| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 211 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 208 Guest(s)
Bing, Facebook, Google
|
|
|
| Fr. Cardozo Sermon [2016]: On the Errors of Bishop Williamson |
|
Posted by: Stone - 03-24-2021, 07:42 AM - Forum: True vs. False Resistance
- Replies (1)
|
 |
“He Who Gathers not with Me…”
A Sermon by Fr. Ernesto Cardozo
Ipatinga, Brazil, February 28, 2016
The words of today's gospel are really very wonderful. They are quite relevant to the topic we will talk about today. The gospel says, “He who is not with Me is against Me.” “He who gathers not with Me, scatters.” I repeat, “He who is not with Me is against Me.”
How do we know? How do we know whether we are with Christ and not against Christ? For it is possible that we are deceiving ourselves. Luther, I suppose, would say that he was with Christ. The heretics, I suppose, claimed that they were with Christ. “He who is not with me is against Me!” What do we do to know this? How do we know whether we are with Christ? Let us analyse some words. Christ says, “He who loves Me keeps My word.” He who loves Me, will keep My word. He also says, “He who loves father or son more than Me, is not worthy of Me.” Is that not so? Am I lying? Is this in the Gospel?
But do you know what the problem is, dear faithful? Deus veritas est. God is truth. That magnificent dialogue with Pilate, when Christ tells Pilate, “He who is of the truth hears My voice.” - Qui est ex veritate audit vocem meam. “He hears Me.” He hears Him [pointing to the crucifix]!
But, there's a problem that deep inside we would not like to see. We get used to it. We like to make mistakes. We accommodate ourselves to error. This magnificent last gospel that I never get tired of praising and asking you to meditate on it! The liturgy does not offer us these little pictures just for us to look at them. They are to be read and meditated. Just listen to what it says. It says that the Word came unto His own, and His own received Him not. His own did not receive Him! He was the light of the world, but the world preferred darkness. And Truth Itself ended there [on the cross]!
Defending the truth, dear faithful, is not easy. For it means defending God, defending God in a hostile place. Jesus Christ Himself tells us, “I send you amongst wolves, like lambs amidst wolves.” True or false? We like lies. We get used to lies, because the truth is uncomfortable. The truth leads to a reaction, don’t you see? There is the case of Saint John the Baptist. What happened to St. John the Baptist? He enunciated truth! He denounced an adultery! And what happened to him? He ended up with his head cut off! Watch out! Humanly speaking, we would say, how stupid! Since it was only about adultery, why didn’t he keep quiet? But, St. John the Baptist told Herod, “No, Herod, this is not good! She does not belong to you!”
Let's look at another example, an example that we have analysed in a sermon before, here in Ipatinga. The example of Thomas More! Thomas More is a great saint! He and Bishop John Fisher were opposed to the adultery of the King, Henry VIII. Do you recall this story? I don't want to tire you by repeating the same sermon on Thomas More, but was Thomas More wrong? Was Bishop Fisher wrong? Bishop Fisher went against at least 80 bishops in his country. Thomas More was practically the only layman against a whole nation that wanted to apostatise. And which did apostatise. Do you remember the story, or do you want me to tell it to you again? The case of Thomas More will never tire us, my dear faithful, because it is a case of a man going against the flow. And going against the flow is very hard. Here in this world it is hard. But up there, God rewards it.
But let us take a step back. A conflict has arisen in the Resistance, a very serious conflict. It's not just a small problem where one person says this and another writes that. Here we have a problem about the Faith, a problem of the Faith through which we run the risk of damning ourselves eternally! Watch out! I lament the superficiality with which sometimes I have seen it treated. No, this is not a problem about someone writing this and another person saying that and still another saying something else. No! And we never go back to the cause.
Let’s take another example. Let's suppose I turn the lights off and I shout, “Fire, fire!” People will start running away, running into each other and falling over. And, of course, they’ll start quarrelling. “Why did you step on me?” “Why did you push me?” And they go on with such things without realising that I am the guilty one because I turned off the lights. In the same way, suppose that there is a fire outside, and they enter here yelling, “Fire, fire!” And someone says, “What a way to enter the room, running like that! Can you speak a little bit quieter?” That is, they criticise the effects, but not the cause. So if someone yells “Fire,” before we criticise the person running who yelled “Fire,” let's go out and see if there really is a fire.
Let’s go to the cause. This is the problem. This is what hasn't been studied. This is the sad reality. They look at it sideways. What is the cause? I ask you, my dear faithful, let's see. Until September at least, if I remember correctly, did we have any serious problem here? I do not believe so. Maybe there could have been some human dislike, foolishness that exists in every society. But did we have a problem about the Faith here? Tell me if there was a problem about the Faith. And when did the problem start? Please do not be scandalized when - please!- when I start talking, wait for me. The problem started when Bishop Williamson started writing three Eleison Comments in favour of the miracles in the new mass. Yes, do you remember? Three Eleison Comments!
When Bishop Williamson wrote these three Eleison Comments, we, the priests that are in the firing line, come to a certain place, and they asked us: “Father Cardozo, what is this?” And I confess to you that it had been some time since I had read the Eleison Comments. Why? Because, among other things, they’d cause spiritual disquiet in me. And I had to sit down and read the Eleison Comments.
And when I did this, the first thing I did was to get in contact with a priest in Mexico who publishes Bishop Williamson’s Eleison Comments. You know who he is. And I told this priest, “Please Father, do not publish this. There are errors.” This priest told me, “Father, you are completely right, but we will publish it so that our enemies do not believe we are divided.” Oh, dear! Oh, dear! Have you read the gospel, when Our Lord tells us: “Let thy speech be yes yes, no no, whatever is over and above this comes from the devil.”? Be careful! “It comes from the devil!” This dear Father, recognizing that this paper contained errors, said, “You're completely right, but…” And this is when the problem began. This is when it started.
I am a priest. People ask me, “Father, is this true or false?” I have to follow Our Lord’s word, I have to say yes or no. Anything beyond this is done by the devil. It is my duty, and I told him, “No, this is not right.” Meanwhile, I started seeing atrocities. Please do not be scandalised. The monks who read it, said, “I don't see any error in these things.” Great Thomistic people, who say they don't see any error! Do you remember? Do you want me to mention names? It is not necessary. Specifically, Bishop Williamson says and maintains, and insists that there are miracles outside the Catholic Church.
I finally dared to write an article on December 9th saying that there is a fuss concerning this. And I started by simply stating a fact of common sense. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Do you remember? That's the gospel. I'm not making it up. These are Christ’s words, the Infinite Wisdom. This would have been enough to put an end to this problem. But, I don’t know if you know what a sophist is. A sophist is a person who tries, through deceit, to make a lie pass for the truth. It's as if I would say this ceiling is black, and I would use words and mix them up to make you believe that the ceiling is black. But the ceiling is white. And the priest from Mexico, we have to recognise it, is an excellent sophist, an excellent sophist. I do not know what good it will do him, but he is an excellent sophist.
And starting with this article in which I intended to defend the fact that there can be no miracles and so on and so forth, I was called everything, not in a very nice way. It's ugly to open your email, to click here and click there, and see that they are telling you that you are an imbecile, that you are so proud, you are going against St. Thomas, who do you think you are...? It’s not nice. I have a back, and I don't like to be talked about behind my back.
But let us continue. I'm up to here with these lies. Bishop Williamson said there are miracles outside the Catholic Church and he insisted on this. And it occurred to me to explain it to them, at the end of the year, to go back to the same matter, this time jokingly—joking so as not to cry. I started talking about the cherry on the cake and all of those things. I explained that God is omnipotent and He can do whatever He pleases and wherever He pleases. BUT GOD IS ORDERLY. God cannot make a round triangle. God cannot make the sun rise in the north tomorrow, or in the south, but not in the east. God is orderly. But after this it seems like there was no argument that they liked.
Do you know what this is? [He holds up a book.] The title says, “Catechism of St Pius X.” Question: “Is this catechism trustworthy?” Modernists would say, “Throw it in the garbage.” But I think I am among Catholics. Is this trustworthy? [The people say yes.] Are you sure? Be careful, watch out what you say, look to what you have said. I read this Catechism of St. Pius X soon after I met Archbishop Lefebvre. I felt the need to reinforce the catechism I had learned as a child so I bought the catechism and read it. Of course, there are things, little details that we don't remember.
When this problem about the little miracles in the modern mass arose, one of you called me and asked me, “Father Cardozo, what do you think?” I told him, it’s very easy to deal with this. These little miracles go against the sanctity of the Church. But of course, there are so many things—we read so many things—that it is impossible to know precisely where we read certain things. And one is also busy trying to make arrangements for trips, missions, etc., thinking that the people read the catechism, thinking that the clergy read their catechism. Please repeat to me whether this is a Catholic catechism. A catechism is, in principle, a compendium of all Catholic dogma. True or false? Have you all said true? Then take the consequences! Read it! Maybe some of you have the same edition. Look at the last two pages. It's easy—turn the first and the second last two pages. Be careful, I did not write this, this is not an edition for dear Fr. Cardozo. Sit tight! Bear with what you are going to read. And remember, the truth hurts, and it hurts a lot. And sometimes it is hard to say “I was wrong.” And I know there are many who are waiting to say, “But Fr. Cardozo, how can you say these things against Bishop Williamson?” Just listen to what St Pius X has to say. The saint talks about the marks of the Catholic Church. And I repeat: he talks about the marks of the Catholic Church, not of the marks of Cardozo’s Church, not of Williamson’s church, but the marks of the Catholic Church.
Referring to the mark of Holiness, it says:
Quote: “The faithful that reads the history of the church with a sincere heart, will see the holiness of the Church shine, not only in the essential sanctity of its invisible head, Jesus Christ, the sanctity of the sacraments, of the doctrine, of religious institutions, of a great number of its members, but also of an abundance of celestial gifts, of sacred charisms, of prophesies, and”–pay attention here—“and miracles that Our Lord, denying them to other religions, makes shine on the face of the earth, this gift of holiness endowed exclusively on His one and only Church.”
I repeat, “…and miracles that Our Lord, denying them to other religions, makes shine on the face of the earth, this gift of holiness endowed exclusively on His one and only Church.” So, did I teach anything in opposition to this? I ask, did I teach this? Did I attack the sanctity of the Church? Did I attack it by saying that there are little miracles in the new church?
The great sophist of Mexico tells me, because he begins to receive - because, of course, I'm not the only fool that realizes the problem. There are a lot of fools! - he has started receiving letters saying, “Watch out, we are defending error!” A dear Father from Colombia wrote to all the priests and both bishops and said, “Ladies and gentlemen, if we are going to defend error, if we are going to fight error with error, we are doing wrong!” Then the great sophist from Mexico answered me and said, “Father Cardozo, what you said about there being no miracles outside the Catholic Church is beside the point.” What? It’s beside the point? How is it beside the point?
I ask, is the new mass part of the Catholic Church? And how do we know that it is not of the Catholic Church? Because of its errors, because the goal of the new mass is ecumenism, because our BIG LIONS for the Faith, Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer, did not cease saying that this new mass is the mass of a new church, which is not the Catholic Church. Of course, when one listens to this, coming from a fellow priest, supposedly a traditional priest, supposedly from the Resistance, who tells you besides that the new mass is good, and that the new mass is of the Catholic Church, I'm sorry, but I thought there was going to be a short circuit.
Why? Because we are in contradiction! We enter into contradiction. Then I told him: “Father, I thought that the new mass was a mass from another church!” But Father insists, “No, no, no! It’s of the Catholic Church.” Of course, what’s going on here? What are we doing here? For, if the new mass is good, if the new mass is of the Catholic Church, please tell me what we are doing here. Why don't we go to our parishes? Maybe there we will have air conditioning. Tell me, what are we resisting? Please, because I repeat, if the new mass is good, if the new mass is of the Catholic Church, I don't really see any sense in our being here. And I think many of us would not have to be here.
But, let's finally put the movie on pause here. In mathematics, and in everything, not only in mathematics, when you start something, for instance to say 1+1=3, that is to say, you start with an error, if you do not correct the error, this error will influence the course of the analysis, and will increase exponentially [St. Thomas Aquinas tells us that: Parvus error in principio est magnus in fine - A small error in principle becomes great in its end results. The Catacombs]. Something that began as a small error will become a very big error. When I told you here on December 30th to be careful because we are looking at the tip of the iceberg, I think you did not assess the harm that this 1+1=3 has done. Why? Because to justify that 1+1=3, they start saying that the mass, the new mass is good, that it is of the Catholic Church.
Even Bishop Faure, trying to justify and support Bishop Williamson, gave a sermon, I believe on December 12th. Yes, on December 12th in Mexico. For those who understand a little bit of Spanish, I suggest that you read it. When I listened to Bishop Faure’s sermon, favouring the little miracles in the new mass, I started feeling afraid, because I was hoping that Bishop Faure would have said, “Williamson, forget about this subject; talk about Beethoven instead.” When you listen to it - you can hear it on the ‘Non Possumus’ website - it's so obvious, if you are honest, and want to do a little penance for Lent, listen to this sermon, and you will see that it is even WORSE than the three Eleison Comments by Bishop Williamson. I was so terrified! Be careful! This does not amuse me, ladies and gentlemen! It doesn't amuse me! I told Bishop Faure, “Please, Monsignor, I beg you to study your sermon, and count the number of times that you contradict yourself!”
Remember, yes, yes, or no, no; when you go beyond that, the devil comes. Then I received an email from Bishop Faure. This email says: “Cardozo, there are miracles outside of the Church!” just like that, as if to say, “Oh, stop being a bother!” And it was put in bold letters. Furthermore, “Where did you see Archbishop Lefebvre say that the new mass is not a mass of the Catholic Church?” I'm sorry! I almost had a heart attack. That is to say, Bishop Faure defends the fact that the new mass is a mass of the Catholic Church.
I went to Argentina to look for two little books. There's a book by Archbishop Lefebvre titled “The New Church.” It’s not that the Archbishop wrote a quote about the new church. No! “The New Church”! There's another book that Archbishop Lefebvre wrote called “The New Mass.” I know that I had it, but I see that somebody borrowed it, and it was never returned. Well that's the way it goes. How can Bishop Faure ask me where I saw that Archbishop Lefebvre says that the new mass is a mass that’s outside the Catholic Church? But it doesn't stop here. The error is exponential.
Let's see, what do we have here? Do you know the Dominican monks of Avrillé? You do? You know who they are. In all truth, I had a very high opinion of them. When one says “Dominican monk” you know that you’re referring to someone whose life is secluded in the cloister and who spends his time, his life, studying theology. That is to say, they are persons who know a little bit more than just the catechism, supposedly. Then, the Dominicans entered the discussion. They got involved in the fuss. Ok, and I read this [He holds up a paper.], which is titled “The Neo-modernist Sect that Occupies the Catholic Church, by the Dominicans of Avrillé.” I did not count all the contradictions, but if you have this document, count them! There is more than one.
This document was repeated by the future bishop, Dom Tomas Aquinas. In the first part, this document tries to explain the relationship between the conciliar church and the Catholic Church. Read it, pay attention please, because I notice that nobody reads, that many people say they read, but in reality they don't. It says, “The conciliar, neo-modernist church is therefore neither substantially different from the Catholic Church (beep, beep, beep), nor absolutely identical to it.” Wow! That is, it is neither equal nor different. Excuse me! What do you call this? CONTRADICTION!
Sorry, in Spanish this is a contradiction. But wait; there are still prettier things to come. “She, the conciliar church, mysteriously has something from one, and something from the other.” That is to say, the Lutheran church mysteriously has something Catholic, you see, like baptism. They make the comparison. Here they say something that is very true, and I share it with you. It is a foreign body that occupies the Catholic Church. That is, the conciliar church is a foreign body that occupies the Catholic Church, but… (I'm glad you are sitting down. Will the ones who are standing, please hold on to the wall?) “…but, it is necessary for us to differentiate between them, without separating them.”
Let's see whether I can explain it myself. The conciliar church is a foreign body, the Dominicans say. Let's imagine a tick on my hand. It is necessary to differentiate between them, the tick and my hand, but not separate them. Pardon me! Do you realize that you have separated yourselves from your parish? Why did you separate yourselves from your parish? Because you didn't want to become infected with modernism? If I have this filth of a bug that's biting me here [on Father's hand], it’s modernism. And this [Father's hand] is the Catholic Church, I differentiate between them. I can separate them.
