| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 292 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 289 Guest(s)
Applebot, Bing, Google
|
|
|
| Cdl. Parolin mandates COVID shot to enter the Vatican, dismisses abortion-based objections |
|
Posted by: Stone - 01-15-2022, 09:27 AM - Forum: Pandemic 2020 [Spiritual]
- No Replies
|
 |
Cdl. Parolin mandates COVID shot to enter the Vatican, dismisses abortion-based objections
The cardinal seems to defy the CDF's declaration that 'vaccination is not, as a rule, a moral obligation and that, therefore, it must be voluntary.'
![[Image: Vatican-vaxx-810x500.jpg]](https://www.lifesitenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Vatican-vaxx-810x500.jpg)
Fri Jan 14, 2022
VATICAN CITY (LifeSiteNews) — Pope Francis’ secretary of state has ordered that Vatican employees and visitors must have received a COVID-19 inoculation before entering the Vatican, revoking a “test-out” option for access to the city state while denying the abortion-derived nature of the shots.
In comments to the National Catholic Register, Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin said that refusal to accept Pfizer’s mRNA jab based on its association with aborted fetal cells “seems not to be justified,” ruling on December 23 that “access to Roman Curia offices will be permitted only to those in possession of a certificate attesting to vaccination or recovery from SARS-CoV-2.”
The decree, which applies to “personnel of all Dicasteries, Councils, and offices of the Roman Curia … external collaborators, personnel of outside firms, visitors, and users,” is apparently based on “the continuation and worsening of the current health emergency and the need to take appropriate measures to counter it and to ensure the safe carrying-out of activities.”
The Vatican will therefore now require a “green pass” for entry, which confirms the holder’s having been “fully vaccinated” against COVID-19 with one of the experimental shots or having recovered from a coronavirus infection. Any absences of staff on the basis of not producing a valid green pass will be considered “a case of unjustified absence, with the consequent suspension of pay for the duration of the absence.”
Additionally, the decree determines that from January 31, all staff in public-facing roles will have to provide evidence of their having received a booster shot to continue working within Vatican City limits.
A short paragraph notes that there is scope for an exemption to the rule, although the possible bases for such an exception are not delineated. The power to grant an exemption is at the discretion of the Secretariat of State.
When asked by the Register if conscientious objections based on the abortion-derived nature of the jabs would be sufficient for an exemption, the cardinal denied the use of aborted fetal cell lines in the production of Pfizer’s mRNA shot, which is widely used at the Vatican.
“In the case of mRNA vaccines, cell lines from aborted fetuses were used only in the preliminary stages of vaccine testing in the laboratory, but no cell lines from aborted fetuses are included in either the composition or production,” Parolin wrote in response, creating a distinction between the use of aborted cell lines in testing and production that is not outlined in any Vatican documentation.
On this basis, he concluded that “it seems that not wanting to undergo vaccination with this motivation [the abortion-tainted nature of the shot] cannot be justified, since the vaccine that is currently used is precisely the Pfizer that uses the mRNA method.”
Parolin turned to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s (CDF) 2020 “Note on the morality of using some anti-COVID-19 vaccines,” citing the prudential determination that, under strict and rare circumstances, it may be “morally acceptable to receive COVID-19 vaccines that have used cell lines from aborted fetuses in their research and production process.”
However, the cardinal appears to have glossed over the clear teaching expressed just a few paragraphs later, explaining that “vaccination is not, as a rule, a moral obligation and that, therefore, it must be voluntary.”
In comments to Church Militant, Catholic author Deacon Nick Donnelly argued that the cardinal’s “distinction between using abortion-derived cell lines in production and testing makes no sense. Testing is part of production. It is appalling to see Parolin grant Pfizer an abortion absolution.”
Continuing, the cleric added that “Pfizer’s decision to use the HEK-293 cell line in the testing procedures is not morally neutral,” since the shot “depends on cells harvested from a baby girl who was aborted and vivisected alive.”
In stark contrast to Parolin’s generally permissive view on the use of COVID shots which have used abortion in some way for their existence, Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Kazakhstan has said that widespread acceptance of the abortion-tainted shots helps to “normalize the horror of genocide” that is abortion.
“[T]his horror is so monstrous that it cannot be compared with other evils which we in some way accept [in] this naturalistic, materialistic society, like products of slavery work,” the prelate declared. “It is incomparable with the horror of murdering innocent children.”
Despite the propagation of the abortion industry on the back of the currently available COVID injections, Pope Francis has maintained a consistent determination that taking the shots is a “moral obligation” and an “act of love.”
|
|
|
| Fr. O'Keeffe [1891]: The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass |
|
Posted by: Stone - 01-15-2022, 09:21 AM - Forum: Articles by Catholic authors
- No Replies
|
|
THE HOLY SACRIFICE OF THE MASS
"Christ also hath loved us, and hath delivered Himself for us,an oblation and a sacrifice to God for an odor of sweetness."--Ephes. v. 2.[/font][/size][/size]
The Catholic Church, my brethren, speaking through the Council of Trent, as through a mouthpiece, commands her preachers, and all others having the care of souls, to explain the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to their people carefully and frequently. Our good Mother, the Church, has made this law, my dear Christians, to the end that we may all know what a great treasure God has left to us in this sublime Sacrifice of the Altar, and what great advantages we may derive from a faithful and devout attendance thereat. The same sweet love for men which pressed our Lord Jesus Christ, in the first instance, to institute this adorable Sacrifice of the New Law, presses Him, also, to desire that its transcendent nature and effects should be made known to the whole world as fully and as clearly as possible. The Sacrifice of the Mass is by far the richest treasure which Christ has left to His Church. Yet, my brethren, there are many persons who treat it with indifference, and take little or no pains to rightly understand its value, or the manifold graces and blessings which it contains. Strange to say, while the great mass of Catholics frequently meditate upon the infinite love of Jesus Christ in instituting the Blessed Eucharist as a Sacrament, comparatively few ever reflect upon His equally infinite love in instituting it, also as a Sacrifice.
By sacrifice is meant: the external offering to God alone, of some sensible or visible thing, made by a priest, or lawful minister; the partial destruction or total annihilation of the victim being the acknowledgment of Almighty God's supreme dominion over us, and our total dependence on Him. Christian sacrifice cannot be offered to any one but to God alone.
The strongest instincts of nature, my brethren, prompt us to offer sacrifice to the Deity as an essential and acceptable act of religion. Hence, from the commencement of the world, all nations, even the most barbarous and illiterate, have offered sacrifice of one kind or another to the divinities they worshipped. In the Old Law sacrifices of divers kinds were frequently offered to God.
Abel offered sacrifice of "the firstlings of his flock" (Gen. iv.); Noah "built an altar unto the Lord: and taking of all cattle and fowls that were clean, offered holocausts upon the altar" (Gen. vii.);
![[Image: The%20Holy%20Sacrifice%20of%20the%20Mass%2006.jpg]](https://www.catholicharboroffaithandmorals.com/The%20Holy%20Sacrifice%20of%20the%20Mass%2006.jpg)
The sacrifices of the Old Law were, some of them, bloody; others unbloody. The bloody sacrifices consisted chiefly of lambs, oxen, and goats. Sometimes, as in the case of our Lord's presentation, the victims were birds: "They carried him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord. . . . . And to offer sacrifice, according as it is written in the Law of the Lord, a pair of turtle-doves or two young pigeons" (Luke ii. 22 - 24). The unbloody sacrifices were mainly of flour, and wine, and oil, etc. These ancient sacrifices, though offered up by the hands of the holy Patriarchs, had no intrinsic value of their own. They were but poor and weak elements, quite incapable of cancelling sin, quite incapable of conferring God's grace upon those who offered them, or upon those for whom they were offered. "For it is impossible," says St. Paul, "that with the blood of oxen and goats, sins should be taken away" (Heb. x. 4). Those sacrifices were but mere types and figures of the true Sacrifice yet to come--that is, of the holy Mass--and it was only as such that they were in any sense acceptable to God. Compared with the Sacrifice of the Mass, they were but as vague shadows, compared to the solid substance.
II. But, at length, the shadows and symbols have given place to the sublime reality. Moved by an incomparable love for fallen man, the eternal Word of God descended from heaven, was made flesh, and dwelt amongst us. He came to offer Himself in sacrifice for our redemption. And, in that eventful hour, all the ancient sacrifices were forever abolished. In view of that divine Victim, they became displeasing (rather than pleasing) to God; the only sacrifice He would consent to accept as worthy of Him was that of His Eternal Son. Our Lord Jesus Christ speaking to His Heavenly Father on this subject, says: "Sacrifices and oblations, and holocausts for sin Thou wouldst not, neither are they pleasing to Thee which are offered according to the (Old) Law. Then, said I: Behold, I come to do Thy Will, O God." According to these words, St. Paul says: "Christ taketh away the first (or ancient sacrifices) that He may establish that which followeth (that is, the Sacrifice of the Mass). By the which will, we are sanctified by the oblation of the body of Jesus Christ" (Heb. x. 8--11).
The Mass, my beloved brethren, is the Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, which are really present upon our altars under the appearance of bread and wine, and are offered to God by the priest for the living and the dead. This sublime oblation is no new sacrifice in the Catholic Church. The testimony of the holy Fathers, the sacred archives of antiquity, furnish abundant records and proofs of its existence in the Church, since the days of Christ and His Apostles. Nor, indeed, for more than fifteen hundred years, was there found one bold or bad enough to deny it, until Martin Luther, of dismal and execrable memory, raised his heretical voice against it in the sixteenth century, and thus deprived himself, and millions besides, of the many graces purchased for them by the Sacrifice of the cross, and made applicable to them by Christ through the Sacrifice of the Mass.
The latter was clearly foretold by the Prophet Malachy, when he declares to the Jews, as the mouth-piece of the Most High (I, x. 11): "I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of Hosts. I will not receive a gift of your hand. For, from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation." From this passage, my dear Christians, we see that, from the period of our Lord's Crucifixion, the sacrifices of the Jews were rejected; that a clean oblation was instituted in their stead; and that this clean oblation was offered to His name among the Gentiles throughout the whole world, from the rising of the sun to the going down thereof. This, we know for a certianty, since the words of the Prophet apply with striking force and exactness to the holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and not to any other sacrifice on the face of the earth; not to the sacrifices of the Jews, for God expressly declares, through Malachy, that He would not receive a gift from their hands; nor to the Sacrifice of the Cross, for that was offered up in only one place, and not "in every place." In a word, the Prophet's description does not correspond with any sacrifice but the adorable Sacrifice of our altars, which is verily "a clean oblation, offered up in every place, from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same." Again, my brethren, the royal Psalmist calls Jesus Christ a priest forever, according to the order of Melchisedech. Now, you must understand that Melchisedech was a mysterious priest and king of the Old Law, who offered sacrifice to God, only under the form of bread and wine.
![[Image: The%20Holy%20Sacrifice%20of%20the%20Mass%2008.jpg]](https://www.catholicharboroffaithandmorals.com/The%20Holy%20Sacrifice%20of%20the%20Mass%2008.jpg)
"If, then, perfection was by the Levitical priesthood," says St. Paul, "(for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchisedech, and not be called according to the order of Aaron? . . . . For he, of of whom these things are spoken, is of another tribe, of which no one attendeth at the altar. For it is evident, that our Lord sprung out of Juda, in which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priests. And it is, yet, far more evident if, according to the similitude of Melchisedech, there ariseth another priest, who is made, not according to a carnal commandment, but according to the power of an indissoluble life; for he testifieth : Thou are a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech" (Heb. vii. 11-18). The application of this passage to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is so obvious, my brethren, that it scarcely needs a word of further comment; for, in the Mass, Christ shall invisibly be offered up in the Sacrifice forever; and shall, furthermore, invariably offer Himself to the Eternal Father, therein, according to the order of Melchisedech, that is, under the form of bread and wine (Ps. xix. 9). But, let us even suppose that there were no Sacrifice of the Mass, and that (as some non-Catholics maintain) the Psalmist referred in his remarkable prophecy exclusively to our Lord's Sacrifice upon the Cross, do you not see that Christ could not be rigidly called "a priest forever" upon Mount Calvary, inasmuch as the Sacrifice of the Cross was offered by Him only once, and in one place? Do you not see, also, that He could not there be declared "a priest forever, according to the order of Melchisedech," inasmuch as the Sacrifice of Mount Calvary was not offered according to the order of Melchisedech at all, not offered under the form of bread and wine, but according to the order of Aaron, that is, in a bloody manner?
