appointed as Nuncio to the United States, leaving the role of the Governorate where you were cleaning it up internally. You had clashes with Cardinal Bertone, then Secretary of State, whose name is linked to the scandal of the misappropriation of funds from the Bambino Gesù [Hospital] even though he was never investigated. What did Benedict XVI say to you? How did things go that day, and what were the main reasons for the disagreement with Bertone?

To speak of a “disagreement” seems euphemistic to me. Thirsty for power, unscrupulous, manipulative, and contiguous to Masonic circles: this is the portrait of Cardinal Bertone, to whom Benedict XVI was unfortunately subjugated. Bertone did everything he could to remove me from the Secretariat of State, because in my very delicate role I prevented him from promoting “his” candidates, men of his circle, who were corrupt and often sexually perverted. He managed to transfer me to the Governorate on July 16, 2009, where in my action to combat the vast network of corruption I had discovered the role and complicity of the Secretary of State himself in covering, supporting, and promoting the malfeasance and in making personal profit from it. Benedict XVI told me – during the private audience granted to me on April 4, 2011 – that he wanted to appoint me President of the Prefecture for Economic Affairs of the Holy See, but Bertone (with the complicity of Cardinal Lajolo, President of the Governorate, who was also involved in the network of corruption) imposed himself forcefully on the Pope and obtained my expulsion from the Roman Curia.

Aware of this plot hatched to the detriment of the Holy See and Benedict himself, and knowing that the Pope’s will that I continue to “clean up” was being subverted (while my removal would have nullified the work done and left the corrupt unpunished), I initially tried to resist, not without great difficulty, since I was precluded from having any direct access to the Pope.

Thus, after a long inner travail, a personal letter from Benedict XVI convinced me to accept the nomination to the United States. He wrote to me: “I would like to tell you that I have been reflecting and praying about your condition after the latest events. The painful news of the death of His Excellency Msgr. Pietro Sambi has confirmed me in the conviction that your providential position at this time is the Nunciature in the United States of America. Furthermore, I am certain that your knowledge of this great country will help you to take on the demanding challenge of this work, which in many ways is decisive for the future of the universal Church.”


2. Bertone still lives in the “famous” apartment in the Vatican, while you, when your mandate in the United States ended, had your apartment in the Curia taken away. A further humiliation. Here too: how did things go, and how do you explain it?

The apartment I was assigned was located in the Santa Marta Hospice, known as Santa Marta Vecchia (not to be confused with the Domus Sanctæ Marthæ) where the priests who worked in the Secretariat of State were housed and where I had already lived for eleven years. It was John Paul II who made it available to me when I returned from Nigeria. The then Secretary of State Cardinal Sodano sent me a letter in which he specified that the reason for this assignment desired by the Pope was “so that you may reside permanently in the Vatican.”

On the same day of my seventy-fifth birthday, in January 2016, I received a letter signed by the then Substitute Becciu in which I was informed that Bergoglio ordered me to leave my apartment immediately, also denying me the possibility of residing in the Casa San Benedetto prepared by Benedict XVI for retired Nuncios. The justification given to me was that there was a need for that apartment for the heads of the Dicasteries. As far as I know, it remained vacant for at least the next seven years, and perhaps it still is today. This was clearly a vindictive action, because Bergoglio wanted to get rid of those who knew too much and those who, being neither blackmailable nor corruptible, were therefore not able to be manipulated. Bergoglio also knew that I would not be deceived by his lies, since I was amply aware of them.

The important thing, however, was to get me away from the Vatican, and this is what happened. With today’s eyes, however, I thank Providence for this expulsion: had I remained within the Vatican walls, I do not think I would have been able to enjoy the necessary freedom to express myself and to denounce Bergoglio and his accomplices.


3.Recently, the court of Enna [in Sicily] sentenced the priest Don Giuseppe Rugolo, arrested in Ferrara in April 2021, to 4 years and 6 months in prison for attempted aggravated sexual assault against a minor. The investigations revealed disturbing cover-ups: how can this attitude be reconciled with the supposed “zero tolerance” for cases of sexual abuse by the clergy affirmed by Pope Francis?

In 2019, Bergoglio promulgated the Motu Proprio Vos Estis Lux Mundi, later amended in 2023, in which he established that a Bishop who covers up a case of sexual abuse by one of his priests must be removed and prosecuted. This document was intended by Bergoglio to give credence to the “zero tolerance” narrative. The sequence of scandals that have come to light even very recently demonstrate that this is in reality a mere facade operation, which also has the immediate effect of taking cases of this type to Rome, allowing them to be controlled and – indeed – covered up.