Ladies and gentlemen, didn't Archbishop Lefebvre tell us there shouldn't be any agreements with these people [the modernists], that when they convert to the faith, they will find us Catholics? Archbishop Lefebvre said that, didn’t he? Did Archbishop Lefebvre tell us, “You have to differentiate between the bug of modernism, but do not separate it from the Church?” Did Archbishop Lefebvre say that? No, ladies and gentlemen! I cannot coexist with error. What's more, the defence of the truth, love for the truth, implies a fight against error. I cannot permit the tick to continue sucking my blood, because that's going to kill me. It’s that simple. So, if I see Our Holy Mother, the Catholic Church, infected with modernism, what do I have to say? “Oh yes, I can differentiate between them: this priest is a showman, and that priest is good. But I cannot separate them.” I don't know if you realise where this [idea] is taking us? I don't know whether I am too discerning. Don't you realize that it is leading to an identification of the Catholic Church with the conciliar church, just as Bishop Fellay is doing? Because Bishop Fellay says, “This visible church [the church of Vatican II], is the Catholic Church.” That means we are going in the same direction. We have left the neo-fraternity to remain Catholic, and now we find that we are steering the ship's bow toward the neo-fraternity, toward the neo-fraternity's position. Please open your eyes; don’t be imbeciles! Forgive me, but use a little bit of sense. No one works without having a purpose. Why are they saying these things; why are they saying 1+1=3? And why are they saying, “The new mass is good”? And why are they saying: “The new mass is a mass of the Catholic Church”? BECAUSE THEY ARE TAKING US TO THE SAME PLACE [as Bishop Fellay]!
OK. But let us now go on to another detail. In January, I left to go to another mission. I thought that the people were at peace, that they understood, but I think I was mistaken. And when I arrived, I got the news that the future bishop, Dom Tomas Aquinas, is blocking me from the apostolate in São Paulo. The sacristan is here; he is my witness. I wasn't in agreement with Dom Tomas Aquinas, because he was defending Bishop Williamson with all his strength. Dom Tomas Aquinas was saying in letters that I had to correct myself—that I had to submit to the hierarchy [of Bp. Williamson - The Catacombs].
But how embarrassing it is to have to say words that the bishop is not going to support! And when I left, I told the sacristan, and he is a witness, that our dear Cecilia’s baptism was to take place. And I told him, look out! If Cecilia wants the baptism done, there’s no problem. No problem! It is a valid, licit baptism. Well, I did not receive the same courtesy. I was received as if I were a heretic. It is funny, because they asked him, “Dom Tomas, why can't Fr. Cardozo say Mass in São Paolo?” “It's because he is against the hierarchy. Can you imagine? If he goes to the monastery and gives a sermon that he doesn't believe in the miracles, it would create a conflict between the hierarchy and Fr. Cardozo.”
Specifically, who is in agreement with St Pius X about this infamous point of the miracles? Am I or is Bishop Williamson? Did I deny the magisterium of the church? Did I deny the sanctity of the church? I'm asking! I didn't; he did! And he insisted and insisted stubbornly. I even went as far as to write: “Monsignor, please stop this fuss. To save myself I don't need miracles outside the church. Stop the division that you are about to cause in the Resistance.” And his answer, which my friend reproduced [in an article answering Bishop Williamson’s errors], was: “Dear Fr. Cardozo, have patience. This chaos is just starting. Patience! I give you my blessing. Good bye.”
A chaos that he started [Bishop Williamson]! Which he is causing! I'm sorry. “And the chaos is barely starting.” So you’d better hold on. Hold tight! But I tell you again, don't come and tell me that I'm causing a division in the Resistance, that I'm causing scandal, that I'm against the hierarchy and so many other things. Do you know who ordained me? Someone who went against the hierarchy! Because the hierarchy, as long as it remains Catholic, is great. But when it opposes Catholic doctrine… Excuse me!
Didn’t Archbishop Lefebvre go against the Pope, the hierarchy? Watch out! I have the honour of having been ordained by him. I cannot betray this man, and much less, betray Him [Our Lord]. Just because I like Bishop Williamson, I cannot swallow this tale, and tell all of you, “Ladies and gentlemen, there are little miracles.” What foolishness! I’d be attacking the sanctity of the Church, and this error is leading us to attack the unity of the church.” Why? Because of what I just told you about the Dominicans, the Dominicans who say the conciliar church is mysteriously united to the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is the immaculate spouse of Jesus Christ, and the immaculate spouse of Christ has as her head, Christ Himself. And the same Christ, that is, the head, and His body, the immaculate spouse of Christ, cannot mysteriously embrace a prostitute. Let’s see if you understand it. Or is the catechism that hard? We are talking about the catechism. We are not talking about the Summa Theologica.
We are talking about the catechism, ladies and gentlemen; and I've noticed that we need to learn much more of our catechism. Remember that Jesus Christ also said, “He that loves his father, his mother, his son, more than Me, is not worthy of Me.” It seems that we have to love Williamson above all things. I’m sorry; I continue to try to follow the first commandment. Is that a sin? Is that heresy? Is that a scandal? Just as I have read in an email: “What a scandal!” Who's creating the scandal? The one who denies doctrine, the one who attacks Catholic doctrine, or the one who is simply asking, “Please defend the Catholic catechism.”? Souls are at stake! And they are scandalised and say that Fr. Cardozo has a group of people who put things into his head, implying that I am subnormal, that I cannot think!
What are we to do? People ask me, “Father, what are you going to do? Are you going to the consecration of Bishop Tomas Aquinas? What do you think about the consecration? Is it okay to have a consecration?” Yes, for me, it would be excellent for a consecration to take place, and for there to be a bishop in each state of Brazil, or at least one bishop in each country. That would be excellent. But let that bishop be Catholic. Otherwise he would be useless. If the future bishop Tomas Aquinas is going to continue in this attitude of attacking the sanctity of the Church, the unity of the Church, pardon me, I will not walk down that road.
“But Father, you will be left without a bishop, what are you going to do?” What? How's that? You do not understand anything. How am I going to be left without a bishop? When I hear these things, when they tell me these things, I think we are on a different planet. To whom have I been talking and preaching? How am I going to be left without a bishop? Is it perhaps that I'm going to be left without St. Augustine, without St. Ambrose, without St. Anthony Mary Claret, without St. John Fisher? Because all of those thousands and thousands of bishops, and many of them saints, have supported and defended the sanctity of the Church and the unity of the Church. They have not attacked it, and have not cast doubts on it. Because, trying to save the situation, some people say, “They are only saying that it might be possible.”
Ladies and gentlemen, if I deny a dogma of the faith or put it into doubt, I sin gravely against the faith. Read your catechism. If I tell you I think it’s possible that there's no hell, I am committing a grave sin against the Faith, as grave as if I had told you that there is no hell. Why? Because I cannot cast doubt on something that has already been defined by the Church. Let's see if we understand. Let's see if we are realistic and if we really love the Truth. Because it’s beautiful to say that we love God, and "Long live Christ the King" and I don't know what else! But when the situation arises, in which we have to take a risk for the Truth, “Oh dear! Oh no! We will be left without a bishop!” I was listening to an audio in which someone said, “I need a bishop.” Do you know what? I NEED THE FAITH. If there’s a Catholic bishop, blessed be God! If there's no Catholic bishop, I regret it. God, The Divine Providence, will see how to fix this problem. But in order to have a bishop, I will not give up a single ounce of my Faith. I don't know whether I have made myself clear. Don't come and tell me, “You are a rebel; you are here to divide.”
Ladies and gentlemen, I believe I have never taught any error against the faith here. And let whoever says the opposite come to me and prove it. I'm not denying the hierarchy of Bishop Williamson, of Faure or any other bishop. I am saying that those gentlemen are in a grave error against the faith, and they are persevering in their error.
Let us continue with the catechism. And this really scares me, because we are talking about clergymen. Do you know what one of the sins against the Holy Ghost is? I'm going to refresh your memory. “How many sins are there against the Holy Ghost?” says the catechism. There are six sins against the Holy Ghost: to despair of our own salvation, to presume of being saved without any merits, to fight against the known truth… I repeat: to fight against the known truth. Are you going to tell me that these three bishops—we will include Dom Tomas as a bishop—haven't read the Credo? Don't they pray it every Sunday? It says, “I believe in the Holy Catholic Church.” What is this? Didn’t they know this truth? And now they are crushing those who defend it? They have no sense of shame!
Let them do whatever they want to me, but I will not go along with this. I want to die a Catholic. Why don't I use the title of The Resistance anymore? Because, when they say resistance, they immediately associate it with Williamson. Excuse me, as long as Williamson doesn't retract, refer to me personally as Catholic. Nothing else! Do not come to me with adjectives that get subverted. I'm Catholic, period! Prove to me that I am not! Be careful! Prove to me that I am not! Whoever comes to try to prove that I am not Catholic, before doing so, must partake of this catechism. Completely! All of it!
Ladies and gentlemen, a few years ago you asked me to come and take care of Ipatinga, and I did so gladly. You know it! I haven't lied to you; I haven't taught bad doctrine. But attention, please. There's a sign outside that reads: “CATHOLIC MISSIONS” and I hope that that sign continues to say, “CATHOLIC MISSIONS”. I don't want the sign to change to “Williamson’s Mission” or whatever name you want to use. No, I am not here for that. If it’s going to be like that, excuse me; I have a lot of work, too much work. If because of this I am now told, “Go away, because we want to be one of Williamson's sect” or whomever else's, okay, good luck, my friends! I will continue on my way. I’m not afraid to leave. St. Paul has a beautiful verse: “I know in Whom I have believed.” And just this past Saturday we read a verse in the Epistle that I would suggest many of you read and re-read, and meditate on it. It is the verse, “Cursed be the man who puts his trust in another man.” I ask: is Williamson God? Is Bishop Faure God? Is the future Bishop Dom Tomas Aquinas God? Are all of the Dominican monks—even though there are two, whom I know of, who are firm, trying to fight error—are they God? Do I have to yield my intelligence and say, okay gentlemen, “So be it,” as Dom Tomas Aquinas is asking me to do?
I would like Dom Tomas Aquinas to be like the other Dom Tomas Aquinas when Bishop Williamson came. [See: https://youtu.be/hk1jj4KnZnM]. When Bishop Williamson started to praise Benedict XVI, Dom Tomas interrupted him saying, “Be careful; watch out! Don't continue!” A perfect intervention! Perfect! How sad he hasn't repeated this act of faith now. How very sad! I'm so sorry! I am so sorry because Dom Tomas Aquinas, as you know, I have told you—I will be grateful to Dom Tomas until the day of my death because he received me when I left São Paulo [and the SSPX]. My eternal gratitude! But not because of that gratitude am I going to accept the errors that they are now upholding.
But going back, I repeat, if there's any question and you think that I'm a heretic, that I'm here to divide the Resistance, that is, that I'm a stupid person who doesn't know how to think, that all my friends are filling my head with ideas, making me go astray, I think you are underestimating me a little bit.
If you want to continue being Catholic, I will come here. If you do not want to continue being Catholic, excuse me, I'll pack my bags and leave. No problem. Thank God, my dear friend Eric will receive me in his home. We can move the chapel to a different place, no problem. But please tell me. BECAUSE I DO NOT WANT TO WORK WITH HERETICS! I DO NOT WANT TO WORK WITH SECTARIANS! I WANT TO WORK WITH CATHOLICS! OTHERWISE, I’M WASTING MY TIME, WHICH I CAN USE FOR MUCH MORE PRACTICAL THINGS THAN WASTING MY TIME WITH SECTARIANS. IS THAT CLEAR? Is it clear that I intend to follow the commandment to love God above all things? And how do I prove that I love God above all things? Because I keep His word! “He who loves me will keep my word.” Okay. This is what I will ask you, whether you are Catholics, do you keep His word without trying to distort it by saying “more or less,” or “it may be.” No, no, ladies and gentlemen.
There's a letter going around now, a little letter from dear Fr. Trincado, the great sophist, with a lot of issues about this and that. I read it some time ago. He sent it to me a long time ago. I'm sorry; I'm not going to discuss even one period or one comma with a sophist. Not a period, not a comma. And I'm going to ask a favour of whoever wants to come and discuss this problem, a favour of intellectual honesty. Bring me a little note that says, “I adhere totally and absolutely to the Catholic doctrine which among other things is contained in this catechism. [He holds up the catechism of St Pius X.] For, if you come to me with sophisms, I don't want to waste my time.
How is it possible, that after 40 years in the fight, there are traditionalist priests who come and tell me that the new mass is good? My God! And that the conciliar church cannot be separated from the Catholic Church? My God! My time is gold. And I do not want to waste it on stupidities.
Today is a very important day for this mission, because, depending on what you decide, either we save ourselves, or we condemn ourselves. Either we continue being Catholic, or we enter into a sect. You choose! And I ask you to tell me at least by Saturday because I have to get my things in order. I have to see where I'm going to go, what I'm going to do—just a simple thing. But I repeat, before answering me, read this. For, maybe this catechism is prepared by dear Cardozo, to lie to you. No! No, there are a lot of them [catechisms]. Read it! Because a lot has been said, and a lot of stupidities have been said because we do not know the catechism.
And let us end with that phrase from the gospel: “He who is not with me is against me.” And as far as I know, I have not denied any dogma or article of the creed. The others have!
VIVA CRISTO REY! [LONG LIVE CHRIST THE KING!]
[Emphasis - The Catacombs.]
|
|
|
| Irish priest fined for offering Mass during lockdown, not turning people away |
|
Posted by: Stone - 03-24-2021, 06:08 AM - Forum: Pandemic 2020 [Spiritual]
- No Replies
|
|
Irish priest fined for offering Mass during lockdown, not turning people away
‘We are committing a grave mistake by rejecting our Lord and God Jesus Christ by staying away because government officials say we must,’ the priest said.
![[Image: shutterstock_1699079287_810_500_75_s_c1.jpg]](https://assets.lifesitenews.com/images/made/images/remote/https_www.lifesitenews.com/images/local/Shutterstock/shutterstock_1699079287_810_500_75_s_c1.jpg)
CAVAN, Ireland, March 23, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — Irish Catholic priest Father P.J. Hughes has once again been confronted by police. Hughes was fined €500 fine for not turning people away from Mass during the current COVID-19 lockdown.
Fr. Hughes, of Mullahoran parish in Co. Cavan, was reportedly approached by Gardai (Irish police) and presented with a €500 fine. His perceived offense was refusing to turn away members of his congregation who turned up in the church for Mass, since he refuses to lock the church doors.
Under the current lockdown, the Irish government has taken measures to prohibit public worship under the pretense of preventing the spread of COVID-19 infections. As a result, there have been no public Masses since December 26, 2020, communal worship is forbidden, and places of worship are only allowed to open for private prayer. Funerals are currently allowed to occur, but with just “10 mourners.” Weddings are similarly limited to 6 people. Worship will only be permitted once the country goes back down to “level 2” in its restrictions, which could be months away.
The Irish Catholic stated that sources close to Hughes had confirmed that he would refuse to pay the fine, and was ready to face jail if necessary.
LifeSiteNews contacted the Gardai for confirmation and comment, but was told that it was not their policy to comment on named persons in particular cases.
In his parish newsletter this weekend, Fr. Hughes addressed the issue, re-iterating his commitment to administering the sacraments. “I do not accept the negative message of our leaders who are telling us to stay away from Jesus,” he wrote.
“Despite the size of the church and the holy place that it is because of the presence of Jesus in the Holy Tabernacle, the church has been deemed a hot spot for the spread of the virus by the gardai,” said Hughes. “The majority of people are healthy and able to go shopping, bring their children to school and many of them are working in enclosed environments. We are committing a grave mistake by rejecting our Lord and God Jesus Christ by staying away because government officials say we must.”
“I do not accept and will not accept this demand by people who do not realize the wrong they are doing. It is our constitutional right to protest so long as it is peaceful; it is our constitutional right to practice our faith and assemble to pray together.”
He explained his stance against the restrictions on worship: “For those who are afraid of catching the virus in the church then they can have the free choice to stay at home and live their lives as they think it best to do. I have been reported again and the gardai have issued a fine because I celebrated Mass with people present.”
The Irish Constitution itself actually protects the right to worship in Article 44: “The State acknowledges that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God. It shall hold His Name in reverence, and shall respect and honour religion. Freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of religion are, subject to public order and morality, guaranteed to every citizen.”
It further states: “The State shall not impose any disabilities or make any discrimination on the ground of religious profession, belief or status.”
This recent fine comes as the latest in a series of increasingly heavy-handed measures taken by the Gardai against Fr. Hughes. Back in November 2020, he was threatened with prosecution by the police for his refusal to turn people away when they arrived into church for Mass. Four officers approached Hughes after Sunday Mass, warning that he might be “prosecuted for breaching the Covid rules introduced during the last lockdown period.” Following that, he was warned that he had “one more chance” to adhere to the restrictions.
Hughes revealed that “somebody reported me,” which led to his discovery by the civil authorities. He was then rebuked by his ordinary, Bishop Francis Duffy of the Diocese of Ardagh and Clonmacnoise, who reportedly told Fr. Hughes that he was in “dangerous territory.” Despite this, Hughes remains committed to offering the sacraments to people, as he demonstrated in his recent newsletter: “I will exercise my constitutional right even though people are complaining, even though I am not obeying the bishop when I go against his advice. We can’t just reject Jesus in the Holy Eucharist.”