In the New Testament, too, we find clear and abundant proofs of the Catholic doctrine, respecting the Sacrifice of the Mass. St. Matthew (xxvi. 26), describing the Last Supper, states that Jesus Christ "took bread, and blessed, and broke, and gave it to His disciples: and said "Take ye and eat: this is my body. And taking the chalice, He gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this, for this is my blood!" Here, we see, dear brethren, that Jesus offered Himself in sacrifice; His blood was represented as separated from His body. Thus, it was mystically shed, though not actually shed, for the actual blood-shedding took place afterward, when He expired on the Cross. This change in the victim--namely, the body represented under one form, and the blood under another, and both thus apparently separated, one from the other, shows forth most strikingly the death of our Saviour: "the Lamb is, as it were, slain" (Apoc. v. 6). This same Sacramental separation, namely, the Body of Christ, under the form of bread, and the Blood, under the form of wine, may be rightly said to constitute a sacrifice, and, in reality, the Sacrifice of the Mass; or, in other words, it is the Sacrifice of the Cross is an unbloody form, together with the real infinite merits of the same, applied according to the intention of the person who offers it. By giving us the Sacrifice of the Mass, Jesus Christ has lovingly put into our hands the golden master-key by which to possess ourselves of the infinite merits which He purchased for us by the Sacrifice of the Cross, and which He has left carefully locked up therein (as in a divine treasurehouse), for our use and benefit. Hence the Mass is the real application of the fruits of the Sacrifice of the Cross, as well as the unbloody repetition of that same sacrifice. "We, therefore, confess," says the Council of Trent, "that the Sacrifice of the Mass is, and ought to be, considered one and the same as that of the Cross, as the victim is one and the same, namely, Christ our Lord, who immolated Himself, once only, after a bloody manner, on the altar of the Cross. For the bloody and unbloody Victim are not two victims, but one only, whose sacrifice is daily renewed in the Eucharist, in obedience to the command of the Lord: 'Do this for a commemoration of me' (Luke xxii. 19)."
In every Mass of our altars, dear brethren, the same Christ is, therefore, contained and immolated in an unbloody manner, who once offered Himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the Cross. For the Victim is one and the same, now offering Himself by the ministry of His priests (C. of Trent). You see, then, that it was our Lord Jesus Christ who offered up the first Mass, on the eve of His bitter Passion and Death; and it is He, also, who offers up every Mass; for the priest who outwardly offers it is only the visible minister of Christ; Christ Himself, is the Invisible Priest and Victim. Wherefore, the Mass is the original, the self-same Sacrifice as that of the Cross, only differing from the latter in the manner of its oblation. When our Divine Lord had celebrated His First Mass at His Last Supper He gave power and command to His twelve Apostles, present with Him on that occasion, and to all their lawful successors--that is, the priests of the Catholic Church, to offer up the same sublime Sacrifice until the end of the world. " Do this," said He, "for a commemoration of me" (Luke xxii. 19). Hence it is, that in the Mass, the priests take bread and wine, and by virtue of the power of Christ, given unto them at their ordination, they change the whole substance of the bread into the Body of Christ, and the whole substance of the wine into His Blood; and no part or atom of either substance remains (Con. of Trent; Sess. xiii. 2). The species, however, of both the bread and wine remain unchanged; and this is ordained by our Lord not only to exercise our faith, but also in order to veil the dazzling splendors of His Divinity, which no mortal man can see and live. In every Mass, the priest acts in the name of Christ, and uses the words of Christ. Hence the words used at the moment of Transubstantiation, are: "This is my Body--this is my Blood." And whilst the priest thus outwardly offers the Sacrifice of the Mass, it is Christ Himself who really and invisibly offers it through His chosen minister. Jesus Christ then is (as we have already said) both Priest and Victim in this "clean oblation," foretold by the Prophet Malachy, and the same He shall continue to be in each and every Mass that is or will be offered until the end of the world.
Oh, my brethren, how shall we return due praise to God for thus deigning to become incarnate, day by day, in the hands of His priests, as He did once in the chaste womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary! How grateful we ought to be for having the Mass celebrated in every land all the world over. Wherever we go, we find ourselves at home.
ON THE ENDS FOR WHICH MASS IS OFFERED
"Do this for a commemoration of me."--LUKE xxii. 19.
![[Image: The%20Holy%20Sacrifice%20of%20the%20Mass%2005.jpg]](https://www.catholicharboroffaithandmorals.com/The%20Holy%20Sacrifice%20of%20the%20Mass%2005.jpg)
The Sacrifice of the Mass, my beloved brethren, is offered up for four great ends:
1. To give fitting, or, in other words, infinite praise and honor to Almighty God. (a) The natural law, written in the heart of man, directs that every inferior should pay homage to his superior; and, futhermore, that this homage should be always in proportion to the rank and dignity of the superior. Now, this being the case, we should pay to Almighty God, as the Supreme Creator and Ruler of the universe, as our first Beginning and our last End, infinite praise, infinite honor. Anything short of the infinite would not be sufficient, nor would it be adequately worthy of His acceptance. But, since all our human offerings, all our human acts, are, like ourselves, finite, how can we offer any infinite gift to our good and merciful God?
If all the creatures of this world, no matter how rich, or beautiful, or delightful they might be in themselves, were brought to the feet of Almighty God, and laid there as an offering, they would not be worthy His acceptance; for there is nothing worthy of God's acceptance except God Himself. Jesus Christ, then, seeing this great want on the part of man, has, in a marvellous excess of divine love, supplied it by offering Himself, a God of infinite worth, to His Eternal Father in the Sacrifice of the Mass. In that Holy Sacrifice, dear Christians, we can give infinite praise and honor to God, by uniting ourselves to the offering made to Him on our altars by the consecrated hands of His priest. Nay, more, by every Mass that we offer, or get the priest to offer for us, by every Mass at which we assist, we can co-operate in the great sacrifice of Jesus Christ in our behalf; for, thereby discharging our first and chief duty to God, we acknowledge our total dependence on Him, and return Him fitting praise and honor. The accumulated worship of the Saints and Angels in Paradise, of the Archangels, the Seraphim, the Thrones, the Dominations, and the Powers, is unspeakingly grand and pleasing to Almighty God; but it is, as it were, nothing in comparison with the praise and honor given to Him by a single Mass celebrated by a poor, obscure priest in some hidden corner of this lower world. For the praise of all those celestial beings, great though it be, is only finite, whereas the praise given by a Mass is infinite!
(b) The second great end for which we offer up the Sacrifice of the Mass, is to make infinite satisfaction to God for the sins of His creatures. Happily, my beloved brethren, we can all make sufficient satisfaction to God for our sins by this sublime Sacrifice of the altar; and by this Sacrifice alone. For, as the Sacrifice of the Cross satisfied the Divine Justice for the sins of the world, so the Sacrifice of the Mass, and it alone, satisfies for the sins of those who offer it, or cause it to be offered. And this it does, by applying to each of our needy souls the infinite merits purchased by the Sacrifice of the Cross for mankind in general. But here it must be carefully understood that the Mass does not satisfy for our mortal sins immediately; it does not immediately cancel such sins, as the Sacrament of Penance does, when properly received. It cancels them only mediately, that is, it gives us actual graces and helps, whereby our souls may be freed from their guilt at an early and convenient time. And thus, by the Sacrifice of the altar, dear Christians, the graces and merits, purchased by our Lord on Calvary for mankind in general, are communicated to the individual souls for whom the Mass is offered.
Who, then, can estimate the value or importance of having Masses offered for your intention, or in behalf of the sinner? Who can enumerate the benefits to be derived from frequent assistance at this adorable Sacrifice, offering it up with the intentions of the priest? Who can adequately describe the consoling clemency which God extends to us on account of the Sacrifice of the Mass! "The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass," says St. Leonard of Port Maurice, "is the true and sole reason of such stupendous clemency, for in it we offer to the Eternal Father the Great Victim, Jesus Christ. This is the sun of our Holy Church, which dissipates the clouds and restores serenity to the heavens. This, indeed, is the celestial rainbow that stills the tempest of the Divine Justice. For my own part, I am persuaded that, if it were not for the Holy Mass, the world would have long since tottered from its foundations, crushed beneath the enormous weight of so many accumulated iniquities. The Mass is the ponderous and powerful supporter on which the world rests--which keeps it from falling into horrid chaos. . . . . Ah, indeed, if it were not for this Holy Victim (Jesus Christ), once offered for us on the cross, and now daily offered on our altars, we, one and all, might renounce all hope of heaven, and look on hell as our final destination" (Hidden Treasure).
(c ) We owe to God a debt of infinite gratitude for all the favors and blessings, both spiritual and temporal, which He has bestowed upon us.
We are deeply indebted to Him for all those beautiful and priceless graces which He has given us in the past, and still continues to give us in the present. We are indebted to our Lord Jesus Christ for the wondrous love He has displayed in the redemption of man; and, above all, we are indebted to Him for the institution of the sacraments, for His Real Presence in the Blessed Eucharist, and for His promise to abide therein, even to the consummation of the world. What return can we make for all these favors? What offering can we make, from our poverty, worthy of this all-bountiful God? Well, brethren, we have in the Mass, and in it alone, an offering that is worthy: "an oblation and a sacrifice to God, for an odor of sweetness" (Eph. v. 2). In the Mass we offer to God His Divine Son, and that spotless Victim being a gift of infinite value, our offering of gratitude to Almighty God is thus an adequate return for all His favors.
(d) The fourth great end for which Mass is said, my brethren, is: to beg Almighty God for all graces and favors, both spiritual and temporal, which we require. We are all poor beggars in the sight of God. Like the Bishop of Laodicea, we are all "wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked " (Apoc. iii. 17). We need many things from God; and, owing to our multiplied and enormous sins, we require specially a mediator to make intercession for us with the Most High. And so, out of love for us (and in spite of our utter unworthiness), Jesus Christ (O strange and marvellous mercy!) has chosen to be our Mediator, and, even more, to be Himself our Victim of propitiation in the Sacrifice of the Mass. Whether the priest be a holy saint or an unworthy man, the intrinsic value of the Mass--because of the Invisible Priest, Jesus Christ is necessarily infinite; although, according to the teaching of St. Thomas, the application of the Sacrifice is of greater or less efficacy in proportion to the disposition of the person for whom it is offered. Christ, in the Mass, is "able, also, to save forever them that come unto God by himself; always living to make intercession for us. For it was fitting that we should have such a High-Priest--holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners, and made higher than the heavens" (Heb. vii. 25, etc.).
![[Image: The%20Holy%20Sacrifice%20of%20the%20Mass%2003.jpg]](https://www.catholicharboroffaithandmorals.com/The%20Holy%20Sacrifice%20of%20the%20Mass%2003.jpg)
What, then, dear Christians, may you not expect through the Mass when offered up for your intention? For, in every such Mass, Jesus Christ earnestly implores for you all that you desire from His Eternal Father. Jesus and the Eternal Father are one; therefore in the Mass, and through the Mass, you are sure to obtain all that you rightly ask for, and much more in addition. "Assuredly," says St. Jerome, "the Lord grants all the favors for which we petition Him in the Mass, provided they be suitable to us; and what is far more admirable, He very often grants us that for which we do not petition Him, always provided that we place no obstacles to His holy designs." St. Bernard, speaking of the intrinsic value of the Mass, says, that "more is gained by one single Mass than by distributing all your substance among the poor, or going on pilgrimages to all the most venerable sanctuaries on this globe." St. Thomas, the Angelic Doctor, states that "the Holy Mass contains all those fruits, all those graces, nay, all those infinite treasures which the Son of God showered so abundantly upon His Church, in the bloody Sacrifice of the Cross."
Since Almighty God has, then, vouchsafed to give us the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, He has, with it, given us the means to obtain all good things. By offering up a Mass, or by causing it to be offered for you, my brethren, it may be said that, in a certain sense, you make God your debtor. For, in that "clean oblation of the altar," you lovingly offer Jesus Christ to His Eternal Father in sacrifice; and thereby you make Almighty God an infinite offering, in return for the finite creatures He bestows upon you from His bounty, for your use and benefit. Let us, then, my brethren, in all our undertakings, make an offering of the Mass to God, and ask Him in that Holy Sacrifice for all such favors, great or small, as we may need or desire. He cannot easily refuse us, for it is the transcendent nature of God not to be outdone by us, His creatures, in kindness or in generosity. We seek for many graces at the hands of God. We stand in need of many blessings. Let us offer up the Mass to obtain them. Let us offer it up to obtain the full forgiveness of our manifold sins, both known and unknown. Let us offer up the Mass to obtain the conversion of all poor sinners. Let us offer it up to obtain protection from the many temptations of Satan. Let us offer it up, too, for all temporal things, such as good health of body and mind, and success in our lawful business. Let us offer up Masses for the sick and the dying that they may obtain the grace of a happy death. And, furthermore, let us frequently offer up the sublime Sacrifice of the Altar for all the souls suffering in Purgatory, especially for those imprisoned therein through our fault, whether friends or otherwise, that they may be speedily released from their pains, and joyfully admitted into the presence of God in heaven.
