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



Search Forums

(Advanced Search)

Forum Statistics
» Members: 167
» Latest member: Aiza.2022
» Forum threads: 4,175
» Forum posts: 7,678

Full Statistics

Online Users
There are currently 59 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 57 Guest(s)
Google, Yandex

Latest Threads
Livestream: Seventeenth S...
Forum: October 2022
Last Post: Stone
6 hours ago
» Replies: 0
» Views: 8
Livestream: First Saturda...
Forum: October 2022
Last Post: Stone
6 hours ago
» Replies: 0
» Views: 10
Belgian bishop claims Pop...
Forum: Pope Francis
Last Post: Stone
6 hours ago
» Replies: 0
» Views: 9
Thomas à Kempis: A Medita...
Forum: Resources Online
Last Post: Stone
6 hours ago
» Replies: 32
» Views: 1,660
Genetically modified mosq...
Forum: Health
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 06:54 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 44
Let the Sword First Strik...
Forum: Articles by Catholic authors
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 06:50 AM
» Replies: 11
» Views: 197
Mary, The Cause of Our Jo...
Forum: Mary, the Cause of Our Joy!
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 04:42 AM
» Replies: 2
» Views: 144
Bishop Williamson Promote...
Forum: True vs. False Resistance
Last Post: SAguide
09-29-2022, 10:28 AM
» Replies: 11
» Views: 1,391
Anne Catherine Emmerich's...
Forum: Catholic Prophecy
Last Post: Stone
09-29-2022, 09:39 AM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 1,893
Archbishop Lefebvre 1978:...
Forum: Sermons and Conferences
Last Post: Stone
09-29-2022, 07:02 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 42

  Livestream: Seventeenth Sunday after Pentecost - October 2, 2022
Posted by: Stone - 6 hours ago - Forum: October 2022 - No Replies

Fr. Hewko's Mass for the Seventeenth Sunday after Pentecost - October 2, 2022 - will be livestreamed at 4AM EST
"Love God First" (UK)

Print this item

  Livestream: First Saturday October - October 1, 2022
Posted by: Stone - 6 hours ago - Forum: October 2022 - No Replies

Fr. Hewko's Mass for the First Saturday of October - October 1, 2022 - will be livestreamed at 11:00AM EST 
"Queen Of Angels" (UK)

Print this item

  Belgian bishop claims Pope Francis approves of blessing ceremony for homosexual couples
Posted by: Stone - 6 hours ago - Forum: Pope Francis - No Replies

Belgian bishop claims Pope Francis approves of blessing ceremony for homosexual couples
‘Our guidelines for the blessing of homosexual couples, which we recently published, are in line with Pope Francis,’ argued Bishop Johan Bonny.

[Image: johanbony6521-810x500.jpg]

Bishop Johan Bonny
Bisdom Antwerpen / YouTube

Sep 30, 2022
(LifeSiteNews) – Bishop Johan Bonny of Antwerp, who with a group of Flemish bishops in Belgium recently published guidelines for the blessing of homosexual couples, has now publicly said that he has spoken with the Pope, and that “our guidelines for blessing of homosexual couples that we have recently published are in line with Pope Francis.”

Bonny is currently in Germany where he met with the German bishops at their annual fall meeting in Fulda, spoking with them behind closed doors. In this context, he gave Katholisch.de, the official website of the German bishops, an interview, in which he encouraged the German bishops to continue the work of their Synodal Path which recently declared recently that homosexual acts are “not sinful.”

At the end of this Katholisch.de interview, Bonny was asked about the reaction to his own actions, since he himself in 2015 already advocated for a blessing of homosexual couples. The interviewer reminded him that he was still a bishop, even though he advocated for such a blessing.

Bonny responded: “Yes, I am still a bishop. I was called to Rome, and there I said what was my opinion about it. I have also personally spoken with Pope Francis about it.”

When asked about the result of this conversation with the Pope, Bonny answered that “I know now what he thinks. That is for me the most important thing.”

RELATED: Catholic bishops in Belgium publish blessing ceremony for homosexual couples

The Belgian bishop insisted that the Pope is also in agreement with him and his Flemish fellow bishops and their newly released guidelines. “And I know that our guidelines for the blessing of homosexual couples, which we recently published, are in line with Pope Francis,” he said, adding that this was important to him “because communion with the Pope is sacred to me.”

The prelate continued:

Quote:It is the personal responsibility that the Pope has given us bishops and that he also supports. However, the same topics do not have to and cannot be discussed worldwide at all times. Moreover, the Pope does not have to write everything down on paper. Just as I as a bishop do not record every conversation on paper.

When the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith came out with a ban of the blessing of homosexual couples in March last year, Bishop Bonny expressed he was “angry” at Rome and said he felt “shame” for his Church.

He then also referred to the Pope himself when saying that “this responsum is not an example of how we can walk a path together. The document undermines the credibility of both the ‘synodal path’ advocated by Pope Francis and the announced year of work with Amoris Laetitia. Will the real synod please stand up?”

Now, under the growing pressure across the Universal Church – with Cardinals Gerhard Müller and Willem Eijk, among others, raising their voice of opposition – Bishop Bonny saw it fit to come out even more explicitly about the Pope’s intentions.

It is to be seen how the Vatican will respond to this new interview by Bonny.

However, it is not the first time that a clergyman has publicly recounted a private conversation with Pope Francis, saying that Francis supports the blessing of homosexual couples. In March of 2018, the French priest Fr. Daniel Duigou revealed that he received Pope Francis’ support for blessing homosexual couples.

LifeSite reported that Duigou described his private conversation with the Pope in a televised interview as follows:

Quote:“The first question he [the pope] asked me was: ‘Do you bless divorced and remarried couples?’ which is one of the big questions today in the Church,” explained Duigou. He recalled responding, “I listen and I bless, and I also bless homosexual couples.”

According to Duigou the Pope responded: “Yes, because to bless means that God thinks well of people and that God thinks well of all people.” The news show host asked incredulously: “Well, does this mean that the Pope is in favor of blessing homosexual couples?”

The French priest responded: “Yes, absolutely. It is not about marrying them.”

In 2016, Bonny went on record calling for a blessing for homosexual couples, as well as for cohabitating or divorced and “remarried” couples.

Following the CDF’s March 2021 ban on homosexual couples, Pope Francis removed the Vatican official who is said to have been the driving force behind the Vatican’s ban on blessing of homosexual couples.

He has continuously promoted the work of pro-LGBT activists such as Father James Martin, S.J., saying in public just in August that an event hosted by the pro-LGBT priest was “enriching.”

Print this item

  Genetically modified mosquitoes vaccinate a human
Posted by: Stone - Yesterday, 06:54 AM - Forum: Health - No Replies

Genetically modified mosquitoes vaccinate a human

[Image: mosquitos-modified.jpg]

CounterSignal | September 27, 2022

A box full of genetically modified mosquitos successfully vaccinated a human against malaria in a trial funded by the National Institute of Health (NIH).

The study involved about 200 hungry mosquitos biting a human subject’s arm. Human participants placed their arms directly over a small box full of the bloodsuckers. 

“We use the mosquitoes like they’re 1,000 small flying syringes,” said researcher Dr. Sean Murphy, as reported by NPR.

Three to five “vaccinations” took place over 30-day intervals. 

The mosquitos gave minor versions of malaria that didn’t make people sick, but gave them antibodies. Efficacy from the antibodies lasted a few months.

“Half of the individuals in each vaccine group did not develop detectable P. falciparum infection, and a subset of these individuals was subjected to a second CHMI 6 months later and remained partially protected. These results support further development of genetically attenuated sporozoites as potential malaria vaccines,” researchers concluded.

Carolina Reid was one of twenty-six participants in the study.

“My whole forearm swelled and blistered. My family was laughing, asking like, ‘why are you subjecting yourself to this?'”

Reid enjoyed her experience so much that she says she wants to participate in as many vaccine trials as she can. For this research, each participant received $4,100 as an incentive.

