Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
Online Users |
There are currently 312 online users. » 1 Member(s) | 309 Guest(s) Bing, Google
|
Latest Threads |
Bishop appointed by Commu...
Forum: Socialism & Communism
Last Post: Stone
9 minutes ago
» Replies: 0
» Views: 1
|
Dr. Marian Horvat: The Tw...
Forum: General Commentary
Last Post: Stone
14 minutes ago
» Replies: 0
» Views: 2
|
German [District] Superio...
Forum: The New-Conciliar SSPX
Last Post: Stone
18 minutes ago
» Replies: 0
» Views: 1
|
Thursday Night Holy Hour ...
Forum: Appeals for Prayer
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 03:25 PM
» Replies: 7
» Views: 1,934
|
The Catholic Trumpet: ‘We...
Forum: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 08:32 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 59
|
Purgatory Explained by th...
Forum: Resources Online
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 07:55 AM
» Replies: 32
» Views: 2,725
|
Swiss church installs AI ...
Forum: Vatican II and the Fruits of Modernism
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 07:47 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 59
|
The Declaration of 1974: ...
Forum: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 07:42 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 39
|
Feast of the Presentation...
Forum: Our Lady
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 07:37 AM
» Replies: 5
» Views: 10,672
|
Fr. Ruiz: Renewal of the ...
Forum: Rev. Father Hugo Ruiz Vallejo
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 07:34 AM
» Replies: 11
» Views: 793
|
|
|
Pope Francis skips Sign of the Cross to impart blessing ‘valid for all religions’ |
Posted by: Stone - 09-05-2024, 02:44 AM - Forum: Pope Francis
- Replies (1)
|
|
Pope Francis skips Sign of the Cross to impart blessing ‘valid for all religions’
Pope Francis' deliberate avoidance of making the sign of the cross when imparting a closing blessing to young people in Indonesia has raised eyebrows. Others have praised him for being sensitive to the local Muslim culture.
Pope Francis gestures to the sky, during a meeting with Scholas Occurrentes in Jakarta.
Vatican News stream/screenshot
Sep 4, 2024
JAKARTA, Indonesia (LifeSiteNews) — Concluding a meeting with young people of different creeds in Jakarta, Pope Francis gave a blessing without invoking the Trinity, which he said was “valid for all religions.”
At the close of his first full day of appointments in Indonesia, Pope Francis took part in an assembly of participants of the Scholas Occurrentes community, an international organization launched by Francis in Argentina in 2001.
Having engaged in a back-and-forth dialogue with some of the young people involved, the Pope announced he would impart a final blessing. With the group being composed of a number of different religions – Scholas is not a Catholic organization – Francis’ blessing assumed a multi-religious nature.
“I would like to give a blessing. A blessing signifies to say well, to wish something well,” he began. Continuing his prayer of blessing to the assembled crowd, which included Catholics and Muslims, Francis added:
Quote:Here, you are from diverse religions, but we have only one god, he is only one.
And in union, in silence, we shall pray to the lord and I shall give a blessing for all, a blessing valid for all religions.
May God bless each of you.
May he bless all your desires.
May he bless your families.
May he bless you present (here).
May he bless your future. Amen.
In closing, Francis did not make the Sign of the Cross as is standard practice for a Catholic cleric when giving a blessing, or did he invoke the name of the Holy Trinity.
Indonesia is composed of a heavily Islamic population: 87% are Muslim with only 3% being Catholic. Given this fact, Francis’ avoidance of making the Sign of the Cross or invoking the name of the Trinity was praised by TV streaming translators, who lauded his sensitivity in the predominantly Muslim nation.
However, Catholic teaching denotes that “the Church imparts blessings by invoking the name of Jesus, usually while making the holy Sign of the Cross of Christ.”
The Sign of the Cross, which invokes by name each of the three persons of the Trinity, is a markedly Christian action since other creeds professing one god – Islam and Judaism – do not accept God as Trinity.
Traditional catechetical manuals outline that the Sign of the Cross “is the outward sign which distinguishes the Christian from other men.” The liturgical rubrics also note how the sign of the cross is a key part of a blessing.
The Sign of the Cross’ use in the Catholic Church dates back to the earliest days, as attested to by St. Basil the Great, who wrote that the practice was handed down from the Apostles who “taught us to mark with the sign of the cross those who put their hope in the Lord.”
The profound significance and importance of the Sign of the Cross was recently expounded on by Francis himself during his June 4 Sunday Angelus address for the feast of the Holy Trinity.
Speaking to the crowd in St. Peter’s Square, Francis commented:
Quote:By tracing the cross on our body, we remind ourselves how much God loved us, to the point of giving his life for us; and we repeat to ourselves that his love envelops us completely, from top to bottom, from left to right, like an embrace that never abandons us. And at the same time, we commit ourselves to bear witness to God-as-love, creating communion in his name.
During his 2023 Angelus address, Francis urged Catholics to make the Sign of the Cross in order to promote knowledge of God: “Does one breathe the air of home, or do we resemble more closely an office or a reserved place where only the elect can enter? God is love, God is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and he gave his life for us. This is why we make the Sign of the Cross.”
Francis’ recent decision not to use the Sign of the Cross when addressing the Scholas group has sparked some controversy and been critiqued as promoting religious “syncretism.” As already noted, his trip to Indonesia particularly will be marked by a focus on interreligious dialogue in the heavily Muslim nation.
|
|
|
St. Michael the Archangel statue in Brazil will be largest Christian monument in the world |
Posted by: Stone - 09-05-2024, 02:39 AM - Forum: General Commentary
- No Replies
|
|
St. Michael the Archangel statue in Brazil will be largest Christian monument in the world
The St. Michael the Archangel sculpture in Brazil will tower over the city of São Miguel Arcanjo, and will stand at 187 feet high, making it the largest Christian statue in the world.
St. Michael the Archangel statue sits atop Castel Sant'Angelo, Rome, Italy
Viacheslav Lopatin/Shutterstock
Sep 4, 2024
SÃO MIGUEL ARCANJO, São Paulo (LifeSiteNews) — Construction has begun on the St. Michael the Archangel sculpture which will tower over the city of São Miguel Arcanjo in Brazil.
The St. Michael the Archangel sculpture, being built in São Miguel Arcanjo, a rural northern region of the state of São Paulo, will stand at 187 feet high, which will make it the largest Christian statue in the world.
“It will be a great strength for the devotees of St. Michael to be able to be here in the city consecrated by him, to be able to pray at his feet and to be able to live this experience of going to Monte Gargano being in Brazil,” parish priest and rector of the Basilica of St. Michael the Archangel Fr. Márcio Giordany Costa de Almeida told Catholic news outlet Aleteia.
“All this is integrated into the concept of the project and will strengthen the devotion to St. Michael the Archangel in the country,” he added.
Set to be completed in 2026, the statue will be the largest Christian statue in the world. Currently, the statue of St. Rita, in Santa Cruz, Rio Grande do Norte, is said to hold this position standing at 184 feet, including the base.
The sculpture will depict the archangel holding a sword in his right hand and a scale in his left, while standing on top of a large pedestal.
The project is part of a religious complex called “The Archangel’s Grotto.” The grotto, which will have a 12,000-seat capacity, will include confessionals, a Marian grotto, a candle room, a miracle room, a museum of sacred art, a devotional pavilion, and an auditorium. The area will also have a food court and a parking lot.
The location for the grotto was chosen based off of an Italian sanctuary in Monte Gargano, where St. Michael appeared four times.
“A partnership was established with Monte Gargano in October last year. We became sister churches. We presented the project to them, and they liked it very much! The idea is to bring Monte Gargano to Brazil,” Fr. Márcio Giordany Costa de Almeida explained.
Additionally, the people of Brazil have a special devotion to St. Michael, who guarded them during the Constitutionalist Revolution of 1932.
According to local oral tradition, the archangel appeared there three times during the Revolution to keep the two armies apart and tell them when the war had ended.
St. Michael is the angel typically associated with battle, since he fought Lucifer and the other fallen angels, forcing them into hell.
|
|
|
Bishop Williamson: Then Or Now? |
Posted by: Stone - 09-04-2024, 08:32 AM - Forum: True vs. False Resistance
- No Replies
|
|
Taken from The Recusant #62 - Autumn 2024 [slightly adapted]:
Of course, as always there will be no public answer to this question. But that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be asked:
Bishop Williamson: Then Or Now?
