| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 142 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 139 Guest(s)
Bing, Facebook, Google
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre 1971 - The Fruits of the New Mass |
|
Posted by: Stone - 09-28-2022, 10:04 AM - Forum: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
- Replies (1)
|
 |
From the Archived Catacombs:
THE FRUITS OF THE NEW MASS
Rome
March 13, 1971
Taken from A Bishop Speaks, Writings and Addresses 1963-1976, Angelus Press, 2nd ed., 2007, pp. 97-99
Has the use of the Novus Ordo Missae, the central act of the liturgical reform, produced the salutary results expected of it, or has it had the disastrous consequences that might have been foreseen? The reply to this question will oblige us to consider the circumstances of this singular reform, unique in the history of the Church, and will enlighten us on our duty for the future. To assess the dogmatic, moral, and spiritual value of this reform, we must briefly recall the immutable principles of the Catholic Faith on the essential constituents of our Holy Mass:
1) “In Missa offertur Deo verum et proprium Sacrificium” (de fide divina catholica definita). -Those who would deny this proposition are heretics: “For every Sacrifice there are needed a Priest, a Victim, and a sacerdotal Action by which the Victim is offered.”
2) “In Missa et in Cruce eadem est Hostia et idem Sacerdos principalis” (de fide divina catholica definita).
3. “Hostia seu Victima est 'ipse Christus' praesens sub species panis et vini” (de fide divina catholica definita). -Those who would deny these last two propositions are equally heretics.
There are thus three realities needful for the reality of the Mass:
1) The Priest-Sacerodotes, illique soli, sunt ministri (de fide divina catholica), having the sacerdotal character.
2) The real and substantial presence of the Victim, who is Christ.
3) The sacerdotal Action of the sacrificial oblation which is realized essentially in the Consecration.
Let us not forget that it is precisely these three fundamental truths which are denied by Protestants and Modernists. Let us not forget that it is to manifest their refusal to believe in these dogmas that their Masses have been transformed into services, into a eucharistic meal or gathering, where a much greater place is given to readings from the Bible, to the word, to the detriment of the offering and the liturgy of the sacrifice.
Apart from a few slight and accidental advantages, or should we rather say the one advantage that may come from the reading of the Epistle and Gospel in the vernacular, we must sorrowfully maintain that, directly or indirectly, the whole reform [which is the Novus Ordo Missae] attacks these three truths essential to the Catholic Faith. It is not, then, a liturgical reform resembling that of St. Pius V which is in question; it is clearly a new conception of the Mass. The Reformers have made no secret of it. Fr. Bugnini’s normative Mass, as he explained in his lectures in Rome, is simply that defined in Article VII of the Introduction to the Novus Ordo Missae.
Everything laid down in this new order clearly reflects this new conception, which is nearer the Protestant conception than the Catholic. The statements of the Protestants who contributed to the reform illustrate the truth of this naively and sadly:
“Protestants can no longer find anything to prevent their celebrating the Novus Ordo”.
We may therefore quite legitimately ask ourselves whether, as the Catholic belief in the essential truths of the Mass insensibly disappears, the validity of the Mass is not also disappearing. The intention of the celebrant will have a bearing on the new conception of the Mass which, before long, will be no other than the Protestant. The Mass will no longer be valid.
Now, we must be fully persuaded that the Mass is not only the supreme religious act but the source of all Catholic doctrine, the source of faith and of personal, family, and social morals. It is from the Cross, continued on the Altar, that there come down to us all those graces which enable a Christian society to live and grow. To dry up that source is to do away with its effects.
These effects, which are the fruits of the Holy Spirit so eloquently described by St. Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians ('But the fruit of the Spirit is, charity, joy, peace, patience, benignity, goodness, longanimity.' Gal.5:22) are on the point of disappearing from society. There is division in all families; religious congregations and parishes are attacked by the virus of disunion. Even bishops, even cardinals have been infected.
The Catholic Mass had, and forever will have, the effect of raising men to the Cross, to unite them in our Lord Jesus Christ crucified, to weaken in them the turmoil of sin which leads to division. If the Cross of our Lord disappears, if His Body and Blood are no longer present, men will find themselves gathered about a lonely and lifeless table. Nothing to unite them will remain. Of that, no doubt, are born the weariness and lassitude which are everywhere becoming apparent; of that, the disappearance of vocations, felt to be bereft of purpose; of that, the secularization and profanation of the priest, no longer conscious of his reason for existing; of that, the desire for the things of this world. Little by little, by reason of this Protestant conception of Holy Mass, Jesus Christ is leaving the churches, all too often profaned.
The concept of this reform, the manner of its publication, with successive editions unduly altered, the way in which it was made obligatory, sometimes tyrannically as in Italy, the alteration in the definition of the Mass in Article VII without any effect on the rite itself, are all happenings unprecedented in the Tradition of the Roman Church, which has ever acted “cum consilio et sapientia.” They give us grounds for questioning the validity of this legislation and thus conform to Canon 23: “On a matter of doubt it is not permissible to revoke a law, but the recent law should be considered in the light of the former and the two reconciled as far as possible.”
One thing remains an absolute duty and right: the safeguarding of the Faith. Of this the Holy Mass is the most living expression and the divine source, hence its primordial importance.
|
|
|
| Amsterdam diocese: 60% of churches need to close in five years |
|
Posted by: Stone - 09-28-2022, 09:50 AM - Forum: Vatican II and the Fruits of Modernism
- No Replies
|
|
Amsterdam diocese: 60% of churches need to close in five years
Almost 100 churches face imminent closure due to dwindling churchgoers, volunteers, and income.
![[Image: Jan_Hendriks_-bisschop-.jpg]](https://www.pillarcatholic.com/content/images/size/w1304/2022/09/Jan_Hendriks_-bisschop-.jpg)
Bishop Jan Hendriks in 2011. Maarten Jansen via Wikimedia (CC BY-SA 3.0).
Pillar Catholic [adapted] | September 26, 2022
A Catholic diocese in the Netherlands has announced that 60% of its churches need to close in the next five years due to dwindling churchgoers, volunteers, and income.
Bishop Jan Hendricks unveiled the plans for the Diocese of Haarlem-Amsterdam at a meeting with around 90 parish administrators on Sept. 10.
The diocese, which dates back to 1559, covers the province of North Holland, in the northwestern Netherlands, as well as the southern part of Flevoland province. It includes Amsterdam, the country’s capital and most populous city.
Hendricks, who has led the diocese since 2020, said it was clear “that the coronavirus pandemic has accelerated the process of shrinkage we were already in: faithful churchgoers of an advanced age have grown even older and have sometimes stopped attending church; others have become accustomed to a different format for Sunday mornings, volunteers have dropped out, choirs have stopped.”
Diocesan authorities said that 99 out of the current 164 Catholic churches would have to close in five years. Of the remaining 65 churches, 37 could continue for five to 10 years as “support churches,” leaving just 28 “central churches” considered viable in the long term.
Vicar general Msgr. Bart Putter told The Pillar on Sept. 26 that the diocese did not have a list of churches that needed to be closed, but hoped that local communities would designate “central churches.”
“The idea is to create 28 active places of evangelization. And we hope that the parish priests and parish boards can realize that,” he said.
Figures shared at the Sept. 10 meeting showed that Mass-goers had fallen from more than 25,000 in 2013 to 12,000 in 2021.
“The participation has declined sharply over many years. It’s not a recent development,” said Msgr. Putter, who noted that in the 1950s around 80% of the Catholic population attended Mass, compared to around 3% of 425,000 baptized Catholics in the diocese today.
The diocese, which has sought to reduce the number of churches since 2004, is known for its strong international Catholic communities in urban areas such as Amsterdam and Almere. A new church was opened last year in Almere, which is regarded as the newest city in the Netherlands.
Fr. Jan-Jaap van Peperstraten, a pastor based in the Alkmaar region of North Holland, told The Pillar that while a reduction in churches was necessary, rural Catholics were likely to be worst affected.
“We received our first letter from the diocese concerning this in May and it didn’t come as much of a surprise. We were in fact already in the planning phase of closing down one of our rural churches with a turn-up of maybe 15 every other week,” he said.
“We have been asked to close two churches in the next three years, and we will probably have to close one or two more in the two years following. This will be harder as there is no ‘natural process.’ Communities that still feel some vigor in them will have to be asked to wind down, and this is a difficult thing. It will take up a lot of time and energy to accompany everyone on this journey.”
Fr. van Peperstraten said that churchgoers might feel challenged by a “perceived volte-face” over church closures as the diocese had previously seemed to take “a very much hands-off approach.”
“To those ‘more in the loop,’ the change is less big,” he said. “We did feel this coming, and these are necessary decisions to make. Church attendance consistently halves every 10 years and has done for decades on end.”
The priest said he did not expect “massive protests” against the changes as there was a “widespread conviction in quite a few places that things are moving towards their end.”
“In 10 years, we’re looking at 30 larger parishes with a hopefully diverse offering of liturgies and activities — small parishes simply can’t offer this,” he said.