Faced with the detailed complaints of the young Antonio Messina for acts committed between 2009 and 2013 in Piazza Armerina by Fr. Giuseppe Rugolo, who was still a seminarian at the time, the Curia and the Roman Dicasteries contacted by the victim and her parents in 2016 did not take any action. Bishop Rosario Gisana actually moved to cover up the case and offered the victim 25,000 euros to hush everything up. In a wiretap that was made public, Bishop Gisana admitted: “The problem is also mine because I covered up this story… oh well; never mind; we’ll see how we can get out of it.” Fr. Vincenzo Murgano, the priest who had suggested to Antonio Messina that he should just “forget” the violence, has been responsible for the service for the protection of minors of the Diocese of Piazza Armerina since 2019.

Transferred to Ferrara in 2019 for “treatment,” Fr. Rugolo was assigned by Archbishop Giancarlo Perego to the pastoral care of the faithful, thus exposing young people to the risk that the priest would repeat his crimes. Archbishop Perego, informed of “a proceeding against Fr. Giuseppe for an episode prior to his ordination,” declared that “[Bishop Gisana] showed me that this incident had already been evaluated by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and that it absolutely did not constitute a limitation to his presence with us.” Perego’s responsibilities are therefore the same as Bishop Gisana’s, since he could not have been unaware of the reasons for the transfer of the Sicilian priest to his diocese. Yet in the summer of 2020, Archbishop Perego even allowed Fr. Rugolo to organize a camp for teenagers in the parish of Vigarano Mainarda. The trial documents show that between March 2020 and January 2021, Fr. Rugolo accessed pornographic sites with the search term “teen” at all times of the day and night, with an average of at least 60 per day, while he met with local young people and hosted a former student of his from Enna in a hotel in Ravenna.

Last December 2023, when Fr. Rugolo and other accomplices were sent to trial during the criminal trial conducted by the Court of Enna, Jorge Mario Bergoglio publicly expressed his appreciation for the work of Bishop Gisana: “Well done; this bishop, well done. He was persecuted, slandered, and he was firm, always, just, a just man. For this reason, that day when I went to Palermo, I wanted to stop first in Piazza Armerina to greet him; he is a good bishop.” With this public act he heavily interfered in the autonomy and independence of Italian judges, using the authority and prestige of the Papacy – which Bergoglio usurps – to shamefully cover up the corruption of his protégés.

The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, so eager to impose excommunications on those who denounce the modernist coup underway in the Church, obviously remains silent. Its Prefect, Tucho Fernández, is a pornographer and author of obscene heretical and erotic pamphlets – including La pasión mística [The Mystical Passion] and Sáname con tu boca [Heal Me With Your Mouth] – and it is clear that such a figure has no intention of shedding light on scandals in which both he and his Principal have shown a disturbing contiguity, protecting and even promoting the culprits. How likely is it that Bishop Gisana and Archbishop Perego will be tried by Fernández, when it is actually Bergoglio should be the first defendant in this and other similar criminal cases? Dog doesn’t eat dog!

The Catholic Church is in the same situation as many governments: it is held hostage by a subversive network of corrupt and perverted people who have reached the top of the institutions and are capable of silencing all the scandals in which they are complicit. When the horrors committed by this global criminal organization, especially crimes against minors, come to light, those responsible will have nowhere to hide.


4. And so we come to the schism: how are you experiencing this moment full of tensions?

During these very days, citizens in Great Britain are protesting against the government, whose policies of ethnic replacement through the continuous flow of illegal immigrants make peaceful coexistence impossible and cause an exponential increase in crime. The police have orders to repress all demonstrations and to protect the gangs of violent non-EU citizens, mostly Muslims, ready to establish Sharia law manu militari in England. In practice, the British government, in order to make the English people disappear according to the globalist agenda, promotes and finances uncontrolled immigration while repressing and taxing its own citizens.

The situation in the Church is very similar – in Rome, too, there is a government that wants to replace its Hierarchy and the people of the faithful by “unloading” – so to speak – into the very bosom of the Church a mass of people who lead lifestyles objectively incompatible with Catholic Faith and Morals, but whom Bergoglio’s synodal Church considers as the main interlocutors and whom it welcomes in the name of inclusiveness and “todos todos todos!” Those who are naïve think that the Hierarchy acts in this way out of a zeal for charity that is perhaps excessive and human pity for migrants. Those who observe reality without blinders understand that the ultimate goal of Bergoglian immigrationism is to create division in the ecclesial body, knowing what the results are also by looking at the precedent of what is happening in civil society.

This project of ethnic (and in this case, religious) substitution acts on two fronts: on the external front, it makes us believe that in order to belong to the Church it is not even necessary to believe in the Son of God, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and that all doctrinal and moral differences can be overcome in the name of an impossible brotherhood (just as globalist governments make us believe that it is possible to welcome hordes of Muslims into Christian nations without devastating consequences on the social fabric). The insistence of Bergoglio and almost all the bishops on welcoming immigrants is part of this divisive action. On the domestic front, however, Bergoglio abuses the authority of the Papacy (which he usurps) in order to remove from the Church those Catholics who have remained faithful, so that he can eliminate any internal opposition to his subversive plan.

