| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Forum Statistics |
» Members: 268
» Latest member: Sarah
» Forum threads: 6,384
» Forum posts: 11,936
Full Statistics
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 303 online users.
» 1 Member(s) | 298 Guest(s)
Applebot, Bing, Google, Yandex, 70three
|
| Latest Threads |
The Dominican 'Libera me,...
Forum: Catholic Hymns
Last Post: Stone
5 hours ago
» Replies: 0
» Views: 30
|
November 2nd - All Souls ...
Forum: November
Last Post: Stone
6 hours ago
» Replies: 9
» Views: 16,952
|
Outlines of New Testament...
Forum: Church Doctrine & Teaching
Last Post: Stone
7 hours ago
» Replies: 4
» Views: 484
|
Abp. Viganò uses AI to sh...
Forum: Archbishop Viganò
Last Post: Stone
7 hours ago
» Replies: 0
» Views: 78
|
November 1st - Feast of A...
Forum: November
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 06:03 AM
» Replies: 7
» Views: 13,331
|
Thursday Night Holy Hour ...
Forum: Appeals for Prayer
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 04:55 AM
» Replies: 5
» Views: 1,249
|
Livestream: Twenty-fourth...
Forum: November 2024
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 04:53 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 67
|
Livestream: Feast of All ...
Forum: November 2024
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 04:51 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 77
|
Fr. Hewko's Sermons: Feas...
Forum: November 2024
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 04:50 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 83
|
Why Beauty Matters
Forum: General Commentary
Last Post: Stone
10-31-2024, 10:45 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 105
|
|
|
| Courrier de Rome: A Historical Analysis of the New Mass |
|
Posted by: Stone - 04-12-2021, 07:20 AM - Forum: Vatican II and the Fruits of Modernism
- No Replies
|
 |
A Historical Analysis of the New Mass
The book Il card. Ferdinando Antonelli a gli sviluppi della riforma liturgica dal 1948 al 1970 [i.e., Cardinal Ferdinando Antonelli and the Development of the Liturgical Reform from 1948 to 1970] by Nicola Giampietro, O.F.M. Cap. is a valuable contribution to the history of the "liturgical reform" of Pope Paul VI.
Fr. Antonelli, O.F.M., was Reporter General of the "Historical Section" of Rites. From 1948-60 he was a member of the Pontifical Commission for Liturgical Reform instituted by Pope Pius XII. From 1959 he was Promoter General of the Faith in the Sacred Congregation for Rites. He was an expert and Secretary of the Commission on the Sacred Liturgy at the Second Vatican Council and a member of the Consilium ad exsequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgic. Fr. Antonelli is a direct witness of the shipwreck of the sound liturgical renewal begun under Pope Pius XII and which had already been envisaged by Pope St. Pius X and Pope Pius XI.
Under Pope Pius XII, Fr. Antonelli had been a cornerstone of the re-establishment of the Paschal Vigil (1951) and of the liturgical reform of Holy Week (1955). Initially he shared the illusion of those who thought that the Council would bring safely to harbor the prudent liturgical renewal which had produced its first good fruits under Pope Pius XII, a renewal which, with the Encyclical Mediator Dei, seemed to have reset the course of the "liturgical movement" by correcting its deviations and disciplining its aberrant tendencies (cf. Catholic Encyclopedia, "Mediator Dei").
When, on December 4, 1963, Pope Paul VI promulgated the conciliar Constitution on the Liturgy, Fr. Antonelli wrote in his diary, "The bones of Pope St. Pius X will be rejoicing. The Constitution on the Liturgy is nothing other than the precious fruit of a small seed originally sown by him" (op.cit. p.204).
First Doubts
However, in an address of September 8, 1964, Fr. Antonelli seems already perplexed: he wonders if the present time is propitious for realizing the liturgical reform, and says, "I do not know .... [S]ome things perhaps need more time to mature" (p.208). Meanwhile the implementation of the conciliar Constitution on the Liturgy had been entrusted to the notorious Consilium. On March 3, 1964, after an interview with Cardinal Larraona, Prefect of the Sacred Congregation [of Rites], Fr. Antonelli noted down their mutual perplexity in his diary:
The implementation of the Liturgy Constitution is handed over to the "Consilium." But unless the contrary be proved it is the Congregation [of Rites] which is the organ of government: if a different organ of government is created, confusion will ensue (p.227, note 12).
The '"Working Method" of the Consilium
After the first meeting of the Consilium, Fr. Antonelli writes: "Grand ideas, but it will not be easy to put them into practice" (p.228). He still believes that it is a question of painstaking work with a prudent respect for liturgical tradition, as it had been under Pope Pius XII, but very soon he will come to see that it is not so anymore. After the second meeting of consulters he wrote:
I am not enthusiastic about the work in hand ,...we have a collection of people who are very incompetent and, what is worse, they are "advanced" in promoting novelties. The discussions are entirely avant-garde in tendency, based on impressions and chaotic desires. What upsets me most is that the reports of the presentations and the corresponding questions are always "advanced" in approach and phrased in a biased way. Direction is weak (p.229).
This first negative impression is confirmed in the second meeting of the Consilium. Fr. Antonelli wrote,
Everything that is "advanced," is passed ...because that is Consilium's climate of thought. As a result, there is a great hurrying to get on, and people do not take time to reflect ...no sooner has the text been distributed but the examination begins, without anyone having had time to reject ,...There ought not to be such haste. But people's minds are excited and they want to press ahead (p.229).
Doubts continue to trouble Fr. Antonelli, for example, on concelebration (p.230); and, after the third meeting of Consilium, his fundamental doubt resurfaces concerning the opportuneness of liturgical reform at this particular historical moment:
I dislike the whole spirit of innovation; I dislike the tone of the discussions, which is too hasty and sometimes too excited, I dislike the way the President [Lercarol does not get the participants to speak by asking their views. After all, the issues to be decided on are important ones, and I don't know whether this is a good time (p.230).
After the fifth session, Fr. Antonelli is seriously worried by the spirit of innovation of the Consilium members:
This was a constructive session. But I am unhappy about the atmosphere. There is a spirit of criticism and intolerance towards the Holy See which cannot lead to a good conclusion. Then the whole approach to the liturgy is rationalistic; there is not concern for true piety. I am afraid that one day we shall have to say of this whole reform...: accepit liturgia recessit devotio-As the liturgy progressed devotion goes backwards (p.234).
Doctrinal Concerns
It is not, however, only a question of devotion. During the seventh session, when the Rite of Priestly Ordination is being discussed, Fr. Antonelli "notes with surprise that, in the context of the priest's functions, there is no mention of his principal work: sacrificium eucharisticum offerre" (p.236).
For the moment he is held back by an accident, due to the incompetence of the. "legal corps" and the "haste to get on." But Pope Paul VI's address of April 19, 1967 makes him think even more seriously about this Pope's responsibilities:
Paul VI said that he was saddened because some people were making capricious experiments in the Liturgy, and even more distressed by certain tendencies towards desacralizing the Liturgy. On the other hand he re-affirmed his confidence in the Consilium." And the Pope does not see that all the ills come from the way in which the "Consilium" organizes everything in this reform (p.237ff).
And all the time, as Fr. Antonelli makes it clear, "it is certain that Pope Paul VI followed the work of this `Consilium' most attentively" (p.237ff). Fr. Antonelli does not cease to be amazed at the method of working of the Consilium, or rather, the absence of any method in its working. On April 23, 1967, he notes in his diary:
The schemas multiply without arriving at a form that is really thought-out. Cardinal Lercaro is not the man to direct a discussion. Fr. Bugnini is interested only in one thing: To go ahead and get it finished. The voting system is worse. Generally votes are made by raising hands, but no one counts the number of hands raised in favor and the number against; no one says "so many in favor and so many against"-It is a real scandal. Secondly, we have never been able to find out-although the question has been asked many times-what majority is necessary: a two-thirds majority or an absolute majority ....Another grave defect is the absence of minutes of the sessions, this has never been mentioned and certainly no such minutes have ever been read.
A "Continuation of the Council," or, the Permanent Council
Finally, after three years of anarchy, or rather, of dictatorship, by Fr. Bugnini, the "Consilium" wished to have its own "statutes," and a draft was presented to Pope Paul VI who, in turn, passed it on eventually to Fr. Antonelli for his comments. Antonelli, who, in addition to being a member of the "Consilium," was also Secretary of the Congregation of Rites, submitted his "observations" to Cardinal Larraona, Prefect of this Congregation, and he returned them to Pope Paul VI. In his "general observations" Fr. Antonelli emphasizes that "there is a noticeable and widespread anxiety with regard to these continual changes in a large section of the clergy and the faithful," and that "this state of instability and uncertainty about the future is favorable to abuses, eroding more and more the holy respect for liturgical laws."
Among other things he points out the anomaly of there being "two organs of the Holy See, both concerned with liturgical life, namely, the Sacred Congregation of Rites and the `Consilium."' Then, in his "particular observations," Fr. Antonelli notes that, according to the statutes, four-fifths of the members of the "Consilium," "including the Cardinals," are to be appointed by the Presidency and only one-fifth by the Pope. This is inadmissible: "this system," writes Fr. Antonelli "is absolutely new and is nothing but a continuation of the Council-which has no precedent in history. For, even after the Councils of Trent and Vatican I, once the Council had ended the Holy See entered once more into in full autonomy."
In his observations Fr. Antonelli also asked that the system of counting votes should be clearly fixed, because, he wrote,
...[Up] to now ...if a certain number of hands went up, they would press ahead without anyone counting how many were in favor and how many were against. Then, in the discussions which followed people often appealed to the fact that the vote had been in favor, and no one could prove that it had really been in favor.
After Fr. Antonelli's observations, the question of the "statutes" got bogged down. Pope Paul VI, as we shall see, opted for a different solution that would take Fr. Antonelli away from the liturgical reform and leave Bugnini's hands free. For the present, however, Antonelli had to endure Bugnini's violent reaction-which showed that he was privy to Antonelli's consultation with Pope Paul VI, whereas the latter had told Antonelli that the matter was "strictly reserved" (p.242).
Fr. Antonelli Begins to See Clearly
We are now at the end of 1967 and Fr. Antonelli writes in his diary:
No one has any longer an awareness of the sacred and binding character of liturgical law. The work of desacralization, which is now called secularization, continues on a grand scale. It is clear from this that the liturgical question ...is part of a far bigger set of problems, which are fundamentally doctrinal, so the big crisis is the crisis of traditional doctrine and the magisterium.
The blindfold starts to fall from Fr. Antonelli's eyes. It is not only a question of incompetence, of an appalling superficiality, of working at breakneck speed; it is a much more serious phenomenon. The liturgical reform is an instrument in the hands of triumphant "innovators" (in the same way that the liturgical movement had been, in part, in the hands of "rampant Modernists").
On July 23, 1968, Fr. Antonelli tells Cardinal Benelli of his ...
...anxieties concerning the liturgical reform which is going further and further astray. I mentioned in particular:
1. Liturgical law, which was something holy until the Council, no longer exists for many of them. Each one regards himself as authorized to do what he wants...
2. The Mass, above all, is the sore point...; now they are starting to pull confession apart.
3. In the "Consilium" there are few Bishops who have had a specific liturgical training, and very few who are real theologians....And this is dangerous. In the liturgy, every word, every gesture imparts an idea which is a theological idea. Since, at present, the whole of theology is up for discussion, the theories current among the "advanced" theologians bring ruin upon the formula and the rite: the very grave result is that, while the theological discussion remains at an elevated level among men of culture, once it has descended into the formula and the rite, it begins to wreak havoc among the people (p.257ff).
The Church's "Auto-Demolition"
All this, with the connivance of Pope Paul VI, signifies the death-knell of any sound liturgical renewal. The liturgy is made the instrument of doctrinal demolition. Now Fr. Antonelli is aware of this and expresses his pain:
But what is sad ...is the very basis, a mental attitude, a pre-established position, namely, that many of those who are influential in the reform...and others, have no love, no veneration for what has been transmitted to us. Right from the start they despise everything which exists at present. This is an unjust and poisonous negative mentality. Unfortunately even Pope Paul VI has something of this attitude. They all have the best of intentions, but, given this mentality, they are bound to demolish, not to restore (p.258).
On February 10, 1969, in connection with the Rite of Baptism, Antonelli writes:
At the end of the doctrinal chapter, I ask: how is it that in this entire chapter we have been talking about Baptism for the remission of sins, but there has been no mention of original sin?
And on February 20:
This very morning I had to observe that, even where one would expect a clear reference to original sin, such as in a little catechetical homily, it seems that they avoid speaking of it. It is this debased new theological mentality which so upsets me (p.224).
Fr. Antonelli's observations are always serious and concerned. Apropos the discussion on the Praenotanda on Confirmation, he writes:
How can people be expected to give their views on these questions-some of which are very grave-when the text is changed at the last moment and presented to us while we are actually in session? This is not a serious way of working ....Personally I ask myself, what authority and what training do we have, to be discussing such complicated questions of theology? (p.246).
The Question of the "Novus Ordo"
The "question of the Ordo Missae" erupted in 1969. Fr. Antonelli speaks of it not only in his diary, but also in his personal notes on the liturgical reform. Let us see what he says. On October 31, 1969, he writes:
A few days ago Fr. Stickler, a Salesian, told me that Cardinal Ottaviani had produced a doctrinal critique of the Ordo Missae and of the Instructio annexed to it. Then the news appeared in the newspapers. Msgr. Laboa told me that the Pope had written a two-page letter to Cardinal Seper, asking him to examine the question. Alarmed, Cardinal Seper had spoken about it to Cardinal Gut, who was deeply concerned and had mentioned it to Fr. Bugnini. Yesterday morning, the latter told me that, some days ago, Cardinal Villot had written to Fr. Bugnini instructing him to refrain from all comment regarding the Ordo Missae. Mgsr. Laboa has seen this letter. Then there was the unexpected publication of the Instructio...to kill the press campaign before it got off the ground. Then, this evening, October 31, there was the communique of the CEI (Italian Episcopal Conference), saying that the Italian version would be published on November 30, and would apply throughout Italy-when the CEI had already stated that that would not be possible. We are in the realm of confusion. And it makes me so sad, because there will be dire consequences (p.259).
Fr. Antonelli himself is of the opinion that there are no "heresies," either in the Instructio or in the Ordo Missae, "even if it is undeniable that the matters dealt with in the Instructio are confused and that even the way in which they are formulated is anything but clear and limpid" (p.260). In particular, he admits, "the insistence on the idea of the meal (coena) seems to imply the downgrading of the idea of sacrifice." The idea of sacrifice is "indirect, whereas the idea of the meal recurs frequently and in a direct manner. In addition; certain omissions have done nothing to promote clarity" (p.260)-which was also the case with the "imprudent formulation of Paragraph 7" (p.261). Once again, more than anything, Fr. Antonelli is utterly amazed at the way in which the question is handled. On October 31, he writes,
I am distressed about the matter of the Ordo Missae. I do not understand why people were so upset about Cardinal Ottaviani's critique and then, when the press started to make a fuss, they reacted with the untimely publication of the Instructio...and the communication of the CEI, directing all arrangements to be in force from 30 November-although the texts don't yet exist, but are promised for November 15. How can a change of such magnitude be prepared for in 10 days? (p.259).
Thus we come to the final scene. On May 8, 1969, with the publication of the Apostolic Constitution Sacrum Rituum Congregatio, Pope Paul VI had already split the Sacred Congregation of Rites into two congregations: the Congregation for Saints and the Congregation for Divine Worship. Bugnini had been appointed Secretary of the new Congregation for Divine Worship and Antonelli was made Secretary of the Congregation for Saints (p.264). The last session of the "Consilium" (April 9, 1970) coincided with the first session of the new Congregation for Divine Worship, which, as Cardinal Gut made clear, "is a continuation of the Consilium" (p.244). So Fr. Antonelli left (or perhaps, more exactly, was excluded from) this stage of the "liturgical reform."
A Judgment We Cannot Share
The author of this book, whose intention is to vindicate the quality and work of "Antonelli the liturgist," writes:
It is a pity that Antonelli had so little a part to play in the work of the reform, particularly after his Congregation of Rites was suppressed. He remains an embittered man. Perhaps this is the destiny of all pioneers: they blaze a trail but it is left to others to forge ahead, leaving the pioneers by the wayside (p.247).
