| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 298 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 295 Guest(s)
Bing, Google, Yandex
|
|
|
| Satanic Temple sues Idaho and Indiana over Abortion Bans |
|
Posted by: Stone - 10-04-2022, 06:07 AM - Forum: Abortion
- No Replies
|
 |
Satanic Temple goes after abortion bans
Axios [adapted] | October 3, 2022
The Salem-based Satanic Temple is suing Indiana and Idaho in federal court over their abortion bans, arguing they violate the religious rights of people in those states.
Driving the news: The Satanic Temple filed its complaint against Idaho on Friday, a week after filing a similar one in Indiana.
Both states have conservative governors who support near-total abortion bans.
Meanwhile, the temple's home state of Massachusetts restricts abortions after 24 weeks with some exceptions.
Why it matters: The temple is one of several organizations suing to block state laws that almost entirely ban abortions.
The temple, a nontheistic religious group that often gets confused for the Church of Satan, has used religious freedom arguments in a similar lawsuit challenging Texas' abortion ban earlier this year.
The other side: A spokesperson for Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita told the Indianapolis Star the U.S. Supreme Court decided abortion isn't protected under the Constitution. "This new lawsuit merely offers weaker arguments for the same discredited right," the spokesperson said.
Details: In latest lawsuits, the temple argued each state's ban violates the rights of people who took contraceptives and still became pregnant, denying the right of an "involuntarily pregnant woman" to engage in the "Satanic Abortion Ritual."
The temple's ritual includes the tenet, "One's body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone."
The temple accused the states of violating the 13th Amendment, discriminating against impregnated contraceptive users and the states' own religion protections.
The temple also accused the states of unconstitutionally "taking the property of involuntarily pregnant women" (i.e. their bodies) without just compensation, noting that people get paid thousands of dollars to be surrogates, per court documents.
What they're saying: Supporters of the Dobbs decision, which effectively struck down Roe v. Wade, "have woken a sleeping giant among women politically and have stirred up a hornets' nest of legal issues," James Mac Naughton, an attorney representing the temple, tells Axios. "(Supreme Court Justice Neil) Gorsuch, you want a national debate on abortion? Congratulations, you have one."
Of note: The Satanic Temple has launched various political actions and lawsuits over the separation of church and state.
The group is also suing Boston for the right to give an invocation before city council meetings, a practice other religious groups have performed.
|
|
|
| "We Own The Science": UN Official Admits That They Partner With Google To Control Search Results |
|
Posted by: Stone - 10-04-2022, 05:56 AM - Forum: Socialism & Communism
- No Replies
|
|
"We Own The Science": UN Official Admits That They Partner With Google To Control Search Results
ZH | OCT 03, 2022
The UN’s Under-Secretary-General for Global Communications, Melissa Fleming, recently admitted in a discussion with the World Economic Forum that the globalist institution has partnered with Big Tech platforms like Google in order to control search results on subjects like climate change, making the establishment narrative the predominant narrative while suppressing information and data that runs contrary to the UN's climate agenda.
Fleming went on to state that the UN is in control of the science: “We own the science, and we think that the world should know it, and the platforms themselves also do.”
In fact, no one "owns the science" on climate change, covid, or any other issue. If the data does not support a narrative then the narrative should be abandoned as faulty. The UN seems to think otherwise.
This open admission only reconfirms what the alternative media has been saying for years, that Big Tech corporations, governments and globalist institutions are actively collaborating to crush dissenting data and opinions as a means to keep the public as ignorant of the truth as possible. Far from "fact checking" or fighting "disinformation," globalist efforts are purely about elevating their own propaganda as a means to gain more authority over society.
Carbon emissions laws associated with the UN's "Agenda 2030" give immense and intrusive power to governments over industry, private property as well as individual freedoms. It only makes sense that the UN would try to combat any information source that contradicts the implementation of such laws; they have everything to gain by preventing the public from viewing all the information and making an informed decision on their own.
|
|
|
|
| WEF Attendee Liz Truss Says British Economy "Needs A Reset" As Market Conditions Worsen |
|
Posted by: Stone - 10-04-2022, 05:52 AM - Forum: Great Reset
- No Replies
|
|
WEF Attendee Liz Truss Says British Economy "Needs A Reset" As Market Conditions Worsen
![[Image: TrussDavos1.jpg?itok=a9mEGHnt]](https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/TrussDavos1.jpg?itok=a9mEGHnt)
ZH | OCT 04, 2022
New British PM Elizabeth Truss has been touted by many including the mainstream media as a “far-right” politician with wide appeal to British conservatives. This is fast becoming a prerequisite ideological position to take in Europe as the open border/socialist policies of leftist political leaders are leaving the EU in economic ruins and as they approach an energy based catastrophe not seen since WWII.
Boris Johnson revealed himself to be nowhere near as conservative as many initially believed with his support of draconian covid mandates, stopping just short of enforcing vaccine passports but still requiring proof of vaccination for major venues. All this while holding lavish parties at his official residence during the lockdowns he helped enforce. Adding to the problem were Johnson's tax increases in the midst of an inflationary crisis, which led to widespread public discontent and his eventual resignation.
When Truss became a potential candidate to replace Johnson some in the alternative media warned that her ongoing associations with the World Economic Forum and attendance at Davos events might be a red flag of another political pretender playing at being conservative while actually serving the interests of globalist institutions. This was, of course, called conspiracy theory by “fact checkers” in the MSM.
It is a concrete reality that the new PM has been a participant in the Davos meetings held by the World Economic Forum, a central hub of globalism that acts as a think tank and propaganda mill where new narratives are born. Specifically, the WEF is most known for its “Great Reset” mantra, which is part of founder Klaus Schwab's “4th Industrial Revolution” concept. A key focus of the Great Reset is something called the “Shared Economy,” which is described as the complete erasure of private property and the implementation of communist-like governance over individual economic participation.
The Shared Economy is the source of the phrase “You will own nothing and be happy,” which actually comes from an article written by the WEF and published by Forbes Magazine titled 'Welcome To 2030: I Own Nothing, Have No Privacy And Life Has Never Been Better.'
Far from being a “conspiracy theory,” the Great Reset is commonly presented by the WEF as the ultimate end game – An agenda, not just an idea. This has rightly caused concern among the public, because many WEF concepts that are presented at Davos end up being adopted by major governments and instituted into law. And, many Davos attendees tend to climb the political ladder rather quickly into positions of significant power.
Any legitimate conservative leader or candidate would therefore know about globalist terminology such are the term “Reset” and try to avoid using it at all costs.
No right wing leader would want to be associated with a globalist agenda that the majority of conservatives would rather go to war against.
It could be taken as a limited gaff or mistake, but Truss' recent use of the term raises eyebrows considering her past affiliations with the WEF. She states that:
Quote:“We believe in making it easier for our wealth creators, doers and makers to get things done...
Britain’s economy needs a reset. We cannot continue on the current trajectory of managed decline. Instead, we must take a new direction. I will lead us down that path to a better future.”
This comment was made not long after Truss addressed the plunge of the Pound and the near bankruptcy of the UK pension system.
A key requirement built into any economic “reset” would be the collapse of the old model. Truss might simply be describing what is likely to happen rather than what she wants to happen, but she does present the concept of a reset as a solution, and not as a threat. Meaning, she should be watched carefully by conservatives.
|
|
|
|
| Federal Reserve announces social credit system ‘exercise’ to ensure banks comply with ‘climate’ mode |
|
Posted by: Stone - 10-03-2022, 10:51 AM - Forum: General Commentary
- Replies (1)
|
|
Federal Reserve announces social credit system ‘exercise’ to ensure banks comply with ‘climate’ models
‘Climate finance’ is almost identical to that of the Chinese Communist Party's social credit score system.
