| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Forum Statistics |
» Members: 268
» Latest member: Sarah
» Forum threads: 6,382
» Forum posts: 11,932
Full Statistics
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 352 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 349 Guest(s)
Bing, Google, Yandex
|
|
|
| St. Alphonsus Liguori: Daily Meditations for Seventh Week after Pentecost |
|
Posted by: Stone - 07-16-2023, 08:02 AM - Forum: Pentecost
- Replies (7)
|
 |
What will be the terror of the poor worldling when he reflects: In a short time I shall be no more! And I know not whether I shall be happy or miserable for eternity! O God, what consternation will the bare words, Judgment, Hell, Eternity, strike into the souls of poor worldlings!
I.
We must die. Sooner or later we must all die. In every age houses and cities are filled with new inhabitants, and their predecessors are consigned to the grave.
We are born but to die–born with a halter, as it were, about our necks. However long, then, our life may be, a day, an hour, will come which will be our last, and this hour is already determined.
I thank Thee, O God, for the patience with which Thou hast borne with me. Oh, that I had died rather than have ever offended Thee! But since Thou givest me time to repair the past, make known to me what Thou requirest of me, and I will obey Thee in all things.
In a few years neither I who write nor thou who readest will be living on this earth. As we have heard the bell toll for others, so will others one day hear it toll for us. As we now read the names of others inscribed in the lists of the dead, so will others read our names.
In a word, there is no alternative; we must all die. And, what is more terrible, we can die but once; and if once lost, we shall be lost for ever.
What will be your alarm when it is announced to you that you must receive the Last Sacraments, and that there is no time to be lost! Then will you see your relatives and friends leave your room, and none remain but your confessor and those who are to attend you in your last moments.
O Jesus, I will not wait until death to give myself to Thee. Thou hast said that Thou knowest not how to reject the soul that seeks Thee: Seek and you shall find (Matt. vii. 7).
Now, therefore, O Jesus, do I seek Thee; grant that I may find Thee. I love Thee, O infinite Goodness! Thee alone do I desire, and besides Thee, nothing more.
In the midst of his schemes and worldly projects the man of the world shall hear it said to him: “My brother, you are fatally ill, and must prepare to die.” He would wish to put his accounts in order; but, alas! the terror and confusion which agitate him render him incapable of doing anything.
Whatever he sees or hears adds to his pain and distress. All worldly things are now thorns to him: the remembrance of past pleasures, his vanities, his successes, the friends who have withdrawn him from God, vain apparel; all are thorns, and all alarm and torment him.
What will be his terror when he reflects: “In a short time I shall be no more; and I know not whether I shall be happy, or miserable, for eternity!” O God, what consternation will the bare words, Judgment, Hell, Eternity, strike into the souls of poor dying worldlings!
My Redeemer, I believe that Thou hast died for me. From Thy precious Blood do I hope for salvation. I love Thee, O infinite Goodness! And I am grieved for having offended Thee. O Jesus, my Hope, my Love, have pity on me.
II.
Consider that poor worldling now seized with his last illness. He who but a little while ago went about slandering, threatening, and ridiculing others, is suddenly struck down and deprived of his strength and bodily senses, so that he can no longer speak, or see, or hear.
Alas! the unhappy man thinks now no more of his worldly projects, or his schemes of vanity; the thought of the account which he must soon render to God alone occupies his mind. His relatives are weeping and sighing, or in sad silence around him, and his confessor is there to assist him.
Physicians consult together. Everything increases his alarm. In such a state, he thinks no longer of his amusements; he thinks only of the news which has been brought him–his malady is fatal!
But there is no help for it, and in this state of confusion, in this tempest of pain, affliction, and fear, he must prepare himself to depart out of this world. But how is he to prepare himself in so short a time and his mind so troubled? But it matters not! There is no remedy; he must depart! What is done is done!
O God, what shall my end be? No, I desire not to die in so great uncertainty as to my salvation. I will change my life. O Jesus! help me, for I am resolved to love Thee henceforward with my whole heart. Unite me to Thyself, and never suffer me to b
e separated from Thee.
Spiritual Reading
PRAYER, ITS POWER
III–GOD IS ALWAYS READY TO HEAR OUR PRAYER
St. Bernardine of Sienna says that Prayer is a faithful ambassador, well known to the King of Heaven, and having access to His audience chamber, and able by his importunity to induce the merciful Heart of the King to grant every aid to us His wretched creatures, groaning in the midst of our conflicts and miseries in this valley of tears. Isaias also assures us, that as soon as the Lord hears our prayers He is moved with compassion towards us, and does not leave us to cry long to Him, but instantly replies, and grants us what we ask: Weeping, thou shalt not weep; he will surely have pity upon thee: at the voice of thy cry as soon as he shall hear, he will answer thee (Is. xxx. 19). In another place He complains of us by the mouth of Jeremias: Am I become a wilderness to Israel, or a lateward springing land? Why then have my people said, we are revolted, we will come to thee no more? (Jer. ii. 31). Why do you say that you will no more have recourse to Me? Has My mercy become to you a barren land, which can yield you no fruits of grace? or a tardy soil, which yields its fruit too late? So has our loving Lord assured us that He never neglects to hear us, and to hear us instantly when we pray; and so does He reproach those who neglect to pray through diffidence of being heard.
If God were to allow us to present our petitions to Him once a month, even this would be a great favour. The kings of the earth give audience a few times a year, but God gives continual audience. St. Chrysostom writes that God is always waiting to hear our prayers, and that a case never occurred when He neglected to hear a petition offered to Him with the proper dispositions. And again, he says that when we pray to God, before we have finished recounting to Him our petitions, He has already heard us: “It is always obtained, even while we are yet praying.” We even have the like promise from God: As they are yet speaking I will hear (Is. lxv. 24). The Lord, says David, stands near to everyone who prays, to console, to hear, and to save him: The Lord is nigh to all them that call upon him; to all that call upon him in truth (that is, as they ought). He will do the will of them that fear him; and he will hear their prayer and will save them (Ps. cxliv. 18, 19). It was in this that Moses gloried, saying: There is no other nation so great, that has gods so nigh them, as our God is present to all our petitions (Deut. iv. 7). The gods of the Gentiles were deaf to those who invoked them, for they were wretched fabrications, which could do nothing. But our God, Who is Almighty, is not deaf to our prayers, but always stands near the man who prays, ready to grant him all the graces which he asks: In what day soever I shall call upon thee, behold I shall know that thou art my God (Ps. lv. 10). Lord, says the Psalmist, hereby do I know that Thou art my God, all goodness and mercy, in that, whenever I have recourse to Thee, Thou dost instantly help me.
IV–THE POWER OF PRAYER TO OBTAIN GREAT THINGS FOR US.
We are so poor that we have nothing; but if we pray we are no longer poor. If we are poor, God is rich; and God, as the Apostle says, is all liberality to him that calls for His aid: Rich unto all who call upon Him (Rom. x. 12). Since therefore (as St. Augustine exhorts us), we have to do with a Lord of infinite power and infinite riches, let us not go to Him for little and valueless things, but let us ask some great thing of Him: “You seek from the Almighty–seek something great.” If a man went to a king to ask some trumpery coin, like a farthing, methinks that man would but insult the king. On the other hand, we honour God, we honour His mercy, and His liberality, when, though we see how miserable we are, and how unworthy of any kindness, we yet ask for great graces, trusting in the goodness of God, and in His faithfulness to His promises of granting to the man who prays whatever grace he asks: You shall ask whatsoever you will, and it shall be done unto you (Jo. xv. 7). St. Mary Magdalen de Pazzi said that “God feels Himself so honoured and is so delighted when we ask for His grace, that He is, in a certain sense, grateful to us; because when we do this we seem to open to Him a way to do us a kindness, and to satisfy His nature, which is to do good to all. “And let us be sure that, when we seek God’s grace, He always gives us more than we ask: If any of you want wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men abundantly, and upbraideth not (James i. 5). Thus speaks St. James, to show us that God is not like men, parsimonious of His goods. Men, though rich and liberal, when they give alms, are always somewhat niggardly, and generally give less than what is asked of them, because their wealth, however great it be, is always finite, so that the more they give the less they have. But God, when He is asked, gives His good things abundantly, that is, with a generous hand, always giving more than is asked, because His wealth is infinite, and the more He gives the more He has to give: For thou, O Lord, art sweet and mild; and plenteous in mercy to all that call upon thee (Ps. lxxxv. 5).
On this point, then, we have to fix all our attention, namely, to pray with confidence, feeling sure that by Prayer all the treasures of Heaven are thrown open to us. “Let us attend to this,” says St. Chrysostom, “and we shall open Heaven to ourselves.” Prayer is a treasure; he who asks most receives most. St. Venture says that every time a man has recourse to God by fervent Prayer he gains good things that are of more value than the whole world: “A man gains any day more by devout prayer than the whole world is worth.” Some devout souls spend a great deal of time in reading, and in meditating, but pay little attention to petition. There is no doubt that Spiritual Reading and Meditation on the Eternal Truths are very useful things; “but”, says St. Augustine, “it is of much more use to pray.” By reading and meditating we learn our duty; but by Prayer we obtain the grace to do it. “It is better to pray than to read: by reading we know what we ought to do; by prayer we receive what we ask.” What is the use of knowing our duty and then not doing it, but to make us more guilty in God’s sight? Read and meditate as we like, we shall never satisfy our obligations, unless we ask of God the grace to fulfil them.