My brethren, frequently assist at the Holy Mass. Remember there is no half hour so well spent, as the half hour devoted to attendance at this Holy Sacrifice. You know, of course, that the laity assisting at Mass, offer the Sacrifice in union with the priest. Hence, the latter says at that holy time, Orate fratres, etc.. "Pray, brethren, that my and your sacrifice may be pleasing in the sight of God the Father Omnipotent." At Mass the people should, as it were, hold up the hands of the priest when he takes the consecrated host and the chalice and offers the great Sacrifice. Great blessings descend upon those who join with the priest in devoutly offering up this great sacrifice. No one should be stopping outside the church during time of Mass. St. Gregory says: "A well-disposed man who hears Holy Mass with due attention, is preserved in the way of rectitude, while grace and merit increase in him; and he continues to make new acquisitions of virtue which render him more and more acceptable to God." "Whoever hears Mass devoutly every day," says St. Augustine, "shall be preserved from a sudden death, which is the most awful weapon with which Divine Justice punishes the sinner." But, my brethren, listen to the sublime language of St. Leonard of Port Maurice on this subject: "Would that I could ascend," says he, "to the summit of the loftiest mountain, and cry aloud, so that the whole world might hear me exclaiming: 'Foolish, foolish people, what are ye doing? Why will you not hasten to the churches to assist at every Mass celebrated therein? Why will you not imitate those holy Angels who, according to St. John Chrysostom, descend in thousands from the heavens, when Mass is being celebrated, and array themselves before our altars, covered with wings of holy awe, tarrying there during the august sacrifice, in order to intercede more efficaciously for us, knowing well that this is the most opportune time and most propitious occasion that can be, for obtaining favors from heaven?"' (Hid. Treasure). And St. Leonard, furthermore, adds the following very emphatic words--(they are the burning words of a saint): --" Let me, on bended knees," he says, "and with hands uplifted, implore all who read this little work on the Sacrifice of the Mass not to close it till they have made a firm resolution of henceforth employing all possible diligence in assisting at Mass, and causing to be celebrated as many Masses as their means will permit, not only for the souls of the deceased, but, also, for their own souls!" ( By a special rule of this Order, St. Leonard was not allowed to accept any money for "saying" Mass. . If the whole globe were of solid gold, it would not be a suflicient price for a Mass.)
Oh! my brethren, let us thank Almighty God a thousand times for His unspeakable love toward us in having given to us in the Church the rich treasure of the Mass! Let us ask Mary, the Crowned Queen of Heaven, to thank our Blessed Lord and God, again and again, for His love for us, individually, in thus, also, having made known to us the hidden riches of this adorable Sacrifice, and the untold benefits we may derive from it, both for time and for eternity! It is a precious mine of exhaustless wealth, a treasury of grace, a perennial fountain of blessings; it is the sun and centre of the whole system of true religion; it is the heavenly focus--inexpressibly loved and lovely--in which are concentrated all the soul-saving rays of God's beauty and royal splendor, of His glory and Majesty and Divinity. The Mass is the miracle of miracles-- it is the mystery of God's deep, boundless, and burning love for man!-- "Having loved His own, who were in the world," says St. John the Evangelist, "He loved them to the end " (John xiii. I). Amen.
|
|
|
|
| Quietly and over some objections, a national digital vaccine card has emerged |
|
Posted by: Stone - 01-15-2022, 09:00 AM - Forum: COVID Passports
- Replies (1)
|
|
Quietly and over some objections, a national digital vaccine card has emerged
The SMART Health Card is voluntary and minimal by design to protect personal information. About 80 percent of vaccinated people in the U.S. most likely have access to it.
![[Image: 220113-vaccine-qr-code-mn-1530-adbf33.jpg]](https://media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com/image/upload/t_fit-1240w,f_auto,q_auto:best/rockcms/2022-01/220113-vaccine-qr-code-mn-1530-adbf33.jpg)
University of Southern California students, faculty and visitors use their phones to display their "Trojan Check" QR code
to enter the campus in Los Angeles on Aug. 23.Al Seib / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images
NBC | Jan. 13, 2022
Whether they realize it or not, about 200 million people in the United States now likely have access to a Covid-19 digital vaccine card.
The digital pass known as the SMART Health Card is voluntary and minimal by design to protect personal information. It has a person’s name, date of birth and the dates and brands of vaccination doses, all contained within a type of scannable bar code known as a QR code.
And after a relatively quiet start, it has built momentum in recent months as more states and companies have signed on, making it something of a de facto national digital vaccine card.
“The beautiful thing about this is that this multistate coalition is a coalition of the willing,” said Dr. Brian Anderson, chief digital health physician at MITRE, a research nonprofit, and an architect of the health cards.
Video: June 2021: Should people have to prove they got their shots with vaccine passports?
Any such card seemed like a remote possibility a year ago, when people first began receiving paper cards as proof of their Covid vaccinations. The Biden administration said in March that it would not take the lead on any national health pass and instead defer to the private sector, and the idea of a vaccine “passport” has faced opposition and even bans, especially in Republican-led states such as Alabama and Texas.
Rather than a single app, the SMART Health Card is open-source computer code that anyone can use to ping a verified source of health data and produce the unique QR code. The digital cards are now widely available from more than 400 sources including states, pharmacies and health care organizations.
The fact that the system exists in any form is a triumph for a loose coalition of technologists, nonprofit groups and mostly Democratic states that championed the development of a digital vaccine card even before the first coronavirus shots were administered.
“This is a de facto standard,” said Rick Klau, California’s chief technology innovation officer. “This is essentially the one common way for residents to secure that digital copy and then use it.”
The digital card offers a few benefits beyond a paper card. QR codes can't be forged in the way a paper card could be, because a restaurant or a music venue can use a scanner app to verify that it's legitimate. People can also download the QR code again if they lose it, adding a convenience factor.
People can get the QR code from their state health authority if they've been vaccinated in one of the 13 states now participating, but they may also be able to get them from a hospital or from a national pharmacy chain, such as Albertsons, CVS, Rite Aid, Walgreens or stores like Walmart if they've been vaccinated at any of their locations.
Vaccine QR codes are also spreading internationally. Japan launched a similar system last month, and Ontario, Canada, is requiring people to have scannable proof of vaccination to eat inside restaurants or go inside certain other businesses. QR codes are increasingly required as part of international airline travel.
Within the U.S., the QR codes are still voluntary. California and Louisiana became the first states to roll out the SMART Health Card last June, and the number of issuers grew slowly at first before picking up pace over time.
Colorado signed on in November, followed by Connecticut and Illinois in December. On Monday, Massachusetts became the 13th state to voluntarily embrace the system, and another 10 or so states are privately exploring the possibility, Anderson said.
Washington has issued about 840,000 QR codes, according to the state’s health department. That’s equivalent to about 11 percent of the state’s population. The numbers in Colorado and New Jersey are similar.
The QR codes work on paper, too, if people would rather print them out than keep them on a phone.
Klau, a former manager at Google, has advised other states as they put the system in place. In California alone, 7 million individuals have downloaded their QR code, and he estimated that about 80 percent of the vaccinated U.S. population of 247 million people have access to a SMART Health Card if they want one through either their state health authority or the site where they were vaccinated, such as a pharmacy or a hospital.
“It’s inspiring to see what has largely been a grassroots effort not only take hold, but develop so completely,” he said. “It has certainly not been mandated.”
A critical feature is that the QR codes are standardized and interoperable, so they work across state lines. A resident of New Jersey visiting San Francisco can use the same system to prove vaccination as a Californian.
And they can work internationally. Countries including the United Kingdom, Israel and Singapore have said they’ll recognize the QR codes if Americans present them abroad, Klau said.
It’s not clear if the Biden administration will ever endorse the project. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention did not respond to requests for comment.
“It has forced many states to take leadership roles in implementing and coordinating around multistate coalitions,” said Anderson, who is also co-lead of the Vaccine Credential Initiative, or VCI.
Anderson said other countries haven’t always known whom to speak with in the U.S. to plan cross-border systems. “They’re turning to the states, they’re turning to VCI, and it’s a challenge for a state to conduct foreign diplomacy,” he said.
One barrier to creating a truly national digital vaccine card is that there’s no federal database of vaccination records. Each state maintains its own registry of vaccination records, so either the states or the health care providers need to be the ones to issue verified copies or credentials.
Some of the most thorny political questions remain up in the air nationally, including: Should a business have the right to turn away someone without a vaccine QR code? Or in a pandemic, should a city or state even require businesses to turn people away, as in Canada? What about people who, for health reasons, can't get a vaccine?
“We won’t be safe until venues are able to *require* SMART Health QR codes and stop accepting paper cards, or photos of cards. And that won’t happen until state or local governments mandate that,” said Jamie Zawinski, a software developer who also owns a night club, DNA Lounge, in San Francisco. He requires customers to have the QR code or, for now, their paper CDC card.
DNA Lounge not only requires people to display the QR code, but it also scans the code using a smartphone app to verify that the codes are authentic — making the club one of the few businesses anywhere in the U.S. to take that extra step.
The primary scanning app available, the SMART Health Card Verifier App, has been used about 750,000 times this month, and the trend line indicates usage is doubling month over month, Anderson said. He said he doesn’t know where the scanning is happening, because by design neither the health card’s creators nor the states have the ability to collect that data.
Only a few places in the U.S. require proof of vaccination to enter indoor businesses, and that list is growing slowly. A mandate in Boston is scheduled to take effect Saturday, even as Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker, a Republican, has pushed to keep the state system voluntary.
“The Administration is not requiring residents to show proof of vaccination to enter any venue, but this tool will help residents who would like to access and produce a digital copy of their record,” his office said in a statement.
The idea that airlines or even local businesses could attempt to collect data from digital health cards remains a chief concern for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit group in San Francisco that advocates for privacy online and that criticized the health cards last June soon after California adopted them.
“The scanning of your health information at the door of any business still worries me because generally we do not have a federal data privacy law,” said Alexis Hancock, EFF’s director of engineering. She pointed to software, unrelated to vaccines, that venues can use to scan driver’s licenses.
That danger could be lessened, she said, if Congress or state legislators pass new consumer protections. A bill pending in the New York state Legislature would create new safeguards for medical immunity information.
But Hancock also said the SMART Health Cards have alleviated at least some of EFF's concerns about digital vaccine records by making the computer code behind the cards open-source, which allows others to inspect it, and nonproprietary.
"Obviously, a lot has happened since last year," she said.
|
|
|
|
| Irony in latest Covid Study |
|
Posted by: Stone - 01-15-2022, 08:44 AM - Forum: Health
- No Replies
|
|
It is said that because of our 24-hour news cycle, things that were reported just a month before are 'old news,' that we can barely remember them.
Which works to the advantage of those who are pulling out the carpets from under us in a variety of topics (not that anyone here took the cannabis study results seriously).
But it certainly does give the appearance, once again, that it's all rigged in favor of the big companies.
|
|
|
|
| Davos Agenda 2022 and Attendees |
|
Posted by: Stone - 01-15-2022, 08:12 AM - Forum: Great Reset
- No Replies
|
|
The Davos Agenda 2022 brings together world leaders to address the state of the world
WEFORUM.ORG [adapted - not all hyperlinks included below] | 13 Jan 2022
- The Davos Agenda virtual event will take place 17-21 January 2022.
- It will feature heads of state and government, CEOs and other leaders to address critical challenges.
- Discover more on the event page here.
The Davos Agenda virtual event offers the first global platform of 2022 for world leaders to come together to share their visions for the year ahead.
The week long virtual event, taking place on the World Economic Forum website and social media channels 17-21 January 2022, will feature heads of state and government, CEOs and other leaders. They will discuss the critical challenges facing the world today and present their ideas on how to address them.
The event will also mark the launch of several Forum initiatives including efforts to accelerate the race to net-zero emissions, ensure the economic opportunity of nature-positive solutions, create cyber resilience, strengthen global value chains, build economies in fragile markets through humanitarian investing, bridge the vaccine manufacturing gap and use data solutions to prepare for the next pandemic.
