| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 324 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 322 Guest(s)
Bing, Google
|
|
|
| Freemasonic Plan to Destroy the Catholic Church |
|
Posted by: Elizabeth - 01-07-2021, 11:32 PM - Forum: Catholic Prophecy
- No Replies
|
 |
Father Emmanuel Barbier, a well-known anti-modernist and anti-masonic author, transcribed a document dated April 3, 1844, in which a high-ranking leader of Italian masonic forces called Nubius explains to another highly-placed mason how the quiet revolution will work. He writes, "Now then, in order to ensure a pope in the required proportions, we must first of all prepare a generation worthy of the kingdom of which we dream...
"Cast aside the old men and men of a mature age; go to the youth, and if possible, even to children...It is to the youth that we must go, it is the youth that we must lead, unperceived by them, under the flag of the secret societies. In order to advance with prudent steps on this dangerous but sure way, two things are absolutely necessary. You must have the simplicity of doves and the prudence of the serpent...Never pronounce before them a word of impiety or impurity: Maxima debetur puero reverentia...Once your reputation has been established in colleges, high schools, universities, and seminaries, once you have gained the confidence of professors and students, make sure that especially those who enter the ranks of the clergy be pleased with your meetings...
"Such reputation will give your doctrine access to the young clergy and to convents. In a few years, this clergy will naturally have invaded all functions: they will govern, administer, judge, from the Sovereign's council, be called to choose the Pontiff who must reign; and this Pontiff, like most of his contemporaries, will be more or less imbued with Italian and humanitarian principles that we will start placing in circulation...Let the clergy move forward under your standard always believing they are advancing under the banner of the apostolic Keys. Cast your net like Simon Bar Jonas; spread it to the bottom of sacristies, seminaries, and convents, rather than casting it to the bottom of the sea; if you do not precipitate anything, we promise you a catch even more miraculous than his...
"You will have fished a revolution dressed in the Pope's triple crown and cape, carrying the cross and the flag, a revolution that will need only a small stimulus to set fire to the four corners of the earth." (Nubius, Secret Instructions on the Conquest of the Church, excerpted from Les infiltrations maconiques dans l'Eglise,Masonic Infiltrations in the Church, Paris/Brussels: Desclee de Brouwer, 1901, p. 5).
http://lasalettejourney.blogspot.com/201...m.html?m=1
|
|
|
| February 11th - Our Lady of Lourdes and St. Severinus |
|
Posted by: Elizabeth - 01-07-2021, 11:10 PM - Forum: February
- No Replies
|
|
Our Lady of Lourdes
(1858)
The first of the eighteen apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary to the humble Bernadette Soubirous took place at Lourdes on February 11, 1858. On March 25th, when Bernadette asked the beautiful Lady Her name, She replied: I am the Immaculate Conception. The Church for long centuries had believed in Her Immaculate Conception, Her exemption from every trace of the original sin which through Adam, our first and common father, separated man from his God. It was never proclaimed a dogma, however, until 1854. Mary Herself, in 1830, had asked of a Vincentian Sister at the Rue du Bac in Paris, that a medal be struck bearing Her likeness and the inscription: O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to Thee.
Our Lady by Her apparitions at Lourdes in 1858 seems to convey Her appreciation for the formal proclamation of Her great privilege, by Pius IX, in 1854. Countless and magnificent miracles of healing have occurred at Lourdes, confirmed by physicians and recorded in the Lourdes shrine Book of Life. To name but one: a doctor wrote a book describing the great miracle he had witnessed for a dying girl, whom he had observed on the train that was carrying handicapped persons from Paris to Lourdes. He had not expected her to survive and return home from the sanctuary.
Through the Lourdes Apparitions, the devotion of persons in all parts of the world to the Immaculate Mother of God has been wonderfully spread, and countless miracles have been wrought everywhere through Her intercession. The Virgin Mother of God is truly the chosen Messenger of God to these latter times, which are entrusted to Her, the chosen vessel of the unique privilege of exemption from original sin. Only with Her assistance will the dangers of the present world situation be averted. As She has done since 1858 in many places, at Lourdes, too, She gave us Her peace plan for the world, through Saint Bernadette: Prayer and Penance, to save souls.
Saint Severinus
Abbot
(† 507)
Saint Severinus, of a noble family in Burgundy, was educated in the Catholic faith at a time when the Arian heresy reigned in that region. He forsook the world in his youth and dedicated himself to God in the monastery of Agaunum, which consisted only of scattered cells until, some time later, the Catholic King Sigismund built there the great Abbey of Saint Maurice.
Saint Severinus became the holy abbot of Saint Maurice, with its distinct convents for men and women, all of whom bore voluntarily the yoke of penance and celibacy without solemn vows. The Abbot had governed his community for many years in the exercise of penance and charity, when, in 504, Clovis, the first Christian king of France, who was lying ill of a fever, sent his chamberlain to conduct the Saint to court. After his physicians had for two years endeavored without success to cure him, Clovis was told that the sick from all parts recovered their health by the prayers of Saint Severinus. The Abbot therefore took leave of his monks, and told them he would never see them again in this world.
On his journey he healed Eulalius, Bishop of Nevers, who had been for some time deaf and dumb; he also healed a leper at the gates of Paris. And coming to the palace he immediately restored the king to perfect health, by covering him with his own cloak. He cured many other sick persons at the court and in Paris. The king, in gratitude, distributed large alms to the poor and released all his prisoners.
Saint Severinus, returning toward Agaunum, stopped at Chateau-Landon in Gatinais, where two priests served God in a solitary chapel. Foreseeing his imminent death, he asked admittance among them, and they received this stranger, whom they soon greatly admired for his sanctity. His death followed shortly after, in 507. This site became the Abbey of Saint Severinus, with a beautiful church dedicated to him. His relics were later scattered, when this church was plundered.
|
|
|
|
| February 10th - St. Scholastica |
|
Posted by: Elizabeth - 01-07-2021, 11:06 PM - Forum: February
- Replies (1)
|
|
Saint Scholastica
Abbess
(480-543)
Of this Saint but little is known on earth, save that she was the very pious younger sister of the great patriarch Saint Benedict, and that, under his direction, she founded and governed a numerous community near Monte Casino. Saint Gregory sums up her life by saying that she devoted herself to God from her childhood, and that her pure soul rose to God in the likeness of a dove, as if to show that her life had been enriched with the fullest gifts of the Holy Spirit.
Her brother was accustomed to visit her once every year, before Lent, and she could not be sated or wearied with the words of grace which flowed from his lips. On his last visit, after a day passed in spiritual conversation, the Saint, knowing that her end was near, said, My brother, leave me not, I pray you, this night, but discourse with me till dawn on the bliss of those who see God in heaven. Saint Benedict would not break his rule for the sake of natural affection, but his sister bowed her head and prayed, and there arose a storm so violent that Saint Benedict could not return to his monastery, and they passed the night as she had prayed, in heavenly conversation.
Three days later Saint Benedict saw in a vision the soul of Saint Scholastica going up in the likeness of a dove into heaven. Then he gave thanks to God for the graces He had given her and the glory which had crowned them. When she died, Saint Benedict as well as her spiritual daughters, and the monks sent by their patriarch to her conventual church, mingled their tears and prayed, Alas! alas! dearest mother, to whom dost thou leave us now? Pray for us to Jesus, to whom thou art gone. They then devoutly celebrated holy Mass, commending her soul to God; and her body was borne to Monte Casino, where her brother lay her in the tomb he had prepared for himself. It was written that they all mourned her many days. Finally Saint Benedict said, Weep not, my sisters and brothers; for assuredly Jesus has taken her, before us, to be our aid and defense against all our enemies, that we may remain standing on the evil day and be perfect in all things. Her death occurred in about the year 543.
|
|
|
|
| Prayer for a Cure - Arthritis Saint |
|
Posted by: Hildegard of Bingen - 01-07-2021, 09:02 PM - Forum: Prayers and Devotionals
- No Replies
|
 |
The Arthritis Saint
FOR A CURE
Glorious Saint Alphonsus, loving Father of the poor and the sick, all thy
life you devoted yourself with a charity really heroic to lightening their
spiritual and bodily miseries. Full of confidence in thy tender pity for
the sick, since thy yourself have patiently borne the cross of illness,
I come to thee for help in my present need . . . . . . (Mention it)
Loving Father of the suffering, Saint Alphonsus, whom I invoke as
the Arthritis Saint, since you have suffered from this disease in your
lifetime, look with compassion upon me in my suffering. Beg God to
give me good health. If it is not God's will to cure me, then give me
strength to bear my cross patiently and to offer my sufferings in union
with any Crucified Savior and His Mother of Sorrows, for the glory of God
and the salvation of souls, in reparation for my sins and those of others,
for the needs of this troubled world, and for the souls in purgatory.
Our Father. Hail Mary. Glory Be.
Saint Alphonsus, patron of the sick, pray for me. [i] Amen.
[/i]
|
|
|
|
| French government increases police surveillance of general population |
|
Posted by: Stone - 01-07-2021, 07:21 PM - Forum: Global News
- No Replies
|
 |
French government increases police surveillance of general population
Population surveillance records set up by law enforcement bodies may include information regarding ‘political opinions, philosophical and religious beliefs, or trade union membership.’
PARIS, France, January 7, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — Police surveillance of the French population is set to increase as new measures quietly installed by the government last month were approved on Tuesday by the Council of State, the highest administrative court that has the power of assessing the legality of decisions made by the administration.
The new dispositions were published discreetly on December 2 with the signatures of prime minister Jean Castex and interior minister Gérald Darmanin. The next day, an internet news outlet specialized in digital news and new technologies exposed the move, revealing that under the government decrees, population surveillance records set up by law enforcement bodies may include information regarding “political opinions, philosophical and religious beliefs, or trade union membership.”
Surveillance records may now also include “health data that reveal particular danger,” such as mental health problems or psychiatric internment.
The decrees modified existing dispositions by allowing surveillance records to extend to groups and associations: “legal entities” as opposed to individuals who to date were the only people on whom “files” could legally by started.
These government measures are executive decisions over which Parliament has no control and is not consulted. For the French, they came out of the blue at a point in time when the government and the presidential party “La République en marche” were facing demonstrations against a “global security law” presently still under discussion. The draft law aims to allow private agencies to carry out police missions, as well as drone surveillance, and would prohibit citizens from posting footage showing identifiable law enforcement personnel online.
Contrary to the proposed security law, the government decrees published on December 2 cannot be opposed or discussed by the political representation and civil society. Their only option was to take the texts to the Council of State.
Left-wing entities such as Amnesty International, the communist labor union CGT and other trade unions, as well as left-wing media criticized the decrees for having shifted and enlarged the rights of the police. Activities of the historic “Renseignements généraux” — the French equivalent of the “Special Branch” — which kept voluminous (and sometimes frankly fanciful) data files about political activists and opponents as well as potential terrorists were so decried that the body was dissolved in 2008, to be replaced by a new entity that also absorbed the “DST” or counter-espionage agency.
Surveillance has continued in a different form, not always with success as regards Islamic terrorism, as supposedly dangerous individuals with special “S” files have been able, over the years, to participate in deadly attacks.