Jordan
Schachtel
Mon Oct 3, 2022
(The Dossier) – The Federal Reserve has taken a major step in the direction of facilitating an ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) compliant monetary network that effectively acts as a parallel system to that of the Chinese Communist Party’s infamous social credit scoring system.
The Fed said in a statement Thursday:
Quote:Six of the nation’s largest banks will participate in a pilot climate scenario analysis exercise designed to enhance the ability of supervisors and firms to measure and manage climate-related financial risks. Scenario analysis—in which the resilience of financial institutions is assessed under different hypothetical climate scenarios—is an emerging tool to assess climate-related financial risks, and there will be no capital or supervisory implications from the pilot.
In other words, The Fed is working with the big banks to monitor their ability to comply with the ruling class’s preferred enviro statist technocratic tyranny.
The unaccountable people behind the American money printer claim that this exercise is “exploratory in nature and does not have capital consequences.”
The statement adds that the “scenario analysis can assist firms and supervisors in understanding how climate-related financial risks may manifest and differ from historical experience.”
What exactly does this mean?
The Fed is clearly leaning into the climate hoax narrative, or the pseudoscientific idea that humans are catastrophically impacting the climate, but not because they somehow care about the environment. The climate narrative is the chief rhetorical facilitator for the ESG movement.
ESG acts as a trojan horse for the continuing centralization of the American financial system. ESG finance, popularized by hyper political asset management behemoths like BlackRock and Vanguard, acts to prevent outsiders from challenging the regime-connected insiders on Wall Street and in Washington, under the guise of acting to manifest a healthier planet.
In other words, pro-ESG institutions are committed to attacking free market principles by means of deception, preferring the CCP-style “stakeholder capitalism” that allows for a small group of technocratic elites to make broad determinations about society.
Unsurprisingly, the legacy media has thus far cheered The Fed’s plan, with The New York Times reporting “that it often lagged behind its global peers when it comes to talking about and coming up with a plan for policing risks related to climate change.”
The ESG “green transition,” frequently popularized by powerful world governments and the Davos elite, has served as the main vehicle for this movement. Akin to the Chinese social credit score, which is used to coerce businesses, and, by extension, individuals, into specific actions, ESG rules force individuals and businesses in America to deploy capital through the gatekeepers of the system.
The Federal Reserve statement continues:
Quote:By considering a range of possible future climate pathways and associated economic and financial developments, scenario analysis can assist firms and supervisors in understanding how climate-related financial risks may manifest and differ from historical experience.
The banks involved in this pilot program are Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, and Wells Fargo.
Of course, it’s just a scenario, until it’s not. The Fed pilot program is set to launch in early 2023.
|
|
|
|
| The True Colors of Benedict XVI |
|
Posted by: Stone - 10-03-2022, 10:06 AM - Forum: The Architects of Vatican II
- Replies (4)
|
|
The True Colors of Benedict XVI
TIA | May 16, 2005
My friend Jan couldn’t understand why I was not exulting with her in April over the news of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger as the next Pontiff. “He is so-ooo conservative!” she exclaimed, “Even more than John Paul II!”
It hardly needs to be said that many, myself included, did not consider JPII a conservative Pope. Quite the opposite. Ratzinger solidly supported the progressivist initiatives and errors of JPII regarding religious liberty, conciliar ecumenism, collegiality, unity of the Church, and feminism that have changed the face of the Catholic Church since Vatican II. In fact, in the theater of the last Papacy, where JPII was the on-stage star, one might say Ratzinger was a behind-the-scenes director of the production. Now that the director was given a stage role, my first indication was to think things would continue along the same progressivist pathway. More of the same, with no real change in sight.
Because of an artificial propaganda campaign presenting Ratzinger as doctrinally orthodox and traditional minded, it was not surprising to find media-influenced Catholics ecstatic and hopeful that the progressivist tide had turned with his election, and a grand restoration was en route. It was startling, however, to find sectors, significant sectors, of the traditionalist milieus joining that choir. “Give him a chance,” they were all were insisting, sharing the irrational optimism in the air after the last conclave.
Some of them were already pompously stating that “an authentic interpretation of Vatican II” - which Ratzinger purports to make - could bring about this desired restoration. I thought, “How curious that these supposed traditionalists surrendered so easily on the main point of our resistance against the conciliar Popes, that is to say, Vatican II and the inadmissible bad consequences that came in its wake. Were they ever really serious partisancs of the resistance to the evil that the Council executed, or were they just feigning objections to impress an audience?”
Ratzinger's progressivist colors so far unchanged.
This was my reaction. But, I decided to remain quiet for awhile and wait a bit to see what Pope Ratzinger would do.
Well, he has already begun to reveal his position. The first actions and addresses of Benedict XVI give no cause to imagine that the progressivist Cardinal Ratzinger has changed colors. Although much could be said about his progressivist stances as Cardinal, let me limit myself in this article to pointing out some of the things Ratzinger has said and done since he was raised to the Papacy.
One of his first statements after the announcement he had been elected Pope was his proclamation of full and complete support for Vatican II. In his first Papal message, he affirmed his “determination to continue the commitment to put the Second Vatican Council into practice, following in the footsteps of my Predecessors.” (1) It is the application of the Vatican II agenda, let me note, that has led us into the abysmal crisis of Faith and Morals that the Church is suffering today.
He then went on to firmly commit to continue the policies of JPII with regard to the false religions. A top priority, he affirmed, was to maintain “an open and sincere dialogue” with the false religions. Later, in his first official address to delegates of the pagan, Jewish, heretical and schismatic sects, he emphatically affirmed “the irreversible commitment assumed by Vatican Council II” to journey on the “path toward full communion(2). This is the same progressivist jargon the Popes since John XXIII have been using to mask the progressivist aim of establishing a pan-religion where all men, believers or not, are brought together into a single universal church.
Benedict 16 also addressed the members of the Muslim community and expressed his desire to build bridges with followers “of all the religions” to seek “the true good of all persons and of the whole society” (3). The Catholic faithful continue to get more doses of progressivist lingo, with Pope Ratzinger addressing the sects as if they were on same footing as the Catholic Religion. After two and a half decades of JPII, many people have become accustomed to this kind of talk, hardly realizing it promotes religious indifferentism, a serious doctrinal error strongly condemned by the pre-Vatican II Popes, especially St. Pius X. It is not the language of a conservative Pope defending tradition.
Then he sent out invitations to his installation as Supreme Pontiff to the Grand Rabbi of Rome, the head of the Anglicans, Schismatic hierarchs, and leaders of some 130 other false religions. The Grand Rabbi declined. Later, on May 13, Benedict XVI re-affirmed his commitment to further the relations with the Jews set by John Paul II by announcing he would visit the synagogue of Cologne, the oldest in Germany, during his trip to World Youth Day in that city (4). As everyone knows, JPII was the first Pope to visit a synagogue, the one in Rome, in April 1986; Benedict 16 will be the second.
Another bad sign showing that Ratzinger has decided to adopt the egalitarian spirit of the last Pontiffs was his choice of an “installation” to initiate his pontificate instead of papal coronation. It signaled a decision to follow the examples of his recent predecessors and continue to move in the direction of less monarchical and more democratic Papacy. Another shocking innovation at the “installation” ceremony was the inclusion of a woman among the 12 people representing the Apostles who knelt and kissed the Pontiff’s ring (5). I really don’t know what Apostle she was representing… At any rate, it is the first time in History that a woman took part in this ceremony. Does it speak of more concessions to progressivist demands that women assume more dominant roles in the Church? I think it does.
