| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 402 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 398 Guest(s)
Applebot, Bing, Facebook, Google
|
| Latest Threads |
Pope Francis says Synod’s...
Forum: Pope Francis
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 05:59 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 53
|
If We Want to Promote the...
Forum: Articles by Catholic authors
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 05:54 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 54
|
Fr. Ruiz: Renewal of the ...
Forum: Rev. Father Hugo Ruiz Vallejo
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 05:44 AM
» Replies: 16
» Views: 1,338
|
Fr. Ruiz's Sermons: Last ...
Forum: Fr. Ruiz's Sermons November 2024
Last Post: Stone
11-25-2024, 06:38 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 46
|
The Simulacrum: The False...
Forum: Sedevacantism
Last Post: Stone
11-25-2024, 06:36 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 68
|
Interview with the Editor...
Forum: The Recusant
Last Post: Stone
11-24-2024, 07:15 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 149
|
Purgatory Explained by th...
Forum: Resources Online
Last Post: Stone
11-24-2024, 09:03 AM
» Replies: 37
» Views: 4,002
|
Last Sunday after Penteco...
Forum: Pentecost
Last Post: Stone
11-24-2024, 08:57 AM
» Replies: 5
» Views: 11,665
|
Fr. Hewko's Sermons: Twen...
Forum: November 2024
Last Post: Stone
11-23-2024, 10:30 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 111
|
Fr. Hewko's Sermons: Feas...
Forum: November 2024
Last Post: Stone
11-23-2024, 10:27 PM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 141
|
|
|
| NATO To Draw Up Russia War Plans For First Time Since Cold War |
|
Posted by: Stone - 05-21-2023, 06:15 AM - Forum: Global News
- No Replies
|
 |
NATO To Draw Up Russia War Plans For First Time Since Cold War
ZH | MAY 20, 2023
Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,
NATO is drawing up plans on how to fight a war with Russia for the first time since the Cold War.
According to Reuters, at the upcoming NATO summit in Vilnius this July, alliance leaders will approve thousands of pages of secret military plans that will detail how to respond to a Russian attack.
The plans will be vastly different than anything drawn up during the Cold War as NATO has expanded from 16 members to 31 since the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. The documents will also outline how NATO members should upgrade their forces and logistics.
“Allies will know exactly what forces and capabilities are needed, including where, what and how to deploy,” NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said of the war plans.
As Reuters writes, "The move signifies a fundamental shift - NATO had seen no need to draw up large-scale defense plans for decades, as it fought smaller wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and felt certain post-Soviet Russia no longer posed an existential threat."
But it remains that "Shortcomings in the alliance's capacity to produce sufficient weapons and ammunition have been highlighted by the struggle to keep pace with Ukraine's demands, and NATO must also upgrade the long-neglected logistics needed to quickly deploy troops via rail or road."
NATO’s newest member, Finland, shares an over 800-mile border with Russia and is poised to sign a deal that will give US troops access to its territory. While the alliance is preparing to beef up its presence on its “eastern flank,” one NATO official acknowledged the danger of massing troops near Russia’s border.
Quote:“The more troops you are massing up on the border, it’s like having a hammer. At some point, you want to find a nail,” said Lt. Gen. Hubert Cottereau, the vice chief of staff for NATO’s Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe.
“If the Russians are massing troops on the border that will make us nervous, if we are massing troops on the border that will make them nervous.”
|
|
|
| Dr. Byrne: Communion in the Hand in the Early Church |
|
Posted by: Stone - 05-19-2023, 07:14 AM - Forum: In Defense of Tradition
- No Replies
|
|
Communion in the Hand in the Early Church
TIA [emphasis mine] | May 18, 2023
Dear Tradition in Action,
Do you have any good articles on the topic of communion in the hand?
I heard from a priest that in the Early Church, priests would place communion in the hand of men who would then bow their heads to consume the Eucharist on their hands in a reverent manner. Women, however, could only do this only with a cloth on their hands.
I also heard that the Church eventually did away with this practice when it was learned that Christ was substantially present in every particle of the Eucharist. Is the existence of communion in the hand in the early Church correct or is this a modern myth? If this was true it would seem that it is not wrong for unconsecrated hands to touch the Eucharist since the Church cannot have a longstanding defective liturgical discipline.
What is the correct understanding of communion in the hand based on tradition? Is there even more to this question than dropping fragments of Our Lord? I found this article which also claims communion in the hand was common in the early Church and promoted among the early church fathers here. Is this article correct?
In Our Lady of Good Success,
M.R.
______________________
Dr. Byrne responds:
Dear M.R.,
Many liturgists today try to justify Communion in the hand by claiming that it was an ancient and universal practice legitimately restored after Vatican II. To claim is one thing, but to give satisfactory proof is another.
From the historical point of view, we can say that there is some evidence that the practice existed in the early centuries in some areas of the Church. But we do not know the full record of how often this happened. It would be a dangerous assumption to think that we have enough evidence to form a comprehensive opinion of the method by which Holy Communion was received by the faithful in the early Church of the East and the West. Several factors militate against this – the time scale (eight centuries), the vastness of the geographical area (the Middle East, the subcontinent of India evangelized by St. Thomas the Apostle, North Africa and Europe) and, most crucially, the paucity of reliable data.