The fight against terrorism is certainly one of the aims of the controversial government decrees, but under cover of security, personal beliefs, convictions, health data covered by medical confidentiality and mere “opinions” are now susceptible of being filed by law enforcement bodies, while until now only “activities” posing a threat to public security could be registered.
In other words, only active “radicals” could in principle be identified, registered and monitored. Now, professing certain beliefs (Islamic, but also Christian or Catholic) or political preferences (such as monarchism or anti-LGBT convictions, in theory), allows the French police or “gendarmes” to gather and keep information for future use and ongoing surveillance of individuals and groups.
Such surveillance involves monitoring internet and social media use, including the collecting of posted images and comments under aliases. The use of artificial intelligence to collect such information is implicitly permitted.
The long list of collectible data includes personal photographs (not excluding facial recognition, according to some critics), all manner of identifying information regarding personal documents, home addresses, family status (including information about minor children), sporting activities, behavior and life habits, nationality, social status, addictions … And, of course, “religious practice and habits.”
Interestingly, a person’s gender, “sexual orientation,” race and ethnicity are not included in this seemingly exhaustive list.
Official police files will also be permitted to contain complete information — and individual files — about people having had “direct and non-fortuitous” contact with registered individuals and groups. To date, such information was very limited and would be registered in “dangerous individuals” personal files.
The decree is in fact so widely worded that very large numbers of individuals and groups could be subject to very detailed surveillance without any judiciary control whatsoever, especially in a context where the French Republic has opted for strenuous defense of the culture of death and is at the same time tightening control of education and home-schooling.
Besides several trade unions and syndicates, two Christian groups decided to take the decrees to the Council of State in order to obtain their “suspension” through an emergency procedure. Both “VIA,” formerly known as the Christian Democrat Party (PCD) presided by Jean-Frédéric Poisson, a former presidential candidate in the most recent election that saw Emmanuel Macron ascend to power, and the Fondation de Service politique which stands for Christian and conservative values, underscored the grave derogations to human rights and individual fundamental liberties that the decrees will allow.
The right not to be in any way subject to “interference because of one’s opinions, even religious opinions” was in particular enshrined in France’s “Universal declaration of human rights” in 1789 (although that did not prevent the French Revolution from persecuting Catholics and mass-killing priests and religious).
The Council of State published its decision rejecting all emergency recourses against the decrees on January 4, including those of VIA and the Fondation de Service politique. The interim relief judge observed that while the filing of political opinions, religious beliefs and trade union membership had not been previously submitted to the special digital liberties commission (CNIL), this was not a problem in his view as it is “coherent” existing surveillance of such “activities,” which is “legal.”
But actions are actions: surveilling opinions is based on “presuppositions,” VIA-leader Jean-Frédéric Poisson commented on Wednesday. The decrees would allow the state to collect data about the opinions of citizens who would be considered as “a priori” threatening public security.
Nor did the judge find the wording of the decrees too wide: reserving this surveillance to persons and groups who pose a danger to public security and the safety of the State is safeguard enough, he wrote.
It later emerged that the said interim relief judge, Mathieu Herondart, was the cabinet director of a former justice minister under Emmanuel Macron, Nicole Belloubet, from 2017 to 2020.
Both Jean-Frédéric Poisson and the Fondation de service politique have announced that they will take the affair to the European Court of Human Rights.
|
|
|
|
| MSM Already Using Capitol Hill Riot To Call For More Internet Censorship |
|
Posted by: Stone - 01-07-2021, 12:59 PM - Forum: Socialism & Communism
- Replies (2)
|
|
MSM Already Using Capitol Hill Riot To Call For More Internet Censorship
Zero Hedge | Jan 07, 2021
The United States received a very small taste of its own medicine today as rioting Trump fanatics temporarily forced their way into the nation’s Capitol building, and now the whole nation is freaking out.
I am being generous when I say that America was given a very small taste of its own medicine; unlike the horrific coups and violent uprisings the US routinely orchestrates in noncompliant nations around the world, this one stood exactly zero chance of seizing control of the government, and only one person was killed.
I am also being generous when I say the rioters “forced their way” in; DC chose not to increase its police presence in preparation for the protests despite knowing that they were planned, and there’s footage of what appears to be cops actively letting them through a police barricade. There was some fighting between police and protesters, but contrasted with the unceasing barrage of police brutality footage which emerged from Black Lives Matter demonstrations a few months prior it’s fair to say the police response today was relatively gentle.
Quote:the police opened the [*****] gates. pic.twitter.com/HyDURXfoaB
Predictably, this entirely American disruption has blue-checkmarked commentariat shrieking about Vladimir Putin on social media.
Quote:Of course. Of course. pic.twitter.com/00Xw0eC7Uw
Future historian: "As right-wing mobs were terrorizing the Capitol, liberal truth-tellers kept their eyes on the real villain." #BlueAnon pic.twitter.com/VNpLASbD1L
Just as predictably, it’s also got them calling for the censorship of social media.
The New York Times has published two new articles titled “The storming of Capitol Hill was organized on social media” and “Violence on Capitol Hill Is a Day of Reckoning for Social Media”, both arguing for more heavy-handed restrictions on speech from Silicon Valley tech giants.
In the former, NYT’s Sheera Frenkel writes “the violence Wednesday was the result of online movements operating in closed social media networks where people believed the claims of voter fraud and of the election being stolen from Mr. Trump,” citing the expert analysis of think tank spinmeister Renee DiResta of “Tulsi Gabbard is a Russian asset” fame. As usual no mention is made of DiResta’s involvement in the New Knowledge scandal in which a Russian interference “false flag” was staged for an Alabama Senate race.
Quote:“These people are acting because they are convinced an election was stolen,” DiResta said.
“This is a demonstration of the very real-world impact of echo chambers.”
“This has been a striking repudiation of the idea that there is an online and an offline world and that what is said online is in some way kept online,” DiResta adds.
The storming of the capital hill was organized on social media. Time to stop acting like things said online don't translate into real-world action. https://t.co/tpEZZ2KfGZ
This narrative which seeds the idea that unregulated communication on the internet will lead to violent uprisings is funny coming from Frankel, who, as a Twitter follower recently observed, wrote a piece in 2018 condemning the Iranian government for restricting protesters’ social media access during the demonstrations at that time.
“Social media and messaging apps have become crucial to antigovernment demonstrators around the world, as a means of both organizing and delivering messages to other citizens,” Frankel wrote.
“Not surprisingly, restricting access to such technology has become as important to government crackdowns as the physical presence of the police.”
In the other article, co-authored by Frankel, Mike Isaac and Kate Conger, the message is driven home even less subtly.
“As pro-Trump protesters stormed the Capitol building on Wednesday and halted the certification of Electoral College votes, the role of social media companies such as Twitter, Facebook and YouTube in spreading misinformation and being a megaphone for Mr. Trump came under renewed criticism,” reads the article, adding, “So when violence broke out in Washington on Wednesday, it was, in the minds of longtime critics, the day the chickens came home to roost for the social media companies.”
The article reports on the US president’s temporary suspension of social media privileges for allegedly inciting violence with his posts, then discusses the various kinds of disinformation and violent ideation being circulated in Trump discussion forums.
“Those alternative social media sites were rife with Trump supporters organizing and communicating on Wednesday,” NYT tells us. “On Parler, one trending hashtag was #stormthecapitol. Many Trump supporters on the sites also appeared to believe a false rumor that Antifa, a left-wing movement, was responsible for committing violence at the protests.”
“We know the social media companies have been lackadaisical at best” at stopping extremism from growing on their platforms, Jonathan Greenblatt, director of the Anti-Defamation League, told NYT. “Freedom of expression is not the freedom to incite violence. That is not protected speech.”
Quote:“Those alternative social media sites were rife with Trump supporters organizing and communicating on Wednesday,” NYT tells us. “On Parler, one trending hashtag was #stormthecapitol. Many Trump supporters on the sites also appeared to believe a false rumor that Antifa, a left-wing movement, was responsible for committing violence at the protests.”
“We know the social media companies have been lackadaisical at best” at stopping extremism from growing on their platforms, Jonathan Greenblatt, director of the Anti-Defamation League, told NYT. “Freedom of expression is not the freedom to incite violence. That is not protected speech.”
Violence on Capitol Hill Is a Day of Reckoning for Social Media https://t.co/UqDuAWShfg
We will likely see many more such articles in the coming days, arguing for increased regulation of internet communication to prevent future incidents like today.
In and of itself this won’t sound terribly concerning to the average citizen. Nothing wrong with taking steps to prevent people from plotting violence and terrorism on social media, right?
But how do you predict what protests are going to be “violent”? How do you decide which protests and what political dissent need to be censored and which ones should be permitted to communicate freely? Do you just leave it up to Silicon Valley oligarchs to make the call? Or do you have them consult with the government like they’ve been doing? Are either of these institutions you’d trust to regulate what protests are worthy of being permitted to organize online?
But how do you predict what protests are going to be “violent”? How do you decide which protests and what political dissent need to be censored and which ones should be permitted to communicate freely? Do you just leave it up to Silicon Valley oligarchs to make the call? Or do you have them consult with the government like they’ve been doing? Are either of these institutions you’d trust to regulate what protests are worthy of being permitted to organize online?
Because the actual power structures in the United States seem to be interested in simply censoring the internet to eliminate political dissent altogether.
In 2017 top officials from Facebook, Twitter and Google were brought before the Senate Judiciary Committee and admonished to come up with policies that will “prevent the fomenting of discord” in the United States.
Quote:Friendly reminder that last year representatives of Google/Youtube, Facebook and Twitter were instructed on the floor of the US Senate that it is their responsibility to "quell information rebellions" so as to "prevent the fomenting of discord.”https://t.co/X4Hc56fH0k
World Socialist Website reported the following in 2017.
Quote:Democratic Senator Mazie Hirono of Hawaii demanded, for her part, that the companies adopt a “mission statement” expressing their commitment “to prevent the fomenting of discord.”
The most substantial portion of the testimony took place in the second part of the hearing, during which most of the Senators had left and two representatives of the US intelligence agencies testified before a room of mostly empty chairs.
Clint Watts, a former U.S. Army officer, former FBI agent, and member of the Alliance for Securing Democracy, made the following apocalyptic proclamation: “Civil wars don’t start with gunshots, they start with words. America’s war with itself has already begun. We all must act now on the social media battlefield to quell information rebellions that can quickly lead to violent confrontations and easily transform us into the Divided States of America.”
He added, “Stopping the false information artillery barrage landing on social media users comes only when those outlets distributing bogus stories are silenced — silence the guns and the barrage will end.”
That sounds an awful like government officials and operatives telling social media corporations that it’s their job to censor communication which could facilitate any kind of unrest, no matter how justified.
Do you trust these monopolistic megacorporations to decide whether or not people’s dissident speech is acceptable? I don’t.