Then, we come to the appointments. “Wait and see – things will change when he begins to name conservative ecclesiastics to important positions,” I was told. Well, shortly after his installment, Benedict XVI reinstated the full curia of John Paul II (6). It is curious to note that many conservatives, and even some naïve traditionalists, used to blame this very curia for the progressivist policy of JPII. They always tried to save JPII, protesting that he was a conservative being manipulated by a progressivist inner circle.
So now, what? Ratzinger reinstates the whole group. One thing for sure, if anyone knew the progressivst policies of a Cardinal Walter Kasper or Roger Echegaray, it was the insider Ratzinger. And if he had wanted to make a clear statement that he would be steering the Bark of Peter on a different path, this would have been the moment to do so. But he did not. On the contrary, he confirmed all the progressivists in their positions.
![[Image: M007_Levada_LAT_5-14-05.jpg]](https://traditioninaction.org/religious/religiousimages/M007_Levada_LAT_5-14-05.jpg)
Archbishop William Levada - a bad first appointment...
Los Angeles Times, May 13, 2005
The few major appointments Ratzinger has made should raise no cheers in the stands of conservatives. For example, on May 13, he announced the choice of his successor as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith (CDF): the American Archbishop William Levada (7.) The San Francisco Prelate is on record as supporting homosexual rights and the benefits that come with “legal” civil unions (8). He is also accused of blocking the release of the findings of a panel investigating priestly child abuse in his Archdiocese (9). Levada was Archbishop of Portland from 1986 to 1995, and there he was accused of covering for two priests charged with molesting boys (10). Ironically, the Congregation he was chosen to head has the juridical responsibility for handling cases of priests accused of sexual abuse… A friend of traditionalists? Hardly. Levada has refused to permit even an indult Tridentine Mass in his Archdiocese.
Finally, let me remind you, Jan, that it was Cardinal Ratzinger who worked tirelessly for suppression of the Fatima message. He and his top aide, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertrone, did all they could to bury the Fatima message in June 2000, declaring it a “past event” in the commentary they wrote about the contents of the third message of Fatima.
Despite the fact Ratzinger had insinuated in the past that the secret referred to a crisis in the Church, he interpreted the supposedly revealed secret, a vision of a bishop in white climbing a hill littered with corpses of martyrs who was suddenly cut down by a fusilade of bullets, as the failed assassination attempt on JPII’s life in 1981. With this arbitrary interpretation, he pretended that the Fatima message had ended, and therefore all speculations should cease. A good portion of the Catholic public did not swallow this story.
Regarding known points of the revelations, Ratzinger even went so far as to suggest that the vision of Hell Our Lady showed the children on July 13 might have been the active imagination of children under the influence of pre-Vatican II teaching. Then, after the death of Sister Lucy in February 2005, it was Ratzinger who ordered Sister’s Lucy’s cell sealed, to prevent any further disclosures on the topic he had declared closed.
I waited until the anniversary of the first apparition of Our Lady of Fatima – May 13 – to see if Benedict 16 would perhaps take a different stance on the Fatima message, as many conservatives were buoyantly predicting. Would he speak of the need to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart or encourage a devotion to the First Saturdays as Our Lady asked?
He did not. On May 11, he spoke a few words, telling “believers” to turn “with confidence to Mary” as he reminded them that May 13 was the feast of the Virgin of Fatima. (11) That was all. The chapter is closed. Nothing about the errors of Russia or the corruption of customs Our Lady came to warn us about; nothing on the imminent chastisement she predicted; nothing about the need to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart following Our Lady’s specifications.
In fact, to the contrary, Ratzinger has indicated he will follow the same shameless policy of JPII with regard to the schismatic Russia. To overcome obstacles in the Rome-Moscow relationship, he has already assured the Moscow patriarch that the “Roman Catholic Church is not going to proselyte among the Orthodox Christians.” (12) Ignoring Our Lady’s command that Russia must convert, he is ordering Catholic missionaries to step back and give up efforts to convert the Russian people. The policy is alarming not just because it is an affront to Our Lady, but also because it denies the missionary character of the Church.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has done enough and said enough as Benedict XVI to quash the optimism of conservative and traditionalist Catholics. I hope a spirit of objective analysis will set in soon. As the maxim says, undeserved praise is scandal in disguise.
1. “First Message of His Holiness Benedict XVI at the end of the Eucharistic Concelebration with the Members of the College of Cardinals in the Sistine Chapel,” Vatican online, April 20, 2005.
2. “Church Committed to Ecumenism, Says Pope And Calls for Growth in Dialogue With Muslims,” Zenit, April 25, 2005
3. Ibid.
4. “Benedict XVI to Visit Cologne Synagogue,” Zenit, May 13, 2005
5. “Benedict Emphasizes Service,” National Catholic Reporter, May 6, 2005, p. 5.
6. “New Pope Keeps Vatican Hierarchy Intact,” ABC News International online, April 22, 2005.
7. “American Succeeds Pope in Former Office,” Zenit, May 13.
8. “San Francisco’s Catholic Mayor Shakes Up His Church on Gay Marriage,” Pacific News Service online, March 3, 200.4
9. “Levada Takes Heat Over Abuse Inquiry,” San Francisco Chronicle online, November 12, 2004.
10. Ibid.
11. “Pope Points Faithful Toward Virgin of Fatima,” Zenit, May 11, 2005
12. “Vatican Ready to Overcome Difficulties in Orthodox-Catholic Relations,” RIA Novosti online, April 26.
|
|
|
|
| Abp. Viganò: The universal Masonic brotherhood fears the power of the Holy Rosary |
|
Posted by: Stone - 10-03-2022, 06:05 AM - Forum: Archbishop Viganò
- No Replies
|
|
Abp. Viganò: The universal Masonic brotherhood fears the power of the Holy Rosary
Hold in your hands that Rosary that some consider a symbol of 'religious radicalism,' thereby seeking to disarm you and weaken your defense. But it is precisely this fear of the Holy Rosary that must lead us to hold on to it with even greater conviction.
![[Image: Archbishop-Vigano-Warpath-Speech-810x500.png]](https://www.lifesitenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Archbishop-Vigano-Warpath-Speech-810x500.png)
Our Warpath / YouTube
Oct 1, 2022
(LifeSiteNews) – Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò addressed the faithful at Our Warpath‘s National March for Catholics on Friday.
Dear friends,
The President of Our Warpath, Joseph Rigi, invited me to speak at this first National March for Catholics, organized on the feast of St. Michael the Archangel – which the Church celebrates on September 29 – to gather under the banner of the Cross the army of those who, by virtue of the sacrament of Confirmation, have become soldiers of Christ. May all of you therefore receive my greetings, my encouragement and the assurance of my prayers.
In a society that has neither ideals nor the capacity to fight for anything, in which the hypocritical pacifism of those who are cowardly surrenders its weapons in the face of the violence of the tyrant, you are called, as true Catholics, to bear witness to the Gospel and to show the world that Kingdom of Heaven which is conquered by the heroism of virtue and by love of God and neighbor. Hold in your hands that Rosary that some consider a symbol of “religious radicalism,” thereby seeking to disarm you and weaken your defense. But it is precisely this fear of the Holy Rosary that must lead us to hold on to it with even greater conviction.
Behold, they are finally here. Behold, they have finally come out into the open, the proponents of the universal Masonic brotherhood, to spew their hatred for the Most Holy Rosary, which in the prayer to the Virgin of Pompeii we call a “tower of salvation in the assaults of hell, safe harbor in the common shipwreck.” And it could not be otherwise: in a war involving the spiritual and material worlds, we have the confirmation once again that what lays behind the globalist mirage is the tyranny of Satan and his satellites.
