| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Forum Statistics |
» Members: 268
» Latest member: Sarah
» Forum threads: 6,383
» Forum posts: 11,933
Full Statistics
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 281 online users.
» 1 Member(s) | 278 Guest(s)
Bing, Google
|
| Latest Threads |
Abp. Viganò uses AI to sh...
Forum: Archbishop Viganò
Last Post: Stone
3 minutes ago
» Replies: 0
» Views: 1
|
November 1st - Feast of A...
Forum: November
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 06:03 AM
» Replies: 7
» Views: 13,274
|
Thursday Night Holy Hour ...
Forum: Appeals for Prayer
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 04:55 AM
» Replies: 5
» Views: 1,238
|
Livestream: Twenty-fourth...
Forum: November 2024
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 04:53 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 55
|
Livestream: Feast of All ...
Forum: November 2024
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 04:51 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 60
|
Livestream: Feast of All ...
Forum: November 2024
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 04:50 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 69
|
Why Beauty Matters
Forum: General Commentary
Last Post: Stone
10-31-2024, 10:45 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 93
|
Introducing the Newest Ju...
Forum: Vatican II and the Fruits of Modernism
Last Post: Stone
10-31-2024, 08:03 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 149
|
October 31st - Vigil of A...
Forum: October
Last Post: Stone
10-31-2024, 01:44 AM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 4,044
|
Oratory Conference: "Auc...
Forum: Conferences
Last Post: Deus Vult
10-30-2024, 09:52 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 96
|
|
|
| The hidden poison in the Vatican’s statement against blessing homosexual unions |
|
Posted by: Stone - 03-18-2021, 10:18 AM - Forum: Pope Francis
- Replies (1)
|
 |
Opinion [adapted]:
The hidden poison in the Vatican’s statement against blessing homosexual unionsMonday saw big news from Rome with the release of a Vatican document forbidding the blessing of homosexual unions.
March 17, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — How is it that Pope Francis’ Vatican has released a document forbidding the blessing of homosexual unions?
Isn’t this the same Pope who famously said:
Quote:“If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?”
Isn’t this the same Pope who approved of civil unions for homosexual couples both in Argentina while bishop there, and just recently as Pope in a film?
Isn’t this the same Pope who while in America in 2015 welcomed his student’s gay lover in a meeting and embraced him? Isn’t this the same Pope who boasted on the papal plane in 2016 that he had welcomed a transgender couple to the Vatican, got photographed with them, and described the couple as married and happy? Isn’t this the same Pope who has met with “LGBT Catholic” groups who themselves push for recognition of homosexual relationships in the Church?
Isn’t this the same Pope who met with Fr. James Martin, the most noted LGBT-promoting priest in the Church? Didn’t the Pope also appoint Martin to speak at the Vatican’s world meeting of families and appoint Martin to the Vatican’s secretariat for communications? Isn’t this the same Pope who made Blase Cupich a cardinal, after Cupich endorsed giving Holy Communion to homosexual couples?
So how could Pope Francis’ Vatican do this?
There was big news Monday from Rome with the release of a Vatican document forbidding the blessing of homosexual unions. From what I said in my intro it’s not surprising that the world was shocked at the statement, which for Catholics was nothing more than more evidence of the sad reality that such a statement was actually needed in the first place.
The famed homosexual musician Elton John was quick to tweet about the Vatican’s hypocrisy. “How can the Vatican refuse to bless gay marriages because they ‘are sin’, yet happily make a profit from investing millions in ‘Rocketman’ — a film which celebrates my finding happiness from my marriage to David?? #hypocrisy.”
The intrepid Catholic commentator Matt Archbold had sympathy for Elton’s charge over at his blog Creative Minority Report. Archbold recalled how the Vatican “had taken money that had been donated for the poor and invested in other ventures, including Hollywood movies such as Rocketman.” Quoting from a newspaper, he noted that “the Vatican’s Secretariat of State reportedly contributed £850,000 toward the biopic, which is roughly 3% of the film’s budget.”
I have to admit that I’m a little suspicious when I see something good coming out of the Vatican these days. But I always remain hopeful for signs of conversion from Pope Francis for which I pray each and every day. So, when the document forbidding blessings on homosexual relationships came out, I read it very carefully.
One line caught my eye that made me uncomfortable. It was this line speaking about homosexual relationships:
Quote: “The presence in such relationships of positive elements, which are in themselves to be valued and appreciated, cannot justify these relationships and render them legitimate objects of an ecclesial blessing, since the positive elements exist within the context of a union not ordered to the Creator’s plan.”
What can be positive about these relationships when they ultimately lead to hell? While the overall statement was good and praiseworthy, this line could be dangerous, I thought — and I have to admit, I suspected an agenda.
It’s not without reason. I recall vividly the mid-term report of the extraordinary synod on the family in Rome in 2014 which contained similar language saying,
Quote:“Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community.”
It then asked:
Quote:“Are our communities capable of providing [them a welcoming home], accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?”
At the Vatican press conference when the document was released, Michael Voris of Church Militant challenged the wording, asking, “Are the synod fathers proposing that ‘gifts and qualities’ flow from the sexual orientation of homosexuality?” he asked. “Is the synod proposing that there is something innate in the homosexual orientation that transcends and uplifts the Catholic Church, the Christian community, and if so, what would those particular gifts be?”
So, could this new Vatican document which is seemingly so good and accepted by so many of the good in the Church be a trojan horse bringing with it the eventual destruction of the very teaching it seems to uphold?
There is definitely precedent for that in Pope Francis’ history. Do you remember when Pope Francis in one of his public remarks totally contradicted the Church’s teaching against contraception, and then it was confirmed as such by the Vatican Press Office? It is an incident which could be important to consider with this new Vatican document.
As he was seemingly overturning the Church’s teaching on contraception, Pope Francis did it in the midst of his strongest ever condemnation of abortion. He said abortion is a crime and compared abortionists to the mafia. “Abortion is not the lesser of two evils. It is a crime. It is to throw someone out in order to save another. That’s what the Mafia does. It is a crime, an absolute evil.” Wow.
The statement was praised by pro-life groups everywhere. But in that very same answer he threw the teaching of the Church against contraception under the bus. He said contraception was the lesser of evils and could be used in cases where there was a risk of zika virus transmission. And the Vatican press secretary confirmed that the Pope was indeed approving of the use of “the possibility of taking recourse to contraception or condoms in cases of emergency or special situations.”
And finally, there is now some evidence that the Vatican document was a trojan horse, as the soldiers for the anti-Church most pushing the LGBT and leftist agenda are working on that very phrase. The vanguard of the ecclesial left is in Germany and officially called the Synodal Path. An email communication to the group, which was sent to LifeSiteNews, notes that they will be studying the new Vatican document carefully.
Bishop Helmut Dieser is quoted as highlighting the positive assessment of homosexuality by the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith.
Quote:“On the one hand, it is assumed and thus recognized that there are homosexual couple relationships,” he said. “On the other hand, it is said that there are positive elements in them that are to be valued and emphasized, so that they must be treated with respect and tact.”
“Oh, come now,” you might say, “how could a document specifically forbidding the blessing of homosexual unions be used to infiltrate the church with the eventual aim of allowing for such blessings?” In exactly the same way that the laws were changed to allow for same-sex “marriage”. Remember Biden and Obama, when they were promoting same-sex civil unions and being all against homosexual “marriage” and all about marriage between a man and a woman? It was the thin edge of the sword. It was the trojan horse that brought in homosexual “marriage,” and now it’s enforcement.
|
|
|
| Italy opens manslaughter case after teacher dies hours after getting AstraZeneca vaccine |
|
Posted by: Stone - 03-17-2021, 07:27 AM - Forum: COVID Vaccines
- Replies (1)
|
|
Italy opens manslaughter case after teacher dies hours after getting AstraZeneca vaccine
![[Image: teacher-dead.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=1024]](https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/03/teacher-dead.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=1024)
NY Post | March 16, 2021
Prosecutors in Italy have launched a manslaughter investigation after a music teacher there died hours after getting the controversial AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine.
Sandro Tognatti, 57, got jabbed in his hometown of Biella on Saturday afternoon and went to bed that night with a high fever, his wife, Simona Riussi, told Italian media.
She called an ambulance the next morning but the clarinetist could not be saved, she said.
Prosecutors in the northern Italian region of Piedmont opened the probe into his death later that day, according to the Italian wire service Agenzia Nazionale Stampa Associata (ANSA).
They also seized nearly 400,000 shots of the AstraZeneca vaccine from the same batch.
So far, officials have insisted there has yet to be a direct link between Tognatti’s death and his shot.
The criminal investigation is to be “completely sure” that the death “cannot be attributed to the above-mentioned inoculation,” prosecutor Teresa Angela Camelio said in a statement.
Italy on Monday joined a growing group of mostly European nations temporarily suspending the UK vaccine amid alarming reports of blood clots in some participants.
They were joined Monday by France and Germany, with the likes of Ireland, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Bulgaria, Luxembourg and Thailand having already suspended its use.
AstraZeneca — which developed the shot with Oxford University — says the vaccine is safe, an assertion backed up by the World Health Organization.
The vaccine has yet to be approved for use in the US — but the drugmaker is reportedly pushing for emergency-use approval by the end of this month.
|
|
|
|
| St. Patrick’s Breastplate: An Ancient Catholic Prayer for Protection |
|
Posted by: Stone - 03-17-2021, 06:50 AM - Forum: Prayers and Devotionals
- No Replies
|
|
St. Patrick’s Breastplate: An Ancient Catholic Prayer for Protection
![[Image: St.Patrick-pray-for-us-150x150.jpg]](https://cdn.shortpixel.ai/client/q_glossy,ret_img,w_150/https://traditionalcatholicprayers.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/St.Patrick-pray-for-us-150x150.jpg)
St. Patrick’s Breastplate
(‘Ancient’)
I bind unto myself today
The strong Name of the Trinity,
By invocation of the same
The Three in One and One in Three.
