The greatness of contemplation can be given to none but those who
love….Whoever wishes to hold the fortress of contemplation must first of all
train in the camp of action….We ascend to the heights of contemplation by the
steps of action….He who would climb to a lofty height must go by steps, not
leaps.
Pope St. Gregory the Great
“Could
You Not Watch One Hour With Me?” (Matt.26, 40)
"He is The Bread sown in the virgin,
leavened in the Flesh, molded in His Passion, baked in the furnace of the
Sepulcher, placed in the Churches, and set upon the Altars, which daily
supplies Heavenly Food to the faithful."
St. Peter Chrysologus (400-450)
Custody of the
Eyes
He who through these windows of the body, recklessly looks abroad, very
often falls, even against his will, into the sweetnesses of sin, and being fast
fettered by desires, begins to will what before he had never willed.
St. Gregory the Great
The
Fundamentals of the Spiritual Life Never Change
St. Oswald made quick progress in the path of perfect virtue, because
he studied with the utmost earnestness to deny himself and his own will,
listening attentively to that fundamental maxim of the Eternal Truth which St.
Benedict, of whose holy order he became a bright light, repeats with great
energy. This holy founder declares in the close of his rule, that, he who
desires to give himself up to God, must trample all earthly things under his
feet, renounce everything that is not God, and die to all earthly affections,
so as to attain to a perfect disengagement and nakedness of heart, that God may
fill and entirely possess it, in order to establish therein the kingdom of his
grace and pure love for ever. And in his prologue he cries out aloud, that he
addresses himself only to him who is firmly resolved in all things to deny his
own will, and to hasten with all diligence to arrive at his heavenly
kingdom.
Fr. Alan Butler, Lives of the Saints, St. Oswald, O.S.B., Bishop of
Worcester, d. 992
Story From the
First History on the Life of St. Gregory the Great
The Vita Beatissimi Papae Gregorii Magni Antiquissima, the earliest
history of St. Gregory the Great, the
Apostle to the Anglo-Saxons, was written by a monk in the latter part of the
7th century at Whitby, the great abbey founded in 656 on the north-east coast
of England (which is now in ruins from the Protestant reformation). The
manuscript was discovered in a Swiss monastery, the Benedictine Abbey of St
Gall, and translated by the renowned English medievalist, Cardinal Francis
Aidan Gasquet, OSB. The history relates
that as St. Gregory was walking through Trajan’s Forum, he was moved with pity
for the poor pagan emperor, (who had died during the Parthian campaign in 117
A.D. and his cremated remains returned to Rome and eventually placed below
Trajan’s column that still stands today), because of a story of how the emperor
had personally addressed the pleading of a poor widow and obtained justice for
her and her orphaned children. The
history relates how at the prayer of St. Gregory, the emperor was raised from
the dead so that he could receive the sacrament of Baptism and thus obtained
eternal salvation. The history was an
important source for St. Bede’s History of the English Church and People and
was also incorporated in Dante’s Divine
Comedy, Purgatorio X.
It is, therefore,
a strict duty for every priest wanting to remain Catholic to separate himself
from the Conciliar Church for as long it does not rediscover the Tradition of
the Church and of the Catholic Faith.
Bishop Tissier
de Mallerais, January 1, 2015
Bishop
Williamson explains why the “XSPX,” is called the “New Society,” - “Novus
Societas”
"The Catholic Church is much broader than just the Traditional
movement. [….] We will never make Tradition attractive or convincing if we
remain stuck in the 1950’s or 1970’s. [….] Tradition cannot be confined within
the 19th and 20th century Church condemnations of liberalism. […..] Our time is
different, we cannot stand still, much that is modern is not immoral. […..] So
we must re-position ourselves, which is a practical problem and not a question
of Faith. […..] The “Resistance” movement has fabricated its own “faith” by
which to condemn the Newsociety.
[…..] SSPX HQ never betrayed Tradition
in 2012 because its actions were attacked from both sides. […..] The official Newsociety texts of 2012
were not dogmatic. […..] Rome was much less aggressive in 2012 to the XSPX than
it was in 2006. [……] The Newsociety
follows the Spirit and draws
on Tradition."
Fr. Niklaus Pfluger, SSPX First Assistant to Bishop Bernard Fellay,
critical comments addressing the “resistance” that has risen against the SSPX’s
accommodations with modernist Rome. Quotations taken from commentary by Bishop
Williamson
At
Least One Cardinal Defends the Catholic Sacrament of Matrimony
If the Church admits [them] to
the Eucharist, she must anyway grant a judgment of legitimacy to the second
union. That is logical. But now - as I asked - what to make of the first matrimony?
The second, it is said, cannot be a true second matrimony, considering that
bigamy goes against the word of the Lord. What about the first one? Is it
dissolved? But the Popes have always taught that the power of the Pope does not
reach that point: the Pope has no power over a marriage that is ratum et consummatum. The proposed
solution leads us to think that the first matrimony remains, but that there is
also a second kind of cohabitation that the Church legitimizes. It is,
therefore, an extramarital exercise of human sexuality that the Church
legitimizes. But with this, the foundational pillar of the Church's doctrine on
sexuality is negated. At this point, one could ask: so why are not free
[extramarital or premarital] unions approved? And why not relations between
homosexuals?
Cardinal Carlo Caffarra,
Archbishop of Bologna, Comment on Cardinal Walter Kasper's proposal to permit
divorced and remarried Catholics to receive Holy Communion, interviewed by
Matteo Matzuzzi, Il Foglio, March 15,
2014
More
and More Continue to Recognize the Apostasy
One can observe at all
levels of the Church an obvious decrease of the ‘sacrum.’ The 'spirit of the
world' feeds the shepherds. The sinners give the Church the instructions for
how she has to serve them. In their embarrassment the Pastors are silent on the
current problems and abandon the sheep while they are feeding themselves. The
world is tempted by the devil and opposes the doctrine of Christ…. In our days
the voice of the majority of the bishops rather resembles the silence of the
lambs in the face of furious wolves, the faithful are left like defenseless
sheep." […..]
It will not be superfluous to remind my
brothers in the episcopacy of an affirmation made by an Italian masonic lodge (Alta Vendita) from the year 1820: “Our
work is a work of a hundred years. Let us leave the elder people and let us go
to the youth. The seminarians will become priests with our liberal ideas. We
shall not flatter ourselves with false hopes. We will not make the Pope
a Freemason. However liberal bishops, who will work in the entourage
of the Pope, will propose to him in the task of governing the Church such
thoughts and ideas which are advantageous for us and the Pope will implement
them into life” (quote taken from The
Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita).
This intention of the
Freemasons is being implemented more and more openly, not only thanks to the
declared enemies of the Church but with the connivance of false witnesses who
occupy some high hierarchical office in the Church. It is not without reason
that Blessed Paul VI said: “The spirit of Satan penetrated through a crack
inside the Church”. I think that this crack has become in our days quite wide
and the devil uses all forces in order to subvert the Church of Christ.
Archbishop Emeritus of
Kazakhstan, Jan Pawel Lenga, Open Letter
Sure
as the sun to-morrow
St. Paul has foretold the coming of one whom he calls the lawless. No
word more truly describes the state of the modern world. All ages have, indeed,
been lawless, in the sense of violence which breaks the law. But the modern
world is lawless in that it rejects the idea of law, and destroys the basis of
law, by resolving all authority into the will of numbers. The idea of right as
limiting popular aspirations is extinct. Facts are taken to be just, because
accomplished; as if robbery could become lawful by completion. The logic of
facts is the series of wrongs which, once begun, necessitate each other. And
the logic of facts is now one of the supreme reasons of state. The popular will
may aspire after its neighbour’s house and goods, all right and justice
notwithstanding; for the popular will is a law to itself, and makes law by its
aspirations. What it desires it wills, and what it wills is right. What is this
but the reign of license, the corruption of liberty, the extinction of
morality, the negation of justice, which is the negation of God? And yet such
is the substitute in the modern world for the even law of nations and of God,
which, at least by public recognition, ruled and sustained Christendom.
And with this lawlessness comes the supremacy of might. Once, right and
might met together, sanctioning and confirming each others acts. Now, might
without right tramples down right without might. The weaker perish, and the
stronger reign, till by mutual destruction men and nations execute on each
other the just judgment of God. That this is in store for Europe, if these
principles prevail, who can doubt? That this will be the solution of the Roman
question, if this sacrilege be not repaired, is sure as the sun to-morrow.
Cardinal Henry Edward Manning, Archbishop of Westminster, Rome, the Capital of Christendom, after
the unjust war of aggression to overthrow the nearly 1200 year-old Papal State
by Victor Emmanuel II, King of Italy, 1870. The temporal power of the pope was
the oldest of all western monarchies upon which all others were grounded. After its overthrow, followed the overthrow
of all. Victor Emmanuel died in Rome in 1878, after refusing to meet with Pope
Pius IX’s envoys, who was sent with the authority to reverse the
excommunication and restore him to the Church in the hope that he would obtain
a holy death and his salvation. The unfortunate father of the Italian state was
buried in the Pantheon, while still technically a Catholic church, is far
closer to its original purpose as a pagan temple. The Italian monarchy ended in
1946.
Today Satanic ritual has openly entered the
Church
It has recently come to our ears, not without great pain to us, that in
some parts of upper Germany, as well as in the provinces, cities, territories,
regions, and dioceses of Mainz, Koln, Trier, Salzburg, and Bremen, many persons
of both sexes, heedless of their own salvation and forsaking the Catholic
Faith, give themselves over to devils male and female, and by their
incantations, charms, and conjurings, and by other abominable superstitions and
sortileges, offences, crimes, and misdeeds, ruin and cause to perish the
offspring of women, the foal of animals, the products of the earth, the grapes
of vines, and the fruits of trees, as well as men and women, cattle and flocks
and herds and animals of every kind, vineyards also and orchards, meadows,
pastures, harvests, grains and other fruits of the earth; that they afflict and
torture with dire pains and anguish, both internal and external, these men,
women, cattle, flocks, herds, and animals, and hinder men from begetting and
women from conceiving, and prevent all consummation of marriage; that, moreover,
they deny with sacrilegious lips the Faith they received in holy Baptism; and
that, at the instigation of the enemy of mankind, they do not fear to commit
and perpetrate many other abominable offences and crimes, at the risk of their
own souls, to the insult of the divine majesty and to the pernicious example
and scandal of multitudes.
Pope Innocent VIII, Sumnis
desideranter affectibus, 1484, condemnation of Witchcraft
“How can God
be both good and omnipotent, when there is so much evil in the world? I can’t
answer this one, and it has tormented believers so deeply that the Scriptures
themselves ask it many times. It’s known as the Problem of Evil. I can say only that it’s trumped by the real
mystery, the Problem of Good.”
Joe Sobran
Modesty of the
Blessed Virgin Mary - The Guard of her Virginal Purity
Mary was lowly of heart, considerate in her words, prudent in her
resolutions, sparing of her speech, assiduous in reading, intent on her work,
modest in her discourse; repelling none, kind to all, respectful to her elders.
Never could an angry look be discovered in her eyes, nor a rash word be heard
to escape her lips, nor did anyone ever witness in her an act which was wanting
in perfect modesty, or a gesture too free, or a mode of behaviour too little
restrained, or a tone of voice showing the slightest petulance. When did she
ever offend her parents by a look? or repel her acquaintance? or cast a
reproachful glance at those beneath her? or mock the weak and disabled? or show
herself above dealing with the poor? In a word, her whole exterior was a lively
image of the perfect inward order that reigned in her soul, a most vivid
expression of her peerless sanctity.
St. Ambrose, on the Modesty of the Blessed Virgin Mary
For as many of
you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ (Galatians 3:27).
"Saint Paul insists: 'If we have been planted together with Christ
in the likeness of His death, we shall be also in the likeness of His
resurrection' (Romans 6:5). And he is right in saying this; for now that the
True Vine has been planted, we have also been grafted into His death by
participation at Baptism." St. Cyril of Jerusalem
"By Baptism we are incorporated into the Passion and Death of
Christ, as St. Paul says: 'If we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall
also live together with Christ" (Romans 6:8). From which it is clear that
the Passion of Christ is communicated to the baptized person... as though he
himself had suffered and died" St. Thomas Aquinas
For there is no damnation to those who are truly buried together with
Christ by Baptism unto death. Council of Trent
And
if anyone would have know, it would have been Benedict/Ratzinger!
“The greatest persecution of the
Church comes not from her enemies without, but arises from sin within the
Church.”
Pope Benedict XVI
As we suffered under the moral and doctrinal
Novelties of Pope Francis, and now under Pope Leo, it is evident why the Master
of Novelty, Paul VI, became another novel Novus Ordo saint. Montini is the man
who coined the Spirit of Vatican II
in one word: NOVELTY in
order to please men.
Faithful
Catholics Profess:
“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides
that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so
now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have
received, let him be anathema. For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek
to please men? If I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.”
St. Paul, Galatians 1, 8-10
“Blind that they are,
and leaders of the blind,
inflated with a boastful science, they have reached that pitch of folly where
they pervert the eternal concept of truth and the true nature of the religious
sentiment; with that new system of theirs they are seen to be under the
sway of a blind and unchecked passion for novelty, thinking not at all of finding some solid foundation of truth, but
despising the holy and apostolic traditions, they embrace other vain, futile,
uncertain doctrines, condemned by the Church, on which, in the height of their
vanity, they think they can rest and maintain truth itself.”
St. Pius X, Pascendi
“A lamentable spectacle is that presented by the aberrations of human
reason when it yields to the spirit of novelty, when against the warning of the Apostle it seeks to know beyond what
it is meant to know, and when relying too much on itself it thinks it can find
the fruit outside the Church wherein truth is found without the slightest
shadow of error.”
Pope Gregory XVI, Singulari nos, 1834, quoted by St. Pius X in Pascendi
“It is impossible to approve in Catholic publications of a style
inspired by unsound novelty which seems to deride the piety of the faithful and
dwells on the introduction of a new order of Christian life, on new directions of the Church, on new
aspirations of the modern soul, on a new vocation of the clergy, on a new
Christian civilization.”
Leo XIII, Jan 27, 1902, quoted
by St. Pius X in Pascendi
Paul
VI Professes:
“... We wish to
make our own the important words employed by the Council; those words which
define its spirit, and, in a dynamical synthesis, form the spirit of all those
who refer to it, be they within or without the Church. The word NOVELTY,
simple, very dear to todays men, is much utilized; it is theirs... That word...
it was given to us as an order, as a program... It comes to us directly
from the pages of the Holy Scripture: For, behold (says the Lord), I create new
heavens and a new earth. St. Paul echoes these words of the prophet Isaiah;
then, the Apocalypse: I am making everything new. And Jesus, our Master, was
not He, himself, an innovator? You have heard that people were told in the past
... but now I tell you...– Repeated in the Sermon on the Mount.
“It is precisely
thus that the Council has come to us. Two terms characterize it: RENOVATION and
REVISION. We are particularly keen that this spirit of renovation– according to the expression
of the Council – be understood and experienced by everyone. It responds
to the characteristic of our time, wholly engaged in an enormous and rapid transformation, and
generating novelties in every sector of modern life. In fact, one cannot shy
away from this spontaneous reflection: if the whole world is changing, will not
religion change as well?
Between the
reality of life and Christianity, Catholicism especially, is not there
reciprocal disagreement, indifference, misunderstanding, and hostility? The
former is leaping forward; the latter would not move. How could they go
along? How could Christianity claim to have, today, any influence upon life?
“And it is for this reason that the Church has undertaken some reforms,
especially after the Council. The Episcopate is about to promote the renovation that corresponds to
our present needs; Religious Orders are reforming their Statutes; Catholic
laity is qualified and found its role within the life of the Church; Liturgy is
proceeding with a reform in which anyone knows the extension and importance;
Christian education reviews the methods of its pedagogy; all the canonical
legislations are about to be revised.
And how many other
consoling and promising novelties we shall see appearing in the Church!
They attest to Her new vitality, which shows that the Holy Spirit animates Her
continually, even in these years so crucial to religion. The development of
ecumenism, guided by Faith and Charity, itself says what progress, almost
unforeseeable, has been achieved during the course and life of the Church. The
Church looks at the future with Her heart brimming with hope, brimming with
fresh expectation in love... We can say... of the Council: It marks the onset
of a new era, of which no one can deny the new aspects that We have indicated
to you.”
Paul VI, General Audience, July
2, 1969
Remember
the “miracles” that provided evidence for the sanctity of this Novelty Master?
Two cases where the medical prognosis by morally degenerate abortionists proved
to be incorrect!
“This second miracle attributed to Pope Paul VI concerned the healing
of an unborn in the fifth month of pregnancy. According to the Catholic News
Agency the mother, from Verona in Italy, had an illness that risked her own
life and the life of her unborn and was advised to have an abortion.
A few days after the beatification of Paul VI by Pope Francis in
October 2014, the mother prayed to the now Blessed Paul VI at a shrine in
Lombardy and the baby girl was later born in good health.
The first miracle involving Pope Paul VI took place in California in
the 1990s. It also concerned an unborn which was found to have a serious health
problem that could mean brain damage. Doctors advised that it be aborted, but
the mother entrusted her pregnancy to Paul VI. The child was born healthy. Irish Times, Feb 6, 2018
VATICAN
II COUNCIL: WHAT IS ITS AUTHORITY?
Vatican II Council was a "pastoral council." It was a council
of churchmen teaching by their grace of state. At no time before, during or
after the council did anyone ever teach anything by virtue of the Divine
Magisterium of the Church, that is, teach by the Holy Ghost. Every Catholic is
obligated to reject anything from this council that so much as equivocates or
undermines any Catholic dogma. The Vatican II Council is to judged by its
pastoral success or failures. The implementation of the pastoral corruptions of
this council have directly lead to the greatest apostasy in the history of the
Catholic Church. Those that claim that the "teaching of Vatican II"
is good are those whose intention is to destroy the Church.
Heretics
welcome for Novus Ordo Communion! What has been done sub rosa for years is now open practice.
At their spring conference in Ingolstadt, the German bishops conference
agreed that a Protestant partner of a Catholic can receive the Eucharist after
having made a serious examination of conscience with a priest or another person
with pastoral responsibilities, affirms the faith of the Catholic Church,
wishes to end serious spiritual distress, and has a longing to satisfy a hunger
for the Eucharist.
Edward Pentin, National Catholic Register
"No
matter what may happen, since no one may justifiably command another to sin,
and since no one is permitted to obey such a command, no one may ever blame
another—even an errant pope—for his sins. Conversely, the failure of any
person—even the pope—to keep God's law or to preserve his own faith, does not
excuse any other person for his failure to do the same. Ignorance of the law or
ignorance of the Faith is never an excuse for sinning; one is bound to know
when he is being commanded to sin." -
Fr. James F.
Wathen, The Great Sacrilege
St.
Francis of Assisi, Epistle to the Every Catholic, [excerpt]
And when His Passion was nigh, He
celebrated the Pasch with His disciples and, taking bread, He gave thanks and
blessed and broke saying: Take ye and eat: this is My Body. And, taking the
chalice, He said: This is My Blood of the New Testament, which shall be shed
for you and for many unto remission of sins.’ After that He prayed to the
Father, saying: “Father, if it be possible, let this chalice pass from Me.”
“And His sweat became as drops of blood, trickling down upon the ground.” But
withal, He gave up His will to the will of the Father, saying: Father, Thy will
be done: not as I will, but as Thou wilt.’ Such was the will of the Father that
His Son, Blessed and Glorious, whom He gave to us, and who was born for us,
should by His own Blood, sacrifice, and oblation, offer Himself on the altar of
the Cross, not for Himself, by whom “all things were made,” but for our sins,
leaving us an example that we should follow His steps. And He wishes that we
should all be saved by Him and that we should receive Him with a pure heart and
a chaste body. But there are few who wish to receive Him and to be saved by
Him, although His yoke is sweet and His burden light.
Those who will not taste how sweet the
Lord is and who love darkness rather than the light, not wishing to fulfill the
commandments of God are cursed: of them it is said by the prophet: “They are
cursed who decline from Thy commandments.”
But O how happy and blessed are those who love the Lord, who do as the
Lord Himself says in the Gospel: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy
whole heart and with thy whole soul and . . . thy neighbor as thyself.” Let us
therefore love God and adore Him with a pure heart and a pure mind because He
Himself, seeking that above all, says: “The true adorers shall adore the Father
in spirit and in truth?” For all who “adore Him, must adore Him in spirit and
in truth.” And let us offer Him praises and prayers day and night, saying: “Our
Father who art in heaven,” for “we ought always to pray, and not to faint.”
We ought indeed to confess all our sins
to a priest and receive from him the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.
He who does not eat His Flesh and does not drink His Blood cannot enter into
the Kingdom of God. ‘ Let him, however, eat and drink worthily, because he who
receives unworthily “eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning
the Body of the Lord,” —that is, not discerning it from other foods.
Let us, moreover, “bring forth fruits
worthy of penance.” And let us love our
neighbors as ourselves, and, if any one does not wish to love them as himself
or cannot, let him at least do them not harm, but let him do good to them.
Let those who have received the power
of judging others, exercise judgment with mercy, as they hope to obtain mercy
from the Lord. For let judgment without mercy be shown to him that doth not
mercy. Let us then have charity and humility and let us give alms because they
wash souls from the foulness of sins. For men lose all which they leave in this
world; they carry with them, however, the reward of charity and alms which they
have given, for which they shall receive a recompense and worthy remuneration
from the Lord.
We ought also to fast and to abstain from vices and sins and from
superfluity of food and drink, and to be Catholics. We ought also to visit
Churches frequently and to reverence clerics not only for themselves, if they
are sinners, but on account of their office and administration of the most holy
Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which they sacrifice on the altar and
receive and administer to others. And let us all know for certain that no one
can be saved except by the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ and by the holy words
of the Lord which clerics say and announce and distribute and they alone
administer and not others. But religious especially, who have renounced the
world, are bound to do more and greater things, but “not to leave the other
undone.”’
We ought to hate our bodies with
[their] vices and sins, because the Lord says in the Gospel that all vices and
sins come forth from the heart. We ought to love our enemies and do good to
them that hate us. We ought to observe the precepts and counsels of our Lord
Jesus Christ. We ought also to deny ourselves and to put our bodies beneath the
yoke of servitude and holy obedience as each one has promised to the Lord. And
let no man be bound by obedience to obey any one in that where sin or offence
is committed. […..]
O how glorious and holy and
great to have a Father in heaven! O how holy, fair, and lovable to have a
spouse in heaven! O how holy and how
beloved, well pleasing and humble, peaceful and sweet and desirable above all
to have such a brother who has laid down His life for His sheep, and who has prayed
for us to the Father,
‘Thou hast given Me, Father, all
those whom Thou hast given Me in the world were Thine, and Thou hast given them
to Me. And the words which Thou gavest Me I have given to them; and they have
received them, and have known in very deed that I came forth from Thee, and
they have believed that Thou didst send Me. I pray for them: not for the world:
bless and sanctify them. And for them I sanctify Myself that they may be
sanctified in one as We also are. And I will, Father, that where I am, they
also may be with Me, that they may see My glory in My kingdom.’
And since He has suffered so
many things for us and has done and will do so much good to us, let every
creature which is in heaven and on earth and in the sea and in the abysses
render praise to God and glory and honor and benediction; for He is our
strength and power who alone is good, alone most high, alone almighty and
admirable, glorious and alone holy, praiseworthy and blessed without end
forever and ever. Amen.