Adverse reactions were what one would expect after getting bit by hundreds of mosquitos and nothing more.

Dr. Kirsten Lyke calls the research “a total game changer.”

Lyke led the phase 1 trials for Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine and was a co-investigator for Moderna and Novavax COVID vaccines.

Researchers say the genetically modified mosquitos will not be used at large to vaccinate millions of people. The reason why mosquitos were used instead of syringes, they claim, was to save costs.

“He and his colleagues went this route because it is costly and time consuming to develop a formulation of a parasite that can be delivered with a needle,” NPR reports.

Print this item

  Archbishop Lefebvre 1978: On the New Mass
Posted by: Stone - 09-29-2022, 07:02 AM - Forum: Sermons and Conferences - No Replies

Taken from the Filii Mariae website {who provided the English translation] by way of Ecclesia Militans [emphasis mine]:

Archbishop Lefebvre on the New Mass – March 21, 1978

I will continue the study of these few questions which have been submitted to me. We have not finished the answer to the question about assistance at Mass possibly during your vacations and on certain occasions, whether you are with your family or there are ceremonies that you are invited to. What should be done? What should be our attitude in general towards these New Masses, even if it would be difficult to be able to assist at a Mass of Saint Pius V?

I believe that we must be more and more severe. Why? Because as I have already told you many times, our attitude also conforms to the evolution which is little by little taking place in people’s minds, and I would even say especially in the minds of priests by dint of living in an atmosphere of errors, in an atmosphere contrary to the Faith, intentions can change. The thoughts and judgments that priests can make about their own Masses can end up changing. And I believe that this is not at all illusory, even sometimes for priests who were very close to us, who loved Tradition, but who, by being in this atmosphere created by the liturgical reform, end up slowly but surely somehow losing the Faith, or at least changing their Faith on certain points of the Holy Mass, and this can in the long run influence their intention.

This is why I think that, given this increasingly serious and increasingly dangerous evolution, we must also avoid more and more, and I would almost say, in a radical way, any assistance at this New Mass. 

It is obvious that if you are convinced that all these Masses are invalid, you should not go to them. That is clear. One do not go to an invalid Mass; it would be a sacrilege. But I do not personally believe that we can affirm this in an absolute manner. Even Father Guérard des Lauriers arrived at this conclusion after a long journey; but he is not absolutely certain of it. He still has some reservations because it is obvious that what is essential for the validity of the Mass is the required matter, the required form, and the

As for the matter, we still can believe that it is really bread and wine that they are using as the matter of the Eucharist. Still, we have to see …. The wine, we can sometimes wonder what kind of wine is now taken by priests who no longer pay any attention to whether it is a natural wine, if it is a wine that does not have too much alcohol. For, finally, take your books on morals and see what is required for the matter of the Mass. There are still conditions in order to ensure that it is really natural wine and not fabricated wine.

Next, the form. Here, you know that it is always in the translations that one can hesitate on the form, because the form in Latin, as it was given by the reform, still bears the term pro multis for the form which is used for the consecration of the wine. But the translation in most languages is absolutely false since, whether it is in English, Italian, Spanish, or German, it is always for all: pro omnibus which is absolutely contrary to what the Church meant, and consequently, what Our Lord Himself meant when He pronounced these words. There is, I think, a page and a half which speaks of this in the Catechism of the Council of Trent in order to explain why, in the form, there is pro multis and not pro omnibus. The Catechism of the Council of Trent explains this perfectly because in reality, in the application of the Redemption, not everyone is saved. Not in the purpose of the Redemption. The purpose of the Redemption is to save all men. But the real application of the Redemption, unfortunately, does not benefit all men, through the fault of men who do not want to receive the graces of the Redemption. This is why the term used means the application of the Redemption.

Does this change in the vernacular languages affect the validity of the form? There are books that were written on this, by Americans, by Germans, about this form in particular. A number of them conclude that it is invalid. However, if we study in theology books even what St. Thomas thinks of the form of the sacrament of the Eucharist, it seems that the most general opinion is that the essential words are these words: “Hoc est Corpus meum, hic est calix Sanguinis mei, novi et aeterni et testament.” I also think that the phrase, Mysterium fidei, which is perhaps a phrase that goes back even to Our Lord Himself … It seems that these words go back at least to the time of the apostles. It is quite certain that during the forty days that Our Lord spent with the apostles after His resurrection, He must have certainly given them precise instructions – why not? – on the most important thing, on the essential thing of His redemption: His sacrifice, the sacrifice of Calvary. So would it be surprising that Our Lord spoke of it in a precise manner, bequeathing to the apostles the real form they were to use to realize again this sacrifice on our altars? Is this something unbelievable? When we say that it goes back to apostolic times, as the Council of Trent affirms, and as all the Fathers of the Church affirm, we can believe that they also received precise instructions from Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. But this phrase of Mysterium fidei would nevertheless make one think that the Real Presence already exists before the end of the formula.

Although, if a priest were to fall sick while pronouncing the words of the Consecration and stop in the middle of the Consecration, obviously the priest must continue the formula in order to ensure the Real Presence, but it is not certain if all the words are absolutely necessary for the Real Presence, because the fact that the priest already says Mysterium fidei, it seems that the mystery is then already realized at that moment. The priest exclaims before the mystery which is realized, the great mystery of our Faith. This is perhaps not a definitive argument, but anyway, it is nevertheless a fact that most theologians think that the Real Presence already exists at the first words of the consecration of the Precious Blood.

But the more one examine this liturgical reform, the more one wonder what may have been the intentions of the authors. What idea, what advantage did they think of acquiring by changing these words of the sacramental form which have been said for centuries and centuries by the Church? But what advantage, I ask you? Why remove Mysterium fidei, why change something in the form? Why add quod pro vobis tradetur in the form of the consecration of the bread? It is unbelievable … except for ecumenical thoughts, because the Protestants say that, because the Protestants have suppressed Mysterium fidei and because the Protestants have added quod pro vobis tradetur, and the Protestants wanted to exactly reproduce the Last Supper, the Last Supper which for them was not a sacrifice. So our Last Supper, our Eucharist is not a sacrifice for them, for the Protestants. 

And that is why they wanted to  reproduce the evangelical Last Supper which for us is a sacrifice. Never forget that the Council of Trent explicitly said: If any one shall say that there was no sacrifice at the Last Supper when Our Lord Jesus Christ instituted the Eucharist, let him be anathema! So Our Lord made a sacrifice at the Last Supper, a sacrifice which is obviously related to the Sacrifice that He will offer on the Cross, but it is a sacrifice.

We, too, our sacrifice is made after, is related to the sacrifice of the Cross. The Last Supper was also a sacrifice made in relation to the sacrifice of the Cross which was accomplished afterwards. So we don’t see any other explanation. No matter how hard we look. Why did they change something? We don’t see why. There are no possible explanations, except an ecumenical explanation, which brings us closer to the Protestants. I ask you: how is it possible to go and transform our Mass to make it similar to that of the Protestants who do not believe in the Sacrifice of the Mass, who added this precisely because they do not believe in the Sacrifice of the Mass? It is unheard of!

So of course we can ask these questions. These questions are not in vain. We can ask the question: is the form as it is said, at least in the vernacular languages, really valid? We can ask the question! And finally, the intention. The intention of doing what the Church does. So there are some who say: - What the Church does today is the New Mass. Ah! But no … what the Church does, and when we say the Church, it is the Church of All Time. The intention of the Church – even if we say what the Church does when we use the indicative, and not what the Church did, but quod facit Ecclesia –it is what the Church of All Time does, and therefore, since the Apostles. So we must have this intention of doing what the Church does, what She did, what She will do … always, always the same thing.