Notwithstanding the state and the Church enforcing closure of churches, one law professor has stated that under the current restrictions, religious worship is not in fact prohibited. Professor Oran Doyle of Trinity College Dublin explained that while “relevant events” are forbidden, “[i]t is beyond argument that ‘relevant event’ does not include events held for religious reasons; religious events are therefore not prohibited by Regulation 8.”
“Rather than clearly distinguish between what citizens are required to do and what they are requested or advised to do, Government statements frequently encourage people to believe that their legal obligations are more restrictive than is in fact the case,” Doyle wrote.
In fact, referring to Hughes’s encounter with the police in November, and media reports that Hughes was warned about future prosecution, should he be found saying Mass again, Doyle said that “this statement of the legal position was categorically incorrect.
[Emphasis mine.]
|
|
|
|
| April 27th -St. Peter Canisius and St. Zita |
|
Posted by: Elizabeth - 03-23-2021, 08:55 PM - Forum: April
- Replies (1)
|
 |
Saint Peter Canisius
Doctor of the Church
(1521-1597)
Born in 1521 of a distinguished family of Holland, Saint Peter Canisius studied in Cologne and received his license as doctor of civil law; he then went to Louvain (Belgium) to learn canon law. These studies followed close upon the days when Luther had burnt the papal bulls at Wittenberg, Germany. Soon Saint Peter, become a Jesuit, was teaching at the University of Cologne; he was there when the unfortunate archbishop of that city fell into the new heresy. The Catholics who desired to depose him needed a deputy to the emperor to present their request, and Saint Peter was chosen.
His mission, seconded by the Holy Spirit, succeeded; and the deputy was remarked by a Cardinal, who desired to send him to the Council of Trent as his representative and theologian. Saint Peter's superior, Saint Ignatius of Loyola himself, approved this choice, and the young Jesuit took his place among the Fathers of the Council. He was commissioned to draft a memoir on the exact nature of the errors being propagated in the lands of the reform, in consort with the Pope's theologian, another Jesuit named Jacques Laynez. Their work was admired; the Council was dissolved soon afterwards, however, and Saint Peter was recalled to Rome by Saint Ignatius, to consult with him concerning the formation of the religious and the future of their Order.
Afterwards Saint Peter and two other Jesuits founded a college at Ingolstadt, going there with only two books in their baggage, the Spiritual Exercises of Saint Ignatius and the famous Ratio Studiorum, or Plan of Studies of their Order. Saint Peter was named Rector of the University by that institution.
He was in demand everywhere; King Ferdinand of Rome obtained his presence for Vienna. A pestilence broke out there, and he was most often found at the bedside of the dying, caring for the bodies and regenerating the souls of the unfortunate citizens. He opened a boarding school for boys, and Vienna soon found itself reborn in the faith: the famous Catechism of Saint Peter Canisius had much to do with the renovation. During his lifetime it appeared in more than 200 editions, in at least twelve languages. It remains a monument of the triumph of the Church over error in the time of Luther.
Its author had tried to keep his name a secret but did not succeed, and then several nations disputed the honor of his presence. But Saint Peter was Provincial of Germany, named by Saint Ignatius, and he concerned himself above all with the colleges at Prague, Ingolstadt and Munich. Until his death in 1597 the Apostle of Germany continued the valiant and perpetual combat of the Church against error. For a long time forgotten, Saint Peter was canonized and declared a Doctor of the Church by Pope Pius XI in 1927.
Saint Zita
Virgin
(† 1278)
Saint Zita for forty-eight years was employed in the service of a citizen of Lucca, Italy. During this time she rose each morning to hear Mass while all in the household were asleep, and then toiled incessantly until night came, doing the work of others as well as her own.
Once Zita, absorbed in prayer, remained in church past the usual hour of her bread-making. She hastened home, reproaching herself with neglect of duty, but found the bread made and ready for the oven. She did not doubt that her mistress or one of her servants had kneaded it, and going to them, thanked them. They were astonished, for no human being had made the bread; Angels had made it during her prayer.
For years her master and mistress treated her as a mere drudge, while her fellow-servants, resenting her diligence as a reproach to themselves, insulted and struck her. Saint Zita offered these sufferings with those of Christ her Lord, never changing the sweet tone of her voice or forgetting her gentle and quiet ways. At length her employer, seeing the success which attended her undertakings, gave her charge of his children and the household. She dreaded this dignity more than the worst humiliation, but scrupulously fulfilled her trust.
By her holy economy her master's goods were multiplied, while the poor were fed at his door. Gradually her unfailing patience conquered the jealousy of her fellow-servants, and she became their advocate with their hot-tempered master, who dared not give way to his anger before Zita. In the end her prayer and toil sanctified the entire house, and drew down upon it the blessings of Heaven. She died in 1278, and at the moment of her death, a bright star appearing above the attic where she slept showed that she had gained eternal rest.
|
|
|
|
| Ratzinger and Hegel |
|
Posted by: Stone - 03-23-2021, 11:49 AM - Forum: The Architects of Vatican II
- Replies (2)
|
|
Reposted here from The Catacombs archives:
Dear friends,
I am always loathe to reference sedevacantist sources. However, it has long been the custom here on The Catacombs that if an article exposes or speaks the truth, it shouldn't be ignored just because of who the author is/was [e.g. St. Thomas Aquinas referencing Aristotle]. With this in mind, we repost the following article, adapted to filter out the sedevacantist references. Please keep in mind that Bishop Tissier de Mallerais' study on the 'Hermeneutics' of Joseph Ratzinger highlight many of the points made below though not [to my memory] this particular example.
Ratzinger, Hegel, and “Summorum Pontificum”
Thesis – Antithesis – Synthesis
Novus Ordo Watch [All emphasis mine.]| June 6, 2017
As we quickly approach the tenth anniversary of Summorum Pontificum, Benedict XVI’s unjustly celebrated motu proprio that supposedly “freed” the Traditional Latin Mass by permitting every presbyter of the Vatican II Sect to use the 1962 Missal for the celebration of at least private Masses, we are starting to see a number of articles in the Novus Ordo press about what has been accomplished ten years after Benedict XVI’s landmark decision.
About three months after the release of Summorum Pontificum on July 7, 2007, we published our own critical analysis of the “papal” document we have justly termed a “motu inapproprio“: “One and the Same Rite”? How Benedict XVI’s Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum Aims to Destroy the Traditional Latin Mass.
While many of Benedict’s recognize-and-resist cheerleaders were hailing Summorum Pontificum as a gift from above and were acting as though Pope Ratzinger had just overturned Vatican II, Novus Ordo Watch was among the unpopular few who pointed out that, contrary to the impression a superficial reading of the document might give, Summorum Pontificum was but the latest dangerous ploy [by one ...] who has been undermining Faith and Liturgy pretty much from the beginning of his priesthood (ordained in 1951, the young Fr. Ratzinger was suspected of heresy by the Holy Office during the very same decade).
One of the most obvious blasphemies Benedict XVI’s document contains is the bold, gratuitous, and easily-disproven claim that the traditional Roman rite of Pope St. Pius V and the Modernist Novus Ordo rite of Pope Paul VI are but “two usages of the one Roman rite”. Not only does our response to Summorum Pontificum, linked above, refute this absurd position, it also points out that the celebrated motu proprio appears to contain one of Ratzinger’s favorite tools: Hegelian philosophy.
In a nutshell: The German idealist philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) held the idea that all reality is Absolute Spirit, which manifests itself in world history. History consists of and advances by means of a constant interplay of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. According to Hegel, contradictions (in his terms, a “thesis” being opposed by an “anti-thesis”) are necessary to arrive at a “higher level of truth” (the so-called “synthesis”). This triad is called the Hegelian dialectic, and it repeats itself continuously (with each synthesis becoming a new thesis, which is then opposed by its corresponding antithesis, both of which in turn generate another synthesis, etc.) until it culminates in the Absolute at the end of history. Needless to say, Hegelianism is radically incompatible with Catholicism.
In our 2007 critique of Benedict XVI’s Summorum Pontificum, we pointed out that the distinction between “ordinary form” and “extraordinary form” of the “one Roman rite” was just Ratzinger shrewdly utilizing the Hegelian dialectic to diffuse the controversy over the liturgical “reform” of Paul VI. In fact, we believe that Benedict XVI applied Hegel twice to facilitate the imposition of Summorum Pontificum: In the motu proprio itself he used Hegel to advance the “synthesis” of two forms of the one Roman rite to overcome the “thesis” that there are two Roman rites (traditional and Novus Ordo), which is contradicted by the “antithesis” that obviously there is, and can be, only one Roman rite at a time. By saying that both the Novus Ordo liturgy and the traditional liturgy are the Roman rite, just expressed in a different “form” (whatever that means), Ratzinger was able to concede to the traditionalists that the two liturgies are quite different, while at the same time not having to admit that Paul VI created an essentially new rite. The only drawback to this clever synthesis is that it isn’t true, but we will leave that aside for the purposes of this post.
Having thus “resolved” the contradiction between the Traditional Catholic Mass and the Modernist worship service, Benedict then proceeded to the next level, that is, to a new triad: The “ordinary form” of the Roman rite (Novus Ordo) opposes the “extaordinary form” of the Roman rite (traditional), giving rise to a new synthesis, that of a de facto hybrid rite. Benedict did not complete this last step, but he strongly hinted at its validity and laid all the necessary groundwork for it, not in the motu proprio itself but in the accompanying explanatory letter he sent to all the bishops of the Vatican II Sect, in which he maintained that “the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal.”
Here the door is opened to allowing the 1962 Missal to become Novus Ordoized to whatever degree “pastoral prudence may suggest”, as Modernist parlance would have it. Modifications to the traditional Roman rite have thus been permitted in principle. Whether this ends up meaning that the indult Mass will soon have proper prayers for the feast of “St. John Paul II”, or whether there will be bidding prayers coming soon, “Communion” in the hand, or altar girls — it’s anyone’s guess, but the point is that nothing can be excluded in principle. Via Hegel, Benedict XVI made sure of that.
Here is how we alluded to Benedict XVI’s Hegelianism in our critique ten years ago:
Quote:Nor does Paul VI here offer to introduce an “ordinary” form of Mass, which has its complement in the “extraordinary” form of the St. Pius V Missal — that’s a distinction that Benedict XVI simply made up in order to “synthesize”, in somewhat Hegelian fashion, the two contradictory ideas that the New Mass replaced the Missal of St. Pius V and that there can be only one Roman rite of Mass at a time.
…It is no stretch to predict that what will come out of this “co-existence” of the “two forms” of “one and the same rite” will, at the end of the day, result in a total butchering of the 1962 Missal, so that, eventually, Benedict XVI can stop the nonsense of “two forms” of “one rite” and simply synthesize them together (here comes Hegel again), and the result will probably be a New Mass with a bit of Latin and a little more incense, or some sort of a hybrid missal like the one that was already in use in 1965. (“‘One and the Same Rite’?”, Novus Ordo Watch, Oct. 12, 2007)
Whoever thought at the time that our allusions to Hegel were irrelevant or uncalled-for, surely but the result of a deluded sedevacantist mind that should not be taken seriously anyway, will now be disappointed. Our analysis has just recently been vindicated by — drumroll! — a Novus Ordo source: the German writer Martin Mosebach, author of the book The Heresy of Formlessness: The Roman Liturgy and Its Enemy, a work popular among non-sedevacantist traditionalists. Published in English by Ignatius Press in 2010, it has been sold by the indult Roman Catholic Books as well as the SSPX’s publishing house, Angelus Press.
On June 2, in view of the upcoming 10-year anniversary, the German Die Tagespost published a lengthy interview with Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Muller and Mr. Martin Mosebach on Summorum Pontificum and the problem of the “liturgical reform” after Vatican II. Mosebach’s response to the question of whether Benedict XVI’s motu proprio fulfilled people’s expectations, confirms that our analysis ten years ago was spot-on:
Quote:Pope Benedict saw his role as that of a reconciler. The adherents of Tradition and the adherents of the progressivist wing [of the Church] both equally hold the view that the Second Vatican Council and the reform of the Mass constitute a genuine rupture with Tradition. It is true that in terms of doctrine the notion of [the Mass as] sacrifice was still being upheld, but in many cases this was no longer true in practice: We now celebrate a meal. Pope Benedict tried to transcend any such confrontation by opting for a hermeneutic of continuity, saying: The old and the new Ordo [=order of Mass] are two different forms of the same rite. That was a bold thesis for anyone who uses his eyes and ears. I view it as a diplomatic formula [which Benedict advanced] to help heal the obvious rupture. Based on this, Pope Benedict then expressed his hope that the old and the new Ordo would be able to influence each other, perhaps in order to arrive at a synthesis of old and new Ordo in accordance with the Hegelian model of dialectics. However, this would require the old Ordo to be celebrated in a great many places — otherwise there could hardly be a fruitful exchange concerning it. Moreover, one would have to accept that the old [rite of] worship cannot change — it would surely then have to be the Novus [=new] Ordo which gradually moves towards the sacredness of tradition so that the commonality of both forms can be recognized. (“‘Liturgie heißt: Gott agiert'”, Die Tagespost, June 2, 2017. Translation by Novus Ordo Watch.)
So there we go: Mosebach has also come to the conclusion that all this talk about two forms of the same rite is just so much Ratzingerian bunk that will ultimately result in a “a synthesis of old and new Ordo in accordance with the Hegelian model of dialectics”.
Alas, Hegel is still alive and well even almost 200 years after his death. The Modernist Nouvelle Theologie (“New Theology”) that emerged in the 1930s and prevailed at Vatican II, of which virtually all Novus Ordo theologians are loyal disciples, especially Joseph Ratzinger, is heavily influenced by Hegel. This is perhaps most evident in its emphasis on history as a proper locus of Sacred Theology, and in what they call “historical theology”. Or think of ecumenism, for example. Its unattainable goal is the “synthesis” of a supposed and as-yet-undefined “Christian unity” that transcends the old “all must convert to Catholicism” theology (thesis) as well as its opposite, the indifferentist “it doesn’t matter what you believe, we’re all Christians” theology (antithesis).
Utilizing the Hegelian dialectic allows Modernists to make themselves appear as mature, sophisticated thinkers who “transcend” the “simplistic” and “outdated” notions of traditional Catholic theology, which they have the intellectual wherewithal to overcome in an “advanced” and “higher” theology. Sound familiar? Once you understand how Hegel works, you will discover that his false philosophy is omnipresent in the Vatican II Church. This is why, by the way, you always hear [Pope]Francis talk about “moving forward.”
As Summorum Pontificum turns 10 years old on July 7, countless “traditional Catholics” will be celebrating. [...] Too comfortable are the traditional externals to which they can attach themselves so easily while remaining under the auspices of the Vatican II Church, thanks in large part to their hero, Benedict XVI — and thanks to his hero, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.
|
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre: 1976 Feast of the Immaculate Conception - On Obedience |
|
Posted by: Stone - 03-23-2021, 08:07 AM - Forum: Sermons and Conferences
- Replies (1)
|
|
Taken from The Recusant - Issue 39 January 2016
Archbishop Lefebvre: Sermon on the occasion of Engagements in the Society of St Pius X
Écône, 8th December, 1976
In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
My dear brethren,
This dogma of the Immaculate Conception, solemnly proclaimed by Pope Pius IX in 1854, was later confirmed by the Blessed Virgin herself in 1858, to Bernadette at Lourdes. Without any doubt, this feast of the Immaculate Conception is much older than its definition. The definition of these dogmas by the Sovereign Pontiffs always happens after the Church, in her Tradition and in her Faith, has manifested in a permanent way that she believes these truths revealed by Our Lord Jesus Christ through His apostles. Thus the truth, which we celebrate today concerning the Immaculate Conception of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, is a truth contained in Revelation and therefore taught by Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself.
This feast teaches us a great lesson, and particularly to you, my dear friends who, in a few moments, are going to pronounce your engagement for the first time or renew it, I think that I must draw your attention to the fact that this engagement requires you to practice in a particular way, truly and wholeheartedly with full adhesion, the holy virtue of obedience.
And if there is one virtue which stands out in this feast of the Immaculate Conception, it is precisely this virtue of obedience. Why? Because what made us lose sanctifying grace, what made us lose the friendship of God, was the sin of Eve, the mother of mankind. By her sin, by her disobedience, she drew after her all the souls who followed her. Since that sin of our first parents occurred in the history of mankind, all those who are born henceforth are born with original sin, except the Most Blessed Virgin Mary.
Thus it is, therefore, that Our Lord Jesus Christ has willed, God has willed, that in this history of mankind, wounded by the sin of disobedience of the mother of mankind, this sin be repaired by a similar creature - our heavenly Mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary. Thus, if it was by disobedience that sin began in mankind, it was by the obedience of the Blessed Virgin Mary that this sin was repaired.
Here is an admirable antithesis, willed, or at least permitted, by the Good Lord. Of course, the Good Lord did not will the sin but He permitted this fault of mankind, as the liturgy of Holy Saturday says: “felix culpa - happy fault” in a certain way, because it merited for us so many graces, it obtained for us to have in our midst the Son of God; it obtained for us to have the Blessed Virgin Mary.