And, therefore, as St. Isidore observes, the devil is never more busy to distract us with the thoughts of worldly cares than when he perceives us praying and asking God for grace: “Then mostly does the devil insinuate thoughts, when he sees a man praying.” And why? Because the enemy sees that at no other time do we gain so many treasures of heavenly goods as when we pray. This is the chief fruit of Mental Prayer, to ask God for the graces which we need for perseverance and for eternal salvation; and chiefly for this reason is it that Mental Prayer is morally necessary for the soul, to enable it to preserve itself in the grace of God. For if a person neglects in the time of Meditation to ask for the help necessary for perseverance he will not do so at any other time; for without Meditation he will not think of asking for it, and will not even think of the necessity of asking for it. On the other hand, he who makes his Meditation every day will easily see the needs of his soul, its dangers, and the necessity for his praying; and so he will pray, and will obtain the graces which will enable him to persevere and save his soul. Father Segneri said of himself that when he began to meditate he aimed rather at exciting affections than at making petitions. But when he came to know the immense utility of Prayer, he more and more applied himself, in his long mental prayer, to making petitions.
I will cry like a young swallow, said the devout King Ezechias (Is. xxxviii. 14). The young of the swallow do nothing but cry to their mother for help and food; so should we all do, if we would preserve our life of grace. We should be always crying to God for aid to avoid the death of sin, and to advance in His holy love. Father Rodriguez relates that the Ancient Fathers who were our first instructors in the spiritual life held a conference to determine which was the exercise most useful and most necessary for salvation; and that they determined it was to repeat over and over again the short prayer of David, Incline unto my aid, O God (Ps. lxix. 2). “This,” says Cassian, “is what everyone ought to do who wishes to be saved: he ought to be always saying, My God, help me! My God, help me!” We ought to do this the first thing when we awake in the morning; and then to continue doing it in all our needs, and when attending to our business, whether spiritual or temporal; and most especially when we find ourselves troubled by any temptation or passion. St. Bonaventure says that at times we obtain a grace by a short prayer sooner than by many other good works: “Sometimes a man can soon obtain by a short prayer what he would with difficulty obtain by pious works.” St. Ambrose says that he who prays while he is praying obtains what he asks, because the very act of prayer is the same as receiving: He who asks of God, while he asks receives; for to ask is to receive.” Hence St. Chrysostom wrote that “there is nothing more powerful than a man who prays,” because such a one is made partaker of the power of God. To arrive at perfection, says St. Bernard, we must meditate and pray: by Meditation we see what we want; by Prayer we receive what we want. “Let us mount up by Meditation and Prayer: the one points out what may be deficient, the other obtains it.”
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, to save one’s soul without Prayer is most difficult, and (as we have seen) in the ordinary course of God’s Providence, even impossible. But by praying our salvation is made secure, and very easy. It is not necessary in order to save our souls to go among the heathen, and give up our life as martyrs. Nor is it necessary, like the hermits, to retire into the desert, and eat nothing but herbs. What does it cost us to say, My God, help me! Lord, assist me! Have mercy on me! Is there anything more easy than this? And this little will be enough to save us, if we will be diligent in doing it. St. Laurence Justinian specially exhorts us to oblige ourselves to say a prayer at least when we begin any action: “We must endeavour to offer a prayer at least in the beginning of every work.” Cassian attests that the principal exhortation of the Ancient Fathers was to have recourse to God with short but frequent prayers. St. Bernard says: “Let no one undervalue his prayer, for God does not undervalue it … He will give either what we ask or what He knows to be better”. And let us understand that if we do not pray we have no excuse, because the grace of Prayer is given to everyone. It is in our power to pray whenever we will, as David says of himself: With me is prayer to the God of my life; I will say to God, thou art my support (Ps. xli. 9). On this point I shall later speak at length, and I will make it quite clear that God gives to all men the grace of Prayer in order that thereby they may obtain every help, and even more than they need, for keeping the Divine Law and for persevering till death. At present I will only say that if we are not saved the whole fault will be ours; and we shall have to answer for our own failure because we did not pray.
Evening Meditation
THE PRACTICE OF THE LOVE OF JESUS CHRIST
“Charity hopeth all things”
HE THAT LOVES JESUS CHRIST HOPES FOR ALL THINGS FROM HIM
I.
Charity hopeth all things. St. Thomas, with the Master of the Sentences, defines Christian Hope to be a “sure expectation of eternal happiness.” Its certainty arises from the infallible promise of God to give eternal life to His faithful servants. Now Charity, by taking away sin, at the same time takes away all obstacles to our obtaining the happiness of the Blessed; hence the greater our Charity the greater also and firmer is our Hope; Hope, on the other hand, can in no way interfere with the purity of love, because, according to the observation of St. Denis the Areopagite, love tends naturally to union with the object beloved; or, as St. Augustine asserts in stronger terms, love itself is like a chain of gold that links together the hearts of the lover and the loved. “Love is as it were a kind of bond uniting two together.” And as this union can never be effected at a distance, the person that loves always longs for the presence of the object of his love. The Sacred Spouse languished in the absence of her Beloved, and entreated her companions to acquaint Him with her sorrow, that He might come and console her with His presence: I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem, if you find my beloved, that you tell him that I languish with love (Cant. v. 8). A soul that loves Jesus Christ exceedingly cannot but desire and hope, as long as she remains on earth, to go without delay and be united to her beloved Lord in Heaven.
Thus we see that the desire to go and see God in Heaven, not so much for the delight we shall experience in loving God, as for the pleasure we shall afford God by loving Him, is pure and perfect love. Neither is the joy of the Blessed in Heaven any hindrance to the purity of their love; such joy is inseparable from their love; but they take far more satisfaction in their love of God than in the joy that it affords them. Someone will, perhaps, say: But the desire of a reward is rather a love of concupiscence than a love of friendship. We must therefore make a distinction between temporal rewards promised by men, and the eternal rewards of Paradise promised by God to those who love Him: the rewards given by man are distinct from and independent of their own persons, since they do not bestow themselves, but only their goods, when they would remunerate others; on the contrary, the principal reward which God gives to the Blessed is the gift of Himself: I am thy reward exceeding great (Gen. xv.1). Hence to desire Heaven is the same thing as to desire God, Who is our last end.
|
|
|
| Twitter suspends account of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò |
|
Posted by: Stone - 07-16-2023, 06:09 AM - Forum: Archbishop Viganò
- Replies (1)
|
|
Twitter suspends account of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò
The account is labeled 'suspended' and all posts hidden, an action which Viganò described to LifeSiteNews’ John-Henry Westen as 'shameful.'
![[Image: IMG_3909-e1686749837991-810x500.jpeg]](https://www.lifesitenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/IMG_3909-e1686749837991-810x500.jpeg)
Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò
Jul 15, 2023
(LifeSiteNews) — Twitter, the social media platform that has boasted free speech protections since coming under the control of Elon Musk, has suspended the account of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò.
On Saturday afternoon, word began to spread of the incident with followers demanding an explanation from owner Elon Musk and calling for reinstatement of the account.
The account is labeled “suspended” and all posts hidden, an action which Viganò described to LifeSiteNews’ John-Henry Westen as “shameful.”
Deacon Nick Donnelly first announced the “bad news” on Twitter, writing that the platform “has suspended the account of the courageous Archbishop Vigano [and] silenced one of the few voices amongst the Catholic bishops speaking out against the globalist agenda.”
|
|
|
|
| How the WEF response to ‘climate change’ is virtually the same as their COVID approach |
|
Posted by: Stone - 07-14-2023, 06:47 AM - Forum: Great Reset
- No Replies
|
|
How the World Economic Forum response to ‘climate change’ is virtually the same as their COVID approach
The end goal in both cases is to develop the technological foundation to track and trace every person and object on the planet in order to incentivize, coerce, or otherwise manipulate individual human behavior.
![[Image: Screenshot-2023-07-13-11.45.54-810x500.png]](https://www.lifesitenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Screenshot-2023-07-13-11.45.54-810x500.png)
Ma Jun, director of the Chinese NGO Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs
Twitter / Screenshot
Thu Jul 13, 2023
(The Sociable [slightly adapted]) — The World Economic Forum’s (WEF) carrot or stick approach to climate policies is virtually the same as it was for COVID.
From COVID contact tracing and vaccine passports to carbon footprint tracking and measuring, the end goal is practically identical – to develop the technological foundation to track and trace every person and object on the planet in order to incentivize, coerce, or otherwise manipulate individual human behavior.
Take the latest WEF Annual Meeting of the New Champions, aka “Summer Davos,” that took place in China last month as the latest example of unelected globalists trying to nudge people towards changing their behavior by tracking the carbon footprints of the products they use.
Speaking during a session called “How to Stay Within Planetary Boundaries – Carrot or Stick?” Ma Jun, the director of the Chinese NGO Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs, said that the Chinese people were aware of tangible things like air and water pollution that they could experience with their own senses, but were less aware of climate issues (i.e. their carbon footprints), which were less tangible, but that measuring carbon footprints could be the solution.
“In China, people’s awareness on the ecological side and on the pollution control side is much higher than the climate side,” said Jun, adding, “On the climate side, it’s still not quite there. We’re still lagging behind, say, regions like Europe, which can have such a high level of public awareness, which can support very, very tough public policy on the climate side.”
China had one of the toughest, most Orwellian responses to COVID while simultaneously rounding up its Uighur population for internment in “re-education camps,” but this man is saying that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can’t support tough policies on climate?