Those who denounce the Bergoglian coup and more generally the globalist coup d’état must be silenced. The excommunication against me, even if manifestly invalid and null and void, constitutes a form of repression of dissent and should serve as a deterrent for others. I am convinced that I would have gravely failed in my duties as Bishop and Successor of the Apostles if I had continued to remain silent, as unfortunately all my confreres do.


5. The Vatican claims it declared you to be in schism because in some of your statements you have denied the authority of the Pope. How do things now stand?

Schism is a sin against the unity of the Church. It is carried out at the moment when a baptized person refuses to submit to the authority of the Roman Pontiff and to remain in the communion of faith and charity of the Catholic Church. But what happens if on the Chair of Peter there is – instead of a Pope who defends and governs the Church – there is a usurper who systematically demolishes her, and who is chosen and appointed by fraud by the St. Gallen Mafia for this very purpose? The Catholic Church is presently occupied by an extraneous body that superimposes itself on her and obscures her, similar to an eclipse: this extraneous body is not the Church, but the anti-church of the False Prophet, and as such it is not possible to be in communion with it. Catholics belong to the Catholic Church, not to its conciliar and synodal counterfeit of which Bergoglio is the head. It is Bergoglio who is in a state of schism with the Church of which he claims to be Pope, and as a heretic and schismatic he does not have nor can he exercise any power, nor demand any obedience.

I reiterate, however, that the use of the judiciary for political purposes that we witness in the civil sphere, especially in the United States of America, is mirrored in the ecclesiastical sphere through instrumental and specious canonical sanctions. And I know for certain that the excommunication against me was desired directly by Bergoglio, who is so arrogant and brazen in his action that he rewarded with an ecclesiastical office the official who carried it out, appointing him archbishop: we are well beyond simony.


6. Where do you live? In Switzerland, in the United States, or near Viterbo?

After my memorial about Cardinal McCarrick was published in August 2018, a contact of mine from the United States warned me that my life was in danger: for this reason I do not reside in a fixed place. I don’t want to end up like Cardinal Pell, nor my predecessor in Washington, the Apostolic Nuncio Pietro Sambi (who strenuously confronted McCarrick so much that you could hear his screams throughout the Nunciature as he rebuked the predatory Cardinal). Archbishop Sambi died in circumstances that have never been clarified, after a trivial operation at John’s Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore (which is connected to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the World Economic Forum in Davos). McCarrick disappeared for a month in 2011 – simultaneous to the death of the Nuncio – and did not attend his funeral. The death certificate issued to Msgr. Jean-François Lanteaume, Chargé d’Affaires at the Nunciature, did not explain the causes of the Nuncio’s death, nor was an autopsy ever carried out on Archbishop Sambi.


7. What are your thoughts on the accusation that you have rejected the Second Vatican Council?

The accusation of having “rejected the Second Vatican Council” has nothing to do with schism, because if anything it touches on questions of the Magisterium and not on canonical discipline. The accusation is specious: there are cardinals and bishops who deny solemnly defined truths of the Faith without Bergoglio ever lifting a finger against them; indeed, they receive his applause.

I would like to draw attention to a fundamental and very important element. We must understand that “the masterstroke of Satan,” the sworn enemy of the Church, has occurred by his appropriating authority and abusing the power connected with her, so that his disintegrating action has had all the appearances of at least formal legality. The Second Vatican Council was to be the juridical instrument with which to place the dynamite at the very foundation of the Church, and then detonate it later. It had to look like a Council, it had to give the idea of having the same authority as the Council of Nicaea or Trent, but at the same time it could not define as truths to be believed any heresies that the Magisterium had already condemned. Thus those errors were insinuated by means of equivocation – deliberately imprecise formulations which at the right moment could serve as a basis on which to implement the revolution. People continue to speak of “the Council,” but we should have the honesty to recognize that for the “conciliar church” born with Vatican II there is only one “council,” which surpasses in authority and importance all the other twenty ecumenical councils of the Catholic Church.

The anomaly is represented by this Council, because it was used for a subversive purpose, under the formal appearance of a solemn act of the Church and with the authoritativeness (as well as the authority) of the Pope and the Council Fathers. The purpose of Vatican II was to create the doctrinal premises – not necessarily explicit and indeed often hidden in ambiguous formulations – to revolutionize the Church, Protestantizing and secularizing her, so as to be able to ferry her towards the syncretistic union of all religions. And this is the project of Freemasonry: the ecumenical and inclusive Religion of Humanity.

