Pope Francis denounces ‘anti-vaxxers,’ calls COVID jab refusal an ‘almost suicidal act of denial’
Pope Francis has once again touted the abortion-tainted COVID vaccines, reissuing his condemnation of those who refused to take the shot.



Pope Francis, during general audience March 2024.
L'Osservatore Romano/Facebook

Quote:Deciding whether to get vaccinated is always an ethical choice, but I know that many people signed up to movements opposed to the administration of the medication. This distressed me because in my view, being against the antidote is an almost suicidal act of denial.

The following is taken from Archbishop Lefebvre's Open Letter to Confused Catholics:

Quote:“Christians meet together to celebrate the Eucharist. It is the Mass... They proclaim the faith of the Church, they pray for the whole world, they offer the bread and the wine. The priest who presides at the assembly says the great prayer of thanksgiving.”

Quote:“The Lord's Supper achieves firstly communion with Christ. It is the same communion that Jesus brought about during His life on earth when He sat at table with sinners, and has been continued in the Eucharistic meal since the day of the Resurrection. The Lord invites His friends to come together and He will be present among them.”

The following is taken from The Recusant #50 - January 2020.


This seems to be a constantly recurring theme. How did so many Traditional Catholics end up thinking like this? How did we end up here? Perhaps it is time to take another look at:

The following is taken from The Recusant #59 - Advent 2022:



Source: https://fsspx.news/en/content/32569 see also: thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=4382

I received an email yesterday from Mr. Luke Ross (coordinator of one of the Australian chapels) with the subject line "BW's Liberalism Again."

The email links to a brief Q&A published online regarding a troubling recent Eleison Comments (authored by Bp. Williamson) regarding Novus Ordo Sacraments.

This is important as the accusations of "disgruntled infighting" are often hurled at Frs. Hewko and Ruiz for having said the same things as the more objective 'Traditio Fathers.' Traditio is not part of the Resistance and have 'no skin in the game' as the saying goes. They are simply comparing the words of Bishop Williamson with the teachings of the Church. 

Quote:Dear TRADITIO Fathers:

A well-known traditional (?) Catholic bishop has been scandalizing true Traditional Catholics by suddenly pandering to the "sacraments" of the New Order (Novus Ordo) sect, aka the Newchurch of the New Order. In his most recent writing he answers the question "What about receiving hosts supposedly consecrated at Novus Ordo Masses (sic)?" by stating: "Perhaps best avoid them, because they can be invalid, and with time may be more and more so. However, in case of need you can receive such hosts, because they may also be valid." Doesn't that answer flatly contradict Catholic doctrine?


THE TRADITIO FATHERS REPLY:

That statement most certainly does contradict Catholic doctrine. The Sacraments must be certain. There cannot be any moral doubt, or a Catholic is obliged under pain of idolatry, a grave sin against the First Commandment of God, to shun the fakery like the Devil. The idea that a Catholic could receive a doubtful "sacrament" is unconscionable.

There are certainly examples of this doctrine in the history of the Church. After the Church In England revolted and adopted a Protestant Ordinal in 1550, written by the Arch-heretic Thomas Cranmer, the Catholic Church was split. Some Catholics, even some prelates, considered Anglican ordinations valid; most did not. In this situation of doubt, the Catholic Church never allowed Catholics to receive "sacraments" from Anglican presbyter/ministers. The Catholic Church never said "perhaps." No, in the case of moral doubt, a Catholic is strictly bound to shun such spurious "sacraments" entirely.

In 1896 Pope Leo XIII settled the issue once and for all when he declared in his 1896 Papal Bull "Apostolicae curae" that all Anglican orders had been and are "absolutely null and utterly void" because the Anglican Ordinal is deficient in intention and form, not intending to ordain a sacrificing priesthood, but merely to install ministers to an ecclesiastical institution that was not Catholic in belief. [..]

What Pope Leo XIII decreed about the Anglicans is a fortiori, i.e., even more, true of the Novus Ordo sect, the Newchurch of the New Order, or whatever you want to call it. That Newchurch, founded in 1964 at the Vatican II Anti-council, eventually rejected, in its official writings, the traditional term "ordination" and uses instead "installation," as of a Protestant minister. It rejected the term "priest" and uses instead "presbyter," an ambiguous term, essentially meaning "elder," much as the Mormons use the term "elder" for their clergy.