No. Fr. Antonelli is not embittered. He would have good reason to be so, but he is not. His notes never give the impression of personal resentment. For example, when Pope Paul VI excluded the Prefect of the Congregation of Rites, the "conservative" Cardinal Larraona, from the liturgical reform and entrusted the latter to the "Consilium" presided over by the "progressive" Cardinal Lercaro, flanked by Bugnini, Fr. Antonelli's sole concern-and rightly-was with the inevitable conflicts which would arise between two organisms responsible for the same matters. Similarly, when Pope Paul VI excluded him from the "liturgical reform" and preferred Bugnini, Fr. Antonelli says no more than this:
I could say a lot of things about this man. I would have to add that he has always been supported by Paul VI. If I am not mistaken, the most important thing that Fr. Bugnini lacks is theological formation and sensitivity. I have the impression that large-scale concessions have been made, especially as regards the Sacraments, to the Protestant mentality. I do not say that Fr. Bugnini himself made these concessions. Not at all: he did not make them. He used many people and-I do not know why-he brought to this "work" people who were skilful, but of a "progressive" theological hue.
Generously, Fr. Antonelli adds: "So, either he did not notice, or he didn't (or couldn't) resist certain tendencies" (p.264).
Fr. Antonelli's judgment concerning the "lack of theological formation and sensitivity" of Fr. Annibale Bugnini coincides, in substance, with the following judgment-which, while humorous, is yet far more incisive-once given by Dom Alfonso Pietro Salvini, O.S.B.:
In the bulletin of the Diocese of Pisa (no. 12, Mar. 25, 1973) I read that Bishop Bugnini...would have liked to replace the homily at Mass by dancing. The kind of savage he is would like such things-and worse (Divagazioni di una lunga vita, ed. Stella del Mare, Livorno).
As regards the incredible "method of working" of the authors of the "liturgical reform," we need only re-read Professor Romano Amerio's description of the notorious examples of decadence in the Roman Curia and its organisms (Iota Unum. A Study of Changes in the Catholic Church in the XXth Century, Sarto House 1996):
Apart from bad Latin and a lack of precision, the Curia can be criticized for the cultural inadequacy implicit in recent papal documents, which were for centuries distinguished by an irreproachable perfection (p.164).
Finally, when we come to Fr. Antonelli's puzzlement about Pope Paul VI and his responsibilities, it is sufficient to note that Fr. Antonelli even manages to find something good in the address in which Pope Paul VI tells the members of the Consilium that the liturgy "is like a vigorous tree, rooted in the earth, its trunk putting forth new branches which are covered with new foliage every year" (p.200). Fr. Antonelli stays with the "roots" which are well fixed in the soil of Tradition, and refrains from plucking the novelties from this "trunk" with its "new foliage every year." Has the like ever happened before in the 2,000-year history of the liturgy? Cardinal Ottaviani had strongly underlined this at the Council when he said:
Are we seeking to stir up wonder, or perhaps scandal, among the Christian people, by introducing changes in so venerable a rite, that has been approved for so many centuries and is now so familiar? The rite of Holy Mass should not be treated as if it were a piece of cloth to be refashioned according to the whim of each generation (R. Wiltgen, The Rhine Flows into the Tiber, 1967, Tan Books, 1985), p.28.
Under Pope Pius XII, Fr. Antonelli had been accustomed to serious and deliberate work, with respect for the liturgical tradition. Here we find him in some perplexity, reasonably enough, and then, little by little, he becomes more and more concerned about the change of course the "liturgical reform" is taking. No longer is it a case of "pioneers blazing a trail and others pushing further along it"; now what is happening is a real deviation, with the liturgy subordinated to neo-Modernism-in the guise of "new theology"-and, as Fr. Antonelli well understood, once it has begun to "bring ruin upon the formula and the rite, it begins to wreak havoc among the people" (p.257 cit.).
If any reproach could be made to Fr. Antonelli, it is that he is not "embittered." On the contrary, he found it hard to understand (and perhaps he has never fully understood) the gravity of what was happening. But it is precisely his initial optimism and his willingness to be of service to a sound liturgical renewal that make him a priceless witness against the "savage liturgical amputation which has been touted as a reform" (G. Ceronetti, La Stampa, July 18, 1990).
- Martinus
|
|
|
| The Recusant: Logical Fallacies of Evolutionists |
|
Posted by: Stone - 04-12-2021, 06:44 AM - Forum: General Commentary
- No Replies
|
|
Logical Fallacies of Evolutionists
Like Mathematics, logic is a science, it is the study of correct and incorrect reasoning and as with mathematics, using logic, one can arrive at certainties which one can know to be true. A logical fallacy is not a false conclusion, it is a fault in the process of reasoning which leads to
a false conclusion.
Studying the physical sciences, it seems, it no guarantee that one has any kind of a firm grasp of logic. Here is a selection of some of the more common fallacies to be often found amongst believers in evolution.
The Fallacy of Reification. This is when one treats a thing as though it were a person. For instance: “Science says/declares/tells us…” - no, science is not a person and therefore “science” does not say anything. Scientists say things. Spot the difference: not quite the same is it? Scientists are, after all, only human like the rest of us. Likewise, the “fossil record,” carbon dating, comparative anatomy or whatever else, don’t actually tell us anything… the men who refer to those things and cite them as evidence are the ones telling us things, but those men are prone to misinterpreting the evidence, as well as being subject to the same human weaknesses (envy, pride, human respect, laziness and so forth) as the rest of us. Even the word “evidence” is used in this fallacious way. “Evidence says…” - in fact, no, the evidence does not do any talking, it does not say anything. You, the scientist, the evolutionist, the one who is interpreting the evidence, you are the one who says (whatever it is). “Creationists say this, but science says that...” - spot the difference! Why is it “science” and not “scientists”..?
The Fallacy of Equivocation. This is where the meaning of a word is shifted during the course of the argument. I gather it is also known as “bait and switch” in North American English. It is very common amongst evolutionists, some of whom don’t even seem to realise that they are committing it. The most obvious example is the very word ‘evolution’ itself. The textbook will say: “We see evolution around us all the time,” and will point to how new and different breeds of dog can be produced; or how certain animals or species can become extinct. That kind of “evolution” is what we see, yes. The first is sometimes called “micro evolution” but in reality it is just lots of variety within the gene pool; the second thing is just extinction, something which results in less variety and not more, it involves a loss and not a gain. Then there is the other sort of “evolution” - where rocks and water somehow become a “primordial soup” and organic matter appears from inorganic matter, or where amoebas turn into fish, fish into land animals, reptiles into birds and monkeys into humans. Clearly that is not the same thing at all, but it is given the same name. The first “evolution” is then used to, as it were, “prove” the second one.
Another example is the word ‘science.’ An evolutionist will say: “You believe in science, don’t you? Well evolution is science, so you should believe in evolution.” Even if we take for granted the modern habit that “science” really means the physical sciences, the “science” which we believe in means the tools God has given us to learn more about the physical attributes of His creation, the method or procedure, or what-have-you. On the other hand, evolution is only “science” in the sense that it is one particular model of origins (and not a very good one at that) - not the same thing. Add to that the fallacy of reification (see above) and you have two fallacies in one - “How can you not believe in evolution when science has declared it to be true.” It sounds and looks ridiculous in the cold light of day, and yet this kind of talk is common because, on most people, it works.
“Evolution is a theory, just like gravity is a theory, and you believe in gravity don’t you?” - gravity is a scientific theory, meaning it is supported by evidence and experiment. Evolution is only a “theory” in the commonplace meaning of the word, an idea, a supposition. The way in which textbooks talk of evolutionary change as happening through “beneficial mutations” is another example of this fallacy. “Here’s a picture of a fruit fly with curly wings, or a cow with five legs...mutations such as these are harmful, but it is the good mutations which make evolution happen.” So why don’t you present us with evidence of “good mutations”? Could it be because there aren’t any, because it doesn’t happen? All the mutations we
know about involve already existing genetic information being misplaced or scrambled (for instance, the cow’s fifth leg is still a cow leg; the fruit fly’s curly wings are still fly wings) - whereas the mythical “mutations” required by evolution, the ones which nobody has ever seen, are “mutations” involving the sudden and unaccountable appearance of new, additional genetic information which was not previously there. In effect, the “mutations” required for evolution are something quite different and therefore ought not to be given the same name, and there is no evidence that any such thing has ever taken place.
The Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. This is when one says “If A then B ...B, therefore A.” For instance, “If it is raining, the grass will be wet. The grass is wet, therefore it must be raining.” What if somebody turned on the sprinklers, or some kids have just had a water fight, or someone was washing his car? “If evolution were true, we’d expect to see lots of fossils in layers, and similarities in the anatomy of different animals. We do see those things, therefore evolution must be true.” Hold on a moment - what about other possible explanations, such as a worldwide flood and a common designer? Incorrect theories can make correct predictions - even if the “prediction” is true (and let’s leave to one side whether it is really a prediction if you already know it!), that still does not prove that the theory is true.
The Fallacy of Denying the Antecedent. As above, only in a negative form. “If it’s raining the grass will be wet. It’s not raining, therefore the grass must not be wet.” If A is true then B is true. Very well. But if A is not true, B might still nevertheless be true, for all we know. “If
dinosaurs and humans were found in the same rock layers, it would prove that they were alive at the same time. They are not found in the same rock layers, therefore they did not live at the same time.” The first half is true, the second a fallacy. Just because you haven’t found humans and dinosaurs in the same rock layers, that doesn’t prove that they didn’t live at the same time.
The Fallacy of False Dichotomy. Sometimes known as “false dilemma” or “bifurcation,” this consists of presenting two (and only two) options or possibilities when that is not the case. “Either there are laws governing nature, or God works miracles.” Why aren’t both possible? “You believe what your Church teaches, but I follow my reason!” Actually, I believe and follow both, and arguably one cannot be being fully rational if one rejects the existence of the God who made everything. Almost without fail, the evolutionist commits this fallacy every time he talks about “science versus religion.” “Which do you believe, science or the teachings of your religion?” Both, in fact. The same is true of both the title and the concept of Fr. Paul Robinson’s book, implying that there is a tension between “science” and “religion” pulling in Logical Fallacies of Evolutionists opposite directions, which can only be avoided by steering a “realist” path between the two. If anyone is tempted to doubt that, let him carefully consider what is being implied by Fr. Robinson’s words when he says that the creationist view “makes science an enemy of reason.”
The ‘No True Scotsman’ Fallacy. This is a form of circular reasoning, whereby one makes a universal statement and then eliminates or isqualifies the evidence which disproves it. It tends to go something like this: “All serious scientists believe in evolution.” Or, “no serious scientist has a problem with…” When you point out a scientist who does not agree with evolution (or global warming, or whatever it might be…) you will be told that that scientist is not a serious scientist. Why isn’t he a “serious” scientist, you might enquire? Well, the answer would be, for one thing, he believes the earth is 6,000 years old - how can anyone take someone like that seriously! No serious science journal would accept a paper from a creationist. All the leading academics agree that... (insert contentious statement here!). It’s so obvious. And yet they do it all the time, so one can only suppose that many people are nevertheless taken in by it.
Begging the Question. This is another form of circular reasoning, where the conclusion of an argument is already embedded into one of the premises. In a fallacy of this sort, the error lies in the underlining assumption which is there from the start. “How do I know that evolution is true? Because it’s a fact!” That one is a bit obvious. Here’s another, slightly more subtle example: “Creationists are wrong because the geological column shows that the earth is billions of years old and the fossil record shows how life evolved.” The very existence of such a thing as the “geological column” outside the textbooks is one of the main things young earth creationists dispute. The same goes for the “fossil record.” Yes, there are fossils, but they don’t form a “record.” The fossils are a fact, the “record” is a matter of interpretation, nothing more. We say instead that the layers of rock and the fossils were deposited all in one go and are evidence of a worldwide flood. Saying that we are wrong about the fossil record because of the fossil record (which is in effect what almost all “billions-of-years” exponent say, Fr. Robinson included) is, when you stop to think about it, not very intelligent and not really very helpful either. Appealing to the very thing under dispute solves nothing, but is the essence of begging the question.
Fr. Paul Robinson seems to be prone to this particular fallacy. In saying that we “Biblicists” (his own made-up word) are wrong because we “make science an enemy of reason,” he assumes two things: first that evolutionary timescales are synonymous with science, and second that reason is on the side of this so-called “science” - even though this is appealing to the very thing at issue (we maintain that those ideas are irrational and don’t count as “science”!). He commits the same fallacy when he says that the Genesis account of creation can’t be taken as reliable because it would mean that God was deliberately choosing “to deceive our minds by creating a world in an instant that appears to have developed over long periods of time.” (See Recusant 46, p.45). Notice that his argument assumes that the world really does appear to have developed over long periods of time, although again, that is precisely the very thing which is disputed.
The Complex Question. The classic example is: “Are you still beating your wife?” Either yes or no might lead to a false conclusion. The reason it is called “complex” is because it is one question which really ought to be divided into two. “Did you ever beat your wife and if so, do
you still do it?” Likewise, “Why are you creationists against science?” “Which of the contradictory accounts in the Bible do you accept?” and so forth.
The “Ad Hominem” Fallacy from its name in Latin, the “argumentum ad hominem” (“an argument directed at a person,” and not at the words, ideas or reasoning which that person puts forth and represents, in other words). This is similar to the idea of shooting the messenger who brings bad news: the character of the person is attacked in order to discredit what they are saying. “I met him once, he's a really horrible person, so I wouldn’t listen to anything he says.” That may be true, he might be the most anti-social, mean spirited man ever to have lived, perhaps he has bad breath and doesn’t wash his socks, but that still doesn’t mean he hasn’t got a really good, water-tight argument in spite of his personal failings.
This fallacy is, in the experience of this writer, alarmingly common amongst Traditional Catholics. One of the signs to look out for is a failure to quote at length from the person in question and show why they are wrong by using their own words. Ask yourself: does the one doing the attacking engage with the actual argument as laid out by his opponent? Or am I being invited to focus on the imagined (or even true) faults or failings of his opponent, rather than such facts as are both undeniable and relevant, such as their words on a given subject or their actions in a given dispute?
The Fallacy of the Irrelevant Thesis. This is where the information provided is true but irrelevant. A thing can be true and yet still provide no kind of explanation. For instance, imagine telling an eager news reporter: “How come I am the only survivor of a horrific plane crash in which every single other person died? Because otherwise I wouldn’t be here to tell you all about it.” That may be true, but it is irrelevant: it doesn’t answer the original question. “Why do living creatures have complex parts which function together so perfectly? Because if they didn’t they would have died off.” That may be true - yes, they would have died off - but it still doesn’t answer the question: ‘why?’
The Appeal to Ignorance. This is when something is claimed simply on the basis that no one has proved it false. “There must be life in outer space. No one has ever proved that there isn’t.” If someone has not disproved a claim, that does not mean that the claim is true. Appeals to ignorance are reversible: one might equally say, “There is no life in outer space. No one has ever proved that there is.”
The Appeal to Authority. “Look at all these fancy scientists, Doctors, Professors, T.V. personalities, who all believe in Evolution, Big Bang and billions of years…” God is the only authority (and by extension, Sacred Scripture and His Church) to whom one can appeal without it being a fallacy. Those scientists with the fancy letters after their names and the lengthy biographies on Wikipedia don’t even claim to be infallible. They can be wrong. “Trust me, I’m a doctor!” was always a terrible argument, but it is perhaps the thing which is the most effective on the majority of people.
The Straw Man Fallacy. The one everyone always remembers: misrepresenting your opponent, refuting the things you wish he’d said but didn’t. For example, do we creationists really think and claim that God deliberately deceives everyone by creating the world with evidence of an old earth built into it because he wants us all to mistrust our reason? No..? And yet that is what Fr. Paul Robinson says of us. He also points out that that is not a Catholic attitude, to which we reply: “True, but irrelevant” (see above).
|
|
|
|
| Second Week after Easter [Monday - Saturday] |
|
Posted by: Stone - 04-12-2021, 06:25 AM - Forum: Easter
- Replies (6)
|
|
Monday of the Second Week after Easter
℣. In resurrectione tua Christe, alleluia.
℣. In thy resurrection, O Christ, alleluia.
℟. Cœli et terra lætentur, alleluia.
℟. Let heaven and earth rejoice, alleluia.
The first week has been devoted to the joyous celebration of our Emmanuel’s return to us. He has been visiting us each day, in order to make us sure of his Resurrection. He has said to us: See me! Touch me! Feel! it is indeed I! But we know that his visible presence among us is not to last beyond forty days. This happy period is rapidly advancing; the time seems to go so quickly! In a few weeks, He, for whom the whole earth has been in such expectation, will have disappeared from our sight. O Expectation and Savior of Israel! why wilt thou be as a stranger in the land, and as a way-faring man turning in to lodge? Why wilt thou be as a wanderer?—So much the more precious are the hours, then! Let us keep close by his side; when we cannot hear his words, let us fix our eyes upon him; but when he does speak, let us treasure up the beautiful words, for they are as the last will of our dearest Master.