But all those who do not do
penance and who do not receive the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, but
who give themselves to vices and sins and walk after evil concupiscence and bad
desires and who do not observe what they have promised, corporally they serve the
world and its fleshly desires and cares and solicitudes for this life, but
mentally they serve the devil, deceived by him whose sons they are and whose
works they do; blind they are because they see not the true light,—our Lord
Jesus Christ. They have no spiritual wisdom, for they have not in them the Son
of God who is the true wisdom of the Father: of these it is said: “their wisdom
was swallowed up.” They know, understand, and do evil and wittingly lose their
souls. Beware, ye blind, deceived by your enemies—to wit, by the world, the
flesh and by the devil—for it is sweet to the body to commit sin and bitter to
serve God because all vices and sins come forth and proceed from the heart of
man, as it is said in the Gospel.
And you have nothing of good in
this world or in the future. You think to possess for long the vanities of this
world, but you are deceived; for a day and an hour will come of which you think
not and do not know and are ignorant of. The body grows feeble, death
approaches, neighbors and friends come saying: “Put your affairs in order.” And
his wife and his children, neighbors and friends, make believe to weep. And
looking, he sees them weeping and is moved by a bad emotion, and thinking
within himself he says: “Behold, I place my soul and body and my all in your
hands.” Verily, that man is cursed who confides and exposes his soul and body
and his all in such hands. Wherefore, the Lord says by the prophet: “Cursed be
the man that trusteth in man.” And at once they cause a priest to come and the
priest says to him: “Wilt thou do penance for all thy sins?” He answers: “I
will.” “Wilt thou from thy substance, as far as thou canst, satisfy for what
thou hast done and for the things in which thou hast defrauded and deceived
men.” He answers: “No.”—And the priest
says: “Why not ?” — “Because I have put everything into the hands of my
relatives and friends.” And he begins to lose the power of speech and thus this
miserable man dies a bitter death.
But let all know that
wheresoever or howsoever a man may die in criminal sin, without
satisfaction—when he could satisfy and did not satisfy—the devil snatches his
soul from his body with such violence and anguish as no one can know except him
who suffers it. And all talent and power, learning and wisdom that he thought
to possess are taken from him. And his relatives and friends take to themselves
his substance and divide it and say afterwards: “Cursed by his soul because he
could have acquired and given us more than he did, and did not acquire it.” But
the worms eat his body. And thus he loses souls and body in this short life and
goes into hell where he shall be tormented without end.
In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen
A prelate, who had been plunged into deep desolation by the grievous
state of his affairs, had written to Ignatius in the hope of obtaining from him
some little relief in his trouble, and the Saint replied : "Very Rev. Sir,
The things of this present life are only real blessings in so far as they serve
us to acquire future beatitude which is eternal, and they are only a real
misfortune in so far as they are a hindrance to the happiness which is prepared
for us hereafter. When adversity tries us, it enlightens our soul with superior
light, it detaches us from earth, and rouses us to seek a higher dwelling in
Heaven, it takes from us every wish which has not Jesus, and Jesus crucified,
for its object, Whose grace fastens us to the Cross now, that we may afterwards
rise with Him."
Fr. Xavier De Franciosi, S.J., The Spirit of St. Ignatius
On Penance
St. Paul says: I beseech you to offer your bodies to God as a sacrifice
of mortification and penance, but in such wise that this sacrifice may be holy
and acceptable in His sight. That it may become so, he adds, this painful
sacrifice of mortification must be reasonable, that is, made with discretion
and without excess....
However, to the effect that penance may be discreet and reasonable,
conformably with the instruction left us by the Apostle of the Gentiles, it
must fulfill two conditions, according to the rules which the Holy Fathers have
prescribed for its practice. First, it should mortify the body, but not injure
the health. Secondly, it must not hinder our fulfillment of the duties attached
to our state of life. St. Basil expresses himself clearly in his Constitutions
as to the former of these conditions; he will have penance taken in a measure
proportioned to the strength of the body. Notice that by continence the holy
Doctor here means bodily austerities. We should imitate the camel, which kneels
to receive its burden, but which, when sufficiently laden, rises to its feet,
and refuses to take more. As St. Bernard says, the body must be afflicted by
penance in such degree as to prevent its unruly turning against the spirit; but
it is not to be disabled or annihilated, so as to hinder it contributing to the
exercise of the inner virtues, which are by far the most useful. St. Gregory
the Great is of the like mind, when he says that in the use of penance we
should keep within these bounds: we should not slay the flesh, but only its
unruly passions.
Rev. John Baptist Scaramelli, S.J., Guide
to the Spiritual Life
Because the life of prayer
and union with God is what I love most of all; because I find it the most perfect; because it is a life of heaven,
in a certain way, since a Carmelite is concerned only with being united to God
and contemplating Him always and singing His praises. That thirst for prayer continually grows in
me; my recollection is always continuous now, because whatever I do, I do with
my Jesus and offer it to Him with love. When, for any reason whatever I am
unable to make my prayer, I suffer at not being able to be with my God.
The solitude of Carmel helps recollection. That isolation from
creatures helps Carmelites exchange with God alone and, as a result, to attain
greater union with Him, because this is the heart of perfection. I believe that
solitude won't tire me, as I'm always searching for it. I often become troubled
when dealing with creatures, because I’m with God when I’m alone.
The poverty of a Carmelite is very great. She can possess nothing,
which means that her whole capacity for possessing things is filled by God
alone. By being poor, she is made even more like to her Divine Spouse who had
nowhere to lay His head. A Carmelite must possess God alone.
The penance to which she submits herself and the austerity of her life
are a greater means of having her body made submissive to the soul in order to
become more like her Divine Spouse who became a victim for our sins. She does
penance for her own sins and for those of the world. And in this way she shows
her love for God who has filled her with so many favors.
Her sacrifice is perpetual, without mitigation, from the time her
religious life begins until she dies as a victim according to the example of
Jesus Christ. And she does all this in silence with no one aware of it. Yet how
many are there who think of this life as useless. Nevertheless, she’s like the
Lamb of God. She removes the sins from the world. She sacrifices herself to
bring back to the sheepfold those sheep who have gone astray. But just as
Christ did not know the world, neither does she know it. This abnegation
enchants me completely. There is no room for self-love. She doesn’t even see
the fruit of her prayer. In heaven alone will she know this.
The goal she proposes to herself is very great: to pray and sanctify
herself so that the divine sap may be communicated through the union that
exists between the faithful and all the members of the Church. She immolates
herself on the cross, and her blood falls on sinners, pleading for mercy and
repentance, for on the cross she is intimately united to Jesus Christ. Her
blood, then, is mixed with His Divine Blood.
All these consideration that I make, Father, are the ones that induce
me to prefer Carmel, since I believe that in that life, I will attain holiness.
I have chosen the Carmelite life because I see that, in choosing it, I will
find the cross; and I would travel, I believe, through the whole world with
God's grace in search of it and to possess it, because on the cross is Jesus
Christ.
Juana Fernández Solar (St. Teresa of the Andes), letter written at
fifteen years of age to a priest explaining why she wanted to become a
Discalced Carmelite nun.
Political
Decay in the West – The cause? The failure of the Catholic Church to teach
Catholic doctrine and Catholic morals!
Providence is the proper instrument for change, and the test of a
statesman is his cognizance of the real tendency of providential social
forces… it acts through the instincts and intuitions of our feeble flesh,
[demonstrating] that religion and politics are inseparable, that the decay of
one must produce the decay of the other.
Russell Kirk, The Conservative Mind
“Man in his ignorance often deceives himself as to ends and means, as to
forces and resistance, as to instruments and obstacles. Sometimes he tries to
cut down an oak with a pocket-knife, and sometimes he throws a bomb to break a
reed. But Providence never wavers, and it is not in vain that it shakes the
world. Everything proclaims that we are moving towards a great unity which, to
use a religious expression, we must hail from afar. We have been grievously and
justly broken, but if such eyes as mine are worthy to foresee the divine
purpose, we have been broken only to be made one.”
Joseph de Maistre, quoted by Christopher Dawson
Russian Education: In 2010 Vladimir Putin made The Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr
Solzhenitsyn compulsory reading for all Russian high school students. The three
volume work (nearly 2,000 pages) describes the forced labor concentration camps
established by the Communist Lenin in 1918 to 1956 and the political and police
structures that maintained them.
“We see many of the Euro-Atlantic countries are actually
rejecting their own roots, including the Christian values that constitute the
basis of Western civilization. They are denying moral principles and all
traditional identities: national identity, cultural, religious--and even
sexual. They are implementing
policies that equate large families with same sex partnerships, belief in God
with a belief in Satan.”
Vladimir Putin, Davos Conference –World Economic Forum
Hermeneutics
of Continuity/Discontinuity
Modernist
Heresy
“The medieval concept of
substance has long since become inaccessible to us. In so far as we use the concept of
substance at all today we understand thereby the ultimate particles of matter,
and the chemically complex mixture that is bread certainly does not fall into
that category.” Benedict/Ratzinger, Faith and the Future
Catholic
Truth
If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are
contained in it, both spiritual and material, were produced, according to their whole
substance, out of nothing by God; or holds that God did not create by
his will free from all necessity, but as necessarily as he necessarily loves
himself; or denies that the world was created for the glory of God: let him be
anathema
Vatican Council I, Dogmatic
Constitution on the Catholic Faith
Modernist
Heresy
“At this time the idea of salvation
history had moved to the focus of inquiry posed by Catholic theology and this
had cast new light on the notion of revelation, which neo-scholasticism had
kept too confined to the intellectual realm. Revelation now appeared no longer simply as a
communication of truths to the intellect but as a historical action of God in
which truth becomes gradually unveiled.”
Benedict/Ratzinger, Milestones
(Memoirs 1927-1977), published 1998
Catholic
Truth
For the doctrine of faith which God has revealed has not been
proposed, like a philosophical invention, to be perfected by human ingenuity;
but has been delivered as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ, to be
faithfully kept and infallibly declared. Hence also, that meaning of the sacred
dogmas is perpetually to be retained which our holy Mother the Church has once
declared; nor is that meaning ever to be departed from, under the pretext of a
deeper comprehension of them.
Vatican I
“Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was
handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the
same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the
heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to
another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn
every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been
given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical
figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by
human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely.”
Oath Against Modernism
Today's
Gospel and the New Paganism
"When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through
places without water, seeking rest: and not finding, he saith: I will return
into my house whence I came out. And when he is come, he findeth it swept and
garnished. Then he goeth and taketh with him seven other spirits more wicked than
himself, and entering in they dwell there. And the last state of that man
becomes worse than the first" (Luke 11:24-26).
"For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against
principalities and powers, against the rulers of the world of this darkness,
against the spirits of wickedness in the high places" (Eph 6:12).
COMMENT: Not only do individuals have appointed guardian angels so do
communities, states and nations. Every Catholic parish and diocese also has an
appointed guardian angel. The devil in his turn appoints specific fallen angels
to work for the destruction of individuals, communities, institutions, states
and nations. Every nation in the West was involved in degrading forms of
idolatry before their conversion to the Catholic Church such as the Druids in
Ireland and the worship of tress by the Germanic tribes. These demonic
influences were overthrown in their conversion of these nations to the true
faith in the reception of the sacrament of Baptism and their adoption as
children of God.
These nations have since turned their back against God who in turn has
delivered them to return to their former demonic depravities. Two men standing
the same place may be separated by a massive abyss when one is stepping towards
God and the other is stepping away. The nations of former Christendom, having
once been "swept and garnished," are now occupied by their former
demons who have brought with them "seven spirits more wicked than
themselves" and their current depravity is far worse and their malice toward
God and His Church will be without respite.
Another Conservative Catholic,
Finally Had Enough
When any member of the faithful sees Catholic teaching being eroded or
undermined, it is his right—indeed it is even his duty—to speak out in protest.
It is not the right of wayward theologians, or of bishops who may acquiesce in
their views, to decide that certain parts of the Gospel and Catholic tradition
are now antiquated and may be dropped—and then to protest against usurpation of
their authority when the faithful demand that they receive the whole Word of
God.
John J. Malloy, conservative Catholic apologist, scholar and former
editor of the Wanderer
O Mary, my
sweet love, you opened to the eternal Divinity the door of your will, and the
Word immediately became incarnate within you.
By this you teach me that God, who created me without my help, will not
save me without it… but knock at the door of my will and waits for me to open
it to Him.
St. Catherine
of Siena
DOGMA
is the proximate "rule of faith"!
When
the Pope personally falls from the faith, the "Catholic religion (is
still) preserved ever immaculate in the Apostolic See" in her Magisterial
documents.
The first means of safety is to guard the rule of strict faith and to
deviate in no way from those things that have been laid down by the Fathers.
And indeed the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: "Thou art Peter; and upon
this rock I will build my church" [Matthey 16:18], cannot be disregarded;
these things which were spoken are demonstrated by the results, for the
Catholic religion has been preserved ever immaculate in the Apostolic See.
Opening sentence of the "Formula Hormisdae", the decree of
Pope Hormisdas to the Eastern Churches that had followed the Acacian Schism,
516 A.D., for their correct profession of faith. The document was cited at
Vatican I.
The (iconoclast) emperor
revenged himself on St. John Damascene by accusing him to the Caliph of
treason; and the enraged Caliph ordered the Saint’s right hand to be struck
off. In the evening St. John knelt
before an icon of our Lady, and prayed thus: ‘O stainless Mother of God, in
defense of holy images I have lost my hand; help me, heal me, that I may still
write of thy praises and those of thy Divine Son.’ Sleep came over him, and he heard in vision
our Lady say: ‘Thy hand is whole; be it as thou hast said, as the pen of one
who writeth swiftly.’ He awoke; his hand was restored; only a thin red line
showed that it had been severed. The
Caliph recognized his innocence, and restored him to his office… The icon from
that time hence was painted with the image of St. John’s hand and is now known
as the ‘Icon of the Three Hands.’
Fr. Henry Bowden, St. John
Damascene, Lives of the Saints
Synod Office
releases first two Final Reports of the Study Groups
The General
Secretariat of the Synod publishes the first two Final Reports of the Study
Groups established by Pope Francis following the First Session of the XVI
Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops: that of Study Group No. 3 on
'The mission in the digital environment' and that of Study Group No. 4 on 'The
revision of the Ratio Fundamentalis Institutionis Sacerdotalis in a missionary
synodal perspective.'
Vatican News | March 3, 2026
The General Secretariat of the Synod has
today released the first two Final Reports of the Study Groups established by
Pope Francis following the First Session of the XVI Ordinary General Assembly
of the Synod of Bishops.
The reports published were that of Study Group No. 3 on 'The Mission in
the Digital Environment' and Study Group No. 4 on 'The Revision of the Ratio
Fundamentalis Institutionis Sacerdotalis in a Missionary Synodal Perspective.'
Pope Leo XIV has
directed the publication of these Final Reports to share with the entire People
of God the fruits of the reflection and discernment undertaken during the
Synod, in a spirit of transparency and accountability. The Final Reports
are published in English and Italian, with an indication of the original
language and the working translation.
A summary, available in various languages, accompanies each Report to
facilitate access. With the presentation of their Final Reports, Study Groups
No. 3 and No. 4 conclude their mandate and are therefore to be considered
dissolved.
The General Secretariat will continue to release the Final Reports
progressively, with the next publication scheduled for 10 March 2026.
Cardinal Mario Grech, Secretary General of the Synod, said that the
Reports, “beyond the value of their content," "testify to the shared
journey undertaken with the Dicasteries.
"It is not
the first time that the Dicasteries have collaborated on a common project, but
here," he added, "there is something more: an authentic exercise of
shared listening, reflection, and discernment. It is synodality put into
practice, not merely bureaucratic cooperation.”
The Mission in the Digital Environment
The Report of Study Group No. 3 addresses a central question that
emerged during the XVI Assembly, namely how to live the Church’s mission within
a culture increasingly shaped by the digital sphere.
The Group, drawing on a broad consultation involving pastoral workers,
experts, and ecclesial realities from all continents, gathered experiences,
analyzed challenges, and formulated concrete recommendations.
Key themes include
the need to integrate digital mission into the Church’s ordinary structures, an
in-depth analysis of territorial jurisdiction in light of online communities,
and the formation of pastors and pastoral workers in digital culture.
The Report concludes with a series of operative proposals articulated
at three levels: the Holy See, Episcopal Conferences, and dioceses. It also
includes an extensive section on the methodology adopted and the entities
consulted.
Formation to the Priesthood
Rather than proceeding with a revision of the Ratio Fundamentalis
Institutionis Sacerdotalis (2016), which is still considered valid in its
fundamental principles, Study Group No. 4 opted to elaborate a Proposal for a
Guiding Document for its implementation in a missionary synodal key, in line
with the Final Document of the XVI Assembly.
The document is
structured in two parts. The Preamble offers an ecclesiological-pastoral
framework and identifies a series of necessary conversions in priestly
formation: relational, missionary, toward communion, toward service, and toward
a synodal style. At its heart lies a central insight: the identity of the
priest is formed “in and from” the People of God, not in separation from it.
The Guidelines in the second part translate these conversions into
concrete operative pathways.
Some of the most
significant proposals include alternating residence between the seminary and
parish communities or other ecclesial contexts; shared formative experiences
and moments with lay faithful, consecrated persons, and ordained ministers,
starting from the propaedeutic stage; the inclusion of qualified and competent
women as co-responsible at all levels of formation, including within formation
teams; and the acquisition of skills for co-responsibility and communal
discernment.
The Group also proposed a pathway for the dissemination and
implementation of the operative directions offered.
Nature and publication of the Final Reports
Along with the Final Report of Study Group No. 3, the General
Secretariat also published a Note outlining the origin and mandate of the Study
Groups, the nature of the Reports, and the envisaged operational follow-up.
In the note, it highlights that the Final Reports are the fruit of a
structured process: the listening to diverse competencies and professional
expertise, the analysis of numerous contributions, academic research, dialogue
with various ecclesial bodies, from Episcopal Conferences to Catholic
universities, and, above all, discernment and prayer.
They are to be understood as working documents.
Pope Leo XIV, has directed that the Final Reports be published
progressively, as they are presented to the General Secretariat of the Synod,
in a spirit of transparency.
In order that the content that has emerged may be translated into
concrete orientations, decisions and processes, the Holy Father has requested
the competent Dicasteries and the General Secretariat of the Synod to draw up,
on the basis of the Final Reports, operative proposals, also giving an
account of the choices made and of any elements not received.
This joint effort, the General Secretariat's note continues, ensures
coherence with the synodal dynamism and rootedness in the Church’s missionary
perspective.
The operative proposals thus formulated will be submitted to the Holy
Father, who will evaluate and may approve them.
With the submission of the Final Report to the General Secretariat of
the Synod, the Study Groups that have delivered it conclude the mandate
entrusted to them and are therefore to be considered dissolved.
COMMENT: This article is reproduced as a penitential offering for Lent.
It is a collection of bureaucratic drivel but its purpose is in fact malignant.
Vatican II, the pastoral council, that from a faithful Catholic's perspective
is a pastoral failure because since its implementation the Church has suffered
the greatest apostasy in the history of the Church. For Leo, the Vatican II
Council is in fact a wonderful success because his purpose is the destruction
of the Church. That is why for the Novus Ordites, Vatican II Council
"cannot be questioned." The important point of this publication on
Synodality is the fundamental change in the conception of the priesthood. The heart of the Catholic priesthood is
nicely summed up by St. Paul:
For every high priest taken from among men, is ordained for men in the
things that appertain to God, that he may offer up gifts and sacrifices for
sins: Who can have compassion on them that are ignorant and that err: because
he himself also is compassed with infirmity. And therefore he ought, as for the
people, so also for himself, to offer for sins. Neither doth any man take the
honour to himself, but he that is called by God, as Aaron was. So Christ also did
not glorify himself, that he might be made a high priest: but he that said unto
him: Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.
As he saith also in another place: Thou art a priest for ever,
according to the order of Melchisedech. Who in the days of his flesh, with a
strong cry and tears, offering up prayers and supplications to him that was
able to save him from death, was heard for his reverence. And whereas indeed he
was the Son of God, he learned obedience by the things which he suffered: And being
consummated, he became, to all that obey him, the cause of eternal salvation.
Called by God a high priest according to the order of Melchisedech (Heb 5;1-10).
There is nothing from St. Paul that calls for a "necessary conversions in priestly formation:
relational, missionary, toward communion, toward service, and toward a synodal
style." Don't forget that the Novus Ordo "missionary"
believes that proselytism is "solemn nonsense" and therefore, a Novus
Ordo "missionary" has no mission from God. There is nothing from St.
Paul that calls for "inclusion
of qualified and competent women as co-responsible at all levels of (priestly)
formation, including within formation teams; and the acquisition of skills for
co-responsibility and communal discernment" What is entirely absent from
the Novus Ordo synodal priest is his essence
and that is the power in "offering up gifts and sacrifices for sins."
The Novus Ordo priest is not "called by God, as Aaron was." He is not
called upon to share in the sacrificial priesthood of Jesus Christ that is in
its essence is a sacrificial and
sacrificing priesthood. This synodal intent in ordination cannot make a man a
priest any more than it can make a lady priestettes.
Remember in your charity:
Remember the welfare of our expectant mother: Vanessa LoStrocco and Maria Castillo
Gonzalez,
For Anthony
Niekrewicz, spiritual and temporal welfare is the petition of all the
members of Ss. Peter & Paul,
Mary Lou Loftus' aunt, Susan Hendricks, who is gravely ill after emergency surgery,
Fred Holder,
for his
spiritual and physical welfare,
Thomas Soul,
a
nursing home patient who has suffered a stroke,
Donna Kallal, a dear friend of the
Schiltz family who is dying,
Philip Thees requests our prayers for the heath of Mary Glatz and Lenny and Agnus Messineo,
For the welfare of Aaron, a York resident in need of conversion,
For the spiritual welfare of Margaret Connelly is the petition of Camilla Meiser,
Linda Boyd, for her health,
Pete
Schiffbauer, a cousin of Monic Bandlow who is gravely ill,
Joan R.
Barr,
the widow of F. Donald Barr who died March 7, they were married 70 years
Cole
Schneider, prayers for his welfare are requested by Camilla Meiser,
JoAnn
Niekrewicz,
for her recovery from a recent fall and shoulder injury,
The Drews ask prayers for the spiritual and physical
welfare of Robert Carballo,
Conversion of Jack
Gentry, the nephew of Camilla Meiser,
For Sr.