I bind this today to me forever
By power of faith, Christ’s incarnation;
His baptism in Jordan river,
His death on Cross for my salvation;
His bursting from the spicèd tomb,
His riding up the heavenly way,
His coming at the day of doom
I bind unto myself today.
I bind unto myself the power
Of the great love of Cherubim;
The sweet ‘Well done’ in judgment hour,
The service of the Seraphim,
Confessors’ faith, Apostles’ word,
The Patriarchs’ prayers, the prophets’ scrolls,
All good deeds done unto the Lord
And purity of virgin souls.
I bind unto myself today
The virtues of the star lit heaven,
The glorious sun’s life giving ray,
The whiteness of the moon at even,
The flashing of the lightning free,
The whirling wind’s tempestuous shocks,
The stable earth, the deep salt sea
Around the old eternal rocks.
I bind unto myself today
The power of God to hold and lead,
His eye to watch, His might to stay,
His ear to hearken to my need.
The wisdom of my God to teach,
His hand to guide, His shield to ward;
The word of God to give me speech,
His heavenly host to be my guard.
Against the demon snares of sin,
The vice that gives temptation force,
The natural lusts that war within,
The hostile men that mar my course;
Or few or many, far or nigh,
In every place and in all hours,
Against their fierce hostility
I bind to me these holy powers.
Against all Satan’s spells and wiles,
Against false words of heresy,
Against the knowledge that defiles,
Against the heart’s idolatry,
Against the wizard’s evil craft,
Against the death wound and the burning,
The choking wave, the poisoned shaft,
Protect me, Christ, till Thy returning.
Christ be with me, Christ within me,
Christ behind me, Christ before me,
Christ beside me, Christ to win me,
Christ to comfort and restore me.
Christ beneath me, Christ above me,
Christ in quiet, Christ in danger,
Christ in hearts of all that love me,
Christ in mouth of friend and stranger.
I bind unto myself the Name,
The strong Name of the Trinity,
By invocation of the same,
The Three in One and One in Three.
By Whom all nature hath creation,
Eternal Father, Spirit, Word:
Praise to the Lord of my salvation,
Salvation is of Christ the Lord.
Amen.
Sancte Patrícius, ora pro nobis!
Source
|
|
|
|
| The Confession of St. Patrick |
|
Posted by: Stone - 03-17-2021, 06:45 AM - Forum: The Saints
- Replies (1)
|
|
The Confession of St. Patrick
Translated from the Latin by Ludwig Bieler
I am Patrick, a sinner, most unlearned, the least of all the faithful, and utterly despised by many. My father was Calpornius, a deacon, son of Potitus, a priest, of the village Bannavem Taburniæ; he had a country seat nearby, and there I was taken captive.
I was then about sixteen years of age. I did not know the true God. I was taken into captivity to Ireland with many thousands of people---and deservedly so, because we turned away from God, and did not keep His commandments, and did not obey our priests, who used to remind us of our salvation. And the Lord brought over us the wrath of his anger and scattered us among many nations, even unto the utmost part of the earth, where now my littleness is placed among strangers.
And there the Lord opened the sense of my unbelief that I might at last remember my sins and be converted with all my heart to the Lord my God, who had regard for my abjection, and mercy on my youth and ignorance, and watched over me before I knew Him, and before I was able to distinguish between good and evil, and guarded me, and comforted me as would a father his son.
Hence I cannot be silent---nor, indeed, is it expedient---about the great benefits and the great grace which the lord has deigned to bestow upon me in the land of my captivity; for this we can give to God in return after having been chastened by Him, to exalt and praise His wonders before every nation that is anywhere under the heaven.
Because there is no other God, nor ever was, nor will be, than God the Father unbegotten, without beginning, from whom is all beginning, the Lord of the universe, as we have been taught; and His son Jesus Christ, whom we declare to have always been with the Father, spiritually and ineffably begotten by the Father before the beginning of the world, before all beginning; and by Him are made all things visible and invisible. He was made man, and, having defeated death, was received into heaven by the Father; and He hath given Him all power over all names in heaven, on earth, and under the earth, and every tongue shall confess to Him that Jesus Christ is Lord and God, in whom we believe, and whose advent we expect soon to be, judge of the living and of the dead, who will render to every man according to his deeds; and He has poured forth upon us abundantly the Holy Spirit, the gift and pledge of immortality, who makes those who believe and obey sons of God and joint heirs with Christ; and Him do we confess and adore, one God in the Trinity of the Holy Name.
For He Himself has said through the Prophet: Call upon me in the day of thy trouble, and I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me. And again He says: It is honourable to reveal and confess the works of God.
Although I am imperfect in many things, I nevertheless wish that my brethren and kinsmen should know what sort of person I am, so that they may understand my heart's desire. I know well the testimony of my Lord, who in the Psalm declares: Thou wilt destroy them that speak a lie. And again He says: The mouth that belieth killeth the soul. And the same Lord says in the Gospel: Every idle word that men shall speak, they shall render an account for it on the day of judgement.
And so I should dread exceedingly, with fear and trembling, this sentence on that day when no one will be able to escape or hide, but we all, without exception, shall have to give an account even of our smallest sins before the judgement of the Lord Christ.
For this reason I had in mind to write, but hesitated until now; I was afraid of exposing myself to the talk of men, because I have not studied like the others, who thoroughly imbibed law and Sacred Scripture, and never had to change from the language of their childhood days, but were able to make it still more perfect. In our case, what I had to say had to be translated into a tongue foreign to me, as can be easily proved from the savour of my writing, which betrays how little instruction and training I have had in the art of words; for, so says Scripture, by the tongue will be discovered the wise man, and understanding, and knowledge, and the teaching of truth.
But of what help is an excuse, however true, especially if combined with presumption, since now, in my old age, I strive for something that I did not acquire in youth? It was my sins that prevented me from fixing in my mind what before I had barely read through. But who believes me, though I should repeat what I started out with?
As a youth, nay, almost as a boy not able to speak, I was taken captive, before I knew what to pursue and what to avoid. Hence to-day I blush and fear exceedingly to reveal my lack of education; for I am unable to tell my story to those versed in the art of concise writing---in such a way, I mean, as my spirit and mind long to do, and so that the sense of my words expresses what I feel.
But if indeed it had been given to me as it was given to others, then I would not be silent because of my desire of thanksgiving; and if perhaps some people think me arrogant for doing so in spite of my lack of knowledge and my slow tongue, it is, after all, written: The stammering tongues shall quickly learn to speak peace.
How much more should we earnestly strive to do this, we, who are, so Scripture says, a letter of Christ for salvation unto the utmost part of the earth, and, though not an eloquent one, yet...written in your hearts, not with ink, but with the spirit of the living God! And again the Spirit witnesses that even
rusticity was created by the Highest.
Whence I, once rustic, exiled, unlearned, who does not know how to provide for the future, this at least I know most certainly that before I was humiliated I was like a stone Lying in the deep mire; and He that is mighty came and in His mercy lifted me up, and raised me aloft, and placed me on the top of the wall.
And therefore I ought to cry out aloud and so also render something to the Lord for His great benefits here and in eternity---benefits which the mind of men is unable to appraise. Wherefore, then, be astonished, ye great and little that fear God, and you men of letters on your estates, listen and pore over this. Who was it that roused up me, the fool that I am, from the midst of those who in the eyes of men are wise, and expert in law, and powerful in word and in everything? And He inspired me---me, the outcast of this world---before others, to be the man (if only I could!) who, with fear and reverence and without blame, should faithfully serve the people to whom the love of Christ conveyed and gave me for the duration of my life, if I should be worthy; yes indeed, to serve them humbly and sincerely.
In the light, therefore, of our faith in the Trinity I must make this choice, regardless of danger I must make known the gift of God and everlasting consolation, without fear and frankly I must spread everywhere the name of God so that after my decease I may leave a bequest to my brethren and sons whom I have baptised in the Lord---so many thousands of people. And I was not worthy, nor was I such that the Lord should grant this to His servant; that after my misfortunes and so great difficulties, after my captivity, after the lapse of so many years, He should give me so great a grace in behalf of that nation---a thing which once, in my youth, I never expected nor thought of.
But after I came to Ireland---every day I had to tend sheep, and many times a day I prayed---the love of God and His fear came to me more and more, and my faith was strengthened. And my spirit was moved so that in a single day I would say as many as a hundred prayers, and almost as many in the night, and this even when I was staying in the woods and on the mountains; and I used to get up for prayer before daylight, through snow, through frost, through rain, and I felt no harm, and there was no sloth in me---as I now see, because the spirit within me was then fervent.
And there one night I heard in my sleep a voice saying to me: `It is well that you fast, soon you will go to your own country.' And again, after a short while, I heard a voice saying to me: `See, your ship is ready.' And it was not near, but at a distance of perhaps two hundred miles, and I had never been there, nor did I know a living soul there; and then I took to flight, and I left the man with whom I had stayed for six years. And I went in the strength of God who directed my way to my good, and I feared nothing until I came to that ship.