During this forty days, he is continually with his Disciples, not indeed to persuade them of his Resurrection (for of that they had no longer any doubt), but as St. Luke says, that he might speak to them of the Kingdom of God. He has redeemed man by his Blood and his victory over death; he has wrought reconciliation between heaven and earth—all that now remains to be done is the organization of the Church. The Church is the Kingdom of God; for it is in and by her that God is to reign upon the earth. The Church is the Spouse of the risen Jesus; it is he that raised her up to so exalted an honor; and now he would give her the dowry which will prepare her for that glorious day when the Holy Ghost is to descend upon her, and proclaim her to all nations as Spouse of the Incarnate Word, and Mother of the Elect.
Three things are needed by the Church in order that she may carry on her mission: a constitution framed by the very hand of the Son of God, whereby she will become a visible and permanent society; the possession of all the truths which her Divine Lord came upon this earth to reveal or confirm—and in this is included the right to teach, and teach infallibly; thirdly, the means whereby she may efficaciously apply to the Faithful the fruit of Jesus’ Sacrifice on the Cross, that is to say, the graces of salvation and sanctification. Hierarchy, Doctrine, Sacraments—these are the all-important subjects upon which our Lord instructs his Disciples during the forty days between his Resurrection and Ascension.
But before following him in his divine work of organizing the Church, let us spend the rest of this week in considering him as the Risen Jesus, dwelling among men, and winning their admiration and love. We have contemplated him in the humility of his swathing-bands and Passion; let us now exultingly feast on the sight of his glory.
He presents himself to us as the most beautiful of the sons of men. He was always so, even when he veiled the splendor of his charms under the infirmity of the mortal flesh he had assumed; but what must not his beauty be now that he has vanquished death, and permits the rays of his glory to shine forth without restraint? His age is forever fixed at that of thirty-three: it is the period of life wherein man is at the height of his strength and beauty, without a single sign of decay. It was the state in which God created Adam, whom he formed to the likeness of the Redeemer to come; it will be the state of the bodies of the just on the day of the General Resurrection—they will bear upon them the measure of the perfect age which our Lord had when he arose from his Tomb.
But it is not only by the beauty of his features that the Body of our Risen Jesus delights the eye of such as are permitted to gaze upon him: it is now endowed with the glorious qualities of which the three Apostles caught a glimpse on Mount Thabor. In the Transfiguration, however, the Humanity shone as the sun because of its union with the Person of the Word; but now, besides the Brightness due to it by the Incarnation, she glorified Body of our Redeemer has that which comes from his being Conqueror and King. His Resurrection has given him such additional resplendence, that the sun is not worthy to be compared with him; and St. John tells us that he is the Lamp that lights up the heavenly Jerusalem.
To this quality which the Apostle of the Gentiles calls Brightness, is added that of Impassibility, whereby the Body of our Risen Lord has ceased to be accessible to suffering or death, and is adorned with the immortality of life. His Body is as truly and really a Body as ever; but it is now impervious to any deterioration or weakness; its life is to bloom for all eternity. The third quality of our Redeemer’s glorified body is Agility, by which it can pass from one place to another, instantly and without effort. The Flesh has lost that weight which, in our present state, prevents the body from keeping pace with the longings of the soul. He passes from Jerusalem to Galilee in the twinkling of an eye, and the Spouse of the Canticle thus speaks of him: The voice of my Beloved! Behold he cometh leaping upon the mountains, skipping over the hills! Finally, the Body of our Emmanuel has put on the quality of Subtility (which the Apostle calls “Spirituality”), whereby it is enabled to penetrate every material obstacle more easily than a sun-beam makes its way through glass. On the morning of his Resurrection, he passed through the stone that stood against the mouth of the sepulchre; and on the same day, he entered the Cenacle, though its doors were shut, and stood before his astonished Disciples.
Such is our Savior, now that he is set free from the shackles of mortality. Well may the little flock that is favored with his visits exclaim on seeing him: How fair and comely art thou, O dearest Master!—Let us join our praises with theirs, and say: Yes, dearest Jesus, thou art beautiful above all the sons of men! A few days back, and we wept at beholding thee covered with wounds, as though thou hadst been the worst of criminals; but now, our eyes feast on the resplendent charm of thy divine beauty. Glory be to thee in thy triumph! Glory, too, be to thee, in thy generosity, which has decreed that these our bodies, after having been purified by the humiliation of the tomb, shall one day share in the prerogatives which we now admire in thee!
Let us, destined as we are to share in the glory of our Jesus, offer to him this beautiful canticle, which used to be sung in the Churches of Germany during the Middle Ages.
Sequence
Rex regum, Dei Agne,
Leo Juda magne,
Crucis virtute
Mors peccati,
Vita justitiæ.
O King of kings! Lamb of God! Strong Lion of Juda! by the power of the Cross, thou art the Death of sin, and the Life of justice.
Dans fructum jam ligni vitæ,
Pro gustu scientiæ,
Medicina gratiæ
Pro rapina gloriæ.
To repair the evil done by Adam’s eating of the Tree of Knowledge, thou now givest us the fruit of the Tree of Life: to remedy the theft committed by his ambition for glory, thou givest the medicine of grace.
Quum tuus sanguis
jus romphææ
Restrinxit flammeæ,
Paradisi pandis hortum,
Stirps obedientiæ,
Medicine gratiæ.
Thy Blood quenched the fiery sword which justly menaced us. Thou openest heaven to us, O Root of obedience! O Medicine of Grace!
Hæc dies Domini celebris;
Pax est in terris,
Fulgur inferis,
Et lux superis;
Dies duplicis baptismi,
Legis et Evangelii.
This is the great Day of the Lord, which brings peace to earth, and terror to hell, and light to heaven. It is the day of the twofold Baptism—of the Law and the Gospel.
Christus Pascha est homini:
Dum vetus transit,
Novum surgit.
Hæc dies Domini,
Gaude mens expers fermenti,
Plena panis azymi.
Christ is our Pasch: the old one passes away, and the new rises in its stead. This is the Day which the Lord hath made: let us, who have put away the old leaven and feed on the unleavened, let us rejoice!
Submersis hostibus,
Signatis postibus,
Assum Pascha
Nocte domo una,
Jam cum lactucis
Ede agrestibus.
Thine enemies, my soul, are drowned in the sea; thy threshold is signed with the Blood of the Lamb: eat the Pasch prepared by fire in the Night; eat it in the One House; yea, eat it with wild lettuce.
Accinctis renibus,
Pellitis pedibus,
Cum baculo propera,
Et caput cum intestinis
Et pedibus vora.
Gird thy reins, shoe thy feet, and, with a stave in thy hand, hasten and eat the head and entrails and feet of the Lamb.
Hac die nos lava,
Christe, mundans hyssopo,
Fac et dignos hoc mysterio;
Mare siccans, Leviathan perforans
Maxillam hamo armilla.
Cleanse us, O Jesus, this Day, with hyssop; make us worthy of the Mystery. Dry up the sea, that we may pass; and with the hook (of thy Cross) strangle the Leviathan.
Calice nos inebria,
Sopi, suscita;
De torrente bibens in via
Damna nostra;
Tu Pontifex, hostia,
Torcular calcans, tu uva.
Inebriate us, lull us to rest, inspirit us, with thy Chalice, O thou that didst drink of the torrent of our miseries on the way! O thou our High Priest, our Victim, our Wine-presser, our Vine!
O flos virgineæ virgægrans,
Plena septemplici rore,
Specie rosæ rubor,
Lilii candor,
Quo te tantæ clementiæ consilio
Microscomi inclinaveras auxilio,
Ut miseris prticeps
Redemptor esses,
Absque peccati nævo,
Gestans formulam peccati?
O fragrant Flower of the Virgin Branch! rich with the dew of the seven Gifts, ruddy as the rose, and fair as the lily!—when that merciful design of thine, that made thee stoop to aid this little world, sharing our nature that thou mightest redeem us miserable men, and taking the likeness of sin, O thou the sinless God!
O Consanguinee
Servi, Domine,
Spes anastaseos primæ,
ultimæ, per jusjurandum
Semini Abrahæ firma et nos,
Dux athanatos,
Nos tuo convivificans corpori,
Commortuos Adæ parenti veteri;
Tu membris fortioribus
Jungens infirma
Vitæ æternæ
Des pascua,
Tu Pascha. Amen.
O Sovereign Lord! thou that hast made thyself Brother of thy creature Man! O Hope of our first and eternal Resurrection! we beseech thee, by the promise made to Abraham’s seed, give us strength, O immortal King! and make us, who were sharers in our First Parent’s death, be fellow members of thy life. Unite our weakness with thy strength, and bless us, O Blessed Paschal Lamb! with the pastures of eternal life. Amen.
|
|
|
|
| First Sunday after Easter [Low, or Quasimodo, Sunday] |
|
Posted by: Stone - 04-11-2021, 05:12 AM - Forum: Easter
- Replies (4)
|
|
INSTRUCTION ON THE FIRST SUNDAY AFTER EASTER, called DOMINICA IN ALBIS.
Taken from Fr. Leonard Goffine's Explanations of the Epistles and Gospels for the Sundays, Holydays, and Festivals throughout the Ecclesiastical Year, 36th edition, 1880
![[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.history.com%2Fsites...f=1&nofb=1]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.history.com%2Fsites%2F2%2F2018%2F03%2FGettyImages-148275792-resize.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
Why is this Sunday called Dominica in Albis or White Sunday?
BECAUSE on this day the neophytes laid aside the white dress which, as emblem of their innocence, they received on Holy Saturday, and put on their necks an Agnus Dei, made of white wax, and blessed by the pope, to remind them always of the innocence for which they were given, and of the meekness of the Lamb Jesus.
For which reason the Church sings at the lntroit: As new-born babes, alleluia: desire the rational milk without guile. Alleluia, alleluia, alleluia, (i Pet. ii. 2.) Rejoice to God our helper: sing aloud to the God of Jacob. (Ps. lxxx.) Glory, &c.
PRAYER OF THE CHURCH. Grant, we beseech Thee, Almighty God, that we, who have completed the paschal solemnities may, through Thy merciful bounty, ever retain them in our life and conversation. Through.
EPISTLE. (i John v. 4 — 10.) Dearly beloved, Whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world; and this is the victory which overcometh the world, our faith. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? This is he that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ: not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the spirit which testifieth that Christ is the truth. And there are three who give testimony in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one. If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater: for this is the testimony of God, which is greater, because he hath testified of his Son. He that believeth in the Son of God, hath the testimony of God in himself.
Quote:INSTRUCTION. As in his gospel, so in his epistles, and especially in this, St. John proves the divinity of Christ which had been denied by some heretics. He says that Christ had come to purify all men from sin by water and blood, that is, by His blood shed on the cross for our reconciliation, and by the water of baptism to which He has given the power, the divine effect of His blood, and has thus proved Himself the divine Redeemer. This His divine dignity is attested by the Holy Ghost who lived in Christ and worked through Him with His fulness, and when sent by Him after our Lord's Ascension, produced most wonderful effect in the apostles and the faithful. As now on earth three, the Spirit, water, and blood, give testimony of Christ's divinity and agree in it, so also in heaven three, the Father, who calls Him His beloved Son, (Matt. iii. 17.) the Word, or the Son Himself, who wrought so many miracles, the Holy Ghost, when He descended upon Him at the baptism in the Jordan, (Luke iii. 22.) give testimony of His divinity, and these also agree with one another in their testimony. If Christ is truly God, then we must believe in Him, and this faith must be a living one, that is, it must prove fertile in good works, and this faith conquers the world by teaching us to love God above all, to despise the world with its pleasures, and to overcome it by indifference. Let us strive to have such faith, and we shall overcome all temptations and gain the eternal crown.
ASPIRATION. O Lord Jesus! strengthen me by a lively faith in Thy divinity, so that I may not succumb in the spiritual combat against the world, the flesh, and the devil, and be eternally lost.
GOSPEL. (John xx. 19 — 31.) At that time, When it was late that same day, the first of the week, and the doors were shut, where the disciples were gathered together, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came, and stood in the midst, and said to them: Peace be to you. And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. The disciples therefore were glad, when they saw the Lord. He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. Now Thomas, one of the twelve, who is called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. The other disciples therefore said to him: We have seen the Lord. But he said to them: Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe. And after eight days, again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them. Jesus cometh, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said: Peace be to you. Then he said to Thomas: Put in thy finger hither, and see my hands, and bring hither thy hand, and put it into my side; and be not faithless, but believing. Thomas answered and said to him: My Lord and my God. Jesus saith to him: Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed. Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that, believing, you may have life in his name.
Why does Christ so often wish peace to the apostles?
To show that He only, by His death and resurrection, has made peace between God and man, and that His fol- lowers should be known by their harmony. (Joint xiii. 35.) There is a threefold peace: peace with God, by avoiding sin; peace with ourselves, that is, a good conscience; peace with our neighbor by the exercise of charity. This threefold peace is necessary for our salvation.
Why did Jesus breathe upon the apostles when giving them the power to forgive sin?
To show that, as bodily life was once given to Adam by the breath of God, so should the spiritual life, be given henceforth by the apostles and their successors through the Holy Ghost in the Sacrament of Penance, to the children of Adam who were spiritually dead.
Why did God permit Thomas to doubt the Resurrection of Christ?
That Thomas as well as we, says St. Gregory, should be strengthened in humble belief in the Resurrection of Christ, and that all doubts should be removed.
Had Thomas true faith when with his own eyes he saw Christ?
Yes, for he saw Christ only in His humanity, and yet testified to His divinity by exclaiming: My Lord and my God!
Is it true, meritorious faith not to be ready to believe before seeing that which is to be believed?
By no means; for faith consists precisely in firmly holding as true that which is not seen. Therefore Christ calls him blessed who has not seen and yet believes.
When is faith true and meritorious?
That is true faith which firmly believes all that God has revealed, whether written or unwritten, and when one lives in accordance with that faith; for faith in Jesus simply does not save us, when that which He has commanded is not performed. (Matt. vii. 21.; James ii. 20.) That faith is meritorious which without doubting and without hesitation willingly submits the understanding to revealed truths which it cannot comprehend, and this for the love of God, who is eternal truth and cannot deceive.
Whence do we know for certain that God has revealed certain things?
From the Church of Christ which alone preserves the revealed word of God faithfully and uncorrupted, as it is contained in the Bible and in tradition ; by the Holy Ghost all truth is given to the Church, and Christ remains with her until the end of the world. (Matt, xxviii. 20.)
Has the Church of Christ any marks by which it may be known?
Christ's Church has these four marks: it is One, it is Holy, it is Catholic, and it is Apostolic.
How is the Church one?
The Church is one, because all its members agree in one faith, are all in one communion, and are all under one head. (Matt. xvi. 18.; Eph. iv. 3 — 7.)
How is the Church Holy?
The Church is Holy, in her Founder, Jesus Christ, and by teaching a holy doctrine, by inviting all to a holy life, and by the eminent holiness of so many thousands of her children.
How is the Church Catholic?
The Church is Catholic or Universal, because she subsists in all ages, teaches all nations, (Matt, xxviii. 19, 20.) and maintains all truth.
How is the Church Apostolic?
The Church is Apostolic, because she comes down by a perpetual succession from the apostles of Christ, and has her doctrine, her orders, and her mission from them.
Which is this true Church?
The Roman Catholic Church, for she alone has these marks. She is One in her head, the Pope of Rome, in her doctrine, and in her Sacraments, which is evident since she excludes all those who do not accept all her dogmas. She is Holy, for Christ her Founder is holy; and her doctrine and Sacraments lead to holiness, as shown by the multitude of her saints whose sanctity God affirms by great miracles. No sect has saints. She is Catholic or Universal, for she has been in existence always from the times of the apostles, as is clearly shown by the fact that from the times of the apostles there have always been some who separated from her and founded sects. The Catholic Church has always existed, and cannot perish or become corrupt, since Christ has promised to remain with her to the end of the world; she is also spread over the whole world, is always being announced to all nations, and is fitted for all generations and for all people. She is Apostolic, for she accepts no doctrine which does not come from the apostles, and she can prove that the ministers of the Church, the bishops, have come down in unbroken succession from the apostles.
Can those who remain outside the Catholic Church be saved?
The Council of Trent (Sess. V. in the Introduction) assigns the Catholic faith as the one without which it is impossible to please God, and the Roman Catechism teaches: (i part. art. 9.) "The Church is also called Catholic or Universal, because all who desire eternal salvation must cling to, and embrace her, like those who entered the ark, to escape perishing in the flood." According to this doctrine of the Church, which the holy Fathers affirm, only those idolaters and obstinate heretics are excluded from salvation who knowingly deny the truth, and will not enter the Church. The Catholic Church does not condemn the unbelievers, she prays for them, leaves judgment to the Lord, who alone knows the heart, and knows whether the error is culpable or not, and she calls on all her members to pray for their enlightenment.