If you speak to someone who tells you that he is a supporter of Bishop Williamson, you have the right to probe a little deeper. Try the following question: which Bishop Williamson do you support: the Bishop Williamson of back then or the Bishop Williamson of now?
THEN:
Here is what the old Bishop Williamson used to say concerning the New Mass:
- “Take for instance the Novus Ordo Mass. The New Rite as a whole so diminishes the expression of essential Catholic truths...that it is as a whole so bad that no priest should use it, nor Catholic attend it.” (Eleison Comments #387)
- “The New Mass is in any case illicit. In any case, it’s designed to please Protestants, it’s designed to undo Catholicism. It’s intrinsically offensive to God, it’s intrinsically evil. That’s how it was designed and that’s how it turned out. … If the New Mass is valid but illicit, may I attend? NO! The fact that it’s valid does not mean it’s ok to attend.” (See The Catacombs; see also audio, here)
That was the old Richard Williamson, the one whom Archbishop Lefebvre chose to become a bishop. Had he spoken back then the way he speaks now, he would not have been chosen and would in all likelihood have been disciplined and, if obstinate, thrown out. The new Richard Williamson contradicts the old Richard Williamson. If you side with the old Richard Williamson, then the cult followers, sycophants and hangers-on of the new Bishop Williamson will attack you for it, including behind your back. If you are a priest who sides with the old Bishop Williamson, then you can expect the new Bishop Williamson to maintain a sacramental blockade against your faithful.
NOW:
What does the new Bishop Williamson teach concerning the same question?
- “Bishop Williamson: There are a number of decent priests still operating as decent priests inside the Novus Ordo… if you look somewhere in your area within reach of your car’s petrol tank, your gasoline tank, you will find, somewhere, you will find a decent Novus Ordo priest. … I believe there are some who do understand it and who still want to practice as good priests. Now, they’re forced to celebrate the New Mass. …
Interviewer: People who go to those [Novus Ordo] Masses, in the vast majority of cases, are of a liberal mindset, they go into the church and come out and answer a survey saying: abortion is acceptable in some circumstances, homosexuality is acceptable, this is acceptable. You, your excellency, are asking me, in this heresy, in this just absolute cesspool of heresy, to try to maybe find some priest which I don’t even think exists, to hear my confession. But to me it is so obvious that this whole thing is fake! How can I participate in it? It’s fake! This has nothing to do with Vatican I, it has nothing to do with the teachings of Pius X, it’s got nothing to do with Pius IX, it has nothing to do with Thomism. It’s Protestantism and Communism. So how can I even approach this as an honest Catholic?
Bishop Williamson: OK, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, I understand where you’re coming from. I only say, I think there’s a little more white around you and available if you look for it than you believe. … but don’t believe that you’re up against a world in which everything is either black or, well I’m sorry, in which all of the grey is all black. No, if it’s grey, then there’s some white mixed in with the black. It’s your business to sort out the white from the black, to frequent the white as you say, not to frequent the black, not to go along with the black, not to go along with this fake religion as you quite rightly say. The new religion of Vatican II is a fake religion, no question about it, and it’s at war with the true religion. I’m obviously not saying go along with the new religion. What I’m saying is: I do believe in the terrible mixture of grey and black that exists, in this vale of tears, that’s almost everywhere in this vale of tears … Now you say that the Novus Ordo is all completely gone and rotten. I understand and you can’t afford to eat a half-poisoned cake. I understand. But if the cake is half-poisoned then there’s half of it that isn’t poisoned. And if you’re using your mind a point comes when you can begin to distinguish what is poisoned and what isn’t. So when you come to applying - the principles are absolute but their application is - the principles are in black and white, no mixture, but the application is in a world of greys, so when it comes to applying the principles you’ve got to - [talks about Novus Ordo miracles] . . .
I’m obviously not pushing the new religion. What I'm saying is that there is still part valid in the new religion along side all that is fake. I may well admit readily that in many cases there’s much more fake than there still is validity. That’s not the question. The question is what you should do where you are. And have you got to stay away from every anything that’s got anything to do with the Novus Ordo. My answer to that absolute question is: no. You don’t have to stay absolutely away. I’m not saying follow the new religion. I’m saying you’re young and you’re strong, you can drive around the diocese. That SSPX priest probably knows some conservative priest in the area, probably. Ask him.” (Youtube interview, 4th August, 2022)
- “There are cases where even the Novus Ordo Mass can be attended with an effect of building one’s Faith instead of losing it. … Be very careful with the Novus Ordo … But, exceptionally, if you’re watching and praying, even there you may find the grace of God. If you do, make use of it in order to sanctify your soul.” (Mahopac, New York, 28th June 2015)
- “I do not say that every person should stay away from every single Novus Ordo Mass.” (Ibid.)
- “I don’t say to everybody inside the Novus Ordo, priests and laity, I don’t say: ‘You’ve got to get out!'" (St. Catharine’s, Ontario, 5th November 2014)
- “The Novus Ordo is false, but it’s not only false, it’s part true part false. The false part is very dangerous, but the true part enables souls to keep the Faith.” (Veneta Oregon, 19th September, 2016)
- “Therefore, it seems to me, if James is convinced that to save his soul he must stay in the Newchurch, I need not hammer him to get out of it.” (Eleison Comments #348)
- “As an essential part of the subjective and ambiguous religion, the Novus Ordo Mass can be what you make of it. A priest can celebrate it decently, a Catholic can attend it devoutly.” (Eleison Comments #447)
- “Question: Then, does it mean that those knowing what they know, such as the souls here could go to that [Novus Ordo Mass] and expect to receive grace?
- Bishop Williamson: If anybody here who knows what the Novus Ordo means went back to the Novus Ordo - pffff! - then [pause] - why would they want to go back?
[laughter] Well, it’s, I would - they can receive grace. But they have to judge the priest…” (Emmett, Kansas, 18th September, 2016)
- “I’m sure you ask yourselves: ‘What kind of word are my children going to have to grow up in? How are they going to keep the Faith?’ Very good questions. By prayer and Charity and by frequenting the sacraments, so long as they are still available, so long as it’s at all still possible to reach the sacraments. And some Novus - I’ve got into quite a lot of controversy for saying this, but it’s true - there is no question that some Novus Ordo Masses are valid. And if they’re valid, then it’s defined by the Council of Trent that grace passes, “ex opere operato” is the strict phrase.” (Vienna, Virginia, 20th May 2016)
Summary
Bishop Williamson Then: The New Mass is evil! Don’t go to it!
Bishop Williamson Now: Go to the New Mass! You’ll Get Grace There!
Conclusion:
Catholics who live in contradiction are Catholics who are living a lie. One characteristic of the truth is that it does not change, because God does not change. If someone who used to tell you that the New Mass is evil and must be avoided now says that you can go to it and receive grace there, that person has gone astray and you must not listen to his advice.
|
|
|
Archbishop Lefebvre 1988: Conference in Sierre, Switzerland |
Posted by: Stone - 09-03-2024, 08:50 AM - Forum: Sermons and Conferences
- No Replies
|
|
Taken from The Recusant, Issue #62 - Autumn 2024 [slightly adapted]:
This conference was given by Archbishop Lefebvre at the priory in Sierre, Switzerland, on 27th November 1988, just a few months after the episcopal consecrations. The title (“Le libéralisme, le pire ennemi de l’Église”) and subtitles are from Fideliter in which it first appeared. The remainder of the text is as it was spoken. The translation is our own.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:
“Liberalism, the Church’s Worst Enemy!”
This year has been full of sensational events and serious decisions, both for me and for you, who are suffering the consequences because of your attachment to the Society and to Tradition. Why such decisions? Because the situation is very serious. It is not twenty years old, but it is very old.
THE SUPPORTERS OF THE ALLIANCE BETWEEN THE CHURCH AND THE REVOLUTION
After the French Revolution, some wanted to come to terms with the principles of the Revolution and compromise with the enemies of the Church; others refused this arrangement because Our Lord Jesus Christ warned us: ‘He who is not with me is against me’. If you are for the reign of Jesus Christ, then, you are against His enemies. To begin with, there were those who claimed that it was possible not to speak of Our Lord while continuing to love Him, so that they could make alliances and pacts. But the popes, right up to the Second Vatican Council, disapproved.