As Julian Assange is condemned to remain falsely imprisoned and the mass media ramp up their case for more imperial narrative control, we are now in a battle for the sovereignty of our very minds.
|
|
|
|
| The Mystical City of God by Venerable Mary of Agreda |
|
Posted by: Stone - 01-07-2021, 09:48 AM - Forum: Resources Online
- Replies (58)
|
|
THE MYSTICAL CITY OF GOD
THE DIVINE HISTORY AND LIFE OF THE VIRGIN MOTHER OF GOD
[ POPULAR ABRIDGEMENT]
by Venerable Mary of Agreda
Translated from the Spanish by Reverend George J. Blatter
1914, So. Chicago, Ill., The Theopolitan; Hammond, Ind., W.B. Conkey Co., US..
IMPRIMATUR:
+H.J. Alerding
Bishop of Fort Wayne
Mystical City of God, the miracle of His omnipotence and the abyss of His grace the divine history and life of the Virgin Mother of God our Queen and our Lady, most holy Mary expiatrix of the fault of eve and mediatrix of grace. Manifested to Sister Mary of Jesus, Prioress of the convent of the Immaculate Conception in Agreda, Spain. For new enlightenment of the world, for rejoicing of the Catholic Church, and encouragement of men. Completed in 1665.
Translation from the Original Authorized Spanish Edition by Fiscar Marison (George J. Blatter). Begun on the Feast of the Assumption 1902, completed 1912.
This work is published for the greater Glory of Jesus Christ through His most Holy Mother Mary and for the sanctification of the militant Church and her members.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
THE MYSTICAL CITY OF GOD, THE DIVINE HISTORY AND LIFE OF THE VIRGIN MOTHER OF GOD
INTRODUCTION [see below]
THE MYSTICAL CITY OF GOD - BOOK 1
THE MYSTICAL CITY OF GOD - BOOK 2
THE MYSTICAL CITY OF GOD - BOOK 3
THE MYSTICAL CITY OF GOD - BOOK 4
THE MYSTICAL CITY OF GOD - BOOK 5
THE MYSTICAL CITY OF GOD - BOOK 6
THE MYSTICAL CITY OF GOD - BOOK 7
THE MYSTICAL CITY OF GOD - BOOK 8
* * *
INTRODUCTION
SPECIAL NOTICE TO THE READER
NOTHING that essentially differs from the teachings of the Catholic Church can rightfully be taught or believed by any man or under any pretext. Moreover, even the essential doctrines can be taught and expounded only in the sense and spirit approved, or at least not disapproved, by the Church. This at once will establish the position which private revelations, whether coming from Heaven or originating from hallucination, merely human or devilish, hold in the Church of God.
There can be no doubt that God can and does manifest to chosen souls hidden things in addition to what He teaches through the public ministry of His Church. It is also an accepted truth that He sometimes reveals them to his friends for the express purpose of communicating this extra knowledge to other well disposed persons through the natural and human means at the disposal of those receiving his revelations. These manifestations He invariably surrounds with enough evidence to satisfy all requirements of a cautious and well founded human belief. It follows naturally that whenever He thus surrounds private revelations with evidences of their heavenly origin, He will be pleased with a rational and loving belief and dissatisfied with a captious and obstinate unbelief of the facts or truths thus privately revealed. Where, however, these external evidences are wanting, or wherever holy Church intimates the least direct or indirect disapproval, there any faith in private revelation would be not only foolish, but positively wrong.
FULL APPROVAL
The Church has as yet given no public and full approval to private revelations of any kind; nor will she ever do so, since that would be really an addition to the deposit of faith left by Christ. But tacitly and indirectly she has approved many private revelations, and among them the writings of Mary of Agreda. She could well do so, since there are no writings of that kind which exhibit more reliable human proofs of divine origin than the “Ciudad de Dios” of the Venerable Servant of God, Mary of Jesus of Agreda.
The existence of the Bible justifies the query, whether there are not other books that have been written under supernatural guidance, though we know of course that none of them can ever have the same importance and authenticity as the Bible. For the Bible was provided as the record of the general revelations of God to mankind at all its stages to the end of times.
A VAST FIELD BETWEEN
Evidently there remains an immense domain of truths outside the range of natural human knowledge and not specially revealed in the Bible. You will at once say: that whole field is covered by the one true religion. Of course it is. The teaching and ministry of men especially appointed for that purpose, the practice and example of those eminent in the Christian virtues, the writings of those versed in higher truths, are the ordinary means of spreading truth and leading men to their great destiny. But besides all this, history proves that God, for special purposes, often grants to his friends higher insight into supernatural truths and facts, which, if at his command they are recorded in writing, are intended by Him as an additional source of higher knowledge and well deserve to be considered as private revelations.
EARMARKS OF DECEIT
Past ages simply teem with writings that claim to be derived from or based on divine revelation or inspiration. Many of them are clearly nothing but frauds, showing the signs of conscious or unconscious hallucination. Many again seem beyond mere natural human powers of insight, but at the same time in their authorship and tendencies show nothing divine or beneficent, thus proving that besides human error and malice the sinister and treacherous knowledge of malign spirits often finds its way into such writings. Ancient sorcery and magic and modern spiritism have their root in this sort of preter natural communication.
TO BE CLOSELY SCRUTINIZED
Hence it would be foolish not to demand the closest inquiry into anything put forward as private revelation. Fortunately it is easy to apply sure and unfailing tests. All that is necessary, is to ascertain the character and motives of the writer and the result or drift of his writings. Mahomet proves himself an epileptic adventurer and his Koran a travesty of Judaism and Christianity, settling like a blight upon civilization. Joseph Smith and his companions turn out to be rebellious incendiaries and murderers and their book of Mormon a ridiculous fake, establishing a fanatic and bigamous theocracy.
The fakir Dowie pretending prophecy, ends as a lunatic in a bankrupt Zion, yet leaving millions to his relatives. The humbugging Eddy, after crazy-quilting scraps from the Bible with shreds of Buddhism, Brahmanism and Theosophy, shuffles off her wrinkled coil amid a numerous following of dupes who rather expected her faked science to keep her perpetually alive or raise her up from the dead.
Is there any difficulty in discovering the fraud in revelations of such a kind? Yet they claim divine inspiration and very often contain passages which show sources of information and deceit not altogether human. The sinister manifestation of spiritism and the astounding information often furnished by mediums, are not all sleight of hand or illusion of the senses; some of these things can be explained only by assuming interference of a sinister spirit world.
REALLY ANOTHER ARGUMENT FOR PRIVATE REVELATIONS
Would it not be absurd to concede the communication with evil spirits or departed souls, damned or otherwise, (and all reasonable people concede it), and deny the possibility of communing with the good spirits or souls and with God? Who would want to limit the power of God in this way? It will not do to claim that all the communication of God and the good spirits takes the ordinary course provided in the public ministry of the true religion. For it does not. Saint Paul saw things that he dared not reveal, though he was not slow in writing down his other revelations. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and the Infallibility was privately revealed many times before they were officially defined and accepted as self-understood truths by all reasonable men. Before these doctrines were defined, who had the greater prudence and insight? Those people who refused to believe these truths because they were privately revealed, or those who examined those revelations and finding them humanly credible, and not contrary to the true religion, simply accepted them as revealed by God? I should think the latter showed themselves ahead of their times and far more enlightened in their belief than the former, who persisted in a finical unbelief concerning all private revelations.
NO DIFFICULTY TO DISTINGUISH THE TRUE FROM THE FALSE
If we find that the author of alleged private revelations has been a faithful adherent of the one true religion established by God, that he has led a good and blameless life, that his writings do not run counter to the Bible nor to the public teachings of the true Church, that he was not actuated by motives of selfish gain, pecuniary or otherwise, that the writings themselves tend toward the practice of perfection both as far as the writer as well as the reader is concerned, that they have not been openly disapproved by the Church; then certainly, if the information recorded is such that it would presuppose supernatural inspiration or direct communication with the higher world, we are not justified in immediately rejecting the writings as fraudulent. Closer examination may easily lead to reasonable certainty that they are privately revealed. But we all know that this acceptance can never mean anything more than a mere human belief, not the belief of faith, such as for instance is demanded by holy Scripture. In fact, as soon as any such writing lays claim to implicit faith, it certainly is no revelation and ought to be rejected at once as spurious.
MARY OF AGREDA
She was the daughter of Francis Coronel and Catherine of Arana, born April 2, 1602, in the small town of Agreda near Tarazona in Spain. In 1617 she entered the convent of the discalced Franciscan Nuns in the Convent of the Immaculate Conception in Agreda and took her vows one year later. In 1625 she was chosen abbess, much against her wishes, and, except during a short intermission, was re-elected every three years until she died, in 1665. The fame of her prudence and foresight, not only in the government of her convent but in other matters, soon spread outside the convent walls and persons of the highest rank in state and Church were eager to obtain her counsel in important affairs. King Philip IV visited her several times in her convent and corresponded with her about national affairs for many years. But she was no less famous for her exalted virtues. In many respects her life was a faithful copy of that of St. Francis. The miracle of bilocation related of her is in fact more remarkable and lasted a longer time than that recorded anywhere in the lives of the saints. Her good sense, her truthfulness, her sincerity, her humility, her unselfish love of God and man eminently adapted her for the communication of messages from God to men.
WHAT INDUCED HER TO WRITE
In all writing that lays claim to private revelation, the motives of the writer must be closely scrutinized. If it appears to be a self-imposed task, for selfish ends, pecuniary or otherwise, tending to particularity in religious teachings or practice not approved by the established faith or written without knowledge or consultation of the rightful superiors, it ought to be rejected as spurious. God will reveal nothing for such purpose or under such circumstances, and He will permit human error and deceit and the sinister influence of hell to run their natural course. Nothing of all this appears in the writings of Mary of Agreda. Though she was urged interiorly and exteriorly to record the facts of history revealed to her concerning the Mother of God, she resisted for twelve years and was finally induced to write only through the positive commands of her superiors. Reluctantly she began her history in the year 1637 and finished it in the year 1645, continually asking to be relieved from the task because she thought herself unworthy. As soon as the insistence of her superiors relaxed and an error of judgment on the part of an outside confessor gave her a plausible excuse, she burned all her writings, thus destroying the labor of many years. When this came to the knowledge of the higher authorities and when they insisted on her rewriting the history which continued to be supernaturally made known to her, she again succeeded in delaying the task for ten years. Only the strictest command under obedience and the threat of censures finally induced her to write the manuscript which she began in 1655 and finished in 1665, and which is still preserved in the convent of Agreda.
WHY REVEALED TO A WOMAN
It is to be remembered that God’s almighty power is restricted to no particular instrument; He creates out of nothing. In the case of Balaam, he used not only that wicked man but even his beast for special revelation. It does seem that He prefers women for private revelation. He chose men to reveal the great public truths of the Bible and to attend to the public teaching, but to women in the new law He seems to have consigned the task of private revelations. At least most of the known private revelations have been furnished us by women and not men. We must infer from this that they are better adapted for this work. In fact, no special learning or great natural insight is required of a messenger; such qualities might tend to corrupt or narrow down the inspired message to mere human proportions, whereas private revelation is given precisely for the purpose of communicating higher truths than can be known or under stood naturally. Humility, great piety and love, deep faith are the requisites of God’s special messengers. Women as a rule are more inclined to these virtues than men, and therefore are not so apt to trim the message of God down to their own natural powers of understanding. In choosing women for his special revelations He gives us to understand from the outset, that what He wishes to reveal is above the natural faculties of perception and insight of either man or woman.