Are we then already saved, if we belong to the true Church?
No, we must also live up to the faith which she teaches, make good use of all means of salvation, regard and honor all her regulations and commands, for otherwise the words of Christ will be verified in us: And I say to you that many shall come from the east and the west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven: but the children of the kingdom (the true Church) shall be cast out into exterior darkness. (Matt. viii. 11.)
|
|
|
|
| The Recusant: Fr Paul Robinson is still at it… |
|
Posted by: Stone - 04-10-2021, 09:24 AM - Forum: The New-Conciliar SSPX
- Replies (1)
|
|
Taken from The Recusant - Issue 55 [Eastertide 2021]
Fr Paul Robinson is still at it…
Towards the end of 2020, Fr. Paul Robinson was allowed to write an article, billed as an “Op-Ed” for the website Rorate Caeli. Entitled “Science is not a Threat to Religion,” it can be found here: https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2020/0...faith.html
Let us begin by pointing out that (as before) the article’s very title is a classic fallacy. Science as such is not a threat to the Faith, no, but the doctrine of evolution, which is not a part of science, most certainly is. It is a deadly enemy of the Faith and has arguably done more to undermine belief and practice amongst Catholics, to prevent conversions, to help souls on their way to hell and form the modern world into what it is today that any other idea or teaching. The same ought equally to be said about all the ancillary teachings which evolution demands, the big bang doctrine, the ridiculous billions of years for the earth to be formed, the bogus “geological column” hoax and all the rest. It is thanks to such toxic lies that we now have to live in an atmosphere permeated by:
Communism and Socialism. Recall that “Karl” Marx (real name Moses Mordecai Levi) proclaimed in his own words that: “Darwin’s work is most important and suits my purpose in that it provides a basis in natural science for the historical class struggle,” and that it “contains the basis on natural history for our view,” as well as making explicit mention of Darwin in Das Kapital, a book which he personally sent to Darwin, autographed and with a handwritten note of admiration on the title page (“To Mr. Charles Darwin, on the part of his sincere admirer, Karl Marx”). Class struggle, is after all, only the “survival of the fittest” in socio-economic terms. And, by the way, why shouldn’t everything be reduced to the purely economic, the materialistic, since after all, we are just matter which evolved farther than the other matter around us and not essentially different to any other animal, vegetable or even mineral in that regard..?
Captialism. As above, economics is just the survival of the fittest seen in terms of dollar bills. Many who believe that the economic theories of Marx were proved impractical and discredited forever by the various Communist countries of the 20th century (and countries such as Venezuela today) will nonetheless prove, without realising it themselves, that the spirit of Marxist doctrine is still alive and well in their own actions and approach to life. And here again, it is essentially evolutionary. It’s a dog eat dog world, where the only law is the survival of the fittest, except that “the fittest” means the company that can afford to undermine or swallow up it’s competitors. The result (virtual monopolies and the concentration of
power and wealth in the hands of very few) looks and feels remarkably similar to communism and no one need be bothered by anything resembling a duty towards his fellow man.
Why build your workers nice houses to live in? Why make sure they get plenty of holidays, decent health insurance and a wage well above what they require to live on? After all, if evolution is true and there is no spiritual element to man, only the material, the molecules and cells which make him up, then why shouldn’t he be treated like just another cog in the machine..? In the end, profit is what matters. Happiness has no place in the fight for evolutionary supremacy. Just ask anyone who has worked in an Amazon warehouse.
Feminism. Yes, it was Communist Russia which first had widespread abortion on demand, and promoted “free love” and “equality” together with a big drive to put women in overalls working in factories along side men. Our own countries which were shocked and horrified by such things back in the 1920s and 30s now accept and promote them wholeheartedly. But does it not make sense? If there is no Creator and if Eve were not really created from the side of Adam, why on earth should a wife obey her husband? And if there are some differences between men and women which go beyond the merely anatomical, who’s to say that those aren’t “evolutionary” and produced by generations of “sexism,” and not something innate and spiritual, a nature given to us by our Creator?
Environmentalism. If evolution is true and there is no Creator, then our environment, our planet, or however you want to put it, is the closest thing we have to a god since that is what gave rise to us and sustains us. And since human beings are essentially no different to the other animals, plants or even rocks we see around us, all being part of one big evolutionary continuum, then it becomes an imperative that we look after our planet, our environment, not merely within the bounds of common sense and common decency, but even at the expense of human life. Therefore it makes sense to reduce the population of the earth, to let mother earth flourish without all those parasitical human beings running around on top, digging their mines
and building their houses and laying their roads and railways. From this line of thinking, it is but a short step to...
Eugenics. After all, we got where we are by “the fittest” “surviving” (which means, in reality, the perishing of the weakest). Were it not for that, we would still be swinging from the trees. Does it not, therefore, make perfect sense to aid this process by helping “the fittest” to survive
and the weak to perish? A smaller master race makes better evolutionary sense than hordes of Untermensch, surely?
Abortion and Euthanasia. When a woman kills the unborn child in her womb, is that not just the strong (the “fittest”) killing the weak? Likewise, the law in England allowing a baby to be killed all the way up to full term if there is a suspected disability or even relatively minor
deformity (such as a cleft lip) - how can the strong survive unless the weak perish? The same surely goes for the elderly: useless eaters, as someone once said. Why would the strong look after the weak, why should we protect the vulnerable? After all, that’s not how we “evolved”!
Animal Rights. Veganism. Why wouldn’t animals have the same rights as human beings, after all, human beings are nothing more than glorified animals. It’s wrong to kill and eat people, isn’t it? So why wouldn’t it also be wrong to kill and eat other animals? And while we’re at it, how would you like to be held down and shaved for your wool, or have your skin turned into a leather belt, or your milk sold on the shelves of supermarkets? What goes for humans goes for animals. And it all makes sense because there is no essential difference between the two.
Gender Theory. “Who answering, said to them: Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, made them male and female?” (Mt. 19:4) Thanks to Darwin and evolution, many people today have not read that, and even among those who have, Genesis 1 is of course a nice story but nothing more. Thus it follows that since God did not make them male Page 28 Fr Paul Robinson and female in the beginning, as a result the idea of male and female is to be viewed like everything else today: relative, changeable, a societal convention and nothing more.
Religion? This is something for old ladies and effeminate men. It makes them feel good about themselves, they find it comforting, so we might even let them continue practising it in private; just as long as they don’t go getting ideas about changing the society around them and undoing
all our plans. In any case, none of this “religion” stuff is true. It’s just stories.
We could go on, of course, but is it really necessary? The point is this. Not only is evolution a deadly threat to the faith of millions, the same might equally be said of any false “science” in the hands of men with an agenda that is not God’s. Therefore it is a matter of no small importance that we find the SSPX still continuing to support and promote the work done by one of its priests to, in effect, introduce the tenets of evolutionary thinking in amongst Traditional Catholics where it would not previously have been found. In the humble opinion of this writer, there could be nothing more deadly in the long run than what is currently being done by Fr. Paul Robinson and those aiding and abetting him. Sure, he no doubt thinks he is doing the right thing, but that doesn’t lessen the damage done. Both he and his superiors are to blame.
Setting the Record Straight
Fr. Robinson’s article begins by telling the reader that he wrote his book (The Realist Guide to Religion and Science - reviewed in Issue 46, p.42ff ) because he could see that the SSPX faithful were still clinging to old-fashioned ideas regarding the Bible and science, and he wanted to help them catch up with the forward-thinking SSPX seminary professors:
Quote:“Anyone who starts such a project knows that they have to have a strong motivation to do so. In my case, I wanted to set the record straight on the Church’s teaching on science in relation to the Bible. I could see that what I was taught as a seminarian and what I was teaching as a seminary professor somehow was not being passed on to the faithful.”
And did he? Has he “set the record straight”? Does anyone feel that the Church’s teaching wasn’t clear before, that Fr Robinson has made them more clear and less confusing?! Hmm. What is really interesting here, however, is the admission that the SSPX seminaries were and are far more modernist than the average faithful had ever guessed. What Fr. Robinson was taught as a seminarian and what he himself was teaching was somehow “not being passed on to the faithful”..! It sounds as though the liberal teaching in the seminaries that hadn’t been owned up to in the world outside and among the faithful at large, doesn’t it? Many of us will be able to recall several Resistance priests, including Fr Pfeiffer, Fr Chazal and Fr Hewko,
warning as far back as 2013 if not earlier, that a new teaching and new formation was being given in the seminaries of the SSPX, producing a new breed of SSPX priest, far more liberal than those who had gone before him. Occasional anecdotal examples would slip out which confirmed this, and Resistance families who had a son or brother still in an SSPX seminary were well aware of it, but one has the impression that it was not generally known by most
SSPX faithful, nor taken too seriously when it was known. And yet here we have a priest of the SSPX openly admitting that the rehabilitation of evolutionary ideas (the teachings of Charles Lyell for instance) was well under way in the seminaries several years ago. Furthermore, he is proud to have led the way in making these ideas “mainstream” in SSPX chapels and helping them take root in the hearts and minds of the faithful.
As for setting “the record straight on the Church’s teaching” - just think about that for a moment. Yes, it can be that a lot of Catholics get the wrong idea and need to be “set straight.” Several examples exist of Catholic teaching being hidden from sight and generally misunderstood or totally ignored by the faithful and even the clergy, several generations before Vatican II. Take usury, for instance, or geocentrism, or extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. One could even cite Catholic Action as the domain of the laity in which the clergy participate or the gradual replacement of the virtue of prudence by a Protestant concept of “conscience” and by a veritable infestation of moral theology manuals. In each of those cases, however, to “set the record straight” it is sufficient to show Catholic teaching from before the confusion, from before the eclipse, to point to any one of the many centuries when the teaching was clearly understood by everyone. There are plenty of Councils, Popes, Saints, Doctors and Fathers of the Church to choose from. The one setting the record straight need only to show what the Church taught and what all Catholics everywhere believed in the middle ages, in the early centuries, in the seventeenth century, or whenever. He can simply point to the Church and need never himself intrude into the matter.
Here however we have something different. Fr. Paul Robinson is going to “set the record straight” about what the Church teaches when it comes to Charles Lyell and similar men. His “setting the record straight” however involves no quoting from Councils, Popes, Doctors or Fathers across the centuries. Indeed, to do so would risk undermining his cause, therefore he must largely ignore them. Instead, he presents a “synthesis” of two diametrically opposed positions, through a filter of his own making. This “interpretation” is his own and no one else’s. Richard Dawkins may talk a lot of nonsense, but he is right about one thing: evolution and the bible don’t go together; in the end you have to pick one of the two. There have been many men in recent generations, theistic evolutionists, progressive creationists or what you will, who have tried to marry the two together, and in every case they are convinced that they have got it just right; yet not one of them can agree completely with the others. Rather like the Protestants, they too are in the business of interpreting the bible rather without regard to what the Church has always taught. And like the Protestants, there are as many theories, doctrines and interpretations as there are exponents of this approach.
Fr. Robinson himself is a disciple of the late Fr. Stanley Jaki, and has described his book as an “attempt to popularize Fr Jaki’s work.” And yet even he does not agree with him one hundred percent. What the reader of The Realist Guide is being given then is the teaching of one man, and only one: Fr. Paul Robinson.
And yet he has the audacity to claim that he is the one setting the record straight. What does this mean, then, but “Listen to me! I am the voice of the Church! I am the Church! My interpretation is Catholic teaching!” - are we perhaps being unfair on Fr. Robinson? The words about setting the record straight “on the Church’s teaching” are his own, not ours. And it is hard to see what this is if not one man holding up his own fallible and highly contentious opinion as Catholic doctrine. How can anyone be sure, for instance, that it isn’t Fr Stanley Jaki who got it right, and not Fr Robinson? Or any of the other “theorists” and exponents of “progressive creation” or “theistic evolution” for that matter? How certain can anyone be that one day, after Fr. Robinson is dead, another priest won’t “interpret” his work and present his own thesis as a “setting the record straight on the Church’s teaching”..?
Condemning the Church Without Realising it
Fr. Robinson continues:
Quote:“Why is the corrective [i.e. his book ‘The Realist Guide…’ - Ed.] needed? Because many faithful, on the one hand, make a strictly literal interpretation of Genesis 1 into a matter of faith and so, on the other hand, hold that the Big Bang Theory and Darwinian evolution are, of themselves, against the faith. For them, the authentic Catholic reading of Genesis 1 is that the universe was created in a full formed state 6000 years ago.”
And for the Fourth Lateran Council. And for St. Thomas Aquinas. And for St. Basil. And for St. Ambrose. And for St. John Chrysostom. And for all the Fathers and Doctors. Indeed, find me a Father or a Doctor of the Church who teaches anything remotely resembling what Fr Robinson teaches. Fr. Robinson and men like him sometimes point to the fact that St. Augustine believed that things were created in an instant rather than in six days (the others all seem to believe in six literal days), but is there one Church Father who teaches that it took 14 billion years following an explosion? Not one single Catholic of any rank or situation believed this nonsense or anything like it for the first 1800 plus years of Church history.
But don’t worry: Fr. Robinson and the SSPX are here to “correct” them all, St. Thomas Aquinas and the Fourth Lateran Council included. Please also notice: that is, in his own words, why he wrote the book in the first place. It was “needed,” he said, to correct you, the foolish people who still believe that a day is a day, that “covered the whole earth” means covered the whole earth and that “six hundred years old” means, well, six hundred years old. Fr. Robinson was alarmed to discover that far too many people still believe in the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture, in other words. Too many people still think that what the bible says is actually true.
“But this is simply not the case…”
So there you go. They’re all wrong and I’m right, in other words. People need to stop listening to the likes of St. Thomas Aquinas and all those
other Fathers and Doctors and listen only to me.
Quote:“What I would like to consider in this article is, firstly, the authentic teaching of the Church; secondly, why some Catholics are little inclined to accept that teaching; and finally, why their fear to accept it is groundless.”
In summary then: All the Fathers, Doctors and even Councils of the Church are wrong and Fr. Robinson is right. His peculiar notions and pet theories are “the authentic teaching of the Church” and God allowed all Catholics for century after century to believe something which was not true. Well. That seems quite straight forward at least, though not very Catholic. Why is one suddenly reminded of Joseph Smith or Charles Taze Russel…?
- “God … the creator of all things visible and invisible, of the spiritual and of the corporal; who by His own omnipotent power at once from the beginning of time created each creature from nothing, spiritual and corporal, namely, angelic and mundane, and finally the human, constituted as it were, alike of the spirit and the body.” [“Deus…creator omnium visibilium et invisibilium, spiritualium et corporalium: qui sua omnipotenti virtute simul ab initio temporis utramque de nihilo condidit creaturam, spiritualem et corporalem, angelicam videlicet et mundanam: ac deinde humanam, quasi communem ex spiritu et corpore constitutam.” - Lateran Council IV
- “The Holy Roman Church determined in the Fourth Lateran Council that the angels along with the creatures of the world were at once created ex nihilo from the beginning of time.” - St. Lawrence of Brindisi (Doctor of the Church), commentary on Genesis 1
- “To be sure, the Lateran Council under Innocent III declared: One must believe with firm faith that ‘from the beginning of time God created from nothing both spiritual and corporeal creatures, viz., the angelic and the mundane.’ … The Council’s words seem too well expressed and clear to be twisted into another meaning. Wherefore, my opinion is no longer just probable, but is both certain and de fide, for this is what the Council itself declares and defines.” - Cornelius a Lapide, commentary on Genesis 1 (Emphasis ours. See: catholicorigins.com and kolbecentre.org)
Quote:“The first real evidence that the Earth is millions, if not billions, of years old came to light in the middle of the 19th century.”
And what was that “evidence,” please? He doesn’t say. The answer will almost certainly be “fossil,” and the phoney-baloney so-called “geological column”. More on that shortly.
Quote:“It would not be until the 20th century that scientists figured out that there are other galaxies than our own and started to work their way to a 13.7-billion-year age for the universe.”
An interesting admission albeit perhaps an unintentional one. Here we have a little insight into how these “scientists” claim to know the age of the universe. It’s all guess work, in other words, and not exactly disinterested guess work either. They need it to be that age in order for everything they see to have come about in the way they want it to have come about. If humans took millions of years to evolve, then the earth itself needs to be at least a few billion years old. And if the earth is a few billion years old, then their pet “theory” requires that the universe be proportionately older, and its age is scaled-up accordingly. But note that the one presupposition depends on the other. If the supposed “evolution of man” isn’t in fact true, then the millions of years aren’t needed, meaning that the earth needn’t be four billion years old, meaning that the universe needn’t be 13.7 billion years old. (By the way, in the 1990s they were telling us that it was 20 billion years old. Now it’s only 13.7 billion - how certain can we be that the number won’t change again in a few years?)