“The State is secular,” they say. As if it were possible for contemporary man to deny God’s authority and refuse to submit individuals, families, societies, and nations to His Lordship. But this State, which calls itself secular, is in reality irreligious and ungodly, because while it chooses to profess atheism or religious indifference, it in fact offends the Divine Majesty by lowering Him to the level of idols and superstitions; it does violence to the Truth, placing it on the same level as lies and error; it maliciously deceives people, making them believe that we can be observant in private and secular in public without denying the One who created us not to “realize ourselves” or “walk together,” but to worship, serve, give glory to, and obey our Creator and Redeemer, to Whom each of us belongs and without Whom we would not have been created and saved.
This ungodly and anti-Catholic “secular State” does not consider the prayer of the Holy Rosary as a “papist superstition” – these are the generic accusations of anti-clericals and “free thinkers” – but as a real weapon whose power terrifies them. It hates the Catholic Mass, but not its conciliar parody. It hates Catholic doctrine, but not the “magisterium” of Santa Marta. It hates Catholic morality, but praises Bergoglio for his interventions in favor of sodomy, climate and immigration. It hates prayer, and in particular the Rosary, which places at the head of our small formation Our Lady under her title of Nikopéia, She who is the Bearer of Victories, the One who – invoked by Christianity as Queen of the Holy Rosary – allowed the fleet of Lepanto to defeat the followers of Muhammad. This “secular state,” which is secular in name only, but in reality is intrinsically rebellious to Our Lord, knows what the supernatural power of grace is, what the power of prayer and fasting is, and it knows the infinite value of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. This is why it wants to prevent any public manifestation of religion, and to brand as extremists – “radical traditionalists” – Catholics who wield the invincible weapon of the Rosary or who kneel before God but do not kneel for Black Lives Matter. It is no surprise that the servants of the enemy share with him this furious aversion to the Holy Rosary: every Hail Mary that ascends to Heaven to honor the Mother of God and asks Her to intercede “for us sinners,” adds a dart to the quivers of the Angels and crumbles the precarious power of the Prince of this world, who is in reality a usurping prince who appropriates the civil and ecclesiastical authority by means of deception, knowing well that his end is near and his tyranny is close to defeat.
The world of the Great Reset and the Agenda 2030, the world of Davos and the UN, the world of the WHO and usurious finance seem to have won. After the resignation of Benedict XVI and the electoral fraud of the American presidential elections, two figures of the katèchon were missing, the former a spiritual authority and the latter a temporal authority which could oppose the advent of the Antichrist. In their place were installed two people who are totally irreconcilable with the role they play – to use a euphemism – one chosen by the St. Gallen Mafia and the other by the American deep state and the elite of the New World Order. They are also united by their choice of corrupt and perverted friends and collaborators. The Catholic Church is eclipsed today by the deep church and the United States are eclipsed by the deep state. Both use their authority against the purpose for which they have been instituted: the salus animarum for the Church and the bonum commune for the State. And we find the leaders of the State and the Church significantly allied in the destruction of both: they meet, praise, buy and sell each other, and prostitute themselves to the elite in the hope of not being wiped out when they are no longer needed. And to show that they are devoted to the globalist Leviathan, they destroy everything that recalls the society born of Christian civilization.
We are the “control group” of the traditional world in a globalist society, just as those non-subjected to gene serum are the “control group” that disavows the pandemic narrative. What is the control group? It is a group of subjects who, during an experiment, are kept in the same conditions as those under examination, but do not undergo the treatment that is the subject of the trial. The function of the “control group” is to exclude alternative explanations of the results and to ensure that the data from the experimental group are actually due to the variable being tested and not to unknown external influences.
This is why they want to cancel us, make us invisible, and censor us. Our very existence is a point of comparison that reveals fraud and denounces its culprits. Resist, then: as Catholics and as Americans! Resist as you did by refusing mandatory vaccination, because your state of health, the fact that you do not suffer from myocarditis, that you have not been made sterile, and that you do not suffer from sudden illnesses, is evidence of the correlation between the inoculation of the experimental serum and the adverse effects.
The Bergoglian Sanhedrin and the public authority are once again in agreement in sending Our Lord to death, for the same “crime” as they did long ago: for having declared His Kingship. Those who recognize Jesus Christ as King are enemies of the deep state and the deep church, since both of these refuse to submit to His empire and obey His Law, and they know full well that where Christ reigns, there is no room for either bad shepherds or bad rulers.
At the end of the Holy Mass, after the Last Gospel, the prayer is recited to St. Michael, invoking him as “Prince of the Heavenly Host” and begging him to drive back to Hell Satan and the other evil spirits who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls. In the prayer that precedes it, the priest asks for the intervention of God pro libertate et exsaltatione Sanctæ Matris Ecclesiæ, for the freedom and triumph of Holy Mother Church. For this reason we pray to the glorious Archangel; for this reason we venerate the Mother of God with the prayer of the Holy Rosary and with pious devotions; for this reason priests celebrate Holy Mass every day, pouring out on this misguided world the infinite Graces of the Passion of Our Lord.
Americans! American Catholics! If the civil law recognizes the right to defend your homeland with weapons, the law of the Lord requires you to fight this epochal battle with the spiritual weapons that the Holy Church makes available to you: an inexhaustible arsenal. Take up the Holy Rosary, kneel down – you too, men and children! – and show your strength, your courage, and your honor as Christians by praying. It will not be our human forces that will overcome the enemy, but the tremendous phalanx of the Angels and Saints, behind the banner of the Cross held by the Archangel Michael and under the protection of the Virgin who is Auxilium Christianorum, Help of Christians. We are only asked to choose what side we are on and to fulfill our duty according to our state.
Pray, do penance, fast. Live in the Grace of God by confessing your sins often and receiving Holy Communion. Never stop keeping yourselves closely bound to Our Lady by means of the Holy Rosary: if in the past Europe was saved from the Muslim invasion thanks to this prayer, the world will be saved all the more, if the simple and holy words of the Hail Mary continue to rise to Heaven from every part of the earth.
I bless you all.
+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop
|
|
|
|
| She Will Crush His Head & an Era of Peace Will Follow |
|
Posted by: Stone - 10-03-2022, 05:44 AM - Forum: Articles by Catholic authors
- No Replies
|
|
She Will Crush His Head & an Era of Peace Will Follow
Msgr. Henri Delassus, Americanism and the Anti-Christian Conspiracy
It is interesting to see that the brilliant Msgr. Henri Delassus, who spoke so fiercely against the errors of Americanism and Modernism at the end of the 19th century, was also already predicting the inevitable defeat of Satan by Our Lady.
However, the terrible abomination of desolation that Msgr. Delassus was already seeing in his times and that we are experiencing today will not be the end of the world, he affirmed. Rather, it will result in a great triumph of Our Lady, and, following the era of war and persecution that started in the 16th century, "will end in a new era, an era of peace."
It will be the Reign of Mary also prophetically foretold by St. Louis de Montfort the time of the complete restoration and victory of the Immaculate Heart promised by Our Lady at Fatima and Quito.
Msgr. Henri Delassus
For 18 centuries, Satan, aided by those who have made themselves his sons by giving themselves to him – semen tuum [your offspring] – have continually combated Christ's work. And, on the other side, the great Catholic family – semen illius [her offspring] – under the banner of Christ's Mother, the Woman par excellence, terrible as an army set in battle array, has constantly defended Christ's work. She has always won.
The Church sings this beautiful antiphon to the glory of Mary: Cunctas haereses sola interemisti in universo mundo. For Thou, and Thou alone, hast destroyed all the heresies in the entire world.
But here is one heresy that seems to be the final one, because it is the radical negation of the whole supernatural order, going so far as to deny God Himself. And, to make matters worse, this heresy is presently being implanted even in children by a State institution.
This is the last stage of the revolt that began in the 16th century, which was reported in the Apocalypse in this strange way: “I saw a star fall from the Heaven (of the Church) upon the earth, and there was given to him the key of the bottomless pit. And he opened the bottomless pit: and the smoke of the pit arose, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened with the smoke of the pit.” (Apoc 9:1-2).