The Second Vatican Council has spread through the Church like a cancer. It has committed the entire ecclesial body – in every order and degree, in its institutions and structures – to the subversion of its divine constitution. The new Catechism, the new Code of Canon Law, the new Mass, the new Sacraments, teaching in seminaries and universities, preaching in parishes, the action of Catholic associations, religious life in convents and monasteries: everything has been tampered with and reshaped according to the conciliar paradigm. The results are there for all to see.

For this reason, just as the authority of the Pope cannot be used to destroy the Papacy, so the magisterial authority of a Council cannot be maliciously used to destroy the Church. It ipso facto loses its authority, since it overturns its rationale, that is, its ultimate end. My rejection of the Council is therefore motivated precisely by the fact that this Council contradicts the infallible Magisterium and all twenty previous Ecumenical Councils.


8. It is said that you want to create a parallel Church, a bit like Archbishop Lefebvre did. What plans do you have for the future?

Archbishop Lefebvre never wanted to build a parallel church, but rather he always testified to his fidelity to the one Church of Christ and to the Papacy. Archbishop Lefebvre continued doing the same things he had done as a bishop until before the Council: it is the “conciliar church” that changed doctrine, morals, liturgy, and discipline. He continued to ordain priests, to give them a traditional formation, and to ensure the celebration of the Apostolic Mass.

Today, fifty years later, the subversive plan denounced by Lefebvre is even more evident, and the answers that were valid then today require a new approach. Although it was evident that Popes such as Paul VI or John Paul II were modernists, it was unthinkable to hypothesize their explicit intention to destroy the Church. Today Bergoglio has dispelled all doubts and shows himself as an inimicus Ecclesiæ fiercely determined to carry out the task assigned to him and that he himself had set for himself.

I am convinced that my action – and that of every pastor who has at heart the souls entrusted to him – must today be broader and must be addressed not only to young vocations, but also to the “recovery” of the many good priests and religious – as well as, of course, the lay faithful – who understand the very serious crisis triggered by the Council. In times of war, so to speak, anyone who is able to fight must unite and enlist, even if they have not attended a military academy. All these souls who love the Lord can be accompanied with charity to re-embrace the Catholic Faith in its integrity and to consciously reject the conciliar revolution and its disastrous consequences.

Founding a parallel church is the dream of all heresiarchs: a true Catholic, even more so if he is a bishop, remains in the one Church and continues to serve her, even if he is the only one left to do so. I try to do and preach what the Church has always done and taught, because this is what I have solemnly sworn, and what the Lord commands me. On the other hand, today no honest Catholic can deny that the Hierarchy has completely sold itself out to the powerful of the world, and that its betrayal is a scandal even to those who are not believers.


9. What should be our response to this rupture?

We are going through a period of very serious crisis in the Church and in society. The authorities of all institutions are now carrying out the will of the globalist elite and obey supranational powers. We are witnessing a deep and almost unbridgeable rift between those who govern – both the State as well as the Church – and the citizens or the faithful. We may say that on the one hand the social pact that is the basis of the recognition of the authority of the State has failed, and on the other the bond of obedience to Christ on the part of those who exercise authority in the Church has also been destroyed. In practice, the rulers of the State have rebelled against Christ the King and the exponents of the Catholic hierarchy have rebelled against Christ the High Priest: their authority has been usurped. It is necessary to heal this wound by restoring to Christ His Universal Lordship.


10. Throughout all these years of tensions, has Pope Francis ever picked up the phone to call you, or has he ever sent you letters or messages through an intermediary?

I have never received private communications of any kind from Bergoglio (nor from any Vatican authority). In public, the Argentine Jesuit has had no qualms about insulting and slandering me. In a 2019 interview with Valentina Alazraki for the Mexican broadcaster Televisa (here), Bergoglio publicly lied, denying the conversation that he had with me on June 23, 2013. He even went so far as to obsessively claim to know nothing about McCarrick:

“I knew nothing about McCarrick, of course, nothing. I have said so several times; I didn’t know anything; I had no idea. And when [Viganò] says that he spoke to me that day, that he came . . . I don’t remember if he spoke to me about this, if it’s true or not. I have no idea! You know that I knew nothing about McCarrick, otherwise I would not have been silent.”

I cannot fail to mention Bergoglio’s recourse to slander, in an attitude that betrays a cowardly soul willing to discredit the honesty of the interlocutor rather than refute his accusations.

This occurred after the publication of my testimony on my return from the trip to Ireland, when Bergoglio told the journalists present:

“You all read [Viganò’s] communiqué carefully and make your own judgment. I will not say a word about this. I believe that the communiqué speaks for itself, and you have enough journalistic capacity to draw conclusions. It is an act of trust: when some time has passed and you have drawn conclusions, perhaps I will speak. But I would like your professional maturity to do this job: it will do you good, really. That’s okay.”