Very Shaky Ground
Fr. Robinson’s grounds for what he will reveal as “the authentic teaching of the Church” are remarkably weak and very shaky indeed, especially given the import of what he is proposing, and seem to consist more of reasons why it is not certain that his opponents are right, rather than proofs for why he is right. He cites the Pontifical Biblical Commission, for instance, saying that a “day” in Genesis can be regarded as a certain period of time. Very well, after all a day is a certain period of time! But billions of years? That’s something rather different, isn’t it? Leaving aside the many, many Catholic authorities who did teach that the days in Genesis 1 are literal 24 hour days, let us recall that, according to Genesis 1, the plants were created on day three and the sun, moon and stars on day four. Plants will last one day without sunlight, but can they last a million years without it? There doesn’t seem to be a way around that, unless of course Genesis is wrong, and they weren’t created in that order. But then he would
have to tell everyone that Genesis is wrong. Had he been able to point to the Pontifical Biblical Commission saying that one could regard “a day” as a billion or even a million years, Fr Robinson’s case might look like it stood some sort of chance of taking people in. As things are, however, the effect is only to show people how little he could find to support his ideas.
The other evidence he presents is as follows:
• Leo XIII’s Providentissimus Deus which asserts that there can be no contradiction between faith and science.
This is begging the question and in reality does not help him. It is true, there can be no contradiction between Faith and science. But evolution is not science, it is not observable or falsifiable, it involves several logical fallacies, some of which it depends upon, and is as a whole unscientific. Providentissimus Deus does not say that there can be no contradiction between the Faith and what a the largest or loudest group of scientists in any given age choose to tell the world. Scientists do get things wrong, after all. Confusing “science” with “scientists” is
also the fallacy of reification, the sort of thing which the mainstream media are guilty of doing all the time. A Catholic priest ought to know better.
• Pius XII’s Humani Generis saying that “the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution.”
That a Pope did not forbid discussion of something hardly proves that that thing is true and needs to be accepted by all Catholics! Leaving aside the obvious weakness of Pope Pius XII, all this means is that he is not saying that no further discussion may take place. That’s all. Fr. Robinson is offering this in his defence almost as though Pius XII had forbidden Catholics to believe in the clear and obvious meaning of Genesis, in a young earth and a genealogical descent from Adam to Christ.
“These are the weightiest of the Catholic authorities of the time speaking on these questions,” says Fr. Robinson. What - that’s it? No Saints? No Doctors? No Councils? No Fathers? And what does “of the time” mean? The Church isn’t of a time, of any time, she teaches consistently down the ages. Notice what he is missing: all of the above come from the late 19th / early 20th century, when the confusion was already growing and spreading. It’s as though the Church didn’t exist before Leo XIII. Now, one can guess why he has limited himself to the Church of the last century and a half. He would no doubt say that it is because the “discoveries” of “evidence” for the age of the earth had not been made until then. Very well. But that still doesn’t change the fact that all the authorities are on our side. And besides, the supposed “evidence” for the age of the earth is nonsense, as we shall see.
Fr. Robinson continues:
Quote:“But, in point of fact, I have not been able to find any Catholic authority saying that the evidence for an ancient Earth must be rejected on grounds of faith, after consulting many seminary manuals and Catholic books on science from that period.”
Might that be, as mentioned above, because the “evidence,” such as it is, is a fairly recent modern phenomenon, as well as being totally fraudulent (in reality, there is no “evidence” for an ancient earth)? Might it also be because limiting himself to looking only for Catholic authorities who explicitly reject 19th century ideas is a convenient way of ignoring the first 1800 years of the Catholic Church? Notice that he does not say “I have not been able to find any Catholic authority saying that the earth is 6,000 years old” or “...who says that a day in Genesis is a literal 24hour day.” He can’t say that because the moment one looks outside the modern era, one practically cannot move without tripping over Catholic authorities who say
precisely that! As for “consulting many seminary manuals and Catholic books on science from that period” - it is not hard to imagine that a fairly good case for the so-called “liturgical reform” could be made from consulting Catholic liturgical books “from that period” (i.e. on the dawn of the
disaster, shortly before Vatican II, when the rot had already set in). Again, a very different picture would be presented by reading books from before “that period.” But then, perhaps that is why Fr. Robinson decided to limit himself to only a very narrow period of time?
He then goes on to cite Cardinal Wiseman, someone called Fr. Gerard Molloy (no, me neither...) and even “the pre-Vatican II catechism My Catholic Faith” as being authorities who do not take Genesis literally and are therefore not opposed to his evolutionary timescale. “None of them have a problem with the earth being millions of years old.” Which is more likely, which the more plausible: that St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Basil, St. John Chrysostom, St. Lawrence of Brindisi and so many others besides, as well a at least one Council of the Church are all wrong? Or that Cardinal Wiseman, Fr. Molloy and My Catholic Faith are the ones who have dropped the ball? The reader will no doubt recall our book review of My Catholic Faith
which dealt, among other things, with that specific point (see p.35ff, Issue 50, Jan. 2020) as well as the many other howlers, such as praising the American Revolution because it was “supported by Catholic France” or bragging about how Catholics make such good, obedient citizens (that one really hasn’t aged well, especially in light of the past year’s events, and I’m sure will continue to age very badly!).
He then also throws in “the great manualists Fillion, Gigot, Simon-Prado, and Renié” as being on his side. How “great” are these “manualists”? Is it inconceivable that priests who wrote manuals in the middle of the 20th Century might be unreliable too? Such things have been talked about in these pages before, and the reader might recall, for instance, a rather long and detailed article by Fr. Joseph Clifford Fenton showing how such 19th and 20th century “manualists” managed to get it completely backwards regarding the Church’s necessity for salvation. Manuals are not organs of the magisterium, they are not infallible; they can and do get things wrong. Furthermore they are (in the opinion of this writer) themselves a symptom
of the decay, because the virtue of prudence is how we ought to know right from wrong, not looking-up behaviours in a “manual” of human behaviour (which is what, in effect, a manual of moral theology is). That might be why they only started appearing in the post-reformation era, the last couple of centuries in particular.
Finally, Fr. Robinson adds the following:
“It was this climate of complete acceptance of real scientific evidence and reconciliation of that evidence with the faith that allowed for someone like Fr. Georges Lemaitre to proposethe Big Bang Theory and for Pope Pius XII to embrace it in his 1951 speech to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.”
Fr. George Lemaitre was a fool for proposing the “Big Bang Theory” and Pius XII an even bigger fool for temporising with it, but please notice that one random priest and a speech given by a Pope - that is supposed to be enough to overturn the authority of Sacred Scripture, of the Fathers of the Church, of Doctors of the Church (such as St. Thomas Aquinas) and Councils of the Church..? Not to mention the question of whether the literal six-day creation in Genesis is part of the ordinary magisterium of the Church being, as it was, taught and believed in all places and all eras until the late 1800s.
At any rate, that is the sum total of the witnesses for the defence called by Fr Paul Robinson. Cardinal Wiseman agrees with me, some mid- 20th century priests who wrote theology manuals agree with me, My Catholic Faith agrees with me too. Pope Pius XII once gave a speech… Not a single Church Father. Not a single Doctor of the Church. Not a single Council. Not very solid grounds, to say the least.
Please notice, once again, that Fr. Robinson is mostly not even calling witnesses for his own case. He is not citing authorities who teach positively that the earth is billions of years old (apart from My Catholic Faith perhaps). Included in the “authorities” whom he cites are those who say nothing more than that one “does not have to believe x or y as a dogma” or “we will allow the discussion to continue”. He can’t find a single Pope who supports him (except perhaps the conciliar Popes, and he can hardly quote them! That might give the game away!); the best he can find are some weak Popes from not too long before the Council who didn’t fully, totally condemn what he is selling us. Yet even they did not actually agree with or promote what Fr. Robinson stands for, much less did they disagree with us “young earth creationists” as he does. Leo XIII, Pius XII or the Pontifical Biblical Commission would not have had any problem with you believing in a literal six-day creation which took place roughly six thousand
years ago, even though Fr Robinson himself does. So are they really on his side?
Simply No Grounds?
There are, on the other hand, plenty of authorities who would have a big problem with you believing what Fr. Robinson teaches, and very weighty authorities they are too. He does not address this at all (you will no doubt be astonished to hear), but instead says:
Quote:“In short, there are simply no grounds for Catholics to believe that an ancient age for the Earth or the universe is in conflict with a Catholic interpretation of the Bible or any of the articles of the Catholic Faith.”
This is just not true. Fr. Robinson cannot be so ignorant, surely? On the other hand, would he deliberately lie? Who knows what is going on here, but it is demonstrably not true that there are “simply no grounds” for Catholics rejecting his bogus gorillions-of-years narrative. There are plenty of grounds! Here are a few.
1. Catholic authorities who contradict Fr. Robinson’s view of creation. We have already mentioned above Fathers, Doctors and at least one Council who explicitly reject his ideas and positively teach the contrary. We have quoted them in these pages before at some length. Were they alive today, he would call them Biblicists. What they would call him is anyone’s guess. One wonders why he passes over them in silence and does not discuss the fact that they contradict him, almost as though he doesn’t want his audience to know about them - he must be totally ignorant unaware of them, otherwise his silence concerning them might seem to have the character of deceit, which surely cannot be the case…
2. Sacred Scripture is true. There is also to be considered the fact that Fr. Paul Robinson’s modern ideas make Genesis totally unreliable: a nice story, but nothing more. No doubt he and his kind will always be able to pick out some bits of “theological truth” (to be decided by them!) from Genesis 1, but the thing as a whole cannot be accepted at face value. That includes the six days of creation as well as the account of the flood, according to which Noe climbed aboard the ark,
Quote: “And after the seven days were passed, the waters of the flood overflowed the earth. … And the flood was forty days upon the earth, and the waters increased, and lifted up the ark on high from the earth. For they overflowed exceedingly: and filled all on the face of the earth: and the ark was carried upon the waters. And the waters prevailed beyond measure upon the earth: and all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered. The water was fifteen cubits higher than the mountains which it covered.” (Gen. 7:10 ff)
Fr. Robinson’s teaching - that the flood waters only covered the inhabited earth, not the whole earth - is at variance with Sacred Scripture, not least because Scripture makes it quite clear that the flood “overflowed the earth” - does that sound like a regional flood to you? And what
about “all the mountains under the whole heaven” being covered by fifteen cubits of water - how could there be other parts of the earth where there was no flood if “all the high mountains” were covered? Or could it be that this wasn’t a regional flood? That would explain why Scripture gives no hint of it being regional, or of what region was flooded and which regions remained dry, and talks only as though the entire earth were covered in
water. What about Our Lord’s teaching in the Gospels that His second coming will be just like the flood in the days of Noe? Will the Second Coming of the Son of Man be a regional affair, or was Our Lord unaware that the flood was only regional? Our Lord does seem Himself to take Genesis literally and to believe in a worldwide flood.
This is not merely a rhetorical point - Sacred Scripture is important and anything which undermines its authority ultimately undermines the Faith. We have pointed out that Saints, Doctors and Fathers have vastly more authority than 20th century manualists and Cardinal Wiseman. Well, what has more authority than Fathers and Doctors, if not a Council (such as Lateran IV)? And what has more authority than even a Council? That’s right. Sacred Scripture itself. If we “Biblicists” had nothing else to appeal to than Sacred Scripture itself, then that would still be enough to undo Fr. Robinson.
3. The Question of Universality. Fr. Robinson’s, er, “novel interpretation” (*polite cough*) of Sacred Scripture (the one whereby a day is not a day, the order of creation is the wrong way around, and so forth) and his ideas concerning the age and timescales of the world we inhabit (squillions and gajillions of years, but totally empty of life for 99.9985% of that time, with mankind appearing only for the last 0.0015%) spectacularly fail the test of universality.
Ask yourself this: if you were to poll all the Catholics who had ever lived, across the world, from the first century down to our own time, how many of them would side with Fr Robinson and how many with us “Biblicists”..? Then remove the last century-and-a-half from the equation: how many Catholics from the first 1800 years of the Church believed what Fr. Robinson teaches? The answer is: none of them, not one, and in fact they would almost certainly have rejected it as something contrary to the Catholic Faith. St. Vincent of Lerins famously tells us to hold fast to “that faith which has been believed everywhere, always and by all.” (“quod semper, quod ubique, quod omnibus”). What Fr Robinson is trying to get everyone to accept is something believed by no Catholics, in no places, in no era except the late 19th Century onwards (in the Western world - somewhat later elsewhere). Whether a particular error became commonplace amongst priests and people in the 1890s or 1960s is hardly the point.
Unless you can point to Ukrainian Catholics in the 1800s, and Mexicans in the 1700s, Spaniards in the 1600s and Italians in the 1400s, and Germans in the 1300s and Englishmen in the 1200s… and Greeks, Romans and Egyptians in the 300s, all believing and teaching the same thing, then it cannot possibly be true. Wherever one looks, and whenever one looks, nobody - not one person - believed anything approaching this nonsense. How then can it be true? To say otherwise is to say that God allowed everyone to get it completely wrong for 1,800 years, and only be put right by the arrival of the latter-day prophet (Joseph Smith, Charles Taze Russell, Charles Lyell, Darwin, take you pick…). The word “Catholic” means “universal,” and the Church and her teaching is “Catholic” for precisely this reason. Ours is not a religion only for 19th century North American farmers or only for 18th century French aristocrats. It is what was taught and believed in all eras, among all classes and ranks of society, from emperors down to slaves, and it is for countries and cultures across the world. Fr. Robinson’s teaching is - to use the proper sense of the word - simply not “catholic”.
4. Evidence of dubious origins. As if all the above weren’t enough “grounds for Catholics” to regard his precious “scientific” [pah!] “billions of years” teaching as incompatible with the Faith and needing to be rejected, there are yet further reason which can be gleaned from looking at the supposed “evidence” itself. What is the “evidence” for Fr. Robinson’s evolutionary timescale, and what is the origin of the theories he seeks to promote amongst the Traditional Catholic world?
To properly understand the idea that the earth is extremely old we need to examine the supposed “evidence” of what the godless moderns call the “fossil record.” To understand where the idea of a “fossil record” as evidence for an extremely old earth came from, we have to take a look at the idea of uniformitarianism and in particular its main proponent, a Mr. Charles Lyell. Any Traditional Catholic who discovers Charles Lyell for himself would at once grasp the absurdity as well as the evil of what Fr. Robinson is promoting and would reject it in an instant. If there are some who have not yet fully rejected Fr. Robinson’s teaching once and for all, it must surely be that they are unacquainted with Lyell. Something really ought to be done about that.
Quote:“Yet, the reality of the situation is that there are a fair number of Catholics in 2020 who shudder at hearing about the Big Bang Theory or Darwinian evolution. If pre-Vatican II teaching is open, at least, to these theories being proposed, why are such Catholics so afraid?”
This surely shows the folly of seeing things in terms of “pre-Vatican II” rather than in terms of Tradition, the constant teaching and practice of the Church down the ages. Lots of things were wrong on the eve of the Council. The Cardinal Bea breviary, the Pius XII Holy Week and the dialogue Mass are all “pre-Vatican II,” as are Americanism and the replacement of the Social Reign of Christ the King with a thing called “Christian Democracy.” They may be “pre– Vatican II” but they aren’t Traditional and - let’s be completely honest - they aren’t Catholic either. They are 20th century phenomena, something which only our disgusting modern age could produce and which the Church, already sickly and on the brink of the Vatican II disaster, failed properly to prevent and condemn. Many Traditional Catholics no doubt have the sense to realise that. Perhaps that is why they are “so afraid”..?
In summary, then…
Fr. Robinson:
1. Talks a lot about “the evidence” but yet again manages to avoid saying exactly what that evidence is. He says it appeared in the mid– 19th century, but doesn’t say what it was. What was it, Father? It almost feels as though he is avoiding saying it. Why might that be?
2. Bases the defence of his teaching almost exclusively on 20th century writers (plus Leo XIII), almost all of whom were priests like him and therefore quite capable of being wrong. The two Popes he cites say little more than “Faith and Science aren’t against each other” or “We give permission for discussions to continue.” That is the best he can come up with.
3. Proceeds to demonstrate a shamelessly mean-spirited, legalist attitude (“Well, technically, I haven’t been told that I’m absolutely 100% forbidden from saying this…”). It is not hard to imagine a SSPX priest introducing the dialogue Mass to his chapel using similar reasoning. No spirit of generosity, no embracing of Tradition, just: this is what I can get away with because it was technically, just about, “pre– Vatican II.”
4. Cites not one single Saint, Doctor, Father or Council, nor does he even quote from Sacred Scripture itself (which makes sense, after all it’s probably best not to actually read Genesis if you want to believe what he’s teaching!). He won’t find any support there, only contradiction, so he simply behaves as though they don’t exist. For him, the Church might as well have begun only a few generations ago.