“Everyone hopes that in 2022 the COVID-19 pandemic, and the crises that accompanied it, will finally begin to recede," said Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum. "But major global challenges await us, from climate change to rebuilding trust and social cohesion. To address them, leaders will need to adopt new models, look long term, renew cooperation and act systemically. The Davos Agenda 2022 is the starting point for the dialogue needed for global cooperation in 2022.”
How to follow the Davos Agenda 2022
Davos Agenda 2022 participants
World leaders delivering “State of the World” Special Addresses will include:
- Narendra Modi, Prime Minister of India
- Kishida Fumio, Prime Minister of Japan
- António Guterres, Secretary-General, United Nations
- Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission
- Scott Morrison, Prime Minister of Australia
- Joko Widodo, President of Indonesia
- Naftali Bennett, Prime Minister of Israel
- Janet L. Yellen, Secretary of the Treasury of the United States
- Yemi Osinbajo, Vice-President of Nigeria
- Xi Jinping, President of the People's Republic of China
- Olaf Scholz, Federal Chancellor of Germany
The programme will also feature speakers including:
- Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General, World Health Organization (WHO)
- Fatih Birol, Executive Director, International Energy Agency
- José Pedro Castillo Terrones, President of Peru
- Ivan Duque, President of Colombia
- Anthony S. Fauci, Director, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health of the United States of America
- Yasmine Fouad, Minister of Environment of Egypt
- Kristalina Georgieva, Managing Director, International Monetary Fund (IMF)
- Alejandro Giammattei, President of Guatemala
- Al Gore, Vice-President of the United States (1993-2001) and Chairman and Co-Founder, Generation Investment Management
- Paulo Guedes, Minister of Economy of Brazil
- Paula Ingabire, Minister of Information Communication Technology and Innovation of Rwanda
- Paul Kagame, President of Rwanda
- John F. Kerry, Special Presidential Envoy for Climate of the United States of America
- Christine Lagarde, President, European Central Bank
- Guillermo Lasso, President of Ecuador
- Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, Director-General, World Trade Organization (WTO)
- Abdulaziz Bin Salman Bin AbdulazizAl Saud, Minister of Energy of Saudi Arabia
- Nicolas Schmit, Commissioner for Jobs and Social Rights, European Commission
- François Villeroy de Galhau, Governor of the Central Bank of France
- Sarah bint Yousif Al-Amiri, Minister of State for Advanced Technology, Ministry of Industry and Advanced Technology of the United Arab Emirates
- Carlos Alvarado Quesada, President of Costa Rica, Office of the President of Costa Rica
Davos Agenda 2022 sessions and launches
Conversations will focus on critical collective challenges across several key areas:
Climate action
Climate action failure, extreme weather and biodiversity loss are ranked the top three most-severe risks for the world over the next decade, according to the Forum’s Global Risks Report 2022, published 11 January 2022.
![[Image: responsive_large_webp_Wq9i9cLnKhiv7EJExQ...oonIQ.webp]](https://assets.weforum.org/editor/responsive_large_webp_Wq9i9cLnKhiv7EJExQ0TvuTRhinwuQ_mj5IbPEoonIQ.webp)
Top 10 risks by severity
For a brief moment, a drop in emissions in 2020 proved climate action is possible – and the collective response to COVID-19 is evidence that, if we work together, it’s not too late to save the planet. This requires reaching net zero, achieving the energy transition, committing to circular economies and sustainable consumption and – above all – putting climate and nature at the heart of recovery plans.
What to watch:
Pandemic recovery
Now in the third year of the COVID-19 pandemic, the rapid development of vaccines is a scientific achievement for the ages, but the Omicron variant shows why we must prioritize universal global distribution – or risk negative health, economic and geopolitical outcomes. Addressing antimicrobial resistance, disparities in health coverage and outcomes, and the importance of mental healthcare for all (and especially our global health workforce) are key to ensuring we'll have resilient, efficient and equitable healthcare systems by the time the next pandemic comes knocking.
What to watch:
Economic and social resilience
After decades of progress in addressing poverty and income inequality, COVID-19 set us back – bringing the first rise in extreme poverty in a generation. Governments have rolled out some of the largest social spending program ever seen, but vaccine inequality and inflation – especially rising food and energy prices – threaten to widen the gaps even more. To truly recover, we must not only stabilize economies but also ensure they’re resilient and fair, providing social mobility, jobs and equitable opportunities for all.
Increasingly business recognizes the value of doing long-term good – and over the past year, has laid the groundwork for action with commitments to net zero, social justice and shared ESG metrics. Now, as we embark on the next phase of recovery, it’s important to put these plans into action and truly implement stakeholder capitalism to ensure the recovery touches not only the company’s shareholders, but also its employees, customers, suppliers, local communities and society at large.
On 7 January, Klaus Schwab published his latest book, The Great Narrative, co-authored with Thierry Malleret. Based on interviews with 50 of the world's leading thinkers, the book explores how we can build a more inclusive, sustainable and resilient future.
On 26 January, the Forum will release its Global Competitiveness Report 2021-2022.
What to watch:
Global cooperation
The recent years have seen deepened political and social divides as well as a heightened mistrust of institutions and the spread of misinformation and disinformation. We must renew our commitment to global cooperation and shared prosperity – from vaccine equity to wherever the new era of global space exploration may take us.
At the same time, the shocks of COVID-19 accelerated the digital transformation of business and society – and innovations in vaccines, therapeutics, diagnostics and contact tracing have helped us to address the pandemic’s worst impacts. Looking ahead, technology holds the keys to solving the biggest challenges ahead of us: decarbonizing energy, diagnosing and treating disease, securing our food supply and helping small businesses and entrepreneurs everywhere survive and thrive.
But this rapid digital transformation is not without risk, as we’ve seen cybercrime spike and digital divides widen in the past two years, too. We must work together to balance innovation and responsibility to ensure the digital transformation is driving growth and innovation, and not creating harm.
The Forum will release the Global Cybersecurity Outlook 2022 report on 18 January.
What to watch:
How to follow the Davos Agenda 2022
The event will be livestreamed across the Forum's website and social media channels. All content will be shared using the official event hashtag #DavosAgenda.
|
|
|
|
| Abp. Viganò: Delicta Mea - About the Holy Apostolic Mass |
|
Posted by: Stone - 01-14-2022, 12:19 PM - Forum: Archbishop Viganò
- No Replies
|
|
Abp. Viganò urges priests to learn the Latin Mass: It ‘unites us to the Saints and Martyrs of the past’
Do you want to please God or the one who keeps you away from Him?
The question, at its root, is always this: the choice between the gentle yoke of Christ and the Adversary’s chains of slavery.
Fri Jan 14, 2022
(LifeSiteNews) – You who permit yourselves to prohibit the Holy Apostolic Mass, have you ever celebrated it? You who from the height of your liturgical cathedrae are piqued about the “old Mass,” have you ever meditated on its prayers, its rites, and its ancient and sacred gestures? I have asked myself this many times in the past few years: because I myself, even though I knew this Mass since I was very young; even though I had learned to serve it and respond to the celebrant when I was so little that I was still wearing boys’ knickers, I had almost forgotten it and lost it. Introibo ad altare Dei. Kneeling in winter on the ice-cold steps of the altar, before going to school. Sweating on hot summer days under my altar boy’s vestments. I had forgotten that Mass, even though it was the Mass of my ordination as a priest on 24 March 1968: an era in which one could already perceive the signs of the revolution that shortly thereafter would deprive the Church of her most precious treasure, imposing a counterfeit ritual in its place.
Well, that Mass that the conciliar reform cancelled and prohibited in my first years of Priesthood remained as a distant memory, like the smile of a distant loved one, the gaze of a missing relative, the sound of a Sunday with its bells, its friendly voices. But it was something that had to do with nostalgia, youth, the enthusiasm of an era in which ecclesiastical commitments were still to come, in which everyone wanted to believe that the world could recover from the aftermath of the Second World War and the threat of Communism with a renewed spiritual momentum. We wanted to think that economic well-being could somehow be accompanied by a moral and religious rebirth of our nation [Italy]. Despite the revolution of 1968, the occupations, terrorism, the Red Brigades, and the crisis of the Middle East. Thus, amidst the thousand ecclesiastical and diplomatic commitments, the memory of something had crystallized in my memory that in fact remained unresolved, which had been “momentarily” set aside for decades. Something that patiently waited, with the indulgence that only God uses toward us.
My decision to denounce the scandals of American Prelates and the Roman Curia was the occasion that led me back to consider, under another light, not only my role as Archbishop and as Apostolic Nuncio, but also the soul of that Priesthood which service first in the Vatican and lastly in the United States had in some way left incomplete: more for my being a priest than for the Ministry. And what up until then I had not yet understood became clear to me due to an apparently unexpected circumstance, when my personal safety seemed to be in danger and I found myself, against my will, having to live almost in hiding, far from the palaces of the Curia. It was then that that blessed segregation, which today I consider as a sort of monastic choice, led me to rediscover the Holy Tridentine Mass. I recall very well the day when, instead of the chasuble, I put on the traditional vestments with the Ambrosian cappino and the maniple. I recall the fear that I felt in pronouncing, after almost fifty years, those prayers of the Missal that re-emerged from my mouth as if I had just recited them shortly before. Confitemini Domino, quoniam bonus, in the place of the Psalm Judica me, Deus of the Roman Rite. Munda cor meum ac labia mea. These words were no longer the words of the altar boy or the young seminarian, but the words of the celebrant, of I who once again, I would dare say for the first time, celebrated before the Most Holy Trinity. Because while it is true that the Priest is a person who lives essentially for others – for God and for his neighbor – it is equally true that if he does not have the awareness of his own identity and has not cultivated his own holiness, his apostolate is sterile like the clanging cymbal.
I know well that these reflections can leave those who have never had the grace of celebrating the Mass of all time unmoved, or even arouse condescension. But the same thing happens, I imagine, for those who have never fallen in love and who do not understand the enthusiasm and the chaste transport of the beloved towards his beloved, or for those who do not know the joy of getting lost in her eyes. The dull Roman liturgist, the Prelate with his tailored clerical suit and his pectoral cross in his pocket, the consultor of the Roman Congregation with the latest copy of Concilium or Civiltà Cattolica in plain sight, looks at the Mass of Saint Pius V with the eyes of an entomologist (the science that studies insects), scrutinizing that pericope just as a naturalist observes the veins of a leaf or the wings of a butterfly. Indeed, I sometimes wonder if they don’t do it with the asepticity of the pathologist who cuts open a living body with a scalpel. But if a priest with a minimum of interior life approaches the ancient Mass, regardless of whether he has ever known it before or is discovering it for the first time, he is deeply moved by the composed majesty of the rite, as if he has stepped out of time and entered the eternity of God.
What I would like to make my brothers in the Episcopate and the Priesthood understand is that that Mass is intrinsically divine, because one perceives the sacred in a visceral way: one is literally taken up into heaven, into the presence of the Most Holy Trinity and the celestial Court, far from the clamor of the world. It is a love song, in which the repetition of the signs, the reverences, and the sacred words is not in any way useless, just as a mother never tires of kissing her son, or a bride never tires of saying, “I love you” to her husband. Everything is forgotten there, because all that is said and sung in it is eternal, all the gestures that are performed there are perennial, outside of history, yet immersed in a continuum that unites the Cenacle, Calvary, and the altar on which the Mass is celebrated. The celebrant does not address the assembly, with the concern of being understandable or being nice or appearing to be up-to-date; rather, he addresses God: and before God there is only the sense of infinite gratitude for the privilege of being able to carry with him the prayers of the Christian people, the joys and sorrows of so many souls, the sins and shortcomings of those who implore forgiveness and mercy, gratitude for graces received, and suffrages for our dear departed. One is alone, and at the same time one feels intimately united with an endless host of souls that crosses time and space.
When I celebrate the apostolic Mass, I think of how on that same altar, consecrated by the relics of the Martyrs, so many Saints and thousands of priests, using the same words that I say, repeating the very same gestures, making the same bows and the same genuflections, wearing the same vestments. But above all, receiving Holy Communion with the same Body and Blood of Our Lord, to whom we have all been assimilated in the offering of the Holy Sacrifice. When I celebrate the Mass of all time, I realize in the most sublime and complete way the true significance of what doctrine teaches us. Acting in persona Christi is not a mechanical repetition of a formula, but the awareness that my mouth utters the same words that the Savior pronounced over the bread and wine in the Cenacle; that as I elevate the Host and Chalice to the Father, I repeat the immolation that Christ made of Himself on the Cross; that in receiving Holy Communion I consume the sacrificial Victim and feed on God Himself, and I am not participating in a party. And the entire Church is with me: the Church Triumphant which deigns to unite itself to my imploring prayer, the Church Suffering that awaits it in order to shorten souls’ stay in Purgatory, and the Church Militant that strengthens herself in the daily spiritual battle. But if, as we profess with faith, our mouth is really Christ’s mouth, if our words in the Consecration are really those of Christ, if the hands with which we touch the Sacred Host and the Chalice are Christ’s hands, what respect ought we to have for our body, keeping it pure and uncontaminated? What better incentive is there to remain in the Grace of God? Mundamini, qui fertis vasa Domini. And with the words of the Missal: Aufer a nobis, quæsumus, Domine, iniquitates nostras: ut ad sancta sanctorum puris mereamur mentibus introire.