At any rate, Jun went on to explain, “In China, the government have created this 30-60 commitment, but people haven’t really linked their daily lives with that, so how do we create those links?
“It’s not like smog; it’s not as palpable as the water pollution and air pollution, so we need to create those [links].”
To further his point, Jun held up a cup of water to explain how its carbon footprint could be tracked and traced from cradle to the gate and on to the grave.
He said that with emerging technology, people could take a picture of a cup and find all kinds of information about its entire life cycle while also measuring its carbon footprint.
WEF founder Klaus Schwab predicted this in his 2017 book “The Fourth Industrial Revolution.”
There, Schwab wrote, “Any package, pallet or container can now be equipped with a sensor, transmitter or radio frequency identification (RFID) tag that allows a company to track where it is as it moves through the supply chain – how it is performing, how it is being used, and so on.”
“In the near future, similar monitoring systems will also be applied to the movement and tracking of people,” he added.
Schwab’s words would turn prophetic during the pandemic.
![[Image: Digital-Identity-Chart.png]](https://www.lifesitenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Digital-Identity-Chart.png)
Source: World Economic Forum
What started with digital contact tracing and surveillance in 2020 quickly morphed into vaccine passports, which paved the technological framework to push forward digital identity schemes by way of a trojan horse in early 2021 – all of which were championed by the WEF and its partners.
Vaccine passports, according to the WEF, “serve as a form of digital identity” while a “digital identity determines what products, services and information we can access – or, conversely, what is closed off to us.”
While Schwab mentioned RFID chips as a technology by which people and goods would be tracked and traced, Jun said that carbon footprint tracking could be done with smartphones, AI, big data, and Internet of Things (IoT) devices.
“We need to create a searchable, user-friendly catalogue and link that with new tools, like take a picture to understand the embedded carbon, so next time it’s not just about in general what kind of carbon footprint of this cup, but very, very specific – this specific brand, even the specific batch of this,” said Jun at this year’s Summer Davos.
“If we link that with AI technology, and then big data, and particularly Internet of Things, there are ways for us to come up with instant measurement and reporting of the carbon footprint.
“I hope that through this we can help people to really make different choices,” he added.
But when the carrot fails to work, the stick will come down heavy.
Spare the rod, spoil the child – only this time the child is you and me, and the rod is a social credit system linked to your digital ID and Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) that can be programmed and turned off with a virtual switch.
Presently, banks and ecommerce platforms like Alibaba are beginning to implement carbon footprint trackers as a means to simply measure carbon footprints, but a future where measurement turns into punishment may not be far off.
Speaking at the WEF’s annual meeting in 2022, Alibaba president J. Michael Evans announced that the Chinese multinational e-commerce platform would soon be launching individual carbon footprint trackers in an attempt to change people’s shopping and travel behaviors.
The individual carbon footprint tracker looks to operate similarly to the Chinese Communist Party’s social credit system by rewarding people who “do the right thing” while punishing those who “do the wrong thing” – carrot versus stick.
“At a billion consumers, we’re developing, through technology, an ability for consumers to measure their own carbon footprint,” Evans told the unelected globalists at Davos 2022 during the “Strategic Outlook: Responsible Consumption” session.
“What does that mean?” he went on to say.
“That’s where they’re traveling, how they are traveling, what are they eating, what are they consuming on the platform.
“So, individual carbon footprint tracker, stay tuned! We don’t have it operational yet, but this is something we’re working on.”
An individual carbon footprint tracker doesn’t have to be part of a social credit system – it can be used by shoppers and travelers simply as a way to know how much they are consuming for their own purposes, but it’s a slippery slope towards being a social crediting tool.
Measuring individual carbon footprint is one thing; however, if governments mandate the tracker as a matter of policy for punishing or rewarding behavior, then it becomes yet another tool for enforcing a system of social credit.
And if programmable CBDCs and digital IDs become widely accepted, it would be very easy to turn carbon footprint measurement into carbon footprint enforcement.
After all, what would be the purpose of setting up a system to track people’s carbon footprints if it wouldn’t be used to tax or otherwise punish those who do “the wrong thing?”
In China, citizens are given a credit score based on their online and offline behavior. It’s a system that rewards “good” behavior like spending time with the elderly while punishing “bad” behavior like protesting the government or spending too much time playing videogames.
When “trust” is broken in one area, restrictions are placed everywhere – meaning citizens who commit even minor infractions can be blacklisted from traveling, going to restaurants, renting a home, or even having insurance. This has happened to over 30 million citizens, according to Chinese State-run media.
The ways in which this type of social credit enforcement can be carried out are truly dystopian under the current technocratic takeover of society known as the great reset, as it’s called in its present manifestation.
Go over your carbon limit, and you may be fined at the least, or you may not be able to travel, buy meat, adjust your thermostat, or worse.
Reprinted with permission from The Sociable.
|
|
|
|
| Biden FDA approves first over-the-counter birth control pill with no age limit |
|
Posted by: Stone - 07-14-2023, 06:34 AM - Forum: Abortion
- No Replies
|
|
Biden FDA approves first over-the-counter birth control pill with no age limit
The FDA has approved Opill, a progestin-based contraceptive with abortifacient potential, to be sold without a prescription starting next year.
![[Image: FDA-810x500.jpg]](https://www.lifesitenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/FDA-810x500.jpg)
Shutterstock
Jul 13, 2023
(LifeSiteNews [slightly adapted]) — The U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) announced Thursday that it has approved the first over-the-counter birth control pill, which starting next year will be available regardless of age.
The Associated Press reports that the FDA has approved Opill, manufactured by Irish company Perrigo, to be sold without a prescription. The pill, which is meant to be taken at the same time every day, uses progestin to block sperm from reaching the cervix, according to the manufacturer. The move follows a unanimous vote in May by a panel of outside advisers to the agency.
“This is really a transformation in access to contraceptive care [sic],” said Ibis Reproductive Health president Kelly Blanchard. “Hopefully this will help people overcome those barriers that exist now.”
“Common side effects of the pill include bleeding, headaches, dizziness, nausea and cramps, according to the FDA,” the AP reports. “The label also cautions that certain drugs can interfere with Opill’s effectiveness, including medications for seizures, HIV and hypertension.” The report adds that the pill could encourage the growth of tumors in women with a history of breast cancer.
Prior to that May vote, the FDA had expressed concern that the company’s instructions were not sufficiently clear for women with medical complications, and that in one of Perrigo’s studies 30% women reported taking more pills than were actually distributed for the study, throwing off the company’s data about the results.
Progestin-based contraceptives like Opill and Plan B are commonly promoted as alternatives to abortion because they supposedly prevent pregnancy rather than end it. In January, the FDA amended Plan B’s label to “clarify” that it was not an abortifacient. But such drugs do in fact have abortifacient potential, and whether they prevent conception or implantation depends on when they are taken relative to a woman’s cycle.
“If Plan B is taken five to two days before egg release is due to happen, the interference with the LH signal prevents a woman from releasing an egg, no fertilization happens, and no embryo is formed,” Dr. Donna Harrison of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists explains, citing numerous studies. However, if the pill is taken during the “two-day window in which embryos can form but positive pregnancy tests don’t occur,” studies indicate it “has a likely embryocidal effect in stopping pregnancy.”
Further confusing the issue is the manipulation of semantics by activists in the medical establishment. The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), a purportedly impartial medical authority that in reality is heavily pro-abortion, redefined “conception” in the 1960s to refer to implantation rather than fertilization, for the purpose of making contraception more culturally acceptable.
Even so, a 2011 survey found that most OB/GYNs continued to say life begins at fertilization, not implantation, and a 2019 survey found that 96% of biologists “affirmed that a human’s life begins at fertilization.”
With last year’s overturn of Roe v. Wade allowing states to directly ban abortion, which fourteen states have done so far, left-wing activists have identified easier distribution of abortion and birth control pills as one of the most effective ways to preserve abortion “access,” even at the expense of patient safety.
Under the Biden administration, the FDA has eliminated the requirement that abortion pills only be dispensed in-person to the women taking them, and the Biden Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has declared that abortion pills may be freely mailed across the country, despite the fact that a provision of a 150-year-old law called the Comstock Act that expressly says the opposite.
A 2020 open letter from a coalition of pro-life groups to then-FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn noted that the FDA’s own adverse reporting system says the “abortion pill has resulted in over 4,000 reported adverse events since 2000, including 24 maternal deaths. Adverse events are notoriously underreported to the FDA, and as of 2016, the FDA only requires abortion pill manufacturers to report maternal deaths.”
Pro-lifers warn that with the Biden administration completely eliminating requirements that abortion pills be taken under any medical supervision or with medical support close by, those events are certain to increase.
The FDA has been accused of putting political ideology over sound medicine on other issues, as well, from approving COVID-19 shots for children to gutting restrictions on sexually-active homosexuals donating blood.
|
|
|
|
| Sorrowful Heart of Mary Newsletter - Summer 2023 |
|
Posted by: Stone - 07-13-2023, 01:07 PM - Forum: Sorrowful Heart of Mary
- No Replies
|
|
Summer 2023
Dear Friends of the Cross!
“We have to build while the others are demolishing,” preached Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. How we long for a good Pope in Rome! How we long for bishops to stand fearlessly for the integral Catholic Faith, as Abp. Lefebvre did! Bishops who are not compromising with Vatican II, the New Profession of Faith, the new Sacraments, the New Code of Canon Law, and the New Mass! How we long for a resurgence of the Catholic Faith of Tradition in Rome and the Social Reign of the Heart of Jesus in every nation! “Thy Kingdom come, on earth as it is in Heaven!”