Let us beware of over-confident scholars who preen themselves on their knowledge drawn from research in this area and draw conclusions that are not warranted by the data. In spite of the multiplication of “cases” of Communion in the hand they claim to have found, they have left us with only meagre pickings to work on. What knowledge they have given us is fragmentary and lacking in the all-important context that is needed to make an in-depth analysis of the relevant situations surrounding the reception of Holy Communion in early Christianity.
First, we will examine the context, then the evidence.
The context is Arianism, a heresy that denied the Divinity of Christ. It arose in the 4th century, and was only suppressed in the 6th and 7th centuries, as the martyrdom of St. Hermenegild (585) testifies. It was the perfect breeding ground for the spread of Communion in the hand.
Although the majority of the world’s Bishops had succumbed to the heresy, we have no knowledge of how many people used this method of reception. It is important to keep this background in mind when we come to examine the efforts of the good Bishops who tried to maintain attitudes of greater reverence among the faithful when receiving the Sacrament. It was a constant battle. After all, customs are often difficult to eradicate once they have taken root.
The evidence for early Communion in the hand is anything but straightforward. Some citations are of doubtful authenticity, and others often pose an interpretative problem for the experts.
For example, the most popular quote in favor of the practice is one attributed to St. Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 315-386) who is alleged to have instructed the newly baptized to “make a throne” of their hands so that Communion could be placed on it. The authenticity of this passage has been contested by scholars for several reasons.- It has been shown that the relevant quote could have been added by someone other than St. Cyril, perhaps by his successor, Bishop John, who was influenced by Arianism, as we know from the correspondence of St. Epiphanius, St. Jerome and St. Augustine.
- Besides, the same passage contains a Communion rite in which lay people are told to handle the Eucharist by touching the Host to their eyes and smearing the Precious Blood on their foreheads and sensory organs.
- And they are also told not to deprive themselves of Communion even if they are “defiled by sins” (which, being undifferentiated, must include both venial and mortal), in contradiction of St. Paul’s injunction (1 Corinthians 11:29); whereas all the other Fathers of the Church insisted that communicants be free from serious sins and quarrels with their fellow Christians.
- But, curiously, the most convincing evidence against the authenticity of this passage has not hitherto been brought forward – the form of worship described by St. Cyril in his Catechetical Lectures. This is identical in all respects to the Divine Liturgy of St. James which, as we shall see below, incorporates a rite of Communion given directly on the tongue.
While we would do well to consider the rite of Pseudo-Cyril as an interpolation, or even a figment of the imagination, that does not mean that there was no evidence for Communion in the hand in the Patristic period.
The testimony of St. Basil the Great (330-379) is more illuminating. He acknowledged that taking Communion “by one’s own hand” was customary during times of persecution and also for hermits in the desert, where no priest was present. He did not, therefore, consider it to be a “serious offence” in exceptional and unavoidable circumstances. We can draw the corollary that he would have considered it a grave fault to do so without necessity.
We must keep in mind that the persecution of Christians extended beyond the first three centuries, especially in the Eastern Church. There, the practice of Communion in the hand is acknowledged by early Patristic figures from St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom to St. John Damascene in the 8th century, in those areas where it occurred.
This does not necessarily mean, however, that they fully condoned it, still less that they were enthusiastic about it. The Fathers treated the hands of the laity as ritually “unclean” and prescribed strict protocol for the reception of Communion – the washing of hands for men and the veiling of the hand for women. It all comes across as the equivalent of a damage limitation exercise.
It is true that the Council of Trullo, held in Constantinople in 692, prescribed Communion in the hand (Canon 101). But this was only after a custom had developed among the laity, moved by a Catholic instinct, to adopt what they considered a more worthy form of reception, i.e., in small containers and vessels of gold, silver or other precious materials that they brought with them for the purpose. Not everyone, evidently, was happy with touching the Host with their hands.
While Canon 101 provides evidence for Communion in the hand, it tells us nothing about its frequency. With significant opposition to it from the laity, it cannot be described as common usage. Besides, we know that the Trullan Canons were not uniformly obeyed in the East.
Only a superficial reading of this evidence would lead one to think that Communion in the hand was the norm throughout the Christian world for the first 800 years or so of the Church’s existence. In handling the research data, proponents of this method exaggerate the importance of their findings. For example, they can only produce one single example in the whole of England (where someone happens to place Communion in the hand of a dying monk), yet this is included to bump up the geographical statistics.
The Purple Codex of Rossano
Then there is the phenomenon of “confirmation bias,” by which they “see” evidence where it either does not exist or is difficult to interpret. An example is the Purple Codex of Rossano, a Greek illuminated Gospel Book dated between the end of the 5th and the beginning of the 6th century. One of the illustrations, a depiction of the Last Supper, shows an Apostle about to receive Communion, while the others are lined up behind.
We note that the communicant is not standing upright with hands extended (as in modern times) to take Communion with his fingers; he is bowing low with bended knee and his hand(s) placed directly under his chin, while Our Lord presents the Host to his lips. The intention of this gesture, it seems, could be interpreted as being consistent with reception of Communion on the tongue, that is, in order to provide a kind of “safety net” lest any fragments fall to the ground. (Guarding the Host with scrupulous care to avoid profanation was, unlike modern times, a major preoccupation with early Christians).
Yet today’s doctrinaire progressivists insist on Communion in the hand as the only possible interpretation.