Maria Junipera, who took her final vows as a nun with the Slaves of the
Immaculate Heart of Mary in Richmond, New Hampshire April 8,
Stephen
Bryan,
the brother of a devout Catholic religious, for his spiritual welfare,
Marie
Kolinsky,
for her health and spiritual welfare is the petition of her family,
Gene Peters requests our prayers for the conversion
of Shirley Young and Carl Loy who are dying, the
conversion of Dawn Keithley
and Nate Schaeffer,
Rev. Leo
Carley,
an eighty-nine year old priest faithful to Catholic tradition, who is seriously
ill,
For the recovery of Hayden Yanchek, the grandson of Francis Yanchek, injured in
a farming accident,
Maureen
Nies, for
the recovery of her health is the petition of Camilla Meiser,
Daniel
Vargs, for
his health is the petition of his parents,
Art Noel, for the restoration of his
health,
For the welfare of Peg Berry and her husband, Bill,
Marianne Connelly asks prayers for Chris Foley, who is gravely ill,
and the welfare of his wife, Mary
Beth,
The spiritual welfare of the Sal & Maria Messineo family is the petition of the
Drew’s,
Liz Agosta, who is seriously ill, for her
spiritual and temporal welfare,
Warren
Hoffman, a
long time member of our Mission who is in failing health,
Patrick
Boyle,
for the recovery of his health and his spiritual welfare,
For the spiritual welfare of the Drew children,
Monica Bandlow request our prayers for the welfare of
Ray who is recovering from a
MVA, and his daughter, Sonya,
and Tera Jean Kopczynski, who
is in failing health, and for a good death for Mr. Howald, Kathy
Simons, Regina Quinn, James Mulgrew, Ruth Beaucheane, John Kopczynski, Roger
& Mandy Owen
Peg Berry requests our prayers for her brother, William Habekost,
For the recently widowed, Maike Hickson, and her children,
For the spiritual welfare of the Carmelite nuns in Fairfield, PA,
Geralyn
Zagorski, recovery of her health and spiritual welfare and
the conversion of Randal Pace is the petition of Philip Thees,
For the grandson of
Joe & Liz Agusta,
Fr. Waters requests our
prayers for the health and spiritual welfare of Elvira Donaghy,
For the health and
conversion of Stephen Henderson,
Fr. Paul DaDamio requests
our prayers for the welfare of Rob Ward, and his sister, Debra
Wagaman,
Kaitlyn McDonald, for the recovery of her health and spiritual
welfare,
Roco
Sbardella,
for his health and spiritual welfare,
The Vargas’ request our prayers for the spiritual
welfare of their son, Nicholas,
Family, for the welfare of Lazarus Handley, his mother, Julia, and his brother, Raphael, with Down’s Syndrome,
Fr. Waters requests prayers for the spiritual and physical
welfare of Frank McKee,
Nancy
Bennett, for the recovery of her
health,
For the spiritual welfare of Mark Roberts, a Catholic faithful to tradition,
Michael Brigg requests our prayers for the health of John Romeo,
The health and welfare of Gene Peters and his sons,
Conversion of Anton
Schwartzmueller, is the prayer request of his children,
Christine
Kozin, for
her health and spiritual welfare,
Teresa
Gonyea,
for her conversion and health, is the petition of her grandmother, Patricia
McLaughlin,
For the health of Sonya Kolinsky,
Jackie Dougherty asks our prayers for her brother, John Lee, who is gravely ill,
For the health and spiritual welfare, Meg Bradley, the granddaughter
of Rose Bradley,
Timothy
& Crisara, a couple from Maryland have requested our prayers for their spiritual
welfare,
Celine
Pilegaard, the seven year old daughter of Cynthia Pilegaard, for her recovery from
burn injuries,
Rafaela de
Saravia, for
her health and welfare,
Abbe Damien
Dutertre,
traditional Catholic priest arrested by Montreal police while offering Mass,
Francis
(Frank) X. McLaughlin, for the recovery of his
health,
Nicholas
Pell,
for his health and spiritual welfare is the petition of Camilla Meizer,
Mary Kaye
Petr,
her health and welfare is petitioned by Camilla Meizer,
The welfare of Excellency Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò,
The welfare of Rev.
Fr. Martin Skierka, who produces the traditional Ordo in the U.S.,
For the health and welfare of Katie Wess, John Gentry, Vincent Bands, Todd Chairs, Susan Healy and
James O’Gentry is the petition of Camilia,
Marieann
Reuter, recovery of her health, Kathy Kepner, for her health, Shane Cox, for his health,
requests of Philip Thees,
The Joseph
Cox Family, their spiritual welfare,
For the health of Kim Cochran, the daughter-in-law of Joseph and Brenda
Cochran, the wife of their son Joshua,
Louie
Verrecchio,
Catholic apologist, who has a health problem,
John
Minidis, Jr. family, for help in their spiritual
trial,
Joann
DeMarco, for her health and spiritual
welfare,
Regina (Manidis)
Miller,
her spiritual welfare and health,
Melissa
Elena Levitt, her conversion, and welfare of her children,
For the grace of a holy death, Nancy Marie Claycomb,
Conversion of Annette
Murowski, and her son Jimmy,
Brent Keith from Indiana has petitioned our prayers
for the Keith Family,
The welfare of the Schmedes Family, and the Mike and Mariana Donohue Family,
The spiritual welfare Robert Holmes Family,
For the spiritual and temporal welfare of Irwin Kwiat,
Fr. Waters asks our prayers for Elvira Donaghy,
Kimberly Ann, the daughter of John and
Joann DeMarco, for her health and spiritual welfare,
Rende and
Mary Mufide, a traditional Catholics from India ask our prayers for her welfare and
he family members, living and deceased,
Mary Glatz, her health and the welfare
of her family,
Barbara
Harmon,
who is ill,
Jason Green, a father of ten children,
his health,
For the health and welfare of Sorace family,
Fr. Waters asks our prayers for the health and
spiritual welfare of Brian Abramowitz,
Thomas
Schiltz family, in grateful appreciation for their contribution to the beauty of our
chapel,
John Rhoad, for his health and
spiritual welfare,
Kathy Boyle, requests our prayers for
her welfare,
Joyce
Laughman and Robert Twist, for their conversions,
Michael J.
Brigg & his family, who have helped with the needs of the Mission,
Nancy Deegan, her welfare and conversion
to the Catholic Church,
Francis Paul
Diaz,
who was baptized at Ss. Peter & Paul, asks our prayers for his spiritual
welfare,
The conversion of Rene McFarland, Lori Kerr, Cary Shipman
and family, David Bash, Crystal and family, Larry Reinhart, Costanzo Family,
Kathy Scullen, Marilyn Bryant, Vicki Trahern and Time Roe are
the petitions of Gene Peters,
For the conversion of Ben & Tina Boettcher family, Karin Fraessdorf, Eckhard Ebert,
and Fahnauer family,
Fr. Waters requests our prayers for Br. Rene, SSPX, and for Fr. Thomas Blute,
For the welfare of Fr. Paul DaDamio and Fr. William T. Welsh,
The Drew’s ask our prayers for the welfare of Joe & Tracey Sentmanat family, Keith
& Robert Drew, Christy Koziol & her children, Fred Nesbit and Michael
Nesbit families, and Gene Peters Family,
the John Manidis Family, the Sal Messinio Family, Michael Proctor Family,
Ryan Boyle grandmother, Jane Boyle, who is failing health,
Mel Gibson
and his family, please remember in our prayers,
Rev. Timothy A. Hopkins requested our prayers for the
welfare of his friend, Fr Jean-Luc Lafitte,
Ebert’s request our prayers for the Andreas & Jenna Ortner Family,
Joyce Paglia has asked prayers for George Richard Moore Sr. & his
children, and her brother, George
Panell,
Philip Thees asks our prayers for his family, for McLaughlin Family, the welfare
of Dan & Polly Weand, the
conversion of Sophia Herman,
Tony Rosky, the welfare Nancy Erdeck, the wife of
the late Deacon Erdeck, John Calasanctis, Tony Rosky, James Parvenski, Kathleen Gorry, health of mind and body of Cathy Farrar.
Pray for the
Repose of the Souls:
For Jo Ann
Niekrewicz, our dear friend, died March 1, for the blessed repose of
her soul is the petition of all the members of Ss. Peter & Paul,
Shirley
Rotondo, died
February 2-26, and Louisa McBride,
died February 27, is the petition of Monica Bandlow,
Katherine
Veronica Wedel, the mother of Mary Baer, died February 6,
James
Condit, Jr., traditional Catholic activist, died December 27,
Beverly
Harmon, died
December 16, requested by the Sentmanat family,
Rev.
Nicholas DeProspero, a faithful Ruthenian Eastern rite Catholic priest, died December 10,
Monica Bandlow petitions our prayers for her friend, Patricia Messineo, died November
28,
Guy
Berthault,
died November 23, a great Catholic scientist whose work in sedimentology
destrooyed Lyellian geology and the theory of evolution,
Thomas Soul,
died November
8 after receiving the last rites of the Church,
Etta Van Der
Werken, a
dear friend of Barbara Taffe, died 10-21-2025,
Gary Potter, Catholic writer and
apologist and great long time defender of Catholic doctrine and tradition, died
9-9-2025,
Elizabeth
Gorska,
who died September 9, a relative of Lidia Gjec,
Camilia Meiser request our prayers for the souls of Peggy Cummings and Elizabeth Genter,
Thomas A.
Nelson, founder of TAN Books and
Publishers, died August 16,
Juan D.
Gonzalez,
our former sacristan, choir director, and dear friend, died July 23,
Sal
Messineo,
a faithful traditional Catholic, died Augsut 14,
Patricia
Askew, a
friend of Camilla Meiser, died July 3,
Joseph
Kerney, a
young man whose family provided the statues of the Sacred Heart, Mary and
Joseph in our sanctuary, died May 30,
Louis
Richard Ajlouny, the father of Randa Sharpe, died May 15,
Rene Guidicessi, died April 25, an old
friend of the Drews,
F. Donald
Barr, died
March 7 at 94 years of age, co-founder of Robert Francis Religious Goods, in
Philadelphia,
Dr. David
Allen White, a well known defender of the Catholic faith, died February 11,
Bishop
Richard Williamson, a renowned defender of the Catholic faith and most charitable gentleman,
died January 29,
Rodolfo
Alberto Lacayo, a cousin of Claudia Drew, died January 4,
Genieve
Wallace, died
Christmas day,
Ruth Marion
Beaucheane, died December 8, is the
petition of Monica Bandlow,
Ana Maria Salcedo, the sister of Mario Fiol, died November 26,
Fr. Johin Cardaro, a
traditional Catholic priest who was found dead in his home November 2,
Robert Carballo asks that we
remember his parents, Roberto & Aida Carballo, and his friend, David
Duclos, who died April 15,
Bishop Bernard Tissier de
Mallerais who may have been responsible for preventing the SSPX's public
reconciliation with Rome in 2012, died October 8,
Lorna
Edwards, our
dear friend and loyal supporter of this Mission, died August 10,
Lois Petti, died July 28 two hours after
receiving the Last Sacraments from Fr. Waters,
Wolfgang
Smith, a
renowned Catholic scholar, mathematician, scientist, philosopher, who helped
the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation, died July 19,
Willaim
Glatz, a
good and faithful Catholic, died July 17,
Alicio
Gonzalez, a
Catholic who asked for the sacrament of Extreme Unction, unfortunately did not
receive, died July 9,
John
Zavodny, a faithful Catholic who died wearing the
scapular of Mt Carmel on the first Saturday of May, requested by Phyllis Virgil,
Catherine
Martel, a lapsed Catholic, received
the last sacraments in a good disposition from Fr. Waters on March 25 and died
on April 4,
Father
Basilio Méramo, a faithful priest, died March 5, removed from the SSPX for opposing their
accommodation with Rome,
Julia
McDonald,
the mother of Kyle McDonald, died March 1,
Agnus
Melnick,
died February 28, a long time faithful Catholic and mother of eight children,
including a traditional priest,
Kathryn
(Drew) Lederhos, of Wellesley, MA, died
February 3, 2024,
Chris Foley, the
brother of Mary Lou Loftus, died February 1,
Louis Zelaya, the brother of Claudia
Drew, died January 30,
Fr. James
Louis Albert Campbell, a faithful priest who died December 18 at 91 years of age, and her
mother and father, Teresa and Thomas
Maher,
Charles
Harmon,
the father of Tracey Sentmanet, died October 1, after receiving the rites of
the Church,
Fr. Waters requests prayers for Elvira Donaghy, his friend and former secretary a for Bishop
Gerado Zendejas, died September 9,
Robert
Hickson,
a faithful Catholic apologist who died Septembber 2,
Monica Bandlow requests prayers for her parents, Thomas & Teresa Maher, her
husband, William Bandlow, her
brother-in-law, Richard Bandlow,
her sister, Mary Maher, Fr. Christopher Darby, SSPX, who died March 17, Robert Byrne, Michelle Donofrio McDowell, her cousin, Patricia Fabyanic, the Prefect
of Our Lady’s Sodality, March 8, for
John Pfeiffer who died August 20, Theresa
Hanley, died July 23, Fr.
Juan-Carlos Iscara, SSPX, who died December 20, John Kinney, died December 21, Willaim Price, Jr., and Robert Arch Ward, died January 10,
and Myra, killed in a MVA
June 6,
John Sharpe,
Sr.,
died July 20,
Maria
Paulette Salazar, died June 6,
Dale Kinsey requests prayers for his wife, Katherine Kinsey, died May 17,
Richard
Giles,
who died April 29, the father of Traci Sentmanat who converted to the Catholic
faith last All Saints' Day,
Joseph
Sparks,
a devout and faithful Catholic to tradition died February 25,
Joyce Paglia, died
January 21, and Anthony Paglia,
died January 28, who were responsible for the beautiful statuary in our chapel,
Joe Sentmanet request prayers for Richard Giles and Claude Harmon who converted to
the Catholic faith shortly before their deaths,
Rodolfo
Zelaya, the brother of Claudia Drew,
died January 9,
Elizabeth Agosta petitions our prayers for Joseph Napolitano, her brother,
who died January 2,
Michael
Dulisse,
died on December 26,
Michael
Proctor, a close friend of the Drews,
died November 9,
Richard
Anthony Giles, the father-in-law of Joe Sentmanat converted to the Catholic faith on
All Saints Day, died November 5,
Robert
Kolinsky,
the husband of Sonja, died September 18,
Gabriel
Schiltz,
the daughter of Thomas & Gay Schiltz, died August 21,
Mary Dimmel, the
mother –in-law of Victoria Drew Dimmel, died July 18,
Michael
Nesbit,
the brother-in-law and dear friend of the Drew's, died July 14,
Thomas
Thees, the brother of Philip, died
June 19,
Carmen Ragonese,
died June 22,
Juanita
Mohler, a friend of Camella Meiser,
died June 14,
Kathleen
Elias, died February 14,
Hernan Ortiz, the
brother of Fr. Juan Carlos Ortiz, died February 3,
Mary Ann
Boyle,
the mother of a second order Dominican nun, a first order Dominican priest, and
a SSPX priest, died January 24,
John DeMarco, who
attended this Mission in the past, died January23,
Charles
O’Brien, the father of Marlene Cox,
died December 30,
Mufide Rende requests our prayers for the repose of
the souls of her parents, Mehmet
& Nedime,
Kathleen Donelly, died December 29 at 91
years of age, ran the CorMariae website,
Matthew
O'Hare,
most faithful Catholic, died at age 40 on November 30,
Rev. Patrick
J. Perez, a Catholic priest faithful to
tradition, pastor Our Lady Help of Christians, Garden Grove, CA, November 19,
Elizabeth
Benedek,
died December 14, requested by her niece, Agnes Vollkommer,
Dolores
Smith and Richard Costello, faithful Catholics, died
November,
Frank
D’Agustino,
a friend of Philp Thees, died November 8,
Fr.
Dominique Bourmaud, of the SSPX, Prior of St.
Vincent in Kansas City, died September 4,
Pablo Daniel
Silva, the brother of Elizabeth
Vargas, died August 18,
Rose Bradley, a
member of Ss. Peter & Paul, died July 14,
Patricia
Ellias, died June 1, recently
returned to the Church died with the sacraments and wearing the brown scapular,
Joan Devlin, the sister-in-law of Rose
Bradley, died May 18,
William
Muligan, died April 29, two days after
receiving the last sacraments,
Robert Petti, died
March 19, the day after receiving the last sacraments,
Mark
McDonald, the father of Kyle, who died
December 26,
Perla Otero, died December 2020, Leyla Otero, January 2021,
cousins of Claudia Drew,
Mehmet Rende, died
December 12, who was the father of Mary Mufide,
Joseph
Gravish, died November 26, 100 year
old WWII veteran and daily communicant,
Jerome
McAdams,
the father of, died November 30,
Rev. James
O’Hara, died November 8, requested by
Alex Estrada,
Elizabeth
Batko, the sacristan at St. John the
Baptist in Pottstown for over 40 years, died on First Saturday November 7
wearing the brown scapular,
William Cox, the
father of Joseph Cox, who died September 3,
James Larson, Catholic
apologists, author of War Against Being
publication, died July 6, 2020,
Hutton
Gibson, died May 12,
Sr. Regina
Cordis,
Immaculate Heart of Mary religious for sixty-five years, died May 12,
Leslie Joan
Matatics, devoted Catholic wife and
mother of nine children, died March 24,
Victoria
Zelaya, the sister-in-law of Claudia
Drew, died March 20,
Ricardo
DeSilva,
died November 16, our prayers requested by his brother, Henry DeSilva,
Rev. Fr.
Joseph F. Collins, died April 27, 2019 to whom we are indebted for establishing our
traditional pre-Bugnini Holy Week in all
its beauty,
Roland H.
Allard,
a friend of the Drew’s, died September 28,
Stephen
Cagorski
and John Bogda, who
both died wearing the brown
scapular,
Cecilia
LeBow, a most faithful Catholic,
Rose Cuono, died Oct 23,
Patrick
Rowen, died
March 25, and his brother, Daniel
Rowen, died May 15,
Sandra
Peters, the
wife of Gene Peters, who died June 10 receiving the sacraments and wearing our
Lady’s scapular,
Rev. Francis
Slupski, a
priest who kept the Catholic faith and its immemorial traditions, died May 14,
Martha
Mochan, the
sister of Philip Thees, died April 8,
George
Kirsch,
our good friend and supporter of this Mission, died February 15,
For Fr.
Paul J. Theisz, died October 17, is the petition of Fr. Waters,
Fr. Mecurio
Fregapane,
died Jan 12, was not a traditional priest but always charitable,
Fr. Casimir
Peterson,
a priest who often offered the Mass in our chapel and provided us with sound
advice, died December 4,
Fr.
Constantine Bellasarius, a faithful and always
charitable Eastern Rite Catholic Melkite priest, who left the Roman rite, died
November 27,
Christian
Villegas,
a motor vehicle accident, his brother, Michael, requests our prayers,
John Vennari, the former editor of
Catholic Family News, and for his family’s welfare, April 4,
Mary Butler, the aunt of Fr. Samuel
Waters, died October 17,
Joseph
DeMarco,
the nephew of John DeMarco, died October 3,
John Fergale, died September 25 after
receiving the traditional sacramental rites of the Church wearing the brown
scapular,
John Gabor, the brother of Donna
Marbach, died September 9,
Fr. Eugene
Dougherty,
a faithful priest, fittingly died on the Nativity of the BVM after receiving
the traditional Catholic sacraments,
Phyllis
Schlafly,
died September 5,
Helen
Mackewicz,
died August 14,
Mark A.
Wonderlin,
who died August 2,
Fr. Carl
Cebollero,
a faithful priest to tradition who was a friend of Fr. Waters and Fr. DeMaio,
Jessica
Cortes,
a young mother of ten who died June 12,
Frances
Toriello, a
life-long Catholic faithful to tradition, died June3, the feast of the Sacred
Heart, and her husband Dan,
died in 1985,
John
McLaughlin, a friend of the Drew’s, died May 22,
Angela
Montesano,
who died April 30, and her husband, Salvatore,
who died in July 3, 2013,
Charles Schultz, died
April 5, left behind nine children and many grandchildren, all traditional
Catholics,
Esperanza Lopez de Callejas,
the aunt of Claudia Drew, died March 15,
Fr. Edgardo Suelo, a faithful
priest defending our traditions who was working with Fr. Francois Chazal in the
Philippines, died February 19,
Conde McGinley, a long time
laborer for the traditional faith, died February 12, at 96 years,
The Drew family requests
your prayers for Ida Fernandez and Rita Kelley,
parishioners at St. Jude,
Fr. Stephen
Somerville,
a traditional priest who repented from his work with the Novus Ordo English
translation, died December 12,
Fr. Arturo
DeMaio,
a priest that helped this Mission with the sacraments and his invaluable
advice, died December 2,
J. Paul
Carswell,
died October 15, 2015,
Solange
Hertz, a
great defender of our Catholic faith, died October 3, the First Saturday of the
month,
Paula P.
Haigh,
died October 22, a great defender of our Catholic faith in philosophy and
natural science,
Gabriella
Whalin,
the mother of Gabriella Schiltz, who died August 25,
Mary
Catherine Sick, 14 year old from a large traditional Catholic family, died August 25,
Fr. Paul
Trinchard,
a traditional Catholic priest, died August 25,
Stephen J.
Melnick, Jr., died on August 21, a long-time faithful traditional Catholic husband
and father, from Philadelphia,
Patricia
Estrada,
died July 29, her son Alex petitions our prayers for her soul,
Fr. Nicholas
Gruner,
a devoted priest & faithful defender of Blessed Virgin Mary and her Fatima
message, died April 29,
Sarah E.
Shindle,
the grandmother of Richard Shindle, died April 26,
Madeline
Vennari,
the mother of John Vennari, died December 19,
Salvador
Baca Callejas, the uncle of Claudia Drew, died December 13,
Robert Gomez, who died in a motor vehicle
accident November 29,
Catherine
Dunn,
died September 15,
Anthony
Fraser,
the son of Hamish Fraser, died August 28,
Jeannette
Rhoad,
the grandmother of Devin Rhoad, who died August 24,
John Thees, the uncle of Philip Thees,
died August 9,
Sarah
Harkins, 32 year-old mother of four
children, died July 28,
Msgr. Donald
Adams, who
offered the Indult Mass, died April 1996,
Anita Lopez, the aunt of Claudia Drew,
Fr. Kenneth
Walker,
a young traditional priest of the FSSP who was murdered in Phoenix June 11,
Fr. Waters petitions our prayers for Gilberte Violette, the mother of
Fr. Violette, who died May 6,
Pete Hays petitions our prayers for his brothers, Michael, died May 9, and James, died October 20, his
sister, Rebecca, died March17, and his mother, Lorraine Hayes who died May 4,
Philip
Marbach,
the father of Paul Marbach who was the coordinator at St. Jude in Philadelphia,
died April 21,
Richard
Slaughtery,
the elderly sacristan for the SSPX chapel in Kansas City, died April 13,
Bernedette
Marie Evans nee Toriello, the daughter of Daniel Toriello, died March 31, a
faithful Catholic who suffered many years with MS,
Natalie
Cagorski,
died march 23,
Anita Lopez
de Lacayo,
the aunt of Claudia Drew, who died March 21,
Mario
Palmaro,
Catholic lawyer, bioethicist and professor, apologist, died March 9, welfare of
his widow and children,
Daniel Boyle, the
uncle of Ryan Boyle, died March 4,
Jeanne
DeRuyscher,
who died on January 25,
Arthur
Harmon,
died January 18,
Fr. Waters petitions our prayers for the soul of Jeanne DeRuyscher, who died
January 17,
Joseph
Proctor,
died January 10,
Susan Scott, a devote traditional
Catholic who made the vestments for our Infant of Prague statue, died January
8,
Brother
Leonard Mary, M.I.C.M., (Fred Farrell), an early supporter and friend of Fr. Leonard
Feeney, died November 23,
John Fergale, requests our prayers for
his sister Connie, who died December 19,
Jim Capaldi, died December 15,
Brinton
Creager,
the son of Elizabeth Carpenter, died December 10,
Christopher
Lussos,
age 27, the father of one child with an expecting wife, died November 15,
Jarett
Ebeyer,
16 year old who died in his sleep, November 17, at the request of the
Kolinsky’s,
Catherine
Nienaber,
the mother of nine children, the youngest three years of age, killed in MVA
after Mass, 10-29,
Nancy Aldera, the sister of Frances
Toriello, died October 11, 2013 at 105 years of age,
Mary Rita
Schiltz,
the mother of Thomas Schiltz, who died August 27,
William H.