In the ongoing Battle, there’s not a single priest of the Catholic Resistance who desires to be “independent,” working without a bishop and laboring totally on his own. This is abnormal and undesirable for any Catholic, let alone the priest. But, when Conciliar Rome slipped into apostasy after the Second Vatican Council, did Abp. Lefebvre expect to be found standing alone, “rogue,” “disobedient,” “dissident”? Far from it! Did all those priests expelled by their bishops in the 1960’s and 70’s for refusing the New Mass and filthy Catechisms desire to be “independent” and “on their own”? Far from it!
But when the authorities abandon their duties and abuse their position by inflicting unjust punishments and try to coerce their subjects to accept compromises against the Catholic Faith, then they have no choice but to prudently separate themselves from these abusers and continue feeding the flock and fight for the Faith. This was the wise advice of Abp. Lefebvre: “It is a strict duty of every priest who wishes to remain Catholic, to separate himself from this Conciliar Church.” (Spiritual Journey, Abp. Lefebvre, p.13). If this applies to Roman authorities imposing Vatican II and the New Mass on their subjects, the same applies for those bishops demanding compromise, however slight it may be, with Vatican II and the New Mass as a matter of obedience.
Thus, every single priest of the Society of St. Pius X has been in the position of having to make a choice, since 2012. Either, he conforms to the new doctrinal direction which accepts that Vatican II can “enlighten and deepen the understanding of Tradition” and that the New Mass and New Sacraments are “legitimately promulgated”, or he resists this abuse of authority and is consequently silenced or cast out as a rebel. Unfortunately, most priests conformed to the new orientation since 2012, as did thousands of clergy and religious after the Second Vatican Council, in the 1960’s and 70’s.
The same applies to bishops of the False Resistance who give the appearance of standing with Abp. Lefebvre, but insist on the following: that the New Mass “miracles” be believed; the New Mass can give grace and nourish your Faith; that “it's not the time for seminaries, structure and organization;” that the Faith can be taught in silence; and that the true Catholic Resistance is nothing more than disgruntled “Resistants,” who must put away the “toys” of expecting a Catholic resurgence in the pattern of Abp. Lefebvre. These positions are in direct opposition to everything the Archbishop stood for! These bishops do not represent the true Catholic Resistance! They are not the Catholic Resistance! They admit this fact out of their own mouths!
On the contrary, Abp. Lefebvre condemned the New Mass and the errors of Vatican II, in no uncertain terms! He insisted the New Mass is sterile and cannot nourish one’s Faith but rather erodes it! He energetically defended the urgent need for seminaries and founded five of them throughout the world, himself! He established veritable oases of structure and organization in the retreat houses, parishes, missions, schools, universities and convents he founded! He did not restrict his preaching and letters to his chosen few hidden “under a bushel,” but fearlessly preached the Faith and wrote letters to the Popes and the entire world! He called for the crusade of the large family, the generous sacrifices of seminarians, sisters, brothers, and priests to rebuild the Church! Even in his eighties, he traveled the world strengthening the Faith and administering Confirmation to thousands!
Some may object: “You can’t expect everyone to be an Abp. Lefebvre, he was unique and it's unrealistic to expect his bishops to do the same!” This is true, if one speaks of his gentlemanly meekness, his sanctity, and fruitful apostolate as a missionary in Africa. No one can easily match such greatness, sanctity and experience. But the duty of publicly preaching the integral Catholic Faith was imposed by Christ Himself on all the bishops of the Church! “Go, Preach to all nations!” The duty of publicly condemning heresy, scandals against the Faith, compromise, and error are commanded by the Divine Savior Himself! If they fail to do so, He will require the blood of the stray sheep at their hands! (Ezekiel 3:18).
So when it is said: “You Resistance priests are independent, you have no bishop. You are rebels!” What can we say but: “Please show us even one bishop who is not compromising with Vatican II and the New Mass. Please point out one that openly condemns heresy and error and never compromises with it. Please give the information to contact one who stands with the unchanging Magisterium of the Church, like Abp. Lefebvre, but also openly opposes the public scandals of the Modernist Popes, prelates, and Conciliar Magisterium.” Indeed, it should be his spiritual sons, whom he consecrated, who ought to be doing these things. But unfortunately, every one of them has compromised with Vatican II and the New Mass in some way, since 2012, even if by silence. [N.B: The Thuc or De Costa line bishops are dubious and out of the question].
“But you expect perfect bishops and that’s unrealistic, not all bishops in history have been saints.” That is true, not many have been saints. In fact, “Hell is paved with the skulls of bishops,” said St. John Chrysostom! The Novus Ordo bishops may have some excuse due to their lack of formation, ignorance and modernist training.
But the sons of Abp. Lefebvre have no excuse! He formed his seminarians in the good soil of Tradition and in the solidity of the counter-Revolution. They were watered in the sound doctrine of the anti-Liberal Popes and their roots struck deeply in the life of prayer and spirituality of Holy Mother Church. So to expect the same anti-Liberal position from them should be no surprise. What is surprising is their lack of it!
Abp. Lefebvre once said that the faithful have a right to know where their priests stand. They have a right to hear sound doctrine in their preaching and to know that their priests are not evolutionists, ecumenical, modernists or compromisers with Vatican II and the New Mass. The same holds for the bishops.
This is not a call for condemning anyone nor of overly-scrutinizing the least mistake of the authorities, but rather an appeal for all to pray and do penance for them. We must beg the Hearts of Jesus and Mary for Rome to return to Tradition and our bishops and clergy come back to where they once stood, by publicly maintaining the doctrinal position of Abp. Lefebvre. He not only said, but did the Truth. Abp. Lefebvre was a pattern for all shepherds to imitate. He was one that Pope St. Pius X would have unhesitatingly canonized as a model for all clergy. The Archbishop is still a true model, but not the false caricature often portrayed of him as the ever smiling, meek and gentle bishop, to the exclusion of his other side which included his iron fist, the episcopal lion that roared the Truth, and the boxer for the defense of Catholic Tradition, that he truly was!
“Prudent as a serpent, but simple as a dove” defines his character and wisdom. So, if we find ourselves out in the cold, let us at least be found standing by the Sorrowful Mother at the foot of the Cross! The first Pope and bishops fled away in that hour, but She remained with Her Divine Son, strong in Faith, like an immovable pillar, knowing without hesitation that the day of the Resurrection would come. May She inflame us with love for Jesus Crucified and an unshakeable hope that God will grant us, once again, Popes and bishops who will lead and feed the flock! “The gates of Hell shall not prevail!”
In Christ the King,
Fr. David Hewko
|
|
|
|
| Lancet Paper On Post-Vax Autopsies Nuked After Attracting 'Special Attention' |
|
Posted by: Stone - 07-13-2023, 05:49 AM - Forum: Health
- No Replies
|
|
Lancet Paper On Post-Vax Autopsies Nuked After Attracting 'Special Attention': Dr. Peter McCullough
![[Image: peter%20mccullough.jpg?itok=DogZ8TzV]](https://assets.zerohedge.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_mobile/public/inline-images/peter%20mccullough.jpg?itok=DogZ8TzV)
ZH | JUL 11, 2023
A pre-print review of autopsy data of more than 300 post-Covid-19 vaccination deaths was removed by the Lancet within 24 hours of its initial submission, according to cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough, the paper’s leading author and prominent COVID vaccine skeptic.
"The government narrative is still that people do not die after COVID-19 vaccination. Now we have the largest series of autopsies, and the autopsies really are incontrovertible," he told the Epoch Times.
The paper was uploaded to the Lancet's pre-print website on July 6, only to be taken down with a note implying that the study violated the medical journal's "screening criteria."
"Pre-print servers go through a check to make sure all the elements of the paper are there, but it is not peer-reviewed by external doctors. And the preprint server simply offers people a chance to look at the data themselves and decide," McCullough told the Times Jan Jekielek. "I think that’s perfectly fair to look at the tables, look at the figures."
"Obviously, we struck a very important gap in knowledge and the world needed to know the results."
The paper was co-authored by Yale epidemiologist Dr. Harvey Risch and their colleagues at the Wellness Company, a Florida-based medical group.
The study looked at 678 published papers, 44 of which contained the 325 autopsy cases. They then used a "blind adjudication" process by which three physicians independently review all the deaths and determine whether the Covid-19 vaccine caused, or contributed significantly, to the deaths.
"We use the standard called PRISMA, where we searched for every paper possible. We sorted through hundreds and hundreds of manuscripts because deaths can be reported as different clinical syndromes are coming out after the vaccine," said McCullough.
"There were deaths where there was an auto accident or a suicide. There were some cases in nursing homes where people are on hospice and it looked like they were in their last days of life. We just couldn’t attribute it to the vaccine," he added. "But the striking cases were people who were perfectly healthy, who had no other medical problems. The only new thing in their life was a vaccine, and then they died with an obvious syndrome like a blood clot, or heart damage, or myocarditis."
"This is important because when these papers were originally published, the authors didn’t know the full breadth of safety profiles of the vaccine," McCullough continued. "Initially there were some autopsies from Germany [where] people died of blood clots shooting to lungs. The authors concluded that it wasn’t vaccine because at that time they didn’t know the vaccine causes blood clots, but we do now."
Quote:To that end, a total of 240 deaths (73.9 percent) were identified as directly due to or significantly contributed to by COVID-19 vaccination.