JESUS CHRIST ONLY GOD, ONLY KING
Our Lord is our King, our God. He must therefore reign supreme, not only in private over our persons, but also in our families, our villages and the whole country. In any case, whether we like it or not, one day He will be our Judge: when He comes on the clouds to judge the whole world, all men will be on their knees, Buddhists, Muslims, everyone. For there are not many gods, but only one, as we sing in the Gloria: Tu solus sanctus, Tu solus Altissimus Jesu Christe. He came down from heaven to save us, He reigns in heaven, we will see Him when we die.
DIVISION AMONG CATHOLICS - THE ‘LIBERAL CATHOLICS’
The French Revolution brought about a real division, which had already begun with the Protestants. A whole class of intellectuals rose up against Our Lord, in a veritable diabolical plot against His reign, which they no longer wanted to hear about.
They allowed us to honour Him in our chapels and sacristies, but not outside them. Our Lord was no longer to be spoken of in the courts, or in schools, or in hospitals - in a word, anywhere. They would say, for example: ‘You offend Buddhists with your Lord Jesus Christ. Since they don't believe in it, leave them alone. Why put Jesus Christ everywhere?’ But Our Lord has the right to reign everywhere, and in Catholic countries He is the master. And we must try to make Him reign as much as possible, to convert those who do not yet know and love Him, so that they too become His subjects, and so that in heaven they recognise their Master.
Thus, since the French Revolution, Catholics have been divided between those who accept that Our Lord should be honoured in families and parishes, but not outside them, and those who want Our Lord to reign everywhere. The former, to justify no longer talking about Our Lord in society, relied on the freedom to believe or not to believe. But that's not true, we're not free to believe what we want. Our Lord said it well: ‘He who believes will be saved; he who does not believe will be condemned.’ Of course we can misuse this freedom, but then we are disobeying and moving away from God. So morally we are not free, we must honour Our Lord and follow His teachings.
THE POPES HAVE CONDEMNED THE LIBERALS
These are the people who have been called liberals because they were in favour of freedom, leaving everyone the right to think what they want according to their conscience. But the popes have always condemned this liberalism, stating emphatically that there is no more freedom of conscience than there is freedom to do good or evil. Of course we can disobey. A child can disobey his parents, but does he have the right to do so? Obviously not.
It's the same thing with religion. We must all obey Our Lord, and therefore the only true religion. Of course there are people who disobey, but we must try to convert them and bring them to obey Our Lord, the only true God, who will judge us all. Now this liberal current was developed by Catholics like Lamennais who was a priest, hence a division within the Church itself. But popes such as Pius IX, Leo XIII, Saint Pius X, Pius XI and Pius XII have always condemned these liberals as the worst enemies of the Church because they detach people, families and states from Our Lord Jesus Christ.
When Our Lord is no longer present in schools, hospitals, justice systems or governments, when He is absent from the public atmosphere, then we have apostasy and atheism. People get into the habit of no longer thinking about Our Lord because He is nowhere to be seen, and little by little this forgetfulness spreads, even into families.
At the moment, in which restaurants or hotels, for example, do you find the Cross of Our Lord? Personally, I travel a lot, and only in Austria have I found a beautiful crucifix in certain restaurants, or a beautiful image of the Blessed Virgin in the hotel room. Elsewhere it’s all gone, and yet there was a time when there used to be no house without a crucifix. Now even good Catholics are afraid to put one in their homes, for fear of the reaction of those who don't like the Christian religion. That’s where we’re getting to by gently driving Our Lord away.
ENEMIES WITHIN THE CHURCH
Saint Pius X, at the beginning of the century, said that now the enemies of the Church are no longer only outside, but also within. By this he meant those Catholics who no longer want the public reign of Our Lord.
But that was not all. Since there were even modernist professors in the seminaries who wanted to adapt to the modern world, with its rejection of Our Lord and its apostasy, Saint Pius X asked that they be removed from the seminaries so that they would not influence the seminarians who, once they became priests, would in turn spread bad doctrines. And Saint Pius X was right, because that’s what happened. The bishops didn't want to pay any attention and these modern ideas were slowly introduced into the seminaries, then into the clergy and finally everywhere. In the name of freedom they stopped talking about Our Lord and apostasy ensued!
In 1926, I was at the seminary in Rome, more than sixty years ago, under Pius XI, who was also fighting and condemning priests who were in favour of secularism. In that year, a ‘Week Against Liberalism’ was held in Rome, during which two small books were published: Libéralisme et Catholicisme by Father Roussel and Le Christ Roi de Nations by Father
Philippe.
Here is the introduction to the first:
Quote:‘We want Jesus Christ, Son of God and Redeemer of mankind, to reign not only over the individual, but over families large and small, over nations and the entire social order; this is the great thought that unites us especially this week.’ - this was in 1926 - ‘From this social reign of Jesus the King, a reign legitimate in itself and necessary for us, there is no more formidable adversary by its cunning, its tenacity, its influence, than modern Liberalism’.
The enemy has been named: these liberals who want freedom of thought. If everyone has the right to his own thoughts, no one should offend his neighbour by displaying his own, so we must say nothing more, and we no longer have the right to speak of Our Lord.
HOW CAN WE STILL BE MISSIONARIES?
So how can we be missionaries if we can no longer speak of Our Lord? It’s impossible; and in a nation that is 95% Catholic, we will no longer be allowed to speak of Our Lord because 5% are Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist or Muslim. It’s unbelievable, and yet that’s how it is. In Catholic schools, because there is one Jew, two or three Muslims or Protestants, the crucifixes are taken down, Our Lord is no longer spoken of, and prayers are no longer said before classes, because this could disturb non-Catholics. So Our Lord no longer has the right to exist because two or three disagree with Him. So what are the origins of this liberalism, its main manifestations, its logical development?
How can it be qualified and refuted? These are the questions to which Father Roussel gives the answers in his very interesting book, which we give to all our seminarians so that they are aware of these modern errors. This liberalism, secularism and lack of public submission to Our Lord have spread despite the Popes, because bishops and priests have not listened to them enough. The second little book published to mark this ‘Week Against Liberalism’ in Rome is the ‘Catechism of Divine Rights in the Social Order’ under the title ‘Christ, the King of Nations’ by Father Philippe, a Redemptorist, whose preface reads as follows:
Quote:‘The Catholic Week at the beginning of 1926, organised by the Apostolic League, entrusted us with a desire, that of possessing a catechism setting out the fact and nature of the kingship of Jesus Christ; it is in response to this desire that these pages are being published. Under the pretext of following the lights of conscience alone, we have got into the habit of leaving the fulfilment of all duties to the free disposition of conscience: the rights of truth and especially those of the Supreme Truth are trampled underfoot.
Our catechism calls for a great act of faith, the act of faith in God and in Jesus Christ intervened by authority. People must know that in all relations between man and man, between society and society, between country and country, in everything that constitutes the innermost being of a nation, they depend on God and on Jesus Christ. On this point, as on the very existence of God, we must all bow our heads and repeat the Creed with all our soul. God has blessed our work, and in less than six months we were able to sell out our first edition, thanks to the self-imposed propaganda of our zealots’.
All this was happening in 1926!
FREEMASONRY
Even then, priests were resisting, by fighting against the invading apostasy and defending Our Lord against the secularisation of all institutions. Leo XIII, in his encyclical Humanum Genus, wrote that the Freemasons’ aim was to deChristianise everything, especially institutions, and that they wanted to remove Our Lord from everywhere. All this developed in spite of the Popes, and led to the Second Vatican Council.
THE PREPARATION OF THE COUNCIL: THE LIBERAL BISHOPS
Here too there was division, even within the Church. These liberals, who no longer wanted Our Lord to be spoken of in society and who, on the contrary, wanted freedom for all religions and all systems of thought, created opposition between the cardinals right from the preparation of the Council. The Holy See had set up commissions, headed by the ‘Central Preparatory Commission for the Council,’ of which I was a member.
It sat from 1960 to 1962, and was made up of seventy cardinals and around twenty archbishops and bishops, and if I sat on it, it was in my capacity as President of the Assembly of Archbishops and Bishops of French West Africa. Pope John XXIII often presided over our meetings.