And the day that I arrived the ship was set afloat, and I said that I was able to pay for my passage with them. But the captain was not pleased, and with indignation he answered harshly: `It is of no use for you to ask us to go along with us.' And when I heard this, I left them in order to return to the hut where I was staying. And as I went, I began to pray; and before I had ended my prayer, I heard one of them shouting behind me, `Come, hurry, we shall take you on in good faith; make friends with us in whatever way you like.' And so on that day I refused to suck their breasts for fear of God, but rather hoped they would come to the faith of Jesus Christ, because they were pagans. And thus I had my way with them, and we set sail
at once.
And after three days we reached land, and for twenty-eight days we travelled through deserted country. And they lacked food, and hunger overcame them; and the next day the captain said to me: `Tell me, Christian: you say that your God is great and all-powerful; why, then, do you not pray for us? As you can see, we are suffering from hunger; it is unlikely indeed that we shall ever see a human being again.'
I said to them full of confidence: `Be truly converted with all your heart to the Lord my God, because nothing is impossible for Him, that this day He may send you food on your way until you be satisfied; for He has abundance everywhere.' And, with the help of God, so it came to pass: suddenly a herd of pigs appeared on the road before our eyes, and they killed many of them; and there they stopped for two nights and fully recovered their strength, and their hounds received their fill for many of them had grown weak and were half-dead along the way. And from that day they had plenty of food. They also found wild honey, and offered some of it to me, and one of them said: `This we offer in sacrifice.' Thanks be to God, I tasted none of it.
That same night, when I was asleep, Satan assailed me violently, a thing I shall remember as long as I shall be in this body. And he fell upon me like a huge rock, and I could not stir a limb. But whence came it into my mind, ignorant as I am, to call upon Helias? And meanwhile I saw the sun rise in the sky, and while I was shouting `Helias! Helias' with all my might, suddenly the splendour of that sun fell on me and immediately freed me of all misery. And I believe that I was sustained by Christ my Lord, and that His Spirit was even then crying out in my behalf, and I hope it will be so on the day of my tribulation, as is written in the Gospel: On that day, the Lord declares, it is not you that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you.
And once again, after many years, I fell into captivity. On that first night I stayed with them, I heard a divine message saying to me: `Two months will you be with them.' And so it came to pass: on the sixtieth night thereafter the Lord delivered me out of their hands.
Also on our way God gave us food and fire and dry weather every day, until, on the tenth day, we met people. As I said above, we travelled twenty-eight days through deserted country, and the night that we met people we had no food left. And again after a few years I was in Britain with my people. who received me as their son, and sincerely besought me that now at last, having suffered so many hardships, I should not leave them and go elsewhere.
And there I saw in the night the vision of a man, whose name was Victoricus, coming as it were from Ireland, with countless letters. And he gave me one of them, and I read the opening words of the letter, which were, `The voice of the Irish'; and as I read the beginning of the letter I thought that at the same moment I heard their voice---they were those beside the Wood of Voclut, which is near the Western Sea---and thus did they cry out as with one mouth: `We ask thee, boy, come and walk among us once more.'
And I was quite broken in heart, and could read no further, and so I woke up. Thanks be to God, after many years the Lord gave to them according to their cry. And another night---whether within me, or beside me, I know not, God knoweth---they called me most unmistakably with words which I heard but could not understand, except that at the end of the prayer He spoke thus: `He that has laid down His life for thee, it is He that speaketh in thee'; and so I awoke full of joy.
And again I saw Him praying in me, and I was as it were within my body, and I heard Him above me, that is, over the inward man, and there He prayed mightily with groanings. And all the time I was astonished, and wondered, and thought with myself who it could be that prayed in me. But at the end of the prayer He spoke, saying that He was the Spirit; and so I woke up, and remembered the Apostle saying: The Spirit helpeth the infirmities of our prayer. For we know not what we should pray for as we ought; but the Spirit Himself asketh for us with unspeakable groanings, which cannot be expressed in words; and again: The Lord our advocate asketh for us.
And when I was attacked by a number of my seniors who came forth and brought up my sins against my laborious episcopate, on that day indeed was I struck so that I might have fallen now and for eternity; but the Lord graciously spared the stranger and sojourner for His name and came mightily to my help in this affliction Verily, not slight was the shame and blame that fell upon me! I ask God that it may not be reckoned to them as sin.
As cause for proceeding against me they found---after thirty years!---a confession I had made before I was a deacon. In the anxiety of my troubled mind I confided to my dearest friend what I had done in my boyhood one day, nay, in one hour, because I was not yet strong. I know not, God knoweth---whether I was then fifteen years old: and I did not believe in the living God, nor did I so from my childhood, but lived in death and unbelief until I was severely chastised and really humiliated, by hunger and nakedness, and that daily.
On the other hand, I did not go to Ireland of my own accord. not until I had nearly perished; but this was rather for my good, for thus was I purged by the Lord; and He made me fit so that I might be now what was once far from me that I should care and labour for the salvation of others, whereas then I did not even care about myself.
On that day, then, when I was rejected by those referred to and mentioned above, in that night I saw a vision of the night. There was a writing without honour against my face, and at the same time I heard God's voice saying to me: `We have seen with displeasure the face of Deisignatus' (thus revealing his name). He did not say, `Thou hast seen.' but `We have seen.' as if He included Himself, as He sayeth: He who toucheth you toucheth as it were the apple of my eye.
Therefore I give Him thanks who hath strengthened me in everything, as He did not frustrate the journey upon which I had decided, and the work which I had learned from Christ my Lord; but I rather felt after this no little strength, and my trust was proved right before God and men.
And so I say boldly, my conscience does not blame me now or in the future: God is my witness that I have not lied in the account which I have given you. But the more am I sorry for my dearest friend that we had to hear what he said. To him I had confided my very soul! And I was told by some of the brethren before that defence---at which I was not present, nor was I in Britain, nor was it suggested by me---that he would stand up for me in my absence. He had even said to me in person: `Look, you should be raised to the rank of bishop!'---of which I was not worthy. But whence did it come to him afterwards that he let me down before all, good and evil, and publicly, in a matter in which he had favoured me before spontaneously and gladly---and not he alone, but the Lord, who is greater than all?
Enough of this. I must not, however, hide God's gift which He bestowed upon me in the land of my captivity; because then I earnestly sought Him, and there I found Him, and He saved me from all evil because---so I believe---of His Spirit that dwelleth in me. Again, boldly said. But God knows it, had this been said to me by a man, I had perhaps remained silent for the love of Christ.
Hence, then, I give unwearied thanks to God, who kept me faithful in the day of my temptation, so that today I can confidently offer Him my soul as a living sacrifice---to Christ my Lord, who saved me out of all my troubles. Thus I can say: `Who am I, 0 Lord, and to what hast Thou called me, Thou who didst assist me with such divine power that to-day I constantly exalt and magnify Thy name among the heathens wherever I may be, and not only in good days but also in tribulations?' So indeed I must accept with equanimity whatever befalls me, be it good or evil, and always give thanks to God, who taught me to trust in Him always without hesitation, and who must have heard my prayer so that I, however ignorant I was, in the last days dared to undertake such a holy and wonderful work---thus imitating somehow those who, as the Lord once foretold, would preach His Gospel for a testimony to all nations before the end of the world. So we have seen it, and so it has been fulfilled: indeed, we are witnesses that the Gospel has been preached unto those parts beyond which there lives nobody.
Now, it would be tedious to give a detailed account of all my labours or even a part of them. Let me tell you briefly how the merciful God often freed me from slavery and from twelve dangers in which my life was at stake---not to mention numerous plots, which I cannot express in words; for I do not want to bore my readers. But God is my witness, who knows all things even before they come to pass, as He used to forewarn even me, poor wretch that I am, of many things by a divine message.
How came I by this wisdom, which was not in me, who neither knew the number of my days nor knew what God was? Whence was given to me afterwards the gift so great, so salutary---to know God and to love Him, although at the price of leaving my country and my parents?
And many gifts were offered to me in sorrow and tears, and I offended the donors, much against the wishes of some of my seniors; but, guided by God, in no way did I agree with them or acquiesce. It was not grace of my own, but God, who is strong in me and resists them all---as He had done when I came to the people of Ireland to preach the Gospel, and to suffer insult from the unbelievers, hearing the reproach of my going abroad, and many persecutions even unto bonds, and to give my free birth for the benefit of others; and, should I be worthy, I am prepared to give even my life without hesitation and most gladly for His name, and it is there that I wish to spend it until I die, if the Lord would grant it to me.
For I am very much God's debtor, who gave me such grace that many people were reborn in God through me and afterwards confirmed, and that clerics were ordained for them everywhere, for a people just coming to the faith, whom the Lord took from the utmost parts of the earth, as He once had promised through His prophets: To Thee the gentiles shall come from the ends of the earth and shall say: `How false are the idols that our fathers got for themselves, and there is no profit in them'; and again: `I have set Thee as a light among the gentiles, that Thou mayest be for salvation unto the utmost part of the earth.'
And there I wish to wait for His promise who surely never deceives, as He promises in the Gospel: They shall come from the east and the west, and shall sit down with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob---as we believe the faithful will come from all the world.
For that reason, therefore, we ought to fish well and diligently, as the Lord exhorts in advance and teaches, saying: Come ye after me, and I will make you to be fishers of men. And again He says through the prophets: Behold, I send many fishers and hunters, saith God, and so on. Hence it was most necessary to spread our nets so that a great multitude and throng might be caught for God, and that there be clerics everywhere to baptize and exhort a people in need and want, as the Lord in the Gospel states, exhorts and teaches, saying: Going therefore now, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world. And again He says: Go ye therefore into the whole world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned. And again: This Gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world for a testimony to all nations, and then shall come the end. And so too the Lord announces through the prophet, and says: And it shall come to pass, in the last days, saith the Lord, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams. And upon my servants indeed, and upon my handmaids will I pour out in those days of my Spirit, and they shall prophesy. And in Osee, He saith: `I will call that which was not my people, my people; ...and her that had not obtained mercy, one that hath obtained mercy. And it shall be in the place where it was said: ``You are not my people,'' there they shall be called the sons of the living God.'