The most implicated organ system in COVID-19 vaccine-associated death was the cardiovascular system (53 percent), followed by the hematological system (17 percent), the respiratory system (8 percent), and multiple organ systems (7 percent), according to the paper. The mean time from vaccination to death was 14.3 days, with most deaths occurring within a week from the most recent jab.
Without further detail from Lancet, it is hard to tell exactly in which way the study’s methodology might have failed to support its conclusions. On the other hand, Dr. McCullough said they used standard methodology and did reach realistic results. -Epoch Times
"We didn’t come up with an unrealistic number. We didn’t come up with 100 percent or zero percent of deaths were due to vaccines. We came up with a reasonable number that’s defensible," he said. "In the supplemental tables, people can go through every case and decide if they agree or disagree, and that’s fair. That should be up on the pre-print server so the world can see it."
"The main thing people want is they want access to the data. They simply don’t want data censored off of the internet," he added. "We should have grand rounds on this. We should have broad internet discussions on it. People maybe want to discuss specific cases—maybe the authors [of the 44 papers] themselves want to look at it."
|
|
|
|
| St. Alphonsus Liguori: Daily Meditations for Sixth Week after Pentecost |
|
Posted by: Stone - 07-10-2023, 10:09 AM - Forum: Pentecost
- Replies (7)
|
|
St. Alphonsus Liguori: Daily Meditations for Sixth Week after Pentecost
Sixth Sunday after Pentecost
Morning Meditation
![[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRcLwVynCEfmQYHgqhhleX...Q&usqp=CAU]](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRcLwVynCEfmQYHgqhhleXd5ey6GrcB8RB1yQ&usqp=CAU)
OUR JOURNEY INTO ETERNITY.–WE ARE ONLY PILGRIMS ON THIS EARTH.
We have not here a lasting city, but we seek one that is to come. In this world we are not citizens, but pilgrims, for we are on our way to Eternity. Man shall go into the house of his eternity.
I.
We have not here a lasting city, but we seek one that is to come (Heb. xiii. 14). In this world we are not citizens, but pilgrims, for we are on our way to Eternity: Man shall go into the house of his eternity (Eccles. xii. 5).
Very soon, therefore, we shall have to leave this world. The body must soon go into the grave, and the soul into Eternity.
Would not that traveller be guilty of great folly, who should waste his time and his wealth in building himself a dwelling in a place he must soon leave?
O my God, my soul is eternal; I must, then, either enjoy Thee or lose Thee for Eternity.
In Eternity there are two places of abode–one overflowing with every delight, the other replete with every torment. And these delights and torments will be eternal. If the tree fall to the south, or to the north, in what place soever it shall fall there shall it be (Eccles. xi. 3). If the soul be saved, it will be happy forever; but if it fall into hell, it will remain there to weep and lament as long as God shall be God.
There is no middle state: either a king forever in Heaven, or forever a slave of Lucifer; either blessed forever in Paradise, or in despair forever in hell.
Which of these abodes will fall to the lot of each of us? That which each one voluntarily chooses. Man shall go–Ibit homo. He who goes to hell, goes of his own free will. Every one that is damned, is damned because he wills his own damnation.
O my Jesus, would that I had always loved Thee! Too late have I known Thee! Too late have I loved Thee! O Thou, the God of my heart, and the God that is my portion forever! (Ps. lxxii. 26).
II.
Every Christian, in order to live well, should always keep Eternity before his eyes. Oh, how well regulated is the life of that man who lives and sees all things in the light of Eternity!
If Heaven, Hell, and Eternity were even only doubtful things, surely we ought to do all in our power not to run the risk of being lost forever. But no; they are not doubtful things, but Articles of Faith.
To what will all the greatness of this world come? To a funeral; to a descent into the grave. Blessed in that hour is he who obtains eternal life!
O Jesus! Thou art my life, my riches, my love. Grant me a great desire to please Thee during the remainder of my life; and give me Thy assistance to fulfil it.
The thought of Eternity is sufficient to make a saint. St. Augustine called it the Great Thought. It is this thought that has sent so many young persons into cloisters, so many anchorites into deserts, and so many Martyrs to cruel deaths.
Father John of Avila converted a lady who was attached to the world, by only saying: Consider: Always and Forever!“
Oh, how much depends on the last moment of our lives! On our last breath depends an Eternity, either of happiness or of misery; a life of eternal bliss, or of eternal woe. Jesus Christ died upon the Cross, in order to secure for us His grace at this last moment.
My dear Redeemer, if then Thou hadst not died for me, I should have been lost forever! I thank Thee, O my Love! I confide in Thee and I love Thee!
Spiritual Reading
PRAYER, THE GREAT MEANS OF SALVATION.
I have published several spiritual works, the Visits to the Blessed Sacrament, The Passion of Jesus Christ, The Glories of Mary, and, besides, a work against the Materialists and Deists, with other devout little treatises. I have recently brought out a work on the Infancy of our Saviour entitled Novena for Christmas; and another entitled Preparation for Death, besides the one on the Eternal Maxims, most useful for meditation and sermons … But I do not think that I have written a more useful work than the present, in which I speak of prayer as a necessary, and a certain means of obtaining salvation, and all the graces which we require for that object. If it were in my power, I would distribute a copy of it to every Catholic in the world, in order to show him the absolute necessity of prayer for salvation.
I say this, because on the one hand I see that the absolute necessity of prayer is taught throughout the Holy Scriptures, and by all the Holy Fathers of the Church, while, on the other hand, I see that Christians are very careless in their practice of this great means of salvation. And, sadder still, I see that preachers take very little care to speak of it to their flocks, or confessors to their penitents; I see, moreover, that even the spiritual books now popular do not speak sufficiently of it; yet there is nothing which preachers, and confessors and spiritual books should insist upon with more warmth and energy than prayer; not but that they teach many excellent means of keeping ourselves in the grace of God, such as avoiding the occasions of sin, frequenting the Sacraments, resisting temptations, hearing the Word of God, meditation on the Eternal Truths, and other means–all of them, I admit, most useful; but, I say, what profit is there in sermons, meditations, and all the other means pointed out by masters of the spiritual life, if we forget to pray? Has not our Lord declared that He will grant His graces to no one who does not pray? Ask and ye shall receive. Without prayer, in the ordinary course of providence, all the meditations we make, all our resolutions, all our promises, will come to naught. If we do not pray, we shall be always unfaithful to the inspirations of God, and to the promises we make Him. Because, in order actually to do good, to conquer temptations, to practise virtues, and to observe God’s law, it is not enough to receive illumination from God, and to meditate and make resolutions, but we require, moreover, the actual assistance of God; and, as we shall see, He does not give this assistance except to those who pray, and pray with perseverance. The light we receive, and the considerations and good resolutions we make, are of use to incite us to the act of prayer when we are in danger and are tempted to transgress God’s law; for, then prayer will obtain for us God’s help, and we shall be preserved from sin; but if in such moments we do not pray, we shall be lost.
My intention in thus prefacing my book is, that my readers may thank God for giving them an opportunity, by means of this little book, to receive the grace of reflecting more deeply on the importance of prayer; for all adults who are saved, are ordinarily saved by this single means of grace. And therefore I ask my readers to thank God; for surely it is a great mercy when He gives the light and the grace to pray. I hope, then, that you, my beloved brother, after reading this little work, will never from this day forward, neglect to have continual recourse to God in prayer, whenever you are tempted to offend Him. If ever in times past you have had your conscience burdened with many sins, know that the cause of this has been your neglect of prayer, your not asking God for help to resist the temptations which assailed you. I pray you, therefore, to read my words again and again with the greatest attention; not because I write them, but because this book is a means which God offers you for the good of your salvation, thereby giving you to understand that He wishes you to be saved. And after having read it yourself, induce as many of your friends and neighbours as you can to read it also. Now let us begin in the Name of the Lord.
The Apostle writes to Timothy: I desire, therefore, first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions and thanksgivings be made (1 Tim ii. 1). St. Thomas explains that prayer is properly the lifting up of the soul to God. Petition is that particular kind of prayer which begs for determinate objects, but when the thing sought is indeterminate (as when we say, “Incline unto my aid, O God!”), it is called supplication. Obsecration is a solemn adjuration or representation of the grounds on which we dare to ask a favour; as when we say,” By Thy Cross and Passion, O Lord, deliver us !” Finally, thanksgiving is the returning of thanks for benefits received, whereby, says St. Thomas, we merit to receive greater favours. Prayer, in a strict sense, says the holy Doctor, means recourse to God; but in its general signification it includes all the kinds just enumerated. It is in this latter sense that the word is used in this book.
We will here treat:
1.–Of the Necessity of Prayer; the Power of Prayer, and the Conditions of Prayer;
2.–We will show that God gives the grace of Prayer to all men.*
*Only a part, but we think the most important part, of St. Alphonsus’ Treatise on Prayer will be given here. The entire Treatise is included in Vol III. Centenary Edition of the Saint’s works, which may be obtained from Editor of present work.–ED.
Evening Meditation
THE PRACTICE OF THE LOVE OF JESUS CHRIST.
” Charity beareth all things.”
HE THAT LOVES JESUS CHRIST BEARS ALL THINGS FOR HIM, AND ESPECIALLY ILLNESS, POVERTY, AND CONTEMPT.
I.