So the intention must be based on what the Church has always wanted to do, so a true sacrifice, and not simply a commemoration and not simply a meal. Now it is quite certain that the young priests at present, in the manner in which they are taught, must not have the intention of doing what the Council of Trent does. Because, precisely, as they broke with the Council of Trent – given that the Council of Trent very clearly defined the Mass as a sacrifice, and defined the priesthood, which is not a priesthood of the faithful, in a very clear way – and so I think these young priests say: - I want to say the New Mass and not the old! So they make a rupture in the Church; they do not have the right. They do not have the right to break up the Church. There is not a Church of today and a Church of yesterday: there is the Church of All Time. This Church is only one Church; otherwise there would be a Church every day, at every moment then!

I think precisely that this intention may become that of the priests who constantly say the New Mass. I think that at the end of one or two years, when they have said this New Mass, in the end, they really have the impression of saying a new Mass and not the traditional Mass. They no longer have this conception of saying the traditional Mass. I think there are some, however, a number of them, but few, who belong to these associations, such as that of Canon Quata or others, who resist and who have an intention contrary to what they are doing. It is unbelievable. It is unheard of to do such a thing, but because they believe that they are obliged to take this new rite because of their bishops, they are afraid of being dismissed or any possible reasons they can imagine and which, in my opinion, are worth nothing… but anyway, the facts are there. And certainly a good number of these priests say: I want to say the Mass of my ordination. I want to continue to have the intention that I always had during my priestly life and I want to, now, even with this rite, say the Mass of All Time. So in such cases, it is possible that these Masses are valid. But this is not a reason, and it is very serious to put oneself in this danger, to risk little by little the faith in the Sacrifice of the Mass, and in any case, to make their faithful lose it also. It is unacceptable for a priest, when he realizes this. But little by little, it is a question of habit. One forms one’s conscience and one no longer sees; one becomes blind.

This is why I think we must avoid going to these Masses.
And even if we must be without Masses for a month, we are without Masses for a month. Parents are explaining to their children why they do not go to Mass and if they make a long journey to go to Mass once a month … You know, in our missions we visited our faithful once every three months. Most of our faithful had Mass once every three months. In South America, I had the opportunity, as Superior General, to found a mission in Paraguay, in a little village called Lima; it is not the big city of Lima in Peru, but it is a little village. Incidentally, I received a letter from them four or five days ago, with all the stamps – the stamps of the president of the village, the president of this, the president of that; they all have magnificent stamps. And then it is signed, re-signed and countersigned to beg me: - But you gave us priests in the past. We had a very good priest in the person of Father Tchang who is a Trinidadian and who did us a lot of good, who kept good traditions. He was taken away from us. He was sent back to Trinidad and now we have a priest who is demolishing our whole religion. So we learned that you are making priests according to Tradition. Send us a priest like Father Tchang who did us so much good in Paraguay! ...

So, if there is one that is available! ...

But in those countries, when I arrived in Lima, they were visited once a year. And when I visited the Amazon where our Fathers had missions as well, some of these villages have only one visit every three years. Obviously it is not ideal, that is clear, but at least those people keep the Faith. They pray. On Sundays, they gather together: there is a catechist or a village chief, a president, who gathers them together – not like they do now to eliminate the priests, to remove the priests, to replace the priest by a layperson, but because there are no priests. So they pray; they sanctify Sunday. The priests give them prayers that they must recite, the Gospel that they read and recite. They get together, they pray, they sing, and they make a spiritual communion. They think of the Masses which are celebrated far away from them, but which are celebrated in the world. So this is a different thing than what they are doing now, to practically remove all the priests and replace them with laypeople because they no longer believe in the Mass. That is completely different.

So one can keep the Faith without going to Mass every Sunday, rather than going to a Mass which is more or less poisoned, which makes one risk losing the Faith.

But I think, however, since I do not believe, once again, that all these Masses are invalid, that on certain occasions, for the death of a close relative – in such a case, one does not go for the Mass, but one goes by filial piety, for example for one’s parents, one’s father, one’s mother, one’s brother, one’s sister … like one can possibly go to an Orthodox burial, like an Orthodox can come to assist also at our ceremonies, for extraordinary events.

But I think that we must be more and more severe and more and more radical on this subject because the Masses are always deteriorating a little; the Faith diminishes. And consequently, one is more and more likely to find oneself in front of a Mass which is not valid. So, to go to a doubtful Mass … I am not telling you, either, when you enter a Church – I suppose you visit the Church; you see the sanctuary lamp; you wonder if the Blessed Sacrament is present. You ask yourself: - Am I going to make a genuflection, because I do not know who said the Mass. Is it valid or not? … I believe that we can always make a genuflection, while saying: - My God, if You are present, I adore You. Rather than manifesting publicly, while saying: - No, I am making a genuflection because the Blessed Sacrament is certainly not there! If you are certain that the Blessed Sacrament is not there, you are not obliged to make a genuflection. But I think that if there is a doubt, it would be better, anyway, to make a genuflection, thinking that you are adoring Our Lord there, where He is present, and that if He is present, at least there is someone who adores Him, since they no longer adore Him now. They put Him aside and they no longer make gestures of adoration! So I think it would be better in such cases not to show, even to people who are there, a kind of attitude that may not be understood either! 

So you see, I think that the intention of the priest at Mass can be affected by a bad habit.

Print this item

  Pope St. Pius X Condemns Pope Francis
Posted by: Stone - 09-29-2022, 06:37 AM - Forum: Pope Francis - No Replies

Pope St. Pius X Condemns Pope Francis

TIA [slightly adapted] | November 22, 2014

As we daily witness the efforts of Pope Francis to diminish the importance of the Catholic Faith in order to promote a union of religions and a common action of religious or a-religious men working together for the solution to social problems, St. Pius X's condemnation of the errors of the Sillon movement comes to mind.

In fact, those errors condemned at the beginning of the 20th century as being opposed to the Catholic Faith and qualified as an apostasy in the Encyclical Notre Charge Apostolique were precisely the same we see Pope Francis is disseminating today. Thus, we have two opposed teachings: one according to the previous 1,900 years of the Magisterium, another, denying all this past and advocating a Panreligion. We are witnessing Pope against Pope; Church against Church.

Pope St Pius X

There was a time when the Sillon, as such, was truly Catholic. It recognized but one moral force - Catholicism; and the Sillonists proclaimed that Democracy would have to be Catholic or not exist at all. A time came when they changed their minds. They left to each one his religion or his philosophy. … For the construction of the Future City, they appealed to the workers of all religions and all sects. These were asked but one thing: to share the same social ideal, to respect all creeds, and to bring with them a certain amount of moral force. …

Accordingly, they ask all those who want to change today's society in the direction of Democracy, not to oppose each other on account of the philosophical or religious convictions that may separate them, but to march hand in hand; not renouncing their convictions, but trying to provide, on the ground of practical realities, the proof of the excellence of their personal convictions. …

What are we to think of this appeal to all the heterodox and to all the unbelievers to prove the excellence of their convictions in the social sphere in a sort of apologetic contest? … What are we to think of this respect for all errors, and of this strange invitation made by a Catholic to all the dissidents to strengthen their convictions by means of study so that they may have increasingly abundant sources of fresh forces? …

Alas! Yes, the ambiguity has been clarified: The social action of the Sillon is no longer Catholic. … But stranger still, alarming and saddening at the same time, are the audacity and frivolity of men who call themselves Catholics and dream of re-shaping society under such conditions, and of establishing on earth, over and beyond the pale of the Catholic Church, "the reign of love and justice" with workers coming from everywhere, of all religions and of no religion, with or without beliefs, so long as they forego what might divide them – their religious and philosophical convictions – and so long as they share what unites them

What are they going to produce? What is to come of this collaboration? A mere verbal and chimerical construction in which we shall see, glowing in a jumble and in seductive confusion, the words Liberty, Justice, Fraternity, Love, Equality and human exultation, all resting upon an ill-understood human dignity. It will be a tumultuous agitation, sterile for the end proposed, which will benefit the less utopian exploiters of the people. Yes, we can truly say that the Sillon, its eyes fixed on a chimera, brings Socialism in its train. …

And now, overwhelmed with the deepest sadness, We ask Ourselves, Venerable Brethren, what has become of the Catholicism of the Sillon? Alas! This organization which formerly afforded such promising expectations, this limpid and impetuous stream, has been harnessed in its course by the modern enemies of the Church, and is now no more than a miserable current of the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a Panreligion, which shall have neither dogmas nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind nor curbs for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would return to the world – if such a Church could conquer – the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak and of all those who toil and suffer.