But I must say, it was like a battlefield. Who was going to win? The liberals or the true Catholics who were with all the popes in their condemnation of liberalism? On the one hand, some wanted the Church to declare publicly their thesis on freedom, the neutrality of public bodies, and the absence of Our Lord Jesus Christ from public life. On the other hand, there were strong reactions to the contrary. Shouldn't we Catholics have the right to have our own Catholic States, so as not to offend the Muslim, Buddhist and Protestant religions that are expanding? And all this under the pretext of not doing them wrong, when they themselves are busy doing it publicly?
In Protestant states, for example, people are publicly Protestant. The Swiss canton of Vaud has written into its constitution that Protestantism is the state religion. The same is true of Sweden, Norway, England, Holland and Denmark, where Protestantism is the only religion publicly recognised by the State.
THE LIBERALS ABOLISH CATHOLIC STATES
So shouldn't we have the right to have our own Catholic states too? The Swiss canton of Valais was 90% Catholic. Since the Liberals won at the Council, and now dominate in Rome, they asked Monsignor Adam (whom I knew well and who was a good friend), via the nuncio in Berne, to do away with the Catholic canton of Valais. The Valais Constitution stated that the Catholic religion was the only religion publicly recognised by the State; in short, it was an affirmation that Our Lord Jesus Christ was the King of the Valais. And Monsignor Adam, favourable as he was to Tradition, he who had fought during the Council in favour of the social reign of Our Lord, wrote a letter to all his faithful, asking the State of Valais to change its constitution and become officially neutral.
I asked about this and was told that it had come from the Nuncio. So I went to see him in Berne and he confirmed that Bishop Adam had indeed acted on his orders. ‘And you're not ashamed to ask that Our Lord Jesus Christ no longer reign in the Valais?’ ‘Oh, but now it’s no longer possible, you understand, it’s no longer possible.’
And Protestants, are you going to ask them to stop recognising their Protestantism as an official religion in the canton of Vaud or in Denmark?
And don't we Catholics have the right to have states in which the Catholic religion is the only one publicly recognised? - ‘Ah, that's no longer possible!’ - What about the magnificent encyclical Quas Primas, in which Pius XI reminds us that Our Lord Jesus Christ must reign in all states and over all nations? - ‘Oh, the Pope wouldn't write that now!’ Oh, for example! This encyclical was written in 1925 by Pius XI to remind all bishops of the doctrine on the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and now some bishops are doing exactly the opposite.
And that, unfortunately, is what has happened: officially, the canton of Valais is no longer a Catholic state. The Church is no longer recognised, in the same way as any other private association, just like other religions, which have the right to organise themselves in the Valais.
CARDINAL BEA, SPOKESMAN FOR THE LIBERALS
How did it happen?
One day Cardinal Ottaviani and Cardinal Bea brought us two booklets worth their weight in gold. These two booklets represent the two camps in the Church: one is the French Revolution and the other is Catholic Tradition. One is that of Cardinal Bea, a liberal, the other that of Cardinal Ottaviani, prefect of the Commission.
In his document, Cardinal Ottaviani talks about ‘religious tolerance’. In other words, if there are other religions in Catholic states, we tolerate them but we do not give them the same freedoms as the Church, just as we tolerate sins or errors, because we cannot expunge everything.
There has to be a certain tolerance in society, but that doesn't mean we approve of evil. When the time came for Cardinal Ottaviani to present his document to the Central Preparatory Commission for the Council, which simply repeated the doctrine still taught by the Catholic Church, Cardinal Bea stood up and said he was against it. Cardinal Ruffini of Sicily intervened to stop this little scandal of two cardinals violently opposing each other in front of everyone else. He asked that the matter be referred to the higher authority, i.e. the Pope, who was not presiding over the session that day. But Cardinal Bea said no, I want us to vote on who is with me and who is with Cardinal Ottaviani.
So the vote was taken. The seventy cardinals, the bishops and the four superiors of religious orders who were there were divided roughly in half. Virtually all the Latin cardinals, Italians, Spaniards and South Americans, were in favour of Cardinal Ottaviani. On the other hand, the American, English, German and French cardinals were for Cardinal Bea. The Church was thus divided on a fundamental theme of its doctrine: the Reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
But that was our last session, and one wondered what the Council itself would be like if half of the seventy cardinals were in favour of Cardinal Ottaviani’s religious tolerance, and the other half were already in favour of Cardinal Bea’s religious freedom, which referred to the French Revolution and the Declaration of the Rights of Man. Well, at the Council there was also a struggle, and it has to be said that the liberals won. What a scandal! And so came this new religion, descended more from the French Revolution than from Catholic Tradition, this famous ecumenism where all religions are on the same footing. Now you can understand the current situation, it stems from the victory of the liberals at the Council. There was, however, vehement opposition, but since the Pope practically sided with freedom, then it was the liberals who took over the positions in Rome and who still occupy them.
I have always opposed this, along with Monsignor Sigaud, Monsignor de Castro Mayer and many other members of the Council. For we cannot allow Our Lord to be uncrowned. The Church is founded on the principle that Our Lord must reign on earth as He reigns in Heaven. Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven, yes, may the will of Our Lord be done everywhere and not just in families. But now that liberalism reigns in Rome, the liberalism that our authors in 1926 described as the Church's worst enemy, we are witnessing the demolition of the Church.
There really is a rupture. But we are in communion with all the popes up to the Council, whereas Cardinal Bea gives no reference in his document. He could not refer to any pope, since his doctrine is new and, on the contrary, has always been condemned by them. In Cardinal Ottaviani's brochure, there are more pages of references than text, references to popes, councils and the entire doctrine of the Church. Religious tolerance is very much in line with Tradition.
The Church's faith has always been to preach the truth, and to tolerate error because it cannot do otherwise, while striving to be missionary, to reduce error and bring people back to the truth. But it has never said that you have as much right to be in error as in truth, that you have as much right to be a Buddhist as a Catholic. It’s not possible, or else the Catholic religion is no longer the only true religion. This is a fundamental catastrophe for the Church; we experienced this struggle at the Council and we are still experiencing it today.
THE CONSEQUENCES OF NEUTRALITY
Because when the Catholic Church is no longer the only one recognised, there are inevitably serious consequences, as can be seen in Valais, for example. Religions have become subservient to the state, whereas before it was the state that was subservient to religion, and governments have become the masters of religions. By affirming that the Catholic religion was the only one publicly recognised, Our Lord reigned, and the State could not do what it wanted. But now, with neutrality, religions are like simple private associations within the state, and the state can abolish them or intervene as a master, just as it prevents certain sects from setting up, for the time being, in Valais. Soon, however, permission will probably be granted to build Buddhist temples or mosques. When the State was Catholic, it refused the public temples of other religions. It tolerated private practice, but avoided the scandal of temples attracting Christians to these false religions. It protected the faith of its citizens.
Then, of course, there is immorality, because all these religions have morals that run counter to those of the Church: polygamy, divorce and other practices that run counter to Christian marriage. Protestantism, Buddhism... these are immoral religions, and their immorality ends up penetrating Catholics too. This is why the Catholic states made it a law to prevent them.
But in all the states that recognised only the Catholic Church - Colombia, Brazil, Chile, etc. - Rome intervened to allow all religions freedom. The result was the invasion of sects from North America with lots of dollars and money. Previously, in order to protect the faith of their fellow citizens, states prevented the entry of all these sects. But once the state no longer has a religion, and the Church demands that all religions be admitted, the doors are open. And we are witnessing an incredible invasion, Moonies, Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, so much so that the bishops themselves met in South America to discuss the seriousness of the situation.
Some say forty million, others sixty million South American Catholics have joined sects since 1968, i.e. since the Council! This is the terrible consequence of Cardinal Bea’s position: the apostasy of millions and millions of Catholics. And we're seeing the same thing everywhere else, like in France where we’re seeing more and more Catholics switching to Islam, sects or Masonic lodges.
This is general apostasy, which is why we are resisting, but the Roman authorities would like us to accept it. When I spoke to them in Rome, they wanted me to recognise religious freedom like Cardinal Bea. But I said no, I can't do that. My faith is that of Cardinal Ottaviani, faithful to all the popes, and not this new and still-condemned doctrine.