HOW WAS “CIUDAD” (CITY OF GOD) RECEIVED?
As soon as the “City of God” appeared in print it was welcomed and extolled as a most wonderful work. The different translations found no less enthusiastic welcome in nearly all the European countries. It secured the immediate approbation and encomium of the ordinaries, the universities, the learned and eminent men of Christendom. There is probably no other book which was so closely scrutinized by those in authority, both civil and religious and afterwards so signally approved as the “City of God.” By order of Innocent XL, Alexander VIIL, Clement IX., Benedict XIIL, and Benedict XIV. it was repeatedly subjected to the closest scrutiny and declared authentic, worthy of devout perusal and free from error. The title “Venerabilis” was conferred upon the author. A large sized volume would be required to record the praises and commendations written in favor of the great “City of God.”
OPPOSITION
As the “City of God” so strenuously maintains the prerogatives of the Mother of God and the authority of the Popes, it was not to be expected that it should escape the malicious slander and intrigues of those tainted with Jansenism and Gallicanism. Many members of the Sorbonne in Paris were secret or open adherers of these sects at the time when the “Ciudad” was first published in French about the year 1678. The first translation in French was very inexact and contained many interpolations and false versions of the original. Dr. Louis Elias du Pin and Dr. Hideux of the Sorbonne made this translation the foundation of virulent attacks. Du Pin was called by Pope Clement XI. “Nequioris doctrinse homi-nem,” “A man of pernicious doctrines.” Hideux turned out to be a rabid and fanatical Jansenist, cut off from the Church as a heretic. As they and other members of the Sorbonne succeeded in enlisting the sympathy of influential Gallican courtiers and church dignitaries, both in Paris and at Rome, they secured a clandestine prohibition of the “City of God,” which appeared in the acts of the Congregation of the Office. When it was discovered, no one could be found who would dare stand 1–2 sponsor for it, and immediately Pope Innocent XL, on November 9, 1681, annulled the act, positively decreeing that the “City of God” be freely spread among the clergy and laity. The very fact that this prohibition did not issue from the Index Commission but from a department not concerned with the examination of books, proves that it owes its insertion to Gallican intrigue, secretly extending even to high circles in Rome, and to the fair- minded, this sectarian attempt will be a convincing argument for the excellence and orthodoxy of the doctrines contained in the revelations of Mary of Agreda.
MANY EDITIONS
The popularity and excellence of the great history of the Mother of God is also evidenced by its widespread diffusion. It has appeared in over sixty editions in Spanish, Italian, French, Portuguese, German, Latin, Arabic, Greek, and Polish. Does it not seem providential that the first English translation of this great work should have been reserved for our own times? No other language on the face of the earth is the medium of so many theories, sects and isms as the English language and the “City of God” is a most timely and efficient antidote for the epidemic of false doctrines, which is sweeping over all the earth, and affects especially the English-speaking portion of the human race.
EXPECTATIONS OF THE TRANSLATOR
The translator and promoter of the “City of God” is confident that it will not be one of the books idly filling the shelves of libraries, but one which at the first cursory inspection will arouse the desire of further inquiry and lead to repeated and attentive perusal.
The translation herewith offered is as exact and as perfect a rendition of the original Spanish into English, as ten years of assiduous labor and a considerable experience in literary production give a right to expect. The subject-matter surely ought to secure for it a proper place in the more elevated ranks of English Literature.
May this first English translation, under the guidance of our holy faith, bring forth abundant fruits of the Spirit among English-speaking people in all parts of the world.
APPROBATIONS
THE first Pope officially to take notice of “Ciudad de Dios” was Pope Innocent XI, who, on July 3, 1686, in response to a series of virulent attacks and machinations of some members of the Sorbonne, known to be Jansenists, issued a breve permitting the publication and reading of the “Ciudad de Dios.” Similar decrees were afterward issued by Popes Alexander VIII, Clement IX and Benedict XIII. These decrees were followed by two decrees of the Congregation of Rites, approved by Benedict XIV and Clement XIV, in which the authenticity of “Ciudad de Dios” as extant and written by the Venerable Servant of God, Mary of Jesus, is officially established. The great pope Benedict XIII, when he was archbishop of Benevent, used these revelations as material for a series of sermons on the Blessed Virgin. On Sept. 26, 1713, the bishop of Ceneda, Italy, objecting to the publication of the “City of God,” was peremptorily ordered by the Holy Office to withdraw his objections as interfering with the decree of pope Innocent XI for the universal Church.
The process of canonization of Mary of Agreda was promoted by the Spanish bishops and other eminent men of the Church soon after her death in 1666. It has resulted so far in securing her the title of Venerabuis, thus clearing the way to her beatification, for which, let us hope, God will soon raise a promoter among the many pious and eminent men who hold in esteem her writings and have learned of her holy life and of the miracles wrought at her tomb.
Feast of the Annunciation
Fiscar Marison
(Rev. George J. Blatter)
To download a PDF of this book, click HERE.
|
|
|
|
| UK Lockdown Cops To Stop People In The Street, Issue Fines, Target "Anti-Lockdown, Anti-Vaccine Prot |
|
Posted by: Stone - 01-07-2021, 09:25 AM - Forum: Pandemic 2020 [Secular]
- No Replies
|
|
UK Lockdown Cops To Stop People In The Street, Issue Fines, Target "Anti-Lockdown, Anti-Vaccine Protesters"
Zero Hedge | Jan 07, 2021
Senior Scotland Yard officials have announced the adoption of a new ‘hardline’ lockdown policy to stop and question people if they are out in the street, and to issue on the spot fines if they cannot provide a reasonable excuse for being out of their houses.
The London Telegraph reports that London’s MET police issued a statement noting that “With fewer ‘reasonable excuses’ for people to be away from their home in the regulations, Londoners can expect officers to be more inquisitive as to why they see them out and about.”
“Where officers identify people without a lawful reason to be away from home they can expect officers to move more quickly to enforcement,” the statement further noted.
Quote:The Met has outlined a stricter #Covid #coronavirus enforcement approach following the introduction of new national lockdown restrictions. https://t.co/ciKspZ691d
New lockdown laws, announced Monday by Prime Minister Boris Johnson by way of a TV briefing, are yet to be debated or voted on by parliament.
Police have the power now to issue on the spot fines of £200, which can be doubled every time a lockdown ‘breach’ is committed.
Fines of up to £10,000 can also be handed out to anyone holding gatherings or house parties.
A woman who organised a New Year's Eve party in #Kensington has been reported for a £10,000 fine for breaching #Covid regulations.
Quote:It is up to all of us to do the right thing and officers will continue to take action against those who break the rules. https://t.co/WwHddd796X
Scotland Yard says that the fines will be more readily handed out, even to those who are simply not wearing a mask.
“After ten months of this pandemic, the number of people who are genuinely not aware of the restrictions and the reasons they are in place is vanishingly small,” commented MET Police Deputy Assistant Commissioner Matt Twist, adding that the responsibility of police is to “preserve life”.
“We know the overwhelming majority of Londoners will do the right thing by staying at home, wearing masks and not gathering, but a small minority continue to ignore rules put in place to protect the NHS and save lives,” Twist added.
“We can no longer spend our time explaining or encouraging people to follow rules they are wilfully and dangerously breaching,” he continued, emphasising that police will no longer be lenient with those daring to leave their houses.
“Less than a month ago we launched a new digital fines system, which makes it quicker and easier for officers to issue fines on the spot,” Twist warned, adding “if people continue to break the rules, putting themselves, their families and their communities at greater risk, our officers are ready to act robustly.”
John Apter, the chairman of the Police Federation stated that policing of the third lockdown will be amped up, noting “It will be easier for police to have one consistent rule for people to follow across the whole country, which means it is easier for people to understand and comply with what is expected of them.”
Apter specifically singled out ‘anti-lockdown, anti-vaccine protesters’, saying that “we now have a hardcore element who are against the rules.”
“The majority of the public will do what is expected of them, but I think there is a real issue over the virus and lockdown fatigue. There is a real frustration and the police often deal with the sharp end of that as people are angry when challenged,” Apter added.
Evidence of the ramped up lockdown policing has already been witnessed with dozens police officers marching through Hyde Park in military fashion before stopping to demand IDs from people:
Quote:Platoon of Police patrolling Hyde Park demanding ID@JuliaHB1 @talkRADIO pic.twitter.com/MuyGNlm9RT
In an incident at Marble Arch, cops questioned an old woman for feeding pigeons:
|
|
|
|
| Quebec Bans Outdoor Walking as Part of COVID-19 Curfew |
|
Posted by: Stone - 01-07-2021, 09:15 AM - Forum: Pandemic 2020 [Secular]
- No Replies
|
|
Quebec Bans Outdoor Walking as Part of COVID-19 Curfew
Breitbart | 6 Jan 20210
The Quebec government is imposing an overnight curfew beginning on Saturday until at least February 8, ostensibly to reduce the spread of the novel coronavirus.
Quebecers intercepted by law enforcement outside their homes “without good reason” between 8:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. will be subject to fines between $1,000 and $6,000 (CAD), or approximately $850 and $4,750 (USD).
Quebec’s official website warns that people outside their residences must justify their travels — specifics of such justifications were not provided by authorities — if set upon by police officers in transit (translated from French to English with Google Translate):
Quote:As of Saturday, January 9, a curfew will now be in effect. Between 8 p.m. and 5 a.m., anyone will be prohibited from moving outside their place of residence, except in the case of exceptions justifying the move, for example to benefit from health care, for humanitarian reasons or for carry out work considered a priority.
Statements of offense may be given by the police to those who do not respect the curfew, unless their displacement is justified. Details of this curfew will be provided shortly.
The office of Premier Francois Legault, the province’s chief executive, is allowing people to walk dogs within one kilometer (approximately 3/5 of a mile) of their homes during the curfew’s hours.
Legault scoffed at opposition to his criminalization of walking streets or trails between the hours of curfew. Prohibiting such walks is “about saving lives,” he claimed.
“For people who say, ‘I won’t be able to go for a walk anymore,’ well, come on,” Legault said. “If you want to work a little bit later, you can work after 8 p.m. at home, and go for a walk during the day. We’re talking here about saving lives and we’re talking about saving our health-care system.”
Quote:For the (many) people who have asked: I have confirmed with the Premier's office that people will be allowed to walk their dogs after the 8 P.M. curfew but ONLY within 1 km of their homes. @CTVMontreal
In November, provincial authorities prohibited people living apart — including family, friends, and other loved ones — from visiting one another in their homes. The province also decreed that masks be worn indoors in all businesses and organizations.
Quebec also shut down businesses and other operations arbitrarily deemed “non-essential.” The province does not provide a framework outlining how distinctions between “essential” and “non-essential” are made.
The latest lockdown decree forbids people from visiting anyone else at another address while providing four categories of exceptions (translated from French to English with Google translate):- a single visitor from another address for single people (it is requested to always receive the same person in order to limit social contacts)
- a caregiver
- people providing service or support
- labor for planned work
Churches, houses of worship, and other group religious practices are prohibited. An exception was granted for funerals, which are allowed a maximum of ten persons excluding funeral company workers and volunteers.