(Teddy) Kennedy, Catholic author of Lucifer’s Lodge, died August 14, age 49, cause of
death unknown,
Alfred
Mercier,
the father of David Mercier, who died August 12,
The Robert Kolinsky asks our prayers for his friend, George Curilla, who died August
23,
John Cuono, who had attended Mass at
our Mission in the past, died August 11,
Raymond
Peterson,
died July 28, and Paul Peterson,
died February 19, the brothers of Fr. Casimir Peterson,
Margaret
Brillhart,
who died July 20,
Msgr. Joseph
J. McDonnell, a priest from the diocese of Des Moines, who died June 8,
Patrick
Henry Omlor, who wrote Questioning The Validity of the Masses using
the New, All English Canon, and for a series of newsletters which were published
as The Robber Church, died May 2, the feast of St Athanasius,
Bishop
Joseph McFadden, died unexpectedly May 2,
Timothy
Foley,
the brother-in-law of Michelle Marbach Folley, who died in April,
William
Sanders,
the uncle of Don Rhoad, who died April 2,
Gene Peters ask our prayers for the repose of the
soul of Mark Polaschek, who
died March 22,
Eduardo
Gomez Lopez, the uncle of Claudia Drew, February 28,
Cecelia
Thees,
died February 24,
Elizabeth
Marie
Gerads, a
nineteen year old, the oldest of twelve children, who died February 6,
Michael
Schwartz,
the co-author with Fr. Enrique Rueda of “Gays, Aids, and You,” died February 3,
Stanley W.
Moore,
passed away in December 16, and Gerard (Jerry) R. Pitman, who died January 19,
who attended this Mission in the past,
Louis
Fragale,
who died December 25,
Fr. Luigi
Villa, Th.D. author of Vatican II About
Face! detailing the heresies of Vatican II, died November 18 at the age of 95,
Rev. Michael
Jarecki,
a faithful traditional Catholic priest who died October 22,
Jennie Salaneck, died September 19 at 95
years of age, a devout and faithful Catholic all her life,
Dorothy Sabo, who died September 26,
Cynthia
(Cindy) Montesano Reinhert, the mother of nine children, four who are still at
home, died August 19,
Stanley
Spahalski, who died October 20, and his wife, Regina
Spahalski, who died June 24, and for the soul of Francis Lester, her son,
Julia
Atkinson,
who died April 30,
Antonio P.
Garcia, who
died January 6, 2012 and the welfare of his teenage children, Andriana and
Quentin,
Helen Crane, the aunt of David Drew who
died February 27,
Fr. Timothy
A. Hopkins,
of the National Shrine of St. Philomena, in Miami, November 2,
Frank Smith, who died February 7, and
the welfare of his wife, Delores,
Eduardo
Cepeda,
who died January 26,
Larry Young, the 47 year old father of
twelve who died December 10 and the welfare of his wife Katherine and their
family,
Sister Mary
Bernadette, M.I.C.M., a founding member of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, died
December 16,
Joeseph
Elias,
who died on September 28,
William, the brother of Fr. Waters,
who died September 7,
Donald
Tonelli,
died August 1,
Rev. Fr.
Gregory Hesse, of Austria, a great defender of Catholic Truth, died January 25, 2006,
Emma
Colasanti, who died May 29,
Mary
Dullesse,
who died April 12, a Catholic convert who died wearing our Lady’s scapular,
Ruth Jantsch, the grandmother of Andre
Ebert, who died April 7, Derrick and Denise Palengat, his godparents,
Philip D.
Barr,
died March 5, and the welfare of his family,
Judith Irene
Kenealy,
the mother of Joyce Paglia, who died February 23, and her son, George Richard
Moore, who died May 14,
For Joe
Sobran who died September 30,
Fr. Hector
Bolduc,
a great and faithful priest, died, September 10, 2012,
James &
Jean Rowan
and their sons, Patrick & Daniel,
John Vennari asks our prayers for Dr. Raphael Waters who died
August 26,
Stanley
Bodalsky,
the father of Mary Ann Boyle who died June 25,
Mary Isabel
Kilfoyle Humphreys, a former York resident and friend of the Drew’s, who died June 6,
Rev. John
Campion,
who offered the traditional Mass for us every first Friday until forbidden to
do so by Bishop Dattilo, died May 1,
Joseph
Montagne, who
died May 5,
For Margaret
Vagedes, the aunt of Charles Zepeda, who died January 6,
Fr. Michael
Shear, a
Byzantine rite Catholic priest, died August 17, 2006,
Fr. James
Francis Wathen, died November 7, 2006, author of The
Great Sacrilege and Who Shall
Ascend?, a great defender of dogma and liturgical purity,
Fr. Enrique
Rueda,
who died December 14, 2009, to whom our Mission is indebted,
Fr. Peterson asks to remember, Leonard Edward Peterson, his cousin, Wanda, Angelica Franquelli, and the six
priests ordained with him.
Philip Thees petitions our prayers for Beverly Romanick, Deacon Michael Erdeck,
Henry J. Phillips, Grace Prestano, Connie DiMaggio, Elizabeth Thorhas,
Elizabeth Thees, Theresa Feraker, Hellen Pestrock, and James & Rose Gomata,
and Kathleen Heinbach,
Fr. Didier
Bonneterre,
the author of The Liturgical Movement, and Fr. John Peek, both were traditional
priests,
Brother
Francis, MICM, the superior of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary in
Richmond, NH, who died September 5,
Rodolfo
Zelaya Montealegre, the father of Claudia Drew, who died May 24,
Rev. Francis
Clifford,
a devout and humble traditional priest, who died on March 7,
Benjamin
Sorace,
the uncle of Sonja Kolinsky.
The
14 promises revealed to Brother Estanislao by Our Lord for those who pray the
Way of the Cross
·
I promise
Eternal Life to those who pray from time to time, The Way of the Cross.
·
I will
grant everything that is asked of Me with faith, when making The Way of the
Cross.
·
I will
follow them everywhere in life and help them, especially at the hour of death.
·
Even if
they have more sins than blades of grass in the fields, and grains of sand in
the sea, all of them will be erased by praying The Way of the Cross.
·
Those who
pray The Way of The Cross often, will have a special glory in Heaven.
·
I will
deliver them from Purgatory, indeed if they go there at all, the first Tuesday
or Friday after their death.
·
At the
hour of death I will not permit the devil to tempt them; I will lift all power
from him in order that they shall repose tranquilly in My Arms.
·
If they
pray it with true love, I will make of each one of them a living Ciborium in
which it will please Me to pour My grace.
·
I will
fix My Eyes on those who pray The Way of The Cross often; My hands will always
be open to protect them.
·
I will
bless them at each Way of The Cross, and My blessing will follow them
everywhere on earth and after their death, in Heaven for all Eternity.
·
As I am
nailed to the Cross, so also will I always be with those who honor Me in making
The Way of The Cross frequently.
·
They will
never be able to separate themselves from Me, for I will give them the grace
never again to commit a Mortal sin.
·
At the
hour of death I will console them with My Presence and we will go together to
Heaven. Death will be sweet to all those who have honored Me during their lives
by praying The Way of the Cross.
·
My Soul
will be a protective shield for them, and will always help them, whenever they
have recourse.
My orders are
to fight;
Then if I
bleed, or fail,
Or strongly
win, what matters it?
God only doth
prevail.
The servant
craveth naught,
Except to
serve with might.
I was not told
to win or lose, –
My orders are
to fight.
Ethelwyn
Wetherald
Again, if we are to avoid the errors which are the source and
fountain-head of all the miseries of our time, the teaching of Aquinas must be
adhered to more religiously than ever. For Thomas refutes the theories
propounded by Modernists in every sphere:
· in
philosophy, by protecting, as We have reminded you, the force and power of the
human mind and by demonstrating the existence of God by the most cogent
arguments;
· in
dogmatic theology, by distinguishing the supernatural from the natural order
and explaining the reasons for belief and the dogmas themselves;
· in
theology, by showing that the articles of faith are not based upon mere opinion
but upon truth and therefore cannot possibly change;
· in
exegesis, by transmitting the true conception of divine inspiration;
· in
the science of morals, in sociology and law, by laying down sound principles of
legal and social, commutative and distributive, justice and explaining the
relations between justice and charity;
· in
the theory of asceticism, by his precepts concerning the perfection of the
Christian life and his confutation of the enemies of the religious orders in
his own day.
· Lastly,
against the much vaunted liberty of the human reason and its independence in
regard to God he asserts the rights of primary Truth and the authority over us
of the Supreme Master.
Pope Pius X, Doctoris Angelici (1914)
Why the Modern
Clerics Lack “Counsel, Reason, and Inspiration”?
They have been
“gathering from strange and unwholesome streams”!
But the chief and special glory
of St. Thomas, one which he has shared with none of the Catholic Doctors, is
that the Fathers of Trent made it part of the order of conclave to lay upon the
altar, together with sacred Scripture and the decrees of the supreme Pontiffs,
the Summa of Thomas Aquinas, whence to seek counsel, reason, and inspiration.
Our first and most cherished idea is that you should all furnish to studious
youth a generous and copious supply of those purest streams of wisdom flowing
inexhaustibly from the precious fountainhead of the Angelic Doctor…. be careful
to guard the minds of youth from those which are said to flow thence (from St
Thomas), but in reality are gathered from strange and unwholesome streams.
Pope Leo XIII, Aeterni Patris
(1879)
What Unites All Modernist Theologians
and Philosophers is their Rejection of St. Thomas
We admonish professors to bear well in mind
that they cannot set aside St. Thomas, especially in metaphysical questions,
without grave disadvantage. Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi, September 8, 1907
Novena of Grace
Most amiable
and most loving Saint Francis Xavier, in union with thee I reverently adore the
divine Majesty. I rejoice exceedingly on
account of the marvelous gifts which God bestowed upon thee. I thank God for the special graces He gave
thee during thy life on earth and for the great glory that came to thee after
thy death. I implore thee to obtain for
me, through thy powerful intercession, the greatest of all blessings- that of
living and dying in the state of grace.
I also beg of thee to secure for me the special favor I ask in this
novena: ______________.
In asking
this favor I am fully resigned to the divine will. I pray and desire only to obtain that which
is most conducive to the greater glory of God and the greater good of my soul.
V. Pray for us, Saint Francis Xavier.
R. That we may be worthy of
the promises of Christ.
Let us pray
O God, Who didst vouchsafe, by the preaching and miracles of St. Francis
Xavier, to join unto Thy Church the nations of the Indies; grant, we beseech
Thee, that we who reverence his glorious merits, may also imitate his example,
through Jesus Christ, our Lord. Amen
Prayer of St. Francis
Xavier for the Conversion of the Infidels
Eternal God, Creator of all things, remember that Thou alone didst
create the souls of infidels, framing them to Thine own image and likeness;
behold, O Lord! how, to Thy dishonor, hell is daily replenished with them. Remember, O Lord! Thine only Son, Jesus
Christ, Who suffered for them, most bountifully shedding His precious blood;
suffer not, O Lord! Thy Son and our Lord to be any longer despised by infidels;
but rather, being appeased by the entreaties and prayers of the elect, the
saints, and of the Church, the most blessed spouse of Thy Son, vouchsafe to be
mindful of Thy mercy, and forgetting their idolatry and infidelity, cause them
also to know Him Whom Thou didst send, Jesus Christ Thy Son, our Lord, Who is
our health, life, and resurrection, through Whom we are freed and saved, to
Whom be all glory forever.
Hymn
O Father St. Francis, we kneel at thy feet,
while blessings and favors we beg and entreat,
That thou from thy bright throne in heaven
above, wouldst look on thy clients with pity and love.
St. Francis Xavier, O pray for us!
O, Father St. Francis, thy words were once
strong, against Satan’s wiles and an infidel throng,
Not less is thy might where in heaven thou
art; O come to our aid, in our battle take part.
St. Francis Xavier, O pray for us!
O God, Thou art the object of
my love, not for the hope of endless joys above,
nor the fear of endless pains
below, which those who love Thee not must undergo.
For me, and such as me, Thou
once didst bear, the ignominious cross, the nails, the spear
A thorny crown transpierced Thy
sacred brow; what bloody sweats from every member flow!
Such as then was and is Thy
love for me, such is and shall be still my love for Thee;
Thy love O Jesus, will I ever
sing-----O God of love, sweet Savior, dearest King!
Dogma is the
Proximate Rule of Faith
Modernism is condemned because it virtually
destroys Christian dogma by denying that the dogmas of faith are contained in
the revelation made by the Holy Spirit to the Catholic Church and subsequently
defined through the supreme authority of the same Ecclesia docens{1}. Once the Holy
Spirit, speaking through the supreme magisterium{2} of the Church,
defines a doctrine as de fide{3} the dogma in question remains, both in se{4} and
in its external formula or terminology, unchanged and unchangeable, like God, Whose voice it
communicates to us, in the shape of definite truth. Modernism tells us
quite the reverse.
{1} Ecclesia docens -- i.e., 'the teaching
Church.'
{2} Magisterium = 'teaching
authority.'
{3} De fide = 'what is of faith.'
{4} In se = 'in itself.'
Rev. Father
Norbert Jones, C.R.L., Old Truths, Not Modernist Errors, Exposure of Modernism
and Vindication of its Condemnation by the Pope, 1908, (footnotes in original)
STOP
GIVING Neo-Modernists of Rome the benefit of doubt. Vatican II is doing exactly
what it was intended to do!
“Kindness is for fools. They want them to be treated with oil, soap, and
caresses but they ought to be beaten with fists! In a duel you don’t count or
measure the blows, you strike as you can. War is not made with charity, it is a
struggle, a duel. If Our Lord were not terrible he would not have given an
example in this too. See how he treated the Philistines, the sowers of error,
the wolves in sheep’s clothing, the traitors in the temple. He scourged them
with whips!”
St. Pius X, how Modernists should be treated
Explains
why Newman is now a "Doctor" of the Novus Ordites
He (Henry Cardinal
Newman) was led into his error by the false philosophy of the age, which
asserts that the mind apprehends truth only under subjective forms, and by
his Protestantism, which misapprehends the real character of those new
definitions and further explications of the faith opposed by the Church to
novel heresies and errors as they arise (i.e.:DOGMA). Confounding the
simple belief of the truth with the intellectual process of comprehending it,
he fell into the mistake of supposing that heresy has always an honest origin,
that it always springs from the necessary and laudable effort of the mind, an
effort which every true believer must make, to ascertain and comprehend the
truth, and that it always presupposes the faith on the point it contradicts was
previously unknown even to the pastors of the Church; — a sad mistake, for the
Church has never hesitated as to the faith to be opposed to the novel heresy,
which proves that she knew it prior to the heresy, and the heresy never
originates in ignorance of the faith or in an honest endeavor to ascertain it,
but in the desire to establish a favorite theory, or to follow one's own
private judgment.
Orestes Brownson,
on the fundamental err of Cardinal John Henry Newman, who Modernist Heretics
regard as their principle inspiration, from Newman's theory, written as a
Protestant, Essay on the Development of Christine Doctrine
“Only take heed to yourself and guard your soul diligently.” Deut 4:9
"It is a sin to believe there is salvation outside the Catholic
Church!"
Blessed Pope Pius IX
The
SINS of the Novus Ordo Church:
Characterized
first and foremost by its SINS against the Theological Virtues and its SINS
against the Virtue of Religion - the most Malicious of all SINS because they
have God as their direct objects!
From a theological point of view, evils may be divided into two classes
: Voluntary evils (Sins) and Involuntary evils (Pain and Suffering). The evils
of the first class are really "the" evil, that is, objects to be
avoided and hated. They are also the greatest evils, because they injure at the
same time their own author and the Author of nature. God cannot cause, but only
permit and oppose them. The evils of the second class are only evils of the
subject which naturally abhors them, yet they are not so detestable as to be avoided
in all cases. God may cause them and use them as means to His ends; notably, as
a penalty for sin. In the original order established by Him, there was no room
for evils of this class. They came into the world with sin. As a matter of
fact, then, all evils existing in this world spring from sin, the greatest and
original evil. Hence the above division is equivalent to another which
distinguishes "Evils of Guilt" and "Evils of Penalty" (mala culpae, mala poenae). Many evils
may, however, be at the same time a guilt and a penalty. Sin in its theological
and proper sense, consists in the conscious and voluntary transgression,
lesion, or denial of the moral order imposed upon the creature by Divine Law.
The philosophical notion of sin does not contain the element of Divine command.
What to the theologian is a voluntary transgression of the law of God is looked
upon by the philosopher as a transgression of the rational and natural order.
Yet even in sound philosophy the notion of sin ought not to be dissociated from
disobedience to the Lawgiver, for sin is always an action against the dictates
of conscience, and these are but the commanding voice of God (Rom. ii. 14-16).
Hence the essence of sin consists in the more or less express
opposition of the human will against the Divine Will, an opposition which
implies a certain neglect or contempt of the Divine Will itself. This contempt
involves an "aversion from God as the ultimate End," that is, a
refusal of the submission and love which are His due. Sin averts or turns away
the creature from God as the Highest Good in Himself, and from God as the
Highest Good of the creature itself, in Whom alone it can find perfect
beatitude. It seeks outside God a satisfaction or pleasure incompatible with
the possession and fruition of God. On God's side, the contempt of His will by
the creature constitutes an offence and an insult, according to the saying,
"The lawbreaker offends the lawmaker." And this offence always
includes an "injury;" that is, it injures or damages the external
glory of God. For this reason, Holy Scripture describes sin as injustice, and
iniquity. Again, sin being always committed under the very eyes or in the face
of God, it must needs excite His displeasure, abhorrence, indignation, and
anger. These affections in God are not accompanied by the same feelings as in
man, yet they exist in Him eminently; and it is not the defect of malice in
sin, but God's own immutability, which prevents Him from being affected with
infinite pain by the sinner. In
sins against the theological virtues, and against the virtue of religion, the
aversion and offence assume a direct character, because God is the immediate
object of these virtues. Sin is clearly the greatest of evils — and an
absolute evil, because it deprives the Greatest and Absolute Good of the honour
due to Him.
Scheeben's Manual of Catholic Theology by Rev. Joseph Wilhelm, D.D.,
Ph.D. and Rev Thomas B. Scannell, D.D.
Separation
of Church and State is impossible. Every
state has an established religion with a creedal profession containing articles
of faith that it demands its citizens profess.
These articles of faith cannot be proven to be true or even demonstrated
as consistent with natural law. The
U.S.A. is no exception to this rule. We have a state religion but it is called
by another name. The secular dogma,
‘Separation of Church and State’, is nothing more than a tool to prevent
competition against the state religion in the public forum. The state demands a “faith” in “general
values” that are always “relative and changing.”
All organization is action and all action is rude. […..] There is a
hierarchy of values which have been expressed in nearly every revolutionary
slogan in history…. These values are up
on top. The democratic way of life is nothing more than a process, a device, a modus operandi, designed as the best
way, we believe, of achieving those values, of growing into them so to speak.
Now, those values that I have mentioned cannot be discussed, they cannot be
argued, they cannot be debated, they are articles of faith. [..…] In a free and
open society, equality is a value you cannot discuss or debate or put on a
ballot. If you do not accept our values then you can have no voice in a
democratic process. Then get out of our system and go someplace else. [……]
These values and goals, out of necessity, are always stated in general
terms. Every literate revolutionary
knows that you cannot be any more than general (in your) terms because all
values are relative and are changing.
Saul Alinsky, Jewish revolutionary, explaining the ‘religion’ of the
modern democratic state, 1/17/69, UCLA
Society
has already reached a sense of being “defeated” and “futureless.” The Novus Ordo Church is an essential cause
and contributor to this sense rather than a light of hope of union with Jesus
Christ!
[You must help] the people in the community… feel so frustrated,
so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are
willing to let go of the past and chance the future. [An] organizer must
shake up the prevailing patterns of their lives –agitate, create disenchantment
and discontent with the current values, to produce, if not a passion for
change, at least a passive, affirmative, non-challenging climate. [You
must] fan the embers of hopelessness into a flame of fight.
Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals
Traditionalist
Catholic group doubles down on illicit consecrations, setting course for
potential schism
Vatican News |
Vatican City | Justin McLellan | February 19, 2026
The traditionalist Catholic society long a
thorn in the side of the Vatican will move forward with plans to create its own
bishops without approval from the pope. The plan escalates its standoff with
Rome and sets the group on a path toward an outright break from the Catholic
Church.
The Feb. 19 announcement marks the latest turn in a back-and-forth
between the Society of St. Pius X and the Vatican that sought to avoid a
full-blown rupture between the two. Now, the situation poses a major test for
Pope Leo XIV, who has made church unity a priority of his pontificate.
Fr. Davide Pagliarani, superior general of the Society of St. Pius X,
said in a letter that the society would not postpone its announced bishop
consecrations. The letter was sent to Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, prefect
of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, which oversees the Vatican's
relationship with the group.
The two met one-on-one on Feb. 12 to discuss a resolution to the
society's threat of consecrating new bishops in defiance of Rome.
In their meeting, the cardinal offered to engage in a theological
"path of dialogue" with the society to establish "the minimum
requirements necessary for full communion with the Catholic Church" on the
condition the society suspend their planned episcopal consecrations.
Notably, Fernández met with the pope on Feb. 19, the day the letter was
made public.
The Society of St. Pius X has long operated in a canonical gray zone.
While its priests have been granted faculties in certain cases, including
permission for the valid administration of confession and marriage, the society
continues to function without full canonical recognition and in open defiance
of church authorities.
Pagliarini wrote that the society is not seeking canonical regularity
in the church,which he said "in the current state of affairs, is
impracticable due to doctrinal divergences."
The Society of St. Pius X, which counts 733 priests worldwide according
to its latest figures, rejects key teachings of the Second Vatican Council. That
includes the church's teaching on interreligious dialogue and the postconciliar
liturgical reform promulgated in 1970 and now celebrated by nearly all
Latin-rite Catholics.
Among the topics Fernández proposed for discussion with the Society of
St. Pius X were "the different degrees of assent required by the various
texts of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council and their interpretation."
In response, Pagliarani wrote that the society and the Vatican
"cannot agree doctrinally" in light of the insistence that "the
texts of the Council cannot be corrected, nor can the legitimacy of the
liturgical reform be challenged."
The society's decision sets up a direct confrontation with the Vatican
ahead of its planned July 1 bishop consecrations, a move widely interpreted as
an attempt to pressure Rome into addressing the Society of St. Pius X's
shrinking number of bishops. [......]
COMMENT:
It is unfortunate that the SSPX is incapable of effectively defending
the Catholic Faith against the Neo-Modernists that control the Vatican. It is
absurd to say, "we 'cannot agree doctrinally' in light of the insistence
that 'the texts of the Council cannot be corrected, nor can the legitimacy of
the liturgical reform be challenged.'" It is not a question of exchanging
legitimate theological opinions on open questions. It is question defending the
faith against the claims of heretics. Vatican II and the Novus Ordo communion
service are heretical. SSPX should confront aberrant theological opinions and
the corruption of divine worship of the Neo-Modernists with Catholic dogma.