(St. Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, §§ 30-36)

Print this item

  Let the Sword First Strike the Person, and then the Error He Defends
Posted by: Stone - 09-29-2022, 06:15 AM - Forum: Articles by Catholic authors - Replies (11)

Let the Sword First Strike the Person, and then the Error He Defends

TIA | November 20, 2010

"It is all well enough to make war on abstract doctrines," we often hear people say. “But, in combating error, even when it is very evident, it is wrong and even uncharitable to make attacks upon the persons who uphold such error.” This is a liberal position, Fr. Felix Sará y Salvani teaches us in his book Liberalism Is A Sin. To the contrary, it is often not only good to make a personal attack, but at times even indispensable and meritorious before God and men.

Fr. Felix Sardá y Salvani

Catholic apologists are often accused of entering the personal arena during debates. And when Liberals and those tainted with Liberalism hurl this accusation against one of us, they imagine that this charge is enough to condemn us.

But they deceive themselves. We are not so easily removed from the scene. We have reason – and quite substantial reason – on our side. In order to combat and discredit false ideas, we must make them look abhorrent and despicable to the same multitude they tried to convince and seduce. A disease cannot be separated from the persons who have it. The cholera threatening a country came in the persons infected with it. If we wish to exclude it, we must exclude them.

Now it so happens that ideas cannot be sustained by themselves in the air, nor do they spread or propagate by themselves. Left to themselves, they would never produce all the evil that harms society. It is only when they are applied by those who conceive them that they have an effect. Ideas are like the arrows and the bullets that would harm no one if they were not shot from the bow or the gun. It is the archer and the gunner, therefore, who should be the first target in our sight. Save for them, the fire would kill no one. Any other method of waging war, be it liberal or not, does not make sense.

The authors and propagators of heretical doctrines are soldiers with poisoned weapons in their hands. Their arms are the books, the newspapers, the public speeches and their personal influence. It is not enough to dodge the bullets they fire. The first thing necessary is to make the shooter himself ineffective so that he can do no more mischief.

It is, therefore, perfectly proper not only to discredit the book, journal or lecture of the enemy, but it can also be proper to discredit his person. For in warfare the principal element of the combat is the person engaged, just as the gunner is the principal factor in an artillery fight and not the cannon, powder or bomb.

It is thus lawful in certain cases to publicly display the infamy of a Liberal opponent, to present his customs to contempt, to drag his name in the mire. Yes, this is fully permissible, permissible in prose, in verse, in caricature, in either a serious or a light vein, by every means and method within reach. The only care we should take is to not to employ a lie in the service of justice. This, never. Under no pretext may we sully the truth, even to the dotting of an i. ….

The Fathers of the Church support this thesis. The very titles of their works clearly show that in their combats against heresies, their first blow was at the heresiarchs. Almost all the titles of St. Augustine’s works bear the name of the author of the heresy against which they are written: Adversus (Against) Fortunatum, Adversus Manichaean, Adversus Adamanctum, Adversus Felicem, Adversus Secundinum. Or, Quis fuerit Petriamus (Who is Petrianus?), De gestis Pelagii (About the Deeds of Pelagius), Quis fuerit Julianus, etc.

Thus we see that the greater part of the polemics of the great Augustine was personal, aggressive, and biographical as well as doctrinal, a hand-to-hand struggle with the heretic as well as the heresy. We could say the same about all the other Church Fathers.

What right do the Liberals have to impose on us the new obligation of fighting error only in the abstract and of lavishing smiles and flattery on them? We, the Ultramontanes, will fight our battles according to Catholic tradition and defend the faith as it has always been defended in the Church of God. When it strikes, let the sword of the Catholic polemist wound, and when it wounds, wound mortally. This is the only real and efficacious way to combat!

(Felix Sardá y Salvani, El Liberalism es pecado, Barcelona: 1960, pp. 60-62

Print this item

  Canada to allow China to open police stations in Canada to monitor Chinese nationals
Posted by: Stone - 09-29-2022, 05:52 AM - Forum: Global News - No Replies

Trudeau government allows China to open police stations in Canada to monitor Chinese nationals
A new report revealed that China has set up dozens of overseas “service stations” in order to police Chinese nationals living abroad, including three such facilities in Toronto.

PM [adapted] | Sep 28, 2022

On September 12, human rights watchdog Safeguard Defenders published their latest report on the phenomenon of Chinese transnational policing.

The group revealed that over the past year, China had set up dozens of overseas “service stations” in order to police Chinese nationals living abroad, including three such facilities in Toronto.

According to the report, Beijing has been attempting to “combat the growing issue of fraud and telecommunication fraud by Chinese nationals living abroad,” with 230,000 being “persuaded to return” to China to face criminal charges between April 2021 and July 2022 alone.

On September 2, a new law was passed in China giving the government more authority when it comes to handling online fraud committed by Chinese citizens overseas. It is set to come into effect on December 1.

One way the government keeps tabs on citizens in other countries is via the aforementioned “service stations,” which are operated by either the Fuzhou or Qingtian Public Security Bureaus.

According to the report, as of September 2022, there are fifty-four such stations located in thirty countries.

While most nations have only one or two stations, Canada is unique in that it has three, all located in Toronto.

According to the National Post, the locations of Toronto’s stations render them nearly invisible to the public. One is listed as a private home, the second a largely Chinese mall, and the third in the office of a Chinese non-profit. 

China has defended the practice of setting up what are essentially police stations in other countries, saying that the majority of the work done there is akin to what would take place at an embassy, however not many are convinced, given the regime’s record.

Safeguard Defenders pointed out in their report that while China’s actions were taken under the guise of fighting crime, in some cases citizens living overseas who had not been charged with anything were harassed, and eventually “persuaded” to return to China.

Charles Burton, who formerly served as a diplomat at the Canadian Embassy in Beijing, warned that China was “extending the grip of its Orwellian police state into this country,” and slammed Canada’s national security agencies for their lack of action.

Print this item

  CDC lifts mask recommendation for health facilities outside of high-transmission areas
Posted by: Stone - 09-29-2022, 05:40 AM - Forum: Pandemic 2020 [Secular] - No Replies

CDC lifts mask recommendation for health facilities outside of high-transmission areas
The federal government is relaxing standards long after the evidence discredited COVID masks.

Wed Sep 28, 2022
(LifeSiteNews [slightly adapted] ) – The U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) has quietly softened its COVID-19 recommendations yet again, now blessing healthcare facilities’ decisions not to require masking unless in areas where COVID transmission is especially prevalent.

Citing “high levels of vaccine-and infection-induced immunity and the availability of effective treatments and prevention tools,” the CDC’s September 23 guidance update says that “[w]hen SARS-CoV-2 Community Transmission levels are not high, healthcare facilities could choose not to require universal source control.”

“Source control” means “use of respirators or well-fitting facemasks or cloth masks to cover a person’s mouth and nose to prevent spread of respiratory secretions when they are breathing, talking, sneezing, or coughing.” The CDC defines “high” as greater than 100 new cases per 100,000 people within 7 days, and considers 68.5% of the country to be high-transmission areas.

In non-high areas, the CDC now recommends masking only if one has or is suspected to have COVID, has been in close contact to someone with COVID within ten days, works in part of a facility with high exposure, or has “otherwise had source control recommended by public health authorities.”

Early in the COVID pandemic, the federal government recommended wearing face coverings in the presence of others, advice which many states and localities used to impose mask mandates on a wide range of public gatherings. But evidence has long since shown that masking was largely ineffective at limiting the spread of the virus.