That’s our opposition, and that’s why we can't agree. It’s not so much the question of the Mass, because the Mass is precisely one of the consequences of the fact that they wanted to move closer to Protestantism and therefore transform worship, the sacraments, the catechism, etc…
THE BASIS OF OUR POSITION
The real fundamental opposition is the Reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
‘Opportet Illum regnare’, Saint Paul tells us, Our Lord came to reign. They say no, and we say yes, along with all the popes. Our Lord did not come to be hidden inside houses without coming out. Why missionaries, so many of whom were massacred? To preach that Our Lord Jesus Christ is the only true God, to tell the pagans to convert. So the pagans wanted to make them disappear, but they didn't hesitate to give their lives to continue preaching Our Lord Jesus Christ. But now we’re meant to do the opposite, telling the pagans: ‘Your religion is good, keep it as long as you are good Buddhists, good Muslims or good pagans!’ That’s why we can't get along with them, because we are obeying Our Lord who said to the apostles: ‘Go and teach the Gospel to the ends of the earth’.
That's why we shouldn't be surprised that we can't get along with Rome. This will not be possible as long as Rome does not return to faith in the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ, as long as it gives the impression that all religions are good. We clash on a point of the Catholic faith, just as Cardinal Bea and Cardinal Ottaviani clashed over it, and as all the popes clashed with liberalism. It’s the same thing, the same current, the same ideas and the same divisions within the Church.
But before the Council, the popes and Rome supported Tradition against liberalism, whereas now the liberals have taken their place. Obviously they are against traditionalists, so we are persecuted. But we are at peace because we are in communion with all the popes since Our Lord and the Apostles. We are keeping their faith, and we're not going to switch now to the revolutionary faith in the Declaration of the Rights of Man. We do not want to be sons of 1789, but sons of Our Lord, sons of the Gospel.
The representatives of the Catholic Church say that everyone is free and that we can bring all religions together to pray, like in Assisi? This is an abomination, and the day when Our Lord gets angry it will be no laughing matter. For if Our Lord punished the Jews as He did, it was because they had refused to believe in Him. He had announced that Jerusalem would be razed to the ground, and Jerusalem was razed to the ground, and the temple has never been rebuilt since. He could well say the same thing now that all His pastors are against Him, they no longer want to believe in His universal reign.
We must remain attached to the doctrine of the Church. Remain attached to Our Lord who is everything to us. He is the Master, he is the one who will judge us as he will judge everyone else. So we must pray for His kingdom to come, even if we are persecuted.
Extraordinary as it may seem, that’s the situation today. I didn't invent it. Why do I find myself almost alone in opposing this liberalism when the vast majority of bishops, even in Rome, are in favour of it? It’s a great mystery. In remaining faithful, as before, to everything the popes have said, one finds oneself almost alone.
If you're with Our Lord, that's the main thing, even if you have to be alone. If you are with all the teaching of the Church over more than twenty centuries, you have nothing to fear. There's nothing to worry about, is there! Thanks be to God! The Good Lord, who knows the future, will set things right one day, because the Church cannot remain in this situation indefinitely.
So let’s put our trust in the Blessed Virgin and Our Lord, and let’s not be discouraged or worried, because we are carrying on the
Church. Let us remain in peace.
May the Good Lord bless you!
+ Marcel Lefebvre
|
|
|
New Amazon rite of the Mass to enter 3-year ‘experimental phase’ |
Posted by: Stone - 09-03-2024, 05:09 AM - Forum: New Rite Sacraments
- No Replies
|
|
New Amazon rite of the Mass to enter 3-year ‘experimental phase’
The ‘Amazon rite,’ inspired by local traditions and customs in the region and proposed at the 2019 Amazon Synod, will enter a three-year ‘experimental phase’ in late 2024, a Vatican theologian has said.
Pope Francis during the closing Mass for the concluding the Synod of Bishops, the Amazon synod.
Vatican News
Sep 2, 2024
VATICAN CITY (LifeSiteNews) — The highly anticipated and controversial Amazon rite of Mass will enter a three year “experimental phase” later this year, a key theologian has attested.
In a new report by Vida Nueva digital, groundbreaking details were revealed about the proposed Amazon rite of Mass – a fruit of the 2019 Amazon Synod held at the Vatican.
While not giving any verbatim quotations, Vida Nueva stated that “the Amazon rite will enter the experimental phase – which will last three years until 2028 – at the end of 2024.”
The news is arguably the most significant development in relation to the Amazon rite since it was proposed back in 2019.
Father Agenor Brighenti, Vida Nueva’s source, serves as the head of the Theological Team of the Latin American and Caribbean Episcopal Council (CELAM) and also advisor to the Ecclesial Conference of the Amazon (CEAMA).
Brighenti additionally serves as coordinator of “the process of elaboration of the Amazon rite for the Ecclesial Conference of the Amazon,” and advocates for the ordination of women to the diaconate and the priesthood, along with married priests. The influential theologian is a key advisor to the current Synod on Synodality.
Amazon rite?
The Amazon rite is a product of the highly controversial 2019 Synod of Bishops on the Amazon, or the Amazon Synod. Among the many proposals raised by the Amazon Synod and its final document are the opening of the clerical state to women and admitting married men to the priesthood, in an attempt to make the Church more appealing to Catholics in the region.
Additionally, based on the Second Vatican Council’s defense of “liturgical pluralism,” the Amazon Synod’s final document called for “a rite for native peoples” which would be based on their “worldview, traditions, symbols and original rites that include transcendent, community and ecological dimensions.”
This “Amazonian rite” would “expresses the liturgical, theological, disciplinary and spiritual heritage of the Amazon,” which would assist the “work of evangelization.”
Details have since been scarce on what the rite might look like; however, Pope Francis has suggested it could be formulated in line with the Zaire rite, which has been in use in the Democratic Republic of the Congo since 1988.
In a preface to a 2020 book on the Zairean rite, Francis wrote that the rite “is considered an example of liturgical inculturation.”
“One feels that in the celebration according to the Zairian rite, a culture and spirituality animated by religious songs with African rhythm, the sound of drums and other musical instruments vibrate, which constitute a true progress in rooting the Christian message in the Congolese soul. It is a joyful celebration,” he commented.
Francis directly linked the Zaire rite – replete with local customs, native dancing, singing and clapping – to the forthcoming Amazon rite:
Quote:The case of the Zairean rite suggests a promising path also for the possible elaboration of an Amazonian rite, in that the cultural needs of a specific area of the African context are received, without distorting the nature of the Roman Missal, to guarantee continuity with the ancient and universal tradition of the Church. We hope that this work can help to move in this direction.
Development
Following calls from liberalizing forces and key campaigners behind the Amazon Synod, a commission was formed to guide the development of such a rite.
In June 2022, the notoriously anti-traditional secretary of the Vatican’s Dicastery for Divine Worship – Archbishop Vittorio Viola – commented that the formation of an Amazon rite was “on the high seas.”
He also highlighted Pope Francis’ comments and linking of “the inculturation of the liturgy” with the “new evangelization.” Just as the Pope had done in his 2020 book preface, Viola linked the Zaire rite to the proposed Amazon rite, attesting that so-called “inculturation” of liturgy is the “new frontier” for the Church.
Results of the various sub-committees studying the proposed rite were presented to the Dicastery for Divine Worship in September 2022. The process was crucially aided by the papal formation of a new episcopal conference in the Amazon region: the Ecclesial Conference of the Amazon (CEAMA) in 2021.
Vida Nueva reported that Brighenti said the proposed Amazon rite was presented to the second assembly of CEAMA this August. After a “phase in communities,” stated Brighenti, the rite will be presented to the Dicastery for Divine Worship.
Currently, the theologian said that some 13 commissions are formulating the rite’s details about “the rituals of the sacraments and also thinking about the liturgical year of the Amazon, the liturgical space, the liturgy of the hours, among others.”
“We hope that it will be accepted and approved by the Church so that the ecclesial communities can express their faith according to their culture and customs in this immense territory of the Amazon,” he said.
Context of news
Brighenti, as noted, is a highly influential theologian in Rome. The fact that he is predicting the rite will officially enter an “experimental phase” before the year is out is a key development for the future of the rite which has found heavy criticism among conservatives and advocacy from liberal voices.