“A challenge in all of this will be that I fear all of the remaining parishes will be in urban areas. How will we service the countryside? I have no answer at this time.”
Msgr. Putter said that the concentration of churches in urban areas was unlikely to be a great obstacle to Catholics seeking to attend Mass in the coming years.
“The younger people and the families that we have, they are more than willing to drive 15, or 30, or 45 minutes to go to church,” he said. “So for them, it won’t be a problem in the future. And of course, the infrastructure here in the Netherlands is very good, so that’s not the problem.”
“In the past, every village, every part of the city, has had its own church, but that’s impossible to keep now, and people who really want to go to church now are more motivated than in the past. But it’s a smaller number.”
The Diocese of Haarlem-Amsterdam is not the only Dutch diocese facing financial struggles.
The Diocese of Roermond, in the traditional Catholic heartland of the southern Netherlands, has reportedly asked some parishes to cut back on Masses due to rising energy bills and a priest shortage.
Diocesan spokesman Matheu Bemelmans said: “Sometimes it’s simply not possible to find a priest to give a service at every church, every weekend. If there are churches with only a few visitors, we are saying: be practical and skip a week and ensure those people can follow Mass at another church.”
There are roughly 3.7 million Catholics in the Netherlands, representing 21.7% of the total population of almost 18 million. In 1970, Catholics accounted for almost 40% of the population.
Msgr. Putter said that the Diocese of Haarlem-Amsterdam hoped to see growth in the new city of Almere and other urban locations.
“In the city of Haarlem — that’s where I am also a parish priest — we created some really new movements in the diocese,” he commented. “Then there are two other places also in the diocese, more to the north. And of course Amsterdam city has many Catholics, but there are several churches. One is a parish church, another one is from the Jesuits, and there, people choose where they feel at home. It’s a different dynamic.”
Editor’s note: This report was updated to include comments from Msgr. Bart Putter, vicar general of the Diocese of Haarlem-Amsterdam.
|
|
|
|
| Abp. Viganò: The Italian people have rejected globalism, now Prime Minister Meloni must deliver |
|
Posted by: Stone - 09-28-2022, 05:41 AM - Forum: Archbishop Viganò
- No Replies
|
|
Abp. Viganò: The Italian people have rejected globalism, now Prime Minister Meloni must deliver
We know that today’s politicians do not have the gift of honoring the commitments they have made to their electorate. Can we reasonably think that Giorgia Meloni will want to review her pro-globalist positions, returning to the role of being a true right-wing alternative to the woke left?
Sep 27, 2022
(LifeSiteNews) – The new political situation that emerges from the recent Italian elections confirms the common feeling of the electorate that some were able to grasp in advance. After two years of disturbing violations of the most elementary rights, and after two governments that have shown us that they are simply obeying the orders of supranational entities who act against the interests of Italy and the Italian people, the vote that has brought into power the so-called center-right, led by the political party Fratelli d’Italia, has unequivocally expressed support for a precise political line that goes far beyond the modest proposals of the program of the coalition parties.
This is evident above all from the fact that within this alliance there has been a redistribution of consensus in favor of that party that has been instinctively deemed worthy of the vote as the only opposition party. A very moderate opposition, but still an opposition, more in the perception of the average citizen than in reality.
The so-called “anti-system” parties, fragmented and convinced that they could overcome the three-percent barrier that would have permitted them sitting in Parliament, have about one million voters when taken all together. This is due both to the decision – by no means a coincidence – of the resigning government to convene the electoral rallies in the middle of summer; as well as to the very low visibility granted to them by the mainstream media; and to the lack of consistency of their program, whose credibility and feasibility seemed unconvinced and therefore destined to the dispersion of the vote.
Another hard-hearted guest is the abstentionist party, which stands at around 36 percent, but which sees within itself different and opposite motivations difficult to reduce to simply a generic “dissent.” It is therefore completely out of place, in my opinion, to mobilize abstention politically, attributing its representation in phantom non-voting parties, precisely because the choice not to go to the polls also implies the choice of not having any political representation.
Certainly, most of the abstainers express the will not to accept taking part in a game, so to speak, in which the rules are decided by others. But to these must also be added those who do not vote due to trivial disinterest, or more simply – and this seems to me to be the case of the majority – because they are disgusted by a political class that has proven to be unworthy and corrupt beyond words. In this, Fratelli d’Italia was partly saved because it had the caution to remain in the opposition, often inert or complicit, but at least officially outside the outgoing Draghi government.
On the other hand, the Partito Democratico [PD], the emblem of the radical chic Left that has never been sufficiently abhorred – and which has replaced the class struggle against the bosses with the struggle between those who are poor fueled by the globalist elite – has not been saved either.
The Democraticos have combined the worst of communist collectivism with the worst of consumer liberalism, in the name of an agenda that benefits the high finance lobby using emergencies like pandemics, energy crises, and wars with the sole purpose of destroying the traditional social fabric. Not that the other parties present together with the PD in the last government were better: the blow suffered in the elections by Lega, Forza Italia, and other minor parties is directly proportional to the ways in which they have betrayed those who have voted for them. And if the absolute inconsistency of Minister of Foreign Affairs Luigi Di Maio was definitively sanctioned by his lack of re-election, it is clear that former Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte was able to benefit from the incentive – at the limit of the exchange vote – of the citizenship income: his demonstrated ineptitude did not change the voting intentions of a bevy of far from disinterested clients.
Many of the votes lost by the PD have poured into Fratelli d’Italia, and this further confirms the expectations of those who have chosen the right-wing of Giorgia Meloni not for what it is, but for what it potentially can be; not for what she has said it will do, but for what everyone actually expects her to do. They voted for Meloni to defend those sound basic principles of civil coexistence, palely inspired by the social doctrine of the Catholic Church, but which Italians are not willing to give up: protection of the natural family, respect for life, security and the fight against illegal immigration, an end to gender and “LGBTQ+” indoctrination for minors, freedom of enterprise, the presence of the state in strategic assets, a greater weight in European affairs and – God willing! – the exit from the euro and the return to national sovereignty.
In short, Meloni is expected to behave like the leader of a moderate right-wing party, tendentially conservative, moderately sovereigntist. Nothing extreme – certainly not extreme Right – in spite of the alarmist proclamations of the Left; but at least not aligned with a NATO-prone Atlanticism or the suicidal Europeanism that characterized the action of the Draghi government, nor elected out of ideological fury against the destruction of civilization, culture, religion, and the identity of the Italian people.
According to some observers, the new movements – either deliberately or simply allowing themselves to be used by the system – have merely formed a fictitious opposition, making them prefer the logic of “holding their noses” by voting for Fratelli d’Italia. But in truth there are actually two fictitious oppositions: one internal to the system, Atlanticist and pro-European, and one external and divided into various parties, nominally anti-European and anti-Atlanticist, but composed of characters with a past that is inconsistent, to say the least, with the new programs. Many candidates of these anti-system movements were certainly honest people, largely homines novi, but it is undeniable that their presence has failed to convince those who consider it urgent not only to give a signal of strong discontent, but to see this discontent translate in the short term into incisive and determined government actions that remedy the disasters of the two previous legislatures.
Lega and Forza Italia have had a significant hemorrhage of voters, in my opinion motivated by the prostration of their leaders and key figures on the pandemic narrative and the Ukrainian crisis: Matteo Salvini and Silvio Berlusconi decided to obey the European Union (EU), the World Health Organization, NATO, and the diktats of their World Economic Forum puppet masters. An evil choice, as we have seen, which has been severely punished at the polls, but which remains largely shared also by Giorgia Meloni, who is a member of the Aspen Institute (which is part of the Rockefeller Foundation) and is openly Atlanticist and pro-European.
In essence, the disconnect between voters and elected representatives, between citizens and the political class, has been repeated in the form of “desire,” so to speak, attributing to Fratelli d’Italia a role that the party itself has declared for weeks that it does not want to assume, since it does not intend to question either the policies of the EU or the aims of NATO and the American deep state. It is as if the average Italian had decided to vote for Meloni despite her being openly in continuity with the Draghi agenda, as if to force her hand so that – by virtue of an overwhelming majority – she gets bold and takes those steps that until the eve of the elections she promised not to take.
And just as there are some who fear that Meloni will behave “like a fascist” and who for this reason cry out for the democratic emergency threatening expatriation, so there are many – certainly all the voters of Fratelli d’Italia – who hope and pray that she acts as an Italian, as a patriot, and as a Christian. And they will know how to overlook the fact that in order to get to the Palazzo Chigi [the see of the prime minister] she gave reassurances that in reality she could deny in fact. It remains to be seen whether the first female prime minister will be able to distinguish herself from her predecessors or if she will prefer to bow to the deep state and continue the betrayal of the Italian people.
On the other hand, if the democratic vote must sanction those who represent the will of the sovereign people, Meloni herself cannot fail to take into account the fact that her voters demand radical choices from her, and that they consider her pre-election moderation simply as a strategic move to reassure “the markets.” Choices that even many members of Lega and Forza Italia would look upon favorably, beyond the vaccine or warmongering zeal of this or that parliamentarian or governor.