This vision of St. John is followed in the same book by another vision, which he describes as follows: “And I saw an Angel coming down, having the key of the abyss, and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold on the Dragon the old Serpent, which is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.” (Apoc 20:1-2)
Behold the prince of this world cast out, according to the words of Our Lord. Behold his complete and definitive defeat announced from the beginning of the world: Ipsa conteret caput tuum, She shall crush thy head. Behold, by the incarceration of the Enemy of the human race, the possibility of a new era, an era of peace, following the era of war and persecution.
Now then, our Holy Father the Pope, by an innovation dating back only a few years, calls on us to ask for this defeat, this enchainment, this crushing of Satan every day at the Holy Mass. After prayers to the Immaculate Virgin, the victorious Archangel Michael, victorious over Lucifer, is thus invoked: “O Prince of the Heavenly Host, by the power of God, thrust into Hell, Satan and all evil spirits who wander about the world seeking for the ruin of souls.”
To those who are astonished at these 1,800 years of combat without reaching the defeat of Satan, we say: But look at the number of centuries that God determined it would take to prepare for the coming of the Savior. In the sight of the Lord, “one thousand years are like a day.”
In the same way, the definition of the dogma of Immaculate Conception cannot be accused of having failed to fulfill the promises it seemed to make to us. What is a space of 50 years as a prelude to an event that has demanded so many centuries of preparation and that will extend to a period that can be still much longer, for God does nothing without measure? And should we not see, on the contrary, in the upheavals and persecution of these last 50 years the convulsions of Satan who, in 1854, felt the foot of the Immaculata placed on his head to crush it?
The Holy Pontiff Pius IX closed the dogmatic constitution in which he defines the Immaculate Conception of Mary with these words:
“We rest with absolute and complete confidence in the certainty of our hopes. Certissima vero spes et omni prorsus fiducia nitimur.”
And, what is this hope so great, this certainty?
“The all beautiful and Immaculate Blessed Virgin, to whom it has been given to crush the head of the cruel Serpent … by her powerful patronage, will make all the obstacles be removed and all the heresies vanquished, and will strengthen day by day our Holy Mother Church and make her flourish among all peoples and nations, ubicumque gentium, ubicumque locorum; that she will reign from sea to sea, to the ends of the earth, usque ad terminus orbis terrarum, and enjoy genuine peace, tranquility and liberty; so that there will be only one flock under the guidance of the one Shepherd.”
- trans. by Patrick J. Odou, Documents and Clarifications for chap. 14, n. 38
|
|
|
|
| Belgian bishop claims Pope Francis approves of blessing ceremony for homosexual couples |
|
Posted by: Stone - 10-01-2022, 06:22 AM - Forum: Pope Francis
- No Replies
|
|
Belgian bishop claims Pope Francis approves of blessing ceremony for homosexual couples
‘Our guidelines for the blessing of homosexual couples, which we recently published, are in line with Pope Francis,’ argued Bishop Johan Bonny.
![[Image: johanbony6521-810x500.jpg]](https://www.lifesitenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/johanbony6521-810x500.jpg)
Bishop Johan Bonny
Bisdom Antwerpen / YouTube
Sep 30, 2022
(LifeSiteNews) – Bishop Johan Bonny of Antwerp, who with a group of Flemish bishops in Belgium recently published guidelines for the blessing of homosexual couples, has now publicly said that he has spoken with the Pope, and that “our guidelines for blessing of homosexual couples that we have recently published are in line with Pope Francis.”
Bonny is currently in Germany where he met with the German bishops at their annual fall meeting in Fulda, spoking with them behind closed doors. In this context, he gave Katholisch.de, the official website of the German bishops, an interview, in which he encouraged the German bishops to continue the work of their Synodal Path which recently declared recently that homosexual acts are “not sinful.”
At the end of this Katholisch.de interview, Bonny was asked about the reaction to his own actions, since he himself in 2015 already advocated for a blessing of homosexual couples. The interviewer reminded him that he was still a bishop, even though he advocated for such a blessing.
Bonny responded: “Yes, I am still a bishop. I was called to Rome, and there I said what was my opinion about it. I have also personally spoken with Pope Francis about it.”
When asked about the result of this conversation with the Pope, Bonny answered that “I know now what he thinks. That is for me the most important thing.”
RELATED: Catholic bishops in Belgium publish blessing ceremony for homosexual couples
The Belgian bishop insisted that the Pope is also in agreement with him and his Flemish fellow bishops and their newly released guidelines. “And I know that our guidelines for the blessing of homosexual couples, which we recently published, are in line with Pope Francis,” he said, adding that this was important to him “because communion with the Pope is sacred to me.”
The prelate continued:
Quote:It is the personal responsibility that the Pope has given us bishops and that he also supports. However, the same topics do not have to and cannot be discussed worldwide at all times. Moreover, the Pope does not have to write everything down on paper. Just as I as a bishop do not record every conversation on paper.
When the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith came out with a ban of the blessing of homosexual couples in March last year, Bishop Bonny expressed he was “angry” at Rome and said he felt “shame” for his Church.
He then also referred to the Pope himself when saying that “this responsum is not an example of how we can walk a path together. The document undermines the credibility of both the ‘synodal path’ advocated by Pope Francis and the announced year of work with Amoris Laetitia. Will the real synod please stand up?”
Now, under the growing pressure across the Universal Church – with Cardinals Gerhard Müller and Willem Eijk, among others, raising their voice of opposition – Bishop Bonny saw it fit to come out even more explicitly about the Pope’s intentions.
It is to be seen how the Vatican will respond to this new interview by Bonny.
However, it is not the first time that a clergyman has publicly recounted a private conversation with Pope Francis, saying that Francis supports the blessing of homosexual couples. In March of 2018, the French priest Fr. Daniel Duigou revealed that he received Pope Francis’ support for blessing homosexual couples.
LifeSite reported that Duigou described his private conversation with the Pope in a televised interview as follows:
Quote:“The first question he [the pope] asked me was: ‘Do you bless divorced and remarried couples?’ which is one of the big questions today in the Church,” explained Duigou. He recalled responding, “I listen and I bless, and I also bless homosexual couples.”
According to Duigou the Pope responded: “Yes, because to bless means that God thinks well of people and that God thinks well of all people.” The news show host asked incredulously: “Well, does this mean that the Pope is in favor of blessing homosexual couples?”
The French priest responded: “Yes, absolutely. It is not about marrying them.”
In 2016, Bonny went on record calling for a blessing for homosexual couples, as well as for cohabitating or divorced and “remarried” couples.
Following the CDF’s March 2021 ban on homosexual couples, Pope Francis removed the Vatican official who is said to have been the driving force behind the Vatican’s ban on blessing of homosexual couples.
He has continuously promoted the work of pro-LGBT activists such as Father James Martin, S.J., saying in public just in August that an event hosted by the pro-LGBT priest was “enriching.”
|
|
|
|
| Genetically modified mosquitoes vaccinate a human |
|
Posted by: Stone - 09-30-2022, 06:54 AM - Forum: Health
- No Replies
|
|
Genetically modified mosquitoes vaccinate a human
![[Image: mosquitos-modified.jpg]](https://thecountersignal.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/mosquitos-modified.jpg)
CounterSignal | September 27, 2022
A box full of genetically modified mosquitos successfully vaccinated a human against malaria in a trial funded by the National Institute of Health (NIH).
The study involved about 200 hungry mosquitos biting a human subject’s arm. Human participants placed their arms directly over a small box full of the bloodsuckers.
“We use the mosquitoes like they’re 1,000 small flying syringes,” said researcher Dr. Sean Murphy, as reported by NPR.