“The province acknowledged it can’t point to a scientific study on the effectiveness of curfews in limiting the spread of the virus,” admitted the Toronto Star, a left-wing newspaper.
Virtually all tweets from Quebec’s Twitter profile in recent weeks pertain to COVID-19.
|
|
|
|
| SiSiNoNo: What Should We Make of Assisi 1986? |
|
Posted by: Stone - 01-07-2021, 08:55 AM - Forum: Vatican II and the Fruits of Modernism
- Replies (2)
|
|
Si Si No No
February 2002 No. 45
WHAT SHOULD WE MAKE OF ASSISI 1986?
Archbishop Lefebvre's Letter to Eight Cardinals About Assisi 1986 - [see letter here]
It is a truism that men come to accept anything if they see it often enough; hence it is good to recall the theological criteria by which to judge this kind of undertaking. The review SISINONO published an excellent study in 1986 which is reprinted here because of its timeliness.
What Should We Make of Assisi?
It has been said, with undoubtedly unintended exactness, that the "prayer meeting" at Assisi is a "personal initiative" of Pope John Paul II. In so far as it is only a "personal" initiative, it does not engage his mandate as "pastor and teacher of all Christians" (Vatican I). By conforming itself to the political theme set by the United Nations, which proclaimed the year 1986 an "international year of peace," neither does it concern doctrine.
At Assisi, next October 27, not only will the Catholics gather at Assisi, but also "the representatives of the world's other religions" will join them in an assembly for peace.1 Those whom Pope John Paul II has called "the representatives of the other religions" the Church has always more appropriately called infidels. "Broadly speaking, infidels are those who do not possess the true faith; in the strict sense infidels are the unbaptized. They are divided into monotheists (Jews and Moslems), polytheists (Hindus, Buddhists, etc.), and atheists."2 What Pope John Paul II has called the "other" religions, the Church has more properly called the false religions. A false religion is any non-Christian religion "in so far as it is not the religion that God revealed and wants to see practiced. Moreover, every non-Catholic Christian sect is false in so far as it neither accepts nor faithfully practices the entire content of Revelation."3 This having been said, in light of the Catholic Faith, the prayer meeting of religions at Assisi can be considered tantamount to: 1) an insult to God; 2) a denial of the universal necessity of Redemption; 3) a lack of justice and charity towards the infidels; 4) a danger and a scandal to Catholics; and 5) a betrayal of the Church's and Peter's mission.
1) An Insult to God
All prayer, including petition, is an act of worship.4 As such, it must be addressed to Whom it is due, and in the right way. To whom it is due: The one true God, Creator and Lord of all men, the one to whom the Lord Jesus Christ has brought them back (I Jn. 5:20) by confirming the first commandment of the Law. "I am the Lord thy God ...Thou shalt not have strange gods before me ....Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them..." (Ex. 20:2-5).5 In the right way: Thus, it must be prayer that corresponds to the fullness of Revelation without admixture of error: "But the hour cometh and now is, when the true adorers shall adore the Father in spirit and in truth. For the Father also seeketh such to adore him" Jn. 4:23).
Prayer which is addressed to false gods or inspired by religious opinions differing in whole or in part from divine Revelation, is not an act of worship, but of superstition. It does not honor God; it offends Him. At least, objectively, it is a sin against the first commandment.6 To whom are the persons to gather at Assisi going to pray, and in what way? Invited in their capacity as "representatives of the other religions," "everyone will pray in his own way and customary style." This was explained by Cardinal Willebrands, President of the Secretariat for Non-Christian Religions.7 This was confirmed last June 27 by Cardinal Etchegaray at a press conference published by Documentation Catholique of September 7-21, 1986, under the rubric "Acts of the Holy See": "It involves respecting each one's prayer, and allowing everyone to express himself in the fullness of his faith, of his belief."
On October 27 at Assisi, superstition will be widely practiced in its most serious forms, from the "false worship" of Jews who, during the era of grace, pretend to honor God by denying His Christ,8 to the idolatry of Hindus and Buddhists who offer a cult to creatures instead of to God.9
The Catholic hierarchy's apparent approbation of this is especially insulting to God, for it supposes and allows it to be supposed that He looks with equal complacency upon acts of true worship and acts of superstition, upon manifestations of faith and manifestations of incredulity, upon the true religion and upon the false religions; in short, upon truth and upon error.
2) Denial of the Universal Necessity of Redemption
There is but one Mediator between God and men: the Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God and true man (I Tim. 2:5). By nature, men are "children of wrath" (Eph. 2:3); by Him, they have been reconciled with the Father (Col. 1:20), and it is only by faith in Him that they can have the boldness to approach God with entire confidence (Eph. 3:12). To Him was given all power in heaven and on earth (Mt. 28:18), and at His name every knee must bend, in heaven, on earth, and under the earth (Phil. 2:10,11). No one goes to the Father save by Him (Jn. 14:6), and there is no other name under heaven given to man by which he must be saved (Acts 4:12). He is the Light that enlightens every man who comes into the world (Jn.1:9), and whoever does not follow Him wanders in darkness (Jn. 8:12). Who is not with Him is against Him (Mt. 13:30), and who does not honor Him also dishonors His Father who sent Him (as the Jews do) (Jn. 5:23). To Him has the Father given the judgment of men, but he who refuses belief has already been judged, because he has not believed in the name of the Only Son of God (Jn. 3:18), nor in the Father who sent Him (Jn. 17:3). He is, moreover, the Prince of Peace (Is. 9:6),11 for divisions, conflicts, and wars are the bitter fruit of sin from which man cannot free himself by his own virtue, but only in virtue of the Redeemer's blood.
What place will the Lord Jesus Christ have at Assisi in the prayer of the "representatives of the other religions"? None, for to them He remains either unknown, or a stumbling block, or a sign of contradiction. The invitation that was addressed to them to pray for peace in the world supposes, and inevitably allows it to be supposed, that there are people - the Christians - who must approach God by the mediation of the Lord Jesus Christ and in His name, and others - the rest of the human race - who can approach God directly and in their own name, without regard to the Mediator; that there are some men who must bend the knee before the Lord Jesus Christ, and some who are exempt; some men who must seek peace in the reign of the Lord Jesus Christ, and others who can obtain peace outside His reign and even in opposing it.
This is the idea that comes from the declarations of the two cardinals quoted above: "While for us Christians Christ is our peace, for all believers peace is a gift of God" 12; "for Christians, prayer goes through Christ."13
The "prayer meeting" of Assisi, then, is the public negation of the universal necessity of Redemption.
3) A Lack of Justice and Charity Towards the Infidels
"Jesus Christ is not optional," said Cardinal Pie. There are not some men who are justified by faith in Him, and others who are justified without regard to Him: Every man is either saved by Christ or is lost without Him. Nor are there any purely natural ends for which a man can opt instead of his unique supernatural end. If, gone astray in sin, he finds himself out of Christ, the unique Way (Jn. 4:6) by which to attain the end for which he was created, all that is left him is everlasting ruin.
Real faith, and not mere "good faith," is the subjective condition for salvation for everyone, even for the pagans. Since it is a necessity of means, "if it is lacking (even involuntarily) it is absolutely impossible to effect eternal salvation."14 Voluntary infidelity, St. Thomas explains, is a fault and involuntary infidelity is a punishment. In fact, the infidels who are not lost because of the sin of incredulity, that is, by the sin of not having believed in Christ about whom they never knew anything, are lost by their other sins, the remission of which cannot be given to anyone without the true faith."15
Nothing, then, is more important for man than to accept the Redeemer and union with the Mediator: it is a matter of eternal death or life. This is what the infidels have a right to hear announced by the Catholic Church, in conformity to the divine command.16 And this is what the Catholic Church has always announced to the infidels by praying, not with them, but for them.
What will happen at Assisi? They certainly won't pray for the infidels, thus presuming implicitly and publicly that they no longer need the true faith. Instead of that, they will pray in union with them, or rather, according to the rabbinical subtlety of Radio Vatican, they will pray near them, presuming thus implicitly and publicly that prayer dictated by error is received by God as much as prayer made "in spirit and in truth." "It involves respecting each one's prayer," Cardinal Etchegaray explained in his brief declaration. That means that the infidels who will gather at Assisi, who, let us be clear, are not "savages brought up in the forest" who have "never known anything about the faith," as the theologians hypothesize when discussing the problem of the salvation of infidels,17 will be "respectfully" left "in the darkness and in the shadow of death" (Lk. 1:79).
Authorized to pray in their distinctive costumes as "representatives of the other religions" and in conformity with their erroneous religious beliefs, they are even encouraged to persevere in sins, at least material, against the faith: infidelity, heresy, etc… Invited to pray for peace in the world, defined as a "fundamental" and "supreme" good,18 they are turned away from the eternal goods towards a temporal good, towards a secondary natural end, as if they didn't need to procure their supernatural last end, which really is fundamental and supreme: "Seek first the kingdom of God and His justice, and all these things shall be added unto you" (Mt. 6:33). For all these reasons, the "prayer meeting" of Assisi is, at least viewed from the outside, a lack of justice and charity towards the infidels.
4) A Danger and a Scandal to Catholics
True faith is indispensable for salvation. Catholics are thus obliged to avoid every proximate danger to their faith. Among the exterior dangers is contact with infidels when it is not the result of genuine necessity. This contact is illicit in virtue of divine and natural law even without considering ecclesiastical law, and even in the case where ecclesiastical law does not prohibit it, for example in social relations: Haereticum hominem devita (Avoid the heretic) (Tit. 3:10).
Moreover, out of maternal concern, the Church has always forbidden not only what might be a danger to the faith but also an occasion of scandal.19 As for the false religions, the Church has always refused them the right to public worship. She has tolerated it when it was necessary, but tolerance always means "in relation to an evil to be allowed for a proportionate reason."20 In any case, she has always avoided and forbidden any apparent approval of non-Catholic rites.
What is going to happen at Assisi? Catholics and infidels "will gather to pray" (even though it will not be "to pray together"...). That simply means that they will pray together at Assisi, first simultaneously in their own residences, and then, by turns when united at the closing ceremony before the basilica of St. Francis. And this is not being done in order to protect the faith of Catholics or to at least avoid scandalizing them. Rather, it is to allow all to pray "according to their own manner and style," and to "respect each one's prayer" and to "allow everyone to express himself in the fullness of his faith, of his belief."21 All this constitutes at least an exterior approbation of: 1) false religions, to which the Church as always denied any right; 2) religious subjectivism, which she has always condemned under the names of indifferentism or latitudinarianism, and which "seeks to justify itself under the pretended claims of liberty, failing to recognize the rights of objective truth which are made manifest either by the lights of reason or by Revelation.22
Religious indifferentism, which is "one of the most deleterious heresies" and which "places all religions on an equal footing," inevitably leads one to consider the truth of religious belief as merely a matter of utility for a well-regulated life .... "One ends by considering religion as an entirely individual thing which can be adapted to the dispositions of each one, letting everyone form his own personal religion, and by concluding that all the religions are good even though they contradict each other." 23 But with this point of view we are outside the Catholic act of faith, and have reached something ...like an act of incredulity towards divine Revelation.