A year later, responding to the Mexican Vatican journalist Alazraki, he returned to the subject:

“This case of Viganò, I hadn’t read the entire letter; I saw a bit of it . . . And I already know what it is, and I have made a decision: I trust in the honesty of journalists. And I said to you, “Look, you have everything here, study and draw your own conclusions.” And this you did, because you did the work, and in this case it was fantastic. I was very careful not to say things that were not there, but then a judge in Milan said them, three or four months later, when he convicted him. . . . I kept silent, because if I had spoken I would have been throwing mud. So that journalists could find it out. And you have discovered it, you have found all that world. It was a silence based on trust in you, journalists. Not only that, but I also told you, “Hold it; study it; that’s all.” And the result was good, better than if I had started to explain, to defend myself. You judge the evidence in hand.”

Bergoglio tried to make me look like a dishonest man and a thief, referring to my painful and personal family events, which involved my brother priest (who was afflicted by a stroke and manipulated by unscrupulous lawyers), whom I did not want to attack by challenging an unjust sentence, preferring instead to follow the Gospel command (Mt 5:40). The accusations against me were widely disavowed by all my brothers and by the evidence of the facts (here).

As is typical of the nature of tyrants, Bergoglio has an implacable hatred for me, not only for what I have revealed about him, but also and above all for what I am still able to reveal. By excommunication he wanted in a certain way to condemn me to death, but the truth cannot be killed.

It is now understood that Bergoglio does not want to solve the crisis of which he is the architect: he wants to make it irreversible, because his purpose is to create division: divide et impera.

11. You have accused Pope Francis of having ignored the rumors relating to the homosexuality and abuse of minors by Cardinal McCarrick, who was later convicted of pedophilia, reduced to the lay state, and expelled from the College of Cardinals. The Vatican only took action in 2017 after an accusation that was considered credible. Why didn’t it act earlier? What concrete evidence was there?

As Delegate for the Pontifical Representations, I dealt with the McCarrick case myself, and since then I have asked for his dismissal from the Cardinalate. My direct superiors are responsible for not having taken due account of my judgment based on incontrovertible testimony. Obviously, McCarrick’s work was convenient for someone in the Secretariat of State, starting with the huge sums raised through the Papal Foundation that the Cardinal had set up in the United States. I remember well a comment made to me by the Argentine Leonardo Sandri, then a Monsignor with whom I shared the same office for eleven years when we were both secretaries of the Substitute: “But this McCarrick is always here!” Sandri later became the Substitute, and it was precisely to him that I delivered my Note detailing McCarrick’s misconduct, but ambition and the prospects of advancing his career led him to keep quiet and cover up the scandals. The fact that he repeatedly expressed to me his bad opinion of Bergoglio – “That man is a madman!” – did not prevent him from becoming his accomplice anyway.

Bergoglio owes his “election” to McCarrick: McCarrick himself declared  this during a conference at Villanova University where on October 11, 2013 he affirmed that he had favored the election of Jorge Mario Bergoglio during the General Congregations prior to the Conclave held a few months earlier, and that he had spoken about it with “a very influential Italian gentleman” (here) who supposedly confided to him how in the space of a five-year period the new Pope would “reform” – that is, revolutionize – the Church.

McCarrick also had strong connections with members of the Democratic Party and assiduously frequented the White House during the Obama-Biden administration, but also under previous Presidents. McCarrick was involved, for example, on behalf of the American government in negotiations with the Iranian Ayatollahs for the development of nuclear weapons.

And that’s not all: McCarrick worked closely with the then White House Chief of Staff, Denis McDonough, in the management of the Alliance for Prosperity desired by President Obama, which in 2014 alone – under the guise of a humanitarian action – facilitated the trafficking of 65,000 unaccompanied children who were transferred to the United States across the Mexican border, as White House stenographer Mike McCormick revealed.

Finally, Bergoglio also made use of McCarrick to make the secret agreement between the Vatican and China, which was strongly desired by both the Jesuits and the democratic establishment.

Bergoglio’s extraordinary action of removing McCarrick’s status as Cardinal and dismissing him from the clerical state served to save Bergoglio’s “reputation.” But these sanctions were not decided after a fair trial: the witnesses were not given the opportunity to name McCarrick’s accomplices, and no judge was ever able to impose any compensation for the victims, because Bergoglio arrogated to himself the right to declare the cause res judicata, without ever disclosing the official decree, which is also a public act. The administrative measure decided on by Bergoglio was intended to hide the network of complicity in which he was and is personally involved, and this is exactly what happened.

The reason why the Vatican only acted in February 2019 (i.e., six months after the publication of my August 2018 Memorial) is that the scandal was no longer manageable, despite the fact that McCarrick’s crimes had been known for decades. The paradox arose with the publication on November 10, 2020, of a substantial Report on McCarrick drawn up by Attorney Jeffrey Lena and costing the Holy See millions, in which he falsely goes so far as to say that I was the one responsible for the failure to timely initiate canonical proceedings against McCarrick (here).