Among that evidence is the CDC’s September 2020 admission that masks cannot be counted on to keep out COVID when spending 15 minutes or longer within six feet of someone, and a May 2020 study published by CDC’s peer-reviewed journal Emerging Infectious Diseases that “did not find evidence that surgical-type face masks are effective in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza transmission, either when worn by infected persons (source control) or by persons in the general community to reduce their susceptibility.”

Last May, another study found that, though mandates effectively increased mask use, that usage did not yield the expected benefits. “Mask mandates and use (were) not associated with lower SARS-CoV-2 spread among U.S. states” from March 2020 to March 2021. In fact, the researchers found the results to be a net negative, with masks increasing “dehydration … headaches and sweating and decreas[ing] cognitive precision,” and interfering with communication, as well as impairing social learning among children. Dozens of studies have found the same.

Forced masking is particularly harmful for children, according to the data.

“The potential educational harms of mandatory-masking policies are much more firmly established, at least at this point, than their possible benefits in stopping the spread of COVID-19 in schools,” University of California-San Francisco epidemiologist professor Vinay Prasad wrote in September 2021. “Early childhood is a crucial period when humans develop cultural, language, and social skills, including the ability to detect emotion on other people’s faces. Social interactions with friends, parents, and caregivers are integral to fostering children’s growth and well-being.”

While government COVID-19 mandates remain far from resolved, Democrat leaders and public health officials have backed away from some of them as it became clear they were not only ineffective but deeply unpopular. In January, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky admitted the Biden administration’s decision to cut in half the isolation guidance for infected Americans based in part on “what we thought people would be able to tolerate.”

Print this item

  Experimenting With Feeding African Kids Worms, Locusts, and Flies
Posted by: Stone - 09-29-2022, 05:35 AM - Forum: Global News - No Replies

The British Government is Experimenting With Feeding African Kids Worms, Locusts, and Flies.

NP | SEPTEMBER 28, 2022

The British government is funding projects pushing Africans to farm and consume insects, including school-age children, in randomized trials, to assess their effects.

The United Kingdom Research and Innovation (UKRI) – a subsidiary of the country’s Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy – is responsible for backing the projects taking place in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Zimbabwe.

With a roughly $320,000 grant from the aid office, researchers in Zimbabwe will be experimenting with using mopane worms in porridge served to children in schools. Poor children aged seven to 11 in the towns of Gwanda and Harare will be fed the concoction derived from the caterpillars, which researchers allege are high in vitamins and minerals.

[Image: Screenshot-2022-09-28-at-4.42.49-PM-1536x760.png]


Ultimately, a randomized trial will be carried out to compare if children consuming insects perform better in school than their counterparts.

In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, researchers will use a roughly $55,000 grant to “promote the production of insects for human food and for use in the manufacture of animal feeds,” according to a synopsis from the Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Office’s development tracker website. The funds are being provided by the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development (Cafod).

Among the insects being pushed for consumption are caterpillars, migratory locusts, and black soldier flies. The project, which began in March and will conclude in December, is a response to water shortages allegedly due to stress placed on the environment from animal farming.

It is unclear whether or not the conclusion from the work in Africa will be applied back in the United Kingdom, though, experts in the field interviewed by mainstream media outlets have claimed it is likely.

Dr. Sarah Beynon, for example, the founder of the Bug Farm in Pembrokeshire and an academic entomologist, claimed these aid projects were “a sure way to save lives and improve nutrition of the poorest people on planet Earth,” while speaking with The Guardian.

“We are also actively encouraging people in the developed world to include insects in their diets,” she later added.

“With a population that has an appetite set to far exceed the planetary limits, and with current agriculture decimating biodiversity and changing the climate, we have no option but to change how we produce and consume food … and our views on the topic too,” Dr. Benyon continued.

Similarly, a spokesperson from the UKRI admitted:

“We support specific research projects with funding, but we anticipate that the learnings and knowledge gleaned will benefit citizens around the world irrespective of their economic status. The protein and environmental benefits of consuming insects have been widely reported globally.”

The unearthed grant is the latest example of the environment and climate being used as an excuse to push radical changes to traditional diets and farming practices.

Print this item

  Fr. Hewko's Sermons: Feast of St. Michael the Archangel - September 29, 2022
Posted by: Stone - 09-28-2022, 12:31 PM - Forum: September 2022 - No Replies

Feast of St. Michael the Archangel - September 29, 2022 - "Defend Us In Battle!" (MA)



Print this item

  Archbishop Lefebvre 1971 - The Fruits of the New Mass
Posted by: Stone - 09-28-2022, 10:04 AM - Forum: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre - No Replies

From the Archived Catacombs:


March 13, 1971

Taken from A Bishop Speaks, Writings and Addresses 1963-1976, Angelus Press, 2nd ed., 2007, pp. 97-99

Has the use of the Novus Ordo Missae, the central act of the liturgical reform, produced the salutary results expected of it, or has it had the disastrous consequences that might have been foreseen? The reply to this question will oblige us to consider the circumstances of this singular reform, unique in the history of the Church, and will enlighten us on our duty for the future. To assess the dogmatic, moral, and spiritual value of this reform, we must briefly recall the immutable principles of the Catholic Faith on the essential constituents of our Holy Mass:

1) “In Missa offertur Deo verum et proprium Sacrificium” (de fide divina catholica definita). -Those who would deny this proposition are heretics: “For every Sacrifice there are needed a Priest, a Victim, and a sacerdotal Action by which the Victim is offered.”
2) “In Missa et in Cruce eadem est Hostia et idem Sacerdos principalis” (de fide divina catholica definita).
3. “Hostia seu Victima est 'ipse Christus' praesens sub species panis et vini” (de fide divina catholica definita). -Those who would deny these last two propositions are equally heretics.

There are thus three realities needful for the reality of the Mass:
1) The Priest-Sacerodotes, illique soli, sunt ministri (de fide divina catholica), having the sacerdotal character.
2) The real and substantial presence of the Victim, who is Christ.
3) The sacerdotal Action of the sacrificial oblation which is realized essentially in the Consecration.

Let us not forget that it is precisely these three fundamental truths which are denied by Protestants and Modernists. Let us not forget that it is to manifest their refusal to believe in these dogmas that their Masses have been transformed into services, into a eucharistic meal or gathering, where a much greater place is given to readings from the Bible, to the word, to the detriment of the offering and the liturgy of the sacrifice.

Apart from a few slight and accidental advantages, or should we rather say the one advantage that may come from the reading of the Epistle and Gospel in the vernacular, we must sorrowfully maintain that, directly or indirectly, the whole reform [which is the Novus Ordo Missae] attacks these three truths essential to the Catholic Faith. It is not, then, a liturgical reform resembling that of St. Pius V which is in question; it is clearly a new conception of the Mass. The Reformers have made no secret of it. Fr. Bugnini’s normative Mass, as he explained in his lectures in Rome, is simply that defined in Article VII of the Introduction to the Novus Ordo Missae.

Everything laid down in this new order clearly reflects this new conception, which is nearer the Protestant conception than the Catholic. The statements of the Protestants who contributed to the reform illustrate the truth of this naively and sadly:

“Protestants can no longer find anything to prevent their celebrating the Novus Ordo”.

We may therefore quite legitimately ask ourselves whether, as the Catholic belief in the essential truths of the Mass insensibly disappears, the validity of the Mass is not also disappearing. The intention of the celebrant will have a bearing on the new conception of the Mass which, before long, will be no other than the Protestant. The Mass will no longer be valid.

Now, we must be fully persuaded that the Mass is not only the supreme religious act but the source of all Catholic doctrine, the source of faith and of personal, family, and social morals. It is from the Cross, continued on the Altar, that there come down to us all those graces which enable a Christian society to live and grow. To dry up that source is to do away with its effects.