Revelation is a reality, a fact, a truth accredited by God by sure signs, because error in this domain would have had disastrous consequences for men.24 But in the presence of an undeniable fact or of an evident truth, one cannot be tolerant to the point of approving the attitude of those who consider them to be non-existent or false. That would suppose that we do not really believe or are not fully convinced of the truth of our position, or that we are (or deem ourselves to be) dealing with a matter that is absolutely banal or indifferent, or that we would consider truth and error to be purely relative positions.25
And since the "prayer meeting" is characterized by all of that, it is an occasion of scandal for Catholics and of grave danger to their faith. Because of ecumenism, they find themselves united to the infidels, but in their "common ruin."26
5) Betrayal of the Mission Confided to Peter and to the Church
The Church's mission is to announce to all nations that 1) there is one true God, who revealed Himself for the benefit of all men in our Lord Jesus Christ; 2) that there is only one true religion, the only one by which God wishes to be honored, because He is Truth, and everything in the false religions which goes against the truth is repugnant to Him: doctrinal errors, immoral laws, unseemly rites; 3) that there is only one Mediator between God and men, by whom men can hope to be saved, because all are sinners and remain in their sin if they are deprived of the Blood of Christ; 4) that there is one true Church, the perpetual guardian of this Blood, and that "it is necessary to believe that no one can be saved outside the apostolic Roman Church, which is the unique ark of salvation, and those who do not enter it will perish in the deluge27; moreover, among their moral dispositions must be the desire, explicit or implicit, to fully accomplish the will of God, if their ignorance is truly invincible.28
The Church's proper mission is to announce all this: "Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" (Mt. 28:19-20). "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned" (Mk. 16:16).
So that the Church could accomplish with assurance this mission throughout the centuries, our Lord Jesus Christ conferred on St. Peter and his successors the mission of visibly representing Him (Mt. 16, 17-19; Jn. 21:15-17)
The Vicar of Jesus Christ is not charged with establishing a new doctrine with the help of new revelations, nor of creating a new order of things, nor of instituting new sacraments: such is not his function. He represents Jesus Christ at the head of His Church, whose constitution has been finalized. This essential constitution, that is to say, the creation of the Church, was Jesus Christ's proper task which He, Himself, had to conclude, and of which He said to the Father: "I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do" (Jn. 17:4). Nothing more needs to be added; it only remains to maintain this creation, to assure the Church's work and preside over the functioning of its organs. Two things are necessary for this: govern it, and perpetuate the teaching of the truth. Vatican Council I reduced to these two points the supreme function of the Vicar of Jesus Christ. Peter represents Jesus Christ under these two aspects.29
There is no power in the Church like Peter's, but it is power as vicar, and as such, is no wise absolute, but limited by the divine right of Him whom he represents. "The Lord confided to Peter, not Peter's sheep, but His own in order to pasture them, not in his own interest, but God's."30 It is not within Peter's power, therefore, to promote initiatives in disaccord with the mission of the Church and of the Roman Pontiff, as clearly is the "prayer meeting" of Assisi. The Vicar of Him who said: "Begone, Satan, for it is written, ‘The Lord thy God thou shalt adore, and him only shalt thou serve’" (Mt. 4:10; Deut. 6:13), cannot invite "the representatives" of the false religions to pray to their false gods in places consecrated to the faith in the true God. The Successor of him who obtained the primacy by his act of faith when he said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Mt. 16:16; cf. Jn. 6:69-70), cannot authorize anyone to treat Jesus Christ as irrelevant. The Successor of him who received the commission to confirm his brethren in the faith (Lk. 22:32), has no right to be a stumbling block for their faith.Ω
1. Cf. L'Osservatore Romano, Jan. 26-27, 1986.
2. Roberti-Palazzini, Dizionario di teologia morale, p.813.
3. Ibid.
4. Summa Theologica, II-II, Q.83.
5. . Mt. 4:3-10; Jn. 17:3; Tim. 2:.5. See also on this topic Pietro Cardinal Palazzini, Vita a virtu cristiane, p.52, and Garrigou-Lagrange, De Revelatione (Rome-Paris: 1918), vol. 1, p.136.
6. Cf. Summa Theologica, II-II, QQ 92-96.
7. See L'Osservatore Romano, January 27-28, 1986, p.4.
8. Summa Theologica, Il-II, Q92, Art.2, ad 3, and I II, Q10, Art. 11
9. Cf. Acts 17:16.
10. Cf. Summa Theologica, II-II, Q94, Art. 1.
11. Cf. Eph. 2:14 and Mich. 5:.5.
12. Cardinal Willebrands in L'Osservatore Romano cited above.
13. Cardinal Etchegaray, cited above in Documentation Catholique.
14. Dizionario di teologia morale, p.66.
15. See Mk. 16:15-16; Jn. 20:31; Heb. 11:6; Council of Trent in Denzinger 799 and 801; Vatican II, Dz. 1793. Cf. Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 11, Art. 1.
16. Mk. 6:16; Mt. 28:19-20.
17. St. Thomas Aquinas, De Veritate, 14, 11.
18. John Paul II and Cardinal Willebrands in L'Osservatore Romano, April 7-8, and Jan. 27-28, 1986, respectively.
19. See the 1917 Code of Canon Law, canons 1258 and 2316; and Summma Theologica,II-Il, Q. 10, Art. 9-11.
20. Dizionario de teologia morale, p.1702.
21. See the declarations of Cardinals Willebrands and Etchegaray cited above.
22. Dizionario de teologia morale, p.805.
23. Ibid.
24. Pope Leo XIII, encyclical letter Libertas, 1888.
25. Dizionario di teologia morale, p.1703.
26. Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, 1950.
27. Pope Pius IX, Dz.1647.
28. Ibid.
29. Dom Adrien Gréa, De l’Eglise et de sa divine constitution; cf. Vatican I, constitution Pastor Aeternus, Ch. 4
30. St. Augustine, Sermon 285, No.3.
|
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre: 1986 Letter to Eight Cardinals - Against Assisi |
|
Posted by: Stone - 01-07-2021, 08:39 AM - Forum: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
- No Replies
|
|
Archbishop Lefebvre: Letter To Each of Eight Cardinals
Econe, August 27, 1986
Your Eminence,
Confronted with the events taking place in the Church that are coming from John-Paul II, and confronted with what he proposes to do in Taize and Assisi in October, I cannot help addressing myself to you, in order to beg you in the name of numbers of priests and faithful, to save the honor of the Church being humiliated as she has never before been humiliated in all her history.
The speeches and actions of John-Paul II in Togo Morocco, India and the Synagogue of Rome, fill our hearts with righteous indignation. What do the holy men and women of the Old and New Testaments think of all this? What would the Holy Inquisition do, if it was still in existence?
The very first Article of the Credo and the first of the Ten Commandments are being outraged in public by the occupant of the See of Peter. Incalculable scandal is being given to Catholic souls. The Church is being shaken to her very foundations.
If faith in the Church as the one and only Ark of Salvation disappears the Church herself disappears. All her supernatural strength and activity are based upon this Article of our faith.
Is John-Paul II going to continue wrecking the Catholic Faith, in public, especially at Assisi, where a procession of religions is due to follow him through the streets of St. Francis’ home-town, with the religions then spreading out amongst the Basilica’s chapels to practise their worship in favor of peace as it is understood at the United Nations? That is what is being announced by Cardinal Etchegaray, the organiser of this abominable Congress of Religions.
Is it conceivable that no voice of authority is speaking out within the Church to condemn these public sins? Where are the Machabees of today?
Your Eminence, for the honor of the one and only true God, Our Lord Jesus Christ, make a public protest. Come to the help of the bishops, priests and faithful who are still Catholic.
Your Eminence, if I have taken the liberty of making this approach to you, it is because I cannot doubt how you feel in this matter.
I am addressing this appeal to each of the eight Cardinals here named, to enable you, if you so wish, to take joint action.
May the Holy Ghost come to your aid, your Eminence, and be so good as to accept the expression of my fraternal and devoted sentiments in Jesus and Mary.
+ Marcel Lefebvre
Archbishop-Bishop Emeritus of Tulle
|
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre: Absolutely Against Agreement with a 'Modernist' Rome |
|
Posted by: Stone - 01-07-2021, 08:34 AM - Forum: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
- No Replies
|
|
Archbishop Lefebvre: Absolutely Against Agreement with a 'Modernist' Rome
MONS. MARCEL LEFEBVRE: Excerpts from letters to the Dominicans of Avrillé. Le Sel de la Terre n ° 96, spring 2016
Ecône, December 29, 1986
“[…] Betting on an agreement with the Pope is an illusion. The Pope will grant us everything we want on the disciplinary and liturgical level, but on the condition of admitting his modernist ideas about religious freedom and ecumenism, that is, of our Catholic faith.
No hope must be seen on that side. Rome is occupied by modernism and liberalism! When will Our Lord decide to stop this scandal? He is the teacher! We wait patiently and have confidence in the Lord and His holy Mother who know better than us this tragic situation[...] ”
Ecône, January 10, 1989
“After being absent for 15 days, I take care to answer your good letter, accompanied by numerous interesting documents.
But I must tell you that it is the letter of Bishop Perl that has held my attention. He doesn't flatter you by saying that your community is a "sister" of Chémeré!
Do not rediscover it, I beg you, you will raise doubts among your friends. The only answer to give is that they initiate the Council Reform to remove the errors. It is only then that we can trust them.
Whatever the canonical privileges they may give, their acceptance means for them communion with the Holy See, with the Pope and with the Council, therefore an implicit acceptance of all that modernism that we fight following St. Pius X and all [Fathers] before the Council.
They want to neutralize Tradition, so that it is no longer an obstacle for their ecumenist companies and for the Revolution in the Church […]
Do not have a point of contact with the one who is in charge of destroying Tradition. They don't know what to do to divide us and are surprised at so much resistance. They seem not to understand that it is a problem of Faith from the beginning. ”
February 20, 1989
“[…]Roman modernists are bandits, revolutionaries under sheep skins. They have no supernatural spirit. It is about this that we must take our effort: relearning to live on faith like the Apostles, the Martyrs, the Fathers of the Church and Saint Thomas Aquinas, who has achieved the tour de force of using all the sciences for the queen of the sciences; the theology that is worked in Heaven by the grace of the Holy Spirit. The Summa is the great catechism of Saint Thomas Aquinas and that of the Church even more than that of Trent. I try to explain this to the seminarians so that they have the worry of living from the best catechism that exists and that they are taught. It is very important that in our seminarians we keep a safe and approved line by the Church, that of Saint Thomas, which should give us pastoral principles that give the faithful true spirituality away from Jansenism and charismatism. The morality that is limited to the commandments is disposable. The moral of grace, of the virtues, of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, which does not forget the commandments, that which Saint Thomas advocates is more in line with the spirit of Our Lord, of the Gospel, and even more urgent for the fervent souls. It is time to return the Catholic faith exciting, generous, missionary, as it was for the first Christians. […] ”
Ecône, April 22, 1989
“[…]The consecrations have been the occasion to tell the true traditionalists, refusing to reconcile Rome. Unity has been made on this point and the division has been made with the ralliés to modernist Rome […] ”.
|
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre: 'I Accuse the Council!' [online] |
|
Posted by: Stone - 01-07-2021, 08:05 AM - Forum: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
- No Replies
|
|
Preface to the English Edition
The reader will no doubt find this a difficult book to read. But he will not fail to recognize that the struggle at Vatican II of a small number of conciliar Fathers became, in the long run, the same struggle carried on by the small number of those who resist the world-wide subversion of Socialism and Communism.