They should begin by asking how is it possible that a pastoral council of
churchmen teaching merely by their grace of state that called everything in the
Church into question itself cannot be questioned, especially when its
implementation has caused the greatest destruction of faith and worship in the
history of the Church? Their reason for this is no mystery. It is perfectly
legitimate to conclude that the destruction of the Church is the intention of
the Neo-Modernists. That is why they will not question Vatican II is because,
in their estimation, it is magnificent success! It is doing exactly what it was
intended to do.
Pope Leo has begun a series of Vatican II "catechesis." The
most recent on February 18 was on the document, Lumen gentium, the constitution
on the Church, and subtitled, "The
mystery of the Church, sacrament of the union with God, and the unity of all
humanity," wherein he cited this Lumen gentium teaching:
"The Church
is in Christ like a sacrament or as a sign and instrument both of a very
closely knit union with God and of the unity of the whole human race."
Vatican II, Lumen Gentium
Is this true? No it is not. The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. This
is an identity and it is heresy to obfuscate this truth by claiming, as Lumen
Gentium did, that the "Mystical Body of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church" implying there are other
members of the Church of Chrst that are not Catholics. The members of the
Catholic Church, and therefore, the Mystical Body of Christ, profess the one,
holy, Catholic, and Apostolic faith; they have, while professing this faith, by
the sacrament of Baptism been made members of this Body; and they as members of
this Body are subject to her ecclesiastical superiors. Those that have not been
baptized are not members of the Church; those that are baptized and reject the
truths revealed by God are apostates and/or heretics and are not members of the
Church; those that reject the universal jurisdiction of the pope are
schismatics and are not members of the Church. The Church is NOT a
"sign.... of a very close knit union.... of the whole human race"
because the "whole human race" is not a member of the Church. There
is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Those members of the "whole
human race" who reject the Catholic faith stand only in potentia to this membership and the
possibility of salvation. The duty of the pope is to preach the gospel message
for the purpose bringing those in potentia
to membership in the Church to being members in actu. This is why for the post Vatican II Novus Ordo popes
proselytism is "solemn nonsense" because if the "whole human
race" is somehow already united to the Church they do not need to be converted. Pope Leo in affirming this corrupt pastoral
opinion from Vatican II is joining himself with its heresy, and as St. Thomas
made perfectly clear, "all heretics are schismatics." Furthermore, it
is an absurdity, a violation of the first principles of the understanding, to
affirm that disobedience to the pope who is a heretic, and therefore a
schismatic, is a schismatic act! It would be to claim that a schismatic pope
makes the entire Church schismatic.
For
the Indult Catholic Community: This is who they are dealing with!
Is church
unity worth a Latin Mass?
Religion News Service |Thomas Reese | February 6, 2026
"Paris is well worth a Mass" was reportedly the attitude of
King Henry IV when he was trying to secure the French throne. As a result, he
converted from Protestantism to Catholicism in 1593.
Today, the Eucharist, which is supposed to be the sacrament of unity,
is too often a battlefield between Catholics who support the Traditional Latin
Mass and those who want to see it disappear. Both sides need to ask themselves
whether the fight is worth something more important than Paris: the unity of
the church.
You must be my age to remember before the Second Vatican Council, when
the liturgy was entirely in Latin in Catholic churches, except in those using
Eastern Rite liturgies, where it was often in Greek. In Rome, it had been
changed from Greek into Latin in the third and fourth centuries so the common
people could understand it — a pragmatic decision, not a theological one.
When
I was young, we took it for granted that the Mass was in Latin. It was
something that made us different from Protestants. We could go to the same Mass
anywhere in the world. The Scripture readings were in Latin, although on Sunday
the priest would reread the Gospel in English before giving his sermon.
Otherwise, unless you had a translation, you had no idea what the readings
were.
The Eucharistic prayer was the priest' s prayer, which he said with his
back to us. The altar boy would ring the bells to notify us when the priest
raised the host and chalice for us to adore. The bell also rang to call us to
Communion.
Other than that, the priest did his thing and the congregation
passively watched or prayed in silence.
In high school from 1958 to 1962, I had a St. Joseph's Missal with
Latin on one side of the page and English on the other so that I could follow
what the priest was praying when I went to daily Mass, but that was not the
norm. My parents had prayerbooks they read during Mass that had no connection
to what the priest was doing. Others in the church silently said their rosaries
during Mass.
And prior to the 20th century, Communion was infrequent. My parents
were among the first children allowed to go to Communion. Those who want to bring back the
Tridentine liturgy, if they want to be truly traditional, should go to
Communion less frequently and not allow their children to go to Communion.
Otherwise they are accepting early 20th-century innovations.
Although I entered the Jesuits prior to the Second Vatican Council and
went through a very traditional novitiate, I did not find the liturgical
changes difficult to accept. Our
conservative novice master taught us a course on the history of the Mass using
Josef A. Jungmannn's "Mass of the Roman Rite," which was published in
English in 1951. It taught us that the Mass was always changing throughout
history.
The transition was
also made easier by our traditional novitiate's emphasis on obedience. If the
church decided to change the liturgy, we were to accept it without question. To
do otherwise would be disobedient.
The Jesuits in
charge of formation were no help during the transition. They were clueless
about what was happening. The classics professors argued about how we
should pronounce "Amen" in English. The first time our superior said
the Eucharistic prayer in English, he got as far as the institutional narrative
and switched to "Hoc est enim corpus meum." The next day, he was able
to do it all in English.
Some of my
classmates had problems with the transition. Before ordination in 1973, one
confessed that it just wasn't the same because in the old church, after
ordination, he would be allowed to touch the consecrated bread for the first
time. Now anyone could receive Communion in the hand. It was as if part of his
priesthood had been taken away.
But for the most
part, the liturgical changes were accepted and implemented with excitement and
joy. They were the most visible reforms of Vatican II. And after a bit
of confusion, they were accepted overwhelmingly by Catholics in the pews.
But there were two
groups of holdouts.
First, there were
those who found the change difficult because they were used to the old ways and
the reforms were not well explained. Popes Paul VI and John Paul II wanted to
deal with these people with pastoral sensitivity and patience, but the popes
made clear that eventually, the old Mass was to fade away.
The other group of
holdouts was more problematic. They objected to the new liturgy in principle
and felt it was blasphemous. In truth, these ideologues objected to all the
reforms of the council, not just liturgy. They were divisive and contentious.
Some of these
dissenters were led into schism by French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, despite
all the Vatican's efforts to appease him. To undermine Lefebvre and win
back schismatics to the church, the Vatican permitted more frequent celebration
of the Traditional Latin Mass. This strategy was partially successful, as
exemplified by Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, which celebrates the old Mass
but is in unity with the pope.
But there was an
unanticipated side effect: Some who grew up after Vatican II began to attend
these Latin Masses. Most were not ideologues, but pious, theologically
unsophisticated Catholics who were attracted by the ritual and mysterious
ceremony that allowed them to focus on adoration and private prayer without the
distraction of communal participation.
It is a mistake for liturgical reformers to lump this third group in
with the ideologues who reject Vatican II. These are good, devout people who
want to come closer to Jesus and find spiritual nourishment in the old liturgy.
Their existence is a
result of our failure to better explain the reforms and to make the new liturgy
more appealing to them. We should have encouraged them to go to Benediction and
explained how it is different form Mass.
Pope Benedict XVI
erred in taking away the local bishop's control over the Latin Mass and
allowing any priest to celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass anywhere, any time.
Pope Francis erred in seeing only the ideologues and not the pious Catholics
who liked the old Mass.
Now, poor Pope Leo
XIV must figure out how to deal with this mess in a pastoral way that does not
empower the ideologues and affirms that the Traditional Latin Mass must
eventually fade away. This is why he gets the big bucks.
Leo should keep in
place the Francis mandate that seminarians are to be trained and ordained for
the reformed liturgy. If they prefer the old Mass, they should not be ordained.
On the other hand, Francis' ban on the Latin Mass in parishes could
have more flexibility. It might make sense to return the authority over this to
diocesan bishops, although some may prefer to blame the Vatican for not
allowing it. And yet, this is exactly the kind of issue that should be handled
in a synodal fashion at the local level. And diocesan bishops can more easily
determine whether those asking for the Latin Mass are pious Catholics or
ideologues, and respond accordingly.
In any case, I would
keep some limits on the availability of the Latin Mass. It should be banned on
major feasts like Christmas, Holy Week, Easter and holy days, so that the
entire community can gather for and take part in these feasts. And, the Latin
Mass should not be available every Sunday. Everyone should experience the new
liturgy on a regular basis, at least once a month, especially families with
children. If one totally rejects the reformed liturgy, then one is out of step
with the church.
Meanwhile, Leo
should relaunch liturgical reform. The 1998 English translation of the Roman
missal by the International Commission on English in the Liturgy should be
permitted. Individual prefaces should be written for each Sunday in the A, B
and C cycles of Scripture readings. New Eucharistic prayers that are more
scriptural should be written.
Henry IV compromised his faith to win Paris. Catholics of all stripes
should be able to compromise on the liturgy to maintain the unity of the
church. We must respect and love one another, despite our liturgical
differences. And everyone should know that we are Christians by our love, not
know that we are Catholics by our fights.
COMMENT: Thomas Reese, S.J., the author of this editorial,
is a progressive liberal Jesuit who is about 81 years of age. His entire
religions life directly tied to liberal causes. For example, he is involved
with the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at the Jesuit Santa Clara
University which holds as a first principle the Vatican II humanistic
philosophy of the dignity of the human person which ends up in defending
abortion rights. He is also the former editor-in-chief from 1998 to 2005 of the
Jesuit magazine America. The Jesuit
order he is a member of during his religions life has become largely a
homosexual collective.
His recounting of his liturgical formation is interesting. He was
formed by his Jesuit novice master at the beginning of Vatican II. His novice
master, using Josef Jungmann, S. J. as his authority, is credited for his
liturgical views. Jungmann was a professor of pastoral theology in Austria who
wrote the two-volume The Mass of the
Roman Rite, Its Origin and Development. He held that the primary purpose of
the liturgy from the beginning of the Church was pastoral. He was active in the
liturgical reform with Rev. Annibale Bugnini from the beginning of the
liturgical commission in 1948. He envisioned a Novus Ordo Mass with a primary
pastoral purpose. He was largely a self instructed liturgical
"expert" who functioned as a peritus
at Vatican II and the major contributor
to its Constitution on the Liturgy.
Jungmann's idea of a pastoral liturgy was to return to the liturgical practices
around the 4th to the 6th century. Over the last 40 years beginning in the
1980s, there has been a tremendous amount of liturgical academic research and
publications as well as the reprinting of liturgical works. The upshot of this
is that Jungmann was exposed as a fraud selective picking and choosing
anecdotal historical elements that served his ideology and not the Catholic
faith or true liturgical development.
One example, he wrote that the ancient Roman rite was offered versus populum and not ad orientem. When real liturgical
scholars demonstrated his error he argued that versus populum may not be what was done but should be done now for
pastoral reasons. Msgr. Klaus Gamber made it clear in his work on the Roman
rite that this practice can be traced to Luther and the Protestant reformation
and nowhere before. Jungmann was an ecumenical ideologue and not ashamed to
publish lies if they helped his cause.
An ideology is a man conceived intellectual system pertaining to some
specific form of thought and/or action based upon human presuppositions that
are held be faith alone, that is, they cannot be demonstrated or proved. A Catholic
is not an ideologue because his presuppositions rest upon divine authority.
Reese, like the former Jesuit pope, holds traditional Catholics as ideologues
while it is Reese himself, like Francis/Begoglio, who is tied to a hopeless,
loosing, antiquated, boring ideology. Francis/Bergoglio is the only one who
ever tried to identify the "traditional" ideology as a form of
the Pelagian heresy. That was so stupid
it merited no intellectual exposition by anyone. Liberals like Reese
effectively deny original sin. They are faced with the reality of a fallen
human nature and thus constantly spend themselves on determining its causes and
proposing their remedies. Since their diagnosis excludes the need for divine
redemption and salvation, it is always wrong and their remedies always fail.
Yet the liberal never repents his folly. The failures are always attributed to
others who did not implement the plan with sufficient rigor, for sufficient
time, and with sufficient purity. They
never take responsibility for the ruin they cause in countless lives.
Reese is a shining example of this. He has been a Catholic religious
with the Jesuits from the beginning of Vatican II Council and standing in the
worst collapse in Catholic faith and morals in the shortest period of time
recommends a "relaunch" (of the) liturgical reform." The PEW
pole that Reese sites determined that only about 30% of those who identify as
Catholics believe in the dogma of transubstantiation. The purpose of the
American bishops poll was to bump these numbers up. They did this by avoiding
any technical terminology that would be found in a grade school catechism and
asking multiple questions to arrive at the conclusion that the respondent, who
were restricted to those who actually attended a weekly communion service, had
some sense of Catholic teaching. Reese is responsible for this as much as any
of his fellow religious and yet he still thinks his opinions have value! This
idiot will soon follow Francis/Bergoglio to his eternal judgment. At that judgment
the fruits of Vatican II and the Novus Ordo service will condemn him because it
is by these fruits that he is known. He will plead to the just Judge that
he was only being "obedient"
religious and anyway, since Francis/Bergoglio pointed out, "time greater
than space", he just did not have enough time to see that things were
going wrong? He will be told, 'No, space is greater than time', for you,
"time" is over and your "space" is awaiting and prepared
for you and it is not with the blessed.
Letter from
Father Pagliarani to Cardinal Fernández
February 19, 2026
Source: FSSPX News
Response of the General Council
of the Society of Saint Pius X to the Prefect of the Dicastery for the
Doctrine of the Faith.
Menzingen, 18 February 2026
Ash Wednesday
Most Reverend Eminence,
First of all, I thank you for receiving me on 12 February, and for
making public the content of our meeting, which promotes perfect transparency
in communication.
I can only welcome the opening of a doctrinal discussion, as signalled
today by the Holy See, for the simple reason that I myself proposed it exactly
seven years ago, in a letter dated 17 January 2019. At that time, the Dicastery
did not truly express interest in such a discussion, on the grounds—presented
orally—that a doctrinal agreement between the Holy See and the Society of Saint
Pius X was impossible.
For the Society’s part, a doctrinal discussion has always been—and
remains—desirable and useful. Indeed, even if we do not reach an agreement,
fraternal exchanges allow us to better know one another, to refine and deepen
our own arguments, and to better understand the spirit and intentions behind
our interlocutor’s positions—especially their genuine love for the Truth, for
souls, and for the Church. This holds true, at all times, for both parties.
This was precisely my intention in 2019, when I suggested a discussion
during a calm and peaceful time, without the pressure or threat of possible
excommunication, which would have undermined free dialogue—as is,
unfortunately, the situation today.
That said, while I certainly rejoice at a new opening of dialogue and
the positive response to my proposal of 2019, I cannot accept the perspective
and objectives in the name of which the Dicastery offers to resume dialogue in
the present situation, nor indeed the postponement of the date of 1 July.
I respectfully present to you the reasons for this, to which I will add some
supplementary considerations.
1. We both know in advance that we
cannot agree doctrinally, particularly regarding the fundamental orientations
adopted since the Second Vatican Council. This disagreement, for the Society’s
part, does not stem from a mere difference of opinion, but from a genuine case
of conscience, arising from what has proven to be a rupture with the Tradition
of the Church. This complex knot has unfortunately become even more
inextricable with the doctrinal and pastoral developments of recent
pontificates.
I therefore do not see how a
joint process of dialogue could end in determining together what would
constitute “the minimum requirements for full communion with the Catholic
Church”, since—as you yourself have recalled with frankness—the texts of the
Council cannot be corrected, nor can the legitimacy of the liturgical reform be
challenged.
2. This dialogue is supposed to clarify
the interpretation of the Second Vatican Council. But this interpretation is
already clearly given in the post-Conciliar period and in the successive
documents of the Holy See. The Second Vatican Council is not a set of texts
open to free interpretation: It has been received, developed, and applied for
sixty years by successive popes, according to precise doctrinal and pastoral
orientations.
This official reading is
expressed, for example, in major texts such as Redemptor hominis, Ut
unum sint, Evangelii gaudium, or Amoris lætitia.
It is also evident in the liturgical reform, understood in the light of the
principles reaffirmed in Traditionis custodes. All these
documents show that the doctrinal and pastoral framework within which the Holy
See intends to situate any discussion has already been firmly established.
3. One cannot ignore the context of the
dialogue proposed today. We have been waiting for seven years for a favourable
response to the proposal of doctrinal discussion made in 2019. More recently,
we have written twice to the Holy Father: first to request an audience, then to
clearly and respectfully explain our needs and the real-life situation of the
Society.
Yet, after a long silence, it is
only when episcopal consecrations are mentioned that an offer to resume
dialogue is made, which thus seems dilatory and conditional. Indeed, the hand
extended to open the dialogue is unfortunately accompanied by another hand
already poised to impose sanctions. There is talk of breaking communion, of
schism, and of “serious consequences”. Moreover, this threat is now public,
creating pressure that is hardly compatible with a genuine desire for fraternal
exchanges and constructive dialogue.
4. Furthermore, to us
it does not seem possible to enter into a dialogue to define what the minimum
requirements for ecclesial communion might be, simply because this task does
not belong to us. Throughout the centuries, the criteria for belonging to the
Church have been established and defined by the Magisterium. What must be
believed in order to be Catholic has always been taught with authority, in
constant fidelity to Tradition.
Thus, we do not see how these
criteria could be the subject of joint discernment through dialogue, nor how
they could be re-evaluated today so as not to correspond to what the Tradition
of the Church has always taught—and which we desire to observe faithfully in
our place.
5. Finally, if a dialogue is envisaged with
the aim of producing a doctrinal statement that the Society could accept
regarding the Second Vatican Council, we cannot ignore the historical
precedents of efforts made in this direction. I draw your attention to the most
recent: the Holy See and the Society had a long course of dialogue, beginning
in 2009, particularly intense for two years, then pursued more sporadically
until 6 June 2017. Throughout these years, we sought to achieve what the
Dicastery now proposes.
Yet, everything ultimately ended
in a drastic manner, with the unilateral decision of Cardinal Müller, the
Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who, in June 2017,
solemnly established, in his own way, “the minimum requirements for full
communion with the Catholic Church”, explicitly including the entire Council
and the post-Conciliar period. This shows that, if one persists in a
doctrinal dialogue that is too forced and lacks sufficient serenity, in the
long term, instead of achieving a satisfactory result, one only worsens the
situation.
Thus, in the shared recognition that we cannot find agreement on
doctrine, it seems to me that the only point on which we can agree is that of
charity toward souls and toward the Church.
As a cardinal and bishop, you are above all a pastor: allow me to
address you in this capacity. The Society is an objective reality: it exists.
That is why, over the years, the Sovereign Pontiffs have taken note of this
existence and, through concrete and significant acts, have recognised the value
of the good it can accomplish, despite its canonical situation. That is also
why we are speaking today.
This same Society asks you only to be allowed to continue to do this
same good for the souls to whom it administers the holy Sacraments. It asks
nothing else of you—no privileges, nor even canonical regularisation, which, in
the current state of affairs, is impracticable due to doctrinal divergences.
The Society cannot abandon souls. The need for the sacraments is a concrete,
short-term need for the survival of Tradition, in service to the Holy Catholic
Church.
We can agree on one point: neither of us wishes to reopen wounds. I will
not repeat here all that we have already expressed in the letter addressed to
Pope Leo XIV, of which you have direct knowledge. I only emphasise that,
in the present situation, the only truly viable path is that of charity.
Over the last decade, Pope Francis and yourself have abundantly advocated
“listening” and understanding of non-standard, complex, exceptional, and
particular situations. You have also wished for a use of law that is always
pastoral, flexible, and reasonable, without pretending to resolve everything
through legal automatism and pre-established frameworks. At this moment, the
Society asks of you nothing more than this—and above all it does not ask it for
itself: it asks it for these souls, for whom, as already promised to the Holy
Father, it has no other intention than to make true children of the Roman
Church.
Finally, there is another point on which we also agree, and which should
encourage us: the time separating us from 1 July is one of prayer. It is a
moment when we implore from Heaven a special grace and, from the Holy See,
understanding. I pray for you in particular to the Holy Ghost and—do not take
this as a provocation—His Most Holy Spouse, the Mediatrix of all Graces.
I wish to thank you sincerely for the attention you have given me, and
for the interest you will kindly take in the present matter.
Please accept, Most Reverend Eminence, the expression of my most sincere
greetings and of my devotion in the Lord.
Davide
Pagliarani, Superior General
+ Alfonso de Galarreta, First Assistant General
Christian Bouchacourt, Second Assistant General
+ Bernard Fellay,
First Counsellor General, Former Superior General
Franz Schmidberger,
Second Counsellor General, Former Superior General
COMMENT: Among Protestants there are a few doctrinal
positions that unite them all: They without exception profess that God did not
establish His Church with the divine attributes of infallibility,
indefectibility and authority. Beyond this level of agreement Protestants
differ radically from one another in doctrine, worship, and morality. The Protestant
modus vivendi then is to respect the
errors of each other since none claim the attribute of infallibility regarding
truth in belief and practice. Christ's Church is altogether different. The
Church speaks with authority the truth of God's revelation and of this truth
will not be compromised one iota. The Novus Ordo Church, like all Protestants,
seeks an accommodation with the world and its lies. The only thing they hate
with one voice is the Catholic Church because it does not. G.K. Chesterton said,
'The Catholic Church is intolerant in principle because she believes; she
tolerant in practice because she loves. The world is tolerant in principle
because it does not believe; it is intolerant in practice because it does not
love.' The Novus Ordo Church, like the Protestants, is of the world that Jesus
Christ said, "I pray not for the world" (John 17:9). It is complete
folly for the SSPX to beg from the Novus Ordites a tolerance in belief based
upon a charity in practice because without faith, there is, and never can be,
charity. The dialogue with the SSPX began in 1997 and will go on as long as the
SSPX stands upon opinion and not on God's revealed truth.
Hermeneutics of
Continuity/Discontinuity
Explains why Novus Ordo Catholics have dumped the season
of Septuagesima and do not do penance for Lent – they have ‘dialogued’
themselves out of Original Sin!
Original Sin:
Benedict/Ratzinger teaches:
The account (of Genesis 3) tells us that sin begets sin, and that
therefore all the sins of history are interlinked. Theology refers to this
state of affairs by the certainly misleading and imprecise term ‘original sin’. What does this mean?
Nothing seems to us today to be stranger or, indeed, more absurd than to insist
upon original sin, since, according to our way of thinking, guilt can
only be something very personal, and since God does not run a concentration
camp, in which one’s relatives are imprisoned because he is a liberating God of
love, who calls each one by name. What
does original sin mean, then, when we interpret it correctly?
Finding an answer to this
requires nothing less than trying to understand the human person better. It must once again be stressed that no human being is closed in upon
himself or herself and that no one can live of or for himself or herself alone.
We receive our life not only at the moment of birth but every day from without
– from others who are not ourselves but who nonetheless somehow pertain to us.