All the more ought we to profit from this lesson offered to us by the Blessed Virgin Mary. A lesson of obedience, of sanctifying grace, from she who is called “full of grace.” Why is she full of grace? Because she obeyed, because she submitted to God. And that is precisely what we ought to have as the first desire of our life. The virtue of obedience is at the very heart of our sanctification. It is in the centre of our life, of our natural life, of our supernatural life. There cannot be a real natural life without obedience; there can be no true supernatural life without obedience.
What, then, is obedience? In what does it consist? It seems to me that we could define it as the virtue of God. “Vitrus Dei omnipotentis,” the virtue of Almighty God, infusing itself into our soul, our existence, our will, our intelligence, our body, this virtue of Almighty God. A Virtue which is the power of the Almighty God written into our lives, into our daily life, into our existence, because we are nothing without this power of the Almighty God. This virtue of the Almighty God is written in the Law, in the Commandments of God, in the Commandments of life: Love your God, love your neighbour - this is what we ought to do. And it is on this condition that we shall live both in the natural order and in the supernatural order.
We must therefore firstly have the desire to see this Virtue of God, this natural and supernatural power of God, being infused into our souls and taking over our whole self, all that we are. Not letting anything escape from this supreme power of God in us, to submit ourselves totally to the grace of the Good Lord, to His power, to His life. That is obedience, and that is the fruit of obedience: natural life, supernatural life, and thereby eternal life in the life of the beatific vision. All this is inscribed in the virtue of obedience.
Therefore, my dear friends, this should be the profound disposition of your souls while you pronounce your engagement: I want to be obedient, obedient for my whole life, obedient to God. I submit myself to the Will of God in order that He may communicate to me His Life, by communicating to me His Truth, truth in our intellect by the natural light of reason, but also and above all by the light of faith. Indeed faith is nothing else: it is the obedience of our intelligence to the revelation of Our Lord Jesus Christ who gives us His Truth, who transmits to us His Truth, and this Truth is a source of life. It will be a source of life for you, a source of grace.
Thus, submit your intelligence and your will fully to Our Lord Jesus Christ. Ask this through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Ask her to give you this grace, that she give you the humility to submit yourself entirely to the holy Will of Our Lord. She showed you the example in her “fiat” in her humility. “Quia respexit humilitatem meam; quia respexit humilitatem ancillae suae,” we sing in the Magnificat. And her cousin Elizabeth says to her “Et Beata quae credidisti”: blessed art thou because thou hast believed! Because you had faith! Faith is nothing less than the obedience of our intelligence, the submission of our intelligence to the Truth revealed by the authority of God. This is what your obedience ought to be like. By this grace of obedience you shall transform your lives, and your lives shall become fully conformed to the Will of God.
But obviously in the circumstances in which we live, in the confusion in which the Church finds herself today, we can wonder: “But where is this obedience today? How is obedience practiced in holy Church today?”
Well, we must not forget that our first obedience, our obedience which is fundamental and radical, the foundation and root, must be to Our Lord Jesus Christ, to God! For it is He who demands our obedience; it is He who demands our submission. And the Good Lord has done everything for us to be enlightened in our obedience. For two thousand years of the existence of the Church, the light was given by Revelation, by the Apostles, by the successors of the Apostles, by Peter and by the successors of Peter. And if ever it happened that an error was made or that the transmission of the truth was incorrect, the Church corrected it. The Church took care to transmit to us the truth conformed to the will of God.
And now, by an unfathomable mystery of Divine Providence, Providence is allowing our time to be perhaps a unique time in the history of the Church, in that these truths are no longer being transmitted with the fidelity with which the Church has transmitted them for two thousand years. Even without looking into the cause, in one sense, or who is responsible for these facts, these facts are still there, in front of us. The truth which was taught to the children, to the poor - “pauperes evangelizantur: the poor have the Gospel preached unto them,” said Our Lord to the envoys of St. John the Baptist - well, now, the poor are no longer evangelized. They are no longer given the bread, the true bread which children want, the true Bread, the Bread of Life.
They have transformed our sacrifices, our sacraments, our catechisms and so we are dumbfounded; we are painfully surprised. What are we to do when confronted with this agonising, tearing, crushing reality? Keep the Faith. Obey Our Lord Jesus Christ. Obey what Our Lord Jesus Christ has given us for two thousand years.
In a moment of terror, in a moment of confusion, in a moment of destruction of the Church, what should we do but hold fast to what Jesus has taught us and what His Church has taught us as being Truth forever, defined forever? One cannot change what has been defined once and for all by the Sovereign Pontiffs with their infallibility. It is not changeable. We cannot change the truth written forever in our holy books. Because this immutability of Truth corresponds to the Immutability of God. It is a communication of the Immutability of God to the immutability of our truths. To change our truths would be tantamount to changing the Immutability of God. We say it every day in the Office of None: “Immotus in Se permanens - God remaining immutable in Himself” forever. So we must attach ourselves to this truth, which has been taught in a permanent way, and not let ourselves be troubled by the disorder we witness today.
Consequently we must know, at some point, not to obey, in order to obey. This is it. Indeed, this Virtue of Almighty God of which I was speaking not long ago, the Good Lord has willed that it be transmitted to us somehow by men who participate in His authority. But to the extent that these creatures are not faithful to the transmission of this life, to this virtue of God, to that extent also we can no longer accept their orders and the obligations they impose on us. Because to obey men, unfaithful in transmitting the message given to them, would be to disobey God, it would be to disobey the message of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Therefore, when we have to choose either to obey the message of Our Lord Jesus Christ or to obey the message of men, transmitted to us by men; insofar as the message transmitted by men corresponds to the message of Our Lord Jesus Christ, we have no right not to obey them to the last iota. But insofar as these orders, these obligations given to us, do not correspond to those which Our Lord Jesus Christ gives us, we must obey God rather than men. In such cases, these men are not fulfilling the function for which they received the authority that God gave them.
That is why St. Paul himself says: “If an angel from heaven or I myself" - remember it is the great St. Paul himself who is speaking – “If an angel from heaven or I myself were to teach you a truth contrary to what has been taught to you originally, do not listen to us!” That is it. Today we are faced with this reality. I tell you myself, very willingly, my dear friends, I repeat these words very willingly: If it were to happen that I teach you something contrary to what the whole Tradition of the Church has taught, do not listen to me! At that moment you have the right not to obey me, and you have the duty not to obey me! Because I would not be faithful to the mission given to me by the Good Lord.
This is what our obedience ought to be: to obey God before all else. That is the only way for us to reach Eternal Life. For it is this obedience which commands the way to Eternal Life. And in this, we follow the example of the Blessed Virgin Mary. She was obedience itself. She is the most perfect, the most beautiful, the most sublime example of obedience, contrary to the disobedience of the mother of mankind.
And so let us ask her today, my dear friends, to teach us this obedience, to make us keep it until our death. And to make these promises you are going to make in a few moments truly the expression of what you have in the depth of your soul. And in these prayers, I thought it good to put the beautiful prayer taught to us by the Roman Missal shortly before the consecration of the Holy Eucharist: “Hanc igitur oblationem servitutis nostrae - receive, O my God, the oblation of our obedience, of our slavery! - hanc igitur oblationem servitutis nostrae!” This is what you are going to say. If the Good Lord gives you the grace to become priests, every day when you say this prayer, and already now when you recite it with the
priest, renew your profession of obedience and of slavery towards God and towards the Blessed Virgin Mary. May this be the grace the Good Lord grants you today.
In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
|
|
|
|
| Abp. Viganò reflects on Easter 2021 in light of Coronavirus |
|
Posted by: Stone - 03-23-2021, 07:42 AM - Forum: Archbishop Viganò
- No Replies
|
|
Abp. Viganò reflects on Easter 2021 in light of coronavirus tyranny
If we allow the hateful tyranny of sin and rebellion against Christ to be established, the folly of Covid will be only the beginning of hell on earth.
Si iniquitates observaveris, Domine: Domine, quis sustinebit? Ps 129 : 3
Mors et vita duello conflixere mirando.
Last year, with a decision as incomprehensible as it was wretched, for the first time in the Christian era, the Catholic hierarchy placed limitations on the celebration of Easter, following the mainstream narration of the pandemic. Many of the faithful, constrained by measures of confinement that were as demonstrably useless as they were counter-productive, were able to unite themselves spiritually to the Holy Sacrifice, assisting at the liturgical functions via computer. One year later, nothing has changed with respect to then, and we hear it repeated once again that we ought to prepare ourselves for a further lockdown in order to allow the population to be subjected to an experimental genetic serum, imposed by the pharmaceutical lobby despite their not knowing what long-term side effects there may be. In many nations they are beginning to ban their use, due to the suspicious deaths that are following inoculation; and yet, despite the pounding campaign of media terrorism, basic treatments show themselves to be effective and capable of drastically reducing the number of hospitalizations and, consequently, also the number of deaths.
As Catholics, we are called to understand the scope of how much, for more than a year, all of humanity has been forced to undergo in the name of an emergency that – according to the official data in hand – has caused a number of deaths that is no different from that of preceding years. We are called to understand, even before believing: because if the Lord has endowed us with an intelligence, he has done so in order for us to use it to recognize and judge the reality which surrounds us. In the act of Faith the baptized person does not renounce his own rationality in an acritical fideism, but rather accepts what the Lord reveals to him, bowing before the authority of God, who does not deceive us and who is the Truth itself.
Our capacity to intus legere events preserves us, in the light of Grace, from going down the path of that sort of reckless irrationality which viceversa those display who up until yesterday were celebrating science as the necessary antidote to “religious superstition,” and who today celebrate the self-styled “experts” as new priests of the pandemic, denying the most elementary principles of modern medicine. And if for the Christian a true plague is a salutary call to conversion and penance for the faults of individuals and of nations, for the initiates of the health religion a treatable flu syndrome is said to be the cry of Mother Earth violated by humanity – a step-mother Nature, to which many turn with the words of Leopardi: Why do you not later return that which you promised then? Do you deceive your children so much? We realize that the tribal cruelty, the primitive force like a planetary virus which would like to exterminate us, does not reside in Nature, of which the Creator is the admirable architect, but rather in an elite that is subservient to globalist ideology, which on the one hand wants to impose the tyranny of the New World Order, and on the other, in order to maintain power, generously rewards those who put themselves at its service. The rebels, those who resist, are conversely annihilated in their possessions, deprived of freedom, forced to undergo unreliable testings and ineffective vaccines in the name of a superior good which they must accept without any possibility of dissent or criticism.
A few days ago, a woman, believing that she would appear endowed with common sense, said that it is necessary to submit to the use of the mask and social distancing not only because of their effectiveness, but also to support our political leaders, in hope of a relaxation of the measures adopted so far: “If we put on the mask and get vaccinated, maybe they will stop it and let us live again,” she commented. In response to this observation, an elderly man responded that a Jewish person in Germany in the 1930’s might have thought that wearing the Star of David sewn on his jacket would somehow satisfy Hitler’s delusions, avoiding far worse violations and saving himself from deportation. Faced with this calm objection, the woman who was speaking with him was shaken, understanding the disturbing similarity between the Nazi dictatorship and the pandemic madness of our own time; between the way in which tyranny could be imposed on millions of citizens by leveraging their fear, then as now. The citizens of Germany allowed themselves to be persuaded to obey, to not react against the violation of the rights of the German citizens whose only crime was that they were Jews, and themselves became informants about the “criminals” to the civil authority. And I ask myself: what difference is there between the denunciation of a neighbor who is hiding a Jewish family and the zealous reporting of those who have friends over to their house in violation of an unconstitutional provision that limits the freedom of citizens? In both instances, are the denouncers not respecting the law and observing the norms, while these same norms violate the rights of a part of the population that has been criminalized, yesterday on a racial basis and today on a health basis? Have we learned nothing from the horrors of the past?
The voice of the Church calls upon the Divine Majesty to remove “flagella tuae iracundiae, quae pro peccatis nostris meremur [the scourge of your wrath, which we merit for our sins].” These scourges have been manifested in the course of History by wars, plagues, and famines; today they are manifested by the tyranny of globalism, capable of creating more victims than a world war and destroying national economies more than any earthquake could. We must understand that if the Lord should allow the creators of the Covid emergency to succeed, it will certainly be for our greater good. Because today the little that remains in our society that is still inspired by Christian civilization, and which up until yesterday we considered normal and taken for granted, is now forbidden: exercising our fundamental freedoms, going to church to pray, going out with our friends, having dinner with our loved ones, being able to open a shop or a restaurant and earn our living honestly, going to school or taking a trip.
If this pseudo-pandemic is a scourge, it is not difficult to understand what the sins are for which Heaven is punishing us: crimes, abortions, murders, homicides, divorces, violence, perversions, vices, thefts, deceptions, betrayals, lies, profanations, and cruelty. Both public sins as well as the sins of individuals. The sins of God’s enemies as well as the sins of His friends. The sins of lay people and the sins of clergy, of the lowly as well as the leaders, of the governed as well as those who govern, of the young as well as the old, of men as well as women.
They are mistaken who believe that the violation of our natural rights that we are undergoing has no supernatural significance, and that our share of responsibility in making ourselves complicit in what is happening is irrelevant. Jesus Christ is the Lord of History, and whoever would like to banish the Prince of Peace from the world that He created and redeemed with His Most Precious Blood does not want to accept the inexorable defeat of Satan, the eternal loser. And so, in a delirium that has all the features of hybris, his servants are moving as if the victory of evil was now certain, while in reality it is necessarily ephemeral and momentary. The nemesis that is being prepared for them will remind us of the people of Israel after the crossing of the Red Sea, and that Pharaoh could not have done anything if it were not permitted by God.
Christian Easter, the true Passover of which the Old Testament Passover was only a figure, is accomplished on Golgotha, on the blessed wood of the Cross. Jesus Christ is the perfect Altar, Priest and Victim of that Sacrifice. The Agnus Dei, pointed out by the Forerunner on the banks of the Jordan, took upon himself the sins of the world in order to offer himself as a human and divine victim to the Father, restoring in His Blood the order violated by our first Parent. It is there, on Calvary, that the true Great Reset took place, thanks to which the inextinguishable debt of the children of Adam was cancelled by the infinite merits of the Passion of the Redeemer, ransoming us from the slavery of sin and death.
Without repenting of our sins, without the intention of amending our life and conforming it to the will of God, we cannot hope that the consequences of our sins, which offend the Divine Majesty and can be appeased only by penance, will disappear. Our Lord has shown us the royal way of the Cross: “Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, so you may follow in his footsteps” (1 Pt 2:21). Let us each take up our cross, denying ourselves and following the Divine Master. Let us draw near to Holy Easter with the knowledge that we are always beneath the gaze of the Lord: “You had gone astray like sheep, but now you have returned to the shepherd and guardian of your souls” (1 Pt 2:25). And let us remember that on the dies irae we will all certainly have Him as our Judge, but thanks to Baptism we have merited the right to recognize Him as Brother and Friend.
We ask the Supreme Judge, using the words of Sacred Scripture: “Discerne causam meam de gente non sancta, ab homine iniquo et doloso erue me [Distinguish my cause from the nation that is not holy, deliver me from the unjust and deceitful man].” To the Merciful Father who in His Divine Son has made us heirs of eternal glory, we address with humility the words of David: “Amplius lava me ab iniquitate mea, et a peccato meo munda me [Wash me more and more from my iniquity, and cleanse me of my sin].” We ask the Consoler Spirit: “Da virtutis meritum, da salutis exitum, da perenne gaudium [Grant the reward of virtue, grant the deliverance of salvation, grant eternal joy].”
If we really want this so-called pandemic to collapse like a house of cards – as has always happened for far worse scourges, when the Lord decreed their end – let us remember to acknowledge to Him, and Him alone, that universal Lordship which we usurp each time we sin, refusing to obey His holy Law and thus making ourselves slaves of Satan. If we desire the peace of Christ, it is Christ who must reign, and it is His kingdom we must desire, beginning with ourselves, our family, our circle of friends and acquaintances, our religious community. Adveniat regnum tuum. If instead we allow the hateful tyranny of sin and rebellion against Christ to be established, the folly of Covid will be only the beginning of hell on earth.
Let us therefore prepare for Confession and Easter Communion with this spirit of reparation and expiation for our own sins as well as for those of our brothers, of the men of the Church and of those who govern us. The true and holy “new Renaissance” to which we ought to aspire should be the life of Grace, friendship with God, and constancy with His Most Holy Mother and the Saints. The true “nothing will be as it was before” must be the one we say when we rise from the confessional with the resolve to sin no more, offering our heart to the Eucharistic King as a throne where he delights to dwell, consecrating our every action, thought, and breath to Him.
May these be our wishes for the coming Easter of the Resurrection, beneath the kindly gaze of Our Queen and Lady, Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix of all Graces.
+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop
March 9, 2021
[Emphasis mine.]