12. As a bishop and pastor of souls, would you like to leave a message to our readers?

Holy Scripture warns us about the reign of the Antichrist that will be established throughout the world in the last times, and about the role of the False Prophet in manipulating the masses. It is difficult not to see the preparation for all this in the globalist ideology that embodies the synarchic project of Freemasonry and in the total subservience to it of the leaders of the Bergoglian church. And here we are not speaking of abstruse questions, but of the very foundations of the Catholic Faith: the uniqueness of the Church as an instrument of salvation, her mission for the conversion of souls to God, and the need to restore the social Kingship of Christ as the only safeguard against all tyranny, both temporal and spiritual.

Before the Second Coming of Our Lord, the Church, which is His Mystical Body, must go through her own Passio in a ferocious persecution: Sacred Scripture clearly tells us this, in particular the Book of the Apocalypse of Saint John. This should help us to understand the importance of bearing witness to Christ and denouncing the false prophets who try to persuade us to come to terms with the world.

13 August 2024

Print this item

  Please pray for the soul of Mr. Jack Pfeiffer
Posted by: Stone - 08-21-2024, 05:43 AM - Forum: Appeals for Prayer - No Replies

[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2Foriginal...f=1&nofb=1]

Requiem aeternam dona ei Domine, et lux perpetua luceat ei. Requiescat in pace. Amen.


In your charity, please pray for the soul of Mr. Jack Pfeiffer who passed away on August 20, 2024. 
Mr. Pfeiffer is father to Frs. Timothy and Joseph Pfeiffer. 
Mr. and Mrs. Pfeiffer gave shelter and cared for two traditional priests for many years who were abandoned by the Conciliar church in the 1970's for their adherence to Tradition, Fr. Urban Schneider and Fr. Hannifin.


May his soul and the souls of all the faithful departed rest in peace.  Amen.


✠ ✠ ✠


The De Profundis  - Psalm 129

Out of the depths I have cried unto Thee, O Lord; Lord, hear my voice.
Let Thine ears be attentive to the voice of my supplication.
If Thou, O Lord, shalt mark our iniquities: O Lord, who can abide it?
For with Thee there is mercy: and by reason of Thy law I have waited on Thee, O Lord.
My soul hath waited on His word: my soul hath hoped in the Lord.
From the morning watch even unto night: let Israel hope in the Lord.
For with the Lord there is mercy: and with Him is plenteous redemption.
And He shall redeem Israel from all his iniquities.

Eternal rest grant unto her, O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon her.

Print this item

  Archbishop Viganò: Bergoglio owes his ‘election’ to McCarrick
Posted by: Stone - 08-21-2024, 05:40 AM - Forum: Archbishop Viganò - No Replies

Archbishop Viganò: Bergoglio owes his ‘election’ to McCarrick
In a new interview given to Italian newspaper Il Messaggero, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò asserts that Francis 'owes' his 2013 election to the once-influential but now-laicized ex-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick.

[Image: GettyImages-1235032401-e1681809886768-810x500-1.jpg]

DEDHAM, MA - SEPTEMBER 03: Former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick leaves the Dedham courthouse after pleading not guilty during his first appearance for sexual assault charges on on September 3, 2021 in Dedham, Massachusetts.
Photo by Scott Eisen/Getty Images

Aug 21, 2024
(LifeSiteNews) — In a new interview given to journalist Franca Giansoldati of the Italian newspaper Il Messaggero, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò claims that Francis “owes” his 2013 election to disgraced ex-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick.

In the interview, published by Il Messaggero on Wednesday morning, Viganò was asked, “You have accused Pope Francis of having ignored the rumors relating to the homosexuality and abuse of minors by Cardinal McCarrick, who was later convicted of pedophilia, reduced to the lay state, and expelled from the College of Cardinals. The Vatican only took action in 2017 after an accusation that was considered credible. Why didn’t it act earlier? What concrete evidence was there?”

In response, Viganò answered, “As Delegate for the Pontifical Representations, I dealt with the McCarrick case myself, and since then I have asked for his dismissal from the Cardinalate.”

“My direct superiors are responsible for not having taken due account of my judgment based on incontrovertible testimony,” Viganò alleged. “Obviously, McCarrick’s work was convenient for someone in the Secretariat of State, starting with the huge sums raised through the Papal Foundation that the Cardinal had set up in the United States.”

“I remember well a comment made to me by the Argentine Leonardo Sandri, then a Monsignor with whom I shared the same office for eleven years when we were both secretaries of the Substitute: ‘But this McCarrick is always here!'” Viganò continued. “Sandri later became the Substitute, and it was precisely to him that I delivered my Note detailing McCarrick’s misconduct, but ambition and the prospects of advancing his career led him to keep quiet and cover up the scandals.”