Salvini’s own words of remorse – just a few days before the vote – regarding the approval of lockdowns and the vaccine obligation betray his awareness that the deliberate suicide of these parties by their leaders has been badly digested by the grassroots. The same thing is happening in Fratelli d’Italia, where Meloni’s position on sending arms to Ukraine and on sanctions against Russia is not shared by one part of her party, both because it is blatantly self-defeating and because it is based on the false supposition that the international interlocutors will remain the same, without any significant changes. It is not absolutely certain that the Democrats will retain power in the U.S. mid-term elections in November, or that the investigations of Special Counsel John Durham will not involve President Joe Biden and his family, along with other Democrat politicians, in the scandals that are now emerging in the American mainstream. And it is not certain that the interventionist policy of the EU and NATO in Ukraine will remain unchanged in the face of evidence of the repeated bombardments by Zelensky against the civilians in Donbass and the Russian-speaking regions of Ukraine, in the face of the success of referendums calling for annexation by Russia, and the way that sanctions [against Russia] have been a total disaster for European countries.
Finally, the contiguity of the Biden administration with Kiev could lead to a chain reaction of changes, in which Biden sees the precarious electoral consensus he enjoys further eroded, making support for the puppet government desired by Biden’s Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland cease and consequently allowing for peace negotiations which, until now, have been stubbornly hindered by Washington. And given Donald Trump’s political clout and his declared hostility to the American deep state, a peacemaking deal would certainly be closer and more enduring if he were to return to the White House.
We know that today’s politicians do not have the gift of honoring the commitments they have made to their electorate. Nonetheless, can we reasonably think that Italy’s next prime minister will want to review her pro-Atlantic and European positions, returning to the role of being a true right-wing alternative to the hegemony of ordoliberalism and the woke left? In this case, it would be the voters who would benefit from it, and those who saw themselves “betrayed” would have no right to claim the violation of Italy’s pacts of submission to the European Commission, since they had no right to stipulate them in the first place. The “betrayal” of the powers hostile to Italy would be a virtuous action, since it would restore the sovereignty that has been usurped by the elite.
Conversely, obeying the elite and not following the interests of the nation would be an act of betrayal by the new government against those who have voted it into power. If the elite can be expected to boycott Italy (by means of spreads, interest rates, withdrawal of the Italian National Recovery and Resilience Plan [PNRR]) it is to be feared that the people, betrayed for the umpteenth time, in a condition of growing poverty and the deliberate persecution of businesses and workers, will barricade and protest as a result of their exasperation, something that we see the first signs of in other countries. In evaluating the costs and benefits, I want to hope that the Meloni government will not want to be complicit in this subversive operation which damages our country.
It is difficult to believe that the financial oligarchy has not taken this possibility into account. It is easier to believe that it was precisely in order to manage the exit strategy and contain the damage both on the front of the pandemic and vaccine fraud as well as on the front of the Great Reset, the digital transition and the green emergency that is strongly desired by the World Economic Forum (for ideological reasons) and by China (for economic reasons).
It seems to me that many people are becoming aware of the very serious coup d’état that is being carried out by supranational powers, capable of interfering with a heavy hand with the activities of governments and international bodies. The world of business and work is beginning to understand the deliberate action of destruction of the national economic fabric that has been carried out, first by COVID and then by the war in Ukraine. Every decision, every rule, every decree imposed by Draghi – with or without a parliamentary vote – has been deliberately chosen in order to cause the greatest damage possible for citizens, for companies, for employees, for pensioners, and for students. Anything that would have avoided deaths, full hospitals, closed businesses, and increases in unemployment has been scientifically excluded, carrying out instead whatever action would be most devastating, in blatant contrast to the announced goals.
Today we see thousands of companies which consume vast amounts of energy destined to suspend production or completely close down because the outgoing Draghi government does not intend to stop the scandalous speculation of [Italian multinational oil company] ENI on the price of energy that it also pays for at prices that are ten times lower. The market is being allowed to reign unchallenged, so that the Amsterdam stock exchange can destroy the economy of nations, disproportionately enrich multinational corporations, and serve the interests of the elite that is pressing for the establishment of a technological dictatorship in compliance with the United Nations’ Agenda 2030. An agenda that, today, is the object of indoctrination in the schools beginning in the elementary grades, and which ties PNRR funding to reforms and new unsustainable spending cuts.
If the globalist narrative is beginning to show signs of abating, especially among the classes that are normally the most influenced by the mainstream, those who hold power – real power, I mean – have probably already prepared for the next scenario, and are organizing a plan to sacrifice the scapegoats who, inevitably, the crowd will want to see on the chopping block. It will thus get rid of those inconvenient accomplices who are no longer useful, satisfying the people’s thirst for justice and even presenting themselves in the role of savior and moral authority.
The chosen victims will clearly be the most zealous apostles of the psycho-pandemic, the “virostars” [fake celebrity virologists] in conflicts of interest, some institutional representatives and perhaps a few “philanthropists” whom by condemnation the elite could also eliminate as their most annoying competitors. And it is not to be excluded that Bergoglio himself, the endorser of gene serums and the high priest of neo-pagan globalism, will fall victim to the execration of Catholics, who are tired of being treated as enemies, just as citizens are exasperated by the hostility of their rulers.
Giorgia Meloni is, for the moment, a potential prime minister. She is such for those who expect Fratelli d’Italia to be the voice of that true and motivated dissent against the entire political class and, as such, acts with strength and determination without allowing itself to be intimidated. She is a potential prime minister for those who have decided to grant her the trust that others have repeatedly disappointed and betrayed. This is an irrational gesture, motivated by growing concern for the fate of the nation and by the idea that an overwhelming majority in Parliament can give the new government certainty of action to make strong choices, for which it will obtain support from the electorate, to which it must respond as an expression of the will of the people. She is a potential prime minister because the two preceding prime ministers were anything but leaders, since they were simply the serving boys for Ursula Von der Leyen, Klaus Schwab, or Joe Biden.
If Giorgia Meloni really wants to be prime minister in actuality and not only potentially, she must first of all stand up against those who have not been elected by anyone and yet presume the power of giving stamps of political presentability to democratically elected heads of government whenever they find themselves in very serious conflicts of interests, beginning with Von der Leyen’s text messages to Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla [negotiating a megadeal for vaccines], continuing with the membership of world leaders in the World Economic Forum and concluding with Biden’s involvement in the financing of NASA biolabs in Ukraine and in the affairs of the main energy company in Kiev.
Italy is a nation that can recover, as it has always done in the past, if she learns how to recover the pride of her true identity, her true history, and her true destiny in the plans of divine providence. For decades, the Italian people have suffered as a result of decisions taken elsewhere, which have brought them nothing but damage and humiliation. The moment has come to raise our heads, to reject with disdain the “resilience” that requires us to be beaten without reacting.
The dystopian world of globalism must be rejected and fought against not only for our own sakes, but also for the sake of our children, to whom each of us wishes to leave a peaceful future with solid economic prospects for raising a family, without feeling marginalized or criminalized because we do not accept resigning ourselves to subversive plans that have been made by those who want to make us eat insects and force us into slavery, with the sole purpose of making us poor and controlling us in every aspect of our daily lives.
But this – I say this as a pastor, addressing myself in particular to Catholics – will be possible only if Italians recognize that the justice, peace, and prosperity of a nation can be obtained only where Christ reigns, where His law is observed, and where the common good is placed ahead of personal profit and the thirst for power. Let us turn to the Lord, and the Lord will know how to reward our faithfulness. Let us turn with confidence to Mary Most Holy, our Heavenly Mother, asking her to intercede with Her Son for our beloved Italy.
+ Carlo Maria Vigano, Archbishop.
27 September, 2022
Ss. Cosmæ et Damiani, Martyrum
|
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre: Model Against Subversion |
|
Posted by: Stone - 09-27-2022, 05:39 AM - Forum: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
- No Replies
|
|
Taken from the Archived Catacombs:
Archbishop Lefebvre: Model Against Subversion
Taken from the article, “ Subversion,” in Le Chardonnet, June 2009[slightly adapted]
Providentially, Archbishop Lefebvre knew how to respond to subversion within the Church thanks to personal assets:
- a tried virtue which sheltered him from a careerist spirit
- a solid spirit of Faith which protected him from the “songs of the mermaids” of Modernism
- a clear, simple, strong preaching which marked minds and avoided confusion or the misappropriation of his words
- a long experience with the Roman Curia which immunized him against the snares of Vatican diplomacy
- a tenacity and a Christian optimism which kept him from all defeatism or irenicism*
- a practical sense which allowed him to effectively fight against disorder
These effective measures were the adequate response to subversion:
- against the destruction of the clerical elite, the solid formation of true priests and the foundation of schools and colleges
- against the fragmentation of individuals (priests and faithful), the creation of the Society and the establishment of priories and associations grouping together isolated forces
Let us finally add that at the height of this crisis of authority that the Church experienced, his personal sanctity as well as his competence made him – against his will - the providential leader capable of uniting Catholic resistance, and bringing to this order, a proud fortification erected against subversion.