But wherefore does Almighty God load us with so many crosses, and take pleasure in seeing us afflicted, reviled, persecuted, and ill-treated by the world? Is He perchance, a tyrant, whose cruel disposition makes Him rejoice in our suffering? No; God is by no means a tyrant, nor cruel; He is all compassion and love towards us; suffice it to say that He has died for us. He indeed does rejoice at our suffering, because suffering is for our good; inasmuch as by suffering here we are released hereafter from the debt of punishment justly due from us to His Divine justice; He rejoices in our sufferings because they detach us from the sensual pleasures of this world: when a mother would wean her child she puts gall on the breast in order to create a dislike in the child; He rejoices in sufferings because we give Him, by our patience and resignation in bearing them, a token of our love; in fine, He rejoices in them, because they contribute to our increase of glory in Heaven. Such are the reasons for which the Almighty, in His compassion and love towards us, is pleased when we suffer.
I love Thee with my whole heart, O my Redeemer! I love Thee, my sovereign Good! I love Thee, my own Love, worthy of infinite love. I am grieved at any displeasure I have ever caused Thee, more than for any evil whatever. I promise Thee to receive with patience all the trials Thou mayest send me; but I look to Thee for help to be faithful to my promise, and especially to be enabled to bear in peace the sorrows of my last agony and death.
II.
Let us conclude. That we may be able to practise patience to advantage in all our tribulations, we must be fully persuaded that every trial comes from the hands of God, either directly, or indirectly through men; we must therefore render God thanks whenever we are beset with sorrows, and accept, with gladness of heart, of every event, prosperous or adverse, that proceeds from Him, knowing that all happens by His disposition and for our welfare: To them that love God all things work together unto good (Rom. viii. 28). In addition to this, it is well in our tribulations to glance a moment at that hell we formerly deserved: for assuredly all the pains of this life are incomparably less than the awful pains of hell. But above all, prayer, by which we gain the Divine assistance, is the great means by which we may suffer patiently all affliction, scorn, and contradictions, and is that which will furnish us with the strength we have not of ourselves. The Saints were persuaded of this; they recommended themselves to God, and so overcame every kind of torments and persecutions.
O Lord, I am fully persuaded that without suffering, and suffering with patience, I cannot win the crown of Paradise. David said: From him is my patience (Ps. lxi. 6). And I say the same; my patience in suffering must come from Thee. I make many resolutions to accept all tribulations in peace; but no sooner are trials at hand than I grow sad and alarmed; and if I suffer, I suffer without merit and without love, because I know not how to suffer them so as to please Thee. O my Jesus, through the merits of Thy patience in bearing so many afflictions for love of me, grant me the grace to bear crosses for the love of Thee!
O Mary, my Queen, vouchsafe to obtain for me a true resignation in all the anguish and trials that await me during life and at death.
|
|
|
|
| Pope Francis picks notorious pro-LGBT clerics to participate in October Synod on Synodality |
|
Posted by: Stone - 07-08-2023, 05:47 AM - Forum: Pope Francis
- No Replies
|
|
Pope Francis picks notorious pro-LGBT clerics to participate in October Synod on Synodality
The papal appointments for the October Synod on Synodality assembly include Cardinals McElroy of San Diego, Cupich of Chicago, and Gregory of Washington, D.C. and Father James Martin.
![[Image: pope-synod-team-810x500.jpg]](https://www.lifesitenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/pope-synod-team-810x500.jpg)
Pope Francis with leading members of the Secretariat of the Synod of Bishops
Facebook
Jul 7, 2023
VATICAN CITY (LifeSiteNews) — The list of participants for the October meeting of the Synod on Synodality has been released, with Pope Francis’ personal choices including Cardinals McElroy, Cupich, and Gregory and Father James Martin.
Issued July 7, the several-hundred strong list of participants for the upcoming 16th General Assembly of the Ordinary Synod of Bishops – or the Synod on Synodality – was distributed by the Vatican and the Synod press office. It is comprised of normal members, as governed by the Apostolic Constitution Episcopalis Communio, but also of the participants specifically appointed by Pope Francis.
As such, a differentiation can be observed between the delegates chosen by their own local churches or bishops’ conferences to participate in the Synod, and those personally picked by Pope Francis.
Whom has the Pope chosen?
There are fifty names among the Pope’s personal choices for voting members of the Synod. They include cardinals, bishops, priests, and religious sisters. Among the most notable of the papal picks are:
- Cardinal Jean-Marc Aveline: From Marseille, made a cardinal in August 2022.
- Bishop Stephen Chow S.J.: The pro-CCP Jesuit bishop of Hong Kong who has downplayed fears about the Vatican-China deal.
- Archbishop Timothy Costelloe: Anti-traditional Mass Bishop of Perth, who has been a key Synod on Synodality member, and who shocked Australian Catholics when he oversaw an indigenous pagan ritual at the beginning of the 5th Australian Plenary Council’s Opening Mass.
- Cardinal Blase Cupich: The notorious Chicago cardinal, known especially for his promotion of LGBT Masses and restriction of Latin Masses, who has recently praised the heterodox German Synodal Way.
- Cardinal Josef de Kesel: The Archbishop Emeritus of Mechelen-Brussel who signed and approved the notorious document by his fellow Belgium bishops promulgating blessings for same-sex couples. At their subsequent ad limina visit with Francis some months later, De Kesel said that the meeting was “invariably warm” and that the Belgians had not been admonished for their document.
- Cardinal Wilton Gregory: Current Archbishop of Washington D.C., raised to the cardinalate by Francis in 2020, with a long list of anti-family and anti-Traditional actions.
- Cardinal Ladaria Ferrer S.J.: The outgoing prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, under whose tenure the CDF issued its ban on same-sex blessings in 2021.
- Cardinal Gerhard Müller: Cdl Ladaria’s predecessor as prefect of the CDF, who has condemned the Synod as a “hostile takeover” of the Church that threatens to “end” Catholicism.
- Cardinal Jean–Claude Hollerich S.J.: Relator general of the Synod and recently appointed member of the Pope’s council of cardinals. A prominently pro-LGBT cardinal who has previously claimed that he is “in full agreement with Pope Francis” on the issue of opposing Catholic teaching on homosexuality.
- Cardinal Robert McElroy: Notoriously heterodox bishop, recently raised to the cardinalate in 2022, who promotes Holy Communion for those in actively immoral LGBT lifestyles, and who has been accused by Bishops Paprocki and Schneider of having de facto excommunicating himself.
- Bishop Stefan Oster: German bishop who has been one of the few dissenting voices at various stages of the country’s disastrous and heterodox Synodal Way.
- Cardinal Óscar Andrés Rodrígues Maradiaga: Former president of Pope Francis’ council of cardinal advisors, and close papal confidant. Encircled by scandal for many years, including financial and sexual cover-up allegations.
- Father James Martin S.J.: The notoriously pro-LGBT Jesuit, also a member of the Dicastery for Communications, who has enjoyed increasing papal favor despite his longstanding record of promoting LGBT ideology in dissent from Catholic teaching. He has promoted an image drawn from a series of blasphemous, homoerotic works showing Christ as a homosexual, promoted same-sex civil unions, and described viewing God as male as “damaging.”
In light of the announcement, veteran Vatican journalist Edward Pentin stated that a “senior Church leader” told him recently that some of these clerics “don’t have any criteria of objective, methodological and correct theology. They no longer have the objectivity of divine revelation, only a subjective understanding, according to prejudices.”
Who else is taking part?
Participants of the Synod included delegates from bishops’ conferences around the world, selected by the local bishops’ conferences themselves. Numerous prefects and leading members of the Roman Curia also make the cut, as do members of the Secretariat of the Synod.
READ: Pope Francis to personally select lay men, women to form up to 25% of Synodal vote
As reported in April, Pope Francis has made changes to the organizational structure of the Synod, meaning that for the first time laity will have voting rights in the Assembly of Bishops. He personally selected the 70 non-bishop members. Furthermore, the Synod on Synodality will be joined by other “experts” who will not have the right to vote, and are thus not given the title “Member of the Assembly.”
Such “experts” – heavily drawn from the “experts” who complied the October 2022 working document for the continental stage – will be joined by other “facilitators.”
There are also those who have been invited as “special invitees” or “fraternal delegates,” who do not hold voting rights at the assemblies. Similar in that they do not hold voting rights, the “Experts and Facilitators” only participate and advise.
Among the “special invitees” is Fr. Alois, the prior of the Taize community. He is heavily involved in leading an ecumenical prayer vigil in St. Peter’s Square that is intended to further the “path to Christian unity and the path of synodal conversion of the Church.”
Meanwhile the notoriously pro-LGBT English Dominican Father Timothy Radcliffe is listed as one of two “spiritual assistants.” Fr. Radcliffe O.P. was personally invited by the Pope to lead a pre-Synodal retreat for the bishops; his long history of homosexual advocacy seems not to have been an inhibiting factor.
As noted, a large number of the “experts” are those who compiled the 2022 Synodal working document, and include figures such as papal biographer Austen Ivereigh; Monsignor Piero Coda, the Secretary of the Pontifical International Theological Commission which advises the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith; the pro-contraception and pro-homosexual Monsignor Philippe Bordeyne, the Dean of the revamped Pontifical John Paul II Theological Institute for the Sciences of Marriage and the Family.
LifeSiteNews has highlighted the records of such Synod “experts” in previous reporting.
What does this mean?
The Synod will convene on October 4, with the participants meeting in the Paul VI Audience Hall at the Vatican.
As noted by the Synod team, all the members and additional experts will take part in the two sessions of the Synod in Rome. The first will take place this October and the second in October 2024.