Therefore, it is unconscionable that any true Catholic, let alone a supposed traditional Catholic bishop of over thirty years, would ever speak of a sacrament as "perhaps."
[The last sentence promoting sedevacantism is omitted here.]

(Emphasis in the original.)

Quote:EMERGENCY ADVICE – I

February 17, 2024
Eleison Comments Issue DCCCLXVI (866)

God asks us not the impossible to do,
But to leave for others the freedom you want for you.

A reader much confused by what is going on inside the Catholic Church sends in a number of practical questions which many Catholic souls must be asking themselves today in connection with the serious duty for any Catholic of attending Mass to fulfil his Sunday obligation. Normally the answers are more or less clear, but circumstances since the 1960s’ revolution of Vatican II inside the Church are no longer normal, and so the answers are no longer so clear. Let us list this reader’s questions in order, going from the general to the particular, to reply with answers offered by these “Comments,” but not imposed.

1 To what extent is the Newchurch of Vatican II Catholic, and to what extent is it counterfeit?

Answer, God alone knows, because He alone knows the secrets of men’s hearts, and the borderline between the true and the false Church often runs through men’s hearts, for instance whether or not they have the Catholic Faith. Since He alone can know for sure, then He does not expect us to know. However, He does give us sufficient means to know what we do need to know, and that is to judge by the fruits (cf. Mt. VII, 15–20). These will infallibly tell the difference, for instance, between true and false shepherds. Real joy and charity will reveal where the true Church still exists, even inside the Newchurch structures.

2 Do we have a Pope?

Answer, if we judge Pope Francis by his fruits, they are disastrous for the true Church, to the point that many serious Catholics argue that he is an anti-pope. God does not require of me to know for sure, one way or the other. Good Catholic theologians can disagree. The wisdom of Archbishop Lefebvre for his priests was that they could have their own opinion in private, but in public they should behave as though the apparent Vatican II popes are true Popes, unless and until the evidence is clear that they are not Popes. Even Pope Francis is still serving the Catholic function of providing the structural Church with a visible head, enabling the Church structures to continue functioning until God cleans out the Augean stables. In His own good time God will put the Pope back on his feet. Meanwhile, I may despair of this or that pope, but I must not despair of the Papacy, or of any other institution from the Tradition of Our Lord Himself.

3 What about the Newchurch sacraments?

Answer, like the Newchurch as a whole of which they are product and part, they are still partly good but essentially rotting, like the rotten apples to which they may be compared, because the Newchurch was cleverly designed from the beginning to rot over tens of years until there would be nothing of the true Church left. This was because by the 1960’s when Vatican II happened, many churchmen at the top of the Church had been thoroughly infected by the thinking of Freemasonry, the secret society created in 1717 in London to infiltrate the Catholic Church until it could be destroyed from within, thus enabling the known enemies of God and man to take over the world. Our Lord’s own Church is the great obstacle in their way.

4 What about the “Eucharistic miracles,” supposedly taking place at Novus Ordo “Masses”?

Answer, down all near 2000 years of Church history so far, God has always by such miracles helped Christians to believe in the stupendous miracle of His Presence beneath mere appearances of bread and wine, and these miracles continue today, because the Sacred Heart will not abandon sheep misled by their shepherds. The difference is that today modern science is available to provide truly scientific evidence to prove that the miracles, if they are genuine, are genuine. See for instance the book “A Cardiologist examines Jesus” by Dr. Franco Serafini, with explanations and photographic illustrations from several recent miracles. It is published by Sophia Institute Press, available from SophiaInstitute.com God bless Traditionalists for clinging to the Traditional Latin Mass, but not for refusing scientific evidence provided by the Sacred Heart for the salvation of souls.

5 And what about receiving hosts supposedly consecrated at Novus Ordo Masses?

Answer, perhaps best avoid them, because they can be invalid, and with time may be more and more so. However, in case of need you can receive such hosts, because they may also be valid.

Kyrie eleison.

The following is taken from Fr. Felix Sarday Salvany's book, Liberalism is a Sin.

The following chapter shows plainly and clearly that true charity consist of rejecting errors. It is a good reminder that even those professing to be traditional Catholics but who rather show tolerance for error (e.g. the Indult groups, the new SSPX, the False Resistance, etc.) are rightly corrected - out of true charity.