* "irenicism" in Christian theology refers to attempts to unify Christian apologetical systems by using reason as an essential attribute. (from Wikipedia)
|
|
|
|
| A Chronology: Archbishop Lefebvre on the New Mass |
|
Posted by: Stone - 09-27-2022, 05:30 AM - Forum: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
- Replies (1)
|
|
Archbishop Lefebvre and the new Mass
![[Image: lefebvre_1988.jpeg?itok=PtchMvcO]](https://sspx.ca/sites/sspx/files/styles/dici_image_full_width/public/audio_image/lefebvre_1988.jpeg?itok=PtchMvcO)
Computer translated from the French: by the Abbé Raphaël d'Abbadie - Fideliter - May-June 2017 [slightly adapted]
How did the founder of the Society of St. Pius X judge the Mass of Paul VI? On this question, everything has been said and its opposite. These are the very words of Archbishop Lefebvre who will decide the debate. Let us revive them.
It is known that the new Mass was elaborated with the help of Protestant "observers", so as not to displease the "separated brethren" who hate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. If Bishop Lefebvre did not fail to react very early to the harmfulness of this reform, taking an active part in the drafting of the Brief Critical Examination of Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci, 1 it took nevertheless several years to arrive at The position which is today that the Fraternity. This article attempts to describe its evolution.
Let us note at the outset that this long time reveals all the pastoral prudence of the missionary archbishop, who is faced with an absolutely new problem in the Church, and at the very least thorny: this new rite is full of ambiguity Calculated to satisfy the heretics, an ambiguity which does not, however, render it strictly invalid or formally heretical ... How can a faithful respond to such a ritual, which is more promulgated by Pope Paul VI? To remain a good Catholic, should he become a Protestant? The Bishop's reply is based on a statement of the facts (which he had foreseen): the fruits of this reform have produced (and still produce), throughout the years, all their bitterness. Thus the attitude of the founder of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X becomes more and more categorical. For clarity, it seemed good to distinguish three periods in the evolution of the position of Archbishop Lefebvre.
A DANGEROUS RITE
We can first distinguish an early period in the attitude of the prelate of Ecône: in his eyes, this Mass constitutes a new and perilous ritual which does not suppress the mass of always (1969-1974).
Upon the implementation of the Novus ordo, in November 1969, Archbishop Lefebvre announced to his seminarians that he would keep the traditional Mass (2). He only uses the time given by Rome, which intends to make the reform compulsory only at the end of 1971. But on this date he explains his refusal of the reform:
"If we ever took the Novus ordo missæ, we would no longer have vocations: the tree would dry up as if we had put the ax to the root."
However, he still believes that when a faithful can not attend an everlasting Mass, he can not dispense with the new Mass, as long as it is celebrated by a "worthy and faithful" priest. This precision is important because in his theological and doctrinal acumen, the Bishop denounced in 1971 the danger inherent in this reform with a Protestant tendency:
"We can therefore ask ourselves very legitimately so insensibly the Catholic faith in the eternal truths of the disappearing Mass, the validity of the Masses does not disappear too. The intention of the celebrant was that of the new conception of the Mass, which in a short time would be none other than the Protestant conception. The Mass will no longer be valid. "(5)
What he confirms in 1973:
"It is understood that our attitude will become more and more radical as time passes, disability spreading with heresy." (6)
And in 1975, it brings this frightening precision:
"All these changes in the new rite are truly perilous, because little by little, especially for the young priests, who no longer have the idea of sacrifice, real presence, transubstantiation and for which all this does not mean Nothing more, these young priests lose the intention of doing what the Church does and no longer say valid masses. Certainly the elderly priests, when they celebrate according to the new rite, still have faith forever. They said mass with the elder for so many years, they keep the same intentions, one can believe that their mass is valid. But to the extent that these intentions disappear, to this extent, the masses will no longer be valid. "(7)
A RITE THAT DOES NOT [OBLIGE]
In a second time, Bishop Lefebvre sees in the new Ordo missæ a new harmful ritual that can not oblige (1975-1979). On May 5, 1975, on the Feast of St. Pius V, the Bishop made the decision to maintain the traditional Mass at all costs. His judgment becomes more categorical as to the new Mass:
"It does not oblige for the fulfillment of the Sunday duty."
This seems to be an application of his famous declaration of 21 November 1974, which it is worth recalling. He affirms his adherence "to eternal Rome, mistress of wisdom and truth", but also his refusal "to follow the Rome of neo-modernist and neo-Protestant tendency which was clearly manifested in the Second Vatican Council and after The Council in all the reforms which have sprung from it. All these reforms have contributed and are still contributing to the demolition of the Church, the ruin of the priesthood, the annihilation of sacrifice and the sacraments, and the disappearance of religious life. No authority, even the highest in the hierarchy, can compel us to abandon or diminish our Catholic faith clearly expressed and professed by the magisterium of the Church for nineteen centuries. This reform, proceeding from liberalism, from modernism, is entirely poisoned; It emerges from heresy and ends in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical. It is therefore impossible for any conscientious and faithful Catholic to adopt this reform and to submit to it in any way whatsoever. The only attitude of fidelity to the Church and to Catholic doctrine for our salvation is the categorical refusal of acceptance of the reform ... "(10).
On August 29, 1976, in a famous homily he pronounced in Lille, Monseigneur did not mince his words and treated the new rite of "bastard mass." He explains:
"It is precisely because this union desired by the liberals, between the Church and the Revolution and subversion, is an adulterous union, only of this adulterous union can come only bastards! And who are these bastards These are our rites, the laugh of the new Mass is a bastard ritual! The sacraments are bastard sacraments: we do not know whether these sacraments give grace or do not give it. "(11)
If such remarks today shock our modern mentalities and seem scandalous to them, let us remember that they are only the fruit of a legitimate indignation. The real scandal resides in the reform itself which, by usurping the titles of the everlasting Mass, distorts the holy sacrifice, cuts off the souls of grace and takes them away from faith. So the judgment of Bishop Lefebvre is more and more severe: it is to preserve those who have not yet been contaminated by the modernist virus of this reform:
"We conform to the evolution which is gradually taking place in the minds of the priests, we must avoid, I would say almost in a radical manner, all assistance to the new Mass."
Only certain exceptions are permitted:
"It is a duty to abstain usually, to accept assistance only in exceptional cases: marriage, burials, and only if one has the moral certainty that the Mass is valid and not sacrilegious." (13)
The following year, Archbishop Lefebvre again explained, on the basis of reality, the attitude to be taken with regard to the new Mass:
"It is therefore dangerous, especially practiced regularly. It slowly and corrupts faith slowly but surely. It would be impossible, therefore, to attend only rarely and for grave reasons, by endeavoring to avoid all that would oblige us to make some odious concessions. "
We see the classical distinction which the Church gives for assistance to non-Catholic rites, and which the Monseigneur will apply to the new mass in 1979. This is what will now be the object of our study.
AN ILLEGITIMATE RITE
Finally, in a third stage (beginning in 1979), Bishop Lefebvre became more severe: he presented this Mass as a harmful ritual to which one could not participate. In a note on the Novus ordo missæ and the pope, written in 1979, Archbishop Lefebvre recalls and clarifies the Fraternity's position with regard to liturgical reform:
"These new Masses not only can not be the object of an obligation for the Sunday precept, but we must apply to them the rules of moral theology and canon law which are those of supernatural prudence in relation to participation Or assistance to a perilous action for our faith or possibly sacrilege. "(15)
Monseigneur does not want to judge the subjective fault of those who participate in such masses (16). But by appealing to the rules of Canon Law, he relies on Canon 1258. The latter forbids active assistance to a [non]Catholic rite (that is, to participate as the followers of this ritual), but allows, in certain exceptional cases (civility at a funeral etc.), purely passive assistance, provided that the scandal is dismissed.