On the subject of reception of Holy Communion on the tongue in the early Church, no evidence has been found that any Pope at any time in the history of the Church ever personally introduced Communion in the hand before Paul VI. But there is good supporting evidence from Popes, Fathers of the Church and local Councils that the faithful received Communion on the tongue in some places. However, progressivists reject this evidence on the flimsiest, most arbitrary and even self-contradictory grounds.
One of the strongest pieces of evidence is contained in the early Christian Liturgy of St. James, which is the original local rite of Jerusalem, spoken of by St. Cyril. In it, one of the prayers said by the priest before distributing Communion uses the metaphor of the “burning coal” (Isaiah 6:6-7) which was taken by an Angel from the altar and was touched to the lips of Isaiah to purify his soul. He prays:
“The Lord will bless us, and make us worthy with the pure touchings of our fingers to take the live coal, and place it upon the mouths of the faithful for the purification and renewal of their souls and bodies, now and always”.
As this liturgy is still used in some Eastern Catholic as well as Schismatic rites where Communion on the tongue is the norm, it shows an uninterrupted tradition since early Christian times.
Pope St. Eutychianus (275-283) forbade lay people to take Holy Communion to the sick:
Nullus præsumat tradere communionem laico vel femminæ ad deferendum infirmo (Let no one dare to consign Communion to any layman or woman to take to a sick person).
Critics contend that this does not prove anything about the practice of giving Communion in the hand or on the tongue. But they ignore the implied reasoning behind the prohibition – that Communion handled by a lay person was not something to be positively approved. Administering the Sacrament to others is thus seen as the prerogative of the ordained priest – a point later made by the Council of Trent which described it as an Apostolic Tradition.
Pope St. Leo the Great (440-461), in his comments on the Sixth Chapter of the Gospel of John, mentioned the tradition of Communion received in the mouth:
Hoc enim ore sumitur quod fide creditur, et frustra ab illis AMEN respondetur, a quibus contra id quod accipitur, disputatur. (For that is received in the mouth which is believed in faith; and those who dispute what they receive answer AMEN in vain. (Sermon 91.3)
Objections have been raised that this quote does not prove a custom of Communion on the tongue, on the grounds that it refers simply to “taking by mouth” (ore sumitur) which, of course, can be accomplished by the agency of one’s own hand. But we must consider the correct translation in context. As sumitur in Latin means “is received” in the sense of accepted from a giver, and ore indicates the method of reception – by or in the mouth – we can infer from the quote that Communion was not taken in the hand.
Pope St. Gregory the Great (590-604) is mentioned by his biographer, John the Deacon, in connection with the practice of Communion on the tongue. John recorded that when Pope Gregory was about to place the Host in the mouth of a woman, he had to withdraw his hand “ab ore ejus” (from her mouth) because she suddenly started to laugh. Instead of accepting this account as read, critics reject it as apocryphal, not because they have any personal knowledge in the matter, but on the opinion of Fr. Joseph Jungmann who, however, offered no solid grounds for his argument. So the valuable piece of evidence is dismissed out of hand.
St. Gregory related in Dialogues 3 the curing of a mute and crippled man when Pope St. Agapitus (535-536) placed the Host in his mouth. Cynics follow the opinion of the liturgical scholar, Fr F. X. Funk, who said that Communion could not have been given to him in the hand, because he was too weak to hold it. But St. Gregory had mentioned nothing about a malfunctioning arm. He described the man as “lame” and stated: “Agapitus … restored him to the use of his legs: and after he had put our Lord’s Body into his mouth, that tongue, which long time before had not spoken, was loosed.”
The Council of Saragossa (380) threatened with excommunication any who dared to continue receiving Holy Communion in the hand
The Synod of Cordoba in 839 condemned the sect of so-called Casiani because of their refusal to receive Holy Communion directly into their mouths.
The Synod of Rouen (uncertain date) confirmed the norm in force regarding the administration of Communion on the tongue, threatening sacred ministers with suspension from their office if they distributed Communion to the laity on the hand. It decreed:
“Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywoman, but only in their mouths.”
But progressivists, illogically, dismiss this evidence because the date of the Synod has been contested by historians.
In conclusion, we can say that both methods were practised in the early Church until Communion on the tongue “won out” over its reception in the hand in the 9th century, to become the settled, obligatory and universal norm for over a thousand years.
One final point must be made for clarity. The modern method of receiving Communion in the hand, whereby standing communicants grasp (or grab) the Host in their fingers and pop it quickly into their mouths, sometimes with a perfunctory nod of the head, has no resemblance to the ancient method. It is not, therefore, a “restoration,” but an innovation derived from the practices used by the 16th-century Protestant reformers to signal their disbelief in the Real Presence.
|
|
|
|
| Feds Start Enrolling Volunteers For mRNA Flu Vaccine Trial |
|
Posted by: Stone - 05-19-2023, 06:18 AM - Forum: Health
- No Replies
|
|
Feds Start Enrolling Volunteers For mRNA Flu Vaccine Trial
ZH | MAY 18, 2023
Authored by Bill Pan via The Epoch Times
Vaccine developers at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) are enrolling healthy adult Americans to test an experimental universal influenza vaccine using mRNA technology.