The triumph of ecumenical liberalism at the Council was the greatest victory for Communism. Christian civilization forthwith lost its self-confidence and thought it could adopt the principles of its enemies, viz. the rights of man, human dignity, and religious liberty. This adoption opened a one-sided dialogue and raised the banner of détente and of pacifism. Consequently, Communism has spread over the world without hindrance.
Vatican II, which should have been the anti-Communist Council as the Council of Trent was anti-Protestant, was taken over by the Liberals and became the instrument for the destruction of all the moral and spiritual barriers against Communism. When soldiers have lost the ideal for which they fight their weapons fall from their hands. Since there is no longer a Christian civilization to defend, the field is left open to the Satanic revolution.
In the discussions which appear in these pages, nothing less than the Catholic Faith and the future of so-called Christian nations is at stake. Those who worked to disarm the truth and surrendered it to error bear a heavy responsibility.
May these pages kindle the courage to revive the Catholic Faith for which so many martyrs shed their blood.
May those who contributed so much to this edition be abundantly rewarded. May God recompense them by a wide distribution of this book.
Marcel Lefebvre
Rickenbach, Switzerland
March, 1982
* * *
A Note on the Title
Why is this book called I Accuse the Council ? We have chosen this title because we are justified in asserting—a judgment based on both internal and external criticism—that the spirit which dominated the Council and which inspired so many of its ambiguous, equivocal and even clearly erroneous texts, was not that of the Holy Ghost, but the spirit of the modern world, the spirit of Liberalism, of Teilhard de Chardin, of Modernism, in opposition to the kingdom of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Submission to the official reforms and orientations coming from Rome is demanded and imposed in the name of that Council. The tendency of all of these, it will be noted, is openly Protestant and Liberal.
It is only since the Council that the Church, or at least churchmen in possession of key posts, has taken a direction definitely opposed to tradition and to the official Magisterium of the Church.
Such men have imagined themselves to be the living Church, and mistress of the truth, with freedom to impose new dogmas advocating progress, evolution, change, and a blind, unconditional obedience on clergy and laity alike. They have turned their backs on the true Church; they have given her new institutions, a new priesthood, a new form of worship, new teachings ever in search of something fresh, and always in the name of the Council.
It is easy to think that whoever opposes the Council and its new Gospel would be considered as excommunicated, as outside communion with the Church. But one may well ask them, communion with what Church? They would answer, no doubt, with the Conciliar Church.
It is imperative, therefore, to shatter the myths which have been built up around Vatican II. This Council had wished to be a pastoral Council because of its instinctive horror for dogma, and to facilitate the official introduction of Liberal ideas into Church texts. By the time it was over, however, they had dogmatized the Council, comparing it with that of Nicaea, and claiming that it was equal, if not superior, to the Councils that had gone before it!
Fortunately, this operation of exploding the erroneous ideas of the Council has already begun, and begun satisfactorily with the work of Professor Salet in the Courrier de Rome[2] on the Declaration on Religious Liberty. His conclusion is that this declaration is heretical.
There are a number of points about the Council which should be studied thoroughly and analyzed, for example:
-the questions of the relationship of the bishops and the Pope in the constitutions on the Church, on the Bishops, and on the Missions;
-the priesthood of clergy and laity in the introduction to Lumen Gentium;
-the purpose of marriage in Gaudium et Spes;
-liberty of worship and conscience and the concept of liberty in Gaudium et Spes;
-ecumenism and relations with non-Christian religions and with atheists, etc.
A non-Catholic spirit can quickly be discerned in all this. An examination of these points leads us inevitably to look at the reforms which came from Vatican II and suddenly we see the Council in a new and strange light. Then the questions follow: Had those who brought off this astonishing maneuver thought it out in depth before the Council opened? Who are they? Did they get together before the Council?
Gradually one’s eyes are opened to behold an astounding conspiracy prepared long beforehand. Such a discovery makes one wonder what part the Pope played in all this work and how responsible he was for what happened. In spite of the desire to find him innocent of this appalling betrayal of the Church, it would seem that his involvement was overwhelming.
Even, however, if we leave it to God and to Peter’s true successors to sit in judgment of these things, it is nonetheless certain that the Council was deflected from its purposes by a group of conspirators and that it is impossible for us to take any part in this conspiracy despite the fact that there may be many satisfactory declarations in Vatican II. The good texts have served as cover to get those texts which are snares, equivocal and denuded of meaning, accepted and passed.
We are left with only one solution: to abandon these dangerous examples and cling firmly to tradition, i.e., to the official Magisterium of the Church throughout two thousand years.
We hope that the pages which follow will throw the light of truth on the consciously or unconsciously subversive enterprises of the enemies of the Church.
Let us add that the reactions of Liberal clergy and laity, of Protestants, and of Freemasons to the Council only make our apprehensions stronger. Would not Cardinal Suenens be right in declaring that this Council has been the French Revolution of the Church![3]
Thus our duty is clear: to preach the kingdom of Our Lord Jesus Christ against that of the goddess Reason.
Marcel Lefebvre
Paris, France
August 27, 1976
|
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre: 1976 Sermon on the Feast of the Immaculate Heart |
|
Posted by: Stone - 01-07-2021, 07:58 AM - Forum: Sermons and Conferences
- No Replies
|
|
The Angelus - July 2013
The Name Written on Her Heart
Sermon by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Feast of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, August 22, 1976
Dear Brethren,
The feast of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, whose solemnity we celebrate today, is a comparatively new feast and an example of what the Church can do and has done in relatively recent times to adapt the spirit and the riches of the Church to the present day. If any feast reminds us of the truths we need, of truths that when meditating we desire to apply to our souls, that of the Immaculate Heart of Mary certainly does.
This feast clearly has a special link to the apparitions of Our Lady at Fatima, and it was Pius XII who wished that we honor the Immaculate Heart of Mary on the octave day of the Assumption.
Ah, yes, since the 17th century devotion to the Hearts of Jesus and Mary has existed. We just celebrated this week the feast of St. John Eudes, who founded congregations under the patronage of the Hearts of Jesus and Mary. But if our Holy Father Pius XII decided to honor in a special way the Immaculate Heart of Mary, it was because our times had need of the devotion.
In these times of hardship, in these times where Christians are deprived of what they formerly had, we need the manifestation of the charity of Our Lord, which was so clearly seen during other Christian centuries. One saw religious houses everywhere. Throughout Christendom monasteries, convents, and hospitals were thickly sown. So many religious houses peopled our villages, our countryside, and our cities, that we had the impression—I imagine that the people who lived in those times had the impression—to be entirely surrounded by the love of our Lord Jesus Christ. For His love was made manifest, as you might say, on every street corner. There were calvaries; there were images of Our Lady; there were hospitals run by religious; there were refuges for the poor, pilgrims, and those in suffering. Everywhere the charity of Our Lord was manifest.
But in our times, how harsh our world has become! We no longer find this charity of Our Lord in our cities or our countryside. Oh, there are still, of course, souls devoted to Our Lord, but how many compared to the total population? And how much work there remains to do in those countries that do not yet know of Our Lord’s charity, enormous lands like China, Africa, and many others that are still far from this charity!
And so it seems to me that we need the Blessed Virgin Mary in our times. We need the Blessed Virgin to help us keep the faith, to feel the warmth of Our Lord’s love for us. We no longer see His love with our eyes, and as we see it less and less, we need to feel that Our Lady is near us. And I think that is why Our Lady asked at Fatima that we pray to her Immaculate Heart. We need the divine love which fills the Heart of the Blessed Virgin.
And we also need her Immaculate Heart: immaculate, that is without stain, without sin. God knows that we no longer have around us the example of lives entirely devoted to our Lord Jesus Christ, who carry out the law of Our Lord, His law of love, for the commandments of God are contained in love of God and love of neighbor.
But today, you are witnesses of what goes on in our society, where we murder children, where people commit suicide. Did you know that here in Switzerland, there are more suicides than fatalities due to car accidents? A newspaper recently reported that there were 1800 suicides last year, but only 1600 deaths due to car accidents: 1800 suicides! And mostly of young people. What does that mean? It means that these poor souls no longer felt the love of Our Lord around them; they were disgusted by the life that surrounded them, to the point that they committed suicide. And if what happens in a large number of other countries was made public, we would be horrified.
When one thinks about divorce! So many abandoned children who are torn between father and mother. We live painful lives in a harsh society, where charity is no longer practiced.
Blessed Virgin Mary as Mother
I experienced this personally when I was sent to the African nations, where I worked for 30 years. What struck me the most was the hatred one sensed there. The people were full of hate: one village hated another, one family hated another. The result of this hatred was suicide, poisonings and murders. The love of our Lord Jesus Christ did not reign.
We do not know how fortunate we are to have our Lord Jesus Christ as our Father and the Blessed Virgin Mary as our Mother. From these examples we must draw our love for God and for our models. For if the Blessed Virgin Mary had a most loving heart, her love was all for our Lord Jesus Christ and for all those “attached” to Him, and to lead all souls to our Lord Jesus Christ, to her Son Jesus. She lived for this love.
And because she loved Our Lord she was never able to offend Him; she simply couldn’t. She was conceived immaculate, born immaculate, and she remains immaculate all her life. She is then for us a model of purity of heart, of obedience to the law of our Lord Jesus Christ.
And because she loved Our Lord, she wanted to suffer with Him and share His sufferings. Sharing suffering is a sign of love. She saw her Son Jesus suffer and she wished to suffer with Him. When the heart of Jesus was pierced, so was hers, the heart of Mary! These two pierced hearts lived in unity for the glory of God, for the reign of God, for the reign of our Lord Jesus Christ. They fought for that alone.
And for this reason we too must be ready to suffer for the reign of our Lord Jesus Christ. He no longer reigns in our societies, nor in our families, nor in our own selves. Yet we need His reign. It is the only reason for the existence of our souls, our bodies, of humanity, and this earth and all of God’s creation: that Jesus Christ may reign; that He may give to souls His life, His salvation, His charity, His glory.
It is because we are aware of what has been happening in the Church for over 15 years—a true revolution has occurred, attacking the Kingship of our Lord Jesus Christ, clearly and evidently intending to destroy His reign—that our eyes were opened and that we were able to see this. Our Lord Jesus Christ’s law is no longer followed, and, unfortunately, those who should teach us to follow His law encourage us on the contrary to disobey it.
For seeking the secularization of the state brings about the destruction of Christ’s Kingship. When doubt is cast on the reality of the sanctity of marriage and its laws, the love of our Lord Jesus Christ in our homes is destroyed.