Hence, how did it come to pass in Ireland that those who never had a knowledge of God, but until now always worshipped idols and things impure, have now been made a people of the Lord, and are called sons of God, that the sons and daughters of the kings of the Irish are seen to be monks and virgins of Christ?
Among others, a blessed Irishwoman of noble birth, beautiful, full-grown, whom I had baptized, came to us after some days for a particular reason: she told us that she had received a message from a messenger of God, and he admonished her to be a virgin of Christ and draw near to God. Thanks be to God, on the sixth day after this she most laudably and eagerly chose what all virgins of Christ do. Not that their fathers agree with them: no---they often ever suffer persecution and undeserved reproaches from their parents; and yet their number is ever increasing. How many have been reborn there so as to be of our kind, I do not know---not to mention widows and those who practice continence.
But greatest is the suffering of those women who live in slavery. All the time they have to endure terror and threats. But the Lord gave His grace to many of His maidens; for, though they are forbidden to do so, they follow Him bravely.
Wherefore, then, even if I wished to leave them and go to Britain---and how I would have loved to go to my country and my parents, and also to Gaul in order to visit the brethren and to see the face of the saints of my Lord! God knows it! that I much desired it; but I am bound by the Spirit, who gives evidence against me if I do this, telling me that I shall be guilty; and I am afraid of losing the labour which I have begun---nay, not I, but Christ the Lord who bade me come here and stay with them for the rest of my life, if the Lord will, and will guard me from every evil way that I may not sin before Him.
This, I presume, I ought to do, but I do not trust myself as long as I am in this body of death, for strong is he who daily strives to turn me away from the faith and the purity of true religion to which I have devoted myself to the end of my I life to Christ my Lord. But the hostile flesh is ever dragging us unto death, that I is, towards the forbidden satisfaction of one's desires; and I know that in part I did not lead a perfect life as did the other faithful; but I acknowledge it to my! Lord, and do not blush before Him, because I lie not: from the time I came to know Him in my youth, the love of God and the fear of Him have grown in me, and up to now, thanks to the grace of God, I have kept the faith.
And let those who will, laugh and scorn---I shall not be silent; nor shall I hide the signs and wonders which the Lord has shown me many years before they came to pass, as He knows everything even before the times of the world. Hence I ought unceasingly to give thanks to God who often pardoned my folly and my carelessness, and on more than one occasion spared His great wrath on me, who was chosen to be His helper and who was slow to do as was shown me and as the Spirit suggested. And the Lord had mercy on me thousands and thousands of times because He saw that I was ready, but that I did not know what to do in the circumstances. For many tried to prevent this my mission; they would even talk to each other behind my back and say: `Why does this fellow throw himself into danger among enemies who have no knowledge of God?' It was not malice, but it did not appeal to them because---and to this I own myself---of my rusticity. And I did not realize at once the grace that was then in me; now I understand that I should have done so before.
Now I have given a simple account to my brethren and fellow servants who have believed me because of what I said and still say in order to strengthen and confirm your faith. Would that you, too, would strive for greater things and do better! This will be my glory, for a wise son is the glory of his father.
You know, and so does God, how I have lived among you from my youth in the true faith and in sincerity of heart. Likewise, as regards the heathen among whom I live, I have been faithful to them, and so I shall be. God knows it, I have overreached none of them, nor would I think of doing so, for the sake of God and His Church, for fear of raising persecution against them and all of us, and for fear that through me the name of the Lord be blasphemed; for it is written: Woe to the man through whom the name of the Lord is blasphemed.
For although I be rude in all things, nevertheless I have tried somehow to keep myself safe, and that, too, for my Christian brethren, and the virgins of Christ, and the pious women who of their own accord made me gifts and laid on the altar some of their ornaments and I gave them back to them, and they were offended that I did so. But I did it for the hope of lasting success---in order to preserve myself cautiously in everything so that they might not seize upon me or the ministry of my service, under the pretext of dishonesty, and that I would not even in the smallest matter give the infidels an opportunity to defame or defile.
When I baptized so many thousands of people, did I perhaps expect from any of them as much as half a scruple? Tell me, and I will restore it to you. Or when the Lord ordained clerics everywhere through my unworthy person and I conferred the ministry upon them free, if I asked any of them as much as the price of my shoes, speak against me and I will return it to you.
On the contrary, I spent money for you that they might receive me; and I went to you and everywhere for your sake in many dangers, even to the farthest districts, beyond which there lived nobody and where nobody had ever come to baptize, or to ordain clergy, or to confirm the people. With the grace of the Lord, I did everything lovingly and gladly for your salvation. All the while I used to give presents to the kings, besides the fees I paid to their sons who travel with me.
Even so they laid hands on me and my companions, and on that day they eagerly wished to kill me; but my time had not yet come. And everything they found with us they took away, and me they put in irons; and on the fourteenth day the Lord delivered me from their power, and our belongings were returned to us because of God and our dear friends whom we had seen before.
You know how much I paid to those who administered justice in all those districts to which I came frequently. I think I distributed among them not less than the price of fifteen men, so that you might enjoy me, and I might always enjoy you in God. I am not sorry for it---indeed it is not enough for me; I still spend and shall spend more. God has power to grant me afterwards that I myself may be spent for your souls.
Indeed, I call God to witness upon my soul that I lie not; neither, I hope, am I writing to you in order to make this an occasion of flattery or covetousness, nor because I look for honour from any of you.
Sufficient is the honour that is not yet seen but is anticipated in the heart. Faithful is He that promised; He never lieth. But I see myself exalted even in the present world beyond measure by the Lord, and I was not worthy nor such that He should grant me this. I know perfectly well, though not by my own judgement, that poverty and misfortune becomes me better than riches and pleasures. For Christ the Lord, too, was poor for our sakes; and I, unhappy wretch that I am, have no wealth even if I wished for it. Daily I expect murder, fraud, or captivity, or whatever it may be; but I fear none of these things because of the promises of heaven. I have cast myself into the hands of God Almighty, who rules everywhere, as the prophet says:
Cast thy thought upon God, and He shall sustain thee.
So, now I commend my soul to my faithful God, for whom I am an ambassador in all my wretchedness; but God accepteth no person, and chose me for this office---to be, although among His least, one of His ministers. Hence let me render unto Him for all He has done to me. But what can I say or what can I promise to my Lord, as I can do nothing that He has not given me? May He search the hearts and deepest feelings; for greatly and exceedingly do I wish, and ready I was, that He should give me His chalice to drink, as He gave it also to the others who loved Him.
Wherefore may God never permit it to happen to me that I should lose His people which He purchased in the utmost parts of the world. I pray to God to give me perseverance and to deign that I be a faithful witness to Him to the end of my life for my God. And if ever I have done any good for my God whom I love, I beg Him to grant me that I may shed my blood with those exiles and captives for His name, even though I should be denied a grave, or my body be woefully torn to pieces limb by limb by hounds or wild beasts, or the fowls of the air devour it. I am firmly convinced that if this should happen to me, I would have gained my soul together with my body, because on that day without doubt we shall rise in the brightness of the sun, that is, in the glory of Christ Jesus our Redeemer, as sons of the living God and joint heirs with Christ, to be made conformable to His image; for of Him, and by Him, and in Him we shall reign.
For this sun which we see rises daily for us because He commands so, but it will never reign, nor will its splendour last; what is more, those wretches who adore it will be miserably punished. Not so we, who believe in, and worship, the true sun---Christ---who will never perish, nor will he who doeth His will; but he will abide for ever as Christ abideth for ever, who reigns with God the Father Almighty and the Holy Spirit before time, and now, and in all eternity. Amen.
Behold, again and again would I set forth the words of my confession. I testify in truth and in joy of heart before God and His holy angels that I never had any reason except the Gospel and its promises why I should ever return to the people from whom once before I barely escaped.
I pray those who believe and fear God, whosoever deigns to look at or receive this writing which Patrick, a sinner, unlearned, has composed in Ireland, that no one should ever say that it was my ignorance if I did or showed forth anything however small according to God's good pleasure; but let this be your conclusion and let it so be thought, that---as is the perfect truth---it was the gift of God.
This is my confession before I die.
|
|
|
|
| The Recusant: On the New Mass and the Oath Taken by SSPX Priests at their Ordination |
|
Posted by: Stone - 03-17-2021, 06:12 AM - Forum: True vs. False Resistance
- No Replies
|
|
Taken from The Recusant [italicized emphasis in the original]:
Extract from the Oath Taken by SSPX Priests at their Ordination: (Could Bishop Williamson take this oath today..?)
Quote:[…]
“I affirm that the new rite of Mass does not, it is true, formulate any heresy in an explicit manner, but that it departs “in a striking manner overall as well as in detail, from the Catholic theology of the Holy Mass”, and for this reason the new Rite is in itself bad.