5. Says that he wrote his book “to set the record straight” about what the Church teaches and “as a corrective” aimed at those who believe that “the authentic Catholic reading of Genesis 1 is that the universe was created in a full formed state 6000 years ago” or who “shudder at hearing about the big bang or Darwinian evolution.”
6. For all his bluster, does not offer a single shred of evidence for why Catholics are not allowed to believe that the world was made 6,000 years ago.
7. Admits that this sort of liberalism has been rife in SSPX seminaries for years, even though the faithful have been largely shielded from it. From what he himself seems to say, he mission is to change that. The faithful have a right to the same elevated levels of liberalism that the seminarians currently “enjoy.”
Questions for Fr. Paul Robinson
Just in case Fr. Robinson comes to speak at your church or in your town, if he gives a talk to promote his book and takes questions at the end (already a few ifs, I know), here are a few suggested questions which any enterprising members of the faithful out there might want to ask him. His
website has a “Questions and Answers” section - perhaps he would be happy to answer them there?
• Why was your book published by Novus Ordo publisher Gracewing and why is your name on the book’s cover given only as “Paul Robinson” without “Fr.”..?
• Which Church Fathers or Doctors teach that the earth is extremely old? Which Fathers or Doctors teach that the Flood was only over part of the earth, not all of it?
• The Council of Trent (Session IV) condemns those “who even dare to interpret sacred Scripture contrary to the unanimous consensus of the Fathers” (“...etiam contra unanimem consensum Patrum ipsam Scripturam Sanctam interpretari audeat.”). What is the consensus of the Fathers concerning the earth’s age, the Flood and in general the whole question of how literally we should take Genesis?
• You say that Catholics are allowed to believe in an “ancient earth” and you cite some recent Catholic writers to support that. Do any of them say that we are not allowed to believe in a 6,000-year-old earth?
• What does St. Thomas Aquinas say concerning the length of the six days of creation?
• What does the Fourth Lateran Council have to say concerning these things?
• Did God allow all Catholics, His entire Church in fact, to totally misunderstand His work of creation all the way down to the late 19th century, and if so, why did He do that? Shouldn’t He have made it clearer that there was a big bang and billions of years, and not let everyone hold the wrong position for more than 18 centuries?
• St. Basil in the Hexaemeron tells us to take Scripture at its word and not be ashamed of it. Is he wrong?
• Are the ideas and teachings of Charles Lyell, particularly Uniformitarianism, wrong or is he correct, and can you please tell us a little bit about what sort of a man Lyell was, including his attitude towards the Church and the Bible?
• Scientists have been wrong about plenty of things over the years. Is it not at least possible that they might now be wrong about this too?
• Are you prepared to accept that what you think of as evidence for an ancient earth might bear a different interpretation than the one you accept?
• The Church teaches that Christ is the “Second Adam.” Did Adam exist, and if so approximately how many years before Christ was Adam alive on the earth?
• Was the late Fr. Stanley Jaki a Traditionalist, and if not, is it wise for a priest of the SSPX such as you to rely so heavily on his thinking?
• How do you explain polystrate fossils? Why didn’t those trees fall over or rot away?
• Why are there sea shells on the tops of mountains (Himalayas, Andes, and others)..?
• How did multiple layers of rock come to be folded and even turned upside down if each layer is millions of years old? Might this not be evidence for a flood?
|
|
|
|
| Regina Caeli |
|
Posted by: Stone - 04-10-2021, 08:05 AM - Forum: Marian Hymns
- No Replies
|
|
Latin Text
Regina Caeli laetare, Alleluia,
Quia quem meruisti portare, Alleluia,
Resurrexit sicut dixit, Alleluia.
Ora pro nobis Deum. Alleluia
|
|
|
|
| French Nat’l Academy of Medicine: COVID nasal swabs associated with increased meningitis risk |
|
Posted by: Stone - 04-10-2021, 06:15 AM - Forum: Pandemic 2020 [Secular]
- No Replies
|
|
French Nat’l Academy of Medicine: COVID nasal swabs associated with increased meningitis risk
The invasive up-the-nose tests ‘are not without risks.’
April 9, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – The Académie nationale de médecine, an independent but official learned society in France, published a statement on Thursday warning that nasopharyngeal swabs used for PCR tests to detect the SARS-CoV-2 virus “are not without risks.” The alert came days before nasal auto-testing kits will become available in French pharmacies.
According to the statement published online by the Academy, a growing amount of data show that “complications” can and do occur, some of them “serious.”
Most are “benign,” and include “discomfort, pain or bleeding.” But the statement notes that over the last weeks, scientific articles have been appearing in medical journals describing undesirable events “including breaches of the anterior skull base associated with a risk of meningitis.”
Several studies were quoted by the Academy, including one documenting “meningitis due to cerebrospinal fluid leak after nasal swab testing for COVID-19.”
The nasopharyngeal swab is done with a long, thin cotton swab introduced high up into the nasal cavity, often successively via both nostrils, and rotated quickly each time in order to collect a sample of cells and mucus to analyze for the Wuhan virus using the highly controversial PCR test, or to be used in view of an antigenic test.
The Academy noted that these tests have now become extremely common. The learned society is concerned because swabs are being increasingly used, and that more and more individuals are getting repeat tests, “sometimes in inadequate conditions.”
“It is important to recall that precautions need to be taken and that risks do exist,” it said.
The Academy advises that medical personnel should be making the swabs, and then exclusively those who received training to be able to observe the necessary “technical conditions.”
These include asking patients whether they had a medical history of accidents or surgery in the ORL field that may have modified the anatomy of the nasal and sinus cavities, and not placing their heads in hyperextension during sample taking: they should remain in a natural position, with the chin “parallel” to the floor. Swabs should be introduced “horizontally following the base of the nasal cavity and they should under no circumstance be deviated upwards, in the direction of the base of the skull.”
The Académie de médecine appears to be particularly worried about children, strongly suggesting that they should be tested using saliva samples “because of both their safety and their acceptability.”
Regarding the upcoming auto-tests that also rely on nasal swabs, the statement said that their users should be warned about their use. “Auto-sampling can lead to false negatives when the swab is too shy and too superficial, but it can also become dangerous when the swab goes too deep and is orientated in the wrong direction,” it said.
Auto-tests are not exactly like the nasal swabs used by health professionals in France since the beginning of the COVID crisis: the swab is shorter, wider, and less disagreeable and only requires entering three to four centimeters into the nasal cavity – some of these swabs, but not all, include a little “collar” showing how far to go. Instead of being processed in special lab instruments, the auto-test will give a positive or negative result within minutes. If negative, people are advised to continue “social distancing” and wearing masks; if positive, the result needs to be confirmed by an RT-PCR test in order to mark the “variant” and allow contact-tracing.
French health authorities are hoping that the tests will be used by private individuals who want to know their status before a visit to a vulnerable person, for instance, but they also expect to use them for large-scale testing in apartment buildings or high schools for people aged over 15.
In Germany, similar tests are being marketed and will include a flash code allowing the identification and tracking of “positive cases.”
At the beginning of the crisis in March 2020, very little testing was done even on symptomatic patients, to the detriment of isolation procedures that would have stopped the spread of the virus much more efficiently. If early treatment of positive patients had been allowed and recommended, many would not have seen their condition worsen: according to Professor Christian Perronne, 24,500 deaths out of 30,000 during the spring epidemic last year could have been avoided.
Now testing in France is beyond imagination. Since March 1, 2020 and April 4 of this year, some 70 million tests were done: 57.7 million PCR tests, the rest antigenic, according to a public health statistics institution, DREES. And the numbers are going up and up: from March 29 to April 4, 3.8 million test results were validated in one week. They were obviously not limited to people with flu-like symptoms.
PCR tests remain the so-called gold standard of COVID-19 testing, even though the World Health Organization (WHO) has warned that they should mostly be considered as an “aid for diagnosis” and that their results should be carefully interpreted according to manufacturers’ guidance and accompanied by clinical observations, among others. The WHO also said that “the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases.”
Present curves representing the evolution of positives, hospitalizations, and deaths in France show a slow increase of the latter and a fast increase of the former as thousands of people test each day and “positives” keep climbing, while hospitalizations and deaths remain quite stable.
With the introduction of more and more kinds of tests and auto-tests, the “epidemic of cases” is not set to end.
|
|
|
|
| Interview of Aldo Maria Valli with Mons. Carlo Maria Viganò [April 1, 2021] |
|
Posted by: Stone - 04-09-2021, 06:58 AM - Forum: Archbishop Viganò
- No Replies
|
|
Interview of Aldo Maria Valli with Mons. Carlo Maria Viganò
Written by Aldo Maria Valli | Italian Journalist
The Remnant | April 5, 2021
This interview was first published in Italian here.
It is produced on The Remnant in English at Archbishop Viganò’s request.
Aldo Valli: Your Excellency, through your repeated interventions and the activity of various blogs we are denouncing in every way the apostasy that is spreading in the Church just like the tyranny imposed by the ideology of the New World Order, to which the Hierarchy of the Church seems to be in total submission.
With respect to these themes, a division is noted, that is ever more accentuated, within families and also between friends. With respect to the affairs of the world and the Church there is a radically divided judgment, with a polarization that seems to admit no mutual understanding. It is as if two different cultures have emerged, two different anthropologies, and even two different faiths. Thus, how should we behave in this situation if we wish to safeguard love for the truth?
Archbishop Viganò: You are right: the establishment of the New Order, begun under the pretext of the so-called pandemic, makes the loss of inner peace and serenity perceptible to many; it makes us perceive an evil that overwhelms us and before which we feel powerless; it sharpens divisions and disputes between family members, relatives, and friends. Very often we are saddened to see how the lie succeeds in convincing people close to us whom we had believed to be mature and capable of discerning good from evil. It seems incredible to us that our friends have allowed themselves to be deceived, indeed I would almost say to be hypnotized, by the drumbeat of the mainstream media: doctors whom we considered conscientious seem to have cancelled their own scientific knowledge by abdicating rationality in the name of a sort of crazy superstition; acquaintances who up until yesterday condemned the horrors of Nazism and Communism do not realize how much the horrors of those dictatorships are being re-proposed in an even more inhuman and ruthless form, replicating on a wider scale the experimentation of the concentration camps and the violation of the natural rights of the world population. We cannot understand how it can be that our parish priest speaks to us about Covid as if it were a plague, that the mayor behaves like a hierarch, that a neighbor calls the police because a family organizes a barbecue on the terrace. Elderly people who once fought valiantly and risked their lives are now literally terrorized by a treatable flu. Fathers of families with solid moral principles tolerate their children being indoctrinated into vice and perversion, as if what has been passed on to them and what they believe in no longer has any value. Speaking about love of one’s country, the defense of national borders, and national sovereignty is now considered fascist. And we ask ourselves: where is the Italy that we have loved? Where is the Church that instructed us in the Faith and made us grow in the Grace of God? Is it possible that all of this has been cancelled in just a few years?
It is obvious that what is now happening has been planned for decades, both in the civil sphere as well as the religious. And many people, very many, have been deceived: first by convincing them to grant rights to those who share neither our Faith nor our values, then by making them feel almost guilty for the fact of being Catholic, for their ideas, for their past. Today we have reached the point of being barely tolerated as retrogrades and fanatics, while there are those would like to make it a crime to do what has constituted the basis of civilized life for millennia and declare every behavior against God, against nature, and against our identity not only licit but obligatory.
In the face of this upheaval that involves our entire society, the division that emerges between the children of light and children of darkness appears increasingly clear: this is a grace that is granted to us by God in order to make a courageous and decisive choice. Let us recall the words of Our Lord: “Do not believe that I have come to bring peace upon the earth; I have not come to bring peace but a sword” (Mt 10:34). The pacifism we have been hearing about for decades only serves to disarm the good and set the wicked free to do their iniquitous works. Therefore even the division and polarization between those who belong to the City of God and those who serve the prince of this world is welcome, if it serves to open our eyes. Love for the truth necessarily implies hatred of lies, and it would be ill-considered and illusory to believe that two masters can be served. If today we are asked to choose between the Kingdom of Christ and the tyranny of the New World Order, we cannot avoid this choice and must carry it out consistently, asking the Lord for the strength to bear witness to Him even to the point of martyrdom. Whoever tells us that the Gospel can be reconciled with the anti-Gospel of globalism is lying, just as those who offer us a world without wars in which all religions can live together in peace also lie. There is no peace except in the Kingdom of Christ: pax Christi in regno Christi. Of course, in order to conduct our combat successfully we should be able to count on generals and commanders who guide us: if almost all of them have preferred desertion and betrayal, we can however count on an invincible Leader, the Most Holy Virgin, invoking Her protection over Her children and the entire Church. Under Her powerful guidance we should not fear anything, because it is She who will strike the head of the ancient serpent, restoring the order that the pride of Satan has broken.
Aldo Valli: Let us speak of the liturgy and the Holy Mass. Not all faithful Catholics, however well-intentioned, have the possibility of participating at Vetus Ordo Masses and must “content themselves” with the Masses that are celebrated in their parishes, often marked by liturgical rudeness if not true and proper abuses. In these Masses Communion is received on the hand, standing, the Our Father is recited according to the new formula [at Masses celebrated in Italian], those present are invited to exchange the “glance of peace,” [instead of the sign of peace], preaching is heard that is in line with Bergoglianism (to touch on only a few aspects). In the end, they leave Mass feeling sad, to put it mildly, rather than peaceful and reconciled with God and their brothers. So what should they do?
Archbishop Viganò: We should first ask ourselves how it can be possible that the supreme act of worship, instituted by Our Lord to perpetuate in an unbloody manner on our altars the infinite graces of the Sacrifice of Calvary, has become an obstacle to the sanctification of the faithful rather than an occasion of spiritual progress and interior peace. In other times, the Mass offered a glimpse of Heaven amidst the trials and chaos of the world; today it seems that the clamor of the world is an indispensable element to banish silence, prayerful adoration, and the sense of the sacred and the presence of God. But if in the natural order it is our duty to nourish the body with healthy food and avoid those that are poisoned or adulterated, all the more so is it our duty in the supernatural order to feed our souls with healthy nourishment, keeping ourselves away from what can spiritually poison us.
Obviously I understand the difficulty of the faithful in finding churches in which the traditional Holy Mass is celebrated, but I think that the Lord also knows how to appreciate the good will of those who are aware of the importance that the Holy Sacrifice has for our soul, especially in moments of great crisis like the ones we are going through, and for this reason they know how to make a small effort, at least on Sundays, to sanctify the Lord’s Day worthily. There have been times and places in which Catholics were persecuted and assisting at the Mass was difficult and dangerous, and yet the faithful succeeded in gathering clandestinely in the woods, in cellars, or in attics in order to honor God and nourish themselves with the Bread of Angels: we have the duty to be worthy of these our brothers in the Faith, without making excuses or pretexts. On the other hand, the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum recognizes the right of the faithful – a right, not a privilege – to have the traditional Mass, and if this does not happen everywhere it is in large part because the faithful do not know how to impose themselves. It is not a question of concern for aesthetics, of love for Latin or Gregorian chant, or a form of nostalgia for one’s own past; here what is in question is the heart of the life of the Church, the soul of the supernatural life of Catholics, the very good of the world.
I understand that many of the faithful find themselves in a situation of difficulty, at least from the human point of view, at the moment when they must decide whether to abandon the life of their parish in order to seek out a traditional Mass which is sometimes miles away. The faithful have a grave moral duty at least to seek out a Mass celebrated with decorum and respect by a pious priest who administers Holy Communion on the tongue.
The pandemic has given the pretext for abusively imposing restrictions on liturgical functions: let us not make ourselves sharers in responsibility for these abuses by our silence and our resignation in allowing indecorous or sacrilegious Masses to be imposed on us. God is also offended by the indolence and indifference with which we repay His love for us: an indolence that is increasingly perceptible in the faithful who even allow themselves to be vaccinated in church on Holy Saturday, replacing meditation on the Last Things with the groundless fear of physical death. In the face of these manifestations of the enslavement of the Clergy and the Hierarchy to the diktats of a corrupt and corrupting authority, raising one’s voice aloud is not only a moral duty but also a brake on the excesses of so many ecclesiastics who have forgotten the sense of their Priesthood and the soul of their vocation. They should seriously consider how grave their cooperation with the Covid narrative is, above all when pseudo-scientific superstition becomes the only possible form of faith, appropriating the symbology, lexicon, and rituality of a religion. Let whoever has ears to hear, understand.