Three to five “vaccinations” took place over 30-day intervals.
The mosquitos gave minor versions of malaria that didn’t make people sick, but gave them antibodies. Efficacy from the antibodies lasted a few months.
“Half of the individuals in each vaccine group did not develop detectable P. falciparum infection, and a subset of these individuals was subjected to a second CHMI 6 months later and remained partially protected. These results support further development of genetically attenuated sporozoites as potential malaria vaccines,” researchers concluded.
Carolina Reid was one of twenty-six participants in the study.
“My whole forearm swelled and blistered. My family was laughing, asking like, ‘why are you subjecting yourself to this?'”
Reid enjoyed her experience so much that she says she wants to participate in as many vaccine trials as she can. For this research, each participant received $4,100 as an incentive.
Adverse reactions were what one would expect after getting bit by hundreds of mosquitos and nothing more.
Dr. Kirsten Lyke calls the research “a total game changer.”
Lyke led the phase 1 trials for Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine and was a co-investigator for Moderna and Novavax COVID vaccines.
Researchers say the genetically modified mosquitos will not be used at large to vaccinate millions of people. The reason why mosquitos were used instead of syringes, they claim, was to save costs.
“He and his colleagues went this route because it is costly and time consuming to develop a formulation of a parasite that can be delivered with a needle,” NPR reports.
|
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre 1978: On the New Mass |
|
Posted by: Stone - 09-29-2022, 07:02 AM - Forum: Sermons and Conferences
- No Replies
|
|
Taken from the Filii Mariae website {who provided the English translation] by way of Ecclesia Militans [emphasis mine]:
Archbishop Lefebvre on the New Mass – March 21, 1978
I will continue the study of these few questions which have been submitted to me. We have not finished the answer to the question about assistance at Mass possibly during your vacations and on certain occasions, whether you are with your family or there are ceremonies that you are invited to. What should be done? What should be our attitude in general towards these New Masses, even if it would be difficult to be able to assist at a Mass of Saint Pius V?
I believe that we must be more and more severe. Why? Because as I have already told you many times, our attitude also conforms to the evolution which is little by little taking place in people’s minds, and I would even say especially in the minds of priests by dint of living in an atmosphere of errors, in an atmosphere contrary to the Faith, intentions can change. The thoughts and judgments that priests can make about their own Masses can end up changing. And I believe that this is not at all illusory, even sometimes for priests who were very close to us, who loved Tradition, but who, by being in this atmosphere created by the liturgical reform, end up slowly but surely somehow losing the Faith, or at least changing their Faith on certain points of the Holy Mass, and this can in the long run influence their intention.
This is why I think that, given this increasingly serious and increasingly dangerous evolution, we must also avoid more and more, and I would almost say, in a radical way, any assistance at this New Mass.
It is obvious that if you are convinced that all these Masses are invalid, you should not go to them. That is clear. One do not go to an invalid Mass; it would be a sacrilege. But I do not personally believe that we can affirm this in an absolute manner. Even Father Guérard des Lauriers arrived at this conclusion after a long journey; but he is not absolutely certain of it. He still has some reservations because it is obvious that what is essential for the validity of the Mass is the required matter, the required form, and the
intention.
As for the matter, we still can believe that it is really bread and wine that they are using as the matter of the Eucharist. Still, we have to see …. The wine, we can sometimes wonder what kind of wine is now taken by priests who no longer pay any attention to whether it is a natural wine, if it is a wine that does not have too much alcohol. For, finally, take your books on morals and see what is required for the matter of the Mass. There are still conditions in order to ensure that it is really natural wine and not fabricated wine.
Next, the form. Here, you know that it is always in the translations that one can hesitate on the form, because the form in Latin, as it was given by the reform, still bears the term pro multis for the form which is used for the consecration of the wine. But the translation in most languages is absolutely false since, whether it is in English, Italian, Spanish, or German, it is always for all: pro omnibus which is absolutely contrary to what the Church meant, and consequently, what Our Lord Himself meant when He pronounced these words. There is, I think, a page and a half which speaks of this in the Catechism of the Council of Trent in order to explain why, in the form, there is pro multis and not pro omnibus. The Catechism of the Council of Trent explains this perfectly because in reality, in the application of the Redemption, not everyone is saved. Not in the purpose of the Redemption. The purpose of the Redemption is to save all men. But the real application of the Redemption, unfortunately, does not benefit all men, through the fault of men who do not want to receive the graces of the Redemption. This is why the term used means the application of the Redemption.
Does this change in the vernacular languages affect the validity of the form? There are books that were written on this, by Americans, by Germans, about this form in particular. A number of them conclude that it is invalid. However, if we study in theology books even what St. Thomas thinks of the form of the sacrament of the Eucharist, it seems that the most general opinion is that the essential words are these words: “Hoc est Corpus meum, hic est calix Sanguinis mei, novi et aeterni et testament.” I also think that the phrase, Mysterium fidei, which is perhaps a phrase that goes back even to Our Lord Himself … It seems that these words go back at least to the time of the apostles. It is quite certain that during the forty days that Our Lord spent with the apostles after His resurrection, He must have certainly given them precise instructions – why not? – on the most important thing, on the essential thing of His redemption: His sacrifice, the sacrifice of Calvary. So would it be surprising that Our Lord spoke of it in a precise manner, bequeathing to the apostles the real form they were to use to realize again this sacrifice on our altars? Is this something unbelievable? When we say that it goes back to apostolic times, as the Council of Trent affirms, and as all the Fathers of the Church affirm, we can believe that they also received precise instructions from Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. But this phrase of Mysterium fidei would nevertheless make one think that the Real Presence already exists before the end of the formula.
Although, if a priest were to fall sick while pronouncing the words of the Consecration and stop in the middle of the Consecration, obviously the priest must continue the formula in order to ensure the Real Presence, but it is not certain if all the words are absolutely necessary for the Real Presence, because the fact that the priest already says Mysterium fidei, it seems that the mystery is then already realized at that moment. The priest exclaims before the mystery which is realized, the great mystery of our Faith. This is perhaps not a definitive argument, but anyway, it is nevertheless a fact that most theologians think that the Real Presence already exists at the first words of the consecration of the Precious Blood.
But the more one examine this liturgical reform, the more one wonder what may have been the intentions of the authors. What idea, what advantage did they think of acquiring by changing these words of the sacramental form which have been said for centuries and centuries by the Church? But what advantage, I ask you? Why remove Mysterium fidei, why change something in the form? Why add quod pro vobis tradetur in the form of the consecration of the bread? It is unbelievable … except for ecumenical thoughts, because the Protestants say that, because the Protestants have suppressed Mysterium fidei and because the Protestants have added quod pro vobis tradetur, and the Protestants wanted to exactly reproduce the Last Supper, the Last Supper which for them was not a sacrifice. So our Last Supper, our Eucharist is not a sacrifice for them, for the Protestants.
And that is why they wanted to reproduce the evangelical Last Supper which for us is a sacrifice. Never forget that the Council of Trent explicitly said: If any one shall say that there was no sacrifice at the Last Supper when Our Lord Jesus Christ instituted the Eucharist, let him be anathema! So Our Lord made a sacrifice at the Last Supper, a sacrifice which is obviously related to the Sacrifice that He will offer on the Cross, but it is a sacrifice.
We, too, our sacrifice is made after, is related to the sacrifice of the Cross. The Last Supper was also a sacrifice made in relation to the sacrifice of the Cross which was accomplished afterwards. So we don’t see any other explanation. No matter how hard we look. Why did they change something? We don’t see why. There are no possible explanations, except an ecumenical explanation, which brings us closer to the Protestants. I ask you: how is it possible to go and transform our Mass to make it similar to that of the Protestants who do not believe in the Sacrifice of the Mass, who added this precisely because they do not believe in the Sacrifice of the Mass? It is unheard of!