That is why I shall never celebrate the Holy Mass according to this new rite, even if I am threatened with ecclesiastical sanctions; and I shall never advise anyone in a positive manner to take an active part in such a Mass.” (Emphasis ours)
Extract from a Conference by Archbishop Lefebvre
Écône, 11th April, 1990
“I admit that the Masses celebrated according to the new Rite are not all invalid, in view of the bad translations, of its ambiguity …”
You have on that subject some explanations from the book of Mr. Salleron, those are in my opinion, probably the best ones which were given and the most complete. He really made a study of the Novus Ordo Mass. It’s hard to do it more perfectly and more completely then what he did very courageously. He is not afraid to say in which way the Novus Ordo Mass is equivocal. There are three chapters, one after the other, which show that it is equivocal and it is clear that the Novus Ordo Mass favours heresy. For those reasons, the Novus Ordo Mass is a failure. There are three chapters which are very well written for us now. Also, his whole analysis of the Novus Ordo Mass and the whole history with all very well studied documents are really enlightening. If someone is still adhering to the Novus Ordo after having read that book, it is because he will never understand anything. Besides, that is why I brought it with me to the Holy Office. And then, when they talked with me about the Novus Ordo, they interrogated me. “So concerning the New Mass; how is it that you say some rather serious things about it?” So, I can assure you they asked me questions. It’s shocking. “Do you maintain that a faithful Catholic can think and affirm that a sacramental rite, especially the one of the Mass, approved and promulgated by the Pope, can be nonconforming with the Catholic faith or favour heresy?” I said: “Well here! You are holding the book. Those are not even my words, you see! But I agree absolutely with what he says: it’s an equivocal Mass, a Mass favouring heresy …”
So, I also advise you to have this in your library, this book by Salleron, and to give it to the people who are hesitant. “But, even so, we know brave priests who are good and who are trying to say the New Mass well etc.…” Read this! You will see! It is the New Mass in itself! It is not about the priest who is saying it. It is not because he says it piously or anything that the new Rite changes. It is not because it changes anything in the Rite of the Mass. It is obvious that this new rite is a rite that has been made only to draw us closer to the Protestants! That is clear! Finally clear!
On this subject, re-read also the article by Fr. Boyer in the supplement of the Dictionary of Catholic Theology. After the table of contents, there are a few articles and in particular a very long article by Fr. Boyer who was my teacher at the Gregorian, who is now dead, and who was very highly regarded, a man of value who was, for some time, Secretary of the Secretariat for Christian Unity. Basically, I think he was appointed to this Secretariat to give a slightly more traditional image and to give some confidence to the people. As you know, Fr. Boyer was a respected man, highly regarded in Roman circles and among teachers. He wrote a long article on ecumenism, an article very well documented where he quotes some phrases of Pope Paul VI requesting that we go as far as possible in suppressing everything that can hinder the Protestants in our ceremonies, excluding, obviously, what might be contrary to the Faith. But, I do not see how we can change the texts of our Mass and diminish them without harming the Faith? It is not possible! The Mass is everything! Once we remove what bothers the Protestants, how can we say that we are not going to touch the Faith? It is contradictory. They are unbelievable orders, and that is literally what is written by Fr. Boyer. So what do you want to do?
“And that’s why I never will celebrate the Mass according to the new Rite, even under threat of ecclesiastical penalties and I will never advise anyone positively to participate actively in such a Mass.”
Because people are still asking us those questions: “I don’t have the Mass of St. Pius V on Sunday, and there is a Mass said by a priest that I know well, a holy man, so, wouldn’t it be better to go to the Mass of this priest, even if it is the New Mass but said with piety, instead of just staying away?”
No! That’s not true! That is not true! Because this Rite is bad, is bad, is bad! This is the reason why this Rite is bad, it is poisoned! It is a poisoned rite! Mr. Salleron says it very well here: “It is not a choice between two Rites, that would be good! This is a choice between a Catholic Rite and a practically Protestant rite!” It’s harmful to our Faith, the Catholic Faith!
So, it is out of question to encourage people to go to Mass in the New Rite, because slowly, even without realizing it, they end up ecumenist! It’s strange, but it’s like that. It is a fact. Then, ask them questions on ecumenism, on what they think of the relations with other religions and you will see! They are all ecumenist. For the priest himself, the fact of saying this mass and celebrating it in a constant manner, even without thinking about anything, about its origin, or why it was made, turns him and the people who assist at it ecumenist. And, if we ask them about ecumenism, their answer will be: “But of course! You can be saved in all religions, it’s obvious!” This is the New Mass, the Novus Ordo Mass.
Of course, that’s why it says: “...positively to participate actively at such a Mass.” But we can exceptionally, as it Canon Law says for things like Orthodox ceremonies, for some reasons we can assist passively. For a wedding, funerals of parents or things like that, where we feel obliged to be present and we cannot do otherwise, we assist passively. We don’t receive communion, we are not participating in the Mass, but we are doing it more out of politeness towards the people who assist at it, than for assisting at the sacrifice of the Mass. Those are conditions that are already mentioned in Canon Law, the old Canon Law. But attending it as one’s Sunday Mass, no! It is better to stay home reading and going once a month. Make the effort to go once a month and do 100 km if necessary, to attend the Catholic Mass! Like in the missions, we were visiting our faithful’s three times a year. We could not do more! That was the average. This didn’t mean that they were bad Christians. They could not do otherwise. It is not an impossible thing. People say: “But am I not committing a grave sin by not going to Mass?” Not at that Mass! It does not oblige under pain of grave sin. We are never forced to do something which would tend to diminish our Faith. It’s not possible. God cannot force us to do that. On the other hand, we are seriously obliged to do everything possible to attend the Mass of St. Pius V, the Catholic Mass. There, the obligation remains, but not for a rite that is almost Protestant. On the contrary, there is an obligation not to go.
I’m a little surprised, you know. Sometimes, I receive a lot of requests for consultations from our priests who are in the priories and some are asking me: “What should one reply to a person who says he cannot have the Mass of St. Pius V and who believes that he is under the obligation to go to a New Rite Mass, said by a good priest, a serious priest who offers all the guarantees almost of holiness? etc.” But I don’t understand why they can’t answer this themselves! They don’t find the conclusion by themselves and they feel obliged to ask me such a thing. It’s incredible! So you see, there are still some who hesitate. This is unbelievable!
And that, you will see, will be mandatory for those who have left us. For the Fraternity of St. Peter, for Dom Gerard, even if they never say the New Mass themselves, even if they have our convictions, they will be obliged to consider the New Rite as having the same value as the Traditional Rite! In practice, when they receive Novus Ordo priests who come to visit them, they will be obliged to let them say their Mass and tell them: “No problem. But of course, say your Mass.” This is fatal! They cannot do otherwise. Look at the cohabitation of the two Rites with Father Lafargue! In Paris there, with Father Veuillet! And beware! Father Lafargue and Father Veuillet must not go tell the others that their Mass is bad or say: “You must come with me, you must come with us.” It is well marked in the contracts. The two rites are valid, do not criticize… So, this is not possible. It is cannot be otherwise. They are trapped!
|
|
|
|
| The Recusant: Open Letter to Fr. Juan Carlos Ortiz [2018] |
|
Posted by: Stone - 03-16-2021, 08:03 PM - Forum: True vs. False Resistance
- No Replies
|
|
Taken from The Recusant - Issue 45 [January/February 2018]
[NB: This letter was written before the extremely doubtful situation of Ambrose Moran was completely understood, see here. But the point of this particular 'Open Letter' is to highlight the hypocrisy in how Bp. Williamson's is treated with respect to his problematic treatment of the Orthodox or rather, how it is passed over in silence by the priests under him/in the Fake Resistance.]
OPEN LETTER TO FR. JUAN CARLOS ORTIZ
London
4th January 2018
Dear Father Ortiz,
It is the memory of your 27-page long Ambrose Moran document dealing with questions of the schismatic Orthodox, and the time I spent reading through it, which spurs me to write to you first and foremost. In some people’s eyes, you are the Church’s champion leading a crusade against the peril of schismatic Orthodoxy. For this reason, I feel sure that the following will interest you a great deal. I wish to begin by drawing your attention to some fairly recent statements made by Bishop Williamson which appear to favour the Russian Orthodox. His words appeared in Eleison Comments #525 August 2017 and #535, October 2017 and can be read here: stmarcelinitiative.com/fatima-consecration-ii/ and here: stmarcelinitiative.com/putin-speaks. The first talks about the consecration of Russia requested by Our Lady of Fatima and uses the name “Holy Russia” to describe contemporary Russia before its consecration has happened. The second one begins by defending the use of the phrase “Holy Russia” and then goes on to call Vladimir Putin “a follower of Christ”, even though he is a man whom the whole world knows to be a Russian Orthodox schismatic.
1. Holy Russia
Bishop Williamson begins Eleison Comments #535 by telling his readers that:
Quote:“One reader of these ‘Comments’ was surprised to see them (August 5) referring to ‘Holy Russia’ when since 1917 it is Russia that has been spreading its errors throughout the world.”
Whether Bishop Williamson has misrepresented the grounds for his reader’s objections (knowingly or otherwise) is unclear. Regardless, the fact remains that the main objection to calling Russia “Holy” is not merely that it was a Communist country after 1917, for this would be to suggest or give the impression that Russia perhaps was “holy” before 1917 and that it was only the Bolshevik revolution which took away that “holiness”. You and I know otherwise, Father, as does Bishop Williamson.