Viganò then stated that Francis “owes his ‘election’ to McCarrick: McCarrick himself declared this during a conference at Villanova University where on October 11, 2013 he affirmed that he had favored the election of Jorge Mario Bergoglio during the General Congregations prior to the Conclave held a few months earlier, and that he had spoken about it with ‘a very influential Italian gentleman’ (here) who supposedly confided to him how in the space of a five-year period the new Pope would ‘reform’ – that is, revolutionize – the Church.”

Viganò also claimed to the outlet that the reason Francis laicized McCarrick in February 2019 was because “the scandal was no longer manageable, despite the fact that McCarrick’s crimes had been known for decades.”

“The paradox arose with the publication on November 10, 2020, of a substantial Report on McCarrick drawn up by Attorney Jeffrey Lena and costing the Holy See millions, in which he falsely goes so far as to say that I was the one responsible for the failure to timely initiate canonical proceedings against McCarrick (here),” Viganò concluded.

Print this item

  Viganò accuses Italian cardinal of connection to Freemasonry, says he ‘subjugated’ Benedict XVI
Posted by: Stone - 08-21-2024, 05:33 AM - Forum: Archbishop Viganò - No Replies

Viganò accuses Italian cardinal of connection to Freemasonry, says he ‘subjugated’ Benedict XVI
In a new interview given to Italian newspaper Il Messaggero, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò accuses Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone of being connected to Freemasonry and having 'subjugated' Benedict XVI.

[Image: IMG_3909-e1697554978132.jpeg]

Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò


Aug 21, 2024
(LifeSiteNews) — In a new interview given to journalist Franca Giansoldati of the Italian newspaper Il Messaggero, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò accuses Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone of being connected to Freemasonry and having “subjugated” Benedict XVI.

In the interview, published by Il Messaggero on Wednesday morning, Viganò was asked, “A step back in time: in 2011 Pope Ratzinger implored you to accept being appointed as Nuncio to the United States, leaving the role of the Governorate where you were cleaning it up internally. You had clashes with Cardinal Bertone, then Secretary of State, whose name is linked to the scandal of the misappropriation of funds from the Bambino Gesù [Hospital] even though he was never investigated. What did Benedict XVI say to you? How did things go that day, and what were the main reasons for the disagreement with Bertone?”

In response, Viganò answered, “To speak of a ‘disagreement’ seems euphemistic to me. Thirsty for power, unscrupulous, manipulative, and contiguous to Masonic circles: this is the portrait of Cardinal Bertone, to whom Benedict XVI was unfortunately subjugated.”

“Bertone did everything he could to remove me from the Secretariat of State, because in my very delicate role I prevented him from promoting ‘his’ candidates, men of his circle, who were corrupt and often sexually perverted,” Viganò alleged.

“He managed to transfer me to the Governorate on July 16, 2009, where in my action to combat the vast network of corruption I had discovered the role and complicity of the Secretary of State himself in covering, supporting, and promoting the malfeasance and in making personal profit from it. Benedict XVI told me – during the private audience granted to me on April 4, 2011 – that he wanted to appoint me President of the Prefecture for Economic Affairs of the Holy See, but Bertone (with the complicity of Cardinal Lajolo, President of the Governorate, who was also involved in the network of corruption) imposed himself forcefully on the Pope and obtained my expulsion from the Roman Curia,” he added.

Continuing, Viganò asserted that becoming “[a]ware of this plot hatched to the detriment of the Holy See and Benedict himself, and knowing that the Pope’s will that I continue to ‘clean up’ was being subverted (while my removal would have nullified the work done and left the corrupt unpunished), I initially tried to resist, not without great difficulty, since I was precluded from having any direct access to the Pope.”

“Thus, after a long inner travail, a personal letter from Benedict XVI convinced me to accept the nomination to the United States,” Viganò concluded.

According to Viganò, Benedict XVI’s letter read:

Quote:I would like to tell you that I have been reflecting and praying about your condition after the latest events. The painful news of the death of His Excellency Msgr. Pietro Sambi has confirmed me in the conviction that your providential position at this time is the Nunciature in the United States of America. Furthermore, I am certain that your knowledge of this great country will help you to take on the demanding challenge of this work, which in many ways is decisive for the future of the universal Church.

LifeSiteNews has written to Cardinal Bertone to ask if he has any response to Viganò’s accusations. This article will be updated should Bertone respond to Viganò’s claims.