Human beings have their selves not only in themselves but also outside of
themselves: they live in those whom they love and in those who love them and to
whom they are ‘present.’ Human beings are relational, and they possess their lives – themselves – only by way of relationship. I alone am not myself, but only in and with you am I myself. To be
truly a human being means to be related in love, to be of and for. But sin means the damaging or the
destruction of relationality. Sin is a rejection of relationality because it wants to make the human being a god. Sin is loss of relationship, disturbance of relationship, and therefore it is not
restricted to the individual. When I destroy a relationship, then this event – sin – touches the other person involved in the relationship. Consequently sin is always an offense that touches others, that
alters the world and damages it. To the extent that this is true, when the
network of human relationships is damaged from the very beginning, then every human being enters into
a world that is marked by relational damage. At the very moment that
a person begins human existence, which is a good, he or she is confronted by a
sin- damaged world. Each of us enters into a situation in which relationality has been hurt. Consequently each person is, from the very start,
damaged in relationships and does not engage in them as he or she ought. Sin pursues the human
being, and he or she capitulates to it.”
Benedict XVI/Ratzinger, Catholic
Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall
(1995)
Catholic
Church teaches divine Truth with precision and clarity:
“For that which the
Apostle has said, ‘By one man, sin entered into this world, and by sin death,
and so death passed upon all men in whom all have sinned.’ (Rom 5:12), is not
to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere hath
always understood it. For, by reason of
this rule of faith, from a tradition of the Apostles, even infants who could
not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this cause truly baptized for
the remission of sins, that in them that may be cleansed away by regeneration
which they have contracted by generation. For, ‘unless a man be born again
of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.’”
(John 3:5).
Council of Trent, Decree on Original Sin
“I was
under a necessity to write unto you: to beseech you to contend earnestly for
the faith once delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3).
COMMENT:
Benedict/Ratzinger’s (B/R) heretical theology presupposes modern
doctrine of scientism that material reality consists of atoms and the void in
constant evolutionary progress. He therefore denies the existence of substantial reality in the place of substance, he offers the accident of relationship as the fundamental essence
of all reality beginning with the reality of God. Being is rejected for becoming.
The pursuit of Truth is favored over its possession. This theology of B/R is
applied to man and sin including Original Sin. For the Catholic, sin is a
transgression of the will of God in a more or less serious degree. A serious
violation of God’s will is a mortal sin ending the life of grace in the substantial soul of an individual man.
The relationship of friendship with God is ended but God remains in a
relationship with all creatures including sinners because without a
relationship with God they would not exist. But while sin ends the life of
grace in the soul, the sin itself does not touch God.
And where does “relationality” lead? B/R’s “essential” Christianity? It
is a religion of fantasy that has no real doctrinal or moral impediments and
offers ‘dialogue’ as a nostrum for healing all problems of “relationality.”
But who in their right mind would want to join the ‘Church of
Relationality’, which explains why the Novus Ordo Church has massive defections
and few conversions. It also explains why for Francis/Bergoglio “proselytism is
solemn nonsense.” How can you
“proselytize” for a religion that does not know what it believes or for what
end it was established?
As for “relations,” if we want to “essentialize our faith,” Jesus
Christ makes perfectly clear just what is really “essential”: “If any man come to me, and hate
not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters,
yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:26). The
“essential… relation” is with Jesus Christ, not man, and this “relation” is
only possible by believing what Jesus Christ has revealed and doing what Jesus
Christ commands.
Seewald: “The Church prays for Christians to be reunited. But who ought
to join up with whom?”
Benedict/Ratzinger:
“The formula that the
great ecumenists have invented is that we go forward together. It’s not a
matter of our wanting to achieve certain processes of integration, but we hope
that the Lord will awaken people’s faith everywhere in such a way that it
overflows from one to the other, and the one Church is there. As Catholics, we
are persuaded that the basic shape of this one Church is given us in the
Catholic Church, but that she is moving toward the future and will allow
herself to be educated and led by the Lord. In that sense we do not picture for
ourselves any particular modes of integration, but simply look to march on in
faith under the leadership of the Lord – who knows the way.”
“We can only humbly seek to essentialize our faith, that is, to
recognize what are the really essential elements in it – the things we have not
made but have received from the Lord – and in this attitude of turning to the
Lord and to the center, to open ourselves in this essentializing so that he may
lead us onward, he alone.”
Benedict/Ratzinger, God and the
World, interviewed by Peter Seewald, pp 452-453
Lastly,
if there is no Original Sin and the Church of Jesus Christ lies somewhere in
the unknown future, the sacrament of Baptism becomes meaningless! What the
Church has taught always and everywhere is now regarded as “unenlightened” and
“problematic” for him.
Mr.
Seewald: “In canon 849 of
Church canon law it says: ‘Baptism… [is] necessary to salvation in fact or at
least in intention.’ But what happens, when a man dies unbaptized? And what
happens to the millions of children who are killed in their mothers’ wombs?”
Benedict/Ratzinger:
“The question of what
it means to say that baptism is necessary for salvation has become ever more
hotly debated in modern times. The Second Vatican Council said on this point
that men who are seeking for God and who are inwardly striving toward that
which constitutes baptism will also receive salvation. That is to say that a
seeking after God already represents an inward participation in baptism, in the
Church, in Christ.
To that extent, the
question concerning the necessity of baptism for salvation seems to have been
answered, but the question about children who could not be baptized because
they were aborted then presses upon us that much more urgently.
Earlier ages had devised a teaching that seems to me
rather unenlightened. They said that baptism endows us, by means of sanctifying
grace, with the capacity to gaze upon God. Now, certainly, the state of
original sin, from which we are freed by baptism, consists in a lack of
sanctifying grace. Children who die in this way are indeed without any personal
sin, so they cannot be sent to hell, but, on the other hand, they lack
sanctifying grace and thus the potential for beholding God that this bestows.
They will simply enjoy a state of natural blessedness, in which they will be
happy. This state people called limbo.
In the course of our century, that has gradually come to
seem problematic to us. This was one way in which people
sought to justify the necessity of baptizing infants as early as possible, but
the solution is itself questionable. Finally, the Pope made a decisive turn in the encyclical Evangelium Vitae, a change already
anticipated by the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Note: Not so, even the
compromised CCC teaches the necessity of Baptism for salvation), when he
expressed the simple hope that God is powerful enough to draw to himself all
those who were unable to receive the sacrament.”
Benedict/Ratzinger, God and the World, interviewed by Peter Seewald, pp
401-402
Catholic
Church teaches divine Truth with precision and clarity:
Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the
kingdom of God….. Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water
and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” Jesus Christ,
(John 3:3, 5)
If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism,
and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord
Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him
be anathema.
Council of Trent, Canon II on the sacrament of Baptism
If anyone saith, that Baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for
salvation, let him be anathema.
Council of Trent, Canon V on the sacrament of Baptism
Limits
of Papal Authority imposed by the Faith itself!
“The gravity of sin is
determined by the interval which it places between man and God; now sin against
faith, divides man from God as far as possible, since it deprives him of the
true knowledge of God; it therefore follows that sin against faith is the
greatest of all sins.”
St. Thomas Aquinas
“If the Faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate
even publicly.”
St. Thomas Aquinas
“Were the pope to command
anything against Holy Scripture, or the articles of faith, or the truth of the
Sacraments, or the commands of the natural or divine law, he ought not to be
obeyed, but in such commands is to be ignored.”
Juan Cardinal de Torquemada (1388–1468)
“You must resist, to his face, a pope who is openly tearing the Church
apart—for example, by refusing to confer ecclesiastical benefices except for
money, or in exchange for services… A
case of simony, even committed by a pope, must be denounced.”
Thomist Cardinal Cajetan (1469–1534)
“If the Pope lays down an order contrary to right customs one does not have to
obey him; if he tries to do something manifestly opposed to justice and to the
common good, it would be licit to resist him; if he attacks by force, he could
be repelled by force, with the moderation characteristic of a good
defense.”
Francisco Suárez, S.J. (1548–1617)
“In answer to the question, ‘What should be done in cases where the Pope
destroys the Church by his evil actions?’ [I reply]: ‘He would certainly sin;
he should neither be permitted to act in such fashion, nor should he be obeyed
in what was evil; but he should be resisted with a courteous reprehension.… He
does not have the power to destroy; therefore, if there is evidence that he is
doing it, it is licit to resist him. The result of all this is that if the Pope
destroys the Church by his orders and acts, he can be resisted and the
execution of his mandate prevented. The right of open resistance to prelates’
abuse of authority stems also from natural law.’”
Sylvester Prieras, O.P. (1456–1523), Dominican theologian, appointed
master of the Sacred Palace by Pope Leo X who wrote the rebuttal to Luther’s 95
Theses
“As it is lawful to resist the pope, if he assaulted a man’s person, so it is
lawful to resist him, if he assaulted souls, or troubled the state, and much
more if he strove to destroy the Church. It is lawful, I say, to resist him, by
not doing what he commands, and hindering the execution of his will; still, it
is not lawful to judge or punish or even depose him, because he is nothing
other than a superior.”
St. Robert Bellarmine (1542–1621), Doctor of the Church
And then, pure papalolatry!
“There is in the world … one man in whom the greatness of God is reflected in
the most outstanding way of all. He participates in the authority and in a
certain sense in the personality of Christ. This man is the Vicar of Jesus
Christ, the Pope. … His power extends to the ends of the world and is under the
protection of God, Who has promised to confirm in Heaven whatever he will
decree upon earth. His dignity and authority, then, are almost divine. Let us
bow humbly before such greatness. Let us promise to obey the Pope as we would
Christ. … We cannot dispute or murmur against anything which he teaches or
decrees. To disobey the Pope is to disobey God. To argue or murmur against the
Pope is to argue or murmur against Jesus Himself. When we are confronted with
His commands, we have only one choice—absolute obedience and complete
surrender.”
Cardinal Antonio Bacci (1885-1971), the Vatican’s chief Latinist under
four successive popes (Pius XI, Pius XII, John XXIII, and Paul VI) and the
co-author of the Ottaviani Intervention with Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, the
head CDF.
SSPX bid farewell to Bishop Richard Williamson as only
they could do!
His defiance of the Society's authorities ultimately made a separation
inevitable. God forgive him for the errors and confusion he caused in the years
that followed with his Kyrie eleison
comments, and even more so for his episcopal
consecrations, which lacked and still lack any objective necessity and any sensus
ecclesiae.
Fr. Franz Schmidberger, former superior general of the SSPX, published
in his weekly newsletter, on the death of Bishop Richard Williamson on January
29, 2025
COMMENT: The good bishop Williamson has only been dead for a little over
one year. At the time of his death the SSPX judged him to be in need of God's
forgiveness for the sin of consecrating bishops
"which lacked and still lack any objective necessity and any sensus ecclesiae." They now
threaten Rome with doing their own episcopal consecrations because their own
"sensus ecclesiae" has now
discovered that there is in fact an existing "objective
necessity"! Nothing has changed
with regard to the Church but something has changed with regard to the SSPX.
They are concerned only with their "objective necessity"!
Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith issues statement
following today’s meeting at the Vatican between SSPX Superior General Fr.
Davide Pagliarani & DDF Prefect Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernández on 2-12-2026
STATEMENT OF THE DICASTERY FOR THE DOCTRINE
OF THE FAITH Regarding the Meeting between the Prefect of the Dicastery for the
Doctrine of the Faith and the Superior General of the FSSPX On 12 February
2026, a cordial and sincere meeting took place at the Dicastery for the
Doctrine of the Faith between the Prefect, His Eminence Cardinal Victor Manuel
FERNANDEZ, and the Superior General of the FSSPX, Reverend Don Davide
PAGLIARANI, with the approval of the Holy Father Leo XIV. After clarifying
certain points presented by the FSSPX in various letters, particularly those
sent between 2017 and 2019 — including, among other topics, the question of the
divine will concerning the plurality of religions — the Prefect proposed a
pathway of specifically theological dialogue, following a precise methodology,
on issues that have not yet received sufficient clarification. These include:
the distinction between an act of faith and the “religious submission of mind
and will,” as well as the differing degrees of adherence required by various
texts of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council and their interpretation. At the
same time, he proposed addressing a series of topics listed by the FSSPX in its
letter of 17 January 2019. The aim of this dialogue is to highlight, in the
topics under discussion, the minimum requirements for full communion with the
Catholic Church, and consequently to outline a canonical statute for the
Fraternity, along with other aspects requiring further study. The Holy See
reaffirmed that the ordination of bishops without the mandate of the Supreme
Pontiff, who possesses ordinary, supreme, universal, immediate, and direct
power (cf. CIC, can. 331; Dogmatic Constitution Pastor aeternus, chs. I and
III), would constitute a decisive rupture of ecclesial communion (schism), with
serious consequences for the Fraternity as a whole (John Paul II, Apostolic
Letter Ecclesia Dei, 2 July 1988, nn. 3 and ff.; Pontifical Council for
Legislative Texts, Explanatory Note, 24 August 1996, n. 1). Therefore, the
possibility of undertaking this dialogue presupposes that the Fraternity
suspend the announced episcopal ordinations. The Superior General of the FSSPX
will present the proposal to his Council and will provide his response to the
Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith. In the event of a positive response,
the steps, stages, and procedures to be followed will be established by mutual
agreement. The Church is asked to accompany this process, especially in the
coming times, with prayer to the Holy Spirit, who is the principal agent of
true ecclesial communion willed by Christ.
Viganò
Urges SSPX To Cut Off 'Dialogue' With Fernandez, Proceed With Consecrations
'True ecclesial communion is not
measured by canonical recognition granted by a Hierarchy that has lost the Faith,
but by integral fidelity to divine Revelation.'
I cannot but note with sorrow and
indignation the Statement released today by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of
the Faith, signed by Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, at the end of his
meeting with Father Davide Pagliarani, Superior General of the Priestly Society
of Saint Pius X. After decades of humiliation, inconclusive dialogues, partial
concessions revoked by “Traditionis Custodes,” deafening silences regarding
doctrinal and liturgical deviations widespread throughout the Church, and even
more serious doctrinal and moral errors promoted by the Supreme Throne, Rome
now claims to make the suspension of the episcopal consecrations announced by
the SSPX for next July 1st a preliminary condition for dialogue. These
consecrations are not acts of rebellion, but a supreme act of fidelity to the
One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church, which has been deprived for
almost sixty years of Bishops who preach integral Doctrine and administer the
Sacraments without any compromise with error. The Dicastery’s Statement subtly
repeats the same modernist scheme seen in 1988: it offers a “theological
dialogue” on issues the Holy See has always refused to seriously
address—religious freedom, destructive episcopal “collegiality,” pan-heretical
ecumenism, the Nostra Ætate declaration that equates false religions with the
one true Faith, and the Abu Dhabi Document—while threatening “schism” for the
only gesture that is able to guarantee the certainty of Apostolic Succession.
But who wields “schism” as a weapon today? Who excommunicated the Bishops
consecrated in 1988 for defending Tradition and its beating heart, the Catholic
Mass? Who excommunicated me and silenced me, while promoting declared heretics
and covering up abuses of every kind? Who forced the faithful to submit to an
authority that has renounced immutable Catholic doctrine in the name of a “new
humanism” and a “synodality” that is nothing other than the cancer of democracy
applied to the Catholic Church in order to destroy from within its divine
hierarchical Constitution and Petrine Primacy? The true schism is not that of those who consecrate
Bishops to guard and transmit the Catholic Faith in its entirety, but rather
the schism of the conciliar and synodal Hierarchy, which has denied Apostolic
Tradition, replacing sound Doctrine with heretical ambiguities, true Catholic
Worship with a Protestantized liturgy, and legitimate Authority with a
totalitarian power exercised against the faithful who refuse to apostatize.
The Society of Saint Pius X does not need the permission of those who have
renounced the Faith to do what Providence asks of it: namely, to perpetuate the
episcopal line faithful to Tradition. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre acted not out
of schism, but out of necessity – same state of necessity that persists today,
aggravated by the systematic persecution of the Traditional Mass and the
imposition of false doctrines that contradict the perennial Magisterium.
GENERAL
COMMENT: The SSPX is buried in the Neo-modernist
heresy that believes that the dogmas of our faith contain both divine and human
elements and must necessarily continually evolve by a distillation process
where the divine elements are progressively purified by removing the
historically dated human encrustations. This Neo-modernist heresy is the
unstated pre-supposition for the Vatican II pastoral council. For the
Neo-modernist, the proximate rule of faith is no longer Dogma, but however the
current pope interprets the dogma to mean. That being the case, the SSPX,
having abandoned dogma as their proximate rule of faith must turn to the
present pope to tell him the current version of the Catholic faith.
Neo-modernism is just a variation of the heresy of Modernism which St. Pius X
called "the synthesis of all heresies." It is the "synthesis of
all heresies" because it denies all dogmas as dogmas. It attacks the very
nature of what dogmas are. Dogma contains no human elements. They are divine
revelation that is formally defined by the infallible Magisterium of the
Church. They are the infallible word of
God in both the truth expressed and the words used to express that truth. The
pope is only the necessary but wholly insufficient material and instrumental
cause of dogma. It is God who is the formal and final cause of dogma.
Therefore, the pope is just as much a subject to dogma as any of the faithful.
Truth is the only weapon possessed against an abusive authority and the SSPX
has entered into a "dialogue" with an opponent that claims for itself
personally the divine attribute of infallibility and the right to dictate their
personal conceptions of truth even against the divine infallible revelation of
God. Archbishop Viganò is politely telling the SSPX that it is the FAITH
itself that is being attacked and they need to wake up. The SSPX has been in
constant interminable doctrinal discussions with Rome since 1997. The reason
Rome dialogues with the SSPX is because the SSPX is defenseless having
abandoned the infallible truth of Catholic dogma as their weapon. This dialogue
between Rome and the SSPX never raises above the level of exchanging opinions.
Because our Mission of Ss. Peter & Paul stands on the truth of Catholic
dogma, the local ordinaries will never enter into open discussions. Always
remember: A heretic is a baptized Catholic who rejects one or more Catholic
dogmas AND all heretics are schismatics! If the SSPX can learn this simple but
essential truth, then they will stop seeking a place at the table of apostates
and start defending the faith.
Modernism
vs. Neo-modernism: A difference in method, an agreement in ends
The heresy of Modernism denies
dogma directly. Neo-modernism is a more subtle heresy. The end remains the denial of dogma but the
method of denial is indirect. Dogma, the
revelation of God that forms the formal objects of divine and Catholic faith,
is formulated in categorical propositions that are always and everywhere true
or false. There are two methods the
Neo-modernist employs to destroy dogma. The first method is to change the
category of dogma from truth-falsehood to the category of
authority-obedience. They treat dogma as
if it were laws, commands, precepts, injunctions, etc., etc., etc., and then
limit the universal truth with all the moral restrictions that apply to laws,
etc. For example, the dogma that the
sacrament of baptism is necessary for salvation is treated as a law and
therefore as a law, it does not bind in cases of impossibility, necessity,
unreasonable burden, psychological impediment, etc., etc.
The second method is to corrupt
the dogmatic proposition be changing the meaning of the terms OR altering the
universality of the copula. An excellent example of this corruption of
terminology can be seen in Benedict/Ratzinger’s treatment of the word, substance.
“…the medieval concept of
substance has long since become inaccessible to us. In so far as we use the
concept of substance at all today we understand thereby the ultimate particles
of matter, and the chemically complex mixture that is bread certainly does not
fall into that category.”
Joseph Ratzinger, Faith and
the Future, p. 14
It is impossible to affirm the
Catholic dogma that “Lord Jesus Christ... is consubstantial with the Father” or
the Catholic dogma of Transubstantiation if the concept of “substance” is
rejected in the sense as used by scholastic theologians found in the perennial
realist philosophical tradition. And so
we have Benedict/Ratzinger writing:
“Eucharistic devotion such as
is noted in the silent visit by the devout in church must not be thought of as
a conversation with God. This would assume that God was present there locally
and in a confined way. To justify such an assertion shows a lack of
understanding of the Christological mysteries of the very concept of God. This
is repugnant to the serious thinking of the man who knows about the
omnipresence of God. To go to church on the ground that one can visit God who
is present there is a senseless act which modern man rightfully rejects.”
Joseph Ratzinger, Die Sacramentale
Begrundung Christliche Existenz
The
Catholic Church infallibly teaches:
“By the consecration of the
bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord
and of the whole substance of the
wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has
fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.”
Council of Trent, Session XIII,
chapter IV
“If anyone denies that in the
sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist are contained truly, really and substantially the body and blood
together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and
consequently the whole Christ, but says that He is in it only as in a
sign, or figure or force, let him be anathema.”
Council of Trent, Session XII,
Canon I
Benedict/Ratzinger’s
affirmation of these dogmas is done within the corrupted context of mutilating
the meaning of the terms. The entire hermeneutic of discontinuity/rupture vs.
the hermeneutic of reform proposed by Benedict/Ratzinger is predicated upon
accepting or rejecting his false philosophy which ultimately elevates the
accident of relationship to overthrow
the concept of substance. Reciting
the Credo is no longer evidence of the Catholic faith without clearly defining
every term.
Cardinal
Henry Edward Manning – The true Revelation of God is both a Definite and
Certain participation in God’s own knowledge.
IT is this fundamental truth of revelation that our Neo-Modernist
hierarchy reject!
What, then, is the knowledge which God has restored to man through
revelation but a definite knowledge, a participation of His own? The
truth which has been revealed, what is it in the mind of God who reveals it,
but one, harmonious and distinct? What was that knowledge as revealed by the
Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, but one, harmonious and distinct? What was
the conception of that knowledge in inspired men, but one, harmonious and
distinct also? And what was that knowledge when communicated by those who were
inspired to those who believed, but one, harmonious and distinct as before? And what is this unity and
harmony and distinctness of knowledge, which God revealed of Himself through
Jesus Christ, but the faith we confess in our creed? Our baptismal faith, its
substance and its letter, the explicit and the implicit meaning, article by
article, is as definite, severe, and precise, as any problem in science. It is
of the nature of truth to be so; and where definiteness ends, knowledge ceases.
Observe, then, the distinction between finite knowledge and definite knowledge.
Is not science definite? And yet it is also finite. The theory of gravitation,
definite as it is, it is finite too. [……] Go through the whole range of
physical sciences, what is it but an example of the same condition of
knowledge, definiteness in conception with finiteness of reach? [….] If we have not a definite
knowledge of what we believe, we may be sure we have no true knowledge of it.
But, further, it is evident that knowledge must also be certain.
When we speak of certainty, we mean one of two things. Sometimes we say, that a
thing is certain; at other times, that we are certain. When we say a truth is
certain, we mean, that the proofs of that truth are either self-evident, or so
clear as to exclude all doubt. This is certainty on the part of the object
proposed to our intelligence. But when we say we are certain, we mean that we
are inwardly convinced, by the application of our reason to the matter before
us, of the sufficiency of the evidence to prove the truth of it. In us,
certainty is rather a moral feeling, a complex state of mind. As light manifests itself by its
own nature, but sight is the illumination of the eye; so certainty means truth
with its evidences illuminating the intelligence, or, in other words, the
intelligence possessed by truth with its evidences.