In the meantime, and alongside the quietly developing Amazon rite, the Vatican is currently mulling over another pagan-linked, inculturated rite.
READ: Vatican considering ‘Mayan rite’ of Mass after Mexican bishops overwhelmingly approve it
The Mayan rite proposed by Mexico’s Catholic bishops is now being examined by the Dicastery for Divine Worship. Though the dicastery has been slow in issuing a statement on the rite – much to the consternation of the Mexican bishops – the rite was drawn up with the key involvement of Dicastery Undersecretary Bishop Aurelio García Macías, suggesting that Vatican approval is a mere formality.
LifeSiteNews’ Dr. Maike Hickson has provided an in-depth analysis of the Mayan rite, the draft and final copies of which both she and this correspondent have studied.
The final draft of the Mayan rite contains liturgical actions based on, and drawn from, pagan actions. Such a liturgy would then be at the liberty of the individual cleric involved, who would feel at ease incorporating the wider, accompanying pagan aspects of the rituals which the Vatican would have approved.
Such a style gives an insight into the likely future of a similarly inculturated Amazonian rite.
|
|
|
The Recusant #62 - Autumn 2024 |
Posted by: Stone - 09-01-2024, 06:19 PM - Forum: The Recusant
- Replies (1)
|
|
Contents
• An Unpleasant Editorial
• “Liberalism, the Church’s Worst Enemy!” (Archbishop Lefebvre)
• Fr Denis Fahey: The Kingship of Christ and Organised Naturalism
• Bp. Williamson promotes ‘Divine Mercy’ Novus Ordo “revelations”
• Fr Paul Robinson: Spreading More Evolutionist Propaganda
|
|
|
Pope Francis calls for Catholics to ‘pray for the cry of the Earth,’ says it ‘has a fever’ |
Posted by: Stone - 09-01-2024, 06:34 AM - Forum: Pope Francis
- No Replies
|
|
Pope Francis calls for Catholics to ‘pray for the cry of the Earth,’ says it ‘has a fever’
‘We pray that each of us will listen with the heart to the cry of the Earth,’ Pope Francis said in a new video, claiming that ‘if we took the planet’s temperature, it will us that the Earth has a fever. And it is sick, just like anyone who’s sick.’
Pope Francis calls for ecological concern in his Pope Video.
YouTube screenshot
Aug 30, 2024
VATICAN CITY (LifeSiteNews) — This September, Pope Francis has urged members of the Catholic Church to “pray for the cry of the Earth” and “the victims of environmental disasters and the climate crisis.”
“We pray that each of us will listen with the heart to the cry of the Earth and the victims of environmental disasters and the climate crisis, committing ourselves personally to guarding the world we inhabit,” the Pope’s prayer intention for September begins.
Each month a prayer intention and accompanying video is posted by the Pope Video network, in which Pope Francis issues a specific prayer intention for the coming weeks.
To coincide with the month-long period designated as the “Season of Creation,” which runs from September 1 through October 4, Francis’ September intention focusses on ecological issues.
Entitled “for the cry of the earth,” the papal message remarks that “if we took the planet’s temperature, it will tell us that the Earth has a fever. And it is sick, just like anyone who’s sick.”
“But are we listening to this pain? Do we hear the pain of the millions of victims of environmental catastrophes?” it adds.
However, numerous scientific experts, such as Nobel Prize winner Dr. John Clauser of the CO2 Coalition, have refuted mainstream alarmist climate claims, such as those promoted by Pope Francis, and denied that there is a “climate crisis.”
READ: Nobel Prize winner denounces alarmist climate predictions: ‘I don’t believe there is a climate crisis’
Continuing, Francis urged that people “commit ourselves to the fight against poverty and the protection of nature, changing our personal and community habits.”
In press release details accompanying the Pope’s video, the World Economic Forum’s climate statistics were cited to highlight Francis’ ecological message.
Echoing Francis’ message was Cardinal Michael Czerny SJ, prefect of the Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development, which was established by the pope in January 2017. “Creation is groaning,” said Czerny.
He linked the Pope’s call for ecological attention to personal freedom, stating that it is “only by liberating the Earth from the condition of slavery to which we have subjected it can we liberate ourselves as well, anticipating the joy of our salvation in Christ.”
Francis has made the topic of “climate change” a central one in the 11 years of his pontificate. He has also often invoked the term “ecological debt,” taking aim at wealthy or Western nations for allegedly disproportionately impacting “climate change.”
Supporting his regular statements on the topic are his two lengthy texts. The first was Laudato Si’ issued in 2015, which gave rise to the Laudato Si’ Movement – a group aiming to “turn Pope Francis’ encyclical letter Laudato Si’ into action for climate and ecological justice,” as the mass divestment from “fossil fuels” is inspired by the Pontiff’s environmental writings.
The second papal text was Laudate Deum in 2023, in which Francis issued stark calls for “obligatory” measures across the globe to address the issue of “climate change.”
The Pope has also made numerous calls to action for global leaders to implement the pro-abortion Paris Climate Agreement, citing the “negative effects of climate change” and an “ecological debt” which required “climate finance, decarbonization in the economic system and in people’s lives.”
In a CBS TV interview earlier this year, Francis went so far as to state that the world was at a “a point of no return.”
“Global warming is a serious problem. Climate change at this moment is a road to death. A road to death, eh,” he said.
However, the Pope has previously been corrected by scientists who attest that he “is getting terrible advice from some exalted churchmen who are seriously deficient in scientific knowledge.” While echoing Francis’ concerns that nature should not be treated with wanton disregard, independent climate researchers Tomas Sheahen and Hal Doiron warned that the Vatican was weighing into a debate on which it did not have the necessary expertise.
“The correct answer is clearly not a settled science on which Pope Francis can confidently rely for the definition of when CO2 emissions become a sin,” Doiron told LifeSiteNews in 2016.
After many years of climate alarmism rhetoric from the Pontiff, in 2022 the Vatican officially joined the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the pro-abortion Paris Climate Agreement.
|
|
|
The Fate of Herod Antipas & Salome |
Posted by: Stone - 09-01-2024, 06:29 AM - Forum: The Saints
- No Replies
|
|
The Fate of Herod Antipas & Salome
TIA | August 31, 2024
Herod Antipas was the tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Herod Philip was the tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis. In The Antiquities of the Jews, Flavius Josephus reports that Herodias, who was an evil and ambitious woman, left her husband Philip to marry Herod, who divorced his former lawful wife.
John rebukes Herod: ‘It is not lawful for you to have Herodias’
No one dared to rebuke the powerful lord except for St. John the Baptist, who came to the palace and reproved Herod, saying, “It is not lawful for you to have her.”
Herod was angry at this rebuke given by St. John the Baptist. Conniving with the vengeful Herodias, he had John arrested, and then bound him and put him in prison. Although Herod wanted to put him to death, he feared the people, for they saw John the Baptist as a great prophet.
In the Golden Legend, Jacobus Voragine tells us that Herod and Herodias began to plot against St. John to figure a way to make him die. They ordained between them secretly that, when Herod should celebrate a feast on his birthday, the daughter of Herodias named Salome should demand a gift of him for her dancing. Then, before the principal princes of his realm seated at his table, Herod would arise to feet and swear to her by his oath that he should grant whatever she would so desire.
The dance of Salome
And so it came to pass. Herod’s birthday came, and Salome danced before Herod and all the guests in the banquet hall. Herod showed himself so pleased that he promised with an oath to give her whatever she asked, even half of his kingdom. And Salome, after consulting with her mother, replied: “Give me here on a platter the head of John the Baptist.”
Pretending to be grieved although he was glad in his heart, the King commanded that the terrible deed be done because of his oath and because of his dinner guests. And so he gave the order that John should be beheaded in the prison.
Then the hangman came and smote off his head and delivered it to the serving maid, who laid it in a platter and presented it at the dinner to Salome and her evil mother, who delighted to see punished the man who had dared to confront her with her sin. This took place sometime in the years 28-29 AD at the fortress of Machaerus.
And so St. John died a martyr to his calling at age 32. To him applies the 8th beatitude: Blessed are they who suffer persecution, for justice’ sake.