Source
|
|
|
|
| April 26th - Our Lady of Good Counsel |
|
Posted by: Elizabeth - 03-22-2021, 10:24 PM - Forum: April
- Replies (1)
|
|
Our Lady of Good Counsel
(1467)
The apparition of Our Lady of Good Counsel is so celebrated, Her picture so well known and so honored in the Church, that it is very fitting to allot a place to this devotion. The little city of Gennazano, situated on the mountains of the former Sabina province, about ten leagues from Rome, for a thousand years already had honored the Blessed Virgin as Our Lady of Good Counsel. In the 15th century, the church of that city was dilapidated and about to collapse. A pious woman of advanced age named Petruccia desired to provide for its reconstruction, but the gift of her entire fortune, which she made for this purpose, proved insufficient. Petruccia foretold that the Blessed Virgin would Herself finish the work.
Then on April 25, 1467, at the hour of Vespers, a celestial harmony was heard in the air, and the crowd saw a brilliant cloud coming down through the air, which came to rest over the altar in the Chapel of Saint Blaise in the Gennazano Church, where the restoration had begun. At the same time, all the church bells began to ring joyously. The cloud disappeared, and the marveling crowd saw a picture of Mary holding the Child Jesus, painted on a prepared surface, suspended in the air over the altar near the wall, without any natural support. It was duly verified that this picture had been miraculously transported from a church of Scutari, a city of Albania. Providence, wishing to preserve it from profanation by the Turks who were controlling that land, sent it as a reward for the faith of Petruccia and her fellow citizens of Gennazano.
A history of the marvels of all kinds which have been wrought since that time near this miraculous picture, suspended in the air, would require volumes. Often the picture has been seen to change its expression, the eyes of the Blessed Virgin taking on an appearance of joy or sorrow. How many illnesses and infirmities have been cured! How many spiritual graces have been obtained! Gennazano in Italy is still a venerated pilgrimage site, much frequented by the people of that land, and many pious pilgrims from other nations, when time permits it for them, arrange to visit this blessed sanctuary. The Sovereign Pontiffs have granted many indulgences to devotion to Our Lady of Good Counsel, and the title Mother of Good Counsel was included in the Litany of the Blessed Virgin by Pope Leo XIII.
|
|
|
|
| April 26th - Our Lady of Good Counsel |
|
Posted by: Elizabeth - 03-22-2021, 10:24 PM - Forum: Our Lady
- Replies (3)
|
|
Our Lady of Good Counsel
(1467)
The apparition of Our Lady of Good Counsel is so celebrated, Her picture so well known and so honored in the Church, that it is very fitting to allot a place to this devotion. The little city of Gennazano, situated on the mountains of the former Sabina province, about ten leagues from Rome, for a thousand years already had honored the Blessed Virgin as Our Lady of Good Counsel. In the 15th century, the church of that city was dilapidated and about to collapse. A pious woman of advanced age named Petruccia desired to provide for its reconstruction, but the gift of her entire fortune, which she made for this purpose, proved insufficient. Petruccia foretold that the Blessed Virgin would Herself finish the work.
Then on April 25, 1467, at the hour of Vespers, a celestial harmony was heard in the air, and the crowd saw a brilliant cloud coming down through the air, which came to rest over the altar in the Chapel of Saint Blaise in the Gennazano Church, where the restoration had begun. At the same time, all the church bells began to ring joyously. The cloud disappeared, and the marveling crowd saw a picture of Mary holding the Child Jesus, painted on a prepared surface, suspended in the air over the altar near the wall, without any natural support. It was duly verified that this picture had been miraculously transported from a church of Scutari, a city of Albania. Providence, wishing to preserve it from profanation by the Turks who were controlling that land, sent it as a reward for the faith of Petruccia and her fellow citizens of Gennazano.
A history of the marvels of all kinds which have been wrought since that time near this miraculous picture, suspended in the air, would require volumes. Often the picture has been seen to change its expression, the eyes of the Blessed Virgin taking on an appearance of joy or sorrow. How many illnesses and infirmities have been cured! How many spiritual graces have been obtained! Gennazano in Italy is still a venerated pilgrimage site, much frequented by the people of that land, and many pious pilgrims from other nations, when time permits it for them, arrange to visit this blessed sanctuary. The Sovereign Pontiffs have granted many indulgences to devotion to Our Lady of Good Counsel, and the title Mother of Good Counsel was included in the Litany of the Blessed Virgin by Pope Leo XIII.
|
|
|
|
| April 25th - St. Mark |
|
Posted by: Elizabeth - 03-22-2021, 10:23 PM - Forum: April
- Replies (2)
|
|
Saint Mark
Evangelist
(† 63)
Saint Mark was converted to the Faith by the Prince of the Apostles, whom he later accompanied to Rome, acting there as his secretary or interpreter. When Saint Peter wrote his First Epistle to the churches of Asia, he affectionately joined to his own salutation that of his faithful companion, whom he calls my son Mark. The Roman people entreated Saint Mark to put in writing for them the substance of Saint Peter's frequent discourses on Our Lord's life. This the Evangelist did under the eye and with the express sanction of the Apostle, and every page of his brief but graphic Gospel so bore the impress of Saint Peter's character, that the Fathers used to name it Peter's Gospel.
Saint Mark was then sent to Egypt to found the Church of Alexandria. There his disciples became the wonder of the world for their piety and asceticism; Saint Jerome speaks of Saint Mark as the father of the anchorites who at a later time thronged the Egyptian deserts. There, too, he set up the first Christian school, the fruitful mother of many illustrious doctors and bishops.
After governing his see for many years, Saint Mark was seized one day by the heathen, dragged by ropes over stones, and thrown into prison. On the morrow the torture was repeated, and after receiving the consolation of the sight of Angels and the voice of Jesus, Saint Mark went to his reward.
It is to Saint Mark that we owe the many pictorial touches which often give such vivid color to the Gospel scenes, and help us to visualize the very gestures and appearance of our Blessed Lord. It is he alone who notes that in the temptation Jesus was with the beasts; that He slept in the boat on a pillow; that He embraced the little children. He alone preserves for us the command, Peace, be still! by which the storm was quelled, and even the very Aramaic words He spoke, the Ephpheta and the Talitha, cumi! by which the dumb were made to speak and the dead to rise.
|
|
|
|
| Si Si No No [1998]: Cardinal Ratzinger |
|
Posted by: Stone - 03-22-2021, 01:43 PM - Forum: The Architects of Vatican II
- No Replies
|
|
CARDINAL RATZINGER
COMMUNION WITHOUT CONFESSION AND THE 1983 CODE OF CANON LAW
The Fideism of Cardinal Ratzinger, Perfect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
On Oct. 27, 1996, the Osservatore Romano published Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger's conference given to the "presidents of the Commission for the Doctrine of the Faith of the Latin American Episcopal Conferences (Guadalajara, Mexico, May 1996)." The title of the conference was "Relativism has become today's main problem as far as Faith and Theology are concerned." This conference made it unmistakably clear that the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has a very wide concept of "theology" as well as of "faith." So wide, in fact, that he includes everything: errors, heresies, together with outright apostasies.
Let us now follow him, point by point, at least in the most important passages of his address.
POPE ST. PlUS X WAS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT
In the first part of his conference, Card. Ratzinger refers to "liberation theology" and to "theological relativism," especially those represented by the "American Presbyterian J. Hick" and by "P. Knitter, a former Catholic priest, " as well as by the "New Age" movement.
As is his wont, the Cardinal Prefect shows his considerable ability for synthesis and, in a certain measure, also for critique. Thus, for instance, he writes that in "liberation theology," which he considers as being already out-of-date,
Quote:"redemption became a political process [and therefore - we add - temporal and terrestrial or worldly] to which Marxist philosophy provided its general direction or basic orientation."
Regarding "theological relativism," he tells us that it
Quote:"starts from Kant's distinction between phenomena and noumena: we are not able to attain to ultimate reality in itself, since we can only see it through diverse 'lenses' by our own way of perception." Therefore, "the identification of a singular historical figure, Jesus of Nazareth, with 'reality' itself, that is, with the living God, is rejected out of hand as being a lapse back into myth: Jesus is expressly relativized as just one more religious genius among so many others. That which is absolute, or else He who is absolute, cannot present Himself in history, wherein are to be found only models, only ideal figures which refer us to something utterly different, to that which we cannot apprehend or know as such in history. From this it is clear that the (Catholic) Church also, her dogmas and sacraments, cannot have any value of absolute necessity."
Regarding P. Knitter's (a former Catholic priest) "primacy of orthopraxis over orthodoxy," Card. Ratzinger writes that such a primacy comes as a "logical consequence, once a person abandons metaphysics: if knowledge becomes [more exactly: is erroneously considered] impossible, all that is left is human acts (or behavior)." Then follows Ratzinger's critique:
Quote:"But is this allegation true? From where can I get the impression that an action is just, if l have no idea of what is just…Praxis alone is no light…Knitter...asserts that the criterion allowing him to distinguish between orthopraxy and pseudo-praxy, is man's liberty. But he still must explain, in a practical and persuasive manner, just what is liberty and what it is that leads man to his real liberation."
Conclusion:
Quote:"In the last analysis, Hick's relativism is based upon a rationalism [i.e., the error of those who reject all revelation and give assent to nothing but what can be attained by the natural power of their own reason] which, in the Kantian fashion, pretends that metaphysics [i.e., that branch of philosophy dealing with the first principle of things] cannot be known or grasped by human reason."
Thus, Card. Ratzinger clearly indicates the root of these aberrations, which he later favors with the term "present day theology," that rotten root of all modernism already revealed by Pope St. Pius X in his encyclical Pascendi: the agnostic and immanentist rationalism of Kant, "the philosopher of Protestantism" (Paulsen).
THE RETURN OF PAGANISM, OR "NEW AGE"
Card. Ratzinger has also described remarkably well the neo-paganism of the "New Age," which "seeks to put forth a completely anti-rationalist model of religion - a modern 'mystique': Quote:Man cannot believe in the absolute but he may experience. God is not a Person...but consists in the spiritual energy which propagates itself in the Whole…Man's redemption consists in ridding himself of his I...and returning to the Whole. The (pagan) 'gods' are back. They now appear more believable than God. We must bring up to date those primordial [pre-Christian] rites by which the I is initiated into the mystery of the Whole and liberated of itself."
In brief, the New Age says: "Let us now give up the adventure of Christianity which has proven to be a failure, so let us now return to our pagan gods."
Further on, Card. Ratzinger notes the influence that the "New Age" is having on some Catholic "liturgies": Quote:"Nowadays, we have grown weary of wordy liturgies, [but how can one simply reduce Catholic liturgy to words?] approaching New Age orientations: people are now looking for noisy and ecstatic experiences."
Having completed these remarks, Card. Ratzinger now turns his attention to the present-day "tasks facing theology." And this is where things really begin to spoil!
"CLASSICAL THEOLOGY": PRISONER IN THE DOCK!
At this point, what is the sensus fidei, or even simple common sense entitled to expect from the Cardinal Prefect directly responsible for the doctrine and protection of the Faith? The very least he could do is to refute all of those false "theologies." In point of fact, theology is "the science which, in the light of reason as well as of that of divine revelation, treats of God and of His creatures in their relationships with Him." It therefore comprises Revelation on God's part as well as Faith on the part of men…..As such, it is to be distinguished from "theodicy" [or natural theology], a purely rational science of God. Theology is rooted in fundamental principles drawn, without question, from the sources of Revelation" (Parente-Piolanti-Garofalo, Dizionario di Teologia dogmatica).
It is therefore quite impossible to even consider as "theologies" those heretical ravings of so-called "theologians": they are obviously lacking those essential qualities required by the Faith. Instead of positively drawing from the fundamental principles of divine Revelation, they begin by questioning the very fact of that revelation by denying the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and, logically enough, each and every other dogma of the Catholic Faith. But things are such as they are: and it seems that for Card. Ratzinger, any kind of discourse, even uttered and broadcast without faith and against the Faith, indeed happens to be "theology."
Moreover, the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Faith, far from denouncing those false "theologies," has actually gone so far as to incriminate Catholic theology. In fact, he wonders:
Quote:How come classical theology has proven itself so little prepared to face these (modernist) events and circumstances? And where are its weak points which have robbed it of its strength and efficiency?
Please note well: "classical theology," and not Catholic theology. The Cardinal Prefect avoids, even in his choice of words, any discrimination between the true and false theologies. Why, indeed, did "classical theology" show itself so ill-prepared in facing those events and circumstances? Has not this "classical" theology simply been rejected together with "classical" philosophy by those "new theologians" artisans of Vatican II? These "events," which are nothing but old heresies already condemned in various other epochs in the history of the Church, have they not previously been refuted time and again by "classical theology"?
Or are we to understand that Card. Ratzinger has not sufficiently familiarized himself with Catholic theology?
As to the "ineffectiveness" of "classical theology," it must be realized that theology, in itself, can only be effective from a theoretical point of view. Its practical effectiveness does not depend on theological speculation, but on the sincerity of those who are in error and, in the absence of such sincerity, it actually depends on the opportune as well as efficacious intervention of Catholic authority, and in particular on that dicastery responsible for the protection of the Faith, over which Card. Ratzinger, after the Pope, presides. St. Thomas Aquinas, commenting on St. Paul's directive to Timothy, "...that thou mightest charge some not to teach otherwise" (I Tim. 1:3), points up the fact that the duty of those in authority is a double one: (1) to restrain anyone from teaching error; (2) to prevent the faithful from following anyone teaching error.
To impute to "classical theology" the ineffectiveness of a defective or faulty (and even worse) authority signifies, on the part of the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Faith, transferring to Catholic theology the responsibilities of his dicastery in the face of the triumph of heresy actually present in the Catholic world.
"MODERNIST EXEGESIS" IS AT THE ROOT OF "TODAY'S THEOLOGY"
In attempting to find an answer to his own question, "How come classical theology has proven itself so little prepared to face these 'events' and circumstances? Where are its weak points which have rendered it so ineffective?" Card. Ratzinger brings the discussion around to exegesis, and, once again, to Kantian "philosophy." Hick (but what has a "Presbyterian" got to do with Catholic theology?) and Knitter (and what has a defrocked priest got to do with Catholic theology?) "appeal," Ratzinger says..:
Quote:...to exegesis in order to justify their destruction of Christology: according to these two, exegesis would seem to have proven that Jesus never considered Himself to be the Son of God, God Incarnate, but that it was only some while later that His disciples laid claim to and first referred to His divinity [an argument which modernists have borrowed and still borrow from their rationalist "separated brethren"] . Moreover, both of them claim to take their inspiration from philosophical evidence. Hick assures us that Kant has irrefutably demonstrated that the absolute, or He Who is the Absolute [since God, for some of these heretics, is not even a Person] cannot be known in history and cannot, as such, be found therein.
Therefore, at the very basis of "today's theology" as well as at that of neo-modernism, we find an exegesis, or better said, a pseudo-exegesis, taking its origin in the agnostic rationalism of Kant, to whom "today's theologians" have attributed that charism of infallibility which they deny even to the Church. Nothing new here either: At the base of modernism there was Loisy's "exegesis" modeled on Protestant rationalist exegesis, and at the root of neo-modernism, we now have the "new exegesis," yet again springing from Protestant rationalism, and it is for this reason that we consecrate so much of our effort to the problem of exegesis.
Finally, Card. Ratzinger, at the end of his discourse, comes to the following conclusion:
Quote:I believe that the problem of exegesis as well as the limits and possibilities of our reason, that is to say, the philosophical premises of the Faith, actually constitute the painful and grievous weak point of today's theology, through which the Faith - as also, more and more, the faith of ordinary folk - continues to fall victim to the current crisis.
We are now made to understand that "liberation theology," "relativist theologies," with their "abolition of Christology," "New Age," etc., are, for the Cardinal Prefect for the Faith, not heresies nor apostasies, but..."today's theology," different but not incompatible with "classical theology." He seems to consider all of the errors as some normal variant alternative of true Catholic theology.
A little further on, we will see how Card. Ratzinger deals with "the problem of exegesis as well as the limits and possibilities of our reason," which is at the very base of the present crisis of the Faith.
For the moment we simply wish to underline here that Card. Ratzinger is indeed conscious of the fact that "today's theology," without faith or in a crisis of faith, not only "destroys Christology," but is actually in the process of demolishing - again, he is the one who admits it - ''as also, more and more, the faith of ordinary Catholics." And, as for the Cardinal Prefect for the Faith, just what is it that he intends doing about this disastrous state of affairs?
THE "TASK" FACING THE AUTHORITIES
"I would simply like to try to outline here the task now facing us," declares Ratzinger, logically referring that "us" to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith as well as to the president of the Commission for the Doctrine of the Faith of the Episcopal Conferences, to whom his conference was addressed.
And this is where Card. Ratzinger engages in theoretical reflections on "modern-day exegesis." He begins by saying that Hick and Knitter, in order to sustain their assertion that….:
Quote:...exegesis seems to have proven that Jesus never considered Himself to be the Son of God, God Incarnate, but that it was only some while later that His disciples laid claim to and first referred to His divinity, can in no way at all, appeal to exegesis in a global manner, as if all of their suppositions constitute an indubitable result universally recognized by all exegetes….But it is true that if we look at modern exegesis as a whole, we can come away with an impression quite similar to that of Hick and Knitter.