The theologian will tell me that this is common doctrine, and that the Mass is exactly that, regardless of the rite, I do not deny it, rationally. But while the celebration of the Tridentine Mass is a constant reminder of an uninterrupted continuity of the work of the Redemption studded with Saints and Blesseds, the same thing does not happen, it seems to me, with the reformed rite. If I look at the table versus populum, I see there the Lutheran altar or the Protestant table; if I read the words of the Institution of the Last Supper in the form of narration, I hear the modifications of Cranmer’s Common Book of Prayer, and the service of Calvin; if I glance through the reformed calendar, I find that the same saints who cancelled the heretics of the Pseudo-reform have been removed. And the same is true for the songs, which would horrify an English or German Catholic: hearing the hymns of those who martyred our priests and trampled the Blessed Sacrament in contempt for “papist superstition” sung under the vaults of a church ought to make us understand the abyss that exists between the Catholic Mass and its conciliar counterfeit. To say nothing of the language: the first ones to abolish Latin were the heretics, in the name of giving the people a greater comprehension of the rites; a people whom they deceived, contesting revealed Truth and propagating error. Everything is profane in the Novus Ordo. Everything is momentary, everything accidental, everything contingent, variable, and changeable. There is nothing of the eternal, because eternity is immutable, just as the Faith is immutable. Just as God is immutable.
There is another aspect of the traditional Holy Mass that I would like to emphasize, and that unites us to the Saints and Martyrs of the past. Since the times of the catacombs up until the most recent persecutions, wherever a priest celebrates the Holy Sacrifice, even in an attic or a cellar, in the woods or in a barn, or even in a van, he is mystically in communion with that host of heroic witnesses of the Faith, and the gaze of the Most Holy Trinity rests on that improvised altar; before it all the angelic hosts genuflect adoringly; all of the souls in purgatory gaze toward it. In this too, especially in this, each of us understands how the Tradition creates an indissoluble link between the centuries, not only in the jealous custody of that treasure, but also in facing the trials that it entails, even unto death. In the presence of this thought, the arrogance of the present tyrant, with his insane decrees, ought to strengthen us in fidelity to Christ and make us feel that we are an integral part of the Church of all times, because we cannot win the palm of victory if we are not ready to fight the bonum certamen.
I would like my confreres to dare to do the unthinkable: I would like them to approach the Holy Tridentine Mass not so as to be pleased with the lace of an alb or with the embroidery of a chasuble, or because of a mere rational conviction about its canonical legitimacy or about the fact that it has never been abolished; but rather with the reverential fear with which Moses approached the burning bush: knowing that each one of us, upon coming down from the altar after the Last Gospel, is in some way interiorly transfigured because there he has encountered the Holy of Holies. It is only there, on that mystical Sinai, that we can understand the very essence of our Priesthood, which is the giving of Oneself to God, above all; an oblation of all of himself together with Christ the Victim, for the greater glory of God and the salvation of souls; a spiritual sacrifice which draws strength and vigor from the Mass; self-renunciation in order to make way for the High Priest; a sign of true humility, in the annihilation of one’s own will and abandonment to the will of the Father, following the Lord’s example; a gesture of authentic “communion” with the Saints, in the sharing of the same profession of faith and the same rite. And I would like not only those who have celebrated the Novus Ordo for decades to have this “experience,” but above all the young priests and those who carry out their ministry in the front line: the Mass of Saint Pius V is for indomitable spirits, for generous and heroic souls, for hearts burning with Charity for God and one’s neighbor.
I know well that the life of the priests today is made up of a thousand trials, of stress, of the feeling of being alone in fighting against the world, in the disinterest and ostracism of Superiors, of a slow wear and tear that distracts from recollection, from the interior life, and from spiritual growth. And I know very well that this feeling of being under siege, of finding oneself as a sailor who is alone and has to pilot a ship through a storm, is not the prerogative of traditionalists or progressives, but is the common destiny of all those who have offered their lives to the Lord and to the Church, each with their own miseries, with economic problems, misunderstandings with the Bishop, criticisms from their confreres, as well as the requests of the faithful. And also those hours of solitude, in which the presence of God and the companionship of the Virgin Mary seem to vanish, just as in the dark night of Saint John of the Cross. Quare me repulisti? Et quare tristis incedo, dum affligit me inimicus? When the demon winds insidiously between the internet and the television, quærens quem devoret, taking advantage of our weariness by betrayal. In those cases, which we all face just as Our Lord did in Gethsemane, it is our Priesthood that Satan wants to strike, presenting himself persuasively like Salomé before Herod, asking us for the gift of the Baptist’s head. Ab homine iniquo, et doloso erue me. In the trial, we are all the same: because the victory that the Enemy wants to win is not only over the poor souls of the Baptized, but over Christ the Priest, whose Anointing we carry.
For this reason, today more than ever, the Holy Tridentine Mass is the sole anchor of salvation of the Catholic Priesthood, because in it the priest is reborn, each day, in that privileged time of intimate union with the Blessed Trinity, and from it he draws indispensable graces so as not to fall into sin, to progress along the way of holiness, and to rediscover the healthy balance with which to face his Ministry. Anyone who believes that all this can be liquidated as a mere ceremonial or aesthetic question has not understood anything about his own priestly Vocation. Because the Holy Mass “of all time” – and it truly is this, just as it has always been opposed by the Adversary – is not an obliging lover who offers herself to anyone, but rather a jealous and chaste Bride, as jealous as the Lord is.
Do you want to please God or the one who keeps you away from Him? The question, at its root, is always this: the choice between the gentle yoke of Christ and the Adversary’s chains of slavery. The response will appear clear and limpid to you in the moment in which you too, marveling at this immense treasure that has been kept hidden from you, discover what it means to celebrate the Holy Sacrifice not as pathetic “presiders of the assembly,” but rather as “ministers of Christ and dispensers of the Mysteries of God” (1 Cor 4:1).
Pick up the Missal, ask for help from a priest friend, and ascend the Mountain of the Transfiguration: Emitte lucem tuam et veritatem tuam: ipsa me deduxerunt, et adduxerunt in montem sanctum tuum, et in tabernacula tua. Like Peter, James, and John, you will exclaim: Domine, bonum est nos hic esse – “Lord, it is good that we are here” (Mt 17:4). Or, with the words of the Psalmist that the celebrant repeats at the Offertory: Domine, dilexi decorem domus tuæ, et locum habitationis gloriæ tuæ.
Once you have discovered it, no one will be able to take away from you that through which the Lord no longer calls you servants, but friends (Jn 15:15). No one will ever be able to convince you to renounce it, forcing you to be content with its adulteration that was brought to birth by rebellious minds. Eratis enim aliquando tenebræ: nunc enim lux in Domino. Ut filii lucis ambulate. “For once you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk then as children of the light” (Eph 5:8). Propter quod dicit: Surge qui dormis, et exsurge a mortuis, et illuminabit te Christus. “Wherefore he says: Awake, O sleeper, and rise from the dead, and Christ shall enlighten you” (Eph 5:14).
+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop
January 2nd, 2022
Sanctissimi Nominis JESU
|
|
|
|
| The Supreme Court’s Ruling On Vaccine Mandates Is Frighteningly Weak |
|
Posted by: Stone - 01-14-2022, 10:02 AM - Forum: Pandemic 2020 [Secular]
- No Replies
|
|
The Supreme Court’s Ruling On Vaccine Mandates Is Frighteningly Weak
Justices Roberts and Kavanaugh both acquiesced in the Biden Department of Health and Human Services’ power grab.
![[Image: 1280px-Tuesday_afternoon_12_January_2021...00x675.jpg]](https://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/1280px-Tuesday_afternoon_12_January_2021_US_Supreme_Court_-_Washington_DC_IMG_9813a_50834153476-1200x675.jpg)
The Federalist | January 14, 2022
It’s long been axiomatic in the legal profession that tough facts make bad law. Yesterday’s forked decisions from the Supreme Court in two vaccine mandate cases now add a corollary to that principle: Quick cases make milquetoast opinions.
The Supreme Court heard the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and Medicare/Medicaid mandate cases in tandem on an expedited basis last Friday. Although court observers expected lightning-fast decisions, the opinions in National Federation of Independent Business v. Department of Labor and Biden v. Missouri didn’t drop until Jan. 13.
The high court issued both decisions as per curium, or “by the court,” unsigned opinions, with a 6-3 majority staying the OSHA de facto vaccine mandate in National Federation and a 5-4 majority in Biden v. Missouri allowing the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ rule requiring vaccines for medical facility workers to take effect. Justices John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh switched sides to join the court’s leftist members in the Medicare/Medicaid case, with Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito issuing separate dissents joined by Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch in Biden v. Missouri.
In National Federation, the six-justice majority entered a stay to prevent OSHA’s “emergency temporary standard,” requiring employers with 100 or more employees to either compel their employees to become vaccinated or to test weekly for Covid and wear masks at work, from going into effect. The court concluded that the employers, states, and other entities and individuals challenging the rule were “likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the Secretary lacked authority to impose the mandate.”
The nine-page majority opinion methodically detailed the backdrop to the Biden administration’s OSHA work-around and the procedural history. That saw the case going from the Fifth Circuit, where the federal appellate court had stayed the rule, to the Sixth Circuit, where after all of the cases challenging the rule were joined the Cincinnati-based court removed the stay.
After laying out these details, the National Federation court then analyzed the rule at issue and concluded that the challenge to OSHA’s emergency vaccine mandate was likely to succeed because the federal agency “lacked authority to impose the mandate.”
While correct, the majority opinion said little of matter. Yes, “administrative agencies are creatures of statute” and “have only the authority that Congress has provided.” And, no, in passing the Occupational Safety and Health Act in 1970, Congress did not plainly authorize OSHA “to order 84 million Americans to either obtain a COVID–19 vaccine or undergo weekly medical testing at their own expense.”
Merely adding that OSHA’s rule was “no ‘everyday exercise of federal power,’ but “instead a significant encroachment into the lives—and health—of a vast number of employees” that required Congress to “speak clearly” provided little upgrade to the opinion: Given the breadth of the overreach and the offense to our constitutional republic, passion was required, not pedanticism.
Justice Gorsuch’s concurrence, joined by Justices Thomas and Alito, dabbled more directly in first things, from the separation of powers to federalism to self-governance.
“There is no question that state and local authorities possess considerable power to regulate public health,” Gorsuch began, before stressing that “the federal government’s powers, however, are not general but limited and divided.” Thus, the federal government must both “invoke a constitutionally enumerated source of authority” and “act consistently with the Constitution’s separation of powers.”
On this latter point, Gorsuch provided a much-needed exposition. Article I of the U.S. Constitution provides that “the national government’s power to make laws” belongs “with the people’s elected representatives.” If Congress seeks to provide its legislative powers to unelected officials, Justice Gorsuch continued, it must do so clearly and purposefully.
“But the Constitution imposes boundaries here,” he stressed, for “if Congress could hand off all its legislative powers to unelected agency officials, it ‘would dash the whole scheme’ of our Constitution and enable intrusions into the private lives and freedoms of Americans by bare edict rather than only with the consent of their elected representatives.”
Called the non-delegation doctrine, it prevents “government by bureaucracy supplanting government by the people,” Gorsuch wrote, quoting the late Justice Antonin Scalia, before stressing the importance of that principle to the case at hand: If OSHA had the power to mandate vaccines or testing, as it asserted, “that law would likely constitute an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority.”
Sadly, Gorsuch’s concurrence could not garner the agreement of the majority of justices, leaving the bland opinion put forth for the court in National Federation to control.
The real tragedy came, however, in the companion case of Biden v. Missouri. That case was argued the same day, but with the Supreme Court ruling on Jan. 13 that the Department of Health and Human Service’s vaccine mandate for medical facilities receiving Medicare and Medicaid funding could go into effect.