When we fail to speak, or fail to speak loudly and openly against abortion, we do not build Christ’s reign.
Devotion to Christ the King
When devotion to Christ the King is torn down, the reign of Christ in souls is destroyed.
The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, dear brethren, is nothing other than the proclamation of the reign of Christ the King.
How did our Lord Jesus Christ reign? Regnavit a ligno Crucis. He reigned by the wood of the Cross. He defeated the devil and defeated sin with the wood of the Cross. So the renewal on the altar of the Holy Sacrifice of Our Lord at Calvary is a declaration of the royalty of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is a declaration of His divinity.
And somehow, by destroying the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, one destroys the affirmation of the Kingship of our Lord Jesus Christ.
This is why adoration of the Blessed Sacrament has diminished so much in our times. Rather let us say that sacrileges have grown innumerably since the Council. It must be said. It is clear and obvious.
Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist has been sent away from the altar. He is no longer adored. People do not genuflect before the Blessed Sacrament any more. But recognizing the reign of our Lord Jesus Christ means recognizing that He is God. It means recognizing that He is our King. And therefore we must express this love of our Lord Jesus Christ, recognize the existence of His divinity.
For proof I need only refer to something that just occurred and is publicly known in the United States. At the Eucharistic Congress in Philadelphia, was a procession with the Blessed Sacrament held? No! There was no procession with the Blessed Sacrament, just like four years ago at the Eucharistic Congress in Melbourne, where I was present.
Why no procession with the Blessed Sacrament? Because they wanted to make the Eucharistic Congress an ecumenical congress. Ecumenical, that means bringing together Protestants and Jews, people who deny the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, who are opposed to His reign.
How can we pray with people who are opposed to our faith, who reject our faith?
The condition set by the non-Catholics invited was, “We will be happy to participate in the Eucharistic Congress as long as there is no procession with the Blessed Sacrament.” In other words, as long as no homage is paid to the One who is our King and our Father, our Creator and our Redeemer, the One who shed His blood for us. People no longer want to honor Him. And this condition was accepted: In order to have Protestants and Jews at the Congress, no procession with the Blessed Sacrament was held.
On top of that, a sort of concelebration was held with the Protestant ministers, and it was a Protestant minister who presided over the event!
All of this cries out to heaven for vengeance! Our Lord is no longer honored, our Lord is no longer King. He is insulted by events like these.
And if one day Communist armies take over our countries, well, we will have richly deserved it for the sacrileges committed that we allowed, that we did not put a stop to, for the honor denied to our Lord Jesus Christ. If we refuse our Lord Jesus Christ as our King, we will have the devil for king. He will come and then we will see what liberty is... Those who desired liberty wanted a liberty that would free man from the commandments of God and of the Church.
Liberation! They wanted to free themselves from our Lord… Another prince will come to teach us about liberty!
And so we who are fortunate enough to understand these things, who are fortunate enough to believe in the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, in His Kingship, we must make manifest, we must proclaim His Kingship in our families and wherever we are. We must join forces with those groups of Christians who still believe in the divinity of Christ and in His Kingship and who have love in their hearts, the love that the Blessed Virgin Mary had for her Son Jesus.
1789 in the Church
And may those who share that love join forces and hold fast, without faltering. Those Christians are the Church. They are the ones, not those who tear down the reign of our Lord. This fact must be proclaimed!1
Cardinal Suenens said: “The Council was 1789 in the Church.” I didn’t make up this definition. Yes, I believe he was right: it was 1789 in the Church. He rejoiced at it; we deplore it. For 1789 in the Church means the reign of the goddess Reason, worshipped by our ancestors of 1789, who worshipped the goddess Reason, who led clergy and religious to the scaffold, who pillaged our cathedrals, destroyed our churches, violated our houses of worship.
And is the revolution we are witnessing now not worse than that of 1789?
If we review what has happened since the Council in our churches, our homes, our schools, our universities, our seminaries, our religious congregations, the result is worse than in 1789.
For at least in 1789 the monks and nuns climbed the scaffold and spilled their blood for our Lord Jesus Christ, and I think that you are ready to give your blood for our Lord Jesus Christ.
But today, how shameful it is to see these priests who have abandoned their priesthood, and to see how every month still so many priests send to Rome a request for permission to abandon the vow they made to serve our Lord Jesus Christ so that they can get married. And a mere three weeks later they receive permission to marry.
Is that not worse? Would it not be better for these priests to climb the scaffold, declaring their faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, instead of abandoning Him?
What has happened since the Council is worse than what happened in the Revolution. It is better to have enemies openly declaring war on the Church and on our Lord Jesus Christ. But that those who ought to honor our Lord Jesus Christ, who ought to adore Him, who ought to make their faith in Him known, that these should teach us to commit sacrilege, to abandon Our Lord, to vilify Him in a way—that, we cannot accept!
We are the Catholic Church. They have separated themselves from the Catholic Church.2 We are not schismatic. We long for the reign of our Lord. We want His Kingship proclaimed. We are ready to follow! If our pastors everywhere said, “We want one God alone, our Lord Jesus Christ. We have only one King, our Lord Jesus Christ,” then we would follow them!
But we cannot allow, for instance, the cross to disappear from our altars; we will not allow the cross to disappear from our churches. That we must maintain. We must be firm on these points.
And it is because I proclaim all of this that I am called disobedient, that I will soon be called schismatic. But not at all! I am neither disobedient nor schismatic because I obey the Church and our Lord Jesus Christ.
“You disobey the pope.”I disobey the pope insofar as the pope identifies with the revolution that took place at the Council and after the Council.
For this revolution is the Revolution of 1789, and I cannot obey the Revolution of 1789 in the Church. I cannot obey the goddess of Reason; I will not bow down to the goddess of Reason.
And that is what they want us to do. They want us to close this seminary so that all together we may adore the goddess of Reason, Man, and the cult of Man.
No. Never! We will not accept. We will obey God, submit ourselves to our Lord Jesus Christ. We will submit ourselves to the extent that those who must transmit to us our Faith submit themselves to the Faith as well. They have no right to sell off the Faith: it is not theirs. The Faith belongs to God, it belongs to our Lord Jesus Christ. And the pope and the bishops exist to transmit it.
Insofar as they transmit it, we fall to our knees, we obey; we are ready to obey immediately.
Insofar as they destroy our faith, we no longer obey. We cannot allow our faith to be destroyed.
Our faith is attached to our hearts until we die. That is what we must say and what we must proclaim.
So we are not disobedient; we are obedient to our Lord Jesus Christ. That is what the Church has always asked of the faithful.
And when we are told, “You are judgmental; you judge the pope, you judge the bishops,” it is not we who judge the bishops, but our Faith, our Tradition, our pocket catechism!
A five-year-old child can correct his bishop. If a bishop were to tell a child, “You have been taught that the Blessed Trinity has three Persons, but that is not true,” the child could refer to his catechism and say, “My catechism teaches me that there are three Persons in the Blessed Trinity. You are wrong, and I am right.”
The child would be right. He would be right because he has all of Tradition on his side, all of the Faith on his side.
And that is what we have, nothing else. We say, “Tradition condemns you; Tradition condemns what you are currently doing.”
We Must Stand Firm
We are with two thousand years of the Church, not with twelve years of a new Church, a conciliar Church, as we were told when Msgr. Benelli asked us to submit ourselves to the “conciliar Church.” I do not know this conciliar Church; I only know the Catholic Church.
So we must stand firm on our positions. For our Faith, we must accept everything, all the snubs, the scorn, excommunication, blows, persecution. Tomorrow, perhaps, the civil authorities may persecute us as well; that too may come.
Why? Because those who are currently destroying the Church are doing the work of Freemasonry. Freemasonry is in control everywhere.
So if Freemasonry realizes that we are a force that may threaten their plans, governments will persecute us.
Then we will return to the catacombs; we will go anywhere, but we will continue to believe; we will not abandon our Faith. We will be persecuted, but many others were persecuted before us for their Faith. We will not be the first. But we will at least honor Our Lord, be faithful to Him, not abandon Him, not betray Him. That is what we must do.
We must therefore be strong and ask the most blessed Virgin Mary on this day that we, like her, may have only one love in our hearts: that of our Lord Jesus Christ; only one name written on our hearts: that of our Lord Jesus Christ.
He is God! He is the Redeemer. He is the Eternal Priest. He is King of all and He is King in heaven. He is alone King in heaven. There is no other king than our Lord Jesus Christ in heaven. He is the joy of the elect, of the angels, of His Blessed Mother, of St. Joseph.
And we too wish to partake of this honor, this glory, this love of our Lord Jesus Christ. We know Him alone and we wish to know Him alone.
In the name of the Father…
1 The year before delivering this sermon, Archbishop Lefebvre was suspended a divinis and commanded to shut down his seminary and the SSPX. These Roman punishments gave the appearance of placing the SSPX outside of the Church’s legal framework, and this appearance troubled some consciences, making them think that fidelity to Tradition was infidelity to the Church. Thus, the Archbishop emphasizes here that, in fact, those who destroy the Church cannot properly be said to belong to her, while those who are faithful to Tradition do properly belong to her. He is speaking of belonging to the Church in a specific sense, i.e. by sharing her ideals and mission. He is clearly not speaking of belonging to the Church through baptism or by being part of its visible hierarchy, as such a sense would falsify his statement. Such verbal ambiguity is part and parcel of the rhetorical context of a sermon, and is in fact needed to emphasize a key point, as the Archbishop does here.
2 In common speech, we do not say that a traitor or a spy within an army belongs to that army, because his intentions are completely contrary to those of the moral body of which he is a part. Similarly here, although certain Modernists are baptized Catholics and really are part of the visible hierarchy, yet they have separated themselves from the Church’s spirit and ideals, and in that sense do not belong to her. Such expressions, as Fr. Gleize points out, take the part for the whole. It is not just those who have the spirit of the Church (part) that make up the Catholic Church (whole), but it can be said in a certain sense that only those who have the spirit of the Church belong to the Church, a point the Archbishop wishes to emphasize here.
|
|
|
|
|
![[Image: Screen-Shot-2014-10-30-at-10.40.41-PM.png]](https://i2.wp.com/www.globalfieldtrip.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Screen-Shot-2014-10-30-at-10.40.41-PM.png)
![[Image: Untitled.jpg]](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7vn0DWhf4tA/XFiPxzDvPXI/AAAAAAAAIqY/_OHrQBf2KFso2U3ulGrmnhnZ6Ie4TmYZgCLcBGAs/s1600/Untitled.jpg)
![[Image: StBenedict_speaking_to_StScholastica.jpg]](https://catholichotdish.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/StBenedict_speaking_to_StScholastica.jpg)
![[Image: 37625075_455964678204242_669969914406528....jpg?w=775]](https://ecclesiacontramundum.files.wordpress.com/2019/04/37625075_455964678204242_6699699144065286144_n.jpg?w=775)
![[Image: 08.firmalefebvre.tif]](https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1L6KV5dFRo0/WSWm1x4W-9I/AAAAAAAAWsg/SxyCIFfb4GYzNh3GDggg0YjgDxG7_os0ACLcB/s200/08.firmalefebvre.tif)