Therefore, even at this point, for Card. Ratzinger, there does exist a "modern-day exegesis" different, to be sure, but not incompatible with "exegesis in a global manner" (which, we hope and suppose, also included the (only) true and authentic exegesis: Catholic exegesis). This so-called "modern exegesis," radically denying as it does the very divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, has obviously "buried" Catholic exegesis. But this does not seem to present a problem for Card. Ratzinger, who now sets out in search of the cornerstone of this "modern exegesis," for which, just as in the case of the older modern exegesis, Jesus is not God nor did He ever claim so to be (cf. St. Pius X, Pascendi).
"My thesis," he explains, "is as follows":
Quote:If many exegetes think as do Hick and Knitter, "reconstructing" in the same way the recorded history of Jesus Christ [that is, by their denial of Jesus Christ's divinity] it is due to the fact that they share their philosophy. It is not exegesis which proves philosophy but it is rather philosophy which brings about exegesis."
A real discovery indeed! Who is not aware that it is rationalism, which denies the supernatural, which has given rise to the ravings of Protestant systems [Formgeschichte, Redaktiong-eschichte, etc.], which it now seeks to pass off as "exegesis"? And who does not know that "modern exegesis," a Catholic copy of Protestant rationalist "exegesis," also shares its presupposed philosophy: that rationalism bent on denying the supernatural? This has always been well known to us. Except that, up until Vatican II, Rome never honored the delirious wanderings of Protestant rationalism with the dignity of "exegesis" and, against such errors, never used to present theses, but would invariably condemn them unequivocally in the most unmistakably clear terms.
Thus did Pope Leo XIII define rationalists as the "sons and heirs" of the Lutheran "reformation" who "have utterly rejected even the last traces of that Faith they had formerly received from their fathers." He especially warned the bishops while reminding them that these errors must touch and give rise to their common pastoral solicitude so that to this new "science which does not even deserve such a title (I Tim. 6:20), they would oppose that ancient truth which the Church received from Jesus Christ through His Apostles" (Leo XIII, Providentissimus).
Nowadays, on the contrary, that "pastoral solicitude" trampled underfoot by the "pastoral" Vatican II Council, is no longer touched and can no longer show and make itself felt, not even in the face of the scandal given to "ordinary Catholics." In fact, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Faith, himself has nothing else to oppose to "modern-day exegesis," save his doctoral theses. And what is still worse: he has clearly declared that since..:
Quote:...the presuppositions welling up from the Kantian theory of conscience are making themselves...felt...like a spontaneous key to hermeneutics guiding the development and progress of critique,...ecclesiastical or Church authority cannot simply impose that we must find in Holy Scriptures a Christology of divine filiation.
So that's it! Now only heretics are able to dictate their views and laws to the Church, and not the other way around, and against such people the Church is not to do what it has always done by divine right from the very beginning by imposing its "rule of Faith" and excommunicating those who obstinately deny it:
And every height (person) that exalteth itself (himself) against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ. And (we) having in readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience shall be fulfilled ( II Cor. 10:5 - 6; cf. also II Cor.13 : 2 sq.; I Cor. 4:18 - 21; II Cor. 5 : 1 - 5; I Tim 1 : 20; Acts 5:1 - 10).
Of which Church is Card. Ratzinger speaking anyway? Clearly, he is not referring here to the indefectible, unchanging Catholic Church founded by our Lord Jesus Christ almost two thousand years ago. No, Card. Ratzinger is speaking of the "Conciliar Church" which has adopted an erroneous concept of authority, distinctly characteristic of liberalism and solemnly condemned by Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Libertas:
Quote:Others, in fact, do recognize the Catholic Church...; they do not, however, admit its nature and its rights of a perfect society with its authentic power of legislation, of judging and punishing. They only recognize her faculty of exhortation, of persuasion, and of governing those who spontaneously and willingly make themselves subject to her. (See on "withdrawal" of authority since Vatican Council II, in Iota Unum by Romano Amerio.)
...ecclesiastical authority cannot simply impose that we must find in Holy Scriptures a Christology of divine filiation [i.e., that Jesus Christ is also the Son of God], Church authority can and must, however, make an appeal [it is all in this word! to kindly "appeal"] to critically evaluate the underlying philosophy of the method we choose to adopt.
The Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Faith has made it manifest that he does not believe that our Lord Jesus Christ instituted, within His Church, a true and authentic power of governing all of the faithful. No, he considers, in spite of Holy Scriptures and Church tradition, that our Lord merely instituted a charge of fraternal exhortation. The double task entrusted to Church authorities of "restraining those teaching and spreading error" and of "preventing the faithful from following such false teachers" has "now been sacrificed to the [false] principle of liberty," wrote Romano Amerio in his remarkable work, Iota Unum, (ch. 34, p.546).*
POPE PlUS XII WAS ALSO RIGHT
Card. Ratzinger concludes:
Quote:The problem of exegesis coincides, to a great extent, with the problem of philosophy. Philosophical difficulties - that is to say, those difficulties with which human reason directed in a positivist sense has been struggling - have now become difficulties of our Faith.
Better late than never. Card. Ratzinger is beginning to see not only that truth which Pope St. Pius X pointed out so clearly in Pascendi, as did his predecessor Pope Leo XIII in Providentissimus, but also that which Pope Pius XII denounced equally clearly in Humani Generis, when he condemned the wanton claim of being able to express Catholic dogmas using the categories of modern-day philosophy, "of those products of fevered imagination presently called immanentism, idealism…..or yet again, existentialism" or any other one of such systems.
Theology (and the same can be said regarding exegesis, which applies those norms based on reason and theology known as "hermeneutics"), in truth, does not depend on any philosophical "system"; what it does need is faith together with right reason, and, if the Church agrees with the "philosophy of the Fathers of the Church" and has adopted its terms for the formulation of its doctrine, it is because this philosophy is the expression of right reason as well as of a "true knowledge of that which has been created" (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis) and that its objectives constitute "stable human notions" (Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., La nouvelle théologie où va-t-elle?).
Pretending to base divinely revealed truth on a sick and unbalanced philosophy continually straying farther and farther away from right reason as well as from good common sense, as in Kantianism, can only end with the destruction of the Faith (that is, personal and not objective, as Ratzinger seems to understand it, even though in this destruction many, many souls are indeed implicated). In order to avert such a disaster, the humble obedience on the part of the sovereign pontiffs to the magisterium would have been quite sufficient:
I thank Thee, O Lord, that thou hast hidden these things from the wise and prudent according to worldly standards and hast revealed them to the humble of heart.
Having completed his diagnosis, what does Card. Ratzinger propose as a remedy in order to cure both exegesis and theology? Maybe a return to that "perpetually good and valid philosophy: and to sound Christian realism? The very thought does not even cross his mind.
Even though Card. Ratzinger's diagnosis coincides with that of Pope St. Pius X as well as with that of Pope Pius XII, the same cannot be said with regard to his therapy. To false modern philosophy St. Pius X and Pius XII both (without mentioning other Roman pontiffs) oppose traditional philosophy, and especially Thomism, which "is based upon a belief in the capacities of human reason, and rejects scepticism both partial and complete" (R Amerio, op. cit., p.537). Card. Ratzinger, on the contrary, in order to liberate human reason, argues in favor of a "new dialogue between faith and philosophy," but, precisely because he seeks such a "new" dialogue, he hastens to block any possible way or path toward any attempt of "restoring" "traditional philosophy." He declares:
Quote:I believe that neo-scholastic rationalism [the sane and sound one that does not fly in the face of Faith, but on the contrary, serves it] has failed in its bid of trying to reconstruct the “preambula fidei" through a purely rational certainty.
And not only that, but, Card. Ratzinger assures us, "all other attempts following this same route will end up with identical results." All of which means, in other words that, for Card. Ratzinger, it is impossible to prove with arguments based on pure reason the two fundamental facts of Christianity: (1) the existence of God, and (2) that God has indeed spoken to us. But why indeed, we wonder, would the "purely rational certainty" of the "preambula fidei" be inaccessible or out of our reach? Is this not tantamount to saying that it is impossible for us to obtain metaphysical knowledge? And is this not precisely that very same Kantian postulate or supposition which he has previously been criticizing up to this point in his conference?
And thus do we find the Card. Ratzinger not only opposing one agnosticism to another, but also declaring the entire Catholic Church to be in error, that same Church which, for almost two thousand years, has on the contrary, defended and taught the possibility of rationally justifying its act of Faith, beginning with its divine Founder, who also appealed to our reason (Jn. 10:38): "But if I do, though you will not believe me, believe the works."
And continuing in the same vein, we have the Apostles (see I Pet. 3:15; Rom. 12:1, etc.) together with the apologists who defended the credibility of Christianity with arguments solidly based on pure reason as well as with the Fathers of the Church (St. Augustine: Ratio antecedit fidem-Reason precedes faith). The dogmatic [i.e., infallible) Vatican Council I (1869-70) also taught that "sound reason proves the foundations of faith" (DB 1799). We should not forget that Pope Pius XII who, it should be mentioned, on the eve of Vatican II, countering the neo-modernists of his day because of their obstinate refusal to admit the rational character of the Christian faith's "credibility" (rationali indoli "credibilitate" fidei Christianae iniuriam inferunt), resolutely reaffirmed that…:
Quote:....it is indeed possible to prove with absolute certainty the divine origin of the Christian religion by means of the sole use of the natural light of human reason (Humani Generis).
It therefore follows that for a Catholic, it is a matter of Faith that the credibility of revelation is proved through arguments based on pure reason. Moreover, if the Church had indeed been in error for almost two thousand years concerning the rational justification of its act of Faith, and if the road of the "preambula fidei' is indeed foredoomed to failure, then the only thing to do is to continue on this fateful "path of skepticism, whim and heresy" which will simply and fatally open on that same modernism solemnly condemned by Pope St. Pius X in the encyclical Pascendi (Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., art. cit. ) Regarding this modernism, St. Pius X wrote:
Quote:[From Kantian agnosticism] they infer two things: that God is not directly subject to scientific study; and that God has never revealed Himself as a Person in history. After all of this, what is there left of natural theology, of the reasons for belief (or credibility) and of outside revelation? ...They [the modernists] have purely and simply suppressed them (Pascendi).
And, as a matter of fact, even though he seems to take some distance from the "premises" or "theses" of modernism, that is, from Kantian agnosticism, Card. Ratzinger continues, nevertheless, sharing in those very same consequences which modernists have understandably drawn and still coherently continue to draw, by setting aside, as they do, the "preambula fidei": natural theology and motives or grounds for credibility. Strangely enough, Ratzinger does accept the principle that "faith protects and frees human reason from errors" (Vatican I, DB 1799). Yet, he does not accept another important principle also professed and approved by Vatican I, that is that "the fundamentals of Faith can indeed be proven by sound human reason" (ibid); thus for him, Faith is based on no rational foundation whatsoever. But then, we wonder, how can human reason be "cured" by a "faith" utterly lacking in any argument to justify itself before the bar of human reason?
FROM AGNOSTICISM TO LATITUDINARIANISM: "SUBSTITUTE FORMS" FOR THE FAITH
Up to the very end of his conference, Card. Ratzinger resolutely continues on this road of agnosticism and now logically comes to the most disastrous of conclusions. He writes:
Quote:In conclusion, as we contemplate our present-day religious situation, of which I have tried to throw some light on some of its elements, we may well marvel at the fact that, after all, people still continue believing in a Christian manner, not only according to Hick's, Knitter's as well as others' substitute ways or forms, but also according to that full and joyous Faith found in the New Testament of the Church of all time.
So, there it is: For Card. Ratzinger, "Hick, Knitter, and others" who deny the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, His Church, His sacraments, and, in short, all of Christianity, continue "despite everything" "believing in a Christian manner," even though they do so using "substitute forms of belief"! Here, the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Faith leaves us wondering indeed, just what it is he means by "believing in a Christian manner."
Moreover, once the "preambula fidei" have been eliminated, that "full and joyous Faith of the Church of all time" which seems [for Card. Ratzinger] to be no different from modern-day apostasies other than by its style and total character, is utterly lacking in any rational credibility in comparison with and in relation to what he refers to as "substitute ways or forms" of faith. "How is it," Card. Ratzinger wonders, "in fact, that the Faith [the one of all time] still has a chance of success?" Answer:
Quote:I would say that it is because it finds a correspondence in man's nature…..There is, in man, an insatiable desire for the infinite. None of the answers we have sought is sufficient [but must we take his own word for it, or must we go through the exercise of experiencing all religions?]. God alone [but Whom, according to Card. Ratzinger, human reason cannot prove to be truly God], Who made Himself finite in order to shatter the bonds of our own finitude and bring us to the dimension of His infinity [...and not to redeem us from the slavery of sin?] is able to meet all the needs of our human existence.
According to this, it is therefore not objective motives based on history and reason, and thus the truth of Christianity, but only a subjective appreciation which brings us to "see" that it [Christianity] is able to satisfy the profound needs of human nature and which would explain the "success" [modernists would say the "vitality"] of the "faith" ["of all time" or in its "substitute forms," it is of but little importance]. Such, however, is not at all Catholic doctrine: this is simply modernist apologetics (cf. Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi), based on their affirmed impossibility of grasping metaphysical knowledge (or agnosticism or skepticism), which Card. Ratzinger seemed to want to shun in the first part of his address.
Now we are in a position to better understand why Card. Ratzinger has such a wide-open concept of "theology" and of "faith" that he includes everything: theology as well as heresies, faith and apostasy. On that road of denial of the human reason's ability of attaining metaphysical knowledge, a road which he continues to follow, he lacks the "means of discerning the difference between faith and non-faith" (R. Amerio, op. cit., p.340) and, consequently, theology from pseudo-theology, truth from heresy:
Quote:All theologies are nullified, because all are regarded as equivalent; the heart or kernel of religion is located in feelings or experiences, as the Modernists held at the beginning of this century (Amerio, op. cit., p.542).
We cannot see how this position of Card. Ratzinger can escape that solemn condemnation proclaimed at Vatican I: "If anyone says...that men must be brought to the Faith solely by their own personal interior experience...let him be anathema" (DB 1812).
- Romualdus
(From Courrier de Rome, April 1997.)
[Emphasis mine.]
|
|
|
|
| WHO insider blows whistle on Gates and GAVI global health dictatorship |
|
Posted by: Stone - 03-22-2021, 09:24 AM - Forum: General Commentary
- No Replies
|
|
WHO insider blows whistle on Gates and GAVI global health dictatorship
It is now beyond dispute that the WHO is beyond compromised. Because of its funding — a large portion of which comes from the 'one-man nation-state of Gates' — it fails to complete its original mandate. Worse, WHO serves corporate masters and through its dictatorial powers is essentially destroying, not improving, the health of the world.
Story at a glance- The WHO has turned global health security into a dictatorship, where the director general has assumed sole power to make decisions by which member states must abide
- According to a long-term World Health Organization insider, Bill Gates’ vaccine alliance, GAVI, is directing the WHO
- GAVI is headquartered in Switzerland. In 2009, GAVI was recognized as an international institution and granted total blanket immunity, including immunity against criminal sanctions. It is also exempt from paying taxes
- In 2017, Gates asked to be part of the WHO’s executive board — like a member state — because of his funding. While the “one-man nation-state of Gates” was not officially voted in, it appears he may have been granted unofficial power of influence
- Swissmedic, the Food and Drug Administration of Switzerland, has entered into a three-way contract agreement with Gates and the WHO. It appears other WHO member states have entered into this three-way agreement as well
March 20, 2021 (Mercola [adapted]) — OK folks, today you are in for a real treat. We have presented many of the pieces previously, but this will help put them in the proper perspective. That is the phase we are in now. We have the facts, we just need to understand what they mean and interpret them properly.
This is a really important article. It catalyzed my understanding of what the heck is going on. The facts are obvious; the entire response to the global pandemic was facilitated by the World Health Organization. Their recommendations were followed lock-step by virtually every government on Earth.
No one will dispute this fact. The next data point is: Who controls the WHO? Some will dispute this, but the evidence is pretty clear and solid. It is Bill Gates, who became the WHO’s biggest funder when then-President Trump removed U.S. support last year.
What does Gates have to benefit from controlling the WHO? How about the best investment he ever made, with many tens of billions of dollars running through his “nonprofit” GAVI Vaccine Alliance? The maniacal suppression and censorship of any inexpensive natural alternative for COVID-19 makes perfect sense now.
These natural therapies, nebulized hydrogen peroxide being the best example, would be serious competition for the vaccines. If everyone knew that these remedies were readily available, highly effective and practically free, who would risk their life for a vaccine? Virtually no one. It all makes perfect sense.
With that framework, enjoy the information our team has compiled that expands on this general concept. Every day we are putting the pieces of the puzzle together, and the more pieces we fit together, the sooner you will see the bigger picture. More to come in the very near future.