While at first blush the cases seem substantially different, with National Federation concerning an emergency rule issued by OSHA and Biden v. Missouri addressing a mandate applying only to recipients of federal Medicare and Medicare funds, at the core the cases involve identical concerns: Whether Congress did, or could, grant unelected bureaucrats such broad power over Americans.
Unlike the National Federation case, in Biden v. Missouri, Justices Roberts and Kavanaugh both acquiesced in the Department of Health and Human Services’ power grab, based on “a hodgepodge of provisions.” Justice Thomas exposed that reality in his dissent, which Justices Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett joined.
The mandatory vaccination rule issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) failed to find statutory support in the governing statutes, Justice Thomas explained. While Congress authorized the CMS to “publish such rules and regulations . . . as may be necessary to the efficient administration of the [agency’s] functions,” and to “prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the administration of the insurance programs,” the vaccine mandate has no more than a “tangential” connection to the management of Medicare and Medicaid, Thomas wrote.
Nor did the various random statutory provisions grant HHS the authority to “require[] millions of healthcare workers to choose between losing their livelihoods and acquiescing to a vaccine they have rejected for months,” Justice Thomas explained, before stressing: “Vaccine mandates also fall squarely within a State’s police power, and, until now, only rarely have been a tool of the Federal Government. If Congress had wanted to grant CMS authority to impose a nationwide vaccine mandate, and consequently alter the state-federal balance, it would have said so clearly. It did not.”
‘Today, however, most federal law is not made by Congress. It comes in the form of rules issued by unelected administrators.’
Congress’s failure to expressly authorize the CMS to mandate vaccines at Medicare- and Medicaid-funded facilities represented but one of the problems with the rule. Justice Alito, in a separate dissent joined by Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Barrett, added to the analysis a discussion of CMS’s failure to comply with the notice-and-comment mandates Congress established before agencies could promulgate regulations. That violation, Alito explained, doomed the vaccination mandate because there was no “good cause” to sidestep those requirements.
In finding the CMS violated the notice-and-comment rule, Alito stressed, as did Gorsuch in his National Federation concurrence that, “under our Constitution, the authority to make laws that impose obligations on the American people is conferred on Congress, whose Members are elected by the people.”
“Elected representatives solicit the views of their constituents, listen to their complaints and requests, and make a great effort to accommodate their concerns,” Justice Alito continued, noting, “today, however, most federal law is not made by Congress. It comes in the form of rules issued by unelected administrators.” Under these circumstances, then, the notice-and-comment period proves indispensable, Alito explained—unless, that is, you are the Biden administration.
The Biden v. Missouri dissents, however, did not go far enough. The same separation of powers problems plaguing the OSHA regulation apply equally in the context of the CMS rule. Yet the dissenting justices gave short shrift to those concerns.
The question is, why? Also, why did Gorsuch’s concurrence in the OSHA case only garner three votes, including his own? Was it the procedural posture of the case: A hearing not on the merits but on the propriety of a stay? Was it the time crunch? Was it a desire for more detail and nuance?
Or was it because reaching a truly conservative five-justice majority is as elusive as an end to this pandemic.
|
|
|
|
| Parents Horrified As School Hosts ‘SATAN Club’ For Children |
|
Posted by: Stone - 01-14-2022, 08:57 AM - Forum: Against the Children
- No Replies
|
|
Parents Horrified As School Hosts ‘SATAN Club’ For Children
Satanists are targeting kids as young as six years old
![[Image: Screenshot-2022-01-14-at-12.03.36.jpg]](https://cdn.summit.news/2022/01/Screenshot-2022-01-14-at-12.03.36.jpg)
Summit News [abbreviated]| 14 January, 2022
Parents in Illinois were shocked to discover that their children’s school approved an event for children organised by the Satanic Temple.
The event, titled ‘Satan Club’ held at Jane Addams Elementary School in Moline vowed to introduce children to “a scientific, rationalist, non-superstitious worldview.”
Satan club is intended for children from grades 1-5, meaning that presumed satanists are targeting kids as young as six years old.
A flier promoting the event, posted to Facebook by one parent, noted that all involved had been “vetted” by the Satanic Temple and had passed criminal background checks.
Well, that’s comforting then.
It also notes that “the Satanic Temple is a non-theistic religion that views Satan as a mythical figure representing individual freedom,” and that the club “does not attempt to convert children to any religious ideology.”
“Hey Kids, let’s have fun at After School Satan Club!” the flier states:
Yeah, no thanks.
Among other posts prompting their rampant advocacy for abortion and Hailing Satan for 2022, the Satanic Temple is promoting the kids’ clubs:
The Illinois school provided more information, claiming that it was just renting out a space to the organisation:
Many expressed anger and disbelief that the school would allow the organisation in.
|
|
|
|
| TRADITIONIS CUSTODES: What We Can Learn from English Catholic Resistance |
|
Posted by: Stone - 01-13-2022, 11:25 AM - Forum: Vatican II and the Fruits of Modernism
- No Replies
|
|
This is a rather good article. It is important to note however that in his conclusion Mr. Jackson, similar to the Ecclesia Dei, Indult, and the conciliar-SSPX communities, focuses first and foremost on the Latin Mass. But the True Mass is the perfect expression of the true Faith and it is for this reason it has been mercilessly attacked many times. Fr. Hewko reminded us of this important distinction in his latest newsletter when he quotes Archbishop Lefebvre:
Quote:...That’s what makes our opposition [ to current Rome ], and that’s why we cannot get along. This is not primarily the issue of the Mass, because the Mass is just one consequence of the fact that they wanted to get closer to Protestantism and thus transform worship, sacraments, catechism, etc. The real fundamental opposition is the Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ! “Oportet Illum regnare,” St. Paul tells us, “He must Reign!” They say: “No!” We say: “Yes!” with all the Popes! ( Abp. Lefebvre, “Fideliter” p. 70, 1993).
Another frequent hallmark of these communities is to focus solely on the errors of Pope Francis - erstwhile blatantly ignoring the preceding Conciliar popes that paved the way for Pope Francis to act as he does, Paul VI being the most nefarious as he is the pope under which Vatican II and all it's errors, including the New Mass, were promoted. Pope Francis could not do as much damage as he does if 50+ years of Conciliar ravages, for example the Assisi prayer meetings under JPII and Benedict XVI, hadn't already occurred. May God have mercy on their souls!
TRADITIONIS CUSTODES: What We Can Learn from English Catholic Resistance
![[Image: 6cb9db145574ef4172342e43118f19ee_L.jpg]](https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/media/k2/items/cache/6cb9db145574ef4172342e43118f19ee_L.jpg)
Written by Chris Jackson | Remnant Columnist
January 6, 2022
As the potentially dark days of Traditionis Custodes approach us, it might be opportune to remember a time long ago when the Latin Mass was changed and then eventually violently suppressed by liturgical reformers. [Note: It would be wise here to note that the author is a bit loose with the phrase, "the Latin Mass was changed and then eventually violently suppressed by liturgical reformers." He glosses over the fact that those 'reformers' were creating a different religion, later condemned formally by the Church. An important and likely parallel - one Archbishop Lefebvre and many other clergy and laity have not failed to point out.]
Those reformers were part of the English Reformation. The goals, policies, and tactics of these so-called reformers may ring a bell. The quotations used in this article are taken from the book, “Elizabeth and the English Reformation: The Struggle for a Stable Settlement of Religion,” written by William P. Haugaard in 1968.
The process began by minor alterations of the Latin Mass:
Quote:In the first year the Privy Council, ruling in the name of the king, altered the ordinary liturgical and devotional life of Englishmen more than Henry had ever done or permitted. Injunctions, largely brand new, accompanied a royal visitation of the kingdom. These introduced a series of reforms which prescribed a greater use of English scripture in church services and ordered the destruction of images which gave occasion to ‘idolatry’. The following year the Council used the difficulty of determining such images as an excuse for ordering wholesale iconoclasm...
At the behest of the government, Parliament passed a bill ordering holy communion to be given in two kinds. In implementing the act, the Council took the opportunity to introduce into the Latin Mass the 1548 ‘Order o£ Communion’, a series of vernacular devotions which later became an integral part of the Prayer Book Eucharist... The first Prayer Book of 1549 reformed the traditional services by replacing Latin with English, by eliminating many old ceremonies, and by changing certain theological emphases of the rites... The Elizabethan bishop Richard Cox had been one of Cranmer’s assistants in drafting the book.
The reforms then went further:
Quote:Less than nine months before Edward VI died, Englishmen heard a new revision of their vernacular liturgy read in their churches. To the 1549 rites, Cranmer added didactic exhortations, simplified ceremonies and vestments, and rearranged the Eucharist to move the English Lord’s Supper a further step away from the Latin Mass.
Ironically, one reform of the Novus Ordo Mass common in churches today, the reception of Holy Communion while standing, was so repugnant to one of the lead reformers, Thomas Cranmer, that he refused to implement it:
Quote:Cranmer stubbornly refused a last-minute Council request to eliminate kneeling to receive communion, but he did agree to an added rubric in black print which declared that kneeling implied no ‘real or essential presence’ of Christ in the eucharistic elements.
See if these other reforms sound familiar:
Quote:The ‘Six articles’ would have required that ‘in all parish churches the minister in common prayer turn his face towards the people; and there distinctly read the divine service appointed, where all the people assembled may hear and be edified’. This would have been an explicit interpretation of the rubric in the 1552 Prayer Book, dropped in 1559, which had ordered the officiant at the office to be in such place and ‘so turn him as the people may best hear’. A little more vaguely, the ‘Seven articles’ directed the minister to stand ‘in such convenient place of the church, as all may hear and be edified’. The Elizabethan Book had rather directed the minister to be in the ‘accustomed place’, unless the bishop ordered otherwise. The characteristic Reformation stress on edification underlay the request —a stress that was often insensitive to the advantage of an architectural setting that suggested the mutual participation of officiant and congregation in an act of praise directed toward God. To many of the precisians, any focusing of congregational attention on the holy table was suspect because it recalled the idolatry which they believed had been practised before images and the reserved sacrament.
The following reform might be useful for Pope Francis as he has repeatedly refused to kneel for Our Lord in the Eucharist. However, he would have to make a canonical exception that would still enable him to kneel to wash the feet of non-Christians on Holy Thursday. In addition, we see in this “optional” reform the insidiousness of the “optional practices” of the Novus Ordo Mass such as Communion in the Hand, Eucharistic Ministers, etc. which have all now become standard practice:
Quote:Another set of proposed alterations in the Prayer Book are found only in the documents prepared during the course of Convocation itself. Kneeling at communion had been unpopular with the more militant reformers ever since John Knox had preached against it before the king in 1553. Both the ‘Seven articles’ and the more widely supported ‘Six articles’ would have left kneeling at communion to the discretion of the ordinary. Although the ‘ Six articles’ mentioned ‘age, sickness, and sundry other infirmities’ as the reasons for introducing an option to receive without kneeling, it was obviously horror at those who ‘superstitiously both kneel and knock’ which led them to make the demands. As if any priest with die slightest sense of his pastoral responsibilities has ever refused to communicate a parishioner physically incapable of kneeling! The discretion left to the ordinaries would have probably meant that the majority of bishops would have gladly granted the option and that the others would have been under importunate pressure from zealous reformers in their dioceses to do likewise. The precisians knew that it would not take too long to turn the option into a prohibition of kneeling.
The following reform is reminiscent of Francis’ encyclical, Amoris Laetitia, his approval of Joe Biden receiving Communion, and the sacramental theology of Cardinal Blaise Cupich who once opined that we are all unworthy of Holy Communion, and then somehow concluded that we all should receive It. Of course, this Eucharistic generosity doesn’t apply to rigid Traditional Catholics who should leave the Church before Communion:
Quote:The second distinctive proposal of the ‘Twenty-one articles’ would have required all those who did not intend to receive communion to leave the church before the general confession. By not permitting non-communicating attendance at the Supper itself, the proposal stressed the importance of full participation in the sacramental rite—a stress shared by all sixteenth-century reformers, but not expressed by all in such a regulation.
The government thought that they were offering sufficient concessions to the prisoners’ consciences; the prisoners judged otherwise, and in the Tower they remained until the government relaxed its requirement.