The Phase 1 trial will be conducted at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, the NIAID said on Monday. Researchers will test the experimental vaccine, dubbed H1ssF-3928 mRNA-LNP, for safety and its ability to induce an immune response.
For this early-stage trial, the federal research agency is looking for up to 50 healthy volunteers aged 18 through 49. There will be three 10-participant groups receiving 10, 25, and 50 micrograms of the experimental vaccine, respectively. After evaluation of the data to determine an optimum dosage, an additional 10 participants will be administered with the optimum dosage.
The study also will include a group of participants to receive a currently available flu vaccine that protects against the four most common flu virus strains in circulation.
The NIAID said it expects to collect all the data needed by March 15, 2024, and conclude the study by Aug. 30, 2024.
The name H1ssF is an abbreviation of H1 hemagglutinin stabilized stem ferritin, meaning that the vaccine uses the “stem” part of the influenza hemagglutinin protein displayed on the surface of a ferritin nanoparticle as the immunogen. The “stem” remains largely unchanged throughout influenza mutations, as compared to the “head,” which constantly changes as the virus mutates into different strains in a process called “antigenic drift.”
Most of the body’s immune response to the influenza virus is directed toward the ever-changing “head” of the hemagglutinin protein, and hence seasonal influenza vaccines must be updated each year. NIAID researchers believe that a vaccine that targets the “stem” without the distraction of the “head” could offer stronger and longer-lasting immunity.
The other part of the experimental vaccine’s name, mRNA-LNP, means that the messenger RNA-encoded immunogen is delivered inside a lipid nanoparticle (LNP). The vaccine doesn’t contain the immunogen, but uses LNP-coated mRNA to instruct the host cells to assemble the immunogenic proteins that can trigger the production of effective antibodies.
Safety Risks
The same mRNA technology is used to make both Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, two of the most administered vaccinations in the world. Despite their widespread use, championed by governments of many countries under the premise that the shots are safe and effective, the mRNA vaccines continue to spur concerns about serious side effects, including a heightened risk of cardiac-related deaths in healthy teenagers and young adults after vaccination.
Last October, the Florida Department of Health issued a warning against giving young men mRNA COVID shots, citing an analysis (pdf) that found “an 84 percent increase in the relative incidence of cardiac-related death among males 18-39 years old” within 28 days following the jab.
“With a high level of global immunity to COVID-19, the benefit of vaccination is likely outweighed by this abnormally high risk of cardiac-related death among men in this age group. Non-mRNA vaccines were not found to have these increased risks,” said Dr. Joseph Ladapo, Florida’s surgeon general.
Read more here...
|
|
|
|
| Francis Inscribes 21 Coptic Heretics into the Roman Martyrology |
|
Posted by: Stone - 05-18-2023, 07:36 AM - Forum: Pope Francis
- No Replies
|
|
Francis Inscribes 21 Coptic Heretics into the Roman Martyrology
TIA [slightly adapted - emphasis mine] | May 17, 2023
My friend Jan was a bit upset to hear the Vatican announcement that Pope Francis will insert 21 Coptic Monophysite “martyrs” into the Roman Martyrology of the Catholic Church. During a audience with “pope” Tawadros II at the Vatican on May 11, 2023, Francis casually dropped this bombshell, calling it nothing more than an “expression of desire for greater Christian unity.”
![[Image: M062_Rel.jpg]](https://traditioninaction.org/religious/images_K-O/M062_Rel.jpg)
Francis receives a reliquary with remains of the Coptic heretics from a triumphant Tawadros II
In his address, Francis had the further audacity to express his hope that the “prayers of the Coptic martyrs, united with those of the Theotokos [the Mother of God],” would bring the day of full union of “our Churches.” That is to say, he invoked the intercession of the Coptic heretics and dared to affirm their prayers would unite with those of Our Lady. Something preposterous.
Also during the audience, Tawadros gave Francis some remains (supposed “relics”) of the Coptic victims of ISIS, for which Pope Francis expressed his heartfelt gratitude.
I called this action a bombshell, and indeed it is. By including these heretics in the Catholic Church’s official daily prayer, Francis is effectively affirming that there can be salvation outside the bosom of the Holy Catholic Church. He effectively defends the thesis that those who die giving their blood in defense of false sects and religions can be held up as models of holiness for Catholics. In short, this action denies the age-old teaching of the Catholic Church that no unity is possible unless heretics return to the Catholic Church (see [the teachings of the Popes] here, here, here, here, and here). It is heretical.
Yet today, 60 years after Vatican II, my friend Jan is only mildly upset, and it would seem that the majority of the Catholic world views it as nothing more than another step in the improvement of relations between the Copts and Catholics. With this, we see how far ecumenism has advanced in its effort since Vatican II to ignore all doctrinal differences in the quest for a false unity.
The Path to Unity with Heretics
The 21 Copts (20 Egyptians and one from Ghana) were beheaded in Libya in 2015 by ISIS militants. A tear-jerking video published by the terrorist organization showed the men praying as they perished, which is offered as proof that they died as martyrs. In fact, this is a play upon emotions and ignores the real doctrinal errors of the Coptic heresy that severed those pour souls from true union with the Catholic Faith.
The Copts are Monophysites and thus heretics. This is an old heresy from the Early Church that denies Our Lord Jesus Christ has two natures, a divine nature hypostatically united to a human one. Monophysism holds that Christ has only one nature, the divine nature, which absorbed completely the human nature. So, the monophysites are not in any way “in communion” with the Catholic Church.