This we call certainty. I ask, then, is there not this twofold
certainty in the revelation which God has given? Was not the revelation
which God gave of Himself through Jesus Christ made certain on His part by
direct evidence of the divine act which revealed it? Is it not also certain on
our part by the apprehension and faith of the Church? Was not God manifest in
the flesh that He might reveal Himself? Did not God dwell on earth that He
might teach His truth? Has not God spoken to man that man might know Him? Did
not God work miracles that man might believe that He was present? What evidence
on the part of God was wanting that men might know that Jesus Christ was indeed
the Son of God? And if
there was certainty on the part of God who revealed, was there not certainty
also on the part of those that heard? Look back into the sacred history.
Had not Prophets and Seers certainty of that which they beheld and heard? […..]
What, then, is the first
condition of faith but certainty? He that has not certain faith has no faith.
We are told that to crave for certainty implies a morbid disposition. Did not
Abraham, and Moses, and Daniel, the Apostles and Evangelists desire certainty
in faith, and crave to know beyond doubt that God spake to them, and know with
definite clearness what God said? Was this a morbid craving? Surely this is not
to be reproved. But rather
the contrary disposition worthy of rebuke. How can we venture to content ourselves
with uncertainty in matters where the truth and honour of God and the salvation
of our own souls are at stake? This truly is not without sin. […..] And
yet, what is the very idea of Revelation but a Divine assurance of Truth? Where
faith begins uncertainty ends. Because faith terminates upon the veracity of
God; and what God has spoken and authenticated to us by Divine authority cannot
be uncertain.
Cardinal Henry Edward Manning, Grounds of Faith
"The
group holding power in the SSPX have decided to stage a drama, unfortunately
not a good Shakespearean play, but a poor play by Fernandez. They will follow
two narratives: one for liberals, the other for hardliners. Unfortunately,
nothing has changed for many years – secret meetings with the Roman hierarchy
and the search for a practical agreement without doctrinal agreement. This
makes no sense. As Bishop Richard Williamson said, it is a betrayal of
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre's struggle, a betrayal of Our Lord Jesus Christ and
His Church." -
Bishop
Michal Stobnicki. Comment on the SSPX threat to consecrate new bishops
Pope Leo XIV
is continuing ‘irreversible trajectory’ of Pope Francis: SSPX statement
In addition to
spelling out the Francis/Leo crisis, the statement addresses the silence of
conservative bishops in the Church, the Traditional Latin Mass and the Novus
Ordo, and more.
LifeSiteNews | John-Henry Westen | Feb 5, 2026 — Today the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX)
released a major statement explaining the reasons behind their announcement of
upcoming episcopal consecrations. This comes from Superior General Davide
Pagliarani, and it directly addresses the current pontificate of Pope Leo XIV,
describing it as continuing the “irreversible trajectory” set by Pope Francis.
The document outlines why the SSPX believes these consecrations are necessary,
while still expressing some hope for dialogue with Rome.
In addition to spelling out the Francis/Leo crisis, the statement
addresses the silence of conservative bishops in the Church, the possibility of
sanctions, their hopes, the ultimate reason for their action and their
perspective on the Traditional Latin Mass. Let me read the key portions
directly from the statement, but I encourage you to read the full statement.
They spell out the
Francis and Leo crisis
Furthermore, the major orientations already taking shape in this new
pontificate – particularly through the most recent consistory – only confirm
this. An explicit
determination to preserve the line of Pope Francis as an irreversible
trajectory for the entire Church is discernible.
It is sad to
acknowledge, but it is a fact that, in an ordinary parish, the faithful no
longer find the means necessary to ensure their eternal salvation. Missing, in
particular, are both the integral preaching of Catholic truth and morality, and
the worthy administration of the sacraments as the Church has always done. This
deprivation is what constitutes the state of necessity. In this critical
context, our bishops are growing older, and, as the apostolate continues to
expand, they are no longer sufficient to meet the demands of the faithful
worldwide.
In what way do you
believe that last month’s consistory confirms the direction taken by Pope
Francis?
DP: Cardinal Fernández, speaking in the name of Pope Leo, invited the
Church to return to Pope Francis’s fundamental intuition expressed in his key
encyclical, Evangelii gaudium.
Put simply, he believes that the Gospel should be proclaimed by reducing it to
a primitive and essential expression, a series of concise and striking formulas
– the “kerygma” – with a view to eliciting an “experience,” an immediate
encounter with Christ. Everything else should be set aside, however precious it
may be.
In concrete terms, all that is Tradition is considered as accessory and
secondary. It is this method of the new evangelization that has produced the
doctrinal emptiness characteristic of Pope Francis’s pontificate, and is keenly
felt by many in the Church.
In a similar vein, one must provide new and relevant answers to the
emerging questions of our time, but, according to Cardinal Fernández, this is
to be done through synodal reform, rather than by rediscovering the classical
and ever-valid answers provided by the Tradition of the Church. It is by these
means, in the “breath of the Spirit” of this synodal reform, that Pope Francis
has been able to impose catastrophic decisions upon the whole Church, such as
authorizing Holy Communion for the divorced and civilly remarried, or the
blessing of same-sex couples.
In summary, through the “kerygma,” the proclamation of the Gospel is
isolated from the whole corpus of traditional doctrine and morality. And
through synodality, traditional answers are replaced by arbitrary decisions,
with a high risk of being absurd and doctrinally unjustifiable. Cardinal Zen
himself considers this method manipulative and considers attributing it to the
Holy Ghost blasphemous. Unfortunately, I fear that he is right.[…]
[…] the Church is in danger of busying herself with both everything and
nothing. Ecological concerns, for example, or the preoccupation with the rights
of minorities, of women, or of migrants, risk causing the essential mission of
the Church to be lost from view. If the Society of Saint Pius X strives to
preserve Tradition, with all that this entails, it is solely because these
treasures are vital for the salvation of souls, and because it aims at nothing
else but the good of souls, and that of the priesthood—ordered to their
sanctification.[…]
[…] 2019, when Pope Francis, on the occasion of his visit to the
Arabian Peninsula, signed, together with an imam, the well-known Abu Dhabi
declaration. Together with the Muslim leader, he affirmed that the plurality of
religions had been willed as such by divine Wisdom.
It is evident that a communion founded upon the acceptance of such a
statement, or which would include it, would simply not be Catholic, since it
would constitute a sin against the First Commandment and the denial of the
first article of the Creed.
I consider such a statement to be more than a simple error. It is
simply inconceivable. It cannot be the foundation of Catholic communion, but
rather the cause of its dissolution. I believe that a Catholic should prefer
martyrdom rather than accept such an affirmation.
They address the
silence of conservative bishops in the church to the crisis of Pope Francis and
Leo
[…] the fear of breaking a fragile stability by behavior deemed
“disturbing” reduces many pastors to a constrained silence, when they should be raising
their voices against scandalous teaching which corrupts faith or morals.
The necessary denunciation of errors that undermine the Church – required by
the very good of souls who are threatened by this poisoned nourishment – is
thereby left undone. One may enlighten another in private, if able to discern
the harmfulness of a given error, but it may be only a timid whisper, in which
truth struggles to express itself with the required freedom – especially in the
shadow of tacitly accepted, contradictory principles. Once again, souls are no
longer enlightened and are deprived of the bread of doctrine for which they
remain hungry. Over time, this progressively alters mentalities and gradually
leads to a general and unconscious acceptance of the various reforms affecting
the life of the Church. Towards these souls, too, the Society feels a
responsibility to enlighten and not to abandon.
Realistically sees
possibility of sanctions
[…] Cardinal Fernández’s response does not address the possibility of
an audience with the Pope. It also evokes the possibility of new sanctions.
What will the Society
do if the Holy See decides to condemn it?
DP: First of all, let us recall that in such circumstances any
canonical penalties would have no real effect.
Nevertheless, should they be pronounced, the Society would certainly
accept this new suffering without bitterness, as it has accepted past
sufferings, and would sincerely offer it for the good of the Church. It is for the Church that the
Society works. And there is no doubt that, should such a situation
arise, it could only be temporary, for the Church is divine and Our Lord will
not abandon her. […]
We are sure that one day the Roman authorities will acknowledge, with
gratitude, that these episcopal consecrations providentially contributed to
preserving the faith, for the greater glory of God and the salvation of souls.
They make the
comparison to the China Communist Party naming bishops without the Pope’s
approval
Let us take the current case of relations with the Chinese government.
Despite a genuine schism of the Chinese Patriotic Church, despite the
uninterrupted persecution of the underground Church faithful to Rome, despite
agreements regularly renewed and then broken by the Chinese authorities, in
2023, Pope Francis approved, a posteriori, the appointment of the Bishop of
Shanghai by those authorities.
More recently, Pope Leo XIV himself ultimately accepted, a posteriori, the appointment of the
Bishop of Xinxiang, designated in the same manner during the vacancy of the
Apostolic See, while the bishop, faithful to Rome—who had been imprisoned
several times—was still in office.
In both cases, these were clearly pro-government prelates, imposed
unilaterally by Beijing to control the Catholic Church in China. It should be
clearly noted that these were not merely auxiliary bishops, but residential
bishops, that is, ordinary pastors of their respective dioceses (or
prefectures), possessing jurisdiction over the local clergy and faithful. In
Rome, it is perfectly well known for what purpose these pastors were chosen and
unilaterally imposed.
The Society’s case is entirely different. For us, it is obviously not a
matter of favoring a communist or anti-Christian power, but solely of
safeguarding the rights of Christ the King and of the Tradition of the Church,
at a time of general crisis and confusion in which these are gravely
compromised. The intentions and the ends are clearly not the same.
They lay out the
request ignored by the Pope since last summer
Last summer, I wrote to the Holy Father to request an audience. Having
received no reply, I wrote to him again a few months later, in a filial
and straightforward manner, without concealing any of our needs. I
mentioned our doctrinal divergences, but also our sincere desire to serve the
Catholic Church without respite, for we are servants of the Church despite
our irregular canonical status.
To this second letter, a reply from Rome reached us a few days ago,
from Cardinal Fernández. Unfortunately, it took no account whatsoever of the
proposal we put forward, and offers nothing that responds to our requests.
Still retains hope
Pope Leo will acquiesce
A Pope is first and foremost a father. As such, he is capable of
discerning a right intention, a sincere will to serve the Church, and above
all, a genuine case of conscience in an exceptional situation. […]
In fact, the superior
general suggests that the consecration of new bishops will be a grace for the
whole church when they happen
I would like to emphasize that this is a time for prayer and
preparation of hearts, souls, and minds. We must prepare ourselves to receive
the grace that these consecrations will occasion for the whole Church. This
should be done with recollection, peace, and trust in Providence, which has
never abandoned the Society and will not abandon it now.
The ultimate reason:
for the salvation of souls
[…] it is for the Pope himself, as such, that we preserve this treasure
until the day when its value will once again be understood and when a Pope will
wish to make use of it for the good of the whole Church. […]
[…] The very law of the Church provides for it. In the spirit of
ecclesiastical law, which is the juridical expression of this charity, the good
of souls comes before everything else. It truly represents the law of laws, to
which all others are subordinate and against which no ecclesiastical law can
prevail.
The axiom “suprema lex, salus animarum” —”the supreme law is the
salvation of souls”—is a classic maxim of canonical tradition which is
explicitly taken up by the final canon of the 1983 Code. In the present state
of necessity, it is upon this highest principle that the entire legitimacy of
our apostolate and of our mission towards the souls who turn to us depends. For
us, we fulfil a role of supplying for a deficiency, in the name of that same
charity.
About the Traditional
Latin Mass
As far as I am aware, Pope Leo XIV has maintained a certain
discretion on this subject, which arouses great expectation in the conservative
world. Very recently, however, a text by Cardinal Roche on the liturgy—intended
initially for the cardinals participating in last month’s consistory—was made
public. There is no reason
to doubt that it corresponds, in its broad lines, to the orientation desired by
the Pope. It is an unambiguous text, and above all, logical and coherent.
Unfortunately, it is based on a false premise.
Concretely, this
text, in perfect continuity with Traditionis custodes, condemns the
liturgical project of Pope Benedict XVI, according to whom, the ancient rite
and the new rite are two more or less equivalent forms, expressing the same
faith and the same ecclesiology, and therefore capable of mutually enriching
one another. Concerned for the unity of the Church, Benedict XVI sought to
promote the coexistence of the two rites and, in 2007, published Summorum
Pontificum. For many, this occasioned a providential rediscovery of the
Mass of all time; but over time, it also gave rise to a movement calling the
new rite into question—a movement deemed problematic and which Traditionis
custodes, in 2021, sought to stem.
Faithful to Pope Francis, Cardinal Roche is now attempting to promote
an elusive unity of the Church according to an idea contradictory to that of Benedict
XVI. While maintaining the assertion of a continuity from one rite to the other
through reform, Cardinal Roche firmly opposes their coexistence. He sees in it
a source of division, a threat to unity, which must be overcome by returning to
an authentic liturgical communion. “The primary good of the unity of the Church
is not achieved by freezing division, but by finding ourselves in the sharing
of what cannot but be shared.” In the Church, “there ought to be only one
rite”, in full syntony with the true meaning of Tradition.
This is a just and coherent principle, since the Church, having one
faith and one ecclesiology, can have only one liturgy capable of expressing
them adequately. But it is a principle applied to a wrong conception of
Tradition. Consistent with the new post-conciliar ecclesiology, Cardinal Roche
conceives Tradition as something evolving, and the new rite as its sole living
expression for our time. The value of the Tridentine rite can therefore only be
regarded as obsolete, and its use, at most, a “concession”, and “in no way a
promotion.”
That there is a present “division” and incompatibility between the two
rites now appears more apparent than ever. But let there be no mistake, the
only liturgy that adequately expresses, in an immutable and non-evolving
manner, the traditional conception of the Church, of Christian life, and of the
Catholic priesthood—that is, Tradition—is the liturgy of all time. On this
point, the opposition of the Holy See appears more irrevocable than ever.
Direct calling into
question of the Novus Ordo
[…] instead of sincerely questioning the intrinsic deficiencies of the
new Mass, and therefore the overall failure of the reform, instead of facing
the reality that churches are emptying and vocations are declining, instead of
asking why the Tridentine rite continues to attract so many souls, Cardinal
Roche sees no other solution than an urgent preliminary formation of the
faithful and seminarians.
[…] For almost two thousand years, souls—often illiterate—were edified
and sanctified by the liturgy, without the need for any prior formation.
Failing to recognise the intrinsic incapacity of the Novus Ordo to
form and edify souls and continuing to demand ever better prior formation seems
to me to be the sign of an irremediable blindness. One arrives at shocking
paradoxes: the reform was intended to foster a greater participation of the
faithful; yet the faithful abandoned the Church en masse, because this insipid
liturgy failed to nourish them—and this would supposedly have nothing to do
with the reform? […]
[…] how can it then be understood that this Mass of all time stands in
irreducible opposition to the new Mass, remains the sole true liturgy of the
whole Church, and that no one may be prevented from celebrating it? How can it
be known that the Mass of Paul VI cannot be recognized, because it constitutes
a considerable departure from the Catholic theology of the Holy Sacrifice of
the Mass, and that no one may be compelled to celebrate it? And how are souls
to be effectively turned away from this poisoned liturgy, to drink from the
pure sources of Catholic liturgy?
COMMENT:
Complaining about conservative bishops being mute dogs is rank hypocrisy
coming from the SSPX who have been dancing the two-step with Neo-modernist Rome
since 1997, nearly thirty years of "doctrinal discussions"! Dogma is
the proximate rule of faith for all the faithful. It is immutable in both the
truth it expresses and the manner in which it is expressed. It forms the formal
object of divine and Catholic faith. The very definition of heresy is the
denial of dogma. The heresy of Neo-modernism denies this truth. They believe
that dogma evolves and changes its meaning over time as the Church develops a
deeper and richer understanding of God's revealed truth. Consequently, a
Catholic must always turn to the pope to know what any particular dogma means
today. Thus, the pope becomes the proximate rule of faith for Neo-modernists.
The SSPX, just like Rome, are Neo-modernists. The SSPX cannot call the Neo-modernist
heretics because the SSPX does not hold dogma as their proximate rule of faith.
They can only offer opinions and thus, for thirty years they have been
exchanging opinions with Neo-modernist Rome. The SSPX during the entire
pontificate of Francis/Bergoglio did and said nothing to oppose his gross
heresy and immorality. Why is it suddenly an issue now? Because at that time it
was not in the interest of the SSPX to stir the pot. Their pretense of being at
the service of the Church has never been true. From the beginning they have
worked to consolidate control of Catholic tradition imposing upon it their own
distorted conceptions of doctrine and liturgy while denying any help to those
who do not conform in every detail. Bishop Richard Williamson, since being
expelled from the SSPX, helped our little Mission. He did not agree with us
entirely but his charity was not thereby stifled. Supplied jurisdiction is
entirely generated by the needs of each individual Catholic faithful and Bishop
Williamson exercised that supplied jurisdiction in helping us at Ss. Peter
& Paul Roman Catholic Mission. Bishop Williamson's charity extended to the
needs of the faithful over the world and he provided six bishops, at least some
of which are continuing as he did. That is really the reason the SSPX got rid
of him. For the SSPX, there is no state of necessity. They have denied it
certainly over the last 15 years and they cannot reclaim it now. If they want
to get their house in order they should ask Bishop Michael Stobnicki, consecrated
by Bishop Williamson for the eastern Slavs, and who the SSPX expelled from
their seminary, to help them.
"A Dark
Cloud of Fog Instead of a Head"
I saw a strange church being built against every rule.... No angels
were supervising the building operations.
In that church, nothing came from high above... There was only division
and chaos. It is probably a church of
human creation, following the latest fashion, as well as the new heterodox
church of Rome, which seems of the same kind...
I saw all sorts of people, things, doctrines, and opinions. There was something proud, presumptuous, and
violent about it, and they seemed to be very successful. I did not see a single Angel nor a single
saint helping in the work. But far away in the background, I saw a
laughing figure which said: 'Do build it as solid as you can; we will pull it
to the ground'.... Among the strangest things that I saw, were long processions
of bishops. Their thoughts and utterances were made known to me through images
issuing from their mouths. Their faults towards religion were shown by external
deformities. A few had only a body, with a dark cloud of fog instead of a head.
Others had only a head, their bodies and hearts were like thick vapors. Some
were lame; others were paralytics; others were asleep or staggering.
Blessed Anna-Katarina Emmerick, Yves Dupont, Catholic Prophecy
Purgation Now
with Merit, or Purgatory Later Without
When I look to God, I see no gate to Paradise, and yet he who wishes to
enter there does so, because God is all mercy.
God stands before us with open arms to receive us into His glory. But well I see the divine essence to be of
such purity, far greater than can be imagined, that the soul in which there is
even the least note of imperfection would rather cast itself into a thousand
Hells than find itself thus stained in the presence of the Divine Majesty. Therefore the soul, understanding that
Purgatory had been ordained to take away those stains, casts itself therein,
and seems to itself to have found great mercy in that it can rid itself there
of the impediment that is the stain of sin.
No tongue can tell nor explain, no mind understand, the grievousness of
Purgatory. But although I see that there
is in Purgatory as much pain as in Hell, I yet see the soul that has the least
stain of imperfection accepting Purgatory as though it were a mercy, as I have
said, and holding its pains of no account as compared with the least stain that
hinders a soul in its love. I seem to
see that the pain that souls in Purgatory endure because of that in them which
displeases God (that is, what they have willfully done against His great
goodness) is greater than any other pain they feel in Purgatory. And this is because they see the truth and
the grievousness of the hindrance that prevents them from drawing near to God,
since they are in grace.
St. Catherine of Genoa, Purgation
and Purgatory
All
Are Called to be Co-Redeemers with Christ
God has entrusted to each one of
us a share in the great redemptive work of Jesus. As consecrated souls, we are especially
called to cooperate in Christ’s work.
First of all, we must cooperate with grace, so that the fruits of the
redemption can be fully applied to our souls.
This is the work of our own personal sanctification. It is not limited to this one aspect,
however. We are called to sanctify
ourselves in order to be able to bring others to sanctity. Each one of us has a mission to fulfill for
the good of others and for their sanctification. We must collaborate with Christ in extending
the fruits of the Redemption to as many souls as possible. This work is entrusted to us by the heavenly
Father, and we must apply ourselves to it with the interior disposition of
Christ: a total, generous, exclusive dedication, a dedication capable of making
even the greatest sacrifices. All
actions are of value only insofar as they help toward the accomplishment of
this work. Anything that does not
contribute to our own sanctification or to the sanctification of other is
useless, a waste of time, and should be courageously eliminated.
Fr. Gabriel of St. Mary
Magdalen, O.C.D., Divine Intimacy
And
yet, the fathers of Vatican II professed to worship the same god as the
Mohammedans!
He [Muhammad] seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasure to
which the concupiscence of the flesh goads us. His teaching also contained
precepts that were in conformity with his promises, and he gave free rein to
carnal pleasure. In all this, as is not unexpected, he was obeyed by carnal
men. As for proofs of the truth of his doctrine, he brought forward only such
as could be grasped by the natural ability of anyone with a very modest wisdom.
Indeed, the truths that he taught he mingled with many fables and with
doctrines of the greatest falsity. He did not bring forth any signs produced in
a supernatural way, which alone fittingly gives witness to divine inspiration;
for a visible action that can be only divine reveals an invisibly inspired
teacher of truth. On the contrary, Mohammed said that he was sent in the power
of his arms—which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants. What is
more, no wise men, men trained in things divine and human, believed in him from
the beginning. Those who believed in him were brutal men and desert wanderers,
utterly ignorant of all divine teaching, through whose numbers Mohammed forced
others to become his followers by the violence of his arms. Nor do divine
pronouncements on the part of preceding prophets offer him any witness. On the
contrary, he perverts almost all the testimonies of the Old and New Testaments
by making them into fabrications of his own, as can be seen by anyone who
examines his law. It was, therefore, a shrewd decision on his part to forbid his
followers to read the Old and New Testaments, lest these books convict him of
falsity. It is thus clear that those who place any faith in his words believe
foolishly.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles
The
Principle Muslim objections to the Catholic Faith – Utterly carnal!
“We
preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews indeed a stumbling block, and unto the
Gentiles foolishness” 1 Cor 1:23.
These, then, are the points, which, as you affirm, are attacked and
ridiculed by the unbelievers. For the Muslims (Saraceni), as you say, ridicule
our claim that Christ is the Son of God, since God does not have a wife; and
they think us mad, assuming we profess there are three gods. They also mock our
belief that Christ, the Son of God, was crucified for the salvation of the
human race, because if God is omnipotent, He could have saved the human race
without the suffering of His Son; He could also have so constructed man that he
could not have sinned. They rebuke Christians because daily at the altar they
eat their God and because the body of Christ, were it even as big as a
mountain, should long since have been consumed.
St. Thomas, De Rationibus Fidei (The Reasons for Our Faith)
Behold, then the whole
of Christian perfection: love and sacrifice. Who cannot with
God's grace, fulfil this twofold condition? Is it, indeed, so difficult to love
Him Who is infinitely lovable and infinitely loving? The love that He asks of
us is nothing extraordinary; it is the devotedness of love - the gift of oneself
- consisting chiefly in conformity to the divine will. To want to love is to
love. To keep the commandments for God's sake is to love. To pray is to love.
To fulfil our duties of state in view of pleasing God, this is likewise to
love. Nay more, to recreate ourselves, to take our meals with the like
intention is to love. To serve our neighbor for God's sake is to love. Nothing
then is easier, God's grace helping, than the constant exercise of divine love
and through this, steady advance toward perfection.