The following change in law is reminiscent of the incremental Vatican II liturgical reformers who always like to keep the door open to future “developments” of their reform until the old order is completely gone as well as the leftist priests of the Novus Ordo who want to be free to innovate and violate even the Novus Ordo rubrics with no consequence:
Quote:They asked that the thirty-fourth Article of Religion, on traditions of the church, be changed to mitigate the section which states that those who break traditions and ceremonies of the church ‘ought to be rebuked openly...as one that offendeth against the common order of the Church, and hurteth the authority of the magistrate, and woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren’. On principle, the precisians would have disliked the inclusion of any such defence of ceremonies in a formal confession of doctrine, but their protest here seems much more practical. Even assuming that the ‘Seven articles’ were adopted as they hoped, apparently even these modifications of the Prayer Book would not have satisfied many of them, and they wanted to be assured that they might change or omit rubrical ceremonies without danger of violating the official doctrinal articles. In effect, these clergy wanted to retain the right of conscientious disobedience to the prescribed liturgy without jeopardizing their ministries in the church. They dared not ask for more sweeping changes in the liturgy than the relatively few points they proposed, but they served notice that even these proposals would not satisfy tender consciences that the Church of England really had returned to ‘the godly purity and simplicity used in the primitive church’.
It is interesting to note that when certain jailed Catholic bishops were offered their freedom if they would simply attend the reformed rite without actively participating in it, they still refused:
Quote:Just as English envoys abroad were instructed to attend Latin rites while refraining from active participation or sacramental communion, apparently Elizabeth and her government thought that the bishops ought to be willing to attend the Prayer Book offices. Officials were not prepared at the beginning of 1561 to release the bishops without a demonstrable act of obedience. According to Sander, when Heath had been offered liberty in exchange for mere attendance at service, the former archbishop replied,
“In principle it is the same to be schismatic in one point as to be schismatic in all, and therefore he was minded to countenance none of these doings either by word or deed, nor to suffer his back to be seen where none could read his heart.”
The government thought that they were offering sufficient concessions to the prisoners’ consciences; the prisoners judged otherwise, and in the Tower they remained until the government relaxed its requirement.
The following may be a premonition of the state of the Latin Mass in our own future:
Quote:Secret Latin Masses had continued in the homes of some of the gentry, and the first major attack on the practice came in April 1561 when Cecil ordered the arrest of almost two dozen ‘mass-mongers’ including two of Queen Mary’s councillors.
The laws against the Latin Mass then began reaching fever pitch:
Quote:The precisians, moreover, wrote into their prospectus, ‘General notes’, two items which the Lower House picked up in ‘ Articles for government’ almost without change and these were specifically directed at Roman Catholics:
Whosoever shall at any time hereafter say mass, or procure mass to be said, or willingly suffer it to be said in his house, and.. .be lawfully convicted. . .within 2 years.. .shall be judged in law a felon and shall suffer the pains of death and forfeiture of goods...
Whoever shall hear mass and be.. .convicted.. .within 2 years... shall forfeit for every mass that they shall hear 100 marks, if they be worth so much, and if they be not, then they shall forfeit all their goods and chattels...
![[Image: Martyrs_2.jpg]](https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/images/2022/Martyrs_2.jpg)
Faced with such a dilemma as attendance at the reformed rite or penalties such as imprisonment or death, the Spanish ambassador to England petitioned Rome on their behalf to see if an exception could be made under the circumstances as the reformed Rite, like the Novus Ordo, did not contain anything openly heretical, although what was omitted was telling:
Quote:Many Englishmen loyal to the papacy thought they might, without offence, obey the provisions of the Uniformity Act requiring them to attend church. In the summer of 1562 some of them requested de Quadra to obtain an authoritative Vatican judgment. The Spanish bishop himself clearly argued in favour of a qualified permission:
“What.. .has to be considered.. .is the great unusualness and novelty of the case,.. .it being here prohibited by law to be a Catholic and capital punishment assigned to anyone here who will not live as a heretic.... That .. .which they call Common Prayer.. .contains no false doctrine or anything profane, because it is entirely Scripture or prayers taken from the Catholic Church (although from some of them everything has been omitted that mentions the merits and intercession of the Saints), so much so that leaving aside the sin of dissimulation and the harm that would accrue from the example, the act of taking part in this [worship] is not in its nature evil. The Communion is not before us now. They only ask if they can attend this service of Common Prayer which I have mentioned.”
He also asked for terms of absolution for those who repented of their conformity to the established religion.
At the same time the Portuguese ambassador asked for a similar decision at the Council of Trent. The Office of the Inquisition and the Council’s committee which had been assigned the inquiry both gave the same answer: under no conditions might the faithful attend the Prayer Book offices. The resolute stand of the imprisoned bishops was vindicated by the highest councils of the Roman Church.
In conclusion, the most remarkable thing about English Catholic resistance to these reforms is that their spirit of resistance did not emanate from blind obedience or loyalty to the pope, but from the Latin Mass, their Catholic Faith, their devotions, and Tradition.
Quote:By 1560 the Roman Catholic authorities actively began to persuade their English adherents not to compromise with the independent national church. Their task was formidable, for it was not, by and large, respect for papal authority which led men and women to reject the national church and her new ways. Rather, they loved the familiar pattern of church life: the Latin Mass, the regular shriving, the invocation of favourite saints, the anointing on the death-bed, the liturgical petitions for family and friends who had died. To them, these things, with the teachings that underlay them, belonged to the heart of the Christian faith, and they would not give them up.
|
|
|
|
| Biden Admin Compiling Database Of Religious Objectors To Vaccine Within Obscure Agency |
|
Posted by: Stone - 01-13-2022, 09:28 AM - Forum: Socialism & Communism
- No Replies
|
|
Biden Admin Compiling Database Of Religious Objectors To Vaccine Within Obscure Agency
![[Image: ih_210909_covid_vaccine_cross_religious_...k=MZQ9fc46]](https://assets.zerohedge.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_mobile/public/inline-images/ih_210909_covid_vaccine_cross_religious_exemption_800x4501.jpg?itok=MZQ9fc46)
ZH | JAN 12, 2022n administration, the Pretrial Services Agency, announced an Orwellian tracking scheme on Tuesday that could serve as a model for the entire US government to collect the names and "personal religious information" of federal employees who make "religious accommodation requests for religious exception from the federally mandated vaccination requirement," according to the Daily Signal.
Quote:"The primary purpose of the secured electronic file repository is to collect, maintain, use, and—to the extent appropriate and necessary—disseminate employee religious exception request information collected by the Agency in the context of the federally mandated COVID-19 vaccination requirement," according to the Federal Register.
The announcement does not explain why the agency needs to create this list except to say that it will “assist the Agency in the collecting, storing, dissemination, and disposal of employee religious exemption request information collected and maintained by the Agency.” In other words, the list will help the agency make a list.
The announcement also does not say what the agency will do with this information after it has decided an employee’s religious accommodation request.
And neither does the announcement explain why the Biden administration chose to test this policy in an agency with a majority-black staff, who are both more religious and less vaccinated than other groups. So much for the president’s commitment to “racial equity.” -Daily Signal
The Signal suggests that the Biden administration is using the tiny agency as a test bed for deploying the database across the entire US government - noting that the announcement was relegated to an obscure group and given just 30 days for public comment.
Meanwhile, the US government has treated religious exemptions as a joke.
Take the Department of Defense, for example—which has failed to grant a single religious exemption on behalf of any service members requesting one for the federal vaccine mandate. A group of Navy SEALS was recently successful in its federal lawsuit against the Biden administration on claims that its conscience rights under the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act were violated.
From the outset of his administration, Biden voiced support for passage of the patently faith-hostile Equality Act—a bill that would gut the Religious Freedom Restoration Act entirely when it intersects with LGBTQ+ protections and entitlements in public accommodations.
The president also swiftly revoked the Mexico City policy that had been reinstated by former President Donald Trump, thereby ensuring that religious Americans would be forced to fund abortions overseas by way of their tax dollars, despite their religious objections to the act. -Daily Signal
In short: be a good citizen or you go on a list...
|
|
|
|
| Quebec to force unvaccinated to pay financial penalty |
|
Posted by: Stone - 01-12-2022, 10:11 AM - Forum: Socialism & Communism
- Replies (1)
|
|
Quebec to force unvaccinated to pay financial penalty
By Associated Press | Jan. 11, 2022
MONTREAL (AP) - The premier of the French-speaking Canadian province of Quebec says adult residents who refuse to get vaccinated against COVID-19 will be charged a financial penalty.
Premier Francois Legault says that not getting vaccinated leads to consequences for the health care system and not all Quebecers should pay for that.
He said Tuesday the levy will only apply to people who don’t qualify for medical exemptions.
It’s the first time a government in Canada has announced a financial penalty for people who refuse to be vaccinated against COVID-19.
Legault says the amount of the penalty hasn’t been decided but will be “significant.”
Video: https://www.wcax.com/video/2022/01/12/qu...l-penalty/
|
|
|
|
| SSPX formally refuses to take a stand on the vaccines: Transcript |
|
Posted by: Stone - 01-11-2022, 03:02 PM - Forum: Pandemic 2020 [Spiritual]
- Replies (2)
|
|
NB: The following is a transcription done by a professional transcribing service of Fr. Pagliarani's recent conference (published January 5, 2022) on the subject of the vaccines. I have not double-checked the accuracy of the transcription word for word. Please do keep in mind too that English is not Fr. Pagliarani's native tongue.
As an aside, the SSPX missed the irony in entitling this Conference by Fr. Pagliarani, "The Superior General of the SSPX Clarifies the Vaccine Debate" because in reality, the SG did nothing of the kind. He simply stated repeatedly that the SSPX makes no stand on the topic. The comments to the video are rather interesting too...
Father Pagliarani (00:00):
I think it is worth it to spend few words about vaccines. It is a big issue. I can see that many of you are starting now to take some notes. It's a complicated issue. The theme of this talk is the mission of the Society. So, we will see what's the relation, if there is any, between the mission of the Society and the vaccines.
Father Pagliarani (00:37):
The Society of Saint Pius X seems too prudent about this question. Why the Society doesn't speak up about this problem? That all humanity now is kneeling, is exhausted because of this problem all over the world. Why Society doesn't speak up? The question is legitimate. We will try to answer this question. I will try to explain. So I'm going to settle the issue. And I'm going to answer the 1,000, 1,000, 1,000s of problem, objection, raised up in the Web. Huh? You can spend your entire life if you want, to have a complete idea of what's going on, updating yourself, I hope every day, because every day there are new elements.
Father Pagliarani (01:48):
But the question is really complicated. We don't deny this, not at all. But I want just to let you know why the Society's prudent. Another term without settling the issue, we will try to put this issue at its place. This is the purpose of this few words.
Father Pagliarani (02:19):
Well, until one year ago, mankind was come concerned about COVID only. Is it made in China? Was made in Taiwan? Does it kill? Does it not? Does it exist? Is it an influence like others? People in the hospital, they've been killed or they died out of COVID. Oh, all these questions, they have been very, very common until one year ago. They attract all the attention.
Father Pagliarani (03:05):
Right now I don't say that we forgot about the COVID, but right now all the attention is spent, paid to the vaccine issue. And that's understandable in a way. The governments, they try to impose the vaccine to everybody. It provokes a general excitement, and most of all provokes two camps, people who are against and people who are in favor. There are not a lot of people neutral. And the Web provides all the necessary information, tools to both of these groups.
Father Pagliarani (04:05):
So there is a general panic because of the danger of the vaccine in itself. But there is another panic, especially in people who are pro-vaccines, because mankind cannot go back to normality without the mandatory vaccine for everybody. So you see that the [electus 00:04:33], it's quite strong. As a result you should get the COVID. Your lungs are weakened, but people without COVID, doesn't keep upside of the problem. People without COVID are, in a way more stressed, than the sick ones.
Father Pagliarani (05:03):
So let's try to step aside for a few minutes of this very complicated situation, of these two camps, if you prefer, trying to analyze a bit deeper what's going on. Right now the great debate is around the side effects. The side effects of a vaccine produced very, very quickly, too quickly. It is true. And related to this medical issue, there is a political issue. How can the governments, the authorities impose such a vaccine, which is not tested enough? You know that normally for a new vaccine, you need seven to eight years. I leave it to the doctors the details about all this. Seven, eight years, for a complete testing, experimentation.
Father Pagliarani (06:19):
Everything was done very, very quickly. Why? Because there is a business behind. There are several countries that were producing their own vaccine, and they gave up a few, six months ago, because when the universal vaccinations started, they realized that they were going to lose the market. So there is a big business behind.
Father Pagliarani (06:55):
The side effects as a consequence of this lack of experimentation are not known enough. This is the first problem, but there is another problem, also a medical problem. This vaccine, it seems it doesn't last. It doesn't work enough. So, medical side, and again, political side. Political problem related to the first one. The authorities are making vaccinations mandatory, and they have to convince two kind of people. First of all, they have to convince the non-vaccinated people. They have to tell them, to explain to them that it's working. It's worth to receive the vaccine. And that's the only way we can get out from the crisis. This is the message for people not yet vaccinated.