These effects, which are the fruits of the Holy Spirit so eloquently described by St. Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians ('But the fruit of the Spirit is, charity, joy, peace, patience, benignity, goodness, longanimity.' Gal.5:22) are on the point of disappearing from society. There is division in all families; religious congregations and parishes are attacked by the virus of disunion. Even bishops, even cardinals have been infected.

The Catholic Mass had, and forever will have, the effect of raising men to the Cross, to unite them in our Lord Jesus Christ crucified, to weaken in them the turmoil of sin which leads to division. If the Cross of our Lord disappears, if His Body and Blood are no longer present, men will find themselves gathered about a lonely and lifeless table. Nothing to unite them will remain. Of that, no doubt, are born the weariness and lassitude which are everywhere becoming apparent; of that, the disappearance of vocations, felt to be bereft of purpose; of that, the secularization and profanation of the priest, no longer conscious of his reason for existing; of that, the desire for the things of this world. Little by little, by reason of this Protestant conception of Holy Mass, Jesus Christ is leaving the churches, all too often profaned.

The concept of this reform, the manner of its publication, with successive editions unduly altered, the way in which it was made obligatory, sometimes tyrannically as in Italy, the alteration in the definition of the Mass in Article VII without any effect on the rite itself, are all happenings unprecedented in the Tradition of the Roman Church, which has ever acted “cum consilio et sapientia.” They give us grounds for questioning the validity of this legislation and thus conform to Canon 23: “On a matter of doubt it is not permissible to revoke a law, but the recent law should be considered in the light of the former and the two reconciled as far as possible.”

One thing remains an absolute duty and right: the safeguarding of the Faith. Of this the Holy Mass is the most living expression and the divine source, hence its primordial importance.

Print this item

  Amsterdam diocese: 60% of churches need to close in five years
Posted by: Stone - 09-28-2022, 09:50 AM - Forum: Vatican II and the Fruits of Modernism - No Replies

Amsterdam diocese: 60% of churches need to close in five years
Almost 100 churches face imminent closure due to dwindling churchgoers, volunteers, and income.

[Image: Jan_Hendriks_-bisschop-.jpg]

Bishop Jan Hendriks in 2011. Maarten Jansen via Wikimedia (CC BY-SA 3.0).

Pillar Catholic [adapted] | September 26, 2022

A Catholic diocese in the Netherlands has announced that 60% of its churches need to close in the next five years due to dwindling churchgoers, volunteers, and income.

Bishop Jan Hendricks unveiled the plans for the Diocese of Haarlem-Amsterdam at a meeting with around 90 parish administrators on Sept. 10.

The diocese, which dates back to 1559, covers the province of North Holland, in the northwestern Netherlands, as well as the southern part of Flevoland province. It includes Amsterdam, the country’s capital and most populous city.

Hendricks, who has led the diocese since 2020, said it was clear “that the coronavirus pandemic has accelerated the process of shrinkage we were already in: faithful churchgoers of an advanced age have grown even older and have sometimes stopped attending church; others have become accustomed to a different format for Sunday mornings, volunteers have dropped out, choirs have stopped.”

Diocesan authorities said that 99 out of the current 164 Catholic churches would have to close in five years. Of the remaining 65 churches, 37 could continue for five to 10 years as “support churches,” leaving just 28 “central churches” considered viable in the long term.

Vicar general Msgr. Bart Putter told The Pillar on Sept. 26 that the diocese did not have a list of churches that needed to be closed, but hoped that local communities would designate “central churches.”

“The idea is to create 28 active places of evangelization. And we hope that the parish priests and parish boards can realize that,” he said.

Figures shared at the Sept. 10 meeting showed that Mass-goers had fallen from more than 25,000 in 2013 to 12,000 in 2021.

“The participation has declined sharply over many years. It’s not a recent development,” said Msgr. Putter, who noted that in the 1950s around 80% of the Catholic population attended Mass, compared to around 3% of 425,000 baptized Catholics in the diocese today.

The diocese, which has sought to reduce the number of churches since 2004, is known for its strong international Catholic communities in urban areas such as Amsterdam and Almere. A new church was opened last year in Almere, which is regarded as the newest city in the Netherlands.

Fr. Jan-Jaap van Peperstraten, a pastor based in the Alkmaar region of North Holland, told The Pillar that while a reduction in churches was necessary, rural Catholics were likely to be worst affected.

“We received our first letter from the diocese concerning this in May and it didn’t come as much of a surprise. We were in fact already in the planning phase of closing down one of our rural churches with a turn-up of maybe 15 every other week,” he said.

“We have been asked to close two churches in the next three years, and we will probably have to close one or two more in the two years following. This will be harder as there is no ‘natural process.’ Communities that still feel some vigor in them will have to be asked to wind down, and this is a difficult thing. It will take up a lot of time and energy to accompany everyone on this journey.”

Fr. van Peperstraten said that churchgoers might feel challenged by a “perceived volte-face” over church closures as the diocese had previously seemed to take “a very much hands-off approach.”

“To those ‘more in the loop,’ the change is less big,” he said. “We did feel this coming, and these are necessary decisions to make. Church attendance consistently halves every 10 years and has done for decades on end.”

The priest said he did not expect “massive protests” against the changes as there was a “widespread conviction in quite a few places that things are moving towards their end.”

“In 10 years, we’re looking at 30 larger parishes with a hopefully diverse offering of liturgies and activities — small parishes simply can’t offer this,” he said.

“A challenge in all of this will be that I fear all of the remaining parishes will be in urban areas. How will we service the countryside? I have no answer at this time.”

Msgr. Putter said that the concentration of churches in urban areas was unlikely to be a great obstacle to Catholics seeking to attend Mass in the coming years.

“The younger people and the families that we have, they are more than willing to drive 15, or 30, or 45 minutes to go to church,” he said. “So for them, it won’t be a problem in the future. And of course, the infrastructure here in the Netherlands is very good, so that’s not the problem.”

“In the past, every village, every part of the city, has had its own church, but that’s impossible to keep now, and people who really want to go to church now are more motivated than in the past. But it’s a smaller number.”

The Diocese of Haarlem-Amsterdam is not the only Dutch diocese facing financial struggles.

The Diocese of Roermond, in the traditional Catholic heartland of the southern Netherlands, has reportedly asked some parishes to cut back on Masses due to rising energy bills and a priest shortage.

Diocesan spokesman Matheu Bemelmans said: “Sometimes it’s simply not possible to find a priest to give a service at every church, every weekend. If there are churches with only a few visitors, we are saying: be practical and skip a week and ensure those people can follow Mass at another church.”

There are roughly 3.7 million Catholics in the Netherlands, representing 21.7% of the total population of almost 18 million. In 1970, Catholics accounted for almost 40% of the population.

Msgr. Putter said that the Diocese of Haarlem-Amsterdam hoped to see growth in the new city of Almere and other urban locations.

“In the city of Haarlem — that’s where I am also a parish priest — we created some really new movements in the diocese,” he commented. “Then there are two other places also in the diocese, more to the north. And of course Amsterdam city has many Catholics, but there are several churches. One is a parish church, another one is from the Jesuits, and there, people choose where they feel at home. It’s a different dynamic.”

Editor’s note: This report was updated to include comments from Msgr. Bart Putter, vicar general of the Diocese of Haarlem-Amsterdam.

Print this item

  Abp. Viganò: The Italian people have rejected globalism, now Prime Minister Meloni must deliver
Posted by: Stone - 09-28-2022, 05:41 AM - Forum: Archbishop Viganò - No Replies

Abp. Viganò: The Italian people have rejected globalism, now Prime Minister Meloni must deliver
We know that today’s politicians do not have the gift of honoring the commitments they have made to their electorate. Can we reasonably think that Giorgia Meloni will want to review her pro-globalist positions, returning to the role of being a true right-wing alternative to the woke left?