Let us note in passing that this Canon is completed by Canon 2316, which considers as suspect of heresy the one who actively assists a [non]Catholic ritual. We see how the Monseigneur now judges the New Rite: it must be assimilated [viewed as] to the rituals of heretics and schismatics. It is only the application of what he said in 1974:
"This reform, which springs from liberalism, from modernism, is entirely poisoned; It emerges from heresy and ends in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical. "
To those who oppose him that one can not prevent a faithful from actively attending a new Mass, as long as it is valid, Monseigneur answers now, strong of the canonical principle that we have just stated:
"Let us immediately destroy this absurd idea: if the new Mass is valid, we can participate in it. The Church has always forbidden to attend the masses of schismatics and heretics, even if they are valid. It is evident that we can not participate in sacrilegious masses, nor in masses that place our faith in danger. "(18)
As for those who, recognizing the excellence of the traditional Mass, find it merely "better" than the new ritual, they are, according to the Archbishop, "so-called" traditionalists "..." :
"We do not accept this at all. To say that the new Mass is good, no! The new Mass is not good! If it was good, tomorrow we should take it, it's obvious!" (19)
No, for Monseigneur there is no possible equality between the everlasting Mass and the new Mass. They are diametrically opposed. Indeed,
"Mass is the flag of the Catholic faith... [It] puts aside all the errors of Protestantism, Islam, Judaism, modernism, materialistic, socialist and communist secularism. There can be no mistake in our Holy Catholic mMss. The Mass is anti-ecumenical, in the sense in which ecumenism is understood since the Council: the union of all religions in a syncretism of prayer without dogmas, of morality with imprecise laws, agreeing on equivocal slogans: rights of the Human dignity - religious freedom. The New Mass, on the other hand, is indeed the flag of this false ecumenism, which represents the annihilation of the Catholic religion and the Catholic priesthood. "
He also confirmed in 1983 that "these are more than sufficient grounds for not conferring on him the titles reserved for the Catholic Mass for ever, regardless of the rites." (21)
Finally, in 1985, Archbishop Lefebvre addressed all the puzzled Catholics in these terms, summarizing what we have just said:
"Your perplexity then perhaps takes the following form: can I attend a Sacrilegious Mass, but which is valid, if there is no other, and to satisfy the Sunday obligation? The answer is simple: these masses can not be the object of an obligation; We must also apply to them the rules of moral theology and canon law as regards the participation or assistance in a perilous action for the faith or possibly sacrilege. The new mass, even if it is said with piety and respect for liturgical norms, falls under the same reservations since it is imbued with a Protestant spirit. "(22)
CAUTION OF A PRELATE
We were able to follow the long journey of Archbishop Lefebvre, who has not been as fast as some other heroes of Tradition, to arrive at the same conclusions as them.
We have understood that its apparent slowness has been linked to the complexity of the new Rite itself. But this delay can only increase his credibility: a prudent man, of a tried faith, has taken his time to judge of something so serious. No one can accuse Archbishop Lefebvre of haste. The position he has adopted is wise, based not only on the experience of facts, but on the principles of the Church of forever. This herald of Christ the King thus knew how to give the crisis a clear and sure answer, because Catholic.
It is because he understood that "Satan reigns by the ambiguity and incoherence which are his means of fighting and which deceive men of little faith." (24)
Also, in this same wake and to keep this same fidelity, Monsignor Bernard Fellay declared in 2006:
"As long as Vatican II and the new Mass remain the norm, an agreement with Rome is a suicide." (25)
Notes
(1) - Cf. Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Marcel Lefebvre, a lifetime, Clovis, 2002, pp. 419 et seq.
(2) - Ibid., P. 441.
(3) - Ibid., P. 488.
(4) - Ibid., P. 442. Archbishop Lefebvre insisted on this point in 1972 with his seminarians: "If a pious priest finds himself saying the new Mass by making it as traditional as possible, it is good that you attend it to satisfy the Sunday precept. "(Ibid., 490).
(5) - A bishop speaks, DMM, p. 143.
(6) - Monsignor Tissier, op. Cit., P. 490.
(7) - A bishop speaks, op. Cit., Pp. 285-286.
(8) - Monsignor Tissier, op. Cit., P. 508, note 3. It was the very day of the funeral of Father Calmel, a great defender of Tradition.
(9) - Ibid., P. 490.
(10) - Declaration of 21 November 1974, in A Bishop speaks, op. Cit., Pp. 270 ff. It should be noted that two years later, in an interview book prefaced by himself (No, Interviews of José Hanu with Archbishop Lefebvre, Stock, 1977), Monseigneur acknowledged that he had drawn up this statement with indignation, He adds, "this declaration remains, in fact, always more current and more true in the light of the ever more bitter fruits of the Council" (p.
(11) - Sermon of August 29, 1976 in Lille, in Ecône, pulpit of truth (Iris, 2015), pp. 997-998.
(12) - Monsignor Tissier, op. Cit., P. 491.
(13) - The Master Stroke of Satan, St. Gabriel, 1977, p. 46.
(14) - The Mass of Always, Clovis, 2006, p. 392.
(15) - Ibid., P. 391.
(16) - Ibid., P. 397.
(17) - Declaration of 21 November 1974, in A Bishop speaks, op. Cit., Pp. 270 ff.
(18) - See the Mass of the Almighty, Clovis, 2006, p. 391.
(19) - Ibid., P. 379.
(20) - Letter to friends and benefactors, February 1982.
(21) - Letter to friends and benefactors, March 1983.
(22) - Open letter to perplexed Catholics, Albin Michel, 1985, pp. 42-43.
(23) - As an example, what Mgr de Castro Mayer asserted in January 1970, ie only a month after the entry into force of the Novus ordo: "After careful reflection, I am convinced that Can not participate in the new mass and even, to be there, one must have a serious reason. We can not collaborate in the dissemination of a rite which, although not heretical, leads to heresy. "(Letter from Bishop de Castro Mayer to Archbishop Lefebvre, in Bishop Tissier, p.
(24) - The Master's Stroke of Satan, St. Gabriel, 1977, p. 9.
(25) - "Vatican II, The authority of a council in question", Vu de Haut, n ° 13, autumn 2006, p. 8.
|
|
|
|
| Pro-life Catholic clinic in Denver area vandalized, suspect quickly arrested |
|
Posted by: Stone - 09-27-2022, 04:53 AM - Forum: Anti-Catholic Violence
- No Replies
|
|
Pro-life Catholic clinic in Denver area vandalized, suspect quickly arrested
![[Image: denver-vandalism-2.png?w=670&h=447]](https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/storage/image/denver-vandalism-2.png?w=670&h=447)
Graffiti on the exterior of Bella Health + Wellness in Englewood, Colorado, on Sept. 25, 2022. | Courtesy of Bella Health + Wellness
CNA Denver, Colo., | Sep 25, 2022
A suspect was quickly arrested in the vandalism of a Denver-area Catholic pro-life medical clinic. It is not clear whether the clinic was targeted for its pro-life Catholic mission, though the various graffiti included a reference to Satan and a stylized depiction of a devilish character.
“We are sad to have to share that our clinic was just vandalized,” Bella Health + Wellness medical group said Sept. 25 in a 3 p.m. Facebook post including some photos of the vandalism. “If you could take a moment today to pray for our mission, our team and their families, and our patients, we would be grateful!”
The medical group sought help to repair the building before patients arrived Monday morning.
![[Image: denver-vandalism-1.jpg?w=600]](https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/storage/image/denver-vandalism-1.jpg?w=600)
The Englewood clinic’s front double-glass doors normally show the words “Bella Health + Wellness,” among other words. Spray-painted red lines obscured most of the words.
Near the doors, the building was spray painted in red with phrases of what appeared to be graffiti slang including the phrase “IC Redall is boy.”
A large dumpster alongside the building was tagged with large graffiti and the word “Satan” next to a multicolored, devilish-looking spray-painted face.
After 7 p.m. on Sunday, Bella’s social media reported that the Englewood Police Department had made an arrest. Its Facebook post said “huge thanks to the Englewood Police Department.”
Bella is a nonprofit medical practice that operates in alignment with Catholic teaching. Archbishop Samuel Aquila of Denver praised the practice at its December 2014 launch. It offers full OB-GYN care with a specialization in NAPRO technologies as well as family primary care, including pediatrics.
According to its website, Bella served more than 1,700 patients in 2021 and provided almost $250,000 in free care. It says 382 babies were born with Bella’s assistance, 981 Medicaid patients were served, and another 622 patients were served in partnership with Marisol Health, the pro-life medical centers of Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Denver.
“Bella has a mission to protect life-affirming, dignified health care,” the clinic says on the front page of its website. “We believe providers and patients deserve to act according to their own medical consciences.”
|
|
|
|
| New Zealand Prime Minister Calls For A Global Censorship System |
|
Posted by: Stone - 09-27-2022, 04:43 AM - Forum: Global News
- No Replies
|
|
New Zealand Prime Minister Calls For A Global Censorship System
ZH | SEP 26, 2022
Authored by Jonathan Turley,
New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is the latest liberal leader to call for an international alliance to censor speech. Unsatisfied with the unprecedented corporate censorship of social media companies, leaders like Hillary Clinton have turned from private censorship to good old-fashioned state censorship. Speech regulation has become an article of faith on the left. Ardern used her speech this week to the United Nations General Assembly to call for censorship on a global scale.
Ardern lashed out at “disinformation” and called for a global coalition to control speech. After nodding toward free speech, she proceeded to lay out a plan for its demise through government regulation:
Quote:But what if that lie, told repeatedly, and across many platforms, prompts, inspires, or motivates others to take up arms. To threaten the security of others. To turn a blind eye to atrocities, or worse, to become complicit in them. What then?
This is no longer a hypothetical. The weapons of war have changed, they are upon us and require the same level of action and activity that we put into the weapons of old.
We recognized the threats that the old weapons created. We came together as communities to minimize these threats. We created international rules, norms and expectations. We never saw that as a threat to our individual liberties – rather, it was a preservation of them. The same must apply now as we take on these new challenges.