Bishop Williamson then goes on to justify calling Russia “Holy Russia” by saying:
Quote:“But ‘Holy Russia’ is an expression that goes much further back than the 20th century. It refers to the Russian people’s natural inclination to religion. If from 1917 to 1989 they were the spring-bed of international Communism, that is only because they served it with a religious fervour…”
The question which he begs is: their inclination to what religion? You and I both know the answer, Father. The religion of Russia is not the Catholic religion. It is a false religion calling itself Russian Orthodoxy and has been since the year 1054. And whilst the phrase “Holy Russia” may go back earlier than the 20th century, it is not that much earlier, and nowhere near as old as the schism of 1054. The phrase is a comparatively recent invention of the Orthodox. It therefore does not refer to anything Catholic but is a reference to Russian Orthodoxy supposedly being the true religion, since it recalls the false teaching of the Russian Orthodox according to which Russia (and not Rome) has a sort of spiritual primacy over the world, the true religion being the schismatic, man-made national religion of that country.
The contrast which the bishop draws between Russia pre- and post- 1917 is also misleading since, as mentioned above, it risks leaving the impression that things were bad in Russia after 1917, but not before. An uninformed person reading Bishop Williamson’s words might be forgiven for thinking that before 1917 Russia was a truly “holy” country, where all or most people were “fervently” practicing the true religion. But you and I know that that is not the case, quite the contrary. The truth is that the Bolshevik revolution of 1917 only replaced one form of darkness with an even more brutal and unpleasant form of darkness. Even so, prior to 1917 Russia was a country in need of conversion, a country practicing a false religion, a country which, in the name of that false religion, persecuted and oppressed the Catholic Church, even officially in her government and laws, sometimes with bloody violence. The Catholic Encyclopedia tells us that in the mid-19th century, a mere two generations before the Bolshevik revolution, Czar Nicholas I was busy persecuting the Church in Russia and also in Poland which at that time fell under his sway:
Quote:“The reign of Nicholas I was a long period of persecution and suffering for Catholics in Russia. …
Catholics were prohibited from restoring their churches and from building new ones; from preaching sermons that had not previously been approved by the government, and from refuting the calumnies of the Press against Catholicism. It is not necessary for us to recur to the authority of Catholic writers, like Lescœur, to prove how odious this violence was; we may be satisfied with a mere glance at the immense collection of laws and governmental measures concerning the Catholic Church, from the times of Peter and of Ivan Alexeievitch to 1867. …
It is not without reason that a Catholic writer has said that the laws of Nicholas I against Catholicism constitute a Neronian code.” (www.newadvent.org/cathen/13253a.htm)
His successor, Czar Alexander II, was little better.
Quote:“The first years of the reign of Alexander II were not marked by anti-Catholic violence. … Soon however there was a return to the methods of Nicholas I, notwithstanding the fact that Pius IX wrote to the tsar, imploring liberty for Catholics of both rites in Russia. In another letter, addressed in 1861 to Mgr. Fialkowski, Archbishop of Warsaw, Pius IX referred to the continual efforts of the Holy See to safeguard the existence of Catholicism in Russia, and to the difficulties that were opposed to all measures of his and of his predecessors in that connection. Encouraged by the words of the pope, the Polish bishops presented a memorandum to the representative of the emperor at Warsaw, asking for the abrogation of the laws that oppressed Catholics and destroyed their liberty. A similar memorandum was presented to the tsar by the Archbishop of Mohileff and the bishops of Russia. Upon the basis of these memoranda, the government accused the Catholic clergy of promoting the spirit of revolution and of plotting revolts against the tsar. Most painful occurrences ensued; the soldiery was not restrained from profaning the churches and the Holy Eucharist, from wounding defenceless women, or from treating Warsaw as a city taken by storm. One hundred and sixty priests, and among them the vicar capitular Bialobrzeski, were taken prisoners, and several of them were exiled to Siberia. Mgr. Deckert, coadjutor of the Archbishop Fialkowski, died of the sufferings that these events caused him. The condition of the Poles were becoming intolerable, and Catholicism suffered proportionately. Amid the general indifference of Europe, one voice, that of Pius IX, was raised, firm and energetic, in favour of an oppressed people and of a persecuted faith. (Ibid.)
Would it be worth noting that the persecution of the Church by the Russian government and national “church” did not end with the death of Alexander II but carried on into the 20th century?
Quote:“It should not be forgotten that, during the entire reign of Alexander II, the religious policy of Russia was inspired by Konstantin Pobiedonostseff, Procurator General of the [Russian Orthodox] Holy Synod, who, for political rather than religious motives, was a fierce adversary of Catholicism. The Catholic clergy continued to endure the severest oppression, abandoned to the caprices of the police, greatly reduced in numbers, and trammelled by a thousand obstacles in the exercise of its apostolic ministry. This condition of things was prolonged into the reign of Nicholas II, during which Pobiedonostseff exercised his dictatorship until 1905.” (Ibid.)
1905 is a mere twelve years before the Bolshevik revolution and the apparition of Our Lady of Fatima. But which Russia is it that we see here, is this the “Holy Russia” of which Bishop Williamson speaks? Was it “Holy Russia” which persecuted the Church? Was it “Holy Russia” which made the condition of Polish Catholics intolerable? Was it “Holy Russia” which sent soldiers into Catholic Churches to smash them up and profane the Blessed Sacrament? Was it “Holy Russia” which arrested priests and sent them to die in Siberia? Which Russia was this Russia which officially passed so many laws designed to suppress the Catholic Church and against which Pius IX energetically protested?
2. A Follower of Christ
That would be bad enough, but it gets worse. In the same Eleison Comments #535, Bishop Williamson tells us that Vladimir Putin is “a follower of Christ.”
Quote:“Some experts in the perfidy of the New World Order are still distrustful of Vladimir Putin, which is understandable, but as Americans say, if he talks, walks and quacks like a follower of Christ, then common sense says that he is a follower of Christ.”
Father, can a Russian Orthodox schismatic truly be called “a follower of Christ”? Can, in this particular case, possibly the best known Russian Orthodox schismatic in the whole world, a man who promotes the false religion of Russian Orthodoxy on television by his words and deeds and bad example, nevertheless be called “a follower of Christ”? Does Vladimir Putin need to convert and become a Catholic or does he not? If, say, you had managed somehow to become his best friend and closest, most trusted confidant, and he were to ask you one day: “What do you think, Father, should I become a Catholic? What would you advise me to do?” - would you urge him to do so as soon as possible, or would you tell him that there really is no need? I ask again: can a Russian Orthodox schismatic truly be called a follower of Christ? This is a yes or no question, Father. Bishop Williamson is either right or wrong. There are huge implications either way.
3. Implications
If what Bishop Williamson says is right, and a non-Catholic who publicly professes the Russian Orthodox religion can truly be called “a follower of Christ,” then it is not necessary to be a Catholic in order to follow Christ. And since it is by following Christ that we save our souls and gain the eternal reward of heaven, this in turn must surely mean that it is not necessary to become a Catholic in order to save one’s soul.
If what Bishop Williamson says is right, and Russia as it is today, in its present unconsecrated state, can be called “Holy Russia” due to the “the Russian people’s natural inclination towards religion” of any sort, be it the false religion of Russian Orthodoxy which persecuted the Church or the false religion of Communism which persecuted the Church and many others indiscriminately, then the word “holy” has undergone a radical change of meaning. According to this new meaning, the more inclined a person is towards joining and supporting whatever the fashionable false religion du jour is and “serving it with a religious fervour,” even if that service involves persecuting the Church, the more they can be said to be “holy.”
If what Bishop Williamson says is right, and Russia, a country with hardly any Catholics (all Catholics, including liberal and non-practicing Catholics, total barely 1% of the population) and where the Church is not represented in the state at any level can be called “holy”, then holiness can be found outside the Church, which in turn must surely mean that the Church is not necessary for sanctification since it is now possible to be “holy” without being in any way Catholic.
If what Bishop Williamson says is right, and a known, publicly-professing Orthodox schismatic can be “a follower of Christ,” then the charges which you levelled against Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko of “association in sacris” (if there were such a thing) and of being “suspect of schism” (ditto) do not make a lot of sense because if, for argument’s sake Ambrose Moran really were a Ukrainian Orthodox and not a Ukrainian Catholic, he could still nevertheless be regarded as a “follower of Christ,” could he not?
On the other hand…
If what Bishop Williamson says is not true, then he has publicly propagated some ideas which are, at the very least, highly misleading and will lead to confusion among the faithful and even priests.
If what Bishop Williamson says is not true, then he would appear to have contradicted Church teaching on a number of points (‘Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus’ for example), whether implicitly or explicitly, knowingly or unwittingly.
If what Bishop Williamson says is not true, then such moral authority as he still enjoys due to his status as one of the four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988 will unfortunately only serve in this instance to help lead souls astray.
If what Bishop Williamson says is not true, and you can see that it is not true, then you surely have a very grave moral obligation to point that out to him, for his benefit at least, if no one else’s.
If what Bishop Williamson says is not true, and you can see that it is not true, then the unfortunate fact that he made these misleading statements in public means that they must be put right in public in order to repair the damage and clear up any confusion caused, and that any correction made to him, by you or by anyone else, must also be made in public.
If what Bishop Williamson says is not true, then as a sober man who takes such things seriously, you must surely ask yourself how this could have happened and whether perhaps it might have happened before on an occasion which you did not notice and whether it will happen again.
4. Justice
It is, as always, very disappointing to witness a supposedly “Traditional” Catholic bishop saying such things. What is perhaps even more disappointing is the lack of response from those calling themselves Traditional. It has now been nearly three months since Bishop Williamson made these statements, and I and many others have been waiting to see what your response would be, Father. So far, we have been disappointed.