Since 1962 when John XXIII invited representatives of Monophysitism to the Vatican II as observers, we have see the Conciliar Popes making concession after concession to this heretical sect: Paul VI (here and here), John Paul II (here), Benedict XVI (here).
As we can see, since Vatican II Catholics have been conditioned to accept the notion that doctrinal differences are secondary matters on the path to unity. Why should we be surprised, then, that on Tawadros’ second visit to Rome in May 2023, the progressivist Pope decided to insert the Coptic “martyrs” into the Roman Catholic Martyrology?
Francis following John Paul II
Here, I would like to recall the fury a book by Atila Guimarães published in 1999 raised in the conservative Catholic milieu. Its tile is Quo Vadis, Petre? (Where are you going, Peter?) and it is an exposé of the ecumenical events planned by John Paul II for the Grand Jubilee celebrating the Year 2000. Those events included the establishment of a “common martyrology.”
In it, Atila points out how John Paul II coined the term “common Martyrology” as early as 1994 in his Apostolic Letter Tertio Millenio Adveniente and already indicated its possible introduction at the Great Jubilee of 2000.
JPII repeated the idea in Ut Unum Sint, his 1995 encyclical on ecumenism. Finally, in 1998, his preparatory commission for the Jubilee actually proposed a “Common Martyrology,” meaning a listing of martyrs that would be shared among all the “Christian churches.” In addition to admitting the so-called “saints” of other religions into a “common martyrology,” there were even strong indications that JPII wanted to rehabilitate the heresiarchs Luther, Calvin and Zwingli to place them among the ”saints.”
Admitting that there are saints in other religions is equivalent to saying that there is salvation in those religions. This seems to be a flagrant contradiction with perennial Catholic doctrine, Guimaraes noted. For this reason, he directed this Letter/book to John Paul II asking that he explain the contradiction.
No explanation was forthcoming, but, as I said, the book raised strong protests among Catholics that the good Pope John Paul II could ever propose such a heretical thing as a Common Martyrology. At that time, let me note, almost no one dared to criticize this popular Pope. But JPII was proposing precisely this – and much more, as Atila demonstrated with his known rigor in this Letter/book addressed to the Pope.
TIA asked Malachi Martin in 1999 to proof Quo Vadis, Petre? to point out any possible exaggerations or errors. He did so, and his absolutely amazed and stunned response was this: “How do you know all these things? It is all exactly as you say, but no one ever speaks about it?” When he died he was in communication with us, offering his full support to help circulate and promote the work.
Many Armenians as the Copts are Monophysites. Above, JPII delivers a relic of St. George the Illuminator to Armenian heretic Karekin II in 2000; below, a joint ceremony at St. Peter's Basilica
Dr. Remi Amelunxen also proofed Quo Vadis, Petre? This dedicated Catholic scholar and scientist was shocked. Admitting the truth of all that was planned, he nonetheless advised us not to go to print. “Your audience (conservative and traditional Catholics) are just not ready to hear these things about John Paul II. You will lose all your support if you print this book.”
We went to press that year and he was partially right. Most Catholics were not ready to hear that John Paul II was planning these scandalous ecumenical events for the Jubilee celebrations. But we did not lose all our support. Instead, eyes began to open and others began to join us in publicly protesting the ecumenical acts of John Paul II.
Sadly, after all this time, what was once shocking is considered normal and commonplace. Today when many Catholics – like my friend Jan – hears about Francis including the Copt victims of ISIS into our Catholic Martyrology, there is little indignation or furor. It is just Francis doing something else to destroy the Catholic Church and her doctrine. All the blame is put on the bad Francis. Yet the groundwork for this Pope’s destruction was already laid by the previous conciliar Popes. In this action Francis is squarely in continuity with JPII.
To be clear, if Francis can be considered a heretic for doing what John Paul II proposed, the latter should also be qualified as such. I repeat here for the hard of hearing that, indeed, John Paul defended the thesis that “those who die giving their blood in defense of their own ‘religions’ are all true martyrs ” in his papal encyclical Ut Unum Sint. (Apud Quo Vadis, Petre? p. 11)
That is a hard fact for conservatives to swallow. Nonetheless, it is an indisputable fact.
Where does it lead?
So, after this first introduction of heretic “martyrs” into the Catholic Martyrology, what will be next? Will the heresiarchs Martin Luther and Calvin be named saints? Will heretics like Jan Hus, Girolamo Savonarola and Giordano Bruno, who were condemned to death for their doctrines, be proposed as candidates for beatification?
As Atila aptly noted in Quo Vadis, Petre? already in 1999, it could well happen that the saints of tomorrow would be those very persons who until today were considered by Catholics as abettors of schism and heresy.
|
|
|
|
| Anti-Catholic Attacks in Ireland |
|
Posted by: Stone - 05-18-2023, 06:39 AM - Forum: Anti-Catholic Violence
- No Replies
|
|
SKELETONS SMASHED, STATUES DECAPITATED IN ANTI CATHOLIC ATTACKS IN IRELAND
![[Image: 344763980_1173424493331660_6813058133234...rmat=1500w]](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5b3681ee3e2d0961b31078b0/1683738909472-P6796YAJDFQI37PK87ZI/344763980_1173424493331660_6813058133234860982_n.jpg?format=1500w)
Catholic Arena | May 13, 2023
Ireland’s politicians have remained completely silent this week as anti Catholic terrorists struck a number of locations with Satanic intent.