God's just vengeance
After this martyrdom, John's disciples carried his body to Sebaste (Samaria), all except for the head, which Herodias took. The wretched woman did not think her vengeance complete until she had pierced with a hairpin the tongue that had not feared to utter her shame.
Herodias mutilates the tongue of St. John
The vengeance of God fell heavily upon Herod Antipas and Salome. The historian Josephus relates how he was overcome in battle by the Aretas, the father of Herod’s first wife whom he had repudiated in order to follow his wicked passions. And the Jews thought the destruction of Herod’s army justly came from God for what he had done against John the Baptist.
Disgraced, Herod was deposed by Rome from his tetrarchate, and banished to Lyons in Gaul. He and the ambitious Herodias , who shared his disgrace, both died a miserable death there.
As for Salome, there is a tradition gathered from ancient authors, that one winter day she went out to dance upon the frozen Sicoris river. Nichephorus relates that the ice broke beneath her, and not without the providence of God.
Straightway she sank down up to her neck, and then the ice froze again when it reached her neck. This made her dance and wriggle about with all the lower parts of her body, not on land, but in the water. Her wicked head was glazed with ice, and at length severed from her body by the sharp edges, not of iron, but of the frozen water. Thus in the very ice she displayed the dance of death, and furnished a spectacle to all who beheld it, and brought to mind the evil that she had done.
The top part of the skull of St. John the Baptist, which has been set into a wax skull, has long been honored in San Silvestro Basilica in Rome in the Pieta chapel.
Amiens Cathedral in France contains the precious relic of St. John’s skull (the facial bones without the lower jaw). It was displayed there until the French Revolution when the revolutionaries demanded that the relic be buried, but the town mayor kept it in his house.
In 1816 the head of St. John the Baptist was returned to the Cathedral and in 1876 a new silver plaque was added to the relic to give it greater glory.
|
|
|
The Spirit of Paul VI Is a False Spirit and, like All False Spirits, It Is Unconsciously Cruel |
Posted by: Stone - 09-01-2024, 06:20 AM - Forum: The Architects of Vatican II
- No Replies
|
|
The Spirit of Paul VI Is a False Spirit and, like All False Spirits, It Is Unconsciously Cruel
gloria.tv | August 31, 2024
In 1970, the Belgian philosopher Marcel De Corte (+1994), who taught at the University of Liège, wrote a letter to the French publisher Jean Madiran (+2013) about the Novus Ordo
- "I confess that for a long time I was deceived by Paul VI. I thought he was trying to preserve the essential".
- But there is no example in history of a deceiver who does not eventually expose himself.
- "How dare Paul VI proclaim that there is no 'new Mass', that 'nothing has changed', that 'everything is as it was before', when nothing or almost nothing remains of the Mass that so many saints lovingly cherished?"
- De Corte reminds us that the "experts" appointed to work on the Novus Ordo have repeatedly described it as a "liturgical revolution".
- He quotes a woman who, after assisting at the first Novus Ordo, said: "There's nothing Catholic about it any more".
- During the Novus Ordo, De Corte writes, "I carefully cover my ears with wax. I hide at the back of the church behind a curtain, which I make thicker by sitting on the lowest chair I can find. I read the Holy Mass in the missal that my saintly mother gave me after the previous one she had given me had been torn to shreds".
- "I read the Imitation of Christ in Latin during the drivel that now passes for a sermon."
- "I force the priest who distributes communion into the hands of the 'sheep' he has been ordered to domesticate, to give it to me at the communion rail where I kneel."
- Cardinal Ottaviani is certainly not alone in thinking that Paul VI, by his words and deeds, "departs strikingly from the Catholic theology of the Holy Mass".
- "Paul VI is a man full of contradictions".
- "This is a man who extols the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in grand and traditional terms in his 'Credo of the People of God', but downplays it in the Eucharist he imposes on Catholic Christendom."
- "This is a man who sees to it that the Dutch Catechism is condemned, but who tolerates the spread of the dogmatic errors it contains."
- "This is the man who proclaims Mary to be the Mother of the Church, but who allows countless clerics of all ranks to sully the purity of her name."
- "This is the man who prays in St Peter's and in the Masonic Chamber of Reflection at the United Nations."
- "This is the man who gives an audience to two actresses deliberately and provocatively dressed in miniskirts, but then speaks out against the growing wave of sexualisation in the world."
- This is the man who tells the Protestant Pastor Boegner that Catholics are 'not mature enough' for birth control with the 'pill', but who publishes Humanæ vitæ, while allowing it to be questioned by entire Bishops' Conferences".
- "This is the man who proclaims that the law of clerical celibacy will never be abolished, but allows it to be questioned endlessly, while making it easy for priests who wish to marry to do so."
- "This is the man who forbids communion in the hand, but allows it, even allowing certain churches, by special indult, to have lay people distribute the Holy Hosts."
- This is the man who deplores the 'self-destruction of the Church', but who, although he is its head and chief, does nothing to stop it.
- This is the man who issues the Nota prævia on his powers as Pope, but allows it to be dismissed at the Synod of Rome as obsolete and consigned to oblivion.
- For De Corte, it could also be that Paul VI "knows what he wants" and that the contradictions he shows are merely those that "a man of action, driven by the goal he wants to achieve, encounters along the way and does not worry about in the least, carried away as he is by the force of his ambition".
- Like any experienced politician, Paul VI knows that it is possible to unite people with fundamentally different "philosophical and religious opinions" and therefore "we can expect in the near future further manifestations of papal ecumenical action, modelled on political manoeuvring".
- De Corte believes that the two interpretations of Paul VI's behaviour can be combined: a weak man fleeing from his weakness, "clearly focused on the world and the metamorphoses it implies, which influence his actions in it".
- The Novus Ordo Eucharist is "like a permanent revolution that appeals to all young people and adults who have not yet passed through the crisis of puberty, because it conceals the contradictions that they cannot overcome, precisely because these contradictions are integral to them".
- "The man who tries to flee from himself through change never catches up, despite his sometimes comical efforts".
- John H. Knox observed (National Review, 21 October 1969), "There has never been, and probably never will be, a pope who has tried so hard to please the liberals and who has so sincerely shared so many of their beliefs".
- "Let us remember his [Paul VI's] enthusiastic support for the Chinese youth whom Mao was mobilising in the 'Cultural Revolution'!"
- Paul VI consistently sees things other than they are; his is a false mind, and like all false minds, it is unconsciously cruel.
- "While a contemplative is gentle, a man of action, who, like Paul VI, sees the goal of his action through a dreamlike lens, is merciless towards the poor souls of flesh and bone whom he cannot see or, if he does see them, regards as obstacles".
- "This explains the inflexibility of Paul VI's character, which seems at odds with his inability to govern the Church".
- "A man of action is almost always inhuman, but when he moves in a millenarian and spiritually triumphant atmosphere, one must be afraid. Paul VI will move forward without looking back, crushing all resistance".
|
|
|
The Modernist Pedigree of Francis’s Synod on Synodality, and Its Implications |
Posted by: Stone - 08-30-2024, 06:53 AM - Forum: Vatican II and the Fruits of Modernism
- No Replies
|
|
The Modernist Pedigree of Francis’s Synod on Synodality, and Its Implications
Robert Morrison - Remnant Columnist | August 28, 2024
“The Holy People of God has been set in motion for mission thanks to the synodal experience. . . The seeds of the Synodal Church are already sprouting!” (Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich, June 14, 2024)
Fr. Dominique Bourmaud went to his eternal reward on September 4, 2021, a month before Francis announced his intention to “create a different church” with the Synod on Synodality. Remarkably, though, Fr. Bourmaud was able to describe the essence of the Synodal Church in his 2003 book, One Hundred Years of Modernism:
Quote:“The Tyrrellian Church is as elastic as its dogma. ‘The notion of a complete ecclesiastical organism produced directly by a divine fiat the day of Pentecost’ is pure fantasy. The Church is not an institution like the ecclesiastical empire of the Vatican; she is the life of a people in progress. The inspiration of Christ first set the Church in motion; it is sufficient that she maintain that movement until the end of time. The monarchical, Roman Church must be clearly distinguished from the collective consciousness of the People of God, which is always healthy and robust, and which truly possesses authority and infallibility.”