So of course we can ask these questions. These questions are not in vain. We can ask the question: is the form as it is said, at least in the vernacular languages, really valid? We can ask the question! And finally, the intention. The intention of doing what the Church does. So there are some who say: - What the Church does today is the New Mass. Ah! But no … what the Church does, and when we say the Church, it is the Church of All Time. The intention of the Church – even if we say what the Church does when we use the indicative, and not what the Church did, but quod facit Ecclesia –it is what the Church of All Time does, and therefore, since the Apostles. So we must have this intention of doing what the Church does, what She did, what She will do … always, always the same thing.
So the intention must be based on what the Church has always wanted to do, so a true sacrifice, and not simply a commemoration and not simply a meal. Now it is quite certain that the young priests at present, in the manner in which they are taught, must not have the intention of doing what the Council of Trent does. Because, precisely, as they broke with the Council of Trent – given that the Council of Trent very clearly defined the Mass as a sacrifice, and defined the priesthood, which is not a priesthood of the faithful, in a very clear way – and so I think these young priests say: - I want to say the New Mass and not the old! So they make a rupture in the Church; they do not have the right. They do not have the right to break up the Church. There is not a Church of today and a Church of yesterday: there is the Church of All Time. This Church is only one Church; otherwise there would be a Church every day, at every moment then!
I think precisely that this intention may become that of the priests who constantly say the New Mass. I think that at the end of one or two years, when they have said this New Mass, in the end, they really have the impression of saying a new Mass and not the traditional Mass. They no longer have this conception of saying the traditional Mass. I think there are some, however, a number of them, but few, who belong to these associations, such as that of Canon Quata or others, who resist and who have an intention contrary to what they are doing. It is unbelievable. It is unheard of to do such a thing, but because they believe that they are obliged to take this new rite because of their bishops, they are afraid of being dismissed or any possible reasons they can imagine and which, in my opinion, are worth nothing… but anyway, the facts are there. And certainly a good number of these priests say: I want to say the Mass of my ordination. I want to continue to have the intention that I always had during my priestly life and I want to, now, even with this rite, say the Mass of All Time. So in such cases, it is possible that these Masses are valid. But this is not a reason, and it is very serious to put oneself in this danger, to risk little by little the faith in the Sacrifice of the Mass, and in any case, to make their faithful lose it also. It is unacceptable for a priest, when he realizes this. But little by little, it is a question of habit. One forms one’s conscience and one no longer sees; one becomes blind.
This is why I think we must avoid going to these Masses. And even if we must be without Masses for a month, we are without Masses for a month. Parents are explaining to their children why they do not go to Mass and if they make a long journey to go to Mass once a month … You know, in our missions we visited our faithful once every three months. Most of our faithful had Mass once every three months. In South America, I had the opportunity, as Superior General, to found a mission in Paraguay, in a little village called Lima; it is not the big city of Lima in Peru, but it is a little village. Incidentally, I received a letter from them four or five days ago, with all the stamps – the stamps of the president of the village, the president of this, the president of that; they all have magnificent stamps. And then it is signed, re-signed and countersigned to beg me: - But you gave us priests in the past. We had a very good priest in the person of Father Tchang who is a Trinidadian and who did us a lot of good, who kept good traditions. He was taken away from us. He was sent back to Trinidad and now we have a priest who is demolishing our whole religion. So we learned that you are making priests according to Tradition. Send us a priest like Father Tchang who did us so much good in Paraguay! ...
So, if there is one that is available! ...
But in those countries, when I arrived in Lima, they were visited once a year. And when I visited the Amazon where our Fathers had missions as well, some of these villages have only one visit every three years. Obviously it is not ideal, that is clear, but at least those people keep the Faith. They pray. On Sundays, they gather together: there is a catechist or a village chief, a president, who gathers them together – not like they do now to eliminate the priests, to remove the priests, to replace the priest by a layperson, but because there are no priests. So they pray; they sanctify Sunday. The priests give them prayers that they must recite, the Gospel that they read and recite. They get together, they pray, they sing, and they make a spiritual communion. They think of the Masses which are celebrated far away from them, but which are celebrated in the world. So this is a different thing than what they are doing now, to practically remove all the priests and replace them with laypeople because they no longer believe in the Mass. That is completely different.
So one can keep the Faith without going to Mass every Sunday, rather than going to a Mass which is more or less poisoned, which makes one risk losing the Faith.
But I think, however, since I do not believe, once again, that all these Masses are invalid, that on certain occasions, for the death of a close relative – in such a case, one does not go for the Mass, but one goes by filial piety, for example for one’s parents, one’s father, one’s mother, one’s brother, one’s sister … like one can possibly go to an Orthodox burial, like an Orthodox can come to assist also at our ceremonies, for extraordinary events.
But I think that we must be more and more severe and more and more radical on this subject because the Masses are always deteriorating a little; the Faith diminishes. And consequently, one is more and more likely to find oneself in front of a Mass which is not valid. So, to go to a doubtful Mass … I am not telling you, either, when you enter a Church – I suppose you visit the Church; you see the sanctuary lamp; you wonder if the Blessed Sacrament is present. You ask yourself: - Am I going to make a genuflection, because I do not know who said the Mass. Is it valid or not? … I believe that we can always make a genuflection, while saying: - My God, if You are present, I adore You. Rather than manifesting publicly, while saying: - No, I am making a genuflection because the Blessed Sacrament is certainly not there! If you are certain that the Blessed Sacrament is not there, you are not obliged to make a genuflection. But I think that if there is a doubt, it would be better, anyway, to make a genuflection, thinking that you are adoring Our Lord there, where He is present, and that if He is present, at least there is someone who adores Him, since they no longer adore Him now. They put Him aside and they no longer make gestures of adoration! So I think it would be better in such cases not to show, even to people who are there, a kind of attitude that may not be understood either!
So you see, I think that the intention of the priest at Mass can be affected by a bad habit.
|
|
|
|
| Pope St. Pius X Condemns Pope Francis |
|
Posted by: Stone - 09-29-2022, 06:37 AM - Forum: Pope Francis
- No Replies
|
|
Pope St. Pius X Condemns Pope Francis
TIA [slightly adapted] | November 22, 2014
As we daily witness the efforts of Pope Francis to diminish the importance of the Catholic Faith in order to promote a union of religions and a common action of religious or a-religious men working together for the solution to social problems, St. Pius X's condemnation of the errors of the Sillon movement comes to mind.
In fact, those errors condemned at the beginning of the 20th century as being opposed to the Catholic Faith and qualified as an apostasy in the Encyclical Notre Charge Apostolique were precisely the same we see Pope Francis is disseminating today. Thus, we have two opposed teachings: one according to the previous 1,900 years of the Magisterium, another, denying all this past and advocating a Panreligion. We are witnessing Pope against Pope; Church against Church.