Father Pagliarani (08:14):
But for people that they already got at least one, the vaccine, they have explain that they need a second, a third injection. Why? Because it doesn't work. So, the first one, they have to be convinced that it works. The second one, that it doesn't work enough. They are talking already about of course the third injection and then a booster every year. But they don't know how long it will last, this problem.
Father Pagliarani (08:55):
So, let's get to the point. Is it complicated? Yes. Is it a bit crazy, all this? Yes. Yes. Is the stress that right now is on the entire humanity, is it understandable? Yes. Yes. Is it legitimate to question all this? Yes. Is it legitimate to be against mandatory vaccination? Yes. Yes.
Father Pagliarani (09:38):
But this problem, this big problem, is related to a medical issue. This is the first reason why the Society of Saint Pius X is not entering straight into this debate. Of course, a priest can give a suggestion, can advise, but the Society as such is not entering into this debate. The mission of the Society is not to settle medical issues. The mission of Society is not to give an answer about all the possible side effects of the vaccine. And that's not only for COVID, even for other drugs. If they produce a new vaccine against chicken pox, and it seems there are some side effects or that vaccine is not tested enough, well, this is not the problem of the Society of Saint Pius X.
Father Pagliarani (11:17):
This is, I repeat, I stress, it's a medical problem that we cannot transform into a theological problem. Again, a priest can give a suggestion, can advise on a personal basis. Of course. You see on the opposite. Let's take another drug. There is a new drug produced against a cold that it seems has no problem, a normal drug against a normal cold. Well, if the Society states this drug is okay, and then that drug will provoke allergies, for instance, the Society is going to respond about the allergies. But what is the mistake? Mistake would be the Society expressed ourself on a particular topic, which doesn't correspond to our mission. This is the main reason, but there are other reasons why the Society, again, is kind of stepping aside. Doesn't want to enter straight into the debate.
Father Pagliarani (13:00):
It's a problem of globalism. Globalism, conspiracy. It seems that globalism conspiracy started one year ago with the vaccines. So now it's clear through the vaccine, there is a worldwide, universal authority imposing the same drugs for the same illness all over the world. That's globalism. Finally, the globalism did show up. The monster did show up. Be careful, because if all the attention is paid to this particular problem, and I repeat, we don't deny that it is a big problem, the risk is to forget that conspiracy started 300 years ago against the Church.
Father Pagliarani (14:09):
What's globalism, though? Globalism is this idea, this project, this intention to replace the Catholic Church with another universal authority. You know very well what I'm talking about, but let's not forget the origin of this conspiracy against the Church, which is affecting the entire humanity. Let's put in our terms the current crisis, the current problems, inside this entire picture. But to keep the entire picture, you can focus only about the present problem, talking about the present problem only. You cannot. And we have not the right to lose the entire picture.
Father Pagliarani (15:12):
Another point which I think is important, let's keep a supernatural perspective. [inaudible 00:15:20], it's normal, you are a priest. It's normal that you talk always about supernatural perspective, but here, the problem is the vaccine, and is a liquid, so there is nothing supernatural. Oh, the COVID, as every pandemic throughout history, COVID is also a punishment allowed by divine providence in order to purify us.
Father Pagliarani (15:55):
Because there is danger. I said at the beginning, we got tradition. We kept tradition, but we are not necessarily better than the others. We are sinners also. And if there is a universal punishment, it's for us also. If God allowed COVID it's not just for the sinners, for the sins of the others, it's for ours also. We die also, traditional people and priests die also out of COVID.
Father Pagliarani (16:32):
But I go back to the problem of globalism. Pay attention. During this year, thanks to the attention paid to the vaccine, which absorbed again for different reason, the entire humanity, the worst loss against the natural order. They have been approved in many, many countries. In Europe right now, in Western Europe, in every country, the same-sex marriage is approved, except one country, because there's still a debate. But our focus is not there.
Father Pagliarani (17:37):
Since our focus is somewhere else, it is much easier to promote and to approve all those laws. They are the main expression of globalism, of the destruction of the natural order. The order that the Church was keeping, was protecting, in order to create a new world with new laws, with the new authority, with or without COVID, with or without vaccines. This project didn't, I repeat, didn't start two years ago. It's much older.
Father Pagliarani (18:29):
And last reason, thank you for your patience and your attention also. There is another reason, again, why the Society steps aside. It's this anti-vaccine alliance. It is very heterogeneous. There are Catholics, but there are people with, without special political or religious creed, but there are people from the right side in this alliance against the vaccines, and mostly people from the extreme left to use a political language. Anarchist, the green. [inaudible 00:19:38] the green? The green are the people committed to the safeguard of, not the creation, of Earth, the ecologists.
Father Pagliarani (19:54):
This is a good left, extreme left. They know what they are talking about. They have targets which are very, very clear. Those kind of parties are quite strong in Europe. They're against the vaccine. In the name of what? In the name of what? In the name of individual freedom, human dignity, human rights. In other terms, with my body, I do whatever I want. With my life, I do whatever I want. So I decide if I take or not the vaccine.
Father Pagliarani (20:41):
We find again the same slogans of the '60s, of the '70s, of a particular class of women, "With my belly, I do whatever I want." You see? We find again the same principles of the new order started 300 years ago in the name of human rights, human dignity.
Father Pagliarani (21:18):
Let's be careful. On the other side, the pro-vaccine also, I think, it's good to stress this point, it's a paradox. They fight in the name of the same principles, in the name of human rights, in the name of freedom. Why? The conclusion is the same, but the principles are the same, but the conclusions is not the same. They want the mandatory vaccine in order to go back to normality, because if the others that don't take the vaccine, I'm touched in my freedom. I'm limited in my freedom. So I cannot travel. I cannot go on holiday. I cannot earn money as I used to do before. I cannot enjoy life. Why? Because I still have to put a mask or other restriction because of the others.
Father Pagliarani (22:26):
So I want to impose to the others in the name of human rights, the mandatory vaccine. In other terms, I don't want to have any restrictions because of the others. So, we all take the vaccine. It's a paradox, the same principles are on one side and on the other side. Shall we enter into this debate? Shall we take simply a part into this debate, entering [stride 00:23:07], the Society of Saint Pius X, for the reasons I gave. And other reason, of course that we don't have the time here to develop. Prefer, I repeat, to step aside.
Father Pagliarani (23:26):
But of course, it's a big issue. The issue is not settled. As I said, we leave present and live the future to Divine Providence. And we are sure that Divine Providence as well has never abandoned us in our struggle, fight for Tradition, is not going to abandon us in the middle of these new crisis. Thank you for your attention.
Speaker 2 (24:03):
The first question is about vaccines, which probably surprises no one. So the question, and a lot of these will be addressed to the panel and occasionally, at least initially to an individual, but everyone's happy to weigh in. The question, Father Pagliarani, is more or less in the end, is there official position of the Society on vaccines, on the COVID vaccine, whether it's the articles that have been published in the past or your talk? In light of your talk yesterday, is the only position the question of moral principles? Yeah. I thought I'd start with an easy one.
Father Pagliarani (24:52):
Yes, in my talk yesterday, I tried to focus on the main debate, the nowadays debate, which is on the side effects. And as I said, as a consequence, the political problem, how can an authority impose that vaccine which is not tested, which is not sure?
Father Pagliarani (25:29):
Of course, there are also moral questions, especially for this link with fetus, the cells coming from abortions. The Society, why this Society gave this particular answer and why the Society on that particular point didn't step aside, as we are doing now for the main present debate, well, question is quite easy to understand. People are faithful, as us. If I am a father, I have a family, I am the only one earning money. I don't have another solution. If I'm obliged to take the vaccine, am I doing anything immoral? Because if it is immoral, I will refuse the vaccine, and I will entrust the future of my family to Divine Providence.
Father Pagliarani (26:50):
So they ask this question, this specific question. The Society... You know the answer, the Society [esteems 00:27:03] that it is legitimate to accept the vaccine. Nevertheless, it remains a prudent decision. Anyone has to take into consideration the dangers for his health and so on.
Father Pagliarani (27:24):
So to go back to this controversial, I acknowledge the question is extremely delicate. As soon as we mention the word abortion, we feel repulsion. We feel... Of course, we don't want to have anything to do with that. It's clear. And we cannot have anything to do with that. But the principle that the Society apply, I try to explain maybe better, this point, is that it is in some circumstances legitimate to take advantage of the evil of others.
Father Pagliarani (28:20):
I will give you some examples. It is legitimate provided you don't corporate to the bad action. So the Society doesn't push anybody to receive the vaccine, but at the same time, the Society doesn't condemn. And that was the meaning of that article. Doesn't condemn somebody who in his personal, particular condition, situation will receive the vaccine.
Father Pagliarani (29:04):
I try to give you some examples of this principle, which is a classical principle of theology. St. Thomas Aquinas also is using this principle, is teaching this principle. You know that you can take out the cornea of somebody who is dead, even two, three hours after death. Is it legitimate to take out the cornea from somebody who is dead? Yes. Yes. There is not a problem that we can find with the organs, right? It is a tissue.
Father Pagliarani (29:48):
So, can you take out the cornea from somebody who was killed? Question. Yes. Provided you don't kill him on purpose to take out the cornea. That's the point. That's the point. You are taking advantage of a martyr. Somebody was killed. And without that sin, [honorable 00:30:26] sin, you couldn't take out the cornea, but of course you don't cooperate in any manner to that bad action.
Father Pagliarani (30:42):
Another example, if it can be useful for you, can the district of the United States of America donate your money for the building of a mosque? Of a synagogue? I think no, and I hope we are all agree. Can the district of the US receive as a donation a mosque in order to transform the mosque into a church?
Speaker 2 (31:25):
The answer is yes.
Father Pagliarani (31:29):
Yes. In the south of Spain, you have cathedrals that they were a mosque, and they kept something of the old ancient mosque. So, it's another example we could... Of course, we could multiply the examples.
Speaker 3 (31:51):
The Pantheon.
Father Pagliarani (31:51):
The Pantheon?
Speaker 3 (31:51):
The Pantheon.
Father Pagliarani (31:52):
The other example, obviously in Rome, the churches that were used, the Pantheon. I mean, Christians were martyred there, and yet it was used.
Speaker 4 (32:11):
There are dozens and dozens of churches in Rome built on pagan temples. Can I just give us a footnote to the Superior's remarks? Until Catholic answers had our own statement with respect to the vaccine up on catholic.com, I was very happy to refer to people the article, the first one in particular, with respect to the vaccine, which is thoroughly consistent with Catholic moral theology.
Father Pagliarani (32:38):
Yes, but it is understandable that when we mention abortion, there is a repulsion, right? To us, abortion. I'll give you another example. The last one, if you allow me, because the question is important, something that will fill you the same repulsion. Can you eat the meat? Or it's not anymore a modern problem. Some meat offered to the idols? The question arised 2,000 years ago. In the pagan rites, they used to offer, sacrifices, of course, and a part of the meat then was consumed by the offerers. And that meat was sold in the market.
Father Pagliarani (33:45):
Or maybe, whether you were invited from a pagan, and it was serving you, that meat offered the day before to the idols. So a matter, as a part of a pagan sacrifice. So can you eat that meat? Could they eat that meat, if you prefer? Because the Jews, they were scandalized. As [inaudible 00:34:16] said, "Yes, you can provide." You take to consideration the very fact that you could scandalize others, but this is another matter. But they could eat that meat.
Father Pagliarani (34:32):
Of course, a pagan's rite was the abomination for a Jew, like for us also. Nevertheless, they could eat that meat. So, it's understandable. It's understandable. Again, the [phase 00:34:53] of the abomination of abortion, right? There is this repulsion, but I take advantage of this explanation to try to make you understand why the Society was prudent. And again, if anyone is obliged, or there are particular situation, needs, well, the Society esteems that it's just taking advantage of a big sin of somebody else, but he doesn't participate to that sin.
|
|
|
|
|
![[Image: The%20Holy%20Sacrifice%20of%20the%20Mass%20Main.jpg]](https://www.catholicharboroffaithandmorals.com/The%20Holy%20Sacrifice%20of%20the%20Mass%20Main.jpg)
![[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fimages.fineartamerica.c...f=1&nofb=1]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fimages.fineartamerica.com%2Fimages%2Fartworkimages%2Fmediumlarge%2F1%2Fthe-marriage-feast-at-cana-frans-francken-the-younger.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
![[Image: signal-2022-01-14-091245-001.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/qR7k1NqF/signal-2022-01-14-091245-001.jpg)