Let us therefore ask our priests to celebrate the Holy Mass as if it was the first and last Mass of their lives, to do away with these worldly rites, and to give back to us the treasure that they stubbornly keep hidden. Let us not forget to give material and spiritual help to priests who courageously and consistently celebrate the traditional liturgy, remembering that one day soon they will be the ones to rebuild the fabric that will restore Christian society. And if we ourselves cannot assist with regularity at the Holy Sacrifice in the rite handed down to us by the Apostles, let us keep our distance from those who profane the Blessed Sacrament and use the pulpit to corrupt Faith and Morals. I would like to reiterate, however, out of a duty of conscience, that wherever it is possible to assist at the Tridentine Mass without serious inconvenience, this must certainly be preferred to the reformed Mass.
[This reply of Archbishop Viganò shows there is a little bit remaining of the Conciliar Indult mentality. Archbishop Lefebvre had strong words and a clear understanding of the purpose of the Indult Tridentine Mass, see HERE. The Archbishop also, as we all know, never advocated going to the New Mass under any circumstances, see HERE. - The Catacombs]
Aldo Valli: Undoubtedly you have seen, Your Excellency, that once again the question of “who is pope and who is not pope” has been raised. There are those who say: given that Bergoglio was elected on the basis of manipulations of the Saint Gallen Mafia and perhaps with irregularities during the Conclave, he is not pope. Instead, Ratzinger is said to be pope, because it is said that he did not renounce the throne freely, but rather because he was forced by strong pressures, and because he supposedly deliberately wrote the Latin text of the resignation incorrectly in order to render it invalid. Is this “fantasy church”? Or is there any element to take into serious consideration?
Archbishop Viganò: Multiple causes – strong and undue pressures both external to the Church as well as by eminent members of the Hierarchy, as well as the personal character of Joseph Ratzinger – are said to have induced Benedict XVI to formulate a declaration of resignation in a completely irregular way, leaving the Church in a state of grave uncertainty and confusion; machinations of a group of progressive conspirators are said to have indicated Bergoglio as the candidate then elected in the course of a conclave marked by infringements of the Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis which regulates the election of the Roman Pontiff: these elements are said to be such as to make the abdication of Ratzinger null and void, the Conclave of 2013 null and void, and the election of the successor also null and void. However, although there is widespread and undeniable talk about them, these elements need confirmation and above all a declaration by the supreme authority of the Church. Any pronunciation made by those who do not have the authority to do so would be rash. I also believe that, in the present situation, the dispute over who is the reigning Pope serves only to weaken the already fragmented healthy part of the ecclesial body, sowing division among the good.
Let us confidently pray to the Lord to bring the truth to light and show us the path to follow. For now, strong in the virtue of Prudence, which orders means towards the ultimate end, let us remain faithful and jealously guard that which the Church has always believed: quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus creditum est.
Aldo Valli: During this time that is, in many respects, so complicated and confused, what is your prayer? Would you like to suggest to us how to turn to Our Lord?
Archbishop Viganò: What is happening today is because of the public sins of nations, the sins of individuals, and – terrible as it may sound – the sins of the men of the Church. We cannot intervene for the sins of nations nor for those of the Hierarchy, but we can begin with humility and with the spirit of true conversion to amend our sins, our infidelities, and our lukewarmness. Thus, while the new Pharisees delight in the world’s appreciation, in addition to praying for their conversion, we must implore the Lord’s mercy for ourselves with the words of the Gospel: “O God, have mercy on me, a sinner” (Lk 18:13). Society, and even more so the Church, will benefit greatly from our fidelity and our walking along the path of holiness that has been prepared for us, with the Grace of God and under the protection of the Most Holy Virgin. Let us not deprive ourselves of trusting recourse to Her whom Our Lord gave to us on the Cross as our Mother, and who as such will not deny us Her help in our trials.
Aldo Valli: We are approaching Easter: despite everything, the Lord rises. We want to find reasons for hope. This is a difficult undertaking, but can we try?
Archbishop Viganò: Not only can we try: we must have Faith and also exercise the virtue of Hope, according to which we know that the Lord grants us the Graces necessary to avoid sin, carry out the good, and merit the eternal beatitude of Heaven. Let’s not forget that we are pilgrims in hac lacrimarum valle, and that our homeland is the heavenly Jerusalem, along with the Angels and Saints, in the glory of the Most Holy Trinity. Surrexit Dominus vere, the Easter liturgy proclaims: He has Risen once and for all, conquering Satan and snatching from him the chirograph that Adam signed with original sin. The present trials, the fear of being abandoned and alone against a powerful alignment that seems to crush us and overcome us, should not frighten us but spur us on to renew our trust in Him who said of Himself: “I have told you these things, so that you may have peace in Me. In the world you will have tribulation; but take courage, I have conquered the world” (Jn 16:33).
May this Holy Easter spur us on to a return to God, offering our trials and tribulations with a spirit of expiation and reparation for the conversion of sinners, so that after we too have shared the chalice of Gethsemane we may make ourselves worthy of the glory of the Resurrection.
Holy Thursday 2021
|
|
|
|
| Pope Francis calls for ‘global governance’ and ‘universal vaccines’ in letter to globalist financial |
|
Posted by: Stone - 04-09-2021, 06:36 AM - Forum: Pope Francis
- Replies (1)
|
|
Continuing again in the footsteps of his Conciliar predecessors...
Pope Francis calls for ‘global governance’ and ‘universal vaccines’ in letter to globalist financial summit
'There remains an urgent need for a global plan that can create new or regenerate existing institutions, particularly those of global governance, and help to build a new network of international relations for advancing the integral human development of all peoples.'
VATICAN CITY, April 8, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – Pope Francis has addressed the World Bank and International Monetary Fund at their spring meeting, calling for “global governance” in light of COVID-19, strongly advocating for universal vaccines, and bemoaning the “ecological debt” which is owed to “nature itself.”
His letter is the latest in a series of recent acts in which Francis has aligned himself with global corporations committed to anti-Catholic agendas.
The letter was delivered via Peter Cardinal Turkson, Prefect of the Holy See’s Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development, to the spring 2021 meeting between the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which is currently being held online from April 5 - 11.
Dated April 4, the letter mentioned God just once, in the final line.
Instead, Francis focussed on calling for a system of global government which would implement a new societal order upon the world, based upon climate change policies and universal vaccination.
‘Global governance’
Referencing “the Covid-19 pandemic,” Francis declared that the world had been forced to “confront a series of grave and interrelated socio-economic, ecological, and political crises.”
Such inter-connected crises, he placed before the World Bank and IMF, hoping that their meetings would provide the basis for a re-ordering of world affairs: “It is my hope that your discussions will contribute to a model of ‘recovery’ capable of generating new, more inclusive and sustainable solutions to support the real economy, assisting individuals and communities to achieve their deepest aspirations and the universal common good.”
Francis repeated the claim that COVID has shown how “no one is saved alone,” and hence “new and creative forms of social, political and economic participation” must be drawn up.
Quoting from his recent encyclical Fratelli Tutti, which has been described as “blasphemous” by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, Francis mentioned “trust” as the “cornerstone of all relationships,” a point which he believed the World Bank and IMF would “know well” due to being “experts in finance and economics.”
He urged that the two financial giants foster such relationships, and engage in “building bridges, and envisioning long-term inclusive projects.”
Francis also renewed his frequent call for a paradigm shift in global politics, saying: “there remains an urgent need for a global plan that can create new or regenerate existing institutions, particularly those of global governance, and help to build a new network of international relations for advancing the integral human development of all peoples.”
A principal effect of the desired global government, would be the reduction of debt in order to enable easy access primarily to “vaccines,” followed by “health, education and jobs.”
An ‘ecological debt’ to ‘nature itself’
However, Pope Francis did not miss the opportunity to instruct the IMF and World Bank on another of his regular areas of concern issues, namely “climate change.” He warned about overlooking “ecological debt,” a phenomena which he described as affecting the whole world, and pitting the “global north” against the “south.”
“We are, in fact, in debt to nature itself, as well as the people and countries affected by human-induced ecological degradation and biodiversity loss,” wrote Francis.
“In this regard, I believe that the financial industry, which is distinguished by its great creativity, will prove capable of developing agile mechanisms for calculating this ecological debt, so that developed countries can pay it, not only by significantly limiting their consumption of non-renewable energy or by assisting poorer countries to enact policies and programmes of sustainable development, but also by covering the costs of the innovation required for that purpose.”
These lines seem to echo the sentiments expressed by key globalist and founder of the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab, whose proposed anti-Catholic “Great Reset,” is underpinned by a focus on a green financial agenda, as he mentions the “withdrawal of fossil-fuel subsidies,” and a new financial system based on “investments” which advance “equality and sustainability,” and the building of a “‘green’ urban infrastructure.”
Schwab, the IMF, and scores of the world’s most influential banks (including the World Bank), have in fact already committed themselves to enforcing the green agenda of the Great Reset, and look set to make adherence to such green policies a criteria for access to finance in the future.
Francis has already signalled his intimacy with Schwab, by sending an address to the WEF four times in his eight-year pontificate, and allowing an annual Vatican roundtable at Davos, the WEF’s annual conference site in Switzerland.
A secular society pointed to a new ‘common good’
Francis also made reference to the “common good,” several times in his letter, which he linked intimately to finance and a form of secular fraternity of the kind described in Fratelli Tutti.
“It follows that public money may never be disjoined from the public good, and financial markets should be underpinned by laws and regulations aimed at ensuring that they truly work for the common good. A commitment to economic, financial and social solidarity thus entails much more than engaging in sporadic acts of generosity.”
Such goals, for Francis, include “a justly financed vaccine solidarity,” which he said was part of the “the law of love and the health of all.”
“Here, I reiterate my call to government leaders, businesses and international organizations to work together in providing vaccines for all, especially for the most vulnerable and needy.”
Closing his letter, Francis repeated his wish for a world focused on a new style of fraternity, underpinned by a focus on green policies, urging the World Bank and IMF to develop solutions for “a more inclusive and sustainable future.”
It would be a future “where finance is at the service of the common good, where the vulnerable and the marginalized are placed at the centre, and where the earth, our common home, is well cared for.”
There was no mention in the letter of Christ, the Catholic Church or the Catholic teaching on the common good.
Pope Francis’s letter comes as no great surprise, since the 84-year-old Argentine has been significantly increasing his long-standing ties with globalist groups and organisations, such as the United Nations (UN) and the WEF.
Francis has recently called for a “new world order,” saying that the “drama of wasting” the COVID-19 “crisis” would be worse than the disruption caused by COVID measures across the globe.
On that occasion too, he dealt with the topic of salvation, once again viewing it with a purely earthly understanding, and linking salvation to the new world order and a focus of green policies: “The path to humanity’s salvation passes through the creation of a new model of development, which unquestionably focuses on coexistence among peoples in harmony with Creation.”
To this end, Pope Francis has launched his own initiative with the U.N. and with globalist corporations, in order to promote a new “economic system” of capitalism, and ensure the achievement of the U.N.’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Amongst other aspects, the partnerships promote “sustainable lifestyles,” “gender equality,” and “global citizenship,” while the SDGs themselves promote “sexual and reproductive health services.”
RELATED
Pope Francis in TED talk: ‘We only have a few years’ to fix climate change
Pope joins with global companies to promote capitalism in line with UN’s pro-abortion goals
Pope Francis teams up with UN to educate world on sustainable lifestyles, gender equality, global citizenship
The ‘Great Reset’ is a radical attack on freedom and Christian values
Secretive international banking group may enforce Great Reset ‘green’ agenda on world
|
|
|
|
| The Recusant #55 -Easter 2021 |
|
Posted by: Stone - 04-08-2021, 04:05 PM - Forum: The Recusant
- Replies (1)
|
|
Contents- Archbishop Lefebvre: 1981 (“Holy Resistance”) Declaration
- SSPX Continues to Green Light Covid Vaccines
- Fr. Paul Robinson Is Still At It! (Genesis vs. Charles Lyell)
- Evolutionist Logical Fallacies
- Lyell & Uniformitarianism
|
|
|
|
| Padre Pio: On Spirituality, Vatican II, and the Novus Ordo Missae |
|
Posted by: Stone - 04-08-2021, 08:05 AM - Forum: Articles by Catholic authors
- No Replies
|
|
Padre Pio: On Spirituality, Vatican II, and the Novus Ordo Missae
Padre Pio (May 25, 1887 —September 23, 1968) was beatified on May 2, 1999, by Pope John Paul II. He is the only priest known to have received the full stigmata.
He never celebrated the Novus Ordo Missae.
The final year of this dying, decaying century will see the beatification of Padre Pio, the holy monk whom God sent as a sign for our age. For, while everyone wants to make us believe in a new "charismatic" Church, strangely we do not find there any wonderworking saints like the ones we meet throughout the Church’s history starting with Pentecost. Padre Pio seems to close the procession of their number, doing so magnificently, being the only priest to have borne the stigmata of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Much has been written about Padre Pio —more than 600 works, it seems —and the authors always stress the extraordinary side of his life: not only his particular charisms (reading souls, healing, raising people from the dead, bilocating, ecstasies, exuding perfume, prophesying, etc.), but also the incredible sufferings which he endured from his earliest childhood, the persecutions undergone from some churchmen and even brothers in religion, as well as his two great charitable works: the founding of the House of Suffering, and prayer groups.
In short, they present him to us as a "saint" more to be admired than imitated, so that, ultimately, we miss the most interesting lessons to be learned from this life, and the practical applications that could transform our own. We shall try, therefore, however imperfectly, to set forth a few of these lessons, hoping that we shall all be able to profit from them, and that the Padre, from high heaven, will himself succor us, as he has promised to all those who would like to become his "spiritual children."
At the dawn of this life totally sacrificed to God and to souls, there is to be found a pious, poor and numerous family, where the abnegation of each member softens and transforms the harsh realities of daily life. Here we see confirmed the saying of Bishop de Segur that it is in families where the spirit of sacrifice is lacking that vocations are most at risk. Baptized the day after his birth — a grace for which he was grateful all his life —Padre Pio was christened Francesco, presage of his Franciscan vocation, which was to be discovered on the occasion of a visit from a Capuchin monk begging food for the convent. Even so, his vocation was not decided without struggle:
Quote:I felt two forces clashing within me, tearing my heart: the world wanted me for itself, and God called me to a new life. It would be impossible to describe this martyrdom. The mere memory of the battle that took place within me freezes the very blood in my veins...
He was not yet 16 years old when he entered the novitiate. Above the door of the cloister, as a welcome, he read the sign: "Do penance or perish." The daily rule of life included very many prayers, enough work, and little reading, being restricted especially to the study of the Rule and the Constitutions.
Brother Pio made himself conspicuous by the abundance of the tears he shed during the morning period of mental prayer, which in Capuchin houses is consecrated to the meditation of the Passion; tears so abundant that it was necessary to spread a towel in front of him on the floor of the choir. As with St. Francis, it was to this loving and compassionate contemplation of Jesus crucified that he was to owe the grace to receive later on the painful stigmata in his body. Even so, as he confided to his spiritual director, Fr. Agostino: "In comparison to what I suffer in my flesh, the spiritual combats that I endure are much worse."
Atoning for Sinners: Interior Trials
It would seem that God expects the just to expiate in a special way, by means of temptation, the public sins of their contemporaries. At a time when psychoanalysis, with its knack for explaining away guilt and sin, was gaining sway, Padre Pio —like the little Theresa —had to undergo an almost unbearable crisis of scruples, which tormented him for three long years. Then after the storm came the night, a night of the soul which lasted for dozens of years, with only occasional glimmers of light:
Quote:I live in a perpetual night... I find myself troubled by everything, and I do not know if I act well or ill. I can see that it is not a scruple: but the doubt I feel about whether or not I am pleasing the Lord crushes me. And this anxiety recurs to me everywhere: at the altar, in the confessional, everywhere!
It is with the thought of his mystical experiences in mind that his maxims should be meditated: "Love is more beautiful in the company of fear, because it is in this way that it becomes stronger." "The more one loves God, the less one feels it!"
St. Theresa of the Child Jesus opposed to the proud rationalism of her day the little way of spiritual childhood, but she also expiated it by terrible temptations against faith. Her cry, "I will believe!" is well known. Padre Pio also experience violent and prolonged temptations against faith, as his letters to Fr. Agostino testify:
Quote:Blasphemies cross my mind incessantly, and even more so false ideas, ideas of infidelity and unbelief. I feel my soul transfixed at every instant of my life, it kills me... My faith is upheld only by a constant effort of my will against every kind of human persuasion. My faith is only the fruit of the continual efforts that I exact of myself. And all of this, Father, is not something that happens a few times a day, but it is continuous... Father, how difficult it is to believe!
What precious lessons for us, should we, for example, be surprised at finding ourselves tempted to such a degree.