Father Ortiz, you are regarded around the world as being a priest associated with, cooperating with and in some way joined to Bishop Williamson. That is true whether you like it or not, whether you intend it or not. You have in the past referred to Bishops Williamson and Faure as “our bishops,” you assisted at the most recent episcopal consecration which Bishop Williamson performed, an event which took place at your church where you are resident, St. Athanasius, in Vienna, Virginia. And to this day, nobody has ever seen a public word from you which so much as hints at a difference between Bishop Williamson and yourself. I find this not a little perplexing.
The reason I find it perplexing is that not so very long ago you publically accused Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer and Fr. David Hewko (and indirectly all those who assist at their Masses) of being in some way tainted with schism and Orthodoxy due to their “association with” a man whom you regard as an Orthodox schismatic, despite the fact that he made a public profession of the Catholic Faith in 2015 and that his baptism as a Catholic in the late 1940s was proven beyond all doubt by the unearthing of his baptismal certificate from the parish in New York where he was born. I remember well the pages and pages of talk about “communicatio in sacris,” and the quotations concerning those “suspect of heresy” to which you had added the word “schism” in square brackets, as though there could ever be such a thing as one “suspect of schism”. Only last year you wrote a letter to the Australian faithful accusing Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko of “association in sacris” – a thing which does not exist! – and telling them that they could not go to their Masses. I thought then, as I do now, that you greatly overreached yourself and overstated your case. Had you confined yourself to saying that you were concerned over the question of Ambrose Moran’s past or that you found Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko to have exercised not enough caution for your liking then, I suspect, people might have taken you a little more seriously. I myself would still not necessarily agree, but it need not have been a point of public contention. Since, however, you chose to make this into such a big, public cause celebre, unfortunately you must bear the consequences of that decision, which is why people are now waiting to see what your response will be to Bishop Williamson.
You accused Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko of being too closely “associated” with someone whom you suspected was Orthodox. You accused them of temporising with schismatic Orthodoxy and of being “suspect of schism” and said that no one may go to them for the sacraments lest they too become somehow tainted with Orthodoxy and schism. And yet now, today, when the whole world has witnessed Bishop Williamson speaking of the Orthodox schismatic Putin as a “follower of Christ” and of the Orthodox Russia which persecuted the Church as “Holy Russia” your response is total silence. A less generous man might be tempted to accuse you of the very worst kind of hypocrisy and self-interest. You have unjustly attacked two priests who are innocent of the crimes with which you charge them and who would never knowingly have anything to do with schismatic or heretical false religions, except to convert them. And yet when one of your own friends a year or two later does the very thing of which you accused those two priests, you look the other way and pretend you didn’t notice.
If it was, as you said, “necessary to warn the faithful” about the non-existent “association” of Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko with schismatic Orthodoxy, why is it not now necessary to warn the faithful of the very real and undeniable temporising with and favouring of schismatic Orthodoxy on the part of Bishop Williamson? Father Ortiz, to avoid anyone mistaking your silence for rank hypocrisy, you must now choose. Either you must denounce the recent statements of Bishop Williamson and warn the faithful against what he is currently encouraging them to think. Or you must apologise to Frs. Pfeiffer and Hewko and let it be known publicly that you were mistaken, that you overstated your case, that they were and are innocent of the charges which you levelled against them and that, in any case, even if they had been guilty, it would not matter because, as Bishop Williamson has now made clear, the Orthodox can be “followers of Christ” too. One or the other, Father.
On behalf of many others who, like myself, eagerly await your reply,
God bless,
Greg Taylor
PS – If my memory serves, Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko asked you, in charity, to point out to them what “calumnies” they had committed against Bishop Williamson (or “our bishops,” as you put it), an entirely reasonable request. It has now been a whole year. Perhaps you would like to consider fulfilling their request and showing them where they went wrong?
|
|
|
|
| The Recusant: Bishop Williamson Believes in the Conciliar Church |
|
Posted by: Stone - 03-16-2021, 05:22 PM - Forum: True vs. False Resistance
- No Replies
|
|
Taken from The Recusant [emphasis in the original]:
What a ‘Novus Ordo Mess’ : Bishop Williamson believes in the conciliar church!
A Closer Look at ‘Eleison Comments’ #447 (“Host and Parasite II”), 7th Feb. 2016
"Two weeks ago these “Comments” stepped back onto a minefield, and defended the position that there is still something Catholic in what has become of the Catholic Church since Vatican II."
Stepping onto a minefield is not an apt metaphor because what it implies is so far removed from what it represents in reality. Bishop Williamson is not putting himself in the firing line to defend Our Lord and His teaching, nor taking a personal risk for the greater good, despite his own peculiar conceit to the contrary. What he is in fact doing is indulging his own whim and fancy without regard for the devastation which his scandalous words, spoken and written have on souls who have already suffered so much. Worse, when he implies that he is somehow taking a risk, this is tantamount to lying since, in reality, anyone who disagrees with him is “dealt with”, though in secret (so you may not often hear about it). His words are a standing scandal and are causing souls to fall away. “Woe to him by whom the scandal cometh” would be more accurate than talk about ‘minefields’. How tragic to witness a man, a bishop no less, who has so little self knowledge that he can apparently view himself as some sort of hero-martyr, all the while behaving so selfishly. But I digress. Tragic and pitiable though it is, this is not what is important.
‘Still something Catholic’ in… ...what?
What concept does he say he is defending? “That there is still something Catholic in what has become the Church since Vatican II.” Which begs the question - what has become the Church since Vatican II? The common understanding would be that what we are talking about is the conciliar church. That is what has become, since Vatican II, of what is generally considered “the Catholic Church.” So is he saying that there is still something Catholic in the conciliar church? Why not come clean and say it? If he means something else, why put it in a way which is so unclear? Lack of clarity when it comes to the “Catholic Church vs. conciliar church” distinction is something which we are accustomed to expect from Bishop Fellay and Menzingen. Alas, it seems the disease has now spread to Bishop Williamson too!
How Catholic is Catholic?
Further reflection ought to remind us of the following. Just how Catholic is “something Catholic”? Here’s a hint. If it isn’t 100% Catholic, it’s not Catholic. There is undeniably “still something Catholic” in the Anglicans, for example. They still have the sign of the cross, the Our Father, stained-glass windows, candles, crucifixes, the Nicene Creed… are the Anglicans Catholic? No. But it most definitely has “something Catholic in it.” Does it matter whether there is “still something Catholic” in it, as far as our support or acceptance goes? No. The same goes for the conciliar church: of course there is “still something Catholic” in the conciliar church - some of the modernist architects of the conciliar church themselves have admitted that the “still Catholic” bits are useful to help get the new bits accepted. So, insofar as it is different in any way from the Catholic Church, the conciliar church is a false religion which we must avoid and resist, and the fact that there is “still something Catholic” in it does not change that. Near the end of the Eleison Comments, the same straw-man fallacy is advanced once again:
“...to say that there is nothing at all of these [‘Catholic decency and devotion’] left in the Newchurch seems to me to be a gross exaggeration.”
Again, that there is “something” (not “nothing”) left is beside the point. There is something of Catholic decency and devotion left in the Anglicans. This is mere sophistry. But it is very important to spot it and understand it, given what follows.
For example on the one side the present leaders of the Society of St Pius X act as though the official Church in Rome is still so Catholic(*) that the SSPX cannot do without its official recognition. On the other side many souls that really have the Catholic faith utterly repudiate the idea that there is still anything Catholic whatsoever left in the “Church” now being led by “Pope” Francis.(**) What follows is just one attempt to discern what truth may be on both sides.
Did you spot the sleight of hand, the two fake alternatives which are not really alternatives at all, the one exaggeration verses the other parody? According to Bishop Williamson, the two alternatives are:
1. “We cannot do without official recognition from the official Church in Rome!”
This is the voice of the neo-SSPX.
2. “We utterly repudiate the idea that there is anything Catholic left in Rome!”
This, presumably, is us.
He then goes on to present his thesis as a “solution” to the “problem” presented in these two positions. The fact is, however, these two extremes are in reality just caricatures. As mentioned above, there is “still something Catholic” in the Anglicans, so of course there is still something Catholic in the conciliar church. But, as discussed above, “something Catholic” is as good as useless. “Something Catholic” is not Catholic; only 100% Catholic is Catholic. bonum ex integra causa. malum ex quocumque defectu.
Incidentally, if the conciliar church really is the Catholic Church - sorry, the “official Church” - then why exactly are Bishop Fellay and the neo-SSPX wrong to seek its approval? If they are wrong to do so, is that not because the conciliar church is something different to, other than, or distinct from the Catholic Church?
“And since they [modernists] have had nearly 50 years to conform the Church to their insanity, from top to bottom, then there has emerged a Church so different from the pre-conciliar Church that it is a reality deserving the name of Newchurch.”
As mentioned above, talk of “...a Church so different...”, just like “...the official Church in Rome is still so Catholic…” and “...still anything Catholic whatsoever [in it]” is all highly misleading, implying as it does something quantitative. But the question “Catholic or not?” is a binary choice. The only answers possible are “Yes” or “No”. It is not something quantitative. There is no such thing as “less Catholic” or “more Catholic” or “so Catholic” or “not anything Catholic”. We also note with dismay that there seems to be a suggestion of an equivalence between the Church and the conciliar church, both being described in similar terms (“the pre-conciliar Church” and “a Church [sic] so different...”). And need one add: “the Church” is the Bride of Christ: what was “made to conform” was the people and not, properly speaking, the Church herself.
So, Bishop Williamson’s thesis seems to be as follows.
1. The Church is so different now to how it was before the Council, “that it is deserving [of] the name ‘Newchurch’. ”
2 . But this “Newchurch” still has the faith, even though lots of people in it don’t, so you can’t reject it altogether.