When Pope Francis is not present, a total of nine president delegates will assume the operating control of proceedings “in the name and by the authority” of the Pope. These nine are:
- His Beatitude Ibrahim Isaac Sedrak, Patriarch of Alexandria of the Copts, Head of the Synod of the Coptic Catholic Church (Egypt)
- Cardinal Carlos Aguiar Retes, Archbishop of México
- Archbishop Luis Gerardo Cabrera Herrera, O.F.M., Archbishop of Guayaquil (Ecuador)
- Archbishop Timothy John Costelloe S.D.B., Archbishop of Perth
- Bisho Daniel Ernest Flores, Bishop of Brownsville, USA
- Bisho Lúcio Andrice Muandula, Bishop of Xai-Xai (Mozambique)
- Father Giuseppe Bonfrate (Italy)
- Sister Maria de los Dolores Palencia, C.S.J. (Mexico)
- Momoko Nishimura, S.E.M.D. (Japan)
Cardinal Hollerich, as relator general, will play a key role. He will deliver a report at the start of the entire proceeding and at the start of each section of the meeting, presenting the issues to be covered. He will also be in charge of summarizing the work of the October Assembly in a text to serve as the basis for the 2024 Assembly.
The Secretariat for the Synod recently released the text which will guide discussions at the 2023 synodal assembly. It presented topics such as women’s diaconal “ordination,” married priests, and a need to “welcome” the “remarried divorcees, people in polygamous marriages, LGBTQ+ people.”
READ: Major Synod on Synodality document highlights need to ‘welcome’ polygamists, ‘LGBTQ+ people’
Participants at the assembly will study the document, along with the worksheets provided, which can be used for “in-depth thematic meetings in a synodal style at all levels of Church life.” Each worksheet contains questions for discussion. These include questions for increased female governance, more acceptance for LGBT individuals, married priests, and the future of ecclesiastical governance.
Notably, the widely accepted, and papally approved, interpretation of Amoris Laetitia as allowing the divorced and “re-married” to Holy Communion was presented as an already finalized issue in the document which the assembly members will discuss.
Commenting on the list of participants, Deacon Nick Donnelly argued that the event was a means to promote homosexuality to the Church.
“Bergoglio really isn’t hiding the fact that the goal of the synod on Synodality is about defying God’s commands against sodomites,” he wrote. “When you add into the mix the fact that Timothy Radcliffe is leading the pre-synod retreat you realize the fix is in for the synod force through the acceptance of sodomy.”
|
|
|
|
| I’m here to enforce the ‘recent’ Magisterium, says new head of CDF |
|
Posted by: Stone - 07-08-2023, 05:40 AM - Forum: Vatican II and the Fruits of Modernism
- No Replies
|
|
I’m here to enforce the ‘recent’ Magisterium, says Archbishop Fernández
![[Image: cq5dam.thumbnail.cropped.750.422-2.jpeg]](https://d8m8f5d6.stackpathcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/cq5dam.thumbnail.cropped.750.422-2.jpeg)
Catholic Herald [emphasis mine] | July 7, 2023
ROME – Pope Francis’s new top theological advisor has attempted to reassure voices in the United States and elsewhere who’ve questioned his adherence to Catholic teaching and tradition, vowing that he’s not a “Soros spy infiltrated in the Church”.
“I am not a Freemason, nor an ally of the New World Order, nor a Soros spy infiltrated in the Church. Those are pure fantasies,” said Archbishop Víctor Manuel Fernández, an Argentine theologian tapped by the pontiff July 1 as the new prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, traditionally the Vatican’s doctrinal watchdog agency.
“I try to be an honest person, I confess often, I love the Church and its doctrine, most of my writings are about spirituality and prayer. I cannot conceive my life without God,” Fernández said.
“So [they may] have confidence, and it is better [for them] to look for enemies of the faith elsewhere,” said Fernández, who will turn 61 on July 18, in reference to his critics.
The comments came in an interview with Crux on July 5, conducted via email and in Spanish. It marked Fernández’s first conversation with an English-language news outlet since his appointment to his new role, which he will assume formally in mid-September.
A key papal ally and ghostwriter of several major papal documents, Fernández has used social media since his appointment to hit back against critics in the United States who, he’s said, have selectively mistranslated certain phrases from his writings, but he told Crux he has no generalized bias about Americans.
“In the United States, the population is very well educated, and the enormous development that the United States had in just a few decades speaks of the great capacity of that people. It would never occur to me to disparage such a noble and capable people,” he said.
“But there are also minorities that can be inclined to fanaticism, to hatred, and this leads to a partial gaze that only seeks the dark side of enemies,” Fernández said, asserting that “some assessments of the Holy Father and even of my person are unfair and not very objective.”
Fernández spoke of his own theological formation and said that in terms of his new role, in keeping with the instructions given by Francis, he’ll aim to promote “dialogue and a deepening of thought” rather than disciplinary actions against wayward theologians.
He also emphasized the importance of another charge given him by Francis, which is to ensure that all Vatican departments are in alignment with the “recent magisterium”.
“It can happen that answers are given to certain theological issues without accepting what Francis has said that is new on those issues,” Fernández said. “It’s not only inserting a phrase from Pope Francis, but allowing thought to be transfigured with his criteria. This is particularly true for moral and pastoral theology.”
The full interview with Fernández appears below, in a Crux translation from Spanish:
Crux: By now it is well known that you and Pope Francis share a close relationship. When did you first meet him, and how has your friendship developed?
Fernández: You know that I have never flaunted this relationship, but the truth is that since the year 2007, it has been a relationship of great trust. Before that, I didn’t know him very well. When I was vice dean of the Buenos Aires Faculty of Theology and he was the archbishop, sometimes we crossed paths and talked about a mutual friend. Then he congratulated me on an article of mine and proposed that the Argentine Episcopate invite me to the Latin American Conference in Aparecida. There he was in charge of the drafting team and at one point asked me for help because there was not enough time to write the final document. He was so worried that he would stay until 3 or 4 in the morning, and I was the last one to leave, along with him. There, a close relationship was born. I don’t talk about friendship, because I have a great respect for him.
What would you say is your theological formation? What writings and theologians have had the greatest influence on your own theological thought and approach?
During my undergraduate degree in Rome, I specialized in Sacred Scriptures. This also oriented me to hermeneutical studies, and I became especially close to the philosopher [Hans-Georg] Gadamer, who influenced me deeply. Then I did a doctorate in theology on the thought of Saint Bonaventure, particularly about the relationship between knowledge and life, an issue which also left a deep mark on my way of understanding theology and the service of theologians, oriented toward nourishing the spiritual life. With respect to modern thinkers, I focused especially on the great ones: Rahner and Von Balthasar. I received a lot from both.
At the Faculty of Theology, I taught classes on Theology (Pneumatology, the treatise on Grace, Anthropology) and also the Bible (Synoptics, hermeneutics and preaching, etc.). In addition to many popular writings, I certainly wrote more elaborate and speculative texts: numerous articles on Biblical exegesis, a manual on Grace, a Spiritual Theology manual, articles on the intermediate state and the person of the Father (in Angelicum magazine), articles about Pauline thought, relations with Judaism and on inculturation (in Nouvelle Revue Théologique), just to give examples.
Given your theological experience and formation, what is your vision for your new role, and for the dicastery itself?
My vision is illuminated particularly by the pope’s letter. A week ago, I was with him in Rome, and we spoke several times about these indications. Later he himself warned me that he was thinking of putting it in writing. Messages have been sent to me by many theologians, evangelical Catholics, and Jews, highlighting the value of this letter and considering it a “turning point”.
I see clearly that Francis wants the function of the prefect to be fully oriented toward a theological reflection in dialogue that helps to mature the Church’s thought. I understand that this will imply giving special importance to the two commissions that report directly to me: the theological and the biblical (for this reason, my double specialization as a theologian and as a Biblicist is important).
But this should also have an impact on the responses that the Dicastery gives to theological queries (and even accusations) that arrive. That is, it will be necessary to take advantage so that these interventions not only respond with a certain “format” that is already consolidated but are also open to the possibility of greater deepening. On the other hand, I take very seriously the last thing the letter says: that I must ensure that both the documents of the dicastery and those of others “accept the recent Magisterium”.
This is essential for the internal coherence of thought in the Roman Curia. Because it can happen that answers are given to certain theological issues without accepting what Francis has said that is new on those issues. And it’s not only inserting a phrase from Pope Francis but allowing thought to be transfigured with his criteria. This is particularly true for moral and pastoral theology.
In his letter to you, Pope Francis said he doesn’t want you to persecute doctrinal errors, as has been the historical role of the dicastery, but that you encourage theological dialogue. This raises two questions for me. First, how do you think the task of your dicastery has changed since its establishment in 1542? That is, was there a time when it was necessary to make a clear distinction between doctrine and heresy? Why is a different approach needed now?
Look, in reality I would like to clarify that it should not be interpreted that I must do something that Cardinal [Luis] Ladaria did poorly. It’s not like that, because in fact we know that Cardinal Ladaria did not condemn anyone, he is a man of great understanding and dialogue. In that sense, his years as prefect have already produced a change. But he himself told me during the ad limina visit of the Argentine bishops that disciplinary matters absorbed most of the time, and that there was hardly any time left for theology. This point is important, because now the pope is asking me to dedicate myself to theology and to promote the deepening of thought.
Second, what does theological dialogue mean for you? How do you envision this task? What does it imply?
If you look at who makes up the International Theological Commission, you will see that they are people of different lines, and yet they have the task of producing a joint document. The experience of Aparecida, and Bergoglio’s objective at that time, consisted of achieving a final document that would reflect the richness and the variety of the discussion in those weeks. On the one hand, theological dialogue implies finding some consensus, but not everything is reduced to consensus.