In one demonic attack, thugs invaded the crypt at the deconsecrated grounds of St. Mary’s Cathedral in Elphin, Co. Roscommon.
The sick weirdos were reported to have grabbed the skeletons of those inside and left ‘trampled, broken and thrown about the floor’ with alcohol bottles thrown on top of them.
In the parish of Springfield in Tallaght, thugs decapitated a statue of our lady and smashed up the head that had been removed.
The attacks come as part of two broader cultural trends.
One is the rampant anti Catholicism peddled by Irish politicians and journalists. One left wing politician even foamed at the mouth to his followers as he screamed ‘Get them out!’ regarding Catholics. The vitriol levelled at Catholics cannot be underestimated.
The second is a widening deGaelicisation in the wider culture, which regards any aspect of Ireland’s past as defective.
This particular narrative has led to not just attacks on churches, including a recent attempted arson attack on an altar in Kerry, but also on ancient pre Christian sites such as the 1,500 year old stone at the Hill of Tara, which was daubed with the word ‘fake’.
One monuments expert was quoted in Irish media recently as saying:
Quote:It’s already infesting our towns and cities, but this is attacking a monument of huge historical and mythological significance to one of the things that unify us – our ancient Irish culture that is part of our national identity
We’re seeing it’s an absolute scourge in our cities and larger towns on historic things, particularly when you get a stone like granite – once it’s sprayed with these horrible aerosols, it’s much more difficult to remove.
Most interestingly, he stated:
Quote:It’s not just archaeological, historic monuments being targeted, there’s increasing concern about graveyards and cemeteries.
There been some very unpleasant cases of gravestones; these would be tombs in graveyards in active use by their family members.
This isn’t just about Tara, Ireland is blessed and enriched with a great legacy of monuments, from ancient tombs to medieval churches
With emigration climbing to new heights, homelessness increasing and now street battles between far left militants in shanty towns with young locals, there is a very bleak darkness being cast over post Catholic Ireland.
|
|
|
|
| Another possible Eucharistic 'miracle' at the hands of a lay Eucharistic 'minister' |
|
Posted by: Stone - 05-17-2023, 09:21 AM - Forum: Vatican II and the Fruits of Modernism
- Replies (1)
|
|
So many of the 'modern Eucharistic miracles' are witnessed by lay ministers or occur after a Host is dropped (objectively, a sacrilege).
As Archbishop Sheen said, 'Satan is the ape of God.' Would Our Lord use a doubtful odious Mass and lay Eucharistic ministers to create supposed miracles? Or would it be yet another parody by Hell that an lay person, handing out Holy Communion in the hand - even supposing it was validly consecrated - would be the vehicle through which a Eucharistic miracle is worked?
Interestingly, the local pastor plainly links this 'miracle' with the last miracle needed to canonize Fr. McGivney, founder of the Knights of Columbus...
Possible Eucharistic Miracle In Connecticut Under Vatican Investigation
![[Image: 20230505T1345-EUCHARISTIC-MIRACLE-VATICA...759344.jpg]](https://www.osvnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/20230505T1345-EUCHARISTIC-MIRACLE-VATICAN-INVESTIGATION-1759344.jpg)
St. Thomas Church in Thomaston, Conn., is pictured in this photo from November 1991. The Archdiocese of Hartford has asked the Vatican to investigate a possible Eucharistic miracle that occurred March 5, 2023. (OSV News photo/courtesy Knights of Columbus)
Catholic News | May 8, 2023
(OSV News) — A possible Eucharistic miracle in Connecticut is now under investigation by the Vatican.
Archbishop Leonard P. Blair told a Hartford television news station May 2 that the Dicastery (formerly Congregation) for the Doctrine of the Faith will examine whether an apparent multiplication of Communion hosts during a March 5 liturgy at St. Thomas Church in Thomaston, Connecticut, was supernatural. The church, along with Immaculate Conception Church and St. Casimir Church, both in Terryville, Connecticut, is part of St. Maximilian Kolbe Parish.
St. Maximilian Kolbe pastor Father Joseph Crowley said in a YouTube livestream of his March 12 homily that an unnamed extraordinary minister of holy Communion at the previous week’s liturgy had begun to run out of hosts — only to find that “all of a sudden there (were) more hosts in the ciborium.”
The minister continued to distribute the hosts to some “100, 150 people in the congregation,” after which “there was the same amount, if not more hosts” in the ciborium, said Father Crowley in his March 12 homily. “What happened is Our Lord multiplied himself. … I have no doubt. I know what I gave the person. I know what (was) returned (to the tabernacle). It was just very obvious and plain to me as to what happened.” [Notice the priest does NOT wait for the authority of the Church to declare whether it is supernatural or not, he himself declares it be the case. - The Catacombs]
In a livestream video of his post-Communion remarks at the March 5 liturgy at St. Thomas Church, a visibly struck Father Crowley said the experience was “very powerful, very awesome, very real, very shocking.”
A local saint in the making also may have played a role, Father Crowley said in his March 12 homily, since Blessed Michael McGivney, founder of the Knights of Columbus, served as pastor of St. Thomas Church from 1884 until his death in 1890.
