Quote:A display by the Satanic Temple that was put up near holiday decorations outside the State House is mostly back together after it was vandalized for a second time, and police say they have identified a suspect.

No arrest has been made, and police have not released the name of the suspect.

Quote:On Wednesday morning, a man from an artist coalition who did not want to give his name was working to repair the damage to the display. He said he believes the repairs will only be temporary because he thinks vandals will strike again.

'I'm sure it will happen shortly,' he said. 'That's why I keep coming over and trying to rebuild it.'

The Hidden Tortures of Our Lord & Saviour Jesus Christ

• “They pulled Him with ropes, they struck Him with fists, they pushed Him down by the hair of His head, and dragging Him with their feet, they led Him to the tribunal of Pilate.” — St. Alphonsus Liguori, The Passion and Death of Jesus Christ
  
  
• “I saw the Son of God dragged by the neck like a criminal. The priests and soldiers kicked Him and spit upon Him, while others struck Him with wooden rods, laughing as He fell to the ground.” — St. Clare of Assisi
  
  
• “I saw how they dragged Our Lord through the streets like an animal. His arms were pulled by ropes as the crowd insulted Him, throwing filth and stones at His face.” — Padre Pio
  

• “With fierce and pitiless rage, they struck Him upon His head, face, and body, shouting, ‘Prophesy! Who struck you?’” — St. Gertrude the Great
  
  
• “The guards struck Him on His head with rods; they spat in His face, threw filth into His mouth, and mocked Him, shouting, ‘Prophesy to us, O Christ, who is it that struck Thee?’” — Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich
  
  
• “The soldiers struck Him rudely in the face, and one of them gave Him so violent a blow with an iron gauntlet that He staggered and fell half-senseless to the ground.” — St. Alphonsus Liguori
  

• “His Sacred Head, crowned with thorns, was struck by the hands of the temple guards. Each blow pushed the thorns deeper, causing blood to run in streams down His face.” — St. Clare of Assisi
  
  
• “The crown of thorns was not placed gently but was slammed upon His Sacred Head by their hands. I saw them press it further with a long wooden rod, laughing as He cried out.” — Padre Pio
  
• “One of them took a thorn from His crown and drove it into His tongue, shouting, ‘Where is your wisdom now?’” — St. Mary of Jesus Crucified
  

• “They spat on His face, they covered it with filth, they struck Him with rods, they crowned Him with thorns, and they cried out, ‘Crucify Him! Crucify Him!’” — St. John Chrysostom
  
  
• “As they struck Him, I saw how blood poured from His sacred head, and the spit of the blasphemers covered His eyes. The priests laughed and encouraged the soldiers to deal harsher blows.” — St. Gertrude the Great
  
  
• “The guards spat in His face, threw filth into His mouth, and mocked Him, shouting, ‘Prophesy to us, O Christ, who is it that struck Thee?’” — Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich
  

• “The chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus executed.” — Matthew 27:20
  
  
• “They spat on His face, they covered it with filth, they struck Him with rods, they crowned Him with thorns, and they cried out, ‘Crucify Him! Crucify Him!’” — St. John Chrysostom
  
  
• “The men who were holding Jesus in custody were mocking Him and beating Him. They blindfolded Him and asked Him, ‘Prophesy! Who is it that struck You?’” — Luke 22:63-64
  

Archbishop Lefebvre was right to oppose the ‘living tradition’ of Vatican II
Although Archbishop Lefebvre’s understanding of Catholic tradition matched that of St. Paul, many proponents of change after Vatican II argued that he was mistaken in his determination to faithfully transmit the Faith that he had received.



Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre with Pope Pius XII
YouTube

Quote:Far be it from me to set myself up as pope! I am simply a bishop of the Catholic Church who is continuing to transmit Catholic doctrine. I think, and this will certainly not be too far off, that you will be able to engrave on my tombstone these words of St. Paul: ‘Tradidi quod et accepi—I have transmitted to you what I have received,’ nothing else. I am just the postman bringing you a letter. I did not write the letter, the message, this Word of God. God Himself wrote it; Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself gave it to us. As for us, we just handed it down, through these dear priests here present and through all those who have chosen to resist this wave of apostasy in the Church, by keeping the Eternal Faith and giving it to the faithful. We are just carriers of this Good News, of this Gospel which Our Lord Jesus Christ gave to us, as well as of the means of sanctification: the Holy Mass, the true Holy Mass, the true Sacraments which truly give the spiritual life.