WHO insider speaks out
In July 2020, four German attorneys founded the German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee (Außerparlamentarischer Corona Untersuchungsausschuss1).2,3 In the video above, the founding members, led by Dr. Reiner Fuellmich,4 interviews Astrid Stuckelberger, Ph.D., a WHO insider, about what she discovered about Bill Gates and GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance.
Stuckelberger has served as deputy director of the Swiss national program of aging since the 1990s, and is the president of the WHO-funded Geneva International Network on Ageing.
According to her bio,5 she “is an internationally recognized expert on issues related to evaluating scientific research for policymakers, in particular in health and innovation assessment, pandemic and emergency management training and in optimizing individual and population health and well-being.”
She’s also a published author, with a dozen books to her credit, as well as more than 180 scientific articles, policy papers and governmental and international reports. Stuckelberger points out that much of the research done was and still is highly politicized and primarily done to support and justify political decisions.
For the past 20 years, since 2000, she’s been involved with public health at the WHO, and was part of their research ethics committee for four years. In 2009, she got involved with the WHO’s international health regulations.
Stuckelberger points out that the whole purpose of WHO’s international health regulations is to prepare member states to be ready for a pandemic, to be able to not only prevent outbreaks but also respond swiftly when an outbreak occurs. However, the WHO has actually been actively preventing and undermining this pandemic preparedness training.
The center of corruption
According to Stuckelberger, Switzerland is at the heart of the corruption, largely thanks to it being the headquarters for GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance, founded by Bill Gates. In 2009, the GAVI Alliance was recognized as an international institution and granted total blanket immunity.6
As explained by Justus Hoffmann, Ph.D., one of the German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee members, GAVI has “qualified diplomatic immunity,” which is odd, considering the organization has no political power that would warrant diplomatic immunity. Odder still is that GAVI’s immunity clauses go beyond even that of diplomats. GAVI’s immunity covers all aspects of engagement, including criminal business dealings.
GAVI is a nongovernmental organization that is allowed to operate without paying any taxes, while also having total immunity for anything they do wrong.
“They can do whatever they want,” Stuckelberger says, without repercussions. The police, for example, are barred from conducting an investigation and collecting evidence if GAVI were to be implicated in a criminal investigation. “It’s shocking,” she says. GAVI is also completely tax exempt, which Stuckelberger notes is “very strange.”
Essentially, GAVI is a nongovernmental organization (NGO) that is allowed to operate without paying any taxes, while also having total immunity for anything they do wrong, willfully or otherwise. This is rather unprecedented, and raises a whole host of questions. It’s particularly disturbing in light of evidence Stuckelberger claims to have found showing that GAVI is “directing, as a corporate entity, the WHO.”
Furthermore, documents cited by Stuckelberger show the WHO has assumed what amounts to dictatorial power over the whole world. The director general has the sole power to make decisions — including decisions about which tests or pandemic medications to use — that all member states must then obey.
The nation-state of Gates
What’s more, Stuckelberger discovered that, in 2017, Gates actually requested to be part of the WHO’s executive board — like a member state — ostensibly because he gives them so much money. Indeed, his funding exceeds that of many individual member states.
Like Stuckelberger says, this is truly incredible — the idea that a single man would have the same power and influence over the WHO as that of an entire nation. It’s a brazen power grab, to say the least. While there’s no evidence that Gates was ever officially granted the status of a member state, one wonders whether he doesn’t have it unofficially.
One thing that raises Stuckelberger’s suspicion is the fact that Swissmedic, the Food and Drug Administration of Switzerland, has entered into a three-way contract agreement with Gates and the WHO. “This is abnormal,” she says.
Essentially, in summary, it appears that when he did not get voted in as a one-man nation state, Gates created three-party contracts with member states and the WHO, essentially placing him on par with the WHO. As mentioned earlier, whatever the director general of the WHO says, goes. They’ve effectively turned global health security into a dictatorship.
The question is, is Gates the real power behind the curtain? Does he tell the director general what to do? When you look back over the past year, it seems Gates has often been the first to announce what the world needs to do to address the pandemic, and then the WHO comes out with an identical message, which is then parroted by world leaders, more or less verbatim.
As noted by Fuellmich, it’s becoming clear that many private-public partnerships have been hijacked by the private side — and they’re immune from liability. “This has got to stop,” he says.
A complete review and overhaul of the United Nations, which established the WHO, is also required as the U.N. has done nothing to prevent or rein in undemocratic and illegal activity. As noted by Fuellmich, we probably need to reconsider whether we even need them.
Changed definition of pandemic allowed health dictatorship
In the interview, they also highlight the WHO’s role in setting the stage for a global health dictatorship by changing the definition of “pandemic.” The WHO’s original definition, pre-2009, of a pandemic was:7,8
Quote:… when a new influenza virus appears against which the human population has no immunity, resulting in several, simultaneous epidemics worldwide with enormous numbers of deaths and illness.
The key portion of that definition is “enormous numbers of deaths and illness.” This definition was changed in the month leading up to the 2009 swine flu pandemic.
The change was a simple but substantial one: They merely removed the severity and high mortality criteria, leaving the definition of a pandemic as “a worldwide epidemic of a disease.”9
This switch in definition is why COVID-19 was and still is promoted as a pandemic even though it, at no point, has caused any excess mortality.10,11,12
We now have plenty of data showing the lethality of COVID-19 is on par with the seasonal flu.13,14,15,16,17 It may be different in terms of symptoms and complications, but the actual lethality is about the same. Yet we’re told the price we must all pay to keep ourselves and others safe from this virus is the relinquishing of our civil rights and liberties.
In short, by removing the criteria of severe illness causing high morbidity, leaving geographically widespread infection as the only criteria for a pandemic, the WHO and technocratic leaders of the world were able to bamboozle the global population into giving up our lives and livelihoods.
WHO rewrites science by changing definition of herd immunity
The WHO has also radically altered the definition of “herd immunity.” Herd immunity occurs when enough people acquire immunity to an infectious disease such that it can no longer spread widely in the community. When the number susceptible is low enough to prevent epidemic growth, herd immunity is said to have been reached.
Prior to the introduction of vaccines, all herd immunity was achieved via exposure to and recovery from an infectious disease. Eventually, as vaccination became widespread, the concept of herd immunity evolved to include not only the naturally acquired immunity that comes from prior illness, but also the temporary vaccine-acquired immunity that can occur after vaccination.
However, in October 2020, the WHO upended science as we know it, revising this well-established concept in an Orwellian move that totally removes natural infection from the equation.
As late as June 2020, the WHO’s definition of herd immunity, posted on one of their COVID-19 Q&A pages, was in line with the widely-accepted concept that has been the standard for infectious diseases for decades. Here’s what it originally said:18
Quote:Herd immunity is the indirect protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection.
The updated definition of herd immunity, which appeared in October 2020, read as follows:19
Quote:‘Herd immunity’, also known as ‘population immunity’, is a concept used for vaccination, in which a population can be protected from a certain virus if a threshold of vaccination is reached. Herd immunity is achieved by protecting people from a virus, not by exposing them to it.
Vaccines train our immune systems to create proteins that fight disease, known as ‘antibodies’, just as would happen when we are exposed to a disease but — crucially — vaccines work without making us sick.
Vaccinated people are protected from getting the disease in question and passing it on, breaking any chains of transmission. With herd immunity, the vast majority of a population are vaccinated, lowering the overall amount of virus able to spread in the whole population.
After public — and no doubt embarrassing — backlash, the WHO revised its definition again December 31, 2020, to again include the mention of natural infection, while still emphasizing vaccine-acquired immunity. It now reads:20
'
Quote:Herd immunity', also known as 'population immunity,' is the indirect protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection.
WHO supports achieving 'herd immunity' through vaccination, not by allowing a disease to spread through any segment of the population, as this would result in unnecessary cases and deaths.
Herd immunity against COVID-19 should be achieved by protecting people through vaccination, not by exposing them to the pathogen that causes the disease.
WHO’s recommendation of PCR test ‘intentionally criminal’
Stuckelberger also shocks the Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee by pointing out that twice — December 7, 2020,21,22 and January 13, 202123 — the WHO issued medical alerts for PCR testing, warning that use of high cycle thresholds (CT) will produce high rates of false positives, that the CT value should be reported to the health care provider and that test results be considered in combination with clinical observations, health history and other epidemiological information.
Yet since the beginning of the pandemic, it has pushed PCR testing as the best way to detect and diagnose infection. This, she says, makes it intentionally criminal. The January 13, 202124,25 medical product alert was, incidentally, posted online January 20, 2021, mere hours after Joe Biden’s inauguration as the President of the United States.
In this alert, the WHO stressed that the “CT needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load,” and that “Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested.”
It also reminds users that “disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results,” so that “as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases.” The alert goes on to explain:26
Quote:This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity.
Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information.
Taking a patient’s symptoms into account and using a scientifically defensible CT count should have been routine practice from the beginning. It just didn’t fit the geopolitical narrative. Since the start of the pandemic, the WHO has recommended using a CT of 45,27,28,29 which guarantees an enormous number of false positives, and therefore “cases.” This alone is how they kept the pandemic fearmongering going.
The scientific consensus has long been that anything over 35 CTs renders the PCR test useless,30,31,32 as the accuracy will be a measly 3% — 97% are false positives.33 By finally recommending lower CTs and more precise criteria for diagnosis, the WHO engineered an assured end to the caseload at a desired time. Coincidentally, the next day, January 21, 2021, President Biden announced he would reinstate the U.S.’ financial support for the WHO.34
Time to put an end to the global health mafia
The WHO was created as a specialized agency of the U.N., established in 1948 to further international cooperation for improved public health conditions. It was given a broad mandate under its constitution to promote the attainment of “the highest possible level of health” by all peoples.
It is now beyond dispute that the WHO is beyond compromised. Because of its funding — a large portion of which comes from the “one-man nation-state of Gates” — it fails to complete its original mandate. Worse, WHO serves corporate masters and through its dictatorial powers is essentially destroying, not improving, the health of the world.
In June 2010, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly (PACE) issued a report35 on the WHO’s handling of the 2009 pandemic of novel influenza A (H1N1), which included the recommendation to use a fast-tracked vaccine that ended up causing disability and death around the world.
PACE concluded “the handling of the pandemic by the WHO, EU health agencies and national governments led to a waste of large sums of public money, and unjustified scares and fears about the health risks faced by the European public.”36
Specifically, PACE found “overwhelming evidence that the seriousness of the pandemic was vastly overrated by WHO,” and that the drug industry had influenced the organization’s decision-making — a claim echoed by other investigators as well.37,38,39,40,41
The Assembly made a number of recommendations, including greater transparency, better governance of public health, safeguards against undue influence by vested interests, public funding of independent research, and last but not least, for the media to “avoid sensationalism and scaremongering in the public health domain.”42
None of those recommendations were followed and, if anything, the WHO’s mismanagement of public health, thanks to private-public partnerships with NGOs such as GAVI, has only worsened. Other reports, two published in 201543,44 and one in 2017,45 also highlighted the WHO’s failures and lack of appropriate leadership during the 2013 through 2015 Ebola outbreak in West Africa.
While the WHO is recognized as being uniquely suited to carry out key functions necessary in a global pandemic, experts at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and the Harvard Global Health Institute, have pointed out, years ago, that the WHO has eroded so much trust that radical reforms would be required before it can assume an authoritative role.
Yet here we are, still, and no reforms ever took place. Instead, the corruption festered and metastasized, and the WHO turned into a power hub for the technocratic deep state that seeks to assume power and control over all nations.
As noted by Fuellmich, we probably need to take a long hard look at the WHO and the U.N., and decide whether they’re even worth saving. At bare minimum, the disproportionate influence by private vested interests, disguised as NGOs such as GAVI, must be thoroughly investigated and routed out.
Sources and References
1 Acu2020.org Außerparlamentarischer Corona Untersuchungsausschuss
2 Acu2020.org Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee, English
3 Algora October 4, 2020
4 Fuellmich.com, Dr. Reiner Fuellmich Bio (German)
5 AstridStuckelberger.com Bio
6 GAVI.org June 23, 2009
7 The BMJ 2010;340:c2912
8 Wayback Machine, WHO Pandemic Preparedness May 1, 2009 (PDF)
9 Wayback Machine, WHO Pandemic Preparedness September 2, 2009 (PDF)
10 Bitchute, SARS-CoV-2 and the rise of medical technocracy, Lee Merritt, MD, aprox 8 minutes in (Lie No. 1: Death Risk)
11 Technical Report June 2020 DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.24350.77125
12 Johns Hopkins Newsletter November 26, 2020 (Archived)
13 The Mercury News May 20, 2020 (Archived)
14 Annals of Internal Medicine September 2, 2020 DOI: 10.7326/M20-5352
15 Breitbart May 7, 2020
16 Scott Atlas US Senate Testimony May 6, 2020 (PDF)
17 John Ioannidis US Senate Testimony May 6, 2020 (PDF)
18 WHO, Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): Serology June 9, 2020, What Is Herd Immunity section
19 WHO, Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): Herd immunity, lockdowns and COVID-19, October 2020 (Archived)
20 WHO, Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): Herd immunity, lockdowns and COVID-19, December 31, 2020
21 WHO Information Notice December 7, 2020 (Archived)
22 Off-Guardian December 18, 2020
23, 24, 26 WHO Information Notice January 20, 2021
25 The Defender January 21, 2021
27 WHO.int Diagnostic detection of Wuhan Coronavirus 2019 by real-time RT-PCR, January 13, 2020 (PDF)
28 WHO.int Diagnostic detection of 2019-nCOV by real-time RT-PCR, January 17, 2020 (PDF)
29 Eurosurveillance 2020 Jan 23; 25(3): 2000045
30 The Vaccine Reaction September 29, 2020
31 Jon Rappoport’s Blog November 6, 2020
32 YouTube TWiV 641 July 16, 2020
33 Clinical Infectious Diseases September 28, 2020; ciaa1491
34 AP January 21, 2021
35, 36, 42 Assembly.coe.int June 24, 2010
37 Engineering Evil February 10, 2014
38 Wikileaks December 9, 2009
39 Wikileaks December 10, 2009
40 Prevent Disease December 10, 2009
41 Forbes December 23, 2019
43 WHO.int Report of the Ebola Interim Assessment Panel July 2015
44 The Lancet November 22, 2015; 386(10009): 2204-2221
45 Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2017 May 26; 372(1721): 20160307
Reprinted with permission from Mercola.
|
|
|
|
| Passion Week [Monday - Saturday] |
|
Posted by: Stone - 03-22-2021, 06:54 AM - Forum: Lent
- Replies (6)
|
|
Monday in Passion Week
The Station, at Rome, is in the church of Saint Chrysogonus, one of the most celebrated Martyrs of the Church of Rome. His name is inserted in the Canon of the Mass.
Collect
Sanctifica, quæsumus, Domine, nostra jejunia: et cunctarum nobis indulgentiam propitius largire culparum. Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.
Sanctify, O Lord, we beseech thee, our fasts, and mercifully grant us the pardon of all our sins. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.
Epistle
Lesson from Jonas the Prophet. Ch. III.
In those days: The word of the Lord came to Jonas the second time, saying: Arise and go to Ninive, the great city: and preach in it the preaching that I bid thee. And Jonas arose, and went to Ninive, according to the word of the Lord. Now Ninive was a great city of three days’ journey. And Jonas began to enter into the city one day’s journey: and he cried and said: Yet forty days and Ninive shall be destroyed. And the men of Ninive believed in God: and they proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth from the greatest to the least. And the word came to the king of Ninive: and he rose up out of his throne, and cast away his robe from him, and was clothed with sackcloth, and sat in ashes. And he caused it to be proclaimed and published in Ninive, from the mouth of the king and of his princes, saying: Let neither men nor beasts, oxen nor sheep, taste any thing: let them not feed, nor drink water. And let men and bests be covered with sackcloth, and cry to the Lord with all their strength, and let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the iniquity that is in their hands. Who can tell if God will turn and forgive: and will turn away from his fierce anger, and we shall not perish? And God saw their works, that they were turned from their evil way: and the Lord our God had mercy on his people.
Quote:The Church’s intention in this day’s lesson is to encourage us to earnestness and perseverance in our penance. Here we have an idolatrous city, a haughty and debauched capital, whose crimes have merited the anger of heaven. God threatens it with his vengeance: yet forty days, and Ninive and its inhabitants shall be destroyed. How came it that this threat was not carried into effect? What was it that caused Ninive to be spared? Its people returned to the God they had left; they sued for mercy; they humbled themselves and fasted; and the Church concludes the Prophet’s account by these touching words of her own: “And the Lord our God had mercy on his people.” They were Gentiles, but they became his people because they did penance at the preaching of the Prophet. God had made a covenant with one only nation—the Jews; but he rejected not the Gentiles, as often as they renounced their false Gods, confessed his holy name, and desired to serve him. We are here taught the efficacy of corporal mortification; when united with spiritual penance, that is, with the repentance of the heart, it has power to appease God’s anger. How highly, then, should we not prize the holy exercises of penance put upon us by the Church during this holy Season! Let us also learn to dread that false spirituality which tells us that exterior mortification is of little value: such doctrine is the result of rationalism and cowardice.