Sep 27, 2022
(LifeSiteNews) – The new political situation that emerges from the recent Italian elections confirms the common feeling of the electorate that some were able to grasp in advance. After two years of disturbing violations of the most elementary rights, and after two governments that have shown us that they are simply obeying the orders of supranational entities who act against the interests of Italy and the Italian people, the vote that has brought into power the so-called center-right, led by the political party Fratelli d’Italia, has unequivocally expressed support for a precise political line that goes far beyond the modest proposals of the program of the coalition parties.

This is evident above all from the fact that within this alliance there has been a redistribution of consensus in favor of that party that has been instinctively deemed worthy of the vote as the only opposition party. A very moderate opposition, but still an opposition, more in the perception of the average citizen than in reality.

The so-called “anti-system” parties, fragmented and convinced that they could overcome the three-percent barrier that would have permitted them sitting in Parliament, have about one million voters when taken all together. This is due both to the decision – by no means a coincidence – of the resigning government to convene the electoral rallies in the middle of summer; as well as to the very low visibility granted to them by the mainstream media; and to the lack of consistency of their program, whose credibility and feasibility seemed unconvinced and therefore destined to the dispersion of the vote.

Another hard-hearted guest is the abstentionist party, which stands at around 36 percent, but which sees within itself different and opposite motivations difficult to reduce to simply a generic “dissent.” It is therefore completely out of place, in my opinion, to mobilize abstention politically, attributing its representation in phantom non-voting parties, precisely because the choice not to go to the polls also implies the choice of not having any political representation.

Certainly, most of the abstainers express the will not to accept taking part in a game, so to speak, in which the rules are decided by others. But to these must also be added those who do not vote due to trivial disinterest, or more simply – and this seems to me to be the case of the majority – because they are disgusted by a political class that has proven to be unworthy and corrupt beyond words. In this, Fratelli d’Italia was partly saved because it had the caution to remain in the opposition, often inert or complicit, but at least officially outside the outgoing Draghi government.

On the other hand, the Partito Democratico [PD], the emblem of the radical chic Left that has never been sufficiently abhorred – and which has replaced the class struggle against the bosses with the struggle between those who are poor fueled by the globalist elite – has not been saved either.

The Democraticos have combined the worst of communist collectivism with the worst of consumer liberalism, in the name of an agenda that benefits the high finance lobby using emergencies like pandemics, energy crises, and wars with the sole purpose of destroying the traditional social fabric. Not that the other parties present together with the PD in the last government were better: the blow suffered in the elections by Lega, Forza Italia, and other minor parties is directly proportional to the ways in which they have betrayed those who have voted for them. And if the absolute inconsistency of Minister of Foreign Affairs Luigi Di Maio was definitively sanctioned by his lack of re-election, it is clear that former Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte was able to benefit from the incentive – at the limit of the exchange vote – of the citizenship income: his demonstrated ineptitude did not change the voting intentions of a bevy of far from disinterested clients.

Many of the votes lost by the PD have poured into Fratelli d’Italia, and this further confirms the expectations of those who have chosen the right-wing of Giorgia Meloni not for what it is, but for what it potentially can be; not for what she has said it will do, but for what everyone actually expects her to do. They voted for Meloni to defend those sound basic principles of civil coexistence, palely inspired by the social doctrine of the Catholic Church, but which Italians are not willing to give up: protection of the natural family, respect for life, security and the fight against illegal immigration, an end to gender and “LGBTQ+” indoctrination for minors, freedom of enterprise, the presence of the state in strategic assets, a greater weight in European affairs and – God willing! – the exit from the euro and the return to national sovereignty.

In short, Meloni is expected to behave like the leader of a moderate right-wing party, tendentially conservative, moderately sovereigntist. Nothing extreme – certainly not extreme Right – in spite of the alarmist proclamations of the Left; but at least not aligned with a NATO-prone Atlanticism or the suicidal Europeanism that characterized the action of the Draghi government, nor elected out of ideological fury against the destruction of civilization, culture, religion, and the identity of the Italian people.

According to some observers, the new movements – either deliberately or simply allowing themselves to be used by the system – have merely formed a fictitious opposition, making them prefer the logic of “holding their noses” by voting for Fratelli d’Italia. But in truth there are actually two fictitious oppositions: one internal to the system, Atlanticist and pro-European, and one external and divided into various parties, nominally anti-European and anti-Atlanticist, but composed of characters with a past that is inconsistent, to say the least, with the new programs. Many candidates of these anti-system movements were certainly honest people, largely homines novi, but it is undeniable that their presence has failed to convince those who consider it urgent not only to give a signal of strong discontent, but to see this discontent translate in the short term into incisive and determined government actions that remedy the disasters of the two previous legislatures.

Lega and Forza Italia have had a significant hemorrhage of voters, in my opinion motivated by the prostration of their leaders and key figures on the pandemic narrative and the Ukrainian crisis: Matteo Salvini and Silvio Berlusconi decided to obey the European Union (EU), the World Health Organization, NATO, and the diktats of their World Economic Forum puppet masters. An evil choice, as we have seen, which has been severely punished at the polls, but which remains largely shared also by Giorgia Meloni, who is a member of the Aspen Institute (which is part of the Rockefeller Foundation) and is openly Atlanticist and pro-European.

In essence, the disconnect between voters and elected representatives, between citizens and the political class, has been repeated in the form of “desire,” so to speak, attributing to Fratelli d’Italia a role that the party itself has declared for weeks that it does not want to assume, since it does not intend to question either the policies of the EU or the aims of NATO and the American deep state. It is as if the average Italian had decided to vote for Meloni despite her being openly in continuity with the Draghi agenda, as if to force her hand so that – by virtue of an overwhelming majority – she gets bold and takes those steps that until the eve of the elections she promised not to take.

And just as there are some who fear that Meloni will behave “like a fascist” and who for this reason cry out for the democratic emergency threatening expatriation, so there are many – certainly all the voters of Fratelli d’Italia – who hope and pray that she acts as an Italian, as a patriot, and as a Christian. And they will know how to overlook the fact that in order to get to the Palazzo Chigi [the see of the prime minister] she gave reassurances that in reality she could deny in fact. It remains to be seen whether the first female prime minister will be able to distinguish herself from her predecessors or if she will prefer to bow to the deep state and continue the betrayal of the Italian people.

On the other hand, if the democratic vote must sanction those who represent the will of the sovereign people, Meloni herself cannot fail to take into account the fact that her voters demand radical choices from her, and that they consider her pre-election moderation simply as a strategic move to reassure “the markets.” Choices that even many members of Lega and Forza Italia would look upon favorably, beyond the vaccine or warmongering zeal of this or that parliamentarian or governor.

Salvini’s own words of remorse – just a few days before the vote – regarding the approval of lockdowns and the vaccine obligation betray his awareness that the deliberate suicide of these parties by their leaders has been badly digested by the grassroots. The same thing is happening in Fratelli d’Italia, where Meloni’s position on sending arms to Ukraine and on sanctions against Russia is not shared by one part of her party, both because it is blatantly self-defeating and because it is based on the false supposition that the international interlocutors will remain the same, without any significant changes. It is not absolutely certain that the Democrats will retain power in the U.S. mid-term elections in November, or that the investigations of Special Counsel John Durham will not involve President Joe Biden and his family, along with other Democrat politicians, in the scandals that are now emerging in the American mainstream. And it is not certain that the interventionist policy of the EU and NATO in Ukraine will remain unchanged in the face of evidence of the repeated bombardments by Zelensky against the civilians in Donbass and the Russian-speaking regions of Ukraine, in the face of the success of referendums calling for annexation by Russia, and the way that sanctions [against Russia] have been a total disaster for European countries.

Finally, the contiguity of the Biden administration with Kiev could lead to a chain reaction of changes, in which Biden sees the precarious electoral consensus he enjoys further eroded, making support for the puppet government desired by Biden’s Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland cease and consequently allowing for peace negotiations which, until now, have been stubbornly hindered by Washington. And given Donald Trump’s political clout and his declared hostility to the American deep state, a peacemaking deal would certainly be closer and more enduring if he were to return to the White House.