Quote:But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema. (Galatians 1:8-9)

Quote:But, one will object, the dogma that makes Mary the Mother of God only dates back to the year 431, transubstantiation to 1215, papal infallibility to 1870 and so on. Has there not been an evolution? No, not at all. The dogmas which have been defined in the course of the ages were contained in Revelation; the Church has just made them explicit. When Pope Pius XII defined in 1950 the dogma of the Assumption, he said specifically that this truth of the assumption into Heaven of the Virgin Mary, body and soul, was included in the deposit of Revelation and already existed in the texts revealed to us before the death of the last Apostle. We cannot bring anything new into this field, we cannot add a single dogma, but only express those that exist ever more clearly, more beautifully and more loftily.

• First Vatican Council: “For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence, but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated. Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding. ‘May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding.’ St. Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium (Notebook), 28 (PL 50, 668)”
  
  
• Blessed Pius IX’s Qui Pluribus: “It is with no less deceit, venerable brothers, that other enemies of divine revelation, with reckless and sacrilegious effrontery, want to import the doctrine of human progress into the Catholic religion. They extol it with the highest praise, as if religion itself were not of God but the work of men, or a philosophical discovery which can be perfected by human means. The charge which Tertullian justly made against the philosophers of his own time ‘who brought forward a Stoic and a Platonic and a Dialectical Christianity’ can very aptly apply to those men who rave so pitiably. Our holy religion was not invented by human reason, but was most mercifully revealed by God; therefore, one can quite easily understand that religion itself acquires all its power from the authority of God who made the revelation, and that it can never be arrived at or perfected by human reason.”
  
  
• St. Pius X’s Oath Against Modernism: “I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously.”
  

Quote:Rome has asked us if we have the intention of proclaiming our rupture with the Vatican on the occasion of the Congress of Assisi. We think that the question should rather be the following: Do you believe and do you have the intention of proclaiming that the Congress of Assisi consummates the rupture of the Roman authorities with the Catholic Church? For this is the question which preoccupies those who still remain Catholic. Indeed, it is clear that since the Second Vatican Council, the Pope and the Bishops are making more and more of a clear departure from their predecessors. Everything that had been put into place by the Church in past centuries to defend the Faith, and everything that was done by the missionaries to spread it, even to the point of martyrdom, henceforth is considered to be a fault which the Church must confess and ask pardon for… We might recall here our Declaration of November 21, 1974, which remains more relevant than ever. For us, remaining indefectibly attached to the Catholic and Roman Church of all times, we are obliged to take note that this Modernist and liberal religion of modern and conciliar Rome is still distancing itself more and more from us, who profess the Catholic Faith of the eleven Popes who condemned this false religion…

Quote:The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, ‘comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. . . .’

Quote:Moreover, I should like to remind theologians and other experts in the ecclesiastical sciences that they should feel themselves called upon to answer in the present circumstances. Indeed, the extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed commitment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the Council’s continuity with Tradition, especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the Church.

Quote:Question: ‘Following the statements of some bishops, which have neither been corrected nor retracted, we ask whether the Divine Revelation should be reinterpreted in the Church according to the cultural changes of our time,  and the new anthropological vision promoted by these changes. Or if, on the contrary, the Divine Revelation is binding forever, immutable, and therefore not to be contradicted, in accordance with the dictum of the Second Vatican Council, which states that ‘the obedience of faith’ must be given to God who reveals, (Dei Verbum 5); that what is revealed for the salvation of all nations must remain ‘forever whole and alive,’ and be ‘handed on to all generations’, and that progress in understanding does not imply any change in the truth of things and words because faith is ‘handed on once and for all,’ and the Church’s Magisterium is not above the Word of God, but only teaches what has been handed on.’

Response: ‘a) The answer depends on the meaning you give to the word ‘reinterpret.’ If it is understood as ‘interpret better,’ the expression is valid. In this sense, the Second Vatican Council affirmed that it is necessary that with the work of exegetes – and I would add of theologians – ‘the judgment of the Church may mature’ (Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, 12). b) Therefore, while it is true that the Divine Revelation is immutable and always binding, the Church must be humble and recognize that she never exhausts its unfathomable richness and needs to grow in her understanding. c) Consequently, she also matures in her understanding of what she has herself affirmed in her Magisterium.’