Ardern noted how extremists use speech to spread lies without noting that non-extremists use the same free speech to counter such views. To answer her question on “how do you tackle climate change if people do not believe it exists” is that you convince people using the same free speech. Instead, Ardern appears to want to silence those who have doubts.
While referring to a global censorship coalition as a “light-touch approach to disinformation,” Ardern revealed how sweeping such a system would likely be. She defended the need for such global censorship on having to combat those who question climate change and the need to stop “hateful and dangerous rhetoric and ideology.”
Quote:“After all, how do you successfully end a war if people are led to believe the reason for its existence is not only legal but noble? How do you tackle climate change if people do not believe it exists? How do you ensure the human rights of others are upheld, when they are subjected to hateful and dangerous rhetoric and ideology?”
That is the same rationale used by authoritarian countries like China, Iran, and Russia to censor dissidents, minority groups, and political rivals. What is “hateful” and “dangerous” is a fluid concept that government have historically used to silence critics or dissenters.
Ardern is the smiling face of the new generation of censors. At least the old generation of censors like the Iranians do not pretend to support free speech and openly admit that they are crushing dissent. The point is that we need to be equally on guard when censorship is pushed from the left with the best of motivations and the worst of means.
As the great civil libertarian Justice Louis Brandeis once said, “the greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.”
|
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre 1990: Concerning the New Mass |
|
Posted by: Stone - 09-26-2022, 11:12 AM - Forum: Sermons and Conferences
- No Replies
|
|
Extract from the conference of April 11th, 1990, given in Écône by His Excellency, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
on the Oath of fidelity to the positions of the SSPX. (Part II, about the N.O.M)
Taken from here [adapted, emphasis mine].
So, concerning the Rite of the Mass, you have three small articles on it:
"I admit that the Masses celebrated according to the new rite are not all invalid, in view of the bad translations, of [its] ambiguity ..."
You have on that subject some explanations from the book of Mr. Salleron, those are in my opinion, probably the best ones which were given and the most complete. He really made a study on Novus Ordo. It's hard to do it more perfectly and more completely then what he did very courageously. He is not afraid to say in which way the Novus Ordo is equivocal. There are three chapters, one after the other, which show that it is equivocal and it is clear that the Novus Ordo favors heresy. For those reasons, the Novus Ordo is a failure. There are three chapters which are very well written for us now.
Also, his whole analysis of the Novus Ordo and the whole history with all very well studied documents are really enlightening. If someone is still adhering to the Novus Ordo after having read that book, it is because he will never understand anything. Besides, that is why I brought it with me to the Holy Office. And then, when they talked with me about the Novus Ordo they interrogated me. “So concerning the Novus Ordo; how is it that you say some rather serious things about it?” So, I can assure you they asked me questions. It's shocking... “Do you maintain that a faithful Catholic can think and affirm that a sacramental Rite, especially the one of the Mass, approved and promulgated by the Pope, can be nonconforming with the Catholic faith or favor heresy?” I said: “Well here! You are holding the book. It’s not even my words, you see! But I agree absolutely with what he says: equivocal Mass, Mass favoring heresy ...”
So, I also advise you to have this in your library, this book by Salleron, and to give it to the people who are hesitant. “But, even so, [in] the Novus Ordo, we know priests who are brave, who are good and who are trying say it well etc.…” Read this! You will see! It is the Novus Ordo in itself! It is not the priest who is saying it. It is not because he says it piously or anything that the New Rite changes. It is not because it changes anything in the Rite of the Mass. It is obvious that this new Rite is a Rite that has been made only to draw us closer to the Protestants! That is clear! Finally, clear!
On this subject, reread also the article by Father Boyer in the supplement of the Catholic Theological Dictionary. After the table of contents, there are a few articles and in particular a very long article by Father Boyer who was my teacher at the Gregorian, who is now dead, and who was very highly regarded, a man of value who was, for some time, Secretary of the Secretariat for Christian unity. Basically, I think he was named in this Secretariat to give a slightly more traditional image and to give some confidence to the people. As you know, Father Boyer was a respected man, highly regarded in Roman circles and among teachers. He wrote a long article on ecumenism, an article very well documented where he quotes some phrases of Pope Paul VI requesting that we go as far as possible in suppressing everything that can hinder the Protestants in our ceremonies, excluding, obviously, what might be contrary to the Faith. But, I do not see how we can change the texts of our Mass and diminish them without harming the Faith? It is not possible! The Mass is everything! Once we remove what bothers the Protestants, how can we say that we are not going to touch the Faith? It is contradictory. They are unbelievable orders, and that is literally written by Father Boyer. So what do you want to do?
"And that's why I never will celebrate the Mass according to the New Rite, even under threat of ecclesiastical penalties and I will never advise anyone positively to participate actively in such a mass."
Because people are still asking us those questions: “I have not the Mass of St. Pius V on Sunday, and there is a Mass said by a priest that I know well, a holy man, so, wouldn’t be better to go to the Mass of this priest, even if it is the New Mass but said with piety instead of retaining myself?”
No! That's not true! This is not true! Because this Rite is bad! Is bad, is bad. This is the reason why this rite is bad, [it] is poisoned! It is a Rite poisoned! Mr. Salleron says it very well here: "It is not a choice between two rites that would be good! This is a choice between a Catholic Rite and a rite practically, neighboring the Protestantism!” Its harm our Faith, the Catholic Faith!
So, it is out of question to encourage people to go to Mass in the New Rite, because slowly, even without realizing it, they end up ecumenist! It’s strange, but it's like that. It is a fact. Then, ask them questions on ecumenism, on what they think of the relations with other religions and you will see! They are all ecumenist. For the priest himself, the fact of saying this [New] Mass and celebrating it in a constant manner, even without thinking about anything, about its origin, or why it was made, turns him and the people who assist to it ecumenist. And, if we are asking them about ecumenism, their answer will be: “But of course! We can be saved in all religions, it's obvious! This is the New Mass, the Novus Ordo Missae.
Of course, that's why it is said: “in a positive manner to participate actively at such a Mass." But we can eventually, for reasons, as it is written in Canon Law like Orthodox ceremonies, assist passively. For a wedding, parent’s funerals or things like that, where we feel obliged to be present and we cannot do otherwise, we assist passively. We don’t receive Communion, we are not participating in the Mass, but we are doing it more out of politeness towards the people who assist to it, than for assisting at the sacrifice of the Mass. Those are conditions that are already mentioned in the Canon Law, the old Canon Law. But attending to [the Novus Ordo] in order to replace Sunday Mass … No! It is better to stay home reading and going once a month. Make the effort to go once a month and do 100 km if necessary, to attend the Catholic Mass! Like in the missions, we were visiting our faithful [in Africa] three times a year. We could not do more! That was the average. This didn’t mean that they were bad Christians. They could not do it otherwise. It is not an impossible thing. So we say: "But am I not doing a grave sin by not going to Mass?” Not at that Mass! It does not oblige under pain of grave sin. We are never forced to do an act that tends to diminish our faith. It's not possible. God cannot force us to do an act like this. On the other hand, we are seriously obliged to do everything possible to attend the Mass of St. Pius V, the Catholic Mass. There, the obligation remains, but not for a rite that is almost Protestant. On the contrary, there is an obligation not to go.
I'm a little surprised, you know. Sometimes, I receive a lot of requests for consultations from our priests who are in the priories and some are asking me: “What should one reply to a person who says he cannot have the Mass of St. Pius V and who believes that he is under the obligation to go to a Mass of the New Rite, said by a good priest, a serious priest who offers all the guarantees almost of holiness? etc. “But, I do not understand how they cannot answer this by themselves! They don’t find the conclusion by themselves and they feel obliged to ask me such a thing. It's incredible! So you see, there are still some who hesitate. This is unbelievable!
And that, you will see, will be mandatory for those who have left us. For the FSSP, for Dom Gerard, even if they never say the New Rite themselves, even if they have our convictions, they will be obliged, to consider the New Rite with the same value as the traditional rite! In practice, when they will receive the priests who will come to see them, they will be obliged to let them say their Mass and tell them: "No problem. But of course, say your Mass." This is fatal! They cannot do otherwise. Look at the cohabitation of the two rites with Father Lafargue! In Paris there, with Father Veuillet! And beware! Father Lafargue and Father Veuillet must not go tell the others that their mass is bad or say: "you must come with me, you must come with us." It is well marked in the contracts. The two Rites are valid, do not criticize ... So, this is not possible. It is impossible otherwise. They are trapped!
|
|
|
|
| St. Augustine: On [Religious] Seditions |
|
Posted by: Stone - 09-25-2022, 01:27 PM - Forum: The Saints
- No Replies
|
|
St Augustine - On Seditions
“Often, too, Divine Providence permits even good men to be driven from the congregation of Christ by the turbulent seditions of carnal men. When for the sake of the peace of the Church, they patiently endure that insult or injury, and attempt no novelties in the way of heresy or schism. They will teach men how God is to be served with a true disposition and with great and sincere charity. The intention of such men is to return when the tumult has subsided. But if that is not permitted because the storm continues or because a fiercer one might be stirred up by their return, they hold fast to their purpose to look to the good even of those responsible for the tumults and commotions that drove them out. They form no separate sects of their own, but defend to the death and assist by their testimony the faith which they know is preached in the Catholic Church. These the Father who seeth in secret crowns secretly. It appears that this is a rare kind of Christian, but examples are not lacking. So Divine Providence uses all kinds of men as examples for the oversight of souls and for the building up of his spiritual people.”