As discussed below, the architects of the Synodal on Synodality could produce an accurate and succinct description of their fiendish project by simply replacing “Tyrrellian” with “Synodal” in Fr. Bourmaud’s description of the Tyrellian Church. How did Fr. Bourmaud accurately forecast the Synodal Church over twenty years ago? To understand that, we should briefly consider Fr. George Tyrrell.
Charles Coulombe’s 2019 article from the Catholic Herald — “Heretic of the week: George Tyrrell” — offered the following details:
Quote:“George Tyrrell (1861-1909) was the posthumous son of an Anglican journalist in Dublin. Raised in poverty, he converted in 1879 and joined the Jesuits the following year. . . At that time, the philosophy dominant in Jesuit institutions was a kind of Thomism peculiar to themselves, being mediated through the 16th-century Jesuit philosopher Francisco Suárez. Disagreeing with this stance, Fr Tyrrell came into conflict with other faculty members, and in 1896 was transferred to Farm Street, the celebrated church of his order in London. There he discovered the work of the French philosopher Maurice Blondel, which heavily influenced him. Fr Tyrrell published a book attacking scholasticism in general in 1899. He maintained that the truths of the Faith must be re-expressed in every age – even if that meant contradicting earlier expressions of the Faith. . . His views – similar to those held by a number of Jesuits and Dominicans in particular – were seen as eroding the immutable nature of Catholicism. Fr Tyrrell was asked to recant them in 1906; refusing to do so, he was expelled from the Society of Jesus. The following year, Pope St Pius X in the decree Lamentabili and the encyclical Pascendi condemned these ideas, dubbed ‘Modernism,’ as the 'synthesis of all heresies.’ Fr Tyrrell attacked these documents in the London Times, was excommunicated in 1908, and died in 1909.”
So Tyrrell was an excommunicated Jesuit Modernist who “maintained that the truths of the Faith must be re-expressed in every age – even if that meant contradicting earlier expressions of the Faith.” He was, in this respect, just like today’s Jesuit Modernists except for the fact that he was excommunicated. If Francis and his fellow Modernist Jesuits were promoting their heresies during the time of St. Pius X, they too would have been excommunicated.
So the “Tyrrellian Church,” as Fr. Bourmaud expressed it, is Tyrrell’s heretical vision of what the Catholic Church should be. Stunningly, the documents from Francis’s Synod on Synodality have described the Synodal Church in essentially the same terms as Fr. Bourmaud used to describe the Tyrrellian Church: it is elastic, developing, in motion, and based on a collective consciousness of the People of God.
Here, for instance, is a passage from the Synod’s 2023 Instrumentum Laboris, which St. Pius X would have condemned for the same reasons he condemned Tyrrell’s heresies:
Quote:“A term as abstract or theoretical as synodality has thus begun to be embodied in a concrete experience. From listening to the People of God a progressive appropriation and understanding of synodality ‘from within’ emerges, which does not derive from the enunciation of a principle, a theory or a formula, but develops from a readiness to enter into a dynamic of constructive, respectful and prayerful speaking, listening and dialogue. At the root of this process is the acceptance, both personal and communal, of something that is both a gift and a challenge: to be a Church of sisters and brothers in Christ who listen to one another and who, in so doing, are gradually transformed by the Spirit.”
Everything in the Synodal Church is dynamic and ready to burst forth from previously accepted boundaries. The only real certainty is that the “Spirit” will never guide the Synodal Church to go back to what St. Pius X would have recognized as Catholic.
Despite its clearly heretical nature, only a handful of bishops publicly suggested that there was anything problematic about the Synod’s 2023 Instrumentum Laboris, so we naturally see more of the same in the 2024 Instrumentum Laboris:
Quote:“Thanks to the guidance of the Spirit, the People of God, as sharers in the prophetic function of Christ (cf. LG 12), ‘discern the true signs of God's presence and purpose in the events, needs and desires which it shares with the rest of modern humanity’ (GS 11). For this ecclesial task of discernment, the Holy Spirit bestows the sensus fidei, which can be described as ‘the instinctive capacity to discern the new ways that the Lord is revealing to the Church’(Francis, Address for the 50th Anniversary of the Institution of the Synod of Bishops, 17 October 2015). Discernment commits those who participate in it at a personal level and all participating together at a community level to cultivate dispositions of inner freedom, being open to newness and trusting surrender to God’s will in order to listen to one another so as to hear ‘what the Spirit is saying to the Churches’ (Rev. 2:7)."
Thus, in the Synodal Church, the “Spirit” guides the People of God — which includes all baptized people, not merely Catholics — to find “new ways.” Accordingly, we must “cultivate dispositions of inner freedom, being open to newness.” By “newness,” the Synodal architects generally mean “heresy.”
This is all alarming but, to a large extent, most of us understandably have ignored the intentionally ridiculous Synod on Synodality, with all its cartoonish heterodoxy. Those of us safely ensconced in our Traditional Catholic communities have little to worry about from the Synod: they are not listening to us, and so why should we listen to them?
At the same time, it is worth recalling that St. Pius X condemned essentially the same Modernist ideas when they had far less visibility than they do now with the Synod. God gave His Church St. Pius X’s vigilant opposition to Modernism not only for the benefit of those alive in the early 1900s but for all of us. Yet, as Bishop Athanasius Schneider explained in a recent interview, those Modernist ideas are rampant in Rome today:
Quote:“Philosophical and theological modernism, which Pope Pius X condemned more than a hundred years ago, has been realized in all its devastating consequences in the life of the Church of our day. What’s more, even high-ranking ecclesiastical authorities in our day are promoting this modernism by various statements and official acts.”
This constitutes both an insult to God and a profound danger to souls. As Bishop Schneider went on to explain, though, the existence of these Modernist ideas (which we see so prominently championed in the Synod on Synodality) allows those of us with the Faith to serve God by combatting the heresies:
Quote:“St. Augustine says that God is so good that He would not permit evil in any way unless He were powerful enough that from each evil He could draw some good (see Enchiridion, 11). Through heresies those who are good and firm Christians are also made manifest, and their faith stands out all the more. . . . And St. Augustine further explained: ‘While the hot restlessness of heretics stirs questions about many articles of the Catholic faith, the necessity of defending them forces us both to investigate them more accurately, to understand them more clearly, and to proclaim them more earnestly; and the question mooted by an adversary becomes the occasion of instruction’ (The City of God, 16:2). The evil ones exist in the Church, says St. Augustine, either so that the faithful may exercise themselves in patience or advance in wisdom (see ibid.).”
In this light, the existence of the Synod on Synodality is not merely a pathetic sign that Francis and his followers have gone astray. It also calls for us to oppose the Synod’s errors, consistent with our duty of state. The Synod is the golden opportunity for every cleric and theologian to serve God by charitably but unambiguously condemning the Synodal Church’s errors and affirming the contrary Catholic truths:
- Whereas the Synod asserts that the truths of the Faith can evolve to mean something different from what they have always meant, we affirm that the truths of the Faith are immutable.
- Whereas the Synod asserts that the truths of the Faith are known through a process of communal discernment of the People of God, we affirm that the truths of the Faith were given to the Church by God.
- Whereas the Synod asserts that “all the baptized” are members of the Synodal Church, we affirm Pope Pius XII’s teaching in Mystici Corporis that “only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith.”
- Whereas the Synod promotes the false ecumenism that proliferated after Vatican II, we affirm that the Catholic Church remains the sole ark of salvation.
- Whereas the Synod encourages Catholics to “accompany” sinners and their sins, we affirm that true charity consists of teaching souls that we must all strive to overcome our sins if we wish to serve God and save our souls.
For decades, Traditional Catholics have debated whether the “conciliar church” is something distinct from the “Catholic Church,” with some Catholics declining to see true separation. But Francis and his collaborators have gone out of their way to make it clear that the Synodal Church is a “different church,” so any hesitation we might have had about denouncing the errors of the “conciliar church” are now alleviated to a large extent with the Synodal Church. Traditional Catholics may legitimately disagree about what this means in the context of whether adherents to the Synodal Church (such as Francis) are in schism with the Catholic Church, but we should all be able to agree that God is not honored by our silence as Francis and the Synodal Church’s architects openly mock God and the Catholic Church with their fiendish spectacle. If we love God and His Catholic Church, we have to fight Satan’s Synodal Church.
Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us!
|
|
|
|