This passage from the Prophet Jonas is also intended for the Catechumens, whose baptism is so close at hand. It teaches them to have confidence in this merciful God of the Christians, whose threats are so terrible, but who, notwithstanding, turns from his threats to forgive the repentant sinner. These Catechumens, who had hitherto lived in the Ninive of paganism, were here taught that God, even before sending his Son into the world, invited all men to become his people. Seeing the immense obstacles their Gentile ancestors had to surmount in order to receive and persevere in the grace offered them, they would bless God their Savior for having, by his Incarnation, his Sacrifice, his Sacraments, and his Church, facilitated salvation for us who live under the New Testament. True, he was the source of salvation to all preceding generations: but with what incomparable richness is he the source of ours? The Public Penitents, too, had their instructions in this Epistle. What an encouragement for them to hope for pardon! God had shown mercy to Ninive, sinful as it was, and sentenced to destruction: he would, therefore, accept their repentance and penance, he would stay his justice, and show them mercy and pardon.
Gospel
Sequel of the Holy Gospel according to John. Ch. VIII.
At that time: The Rulers and Pharisees sent ministers to apprehend Jesus. Jesus therefore said to them: Yet a little while I am with you: and then I go to him that sent me. You shall seek me, and shall not find me: and where I am, thither you cannot come. The Jews, therefore, said among themselves: Whither will he go, that we shall not find him? Will he go to the dispersed among the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles? What is this saying that he hath said: You shall seek me, and shall not find me; and where I am, you cannot come? And on the last and great day of the festival, Jesus stood and cried, saying: If any man thirst, let him come to me, and drink. He that believeth in me, as the Scripture saith, “Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.” Now this he said of the Spirit which they should receive who believed in him.
Quote:The enemies of Jesus sought to stone him to death, as we were told in yesterday’s Gospel; today they are bent on making him a prisoner, and send soldiers to seize him. This time, Jesus does not hide himself; but how awful are the words he speaks: I go to Him that sent me: you shall seek me, and shall not find me! The sinner, then, who has long abused the grace of God, may have his ingratitude and contempt punished in this just but terrific way—that he shall not be able to find the Jesus he has despised; he shall seek and shall not find. Antiochus, when humbled under the hand of God, prayed, yet obtained not mercy. After the Death and Resurrection of Jesus, while the Church was casting her roots in the world, the Jews, who had crucified the Just One, were seeking in each of the many impostors, who were then rising up in Judea, and fomenting rebellions, which led to the destruction of Jerusalem. Surrounded on all sides by the Roman legions, with their temple and palaces a prey to flames, they sent up their cries to heaven, and besought the God of their fathers to send, as he had promised, the Deliverer! It never occurred to them that this Deliverer had shown himself to their fathers, to many even of themselves; that they had put him to death, and that the Apostles had already carried his name to the ends of the earth. They went on looking for him even to the very day when the deicide city fell, burying beneath its ruins them that the sword had spared. Had they been asked what it was they were awaiting, they would have replied that they were expecting their Messias! He had come and gone. You shall seek me, and shall not find me! Let them, too, think of these terrible words of Jesus, who intend to neglect the graces offered them during this Easter. Let us pray, let us make intercession for them, lest they fall into that awful threat of a repentance that seeks mercy when it is too late to find aught save an inexorable Justice.
But what consoling thoughts are suggested by the concluding words of our Gospel! Faithful souls, and you that have repented! listen to what your Jesus says, for it is to you that he speaks: If any man thirst, let him come to me and drink. Remember the prayer of the Samaritan woman: Give me, O Lord, to drink of this water! This water is divine grace: come and drink your fill at the fountains of your Savior, as the Prophet Isaias bids you. This water gives purity to the soul that is defiled, strength to them that are weak, and love to them that have no fervor. Nay, our Savior assures us, that he who believes in Him shall himself become as a fountain of living water, for the Holy Ghost will come upon him, and this soul shall pour out upon others of the fulness that she herself has received. With what joy must not the Catechumen have listened to these words, which promised him that his thirst should soon be quenched at the holy Font! Jesus has made himself everything to the world he has come to save: Light to guide us, Bread to nourish us, a Vine to gladden our hearts with its fruit, and lastly, a Fountain of Living Water to quench our thirst.
Humiliate capita vestra Deo.
Bow down your heads to God.
Da, quæsumus, Domine, populo tuo salutem mentis et corporis: ut bonis operibus inhærendo, tua semper mereatur protectione defendi. Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.
Grant, O Lord, we beseech thee, to thy people, health both of body and mind, that being constant in the practice of good works, they may always be safe under thy protection. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.
This being the day on which the Church offers to our meditations the history of the Prophet Jonas preaching to Ninive, we subjoin a new fragment from the Hymn of Prudentius on Fasting. It is the passage where he relates the life of this Prophet, and the repentance of the wicked City.
Hymn
Referre prisei stemma nunc jejunii
Libet, fideli proditum volumine,
Ut diruende civitatis incolis
Fulmen benigni mansuefactum Patris,
Pie repressis ignibus, pepercerit.
I fain would now, in holy Fasting’s praise, tell, from the book of truth, how God our Father, with his wonted love, repressed the fire and thunder of his wrath, and spared the city doomed to be destroyed.
Gens insolenti præpotens jactantia
Pollebat olim: quam fluentem requiter
Corrupta vulgo solverat lascivia;
Et inde bruto contumax fastidio
Cultum superni negligebat Numinis.
In ancient days, a city flourished, whose mighty power drove her into haughtiness extreme. Criminal indulgence and lewd corruption had destroyed the morals of her people, so brutalizing them, that they left the worship of the God of heaven.
Offensa tandem jugis indulgentiæ
Censura, justis excitatur motibus,
Dextram perarmat rhomphæali incendio,
Nimbos crepantes, et fragosos turbines
Vibrans tonantum nube flammarum quatit.
At length, the tired patience of God’s long-suffering gave way to justice, which moves his hand to prepare his arrowed lightnings, and storm-voiced clouds, and jarring whirlwinds, and thunderbolts that shake the vault of heaven.
Sed pœnitendi dum datur diecula,
Si forte volient improbam libidinem
Veteresque nugas condomare, ac frangere.
Suspendit ictum terror exorabilis,
Paulumque dicta substitit sententia.
Yet does he grant them time for penitence, wherein to tame and break the wickedness of their lust and wonted follies. Mercy, that waits for prayer, holds back the blow of anger; a brief delay puts off the day of doom.
Jonam prophetam mitis ultor excitat,
Pœnæ imminentis iret ut prænuncius;
Sed nosset ille quum minacem judicem
Servare malle, quam ferire ac plectere,
Tectam latenter vertit in Tharsos fugam.
The meek Avenger sends a herald of the coming woe: it is Jonas the Prophet. But he, well knowing that the threatening Judge is prone to save, rather than to strike and punish, stealthily to Tharsis flees.
Celsam paratis pontibus scandit ratem:
Udo revincta fune puppis solvitur.
Itur per altum: fit procellosum mare:
Tum causa tanti quæritur periculi:
Sors in fugacem missa vatem decidit.
A noble vessel was prepared for sail, whereon he takes his place. The anchor weighed, the vessel puts from shore. She ploughs the deep, when lo! a storm. Endangered thus, the crew would know the cause, and casting lots, it falls upon the fugitive, the Prophet.
Jussus perire solus e cunctis reus,
Cujus voluta crimen urna expresserat,
Præceps rotatur, et profundo immergitur:
Exceptus inde belluinis faucibus,
Alvi capacis vivus hauritur specu.
Of all, the only one in fault is he. His guilt is clear, the lot has told the tale. Headlong is he cast, and buried in the deep: and as he falls, a whale’s huge jaw receives the Prophet, burying him alive in the sepulcher of his capacious womb.
Intactus exin teriæ noctis vice
Monstri vomentis pellitur singultibus,
Qua murmuranti fine fluctus frangitur,
Salsosque candens spuma tundit pumices,
Ructatus exit, seque servatum stupet.
There, for three nights, does Jonas, he unhurt; which passed, the sick monster heaves him from his womb, just where the murmuring billows break upon the shore, and whiten the salty rocks with foam. The Prophet comes forth,—wondering, but safe.
In Ninivitas se coactus percito
Gressu reflectit; quos ut increpaverat,
Pudenda censor imputans opprobria.
Impendet, inquit, ira summi vindicis,
Urbemque flamma mox cremabit: credite.
Compelled, to Ninive he turns his hurried steps. He chides, he censures, he charges her with all her shameless crimes, saying: “The anger of the great Avenger shall fall upon you, and speedily your City shall be made a prey to fire. Believe the prophecy I speak.”
Apicem deinceps ardui montis petit,
Visurus inde conglobatum turbidæ
Fumum ruinæ, cladis et diræ struem,
Tectus flagellis multimodi germinis,
Nato et repente perfruens umbraculo.
Then to the summit of a lofty hill he goes, from whence to see the thickened clouds of smoke rising from the ruined heap, and gaze upon the pile of unpitied dead. Suddenly there grows upon the spot an ivy-tree, whose knotted branches yield a shaded cover.
Sed mœsta postquam civitas vulnus novi
Hausit doloris, heu! spremum palpitat.
Cursant per ampla congregatim mœnia
Plebs, et senatus, omnia ætas civium,
Pallens juventus, ejulantes feminæ.
But scarce had the mournful City felt the wound of her coming grief, than deathly fear possesses her. Her people and her senate, her young and old, youths pale with panic, and women wailing loud, scamper in groups along the spacious walls.
Placet frementem publicis jejuniis
Placare Christum: mos edendi spernitur.
Glaucos amictus induit monilibus
Matrona demptis, proque gemma, et serico
Crinem fluentem sordidus spargit cinis.
It is decreed—the anger of Christ shall by fasting be appeased. Henceforth, they spurn to eat. Matrons doff their trinkets, and vest in dingy garbs, and, for their wreaths of pearls and silks, sprinkle ashes on their hair.
Squalent recincta veste pullati patres,
Setasque plangens turba sumit textiles,
Impexa villis virgo bestialibus,
Nigrante vultum contegit velamine,
Jacens arenis et puer provolvitur.
Patricians put on robes of somber hue; the people, weeping, take hair-shirts for their dress; disheveled maidens clad in skins of beasts, and hide their faces in veils of black. Children, too, make the dust of earth their bed.
Rex ipse Coos æstuantem murices
Lænam revulsa dissipabat fibula,
Gemmas virentes, et lapillos sutiles,
Insigne frontis exuebat vinculum
Turpi capillos impeditus pulvere.
The king himself from his shoulders tears the Cossian purple robe, and for the diadem that decks his brow with emeralds and gems, strews grim ashes on his head.
Nullus bibendi, nemo voscendi memor:
Jejuna mensas pubes omnis liquerat:
Quin et negato lacte vagientium
Fletu madescunt parvulorum cunulæ:
Succum papillæ parca nutrix derogat.
None think of drink or meat. Among the youths, not one would touch the food prepared. Nay, babes are kept from their mothers’ breasts, and in their cradles, wet with tears, these little fasters lie.
Greges et ipsos claudit armentalium
Solers virorum cura, ne vagum pecus
Contingat ore rorulenta gramina,
Potum strepentis neve fontis hauriat;
Vacuis querelæ personant præsepibus.
The herdsman, too, pens up his flock with care, lest, left to roam, the dewy grass or rippling fount should tempt them to transgress the universal fast; but now, pent up, their moans rebellow through their prison-cave.
Mollitus his, et talibus, brevem Deus
Iram refrænat, temperans oraculum
Prosper sinistrum: prona nam clementia
Haud difficulter supplicum mortalium
Solvit reatum, fitque fautrix flentium.
Thus is God appeased, his anger brief restrained, and threatened evil yields to proffered love: for mercy leans to pardon men their sins, if they but humbly pray; and when they weep, she makes herself their friend.
Let us close the day with these stanzas in honor of the holy Cross. We have taken them from the Triodion of the Greek Church.
Hymn
(Feria VI. mediæ Septimanæ.)
Sanctissimum lignum, in quo Christus manibus extensis adversarias potestates devicit, adoremus jejunio nitidi, ad laudem et gloriam Omnipotentis.
Purified by our fast, let us, to the praise and glory of the Omnipotent God, venerate that most holy Cross, whereon Christ, with his arms stretched forth, overcame the power of our enemy.
Crux salutifera sanctificationem suppeditans proposita cernitur. Accedamus, cor et corpus emundantes.
The saving Cross, that sanctifies us, is now exposed before our eyes. Let us draw nigh, having purified our body and our soul.
Igne mandatorum tuorum munda me, benigne, et da, ut salutiferam Passionem tuam intuear, et cum desiderio adorem, Cruce vallatus et conservatus.
Cleanse me, O merciful Savior, by the fire of thy commandments, and grant that I may contemplate thy saving Passion, and lovingly adore it, having the Cross for my protection and defense.
Aquis jejunii pectora purgati, lignum Crucis fideliter amplectamur, in quo Christus crucifixus aquam immortalitatis nobis emisit.
Having our hearts purified by the waters of our fast, let us, with faith, embrace the wood of the Cross, on which Christ was crucified, and gave us the water of immortality.
Crucis velut velo alati, salutarem jejunii navigationem jam mediam emensi sumus, Jesu Salvator, per quam deduc nos ad Passionis tuæ portum.
Having thy Cross as our sail, we have already winged our way half through the saving voyage of our fast. Lead us by the same, O Jesus our Savior, into the haven of thy Passion.
Præmonstrabat te Moyses in monte, o Crux, in gentium interitum. Nos vero efformantes te, et corde intuentes et adorantes, hostes carpis expertes virtute tua profligamus.
Moses on the mount was a figure of thee, O holy Cross (when he prayed with his outstretched arms), unto the destruction of the Amalekites. Grant that we, who sign thee on ourselves, and lovingly gaze on and venerate thee, may, by thy power, put our spiritual enemies to flight.
|
|
|
|
| New Visual Compares the World’s Deadliest Pandemics by Population Impact |
|
Posted by: Stone - 03-22-2021, 06:38 AM - Forum: Pandemic 2020 [Secular]
- No Replies
|
|
New Visual Compares the World’s Deadliest Pandemics by Population Impact – And COVID’s Placement May Surprise You
Gateway Pundit | March 21, 2021
After a year of the China Virus and the mayhem it caused across the globe we now have a better picture of just how deadly the coronavirus was compared to other great pandemics in the past.
And, it’s not even close.
Via Visual Capitalist
The Visual Capitalist also put together a visual last year on the history of pandemics.
According to the number of global deaths at that time the coronavirus was one of the smallest pandemics in modern history.
Since that time the numbers have escalated for the coronavirus but still don’t compare to the great pandemics of the past.
Via The Visual Capitalist:
|
|
|
|
|
![[Image: Canisius2.jpg]](https://www.salvemariaregina.info/SalveMariaRegina/SMR-184/Canisius2.jpg)
![[Image: ee5541dbff73d8730c_8123306618_1b759b03ba_k.jpg]](https://assets.atlasobscura.com/media/W1siZiIsInVwbG9hZHMvcGxhY2VfaW1hZ2VzL2VlNTU0MWRiZmY3M2Q4NzMwY184MTIzMzA2NjE4XzFiNzU5YjAzYmFfay5qcGciXSxbInAiLCJ0aHVtYiIsIngzOTA-Il0sWyJwIiwiY29udmVydCIsIi1xdWFsaXR5IDgxIC1hdXRvLW9yaWVudCJdXQ/ee5541dbff73d8730c_8123306618_1b759b03ba_k.jpg)
![[Image: ?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.traditioninaction.or...f=1&nofb=1]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.traditioninaction.org%2FHotTopics%2FHTimages_a%2FA094_Ratz.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
![[Image: 220px-Our_Lady_of_Good_Counsel_by_Pasquale_Sarullo.jpg]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bd/Our_Lady_of_Good_Counsel_by_Pasquale_Sarullo.jpg/220px-Our_Lady_of_Good_Counsel_by_Pasquale_Sarullo.jpg)
![[Image: mark-hc-223x400.jpg]](https://catholicsaintmedals.com/wp-content/uploads/mark-hc-223x400.jpg)
![[Image: Cardinal_Ratzinger.jpg]](http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/Images/1998_January/Cardinal_Ratzinger.jpg)
![[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2F736x%2Fa...f=1&nofb=1]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2F736x%2Fa5%2Fd6%2Fbb%2Fa5d6bbb27c03bdff5f84824041551977--testament-forty.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
![[Image: deadliest-pandemics-visualized.jpg]](https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/deadliest-pandemics-visualized.jpg)
![[Image: pandemics--scaled.jpg]](https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/pandemics--scaled.jpg)