“I think in a very profound way that … because of Blessed McGivney’s life here … it shows that this is a very special place. And it’s important to God,” said Father Crowley in that reflection. “And I think good things are coming. I think great things are coming.”
David Elliott, associate director of communications for the Archdiocese of Hartford, told OSV News at the time that the archdiocesan judicial vicar, Father George S. Mukuka, was “looking into the possibility of a Eucharistic miracle” at the parish.
Speaking to media May 2, Archbishop Blair said he had “(sent) out an experienced priest who has knowledge of church law, canon law, to follow procedure, (and) to just examine exactly what happened and under what circumstances.”
He noted that “the guidelines for these kinds of situations do call for me to notify the (Dicastery) for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome.”
The Vatican’s investigation is expected to take approximately two weeks.
In the 21st century, only four Eucharistic miracles have been recognized throughout the world, according to the Magis Center, which, under the leadership of scholar and Jesuit Father Robert J. Spitzer, promotes dialogue between faith and science.
The last recognized miracle occurred in 2013 in Legnica, Poland, where a consecrated host, left to dissolve in water after it was accidentally dropped, formed red stains that under scientific analysis were found to contain fragmented parts of cross-striated muscle resembling that of heart muscle. The host was approved for veneration in April 2016 by then-Bishop Zbigniew Kiernikowski of Legnica.
OSV News has contacted both the Archdiocese of Hartford and Father Crowley for comment.
|
|
|
|
| Dirty-bomb antidote: Drug trial begins in US |
|
Posted by: Stone - 05-17-2023, 07:00 AM - Forum: Health
- No Replies
|
|
Dirty-bomb antidote: Drug trial begins in US
BBC | May 16, 2023
The first human trial of a new type of dirty-bomb-antidote pill, designed to remove harmful radioactive contamination from the body, is starting in the US.
The drug, HOPO 14-1, is thought to work against several materials that might be used in weapons, including uranium.
If it proves safe and effective it could guard against potential harm from nuclear accidents or terrorist attacks.
About 42 volunteers will try different doses, checking for side effects.
There will be "intensive safety monitoring", with results from the phase one study expected in 2024, say the trial leaders from SRI International of Menlo Park, California, who are receiving funding from US government agency the National Institutes of Health.
What is a dirty bomb?
Also known as a radiological dispersal device or RDD, a dirty bomb is an explosive that has been mixed with radioactive material so that when it goes off there will be contamination of the blast zone.
A dirty bomb is not a nuclear bomb - it is "weapon of mass disruption" rather than "mass destruction", says the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The cloud of radiation from a dirty bomb could be dispersed within a few blocks or miles of the explosion, whereas a nuclear bomb could spread thousands of square miles.
Exposure to radiation can damage a person's DNA, tissues and organs, leading to illnesses, including cancer, which is why an oral drug that could counteract some of the effects would be useful.
There are already two different drug injections that can be used to treat people who have been exposed to radioactive plutonium, americium or curium.
For decades, experts have also known that iodine tablets can be deployed to help protect people if radioactive iodine has been released into the environment; it was given to people in 1986 when a nuclear accident occurred at the Chernobyl power plant.
Another pill, Prussian blue (potassium ferric hexacyanoferrate), can help remove radioactive caesium and thallium.
If HOPO 14-1 works, it would be another to add to the stockpile, offering protection against uranium and neptunium in addition to plutonium, americium and curium.
There has not yet been a successful dirty-bomb attack anywhere in the world.
However, there have been attempts.
In 1996, rebels from Chechnya planted a bomb containing dynamite and radioactive caesium-137 in Moscow's Izmailovo Park.
Security services discovered its location and it was defused.
In 1998, Chechnya's intelligence service found and defused a dirty bomb that had been placed near a railway line in Chechnya.
|
|
|
|
| Canada: Rosary Stops Blasphemy In Church |
|
Posted by: Stone - 05-17-2023, 06:58 AM - Forum: General Commentary
- No Replies
|
|
Rosary Stops Blasphemy In Church
![[Image: k86ppmsl6p5pfjwcl4ju5d1akor1mb1i7ypzo89....06&webp=on]](https://assistant.gloria.tv/1z94gyaCTBei3D8MsGrYwjE6j/k86ppmsl6p5pfjwcl4ju5d1akor1mb1i7ypzo89.webp?secure=9gnfEViT4d95IQ3eKMuPAg&expires=1684652906&webp=on)
gloria.tv | May 17, 2023
Father Dominique le Quernec of Saint Cornely Church, Vannes Diocese, France, "allowed" a May 13 blasphemy entitled “Profaning the Sacred” to take place in his church (Riposte-Catholique.fr).
In the afternoon, bleachers, risers, loudspeakers and lighting devices were installed in the House of God. But in the evening, young Catholics from @civitas Institute turned up and prayed the rosary inside and outside the church, blocking the entrance in the presence of the organisers, the mayor, the police, and paid journalists.
Some angry haters shouted and called on the police to use tear gas and to check the identity of those praying the rosary.
Father Quernec, the main responsible for the uproar and profanation, accused the Catholics of nocturnal "uproar" and "profanation”.