“But if one respects reality, one is bound to admit that there is still faith in the Newchurch.”
If one respects reality, one is bound to admit that Bishop Williamson is talking nonsense, and that he has fallen away from Tradition every bit as much as has Bishop Fellay. That there may be an old babushka somewhere in Siberia who has the Faith and knows nothing about “Orthodox vs. Catholic” and who thus may save her soul, does not mean we can say that the Russian Orthodox church has the Faith and people can be saved in it! That there may well be souls in the conciliar church who still have the Faith in spite of it, does not prove that the conciliar church as the conciliar church has the Faith. It does not. This is not just an abstract idea: for a look at how serious it is, consider the inter-religious meetings at Assisi which deny Our Lord publicly before the world and place him on a par with Buddha, Mohammed and so many other false gods and demons (cf. Psalm 95 “omnes dii gentium daemonia”). That is not the Catholic Church acting, organising these Assisi meetings. It is the conciliar church.
“A layman tells me that his father has faithfully attended the Novus Ordo Mass for the last 45 years, and still has the faith. A priest tells me that he can remember a laywoman presenting to Archbishop Lefebvre himself her reasons for needing to attend the NOM, and he merely shrugged his shoulders.”
...and as proof of this idea (“that there is still faith in the Newchurch”), Bishop Williamson advances the spurious claim of a story about a layman who has attended the New Mass for 45 years and it didn’t do him any harm! I say “spurious” because there are so many things wrong with this. You can’t prove a point as important as this with just one example, and a subjective personal example at that. And even a whole list of personal examples would each have the same limitations as that one example, each would remain personal and subjective, subject in the same way to circumstance, interpretation, etc. Our own personal experience, mine and yours, surely shows beyond any doubt that over the past 40-odd years, those who stopped practising in the early days of the Novus Ordo are far more likely to have kept the Faith than those who carried on going. Finally, as chance would have it, the layman in question was recently located. Suffice it to say that his particular case in point has been here rather misrepresented by Bishop Williamson. He is a liberal, a fan of Pope Francis, a follower of modern bogus apparitions. And he himself says that if he has kept the Faith it is only despite the Novus Ordo and he would never recommend anyone else to go to it!
[Don’t take my word for this: see for yourself in the article “A Message from Gabrielle”]
As for the latest example of taking Archbishop Lefebvre’s name in vain (you might call it the “x+1” example), please note that it is third-hand, (a priest tells Bishop Williamson who tells us that he witnessed something), which given Bishop Williamson’s record in recounting the example of the layman above, does not inspire confidence; and that it does not involve any actual words spoken by the Archbishop. Where and when was the question put? Was it even a question (and thus requiring of a reply?) What did the shrug denote? Could it be that, for example, that the person in question, having listened to an entire conference from the Archbishop about why one cannot go to the New Mass, but seeking to justify her own guilty conscience, asked an infuriatingly stupid question immediately afterwards, showing that she had taken in nothing of what had been said, at which point the Archbishop did not bother to repeat what he had just spent an hour or more saying? Was it in a crowd of people, or ‘buttonholing’ him on his way out, so that he had no time to give a verbal reply? I am just speculating. We have no way of knowing. Either way, for Bishop Williamson to have to resort to such “evidence” speaks volumes and is surely a sign of desperation.
“The reason for these testimonies being real should be obvious. As an essential part of the subjective and ambiguous religion, the NOM can be what you make of it.”
So the Novus Ordo is not itself bad, then. It is only bad when liberal priests say it badly. It can be what you make of it. Are there really people in the Resistance who are going to swallow this poison?
“A priest can celebrate it “decently,” a Catholic can attend it “devoutly.” The inverted commas are to placate the hard-liners who will insist that with the NOM there can be neither true decency nor true devotion, but when they say such things, I think that they are flying in the face of reality.”
Notice the dishonest way in which Bishop Williamson moves the goalposts: not only Archbishop Lefebvre but, until a mere four or five years ago, the whole SSPX and all the priests, religious and faithful of Tradition would have said that the Novus Ordo is simply not reconcilable with real devotion and reverence. But now such a position has suddenly become the exclusive domain of “hard liners”. When did that happen? How many other things, commonly accepted now, will magically become something which only “hard liners” think or do or say? As with the leftward drift of secular politics and social custom, if we wake up one day to find that what was once normal and widespread is now ‘right wing’ or ‘hard line’, it is because the so-called ‘centre’ or ‘mainstream’ has been moved, leaving behind those who have not moved with it. But we are not talking about Freemasonic politicians or their corrupt media lackeys, here. This is Bishop Williamson doing this. Ask yourself why.
And by the way, if the inverted commas are only there to placate people with whom you disagree, (and who are “out of touch with reality”) then one must remove those inverted commas in order to get the true sense. So, according to Bishop Williamson:
“A priest can celebrate the Novus Ordo Mass decently, a Catholic can attend it devoutly.” Again I ask: who in the Resistance is going to swallow this poison? And if they do, what exactly are they “resisting”?
What does all this mean? It means that Bishop Williamson believes in the conciliar church. Whether one sees it as a mistake, an error of judgement, a deviation from the path of truth, it is the same mistake, the same misjudgement, the same deviation which Bishop Fellay has fallen into. Like Bishop Fellay, Bishop Williamson sees the conciliar church (“the official Church in Rome”) as being something which we cannot reject. Worse, he not only believes it himself, but stubbornly promotes it to anyone who will listen. His own words witness it, even the bad rhyming couplet with which this unfortunate ‘Eleison Comments’ begins:
A leprous Mother some sons will desert.
Others will get too close, not being alert.
I wonder how many of his poor readers have thought carefully about what that means: it is a curious choice of metaphor and bares careful thinking about. What are the characteristics of a leprous mother? She has leprosy, through no fault of her own, but she is still your mother. She is still in essence good, though in appearance bad; she is still the same, though in appearance, superficially, different. You still love her, honour her, treat her as a mother (with obedience and respect), and wish to nurse her back to health. If in nursing her back to health, you have to keep a physical distance for some time, then that is only a temporary measure, and it is only physical - you are still united in heart and mind all the while. You still serve her and carry out her wishes, and wish to embrace her as soon as you are able. Is this really how Bishop Williamson sees the conciliar church? It seems so. Kyrie Eleison.
Since I must finish somewhere, and since the Muse of Bad Taste has been provoking me for some time now and I feel the urge to write a very bad rhyming couplet, let me leave you with this to chew on:
For the Bishop ‘conciliar’ and ‘Catholic’ church is one!
Then why from the Resistance (and to Rome) is he not gone?
|
|
|
|
| Two more Catholic Churches in Boston - Vandalized |
|
Posted by: Hildegard of Bingen - 03-16-2021, 01:47 PM - Forum: Anti-Catholic Violence
- No Replies
|
 |
BOSTON MA. MARCH 14: Doors at Saint Teresa of Calcutta was vandalized on March 14, 2021 in Boston, MA. (Staff Photo By Nancy Lane/MediaNews Group/Boston Herald)
Two more Catholic churches in Boston have been vandalized yet again, an “unsettling” pattern of incidents that police are investigating.
Both Dorchester’s St. Teresa of Calcutta Church and Southie’s St. Monica-Saint Augustine Church recently had their locks damaged on the same night, and a statue of the Virgin Mary was toppled at Saint Monica’s.
“It’s a sacred house, and it shouldn’t be damaged,” said Rich Gribaudo of Saint Teresa’s, adding, “It’s unsettling.”
Boston Police officers on Friday at 6:30 a.m. responded to St.Teresa’s and St. John Paul II Catholic Academy in the area of 800 Columbia Road. An unknown substance — some sort of sealant or putty — had been found on several door locks, preventing people from using keys to unlock the church and school building.
Then 90 minutes later, officers responded to another vandalism call at St. Monica’s. The same unknown substance had been found on all four door locks of the church, and a statue of the Virgin Mary had been knocked over. The same statue had also been toppled a week earlier, but that the incident had not been reported.
A church volunteer was helping repair the statue at St. Monica’s on Sunday.
Police are now looking for help in identifying a male suspect, whose image was captured on security cameras at the churches.
“We’re guessing it might be the same guy,” said Gribaudo, the business manager at St. Teresa’s. “It looked like he knew exactly where he was going, which leads you to believe he might be the same guy.
“We’re praying for him, and hope he gets the help he needs,” Gribaudo said. “It’s sad.”
This is the sixth time that St. Teresa’s has been targeted by vandals since July.
On three occasions in January, trash and eggs were thrown against the doors of St. Teresa’s. This was the second time in a week that a statue was knocked over at St. Monica’s.
The Catholic Action League called the incidents “appalling, senseless and malevolent crimes, which will continue as long as no one is apprehended and punished.”
|
|
|
|
|
![[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.veritasbooks.com.au...f=1&nofb=1]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.veritasbooks.com.au%2Fimages%2FRace_Culture_Nation%2FPapacy__Freemasonry_Monseigneur_Jouin_.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
![[Image: ?u=http%3A%2F%2Fecx.images-amazon.com%2F...f=1&nofb=1]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fecx.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FI%2F51yNIqHAuqL._SY291_BO1%2C204%2C203%2C200_QL40_.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
![[Image: ?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ecclesiamilitans.com...f=1&nofb=1]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ecclesiamilitans.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F09%2F2017-09-04_111308.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
![[Image: ?u=http%3A%2F%2Fbrewminate.com%2Fwp-cont...f=1&nofb=1]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fbrewminate.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F03%2FPatrick03.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