A text can also collect and indicate that in addition to these consensuses, there is a diversity of opinions that can enrich that topic, on which it will be necessary to continue deepening. Not everything should be “closed”. Let’s remember, for example, the famous de auxiliis controversy where two theological schools [the Dominicans and the Jesuits] argued and condemned each other. The pope at that time [Pope Clement VIII] did not want to close the issue and said that it was still a matter of free discussion that needed to be further explored.
On the other hand, today it is inevitably necessary to incorporate elements that come from ecumenical and interreligious dialogue, but it must be accepted that this does not imply that we all use the same theological categories or the same language. It is necessary to accept once and for all that there are different theological languages. Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas already said that theology is also done with metaphors. In interreligious dialogue, for example, the richest and most fraternal space occurs among monks, who speak from a spiritual experience where precious points of contact are found.
Some are clearly uncomfortable with this change in approach and fear that “theological dialogue” will lead to a change in the church’s most important teachings and doctrines, such as its teachings on marriage and homosexuality. Do you consider these teachings open to change? What does dialogue on issues such as these mean for you?
All of the Church’s teachings have an enormous richness. To me, it sounds a bit vain to believe that one has everything clear on these issues. In them, the exciting mystery of human lives is in play, where not everything is mathematics. Did not St Thomas say that “the more one descends into the particulars, the more confused God’s will becomes?” And he was not a relativist. We have a lot to learn about so many things, and let’s say it very clearly: the doctrine of the Gospel does not change, but our understanding of it does change, and changes a lot.
Similarly, Pope Francis, like many before him, has often used the phrase, “development of doctrine”. This makes some people nervous, because for them, development means change. How do you understand doctrine? And, therefore, how would you describe the process when doctrine “develops”?
The meaning, as I was telling you, is “development in our understanding of doctrine”. But normally this leads to a change in the expression of doctrine, since a greater understanding requires that the language needs to be adjusted or enriched in order to express what has been better understood. That is, “the expression of doctrine” is also developed.
On the other hand, if we assume the pope’s constant concern to achieve an evangelising objective and a pastoral sensitivity, we can say that the form, the expression, becomes part of the content, because it can make it difficult to understand. For example, saying that God is immutable is correct and indisputable, but it must complement that expression with others, since when today many people hear that, they understand that God is boring or that he is deprived of dynamism.
Something similar occurs when we say that in Christ, there is only one divine person, the Son, not a human person. That is dogma, but one ought to enrich that expression with others to avoid it being misunderstood or that it is understood that Christ is not true man. This can help in understanding why the pope wanted a prefect who was a theologian but who was also a parish priest, catechist, and teacher. Connected with this is an issue on which Francis has insisted a lot: the hierarchy of truths, which implies not only a certain order of importance, but also that some truths are understood in light of others.
In some of your social media posts, you have said there are some Catholics in the United States who have criticised you and some of your writings, including your past booklet on kissing, in order to criticise the pope. Do you think this is due to a misunderstanding of yourself and Francis? What misunderstandings do you think Catholics in the United States have about this papacy and how can they be clarified?
You have to say “some” Americans, as is the case with some Spaniards, French, or Poles, for example. In the United States, the population is very well educated, and the enormous development that the United States had in just a few decades speaks of the great capacity of that people. It would never occur to me to disparage such a noble and capable people.
But there are also minorities that can be inclined to fanaticism, to hatred, and this leads to a partial gaze that only seeks the dark side of enemies. When this is added to the fact that these minorities have a lot of economic power, it is possible that they achieve greater impact in the media and social networks. Many times, it is not evil, it is passion, and therefore I do not judge them, but I must say that some assessments of the Holy Father and even of my person are unfair and not very objective.
It’s no secret that the criticism will likely continue, as not everyone shares your vision. What would you like to say to those who are skeptical about the way in which you will carry out the task you are undertaking?
That I am not a Freemason, nor an ally of the New World Order, nor a Soros spy infiltrated in the Church. Those are pure fantasies. I try to be an honest person, I confess often, I love the Church and its doctrine, most of my writings are about spirituality and prayer. I cannot conceive my life without God. So [they may] have confidence, and it is better [for them] to look for enemies of the faith elsewhere.
Finally, it has been made clear that you will focus mainly on theological and doctrinal matters and will leave efforts in fighting the abuse crisis to the experts inside of your new dicastery. However, child protection remains a large part of what your dicastery does and it is an important topic for the Catholic Church. How will you support efforts in child protection and where does the abuse crisis fall in terms of your priorities as you step into your new role?
I will encourage the work of the disciplinary section, avoiding meddling in issues that are not my specialty. We must let the experts work. In recent years they have demonstrated great seriousness and professionalism.
For this reason, the Holy Father’s decision for me to concentrate on doctrinal matters in no way minimizes the importance of the fight against abuse, it is showing his confidence in those who know [best in these matters] so that they continue on the right path, which little by little is being consolidated. I will not stop encouraging them, offering them my support and gratitude, helping them in whatever way they need, but without conditioning them in their professional task.
|
|
|
|
| Archbishop slams Synod on Synodality pushing ‘globalist Agenda 2030 |
|
Posted by: Stone - 07-07-2023, 06:22 AM - Forum: Vatican II and the Fruits of Modernism
- No Replies
|
|
Archbishop slams Synod on Synodality for contradicting Church Tradition, pushing ‘globalist Agenda 2030’
Argentinian Archbishop Hector Aguer warned that Pope Francis' Synod is trying to create a 'new progressive Church' that resembles Protestantism.
![[Image: Screen-Shot-2023-07-05-at-2.03.24-PM-810x500.png]](https://www.lifesitenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Screen-Shot-2023-07-05-at-2.03.24-PM-810x500.png)
Archbishop Hector Aguer
YouTube screenshot
Jul 5, 2023
(LifeSiteNews) — Argentine Archbishop Hector Aguer has likened the Synod on Synodality to the “globalist Agenda 2030” of the U.N. and the Protestant schism.
Aguer is the Archbishop Emeritus of La Plata in Argentina. He was succeeded in 2018 by the highly controversial new head of the Dicastery (formerly Congregation) for the Doctrine of the Faith, Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernandez.
In a letter published by Rorate Caeli, Aguer criticized the new working document, or Instrumentum Laboris (IL), of the Synod on Synodality, which highlights the need “to welcome those who feel excluded from the Church because of their status or sexuality.”
Aguer said that “the synodal Church formulates a progressive gloss on the Gospel.”
“The Instrumentum Laboris sets out how to ecclesially assume the globalist Agenda 2030,” he stated. “It is admirable how the pontifical monarchy makes the ‘synodal democracy’ say just what it wants this ‘democracy’ to say. It is something like throwing a stone and hiding the hand.”
He noted that through the Synod “the Catholic Church is belatedly beginning to follow the path opened by the Protestant Reformation [actually, the Conciliar Church has been following this path since Vatican II- The Catacombs], at a time when Protestantism has long since been swallowed up by the world.”
“This is the moment to quote what a Danish Lutheran who was a great Christian philosopher, Soren Kierkegaard, wrote in his Diary in 1848: ‘Just now, when there is talk of reorganizing the Church, it is clear how little Christianity there is in it,’” the archbishop continued.
Aguer furthermore criticized lay participation in the Synodal Process, especially of laywomen, and opined that “Priestly vocations are no longer a priority” in the “Synodal Church.”
“The itinerary of the future Assembly, which has already been two years in preparation, makes the ‘crowd’ speak and vote — especially and novelly the feminine one,” he wrote. “This is what I implied with the well-known example of the stone. When the design of this other Church is completed, the Supreme Pontiff, faced with the criticisms that will not be lacking, will be able to say: ‘I did not do it’!”
Aguer said that the new ecclesiology called “synodality” is ambiguous since it does not clearly state in which direction the Church is supposed to be going.
“The goal, then, can be the new progressive Church, at cross purposes with the great ecclesial Tradition,” the archbishop wrote.
“One of the topics on the agenda, which quickly attracts attention, is ‘how can the Church be more responsive to LGBTQ+ people’,” he said, noting that the expression “persons with homosexual tendencies” that has been used in the Catechism and other Church documents is replaced by this new ideological term “LGBTQ+ people.”
Aguer concluded that “objective truth and the recognition of precepts by which virtue, and sin, are judged and recognized no longer count.” Rather, “What matters now is how those who consider themselves excluded feel; it is their feeling that matters, not the objective state in which they find themselves.”
READ: ‘New world order’: Spanish bishop exposes UN’s Agenda 2030 as an anti-Christian ‘trap’
“The synodal program, like that of the German Synod, designs another Church, heterogeneous with respect to the great and unanimous Tradition,” he stated.
Aguer mentioned that he has known Pope Francis personally for 45 years. He likened Francis and the authors of the Synod documents to “second causes” through which God permits evil to happen.
“I recognize and venerate Francis as the Successor of Peter, Vicar of Christ,” he wrote. “But Francis is still Jorge Bergoglio. Now, I have known Jorge Bergoglio for 45 years. He is a ‘second cause.’”
|
|
|
|
|
![[Image: Screenshot-2023-07-13-130605.png]](https://i.postimg.cc/hv7K0MKw/Screenshot-2023-07-13-130605.png)
![[Image: Screenshot-2023-07-10-130746.png]](https://i.postimg.cc/P5sW8xZq/Screenshot-2023-07-10-130746.png)