The Catholics explained that a church is a sacred place and that this kind of event should not take place at all, let alone in a church. At around 11.15pm, the mayor decided to cancel the blasphemy.
|
|
|
|
| Ascension Thursday |
|
Posted by: Ruthy - 05-15-2023, 11:32 AM - Forum: The New-Conciliar SSPX
- Replies (2)
|
 |
It's that time of year again, Ascension Thursday, a holy day of obligation in the US. At least that is what my Baltimore Catechism number 3 reads.
Here in St. Marys, KS, the Immaculata church bulletin reads, "Ascension Thursday is not a holy day of obligation for most dioceses in the U.S. including the Archdiocese of Kansas City in Kansas; however, we encourage everyone to sanctify the day". (Why sanctify the day?)
Most of the Catholic businesses in St. Marys still give the day off, paid, to their employees, because they say it is a holy day. Why would they do that, if the day is not a Holy Day of Obligation according to the church they attend? Are they choosing their own church commandments?
One business took the holy day away, as a paid day off, because they actually follow the church they attend. (Immaculata, St. Marys, KS)
What betrayers to Our Lord, Our Lady, and Archbishop Lefebvre.+
|
|
|
|
| Free-Standing Altars |
|
Posted by: Ruthy - 05-15-2023, 10:05 AM - Forum: The New-Conciliar SSPX
- Replies (2)
|
|
Concerning the free-standing altar, in the new church in St. Marys, KS, the below article, the author gives reasons for the free-standing altar. All highlighting is the authors, except for the red, which is mine.
The author wrote -
"a free-standing altar is ideal",
- an old 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia explains, "Hence it [the high altar] must stand free on all sides,
- and a priest will now be able to incense all sides.
Since when is a free-standing altar ideal? If it was ideal, why have the churches from old, never made that their norm?
About the incensing of all sides of the altar, "not just the front" - Has God been short changed for all of these years with the altar only being incensed from the front and sides only?
“The Sanctuary” - link to article
By Fr. Joseph Wood
he sanctuary is the most sacred part of the church, home to the altar and, thus, the tabernacle where Our Lord dwells among us. In the Immaculata, we will have a more noble sanctuary, befitting the worship of Almighty God. The Latin word for "sanctuary" implies a place that is set apart, a place that is limited to certain people or events. We see this boundary in the altar rail; in the liturgy, only certain people can pass beyond it. This should teach us that the sanctuary is not like the rest of a church. It hearkens back to the Holy Holies of the Old Testament Temple.
The altar is obviously the focal point, not just of the sanctuary, but of the whole church. It is, in a way, the very reason the church exists. On the altar, every day, the Sacrifice is offered so that each of us may partake of the graces Our Lord intended for us when He died on the Cross. The altar itself is another sign of Our Lord. As we priests approach the altar for the first time at Mass, we pray: "Take away from us our iniquities, we beseech Thee, O Lord, that we may be worthy to enter with pure minds into the Holy of Holies, through Christ our Lord. Amen."
One difference in the Immaculata will be a free-standing altar. For many of us, it may be foreign or even a novelty. In fact, for the full solemnity of the liturgy, a free-standing altar is ideal(as one can witness if you visit the main churches of Rome.) [/color]As the Old Catholic Encyclopedia from 1910 explains: "Hence it [the high altar] must stand free on all sides, allowing ample room for the consecrator to move around it. As its name indicates, the high altar, being the chief place for the enactment of the sacrificial function, is to be prominent not only by its position but also by the richness of its material and ornamentation." As a practical example, the priest, during a High Mass, [/color][/color]will now be able to incense around the entire altar, not simply the front.
In the rendering, many of you also noticed a kind of "crown" hanging from the ceiling above the altar. Traditionally there was some covering above every altar, though the forms varied: you might be familiar with various canopies or baldachinos from Roman churches. A tester is a form of this covering that hangs from the ceiling to symbolically crown the altar and draw attention to the dignity of the place.
What you see around the sanctuary is a colonnaded ambulatory: a place where sacristans and ministers can circulate with ease and dignity. This is another traditional or classical architectural element that makes the sanctuary stand out. May all these details provide a more worthy home for Our Lord, under Our Lady's mantle, to help you participate more deeply in the liturgy and thus save your souls.
|
|
|
|
|
![[Image: t87iz3q9z8j0gwoz33xmasnjmo4t9t0wz34lxa9....34&webp=on]](https://assistant.gloria.tv/1z94gyaCTBei3D8MsGrYwjE6j/t87iz3q9z8j0gwoz33xmasnjmo4t9t0wz34lxa9.webp?secure=UXJdmju1himPiFLUXcXrXg&expires=1685058034&webp=on)
![[Image: F_085_Ros.jpg]](https://traditioninaction.org/Questions/Images/F_085_Ros.jpg)
![[Image: M062_Kar.jpg]](https://traditioninaction.org/religious/images_K-O/M062_Kar.jpg)
![[Image: M062_Lit.jpg]](https://traditioninaction.org/religious/images_K-O/M062_Lit.jpg)
![[Image: hxkyevuj4rc4ke3tvs5co5bwp8m83lp4phh9adt....23&webp=on]](https://assistant.gloria.tv/1z94gyaCTBei3D8MsGrYwjE6j/hxkyevuj4rc4ke3tvs5co5bwp8m83lp4phh9adt.webp?secure=ewuLSUmF0taRixkkQaH2Hg&expires=1684648223&webp=on)