Chapter 19 Charity and Liberalism

Narrow! Intolerant! Uncompromising! These are the epithets of odium hurled by Liberal votaries of all degrees at us [...] Are not Liberals our neighbors like other men? Do we not owe to them the same charity we apply to others? Are not your vigorous denunciations, it is urged against us, harsh and uncharitable and in the very teeth of the teaching of Christianity, which is essentially a religion of love? Such is the accusation continually flung in our face. Let us see what its value is. Let us see all that the word "Charity" signifies.

The Catechism [of the Council of Trent], that popular and most authoritative epitome of Catholic theology, gives us the most complete and succinct definition of charity; it is full of wisdom and philosophy. Charity is a supernatural virtue which induces us to love God above all things and our neighbors as ourselves for the love of God. Thus, after God we ought to love our neighbor as ourselves, and this not just in any way, but for the love of God and in obedience to His law. And now, what is it to love? Amare est velle bonum, replies the philosopher. "To love is to wish good to him whom we love." To whom does charity command us to wish good? To our neighbor, that is to say, not to this or that man only, but to everyone. What is that good which true love wishes? First of all supernatural good, then goods of the natural order which are not incompatible with it. All this is included in the phrase "for the love of God."

It follows, therefore, that we can love our neighbor when displeasing him, when opposing him, when causing him some material injury, and even, on certain occasions, when depriving him of life; in short, all is reduced to this: Whether in the instance where we displease, oppose, or humiliate him, it is or is not for his own good, or for the good of someone whose rights are superior to his, or simply for the greater service of God.

If it is shown that in displeasing or offending our neighbor we act for his good, it is evident that we love him, even when opposing or crossing him. The physician cauterizing his patient or cutting off his gangrened limb may nonetheless love him. When we correct the wicked by restraining or by punishing them, we do nonetheless love them. This is charity—and perfect charity.

It is often necessary to displease or offend one person, not for his own good, but to deliver another from the evil he is inflicting. It is then an obligation of charity to repel the unjust violence of the aggressor; one may inflict as much injury on the aggressor as is necessary for defense. Such would be the case should one see a highwayman attacking a traveler. In this instance, to kill, wound, or at least take such measures as to render the aggressor impotent, would be an act of true charity.

The good of all good is the divine Good, just as God is for all men the Neighbor of all neighbors. In consequence, the love due to a man, inasmuch as he is our neighbor, ought always to be subordinated to that which is due to our common Lord. For His love and in His service we must not hesitate to offend men. The degree of our offense towards men can only be measured by the degree of our obligation to Him. Charity is primarily the love of God, secondarily the love of our neighbor for God's sake. To sacrifice the first is to abandon the latter. Therefore, to offend our neighbor for the love of God is a true act of charity. Not to offend our neighbor for the love of God is a sin.

Modern Liberalism reverses this order; it imposes a false notion of charity: our neighbor first, and, if at all, God afterwards. By its reiterated and trite accusations toward us of intolerance, it has succeeded in disconcerting even some staunch Catholics. But our rule is too plain and too concrete to admit of misconception. It is this: Sovereign Catholic inflexibility is sovereign Catholic charity. This charity is practiced in relation to our neighbor when, in his own interest, he is crossed, humiliated, and chastised. It is practiced in relation to a third party when he is defended from the unjust aggression of another, as when he is protected from the contagion of error by unmasking its authors and abettors and showing them in their true light as iniquitous and pervert, by holding them up to the contempt, horror, and execration of all. It is practiced in relation to God when, for His glory and in His service, it becomes necessary to silence all human considerations, to trample under foot all human respect, to sacrifice all human interests—and even life itself—to attain this highest of all ends. All this is Catholic inflexibility and inflexible Catholicity in the practice of that pure love which constitutes sovereign charity. The Saints are the types of this unswerving and sovereign fidelity to God, the heroes of charity and religion. Because in our times there are so few true inflexibles in the love of God, so also are there few uncompromisers in the order of charity. Liberal charity is condescending, affectionate, even tender in appearance, but at bottom it is an essential contempt for the true good of men, of the supreme interests of truth and [ultimately] of God. It is human self-love, usurping the throne of the Most High and demanding that worship which belongs to God alone.