We know that today’s politicians do not have the gift of honoring the commitments they have made to their electorate. Nonetheless, can we reasonably think that Italy’s next prime minister will want to review her pro-Atlantic and European positions, returning to the role of being a true right-wing alternative to the hegemony of ordoliberalism and the woke left? In this case, it would be the voters who would benefit from it, and those who saw themselves “betrayed” would have no right to claim the violation of Italy’s pacts of submission to the European Commission, since they had no right to stipulate them in the first place. The “betrayal” of the powers hostile to Italy would be a virtuous action, since it would restore the sovereignty that has been usurped by the elite.

Conversely, obeying the elite and not following the interests of the nation would be an act of betrayal by the new government against those who have voted it into power. If the elite can be expected to boycott Italy (by means of spreads, interest rates, withdrawal of the Italian National Recovery and Resilience Plan [PNRR]) it is to be feared that the people, betrayed for the umpteenth time, in a condition of growing poverty and the deliberate persecution of businesses and workers, will barricade and protest as a result of their exasperation, something that we see the first signs of in other countries. In evaluating the costs and benefits, I want to hope that the Meloni government will not want to be complicit in this subversive operation which damages our country.

It is difficult to believe that the financial oligarchy has not taken this possibility into account. It is easier to believe that it was precisely in order to manage the exit strategy and contain the damage both on the front of the pandemic and vaccine fraud as well as on the front of the Great Reset, the digital transition and the green emergency that is strongly desired by the World Economic Forum (for ideological reasons) and by China (for economic reasons).

It seems to me that many people are becoming aware of the very serious coup d’état that is being carried out by supranational powers, capable of interfering with a heavy hand with the activities of governments and international bodies. The world of business and work is beginning to understand the deliberate action of destruction of the national economic fabric that has been carried out, first by COVID and then by the war in Ukraine. Every decision, every rule, every decree imposed by Draghi – with or without a parliamentary vote – has been deliberately chosen in order to cause the greatest damage possible for citizens, for companies, for employees, for pensioners, and for students. Anything that would have avoided deaths, full hospitals, closed businesses, and increases in unemployment has been scientifically excluded, carrying out instead whatever action would be most devastating, in blatant contrast to the announced goals.

Today we see thousands of companies which consume vast amounts of energy destined to suspend production or completely close down because the outgoing Draghi government does not intend to stop the scandalous speculation of [Italian multinational oil company] ENI on the price of energy that it also pays for at prices that are ten times lower. The market is being allowed to reign unchallenged, so that the Amsterdam stock exchange can destroy the economy of nations, disproportionately enrich multinational corporations, and serve the interests of the elite that is pressing for the establishment of a technological dictatorship in compliance with the United Nations’ Agenda 2030. An agenda that, today, is the object of indoctrination in the schools beginning in the elementary grades, and which ties PNRR funding to reforms and new unsustainable spending cuts.

If the globalist narrative is beginning to show signs of abating, especially among the classes that are normally the most influenced by the mainstream, those who hold power – real power, I mean – have probably already prepared for the next scenario, and are organizing a plan to sacrifice the scapegoats who, inevitably, the crowd will want to see on the chopping block. It will thus get rid of those inconvenient accomplices who are no longer useful, satisfying the people’s thirst for justice and even presenting themselves in the role of savior and moral authority.

The chosen victims will clearly be the most zealous apostles of the psycho-pandemic, the “virostars” [fake celebrity virologists] in conflicts of interest, some institutional representatives and perhaps a few “philanthropists” whom by condemnation the elite could also eliminate as their most annoying competitors. And it is not to be excluded that Bergoglio himself, the endorser of gene serums and the high priest of neo-pagan globalism, will fall victim to the execration of Catholics, who are tired of being treated as enemies, just as citizens are exasperated by the hostility of their rulers.

Giorgia Meloni is, for the moment, a potential prime minister. She is such for those who expect Fratelli d’Italia to be the voice of that true and motivated dissent against the entire political class and, as such, acts with strength and determination without allowing itself to be intimidated. She is a potential prime minister for those who have decided to grant her the trust that others have repeatedly disappointed and betrayed. This is an irrational gesture, motivated by growing concern for the fate of the nation and by the idea that an overwhelming majority in Parliament can give the new government certainty of action to make strong choices, for which it will obtain support from the electorate, to which it must respond as an expression of the will of the people. She is a potential prime minister because the two preceding prime ministers were anything but leaders, since they were simply the serving boys for Ursula Von der Leyen, Klaus Schwab, or Joe Biden.

If Giorgia Meloni really wants to be prime minister in actuality and not only potentially, she must first of all stand up against those who have not been elected by anyone and yet presume the power of giving stamps of political presentability to democratically elected heads of government whenever they find themselves in very serious conflicts of interests, beginning with Von der Leyen’s text messages to Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla [negotiating a megadeal for vaccines], continuing with the membership of world leaders in the World Economic Forum and concluding with Biden’s involvement in the financing of NASA biolabs in Ukraine and in the affairs of the main energy company in Kiev.

Italy is a nation that can recover, as it has always done in the past, if she learns how to recover the pride of her true identity, her true history, and her true destiny in the plans of divine providence. For decades, the Italian people have suffered as a result of decisions taken elsewhere, which have brought them nothing but damage and humiliation. The moment has come to raise our heads, to reject with disdain the “resilience” that requires us to be beaten without reacting.

The dystopian world of globalism must be rejected and fought against not only for our own sakes, but also for the sake of our children, to whom each of us wishes to leave a peaceful future with solid economic prospects for raising a family, without feeling marginalized or criminalized because we do not accept resigning ourselves to subversive plans that have been made by those who want to make us eat insects and force us into slavery, with the sole purpose of making us poor and controlling us in every aspect of our daily lives.

But this – I say this as a pastor, addressing myself in particular to Catholics – will be possible only if Italians recognize that the justice, peace, and prosperity of a nation can be obtained only where Christ reigns, where His law is observed, and where the common good is placed ahead of personal profit and the thirst for power. Let us turn to the Lord, and the Lord will know how to reward our faithfulness. Let us turn with confidence to Mary Most Holy, our Heavenly Mother, asking her to intercede with Her Son for our beloved Italy.

+ Carlo Maria Vigano, Archbishop.

27 September, 2022

Ss. Cosmæ et Damiani, Martyrum

Print this item

  Archbishop Lefebvre: Model Against Subversion
Posted by: Stone - 09-27-2022, 05:39 AM - Forum: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre - No Replies

Taken from the Archived Catacombs:

Archbishop Lefebvre: Model Against Subversion

Taken from the article, “Subversion,” in Le Chardonnet, June 2009[slightly adapted]

Providentially, Archbishop Lefebvre knew how to respond to subversion within the Church thanks to personal assets:

- a tried virtue which sheltered him from a careerist spirit

- a solid spirit of Faith which protected him from the “songs of the mermaids” of Modernism

- a clear, simple, strong preaching which marked minds and avoided confusion or the misappropriation of his words

- a long experience with the Roman Curia which immunized him against the snares of Vatican diplomacy

- a tenacity and a Christian optimism which kept him from all defeatism or irenicism*

- a practical sense which allowed him to effectively fight against disorder

These effective measures were the adequate response to subversion:

- against the destruction of the clerical elite, the solid formation of true priests and the foundation of schools and colleges

- against the fragmentation of individuals (priests and faithful), the creation of the Society and the establishment of priories and associations grouping together isolated forces

Let us finally add that at the height of this crisis of authority that the Church experienced, his personal sanctity as well as his competence made him – against his will - the providential leader capable of uniting Catholic resistance, and bringing to this order, a proud fortification erected against subversion.

* "irenicism" in Christian theology refers to attempts to unify Christian apologetical systems by using reason as an essential attribute. (from Wikipedia)

Print this item