Pope St Pius X
There was a time when the Sillon, as such, was truly Catholic. It recognized but one moral force - Catholicism; and the Sillonists proclaimed that Democracy would have to be Catholic or not exist at all. A time came when they changed their minds. They left to each one his religion or his philosophy. … For the construction of the Future City, they appealed to the workers of all religions and all sects. These were asked but one thing: to share the same social ideal, to respect all creeds, and to bring with them a certain amount of moral force. …
Accordingly, they ask all those who want to change today's society in the direction of Democracy, not to oppose each other on account of the philosophical or religious convictions that may separate them, but to march hand in hand; not renouncing their convictions, but trying to provide, on the ground of practical realities, the proof of the excellence of their personal convictions. …
What are we to think of this appeal to all the heterodox and to all the unbelievers to prove the excellence of their convictions in the social sphere in a sort of apologetic contest? … What are we to think of this respect for all errors, and of this strange invitation made by a Catholic to all the dissidents to strengthen their convictions by means of study so that they may have increasingly abundant sources of fresh forces? …
Alas! Yes, the ambiguity has been clarified: The social action of the Sillon is no longer Catholic. … But stranger still, alarming and saddening at the same time, are the audacity and frivolity of men who call themselves Catholics and dream of re-shaping society under such conditions, and of establishing on earth, over and beyond the pale of the Catholic Church, "the reign of love and justice" with workers coming from everywhere, of all religions and of no religion, with or without beliefs, so long as they forego what might divide them – their religious and philosophical convictions – and so long as they share what unites them …
What are they going to produce? What is to come of this collaboration? A mere verbal and chimerical construction in which we shall see, glowing in a jumble and in seductive confusion, the words Liberty, Justice, Fraternity, Love, Equality and human exultation, all resting upon an ill-understood human dignity. It will be a tumultuous agitation, sterile for the end proposed, which will benefit the less utopian exploiters of the people. Yes, we can truly say that the Sillon, its eyes fixed on a chimera, brings Socialism in its train. …
And now, overwhelmed with the deepest sadness, We ask Ourselves, Venerable Brethren, what has become of the Catholicism of the Sillon? Alas! This organization which formerly afforded such promising expectations, this limpid and impetuous stream, has been harnessed in its course by the modern enemies of the Church, and is now no more than a miserable current of the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a Panreligion, which shall have neither dogmas nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind nor curbs for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would return to the world – if such a Church could conquer – the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak and of all those who toil and suffer.
(St. Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, §§ 30-36)
|
|
|
|
| Let the Sword First Strike the Person, and then the Error He Defends |
|
Posted by: Stone - 09-29-2022, 06:15 AM - Forum: Articles by Catholic authors
- Replies (11)
|
|
Let the Sword First Strike the Person, and then the Error He Defends
TIA | November 20, 2010
"It is all well enough to make war on abstract doctrines," we often hear people say. “But, in combating error, even when it is very evident, it is wrong and even uncharitable to make attacks upon the persons who uphold such error.” This is a liberal position, Fr. Felix Sará y Salvani teaches us in his book Liberalism Is A Sin. To the contrary, it is often not only good to make a personal attack, but at times even indispensable and meritorious before God and men.
Fr. Felix Sardá y Salvani
Catholic apologists are often accused of entering the personal arena during debates. And when Liberals and those tainted with Liberalism hurl this accusation against one of us, they imagine that this charge is enough to condemn us.
But they deceive themselves. We are not so easily removed from the scene. We have reason – and quite substantial reason – on our side. In order to combat and discredit false ideas, we must make them look abhorrent and despicable to the same multitude they tried to convince and seduce. A disease cannot be separated from the persons who have it. The cholera threatening a country came in the persons infected with it. If we wish to exclude it, we must exclude them.
Now it so happens that ideas cannot be sustained by themselves in the air, nor do they spread or propagate by themselves. Left to themselves, they would never produce all the evil that harms society. It is only when they are applied by those who conceive them that they have an effect. Ideas are like the arrows and the bullets that would harm no one if they were not shot from the bow or the gun. It is the archer and the gunner, therefore, who should be the first target in our sight. Save for them, the fire would kill no one. Any other method of waging war, be it liberal or not, does not make sense.
The authors and propagators of heretical doctrines are soldiers with poisoned weapons in their hands. Their arms are the books, the newspapers, the public speeches and their personal influence. It is not enough to dodge the bullets they fire. The first thing necessary is to make the shooter himself ineffective so that he can do no more mischief.
It is, therefore, perfectly proper not only to discredit the book, journal or lecture of the enemy, but it can also be proper to discredit his person. For in warfare the principal element of the combat is the person engaged, just as the gunner is the principal factor in an artillery fight and not the cannon, powder or bomb.
It is thus lawful in certain cases to publicly display the infamy of a Liberal opponent, to present his customs to contempt, to drag his name in the mire. Yes, this is fully permissible, permissible in prose, in verse, in caricature, in either a serious or a light vein, by every means and method within reach. The only care we should take is to not to employ a lie in the service of justice. This, never. Under no pretext may we sully the truth, even to the dotting of an i. ….
The Fathers of the Church support this thesis. The very titles of their works clearly show that in their combats against heresies, their first blow was at the heresiarchs. Almost all the titles of St. Augustine’s works bear the name of the author of the heresy against which they are written: Adversus (Against) Fortunatum, Adversus Manichaean, Adversus Adamanctum, Adversus Felicem, Adversus Secundinum. Or, Quis fuerit Petriamus (Who is Petrianus?), De gestis Pelagii (About the Deeds of Pelagius), Quis fuerit Julianus, etc.
Thus we see that the greater part of the polemics of the great Augustine was personal, aggressive, and biographical as well as doctrinal, a hand-to-hand struggle with the heretic as well as the heresy. We could say the same about all the other Church Fathers.
What right do the Liberals have to impose on us the new obligation of fighting error only in the abstract and of lavishing smiles and flattery on them? We, the Ultramontanes, will fight our battles according to Catholic tradition and defend the faith as it has always been defended in the Church of God. When it strikes, let the sword of the Catholic polemist wound, and when it wounds, wound mortally. This is the only real and efficacious way to combat!
(Felix Sardá y Salvani, El Liberalism es pecado, Barcelona: 1960, pp. 60-62
|
|
|
|
| Canada to allow China to open police stations in Canada to monitor Chinese nationals |
|
Posted by: Stone - 09-29-2022, 05:52 AM - Forum: Global News
- No Replies
|
|
Trudeau government allows China to open police stations in Canada to monitor Chinese nationals
A new report revealed that China has set up dozens of overseas “service stations” in order to police Chinese nationals living abroad, including three such facilities in Toronto.
PM [adapted] | Sep 28, 2022
On September 12, human rights watchdog Safeguard Defenders published their latest report on the phenomenon of Chinese transnational policing.
The group revealed that over the past year, China had set up dozens of overseas “service stations” in order to police Chinese nationals living abroad, including three such facilities in Toronto.
According to the report, Beijing has been attempting to “combat the growing issue of fraud and telecommunication fraud by Chinese nationals living abroad,” with 230,000 being “persuaded to return” to China to face criminal charges between April 2021 and July 2022 alone.
On September 2, a new law was passed in China giving the government more authority when it comes to handling online fraud committed by Chinese citizens overseas. It is set to come into effect on December 1.
One way the government keeps tabs on citizens in other countries is via the aforementioned “service stations,” which are operated by either the Fuzhou or Qingtian Public Security Bureaus.
According to the report, as of September 2022, there are fifty-four such stations located in thirty countries.
While most nations have only one or two stations, Canada is unique in that it has three, all located in Toronto.
According to the National Post, the locations of Toronto’s stations render them nearly invisible to the public. One is listed as a private home, the second a largely Chinese mall, and the third in the office of a Chinese non-profit.
China has defended the practice of setting up what are essentially police stations in other countries, saying that the majority of the work done there is akin to what would take place at an embassy, however not many are convinced, given the regime’s record.
Safeguard Defenders pointed out in their report that while China’s actions were taken under the guise of fighting crime, in some cases citizens living overseas who had not been charged with anything were harassed, and eventually “persuaded” to return to China.
Charles Burton, who formerly served as a diplomat at the Canadian Embassy in Beijing, warned that China was “extending the grip of its Orwellian police state into this country,” and slammed Canada’s national security agencies for their lack of action.
|
|
|
|
|
![[Image: M007_ratzinger_close-up.jpg]](https://traditioninaction.org/religious/religiousimages/M007_ratzinger_close-up.jpg)