St. Augustine, Of True Religion, 6,11
|
|
|
|
| God Wishes to Reveal & Honor Mary in These Latter Times |
|
Posted by: Stone - 09-25-2022, 07:35 AM - Forum: Our Lady
- No Replies
|
|
God Wishes to Reveal & Honor Mary in These Latter Times
Taken from True Devotion to Mary, trans. by Fr. William Faber,
London: 1863, Part One, No. 49
![[Image: NiZwaWQ9QXBp]](https://imgs.search.brave.com/XpqdxGq_sqpXJSNX22ipEhgC7o1vXwoB7x4ashjKHfU/rs:fit:354:225:1/g:ce/aHR0cHM6Ly90c2Uy/Lm1tLmJpbmcubmV0/L3RoP2lkPU9JUC5v/YkVyamhCd2FXcjR1/UEZDTTAtQ2lBSGFK/NiZwaWQ9QXBp)
St. Louis Grignion de Montfort, the Prophet of the Latter Times, stresses the essential role of Mary in the crisis we are facing today. This coincides with the doctrine always held in the Holy Church that she, as Co-Redemptrix, has received an almost infinite power for dispensing the fruits of Redemption. She is the mighty helper of the Catholic people, the restorer of the world, the impregnable rampart of the Church, the solid foundation of the Faith.
May Her glorious past in destroying heresies and toppling the evil give us confidence for the future.
St. Louis Grignion de Montfort
It is by Mary that the salvation of the world has begun, and it is by Mary that is must be consummated. Mary has hardly appeared at all in the first coming of Jesus Christ, in order that men, as yet but little instructed and enlightened on the Person of her Son, should not remove themselves from Him, in attaching themselves too strongly and too grossly to her.
This would have apparently taken place, if she had been known, because of the admirable charms which the Most High had bestowed even upon her exterior. This is so true that St. Denys the Areopagite has informed us in his writings that when he saw our Blessed Lady, he should have taken her for a Divinity in consequence of her secret charms and incomparable beauty, had not the Faith in which he was well established taught him the contrary.
But in the second coming of Jesus Christ, Mary has to be made known and revealed by the Holy Ghost, in order that by her Jesus Christ may be known, loved and served. The reasons which moved the Holy Ghost to hide His Spouse during her life and to reveal her but a very little since the preaching of the Gospel, subsist no longer.
God, then, wishes to reveal and recognize Mary, the masterpiece of His hands, in these Latter Times. ...
Being the way by which Jesus Christ came to us the first time, Our Lady will also be the way by which He will come the second time, though not in the same manner. Mary must shine forth more than ever in mercy, in might and in grace in these Latter Times to come:
In mercy, to bring back and lovingly receive the poor strayed sinners who shall be converted and shall return to the Catholic Church;
In might, against the enemies of God, idolaters, schismatics, Mohammedans, Jews, and souls hardened in impiety who shall rise in terrible revolt against God to seduce all those who shall be contrary to them, and make them fall by promises and threats;
And finally, she must shine forth in grace, in order to animate and sustain the valiant soldiers and faithful servants of Jesus Christ, who shall do battle for His interests. Holy Mary must be terrible as an army ranged in battle, principally in these Latter Times.
It is principally of these last and cruel persecutions of the Devil, which shall go on increasing daily till the reign of Antichrist, that we ought to understand and celebrated the prediction and curse of God, pronounced in the terrestrial Paradise against the Serpent: I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed.
|
|
|
|
| The Meat Replacement Hypothesis |
|
Posted by: Stone - 09-23-2022, 08:59 AM - Forum: General Commentary
- No Replies
|
|
The Meat Replacement Hypothesis:
The plot to eliminate animal protein is well ahead of your plans to keep eating it.
American Mind [adapted - emphasis mine] | September 22, 2022
Farmers across the world are in open revolt against their governments. In India, thousands of farmers have stormed New Delhi, alleging collusion between the Prime Minister and major agricultural corporations. In the Netherlands, new restrictions on nitrogen emissions from fertilizer that threaten to destroy farmers’ livelihoods have driven battalions of tractors into the streets—and conflicts with the police. In Sri Lanka, the President’s sudden decision to ban chemical fertilizers and impose universal organic farming recently led to massive protests and the collapse of their government. Similar environmentalist policies are about to be imposed in Ireland and Canada, where just last year truckers shut down the city of Ottawa over COVID vaccination mandates.
Writing for National Review, Andrew Stuttaford predicts an impending farmer’s uprising in Canada in response to what he calls Canada’s “war on beef.” The phrase echoes a common belief on the American right that leftists seek to hyper-regulate or outright ban animal protein in the same way they do guns or fossil fuels. The Foundation for Economic Education began talking about a “war on meat” as early as 2019. Senator Joni Ernst referenced “the left’s war on meat” to advocate her TASTEE Act last year. John Daniel Davidson of The Federalist recently warned that “America is Next” for a farmer uprising, due to the climate policies that Democrats are imposing here. Ultimately, many Americans have come to agree that this war on meat is a conspiracy of globalist elites, attributing even everyday agricultural misfortunes such as fertilizer scarcity, diesel fuel price hikes, widespread food processing and crop fires, and supply chain disruptions to a purposeful agenda.
The concern is warranted. Upending the meat industry for environmental or health reasons should not be a serious policy debate. Ranchers and farmers are the only source of the nutritious, whole protein that nearly every culture includes in its cuisine. For all but the most religious vegan or “food activism” theorist, there is little doubt that including animal protein in your diet keeps you leaner and stronger, alive longer, and free of chronic illness.
Eat the Bugs
I presented the question of a “war on meat” to John Cain Carter, a cattle rancher whose operations in Texas and Brazil led him to establish the well-known rainforest conservation organization Aliança da Terra. Through his advocacy, he is deeply familiar with the world of pro-environment NGOs, but despite working in the same field, he does not view them positively. Groups like the World Wildlife Fund, Greenpeace, The Nature Conservancy, The Rockefeller Foundation and others are engaged, says Carter, in a “siege on the beef business” and “an attack exquisitely planned as far back as the 1950s.”
“These groups want to wipe out independent family ranches in advance of corporate takeover,” Carter said, “And they push for policies that increase input costs and keep commodity prices stagnant while inflation rises.” And governments, he continued, are more than happy to oblige “under the auspices of climate change, animal welfare, and endangered species to restrict grazing rights, control water usage, and enact other regulations.” In essence, Carter was describing a hostile, focused agenda that was neither accidental nor disorganized.
Many governments and influential NGOs regularly call for the end of meat-based diets, and take steps to ensure that meat is eaten less. Most notoriously, World Economic Forum chair Klaus Schwab has made reducing meat consumption an essential element of the WEF’s “Great Reset” plan. Along with the WEF, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the EU’s “Green Deal” call for less meat-based diets. Germany, Denmark, and Sweden have proposed a meat tax as a way to reduce carbon emissions from cows. All of these measures focused on the meat industry as a significant driver of climate change.
Texas cattle rancher Bart Simmons, who has built a social media presence to counter what he calls “elite anti-meat messaging,” considers such arguments pernicious. “The anti-meat movement effectively tied methane from cattle as a cause for climate change early on in the debate, and it stuck,” Simmons told me. “The EPA attributes only 1.9% of America’s greenhouse gases to methane and nitrous oxide from beef cattle, less than a tenth of other industries like electricity or transportation.” If there is a war on beef, it’s misguided.
This is especially true when we scrutinize what would replace meat in the global diet. The famous expression “we will not eat the bugs” has become a canned response to global initiatives focused on protein derived from crickets or mealworms. But the meat replacement industry is even more technologically savvy: Bill Gates, Richard Branson, and other billionaires have begun heavily investing in laboratory meat products (which they ironically call “clean meat”) grown from stem cells, soy, gelatin, and genetically-engineered yeast. An NYU researcher has even proposed making modifications to human bodies to make us smaller and allergic to meat, specifically citing the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as a motivation. On the economic side, one of the WEF’s favored startups, Doconomy, has introduced a “carbon credit card” which will shut off if the user purchases too much meat. Such climate-conscious financial practices align well with the World Bank’s Food Systems 2030 plan, which shares the same views on global agriculture.
Meat Coupons
It’s not extreme to call this trend a “War on Meat” and to point out that it is being waged by leftist elites. The top left-aligned newspaper The New York Times has called meat-eating racist, the Soros- and Ford-funded organization Open Democracy has called it “far-right”, and President Joe Biden has called for reducing red meat consumption by 90 percent. Agriculture and diet have now become a partisan struggle.