Spiritual Director
Padre Pio overcame these terrible trials by following what had been taught him in the novitiate: perseverance in prayer, mortification of the senses, unshakable fidelity to the demands of one’s duty of state, and, finally, perfect obedience to the priest in charge of his soul. His painfully acquired experience allowed him to draw to himself souls desirous of perfection, and to be demanding.
To the souls he directed, he gave a five-point rule: weekly confession, daily communion and spiritual reading, examination of conscience each evening and mental prayer twice a day. As for the recitation of the rosary, it is so necessary it goes without saying....
Quote:Confession is the soul’s bath. You must go at least once a week. I do not want souls to stay away from confession more than a week. Even a clean and unoccupied room gathers dust; return after a week and you will see that it needs dusting again!
To those who declare themselves unworthy to receive holy Communion, he answers:
Quote:It is quite true, we are not worthy of such a gift. However, to approach the Blessed Sacrament in a state of mortal sin is one thing, and to be unworthy, quite another. All of us are unworthy, but it is He who invites us. It is He who desires it. Let us humble ourselves and receive Him with a heart contrite and full of love.
To another, who told him that the daily examination of conscience seemed useless, since his conscience showed him clearly at each action whether it was good or bad, he replied:
Quote:That is true enough. But every experienced merchant in this world not only keeps track throughout the day of whether he has lost or gained on each sale. In the evening, he does the bookkeeping for the day to determine what he should do on the morrow. It follows that it is indispensable to make a rigorous examination of conscience, brief but lucid, every night.
The harm that comes to souls from the lack of reading holy books makes me shudder... What power spiritual reading has to lead to a change of course, and to make even worldly people enter into the way of perfection.
When Padre Pio was condemned to not exercise any ministry, he spent his free time, not in reading newspapers —"the Devil’s gospel" —but in reading books of doctrine, history and spirituality. Despite this, he would still say: "One looks for God in books, but finds Him in prayer."
His counsels for mental prayer are simple:
Quote:If you do not succeed in meditating well, do not give up doing your duty. If the distractions are numerous, do not be discouraged; do the meditation of patience, and you will still profit. Decide upon the length of your meditation, and do not leave your place before finishing, even if you have to be crucified... Why do you worry so much because you do not know how to meditate as you would like? Meditation is a means to attaining God, but it is not a goal in itself. Meditation aims at the love of God and neighbor. Love God with all your soul without reserve, and love your neighbor as yourself, and you will have accomplished half of your meditation.
The same holds for assisting at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass: it is more concerned with making acts (of contrition, faith, love...) than with intellectual reflections or considerations. To someone asking whether it is necessary to follow the Mass in a missal, Padre Pio answered that only the priest needs a missal. According to him, the best way to attend the holy sacrifice is by uniting oneself to the Virgin of Sorrows at the foot of the cross, in compassion and love. It is only in Paradise, he assures his interlocutor, that we will learn of all the benefits that we received by assisting at holy Mass.
Padre Pio, who was so affable and pleasant in his relations with people, could become severe and inflexible when the honor of God was at stake, especially in church.
Quote:The whispering of the faithful would be authoritatively cut off by the Father, who would openly glare at anyone who failed to maintain a prayerful posture... If someone remained standing, even if it was because there were no places left in the pews, he would peremptorily invite him to kneel in order to participate worthily in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
Not even an inattentive choirboy would be spared:
Quote:"My child, if you want to go to hell, you don’t need my signature."
The post-war fashions fell under the same censure:
Quote:Padre Pio, seated in his open confessional, all year round would ascertain that the women and girls who confessed to him were wearing skirts not too short. He would even cause tears to be shed when someone who had been waiting in line for hours would be turned away because of an offending hemline... Then some kind souls would step forward and offer help. In a corner, they would unsew the hem, or else lend the penitent a coat. Finally, sometimes the Father would allow the humiliated penitent to go to confession.
One day his spiritual director reproached him for his harsh conduct. He replied: "I could obey you, but each time it is Jesus who tells me how I am to deal with people." His severe manner, then, was inspired from above, uniquely for the honor of God and the salvation of souls.
Quote:Women who satisfy their vanity in their dress can never put on the life of Jesus Christ; moreover they even lose the ornaments of their soul as soon as this idol enters into their heart.
And let no one reproach him for lack of charity:
Quote:"I beg you not to criticize me by invoking charity, because the greatest charity is to deliver souls held fast by Satan in order to win them over to Christ."
Padre Pio and the Novus Ordo Missae
He was a model of respect and submission towards his religious and ecclesiastical superiors, especially during the time when he was persecuted. Nonetheless, he could not remain silent over a deviation that was baneful to the Church. Even before the end of the Council, in February 1965, someone announced to him that soon he would have to celebrate the Mass according to a new rite, ad experimentum, in the vernacular, which had been devised by a conciliar liturgical commission in order to respond to the aspirations of modern man. Immediately, even before seeing the text, he wrote to Paul VI to ask him to be dispensed from the liturgical experiment, and to be able to continue to celebrate the Mass of St. Pius V. When Cardinal Bacci came to see him in order to bring the authorization, Padre Pio let a complaint escape in the presence of the Pope’s messenger:
Quote:"For pity sake, end the Council quickly."
The same year, during the conciliar euphoria that was promising a new springtime to the Church, he confided to one of his spiritual sons: "In this time of darkness, let us pray. Let us do penance for the elect"; and especially for the one who has to be their shepherd here below: All his life, he immolated himself for the reigning pope, whose photograph was among the rare images that decorated his cell.
Renewal of Religious Life?
There are other scenes from his life that are full of meaning, for example, his reactions to the aggiornamento the religious orders concocted in the wake of Vatican II. (The citations here are taken from a book bearing an imprimatur):
Quote:In 1966, the Father General [of the Franciscans] came to Rome prior to the special Chapter on the Constitutions in order to ask Padre Pio for his prayers and benedictions. He met Padre Pio in the cloister. "Padre, I came to recommend to your prayers the special chapter for the new Constitutions..." He had scarcely gotten the words "special Chapter"..."new Constitutions" out of his mouth when Padre Pio made a violent gesture and cried out: "That is all nothing but destructive nonsense." "But Padre, after all, there is the younger generation to take into account... the youth evolve after their own fashion... there are new demands..." "The only thing missing is mind and heart, that’s all, understanding and love." Then he proceeded to his cell, did a half-turn, and pointed his finger, saying: "We must not denature ourselves, we must not denature ourselves! At the Lord’s judgment, St. Francis will not recognize us as his sons!"
A year later, the same scene was repeated for the aggiornamento of the Capuchins:
One day, some confreres were discussing with the Father Definiteur General [The counselor or adviser to the general or provincial of a religious order —Ed.] the problems in the Order, when Padre Pio, taking a shocked attitude, cried out, with a distant look in his eye:
Quote:"What in the world are you up to in Rome? What are you scheming? You even want to change the Rule of St. Francis!"
The Definiteur replied: "Padre, changes are being proposed because the youth don’t want to have anything to do with the tonsure, the habit, bare feet...."
Quote:Chase them out! Chase them out! What can you be saying? Is it they who are doing St. Francis a favor by taking the habit and following his way of life, or rather, isn’t it St. Francis who is offering them a great gift?
If we consider that Padre Pio was a veritable alter Christus, that his entire person, body and soul, was as perfectly conformed as possible to that of Jesus Christ, his stark refusal to accept the Novus Ordo and the aggiornamento should be for us a lesson to learn. It is also noteworthy that the good Lord desired to recall His faithful servant just before they were implacably imposed on the Church and the Capuchin Order. Noteworthy, too, is the fact that Katarina Tangari, one of Padre Pio’s most privileged spiritual daughters, so admirably supported the priests [of the SSPX] of Ecône until her death, one year after the episcopal consecrations of 1988.
Final Lesson: Fatima
Padre Pio was even less obliging towards the prevailing social and political order, or rather, disorder (in 1966): "the confusion of ideas and the reign of thieves." He prophesied that the Communists would come to power, "by surprise, without firing a shot... It will happen overnight."
This should not surprise us, since the requests of our Lady of Fatima have not been listened to. He even told Bishop Piccinelli, that the red flag will fly over the Vatican, "but that will pass." Here again, his conclusion rejoins that of the Queen of Prophets: "But in the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph."
The means by which this prophesy will come to pass, we know: by the divine power; but it must be prompted by the two great powers in man’s hands: prayer and penance. This is the lesson which our Lady wanted to remind us of at the beginning of this century: God wants to save the world by devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and there is no problem, material or spiritual, national or international, that cannot be solved by the holy rosary and our sacrifices.
This is also the last lesson that Padre Pio wanted to leave us by his example, and especially by his "prayer groups," which he established throughout the world. "He was never without a rosary, there was even one under his pillow. During the day he recited several dozens of rosaries." A few hours before he died, as those around him urged him to speak a few more words, all he could say was: "Love the Blessed Virgin and make her loved. Always say the rosary!"
The imminent elevation of Venerable Padre Pio is certainly going to arouse in many souls both curiosity and admiration. We could take advantage of the opportunity to remind them of these few lessons, if indeed we know how to put them into practice ourselves, in the merciful love of the Most Holy Hearts of Jesus and Mary.
Translation by Angelus Press of an article that appeared in the Letter to the Friends of Saint Francis, publication of the Capuchin Fathers of St. Francis Monastery, Morgon, France, a traditional community which supports the work of Archbishop Lefebvre.
|
|
|
|
| UK Child Trials of AstraZeneca Vaccine Suspended Amid Blood Clot Fears |
|
Posted by: Stone - 04-08-2021, 07:53 AM - Forum: COVID Vaccines
- No Replies
|
|
UK Child Trials of AstraZeneca Vaccine Suspended Amid Blood Clot Fears
Breitbart | 7 Apr 20210
A children’s trial of the AstraZeneca coronavirus vaccine has been halted by the University of Oxford amid concerns that the jab may cause blood clotting in adults.
The trial of the vaccine, which began in February and has seen over 200 children between the age of 6 and 17-years-old tested, was suspended on Tuesday following concerns raised by the European Medicines Agency (EMA).
Professor Andrew Pollard of Oxford University told the BBC that though there have been no safety concerns found within the trial itself, the trial will be put on hold until regulators from the UK’s Medicine and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) have reviewed the blood clotting issue.
“Whilst there are no safety concerns in the paediatric clinical trial, we await additional information from the MHRA on its review of rare cases of thrombosis/thrombocytopaenia that have been reported in adults, before giving any further vaccinations in the trial,” Prof Pollard said.
The suspension of the trial came in the wake of the head of vaccines for the EMA, Marco Cavaleri saying of the link between the vaccine and blood clotting: “In my opinion, we can now say it, it is clear there is an association with the vaccine. What causes this reaction, however, we still do not know.”
The European Medicines Agency, however, said that it had “not yet reached a conclusion and the review is currently ongoing”, with the results of a review expected to be revealed this week.
Britain’s regulator, the MHRA said that people should continue to take the vaccine as the benefits currently outweigh the risk, despite an ongoing investigation into the death of seven people from the vaccine and 30 cases of clotting in the UK.
Reports have also suggested that the regulator is considering banning the use of the vaccine for younger people. Several European nations have already banned the use of the AstraZeneca jab for younger people, including France, Germany, and The Netherlands.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson said during a visit to one of AstraZeneca’s factories on Tuesday that people should continue to take the vaccine.
“On the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, the best thing people should do is look at what the MHRA say, our independent regulator – that’s why we have them, that’s why they are independent,” Mr Johnson said, adding: “Their advice to people is to keep going out there, get your jab, get your second jab.”
“The best thing of all is to vaccinate our population, get everybody out getting the jab, that’s the key thing and that’s what I would advocate, number one,” the Prime Minister explained.
A member of the joint committee on vaccination and immunisation (JCVI), Dr Maggie Wearmouth, suggested that the government should slow down the rollout of the vaccine for those under the age of 50 while the clotting issue is being investigated.
“We have to show that perhaps slowing things down, not rolling out phase two at this stage… until we’re absolutely certain,” Dr Wearmouth told The Telegraph.
“The issue is about safety and public confidence. We don’t want to cover anything up that we feel that the public should be knowing. We’re not here to blindly follow targets or due dates. We will do what is necessary for the British public,” she added.
A spokesman from the UK’s Department of Health said: “The Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine is safe, effective and has already saved thousands of lives in this country. As the UK’s independent regulator has said, when people are called forward they should get the jab.”
|
|
|
|
| Bill Gates and George Soros Team Up to Form Organization Tasked with Policing with “Disinformation” |
|
Posted by: Stone - 04-08-2021, 07:48 AM - Forum: Socialism & Communism
- No Replies
|
|
While the thrust of the article clearly has a political focus, the more wide-ranging applications are obvious...
Bill Gates and George Soros Team Up to Form Organization Tasked with Policing with “Disinformation”
Big League Politics | Apr 6, 2021
The American ruling class never sleeps and now they’re propping up a new organization to fight so-called “misinformation” and “disinformation.”
Joseph Vasquez of NewsBusters reported that the Aspen Institute Commission on Information is being funded by the likes of billionaire oligarchs such as Bill Gates and George Soros to “fight ‘mis- and disinformation.’”
The Aspen Institute features Katie Couric, a seasoned corporate media mouthpiece, as its co-chair. Vasquez observed that “Couric recently suggested during a segment with HBO host Bill Maher that ‘we’ should ‘deprogram’ people within former President Donald Trump’s cult.’”
In addition, the commission counts on Rashad Robinson, the CEO of Color of Change. Soros financially backs Color of Change, which has been one of the more prominent organizations to lead the push to defund police departments nationwide.
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Director Chris Krebs is another co-chair of the Aspen Institute. For those with short term-memory, Krebs claimed that the 2020 election was “the most secure in history,” a comment which was met with criticism from a senior Department of Homeland Security official.
Vasquez highlighted how much money Gates and Soros have dropped in propping up this organization:
Quote:The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and two organizations within Soros’s Open Society Network — Foundation to Promote Open Society ($2,594,780) and the Open Society Institute ($445,000) — have pumped Aspen Institute with at least $101,854,593 and $3,039,780 respectively between 2003 and 2020, according to Foundation Directory Online data.
The list of members on the Commission were rather interesting, which Vasquez outlined:
Quote:The member list for the Commission was just as revealing as to the nature of its bias. One of the “members” was none other than the estranged liberal Duke of Sussex Prince Harry. Quadrivium Foundation Co-Founder and President Kathryn Murdoch, the climate activist wife of former Fox News heir and fellow eco-activist James Murdoch, was also listed as a member. Quadrivium was listed as a funder behind a leftist organization called Democracy Works. Democracy Works was used to formulate Facebook and Google’s 2020 election strategy. The anti-Trump former Republican Congressman Will Hurd (R-TX) was also on the Commission’s member list.
It’s clear that the ruling class wants to prevent the rise of another Donald Trump. One way they will do so is by policing speech and preventing the rise of individuals and institutions who challenge the regime’s established narrative. To prevent total liberal hegemony, America First must build competing institutions and prop up talented individuals who can challenge the oligarchs’ grand designs. Otherwise, an ineffective response will guarantee a complete consolidation of the liberal regime.
|
|
|
|
|
![[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fliturgiasanctemichaelpj...f=1&nofb=1]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fliturgiasanctemichaelpjc.files.wordpress.com%2F2016%2F06%2F1967-eliminacic3b3n-de-rc3babricas-y-sec3b1ales-de-la-cruz.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
![[Image: Capture.png]](https://i.postimg.cc/pT2DC8q5/Capture.png)
![[Image: Capture.png]](https://i.postimg.cc/QC1n7ct9/Capture.png)
![[Image: Capture.png]](https://i.postimg.cc/wT9k2C4b/Capture.png)
![[Image: Capture.png]](https://i.postimg.cc/5yy2NNNR/Capture.png)
![[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2F736x%2F8...f=1&nofb=1]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2F736x%2F85%2Fee%2Ff8%2F85eef80687db4d5140dc5f2591e7e946--jesus-resurrection-matthew-.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
![[Image: Capture.png]](https://i.postimg.cc/85fF3ZVR/Capture.png)
![[Image: Capture.png]](https://i.postimg.cc/MpchnL12/Capture.png)
![[Image: PCR_test_810_500_75_s_c1.jpg]](https://assets.lifesitenews.com/images/made/images/remote/https_www.lifesitenews.com/images/local/PCR_test_810_500_75_s_c1.jpg)
![[Image: Capture.png]](https://i.postimg.cc/85X6NTGr/Capture.png)
![[Image: padrepio120x172.jpg]](http://archives.sspx.org/images/Saints/padrepio120x172.jpg)
![[Image: padrepiosayingmass197x295.jpg]](http://archives.sspx.org/images/Saints/padrepiosayingmass197x295.jpg)
![[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fapi-assets.infowars.com...f=1&nofb=1]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fapi-assets.infowars.com%2F2021%2F04%2F070421wef.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