Print this item

  Francis-appointed bishop to offer pro-LGBT Mass for heterodox group advised by Bishop Stowe
Posted by: Stone - 08-20-2024, 07:51 AM - Forum: Vatican II and the Fruits of Modernism - No Replies

Francis-appointed bishop to offer pro-LGBT Mass for heterodox group advised by Bishop Stowe
Bishop John Iffert of Covington, Kentucky will preside over a Mass in his diocese for the dissident support group
 Catholics Embracing ALL God’s Children.

[Image: Bishop-John-Iffert.png]

Bishop John Iffert
YouTube

Aug 19, 2024
(LifeSiteNews [slightly adapted, not all hyperlinks included]) — A bishop appointed by Pope Francis in 2021 to lead the Diocese of Covington, Kentucky will offer an LGBT Mass later this month for an organization associated with heterodox Bishop John Stowe.

On August 28 at 7 p.m. at St. Joseph’s Church in Cold Spring, Kentucky, Bishop John Iffert will say Mass for a dissident Catholic “support group” named Catholics Embracing ALL God’s Children. The group participated in the Cincinnati Pride Parade in 2024.

The Mass has been announced in the St. Joseph’s bulletin as well as in the diocese’s newspaper. It is being marketed as an event where “all are welcome.”


Iffert gained notoriety earlier this year when he stripped Fr. Shannon Collins and Fr. Sean Kopczynski of their faculties to offer public Masses.

Collins and Kopczynski are founding members of the Missionaries of St. John the Baptist, a public association of the faithful that was erected by Iffert’s predecessor, Roger Foys, in the Covington diocese in 2019, though the two had been in the diocese since 2011.

One of the churches Collins and Kopczynski had overseen was Our Lady of Lourdes, which operated as “quasi-parish” beginning in 2016. They had been granted permission to exclusively offer the Traditional Latin Mass by Foys, who was favorable to their mission.

Iffert canceled Collins and Kopczynski in January 2024 after they refused to concelebrate a Novus Ordo Mass with him and after they said they would not recant a sermon wherein Collins remarked that the Novus Ordo liturgy preserves “literally nothing of the (Latin Mass).”



Rumble: https://rumble.com/v47sr6c-is-this-the-h...riest.html

During an appearance on Raymond Arroyo’s EWTN program The World Over, German Cardinal Gerhard Müller was asked for his thoughts on the situation.

Müller replied that some bishops “look to Rome and then say to the Holy Father, ‘I suppressed these people, and therefore I look for the reward of being promoted, being named archbishop, or cardinal.’ This (is the) childish behavior of some bishops.”

Catholics Embracing ALL God’s Children is overseen by Fortunate Families, a Lexington-based dissident organization founded in 2004. Stowe, the heterodox bishop of Lexington, Kentucky, serves as an ecclesial adviser for the group, and ultra-liberal Jesuit priest James Martin is listed as an honorary board member.

Stowe has spoken at Fortunate Families conferences in the past. In 2022, he appointed the organizations’ pro-LGBT executive director to attend the Synod on Synodality in Rome.

In recent months, Stowe has doubled down on referring to a 39-year-old woman who calls herself a man and lives as a “diocesan hermit” as “Brother Christian Matson.” Matson attended Martin’s LGBT-affirming Outreach conference in Washington, D.C. earlier this month. Liberal Cardinal Wilton Gregory said Mass for the gathering, which was endorsed by Pope Francis.

In June, Stowe served as retreat director for the dissident Association of U.S. Catholic Priests. The group supports “women priests,” the normalization of homosexuality in the Church, pro-LGBT political policies, and numerous other positions at odds with immutable Catholic teaching.

After Iffert offers his sacrilegious Mass on August 28, there will be a reception in the basement of St. Joseph’s. The Diocese of Covington borders the Diocese of Lexington to the north.

Print this item

  Archbishop Viganò: Cupich’s DNC speech confirms ‘blood pact’ between ‘deep state’ and ‘deep church’
Posted by: Stone - 08-20-2024, 07:45 AM - Forum: Archbishop Viganò - No Replies

Archbishop Viganò: Cupich’s DNC speech confirms ‘blood pact’ between ‘deep state’ and ‘deep church’
Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò called out Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago for his endorsement of Kamala Harris and the Democrat platform, describing the prelate as having supported 'the cult of perversion, disease, sterility, poverty, death.'



Aug 20, 2024 
Editor’s note: The following note has been taken from a post by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò to X (formerly Twitter), originally published on August 20, 2024.

(LifeSiteNews) — The scandalous endorsements of Blase Cupich and the heretical ultra-progressive Jesuits in favor of Harris and Walz and the radical Left woke agenda confirm the blood pact between the globalist Deep State and the Bergoglian Deep Church.

What typifies them is the cult of perversion, disease, sterility, poverty, death: abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, genetic manipulation, mutilation and gender transition, health dictatorship, destruction of the social fabric, ethnic replacement, civil war.

“Let the dead bury their dead.” (Luke 9:60)

Print this item