On the other hand, most leftists still eat meat, and anti-meat messaging still occupies a fairly small political niche. In fact, even the globalist organizations mentioned above are not always anti-meat in their official statements and documents. The WEF acknowledges that meat is and always will be a core part of many diets, and ought to be, given its nutritional value. The EU’s Nutri-Score, which is part of the Green Deal, rates meat products very highly as healthy choices, despite the overall program attacking meat consumption.
Whatever the urgency or seriousness of this conspiracy against meat, it would be a mistake to ignore the elites’ anti-meat trend or think it doesn’t affect us personally. Food is never just an individual choice. The unprecedented bounty of the twenty-first century creates the illusion that food supplies are infinite. But this is not the case: meat abounds because demand is high. As meat demand falls—as it has significantly in the United Kingdom and the United States—the meat supply soon follows. If you’re not convinced, go to a few grocery stores and try to buy a jabuticaba or a cherimoya—you’ll find they are not in stock, since there is no demand for them.
As NGOs and the media attack meat from a consumption side, governments across the world attack the farming and ranching profession itself. The tax proposals that have caused the uprisings in The Netherlands and Sri Lanka are just the tip of the iceberg. In the United States, a staggering number of farmers are retirement age, with an entire career spent paying off overleveraged farm land, equipment, and supply purchases, only to have their revenue subject to the whims of price control, weather, and state and federal policies. Meanwhile, while student loans for college attendees are being forgiven, there is no such debt jubilee for farmers—in fact, agricultural debt is treated far worse.
The availability of meat is not solely a matter of government policy, either. America’s farmers generally use methods of raising cattle that enervate instead of replenishing the soil. In order for meat to be plentiful and good-quality, soil must be nutrient-rich and provide diverse vegetation for grazing. Rotational and multispecies grazing are solutions that should be more widely adopted to ensure healthier livestock and reduce the need for fertilizer and pesticide.
Whether or not there is a conspiracy against meat, pro-agriculture reforms must be a national priority. Getting to the bottom of a globalist scheme does nothing to solve the ongoing farming crisis, but neither nor does throwing up our hands as if nothing can be done against elite global planners, who desire to remake the world, but so far lack the coercive power to carry it out.
Saving Meat
Meat lovers should fortify the industry with some concrete steps. First, more robust marketing of healthy, high-quality meat is needed to counter anti-meat messaging. This will protect supply for meat by driving up demand. This is already common among independent sources like fitness and nutrition influencers, cooking and lifestyle magazines, and local trade groups. Like-minded health and wellness institutions and professionals must continue speaking the truth and countering false narratives about meat, before the anti-meat perspective becomes orthodoxy.
Secondly, the policy posture of federal regulatory agencies must refocus against toxic, exploitative food producers—not small farmers. The power of federal agencies like the FDA and USDA should be limited to their original purposes of truth-in-labeling and the protection of the food supply. The current confusion and industry invasion of meat replacements is a direct outgrowth of these agencies’ arrogating the magisterial authority to define specific types of foods. Billionaire-backed laboratory meat startups and green ideologues have pushed the USDA to allow controversial substances like the cultured tissue of fetal bovine serum to be speciously labeled “meat.”
Lastly, meat advocates must push for government policies focused on bolstering meat production and training more farmers. Even the most anti-meat globalist understands that meat is an industry employing millions of people—and the Sri Lankan revolt has demonstrated once and for all what happens when a “Great Reset” is attempted all at once. There is an opening for meat’s defenders to pass legislation that can financially incentivize certain types of healthy farming and make it possible for more young Americans to train in agricultural trades. If the current presidential administration can openly debate the cancellation of billions of dollars of student loan debt, surely we can discuss debt relief for small farmers, many of whom have mortgaged their land and remain buried in long-term interest payments.
Two things can be true at once: powerful forces can be leading opposition to healthy meat consumption, and the meat industry can do more to protect itself. To prevent meat from becoming a rare and prohibitively expensive luxury item, meat producers and consumers must work together to stop punitive legislation and propaganda from destroying meat-based nutrition. Simultaneously, strengthening and reforming the industry must become a policy and a cultural priority. Diet is the root of America’s national health—and we must strive to protect our high-quality protein from livestock agriculture.
|
|
|
|
| World Economic Forum cites compliance with COVID mandates to promote ‘climate change’ lockdowns |
|
Posted by: Stone - 09-22-2022, 05:55 AM - Forum: Great Reset
- No Replies
|
|
World Economic Forum cites compliance with COVID mandates to promote ‘climate change’ lockdowns
The WEF suggested COVID-19 lockdowns have created an environment in which
the ‘lack of social acceptance and political resistance’ to climate restrictions may be overcome.
![[Image: klaus-schwab-810x500.jpg]](https://www.lifesitenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/klaus-schwab-810x500.jpg)
Klaus Schwab speaks as part of SWITCH GREEN during day 1 of the Greentech Festival at Kraftwerk Mitte aired on September 16, 2020 in Berlin, Germany. Photo by Getty Images/Getty Images for Greentech Festival
Sep 21, 2022
GENEVA, Switzerland (LifeSiteNews) — The World Economic Forum is boasting that mass compliance with draconian COVID-19 mandates “demonstrated the core of individual social responsibility” and helped pave the way for upcoming “climate”-related restrictions.
Headed by German engineer, economist, and COVID-19: The Great Reset author Klaus Schwab, the WEF made the connection in a September 14 report associated with its ongoing 2022 Sustainable Development Impact Meetings.
Quote:BREAKING: Davos launching new push for permanent “climate change” lockdowns: “The lockdowns aren’t for them, the lockdowns are for YOU.”
pic.twitter.com/nweQNmVqqN
— Jack Posobiec ?? (@JackPosobiec) September 20, 2022
The WEF report suggested moves to track and restrict personal carbon usage has had “limited success due to a lack of social acceptance, political resistance, and a lack of awareness and fair mechanism for tracking ‘My Carbon’ emissions.”
However, the document noted that the unprecedented response to COVID-19 has created an environment in which that “lack of social acceptance and political resistance” may be overcome.
“A huge number of unimaginable restrictions for public health were adopted by billions of citizens across the world,” the report read. “There were numerous examples globally of maintaining social distancing, wearing masks, mass vaccinations and acceptance of contact-tracing applications for public health, which demonstrated the core of individual social responsibility.”
According to the report, that compliance “could help realise ‘My Carbon’ initiatives for shaping the future towards smart and sustainable cities.”
RELATED: COVID was just the beginning: Climate lockdowns are the next stage of the Great Reset agenda
The authors of the paper pointed out that the ascendency of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and “Smart” technology emerging from the so-called Fourth Industrial Revolution have provided platforms whereby personal consumption of energy can be monitored and limited.
The document cited “major advances in smart home technologies, transport choices with carbon implications,” and “the roll-out of smart meters” that the WEF said helps people choose “to reduce their energy-related emissions.”
The WEF also touted “the development of new personalized apps to account for personal emissions, and better personal choices for food and consumption-related emissions.”
While the language used in the WEF’s report suggests that individuals will be able to voluntarily opt into programs limiting their alleged carbon emissions, the notion has generated concern that consumers might not always have the choice.
Earlier this month, roughly 22,000 Colorado residents were prevented from adjusting their thermostats after their opt-in “smart” thermostat company locked the devices at 78 degrees F° during a heat wave, citing a local “energy emergency.”
While the “smart” thermostat company, Xcel, emphasized to the media that the program was voluntary and incentive-based, residents said they were surprised and upset to find they couldn’t control their home temperature.
“To me, an emergency means there is, you know, life, limb, or, you know, some other danger out there — some, you know, massive wildfires,” a customer told ABC 7 Denver. “Even if it’s a once-in-a-blue-moon situation, it just doesn’t sit right with us to not be able to control our own thermostat in our house.”
Quote:22,000 people in Colorado had their thermostats locked by their utility company in 90 degree weather due to an ‘energy emergency.’
People will read stories like this, still want a refrigerator that connects to the internet, and somehow believe our grid is ready for 100% EVs.
— Lauren Boebert (@laurenboebert) September 5, 2022
This week, The Great Reset: Global Elites and the Permanent Lockdown author Marc Morano told LifeSite’s John-Henry Westen that lockdowns, restrictions, and even planned economic collapse are all part of the “climate” agenda.
“The COVID lockdowns were literally a version of what they’ve called for for decades in the climate movement,” Morano said. “I attend every United Nations climate summit, and I’m going to the one in Egypt this year … and what these summits call for … is the ‘degrowth movement,’ or ‘planned recessions’ … to fight global warming. And what that means is the government imposes slower economic growth or forces a recession to lower emissions.”
Over the summer, the WEF argued that pushing forward an “clean energy transition,” partly by hiking up already record-breaking gas prices, would be necessary for both saving democracy and staving off environmental catastrophe.
U.S. President Joe Biden, who has presided over skyrocketing inflation and historically high gas prices, drew backlash in May when he suggested that the high cost of fuel was part of an “incredible transition.”
|
|
|
|
|