Rev. Adolphe
Tanquewrey, S.S., D.D., The Spiritual Life
Vatican II and
the Leap of Faith for the Hermeneutics of Continuity
ON CATHOLIC UNITY
Vatican II pastoral
opinion:
And
we now ask: What does it mean to restore the unity of all Christians?... This
unity, we are convinced, indeed subsists in the Catholic Church, without
the possibility of ever being lost (Unitatis Redintegratio) the Church
in fact has not totally disappeared from the world. On the other hand, this
unity does not mean what could be called ecumenism of the return: that is,
to deny and to reject one’s own faith history. Absolutely
not! Pope Benedict XVI, to Protestants
at World Youth Day, August 19, 2005
Catholic Doctrine:
… the union of Christians can only be
promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of
those who are separated from it… Pope
Pius XI, Mortalium Animos
ON RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
Vatican II pastoral
opinion:
The
Council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation
in the very dignity of the human person... This right to religious freedom is
to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed. Thus it
is to become a civil right. Declaration on Religious Liberty, Dignitatis
Humanae
Catholic Doctrine:
And from this wholly false idea of social organization they do not fear to
foster that erroneous opinion, especially fatal to the Catholic Church
and the salvation of souls, called by our predecessor, Gregory XVI, insanity,
namely that the liberty of conscience and worship is the proper right of every
man, and should be proclaimed by law in every correctly established society...
Each and every doctrine individually mentioned in this letter, by Our Apostolic
authority We reject, proscribe and condemn; and We wish and command that
they be considered as absolutely rejected by all the sons of the Church.
Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura
ON
SALVATION
Vatican II pastoral
opinion:
The separated churches and communities
as such, though we believe they suffer from the defects already mentioned, have
been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of
salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as
means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of
grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church. Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis
Redintegratio
Catholic Doctrine:
The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of
those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and
heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will
go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the Devil and his angels, unless
before death they are joined with her... Pope Eugene IV, Council
of Florence
ON ACCOMODATION OF
CATHOLIC TRUTH TO THE WORLD
Vatican II pastoral
opinion:
May the faithful,
therefore, live in very close union with the men of their time. Let them strive
to understand perfectly their way of thinking and feeling as expressed in their
culture. Let them blend modern science and its theories and the understanding
of the most recent discoveries with Christian morality and doctrine.... Thus
their religious practice and morality can keep pace with their scientific
knowledge and with an ever - advancing technology... Decree on the Church in the
Modern World, Gaudium
et Spes
Catholic Doctrine:
The Roman pontiff can and must reconcile himself
with human progress, with liberalism and with modern and human culture. – condemned.
Blessed Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors
ON RELATIONS WITH FALSE
RELIGIONS
Vatican II pastoral
opinion:
Upon the Moslems, too, the Church looks with esteem...They adore
the one God...though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God they revere Him as a
prophet.... In addition they await the day of judgment when God will give each
man his due.... and give worship to God especially through prayer, almsgiving
and fasting. Decree
on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions, Nostra Aetate
Catholic Doctrine:
...that
false opinion which considers all religions more or less good and
praiseworthy... Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived,
but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by
little, turn aside to naturalism and atheism...from which it clearly follows
that one who supports those who hold on these theories and attempt to realize
them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion. Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos
Why
is John Henry Cardinal Newman regarded by Modernists as their Spiritual Father?
– Because he was! So why do
“Conservative Catholics” admire Newman?
Because he explained how dogma can be discarded.
“Dr. Newman is the most
dangerous man in England. And you will see that he will make use of the laity
against your Grace. You must not be afraid of him. It will require much
prudence, but you must be firm, as the Holy father sill places his confidence
in you; but if you yield and do not fight the battle of the Holy See against
the detestable spirit growing up in England, he will begin to regret Cardinal
Wiseman, who knew how to keep the laity in order.”
Msgr. George Talbot, Papal
Chamberlain, Letter to Cardinal Henry Edward Manning, after Pope Pius IX
suppressed a plan for Dr. John Henry Newman going to Oxford to establish an
inter-faith oratory.
An English Catholicism, of
which Newman is the highest type, is the old Anglican, patristic, literary,
Oxford tone transplanted into the Church... In one word, it is a worldly
Catholicism, and it will have the worldly on its side, and will deceive many.
Cardinal Henry Edward Manning,
on Dr. John Henry Cardinal Newman
Another influential writer during the last century was Lord Acton (Sir
John Dalberg), who was famous for his critical historicism and also renowned
for his friendship with (Rev. Johann von) Dollinger (a Munich priest and
professor at the University, excommunicated for rejecting the dogma of papal
infallibility). Acton was almost excommunicated, as Dollinger was, but managed
to maintain the appearance of orthodoxy and remain in the Church. As liberal as
Lord Acton was, and although he sided with Newman in fighting the dogma of
Infallibility, he came to the same conclusion as (Cardianl Henry Edward)
Manning regarding Newman’s heterodox position. In a letter written by Acton a
few weeks before Manning’s death, after mentioning the ‘personal aversion to
Manning’ displayed by Newman he said, “Many will wonder how anybody who saw
much of him (Newman) could remain a Catholic — assuming that Newman really was
one.” Acton, although an ally of Newman in editing the liberal journal The
Rambler, was not baffled by Newman’s prosaic tact. Acton went much further than
Manning in his strictures on his old ally. He described Newman as “a sophist,
the manipulator and not the servant of truth.” When men of diametrically
opposed beliefs, as Acton and Manning, agree in their judgment of another man
whom they so well knew, the assumption that they are not both in error is not
unreasonable.
John Edward Courtenay Bodley, On Cardinal John Henry Newman
DOGMA IS THE PROXIMATE RULE OF FAITH; DOGMA is revealed
doctrine formally defined by the Church. The pope is the necessary but
insufficient means by which DOGMA is declared.
Hence, the distinction is made betewen
the Remote and the Proximate Rule of Faith.
The remote Rule of Faith is the Objective Deposit, [Scripture and
Tradition], It contains revealed truths which - for some reason or other - were
forgotten, obscure, or not sufficiently understood. Hence, they were broght into discussion, or
denied without injury to the Faith until they became clear or werer defined by
the Church. The Proximate Rule of Faith
is the teaching of the Church sufficiently proposed and manifestly promulgated
to the Faithful, [DOGMA]. If this
Proximate Rule of Faith proclaims anything as belonging to the Remote Rule
of Faith, it can no longer be challenged
without shipwreck of the Faith. For
unity of faith is whole and entire only while there is no dissent with the
Proximate Rule of Faith. On this point
Gregory of Valentia declares: "The Church has from darkness brought to
light wth her infallible authority some doctrines which, through human
negligence or malice or perversity of mind, remained concealed. And mayhap there are some still hidden in the
Church."
Msgr. George Agius, D.D., J.C.D.,
Tradition and the Church
Worth
Repeating: The SCHISM is HERE and Leo is just a dull echo of Francis/Bergoglio!
COMMENT: This
book in the article below provides an interpretation of Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia. It is addressed to
bishops with a “merciful heart” and offers an interpretation that is consistent
with the interpretation approved in the private letter sent by Pope Francis to
the bishops of Argentina as well as with the interpretation of Cardinal
Schornborn who Pope Francis publically identified as its ‘official
interpretor.’ These bishops say that the proper understanding and application
is that any Catholic living in public adultery based upon their own private
judgment in the internal forum can declare themselves worthy to receive Holy
Communion and absolution in the sacrament of Penance and therefore cannot be
denied these sacraments. It is given
semi-official approval by its publication in L’Osservatore Romano.
Pope
Leo XIV in a message to to the Dicastery for the Laity, Family and Life holding
a seminar entitled, “Evangelizing
with Families Today and Tomorrow,” endorsed Amoris Laetitia by directly quoting his predecessor from Amoris
Laetitia §76, writing the “Gospel of the family also nourishes seeds that
are still waiting to grow,” praising its “basis for caring for those plants
that are wilting and must not be neglected.”
Now the Novus Ordo, which may
be nothing more than a memorial meal as it was initially and officially defined
by Pope Paul VI, perhaps giving the Novus Ordo communion wafer to a person in
objective mortal sin is not a real problem. But what is certainly a grave sin
is that these persons can expect to be absolved by a confessor in the sacrament
of Penance without confessing or repentance of mortal sin. This does not
represent a change in the Church’s teaching.
It represents the active effort of a Francis (and now Leo) and his
minions to destroy Catholic doctrine and morality. As St. Thomas said, “All
heretics are schismatics,” the schism has long been present with every
post-conciliar pope who have repeatedly denied Catholic dogma. It is more
evident each passing day and every Catholic will have to pick sides. God cannot
let an open attack upon the sacrament of marriage go unpunished. Their
hypocrisy is oozing from every pore. Imagine if a Catholic with “humility,
discretion and love for the Church and her teaching, in a sincere search for
God’s will and a desire to make a more perfect response to it” arrives at
traditional Catholicism, what kind of response can be expect from the local
bishop and Rome? If you want to know
read our OPEN LETTERS! After all, a “merciful heart” has its limits!
“If, as a result of the process
of discernment, undertaken with “humility, discretion and love for the Church
and her teaching, in a sincere search for God’s will and a desire to make a
more perfect response to it” (Amoris
Laetitia 300), a separated or divorced person who is living in a new
relationship manages, with an informed and enlightened conscience, to
acknowledge and believe that he or she are at peace with God, he or she cannot
be precluded from participating in the sacraments of Reconciliation and the
Eucharist (see AL, notes 336 and 351).”
Bishops Charles J Scicluna and
Mario Grech, Guide for the Interpretation
of Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia: An Invitatiion to the Bishops of Merciful
Hearts. This received semi-official
approbation by being featured in the publication, L’Osservatore Romano, 1-2017
"You know Gaza is interesting. It's a phenomenal location on the
sea, the best weather—you know, everything's good. It's like some beautiful
things could be done with it. It's very interesting. Some fantastic things
could be done with Gaza."
President Donald Trump, On the rebuilding of Gaza for Israel
COMMENT:
According to the latest figures released by the Gaza Ministry of Health
on December 23, 2025, Israel had killed at least 70,937 Palestinians and
wounded 171,192; of those identified fatalities, 53% were women, children or
elderly. But the estimate is difficult to make. This estimate from the Ministry
of Health is collected from hospital records and in May of 2025 the United
Nations reported that 94% of the hospitals in Gaze had been destroyed. It is
not possible 
to know how many Palestinians are buried under the rubble, nor how many
will die from starvation and disease. There were 2.23 million Palestinians in
Gaza before the conflict and relief workers estimate the current population
requiring aid at 1.87 million. The difference is 360,000.
The picture on the right is six bags containing the remains of children
killed in the bombing of a school. The picture on the left is northern area of
Gaze with no structure left standing. This killing and destruction was
accomplished by American made planes dropping 2,000 pound American made bombs.
The specific bomb used by Israelis on the school building was a Boeing GBU-39
designed to penetrate warships and hardened targets. It splinters into small
fast moving shrapnel segments that can penetrate three feet of reinforced
concrete. In an interview Jonathan
Pollard, the Jewish spy while working as a clerk for Naval Intelligence
delivered to Israel what Scott Ritter called the "Crown Jewels" of
U.S. Intelligence Singles and was sentenced to life in prison in 1987, said that
Israel has promised President Trump tax free concessions on anything he builds
in Gaza. The picture below is the visionary Trump plan, directed by his Jewish
son-in-law Jared Kushner, for turning Gaza everything in life Trump thinks is
important. The Blessed Virgin Mary said at Fatima, "Only the Lady of the
Rosary can help you" through devotion to her Immaculate Heart, the Rosary,
and the First Saturdays of Reparation. Whatever good President Trump may
occasionally do, in the end he cannot fix anything.
Pope Leo appoints pro-LGBT archbishop as secretary for Dicastery for
Clergy
Archbishop Carlo Roberto Maria Redaelli's pro-LGBT views were recounted
in a description of his response to the same-sex 'marriage' of a Catholic scout
leader.
LifeSiteNews | Jan 22, 2026 — Pope
Leo XIV has appointed a controversial and homosexualist archbishop to a
prominent role in the Vatican.
Archbishop
Carlo Roberto Maria Redaelli of Gorizia was named today as the new Secretary
for the Dicastery for Clergy.
Raedelli and his pro-LGBT views were
mentioned in a 2020 book by Luciano Moia, a senior journalist for the Italian
Bishops’ Conference’s daily newspaper Avvenire. In his book, Moia argues that
the Church should look at “chastity” within a same-sex relationship the same
way in which it looks at chastity within marriage.
As an example of how the Church should
begin to do this, the author cited Raedelli’s response to the same-sex
‘marriage’ in 2017 of a homosexual Catholic scout leader.
In Moia’s words, Raedelli “threw everyone off. He refused the role of
the judge, he didn’t absolve, but neither did he condemn. He invited the
community to reflect together to understand if, even from such a divisive
occurrence, one can receive aspects of grace. An intervention in search of
moderation and of that invitation to welcome, discern and integrate that
impregnates the magisterium of Pope Francis.”
Contrary to the attitudes of Moia and
Archbishop Redaelli, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is very clear on
homosexuality:
Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which
presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always
declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’ They are contrary
to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not
proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances
can they be approved.
Only after stating that homosexual acts
cannot be approved does the catechism move on to a discussion of chastity. In
other words, chastity for people with homosexual inclinations plainly means
absolute continence.
Redaelli has served as auxiliary bishop of
Milan from 2004 to 2012, and as Archbishop of Gorizia, in northeastern Italy,
since 2012. A canon lawyer by training, he has been at the center of several
controversies over the years. For example, the archbishop has previously
attracted attention for his positions on the Traditional Latin Mass.
During the Italian Bishops’ Conference General Assembly in Rome in
November 2018, Redaelli had questioned the legal basis of Pope Benedict XVI’s
2007 motu proprio Summorum Pontificum.
The Pope stated that the 1962 Roman Missal had never been abrogated and
could be freely used. However, according to the Italian blog Messainlatino.it,
Redaelli stated that the Missal promulgated by Pope John XXIII had in fact been
abrogated by Pope Paul VI, rendering Summorum Pontificum juridically
ineffective. On this basis, the motu proprio was described as a “juridical
non-sense,” and the Traditional Latin Mass as not legitimately liberalized.
However, Redaelli’s claim is juridically
wrong because it rests on a false premise. No explicit act ever abrogated the
1962 Roman Missal. Under canon law (see canon 21), “in a case of doubt, the
revocation of a pre-existing law is not presumed.” Furthermore, Pope Benedict
XVI did not grant a derogation or indult but formally recognized a right that
had never been suppressed.
As Secretary of the Dicastery for Clergy,
Archbishop Redaelli will hold a key administrative role within one of the most
influential departments of the Roman Curia. Under articles 113–120 of Praedicate
Evangelium, the dicastery oversees matters relating to diocesan clergy,
including their pastoral ministry, discipline, ongoing formation, and material
support. [.....]
COMMENT: Pope Leo's appointment meets two
important criteria: He is accepting of homosexuals, and therefore, will not be
a problem for homosexuals in the clergy that he will oversee; and, he is intent
in doing away with the Indult. It is Bishop Redaelli that understands the legal
standing Summorum Pontificum while the Indult conservative Catholics cannot
figure it out. Summorum Pontificum was abrogated by Pope Francis' Traditionis
Custodes so the argument is really moot. Be that as it may, there was never a
Roman Missal published in 1962. There were several changes in the Missal in
1962 just as there were changes before 1962 and there would be in the years
that followed 1962. Each change in the Missal abrogated the previous usage. The
Missal that was in usage at the end of 1962, the last change being addition of
St. Joseph's name to the canon in December, was changed in 1965, 1967, and
1969. Redaelli's claim that the 1962 Missal usage was juridically suppressed by
Paul VI is correct. It was Benedict/Ratzinger who was dealing from the bottom
of the deck when he said that the 1962 usage had not been abrogated or legally
suppressed. Shortly after the publication of Summorum Pontificum
Benedict/Ratzinger tried to clean up the historical record by abrogating the
two documents of Paul VI that did so. What should be recognized is that
Benedict/Ratzinger implied that the 1962 usage could be suppressed but lied in
claiming that that did not happen. What is certain is that Benedict/Ratzinger
said that those who used the 1962 Missale were exercising the privilege of a "legal
right" granted by the legislator and not a moral and doctrinal right from
God. He changed the 1962 usage from the Indult of JPII into a grant of legal
privilege. It was Francis/Bergoglio who returned it to an Indult in Traditionis
Custodes where it exists today. Those who have accepted the use of the 1962
Bugnini transitional Missal by grant of Indult and/or legal privilege have no
legal grounds to complain when the grant is taken away. Ss. Peter & Paul Roman Catholic Mission
refused the offer to become an Indult community for this very reason. We offer
the pre-Bugnini "received and approved" immemorial Roman rite not by
grant of legal privilege or Indult but by our rights as baptized Catholics
derived from of our duty to worship God as God Himself has determined that He
wants to be worshiped.
St. Raymond of
Pennafort: Dominican Friar, Priest, Master of the Order
A renowned doctor of canon law and notable writer, Raymond of Pennafort
(1175 – 1275) joined the Dominican Order in 1222, after a distinguished
academic career in Barcelona and Bologna. His two principal works are his Summa
Casuum on penitential discipline and his compilation of the
decretals of canon law, commissioned by Pope Gregory IX. This collection of
conciliar and papal decrees became a standard work for canon lawyers for nearly
seven hundred years. St. Raymond later became the third master of the Order.
According to Dominican tradition, he once rebuked the king of Aragon for his
immoral behavior. When St. Raymond attempted to leave the island of Majorca and
return to Spain, he could not because the kind had forbidden all sailors to
give him passage. St. Raymond placed his cappa, the black mantle of the
Dominican habit, on the water, stepped on it, and sailed to the mainland.
CANON LAW and the Judgment of a
heretical pope
Comment:
The Decretals of Gratian is a collection of canonical
texts compiled in the 12th century. Pope Gregory IX in 1230 directed St.
Raymond of Pennafort, the distinguished Dominican, to organize an addendum
to the code to include legal codes adopted since the time of Gratian but the
work became a much more extensive revision. Working from
the Decretals of Gratian, St. Raymond wrote a five volume edition of
the Decretals that became
the Corpus iuris canonici which served as the legal code
for the Latin Church’s canon law from that time until the promulgation of the
Code of Canon Law in 1917.
Decretum Gratiani, which was included in the
old Corpus Iuris Canonici, affirmed that a Pope who deviates
from right doctrine (i.e.: a notorious public heretic) can be
judged. The canon states that the "pope judges all and is judged by
no-one, unless he is found to have departed from the faith":
‘Hujus culpas redarguere præsumit mortalium nullus, quia cunctos ipse judicaturus a nemine est judicandus,
nisi
deprehendatur a fide devius (dist. XL, C. 6)’.
When the revised Code of Canon Law
(Codex Iuris Canonici 1917) came into force, the Church
eliminated from the new legislation the phrase "unless he is found to have departed from the
faith." This deletion was continued in the 1983 code. Although the
phrase, "unless he is found to have departed from the
faith," was not included in the 1917 and the 1983 codes, the canonical
commentary still regards the phrase as legally binding:
‘Canon 1404 – The
First See is judged by no one.‘
COMMENTARY: "Canon 1404 is not a
statement about the personal impeccability or inerrancy of the Holy Father.
Should, indeed, the pope fall into heresy, it is understood that he would lose
his office. To fall from Peter’s faith is to fall from his chair."
New Commentary on
the Code of Canon Law, John P. Beal, James A. Coriden, and Thomas J. Green
eds. (New York: Paulist, 2000), p. 1,618.
The code is the compilation of laws governing the Church as social
institution. Most of the laws in the code are of ecclesiastical positive human
laws grounded upon human authority, however, many of the legal codes are divine
positive laws grounded upon divine authority or upon natural law. If a human
law is deleted from the code, the law ceases to bind. If a law of divine
authority is deleted from the code, the law continue in force for the human
authority of the Church cannot overturn the law of God. This self-evident
principle is stated in the code itself. Consequently, the commentary cited above is a recognition
that the pope cannot be judged "unless he is found to have departed from
the faith" is of divine origin. It is necessarily a divine law
because the papacy is a divine institution established directly by Jesus Christ
and therefore governed in its essence only by divine laws. In other words,
if it were not a divine law, the Church could not propose a human law to judge
what was established by God.
Therefore, it is of divine law that permits a heretical pope to be
judged. Importantly, although the law permits a heretical pope to be judged, it
says nothing about who and how a pope is to be judged regarding heresy and it
does not address penalties. It says nothing about removal from office. If the
law intended the removal from office the law itself would have to state the
penalty and provide a mechanism for its determination and enforcement.
So now it falls to opinions regarding the judgment of a heretical pope.
Most theologians believe that it is "understood" that the removal
from office necessarily follows from a judgment of heresy often citing the
scriptural and traditional admonition to avoid heretics:
"A man that
is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: Knowing that he,
that is such a one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own
judgment" (Titus 3:10-11).
They argue that since the faithful cannot avoid a pope as head of the
Church therefore the heretical pope must lose his office. A serious problem
with this argument follows, that is, if the faithful cannot "avoid" a
pope, then there must necessarily be a pope who in fact cannot be
avoided. Therefore, those who would make the papacy vacant must also be
able to fill the office with a true pope.
But can a heretical pope be avoided? It really becomes a problem for
those who hold the pope as their proximate rule of faith and not, as they
should, dogma. For if dogma is not the proximate rule of faith then the pope must
be and he then can never be a heretic for whatever the pope holds the dogma or
doctrine to mean is what it then means and only those who disagree with the
pope are heretics. For a Catholic, dogma is the proximate rule of faith and
although a heretical pope can do immeasurable damage to the Church he cannot
touch individual souls of the faithful.
If we adhere to what the law says and nothing more we can say this: The
definition of heresy is the denial of dogma. The heretic denies dogma and the
faithful keep dogma. Those who can judge a heretical pope are the faithful. The
law does not distinguish or discriminate among the faithful as to the judgment.
Dogma is articulated for all the faithful. Its understanding does not require
any theological competence. It requires proper definition and correct grammar.
Any of the faithful, that is those who hold dogma as their proximate rule of
faith, can judge a manifestly heretical pope such as Pope Francis was. Any of
the faithful can know when a dogma is directly contradicted for the first
principles of the understanding, such as the principle of non-contradiction,
are innate in human nature. Thus all the faithful can judge, in fact must
judge, a heretical pope and so that they may not follow him in his heresy for God
has said that 'it is
not possible to deceive His elect' (Matt. 24:24). The law does not
specify the judge because the judgment rests with all the faithful, it is
universal. The law does not specify a penalty because none of the faithful have
the competency to impose a penalty and remove a heretical pope from office. It
is God who is the formal and final cause of the pope and the office of the
papacy. It is God who 'marries' the designated candidate to the papal office
and only God can remove him from it just as God removed the High Priest and
destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem and the Levitical priesthood which
can never be reconstituted.
Those who hold dogma as their proximate rule of faith recognize Pope
Francis as a heretic because he denies dogmatic truth. He preaches a different
gospel so we "receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed
you" (2 John 10). Since he preaches a different gospel, "Let him be
anathema" because we are first "servants of Christ" (Gal 1: 8).
For in dogma, the Church has spoken and the heretic Pope Francis "will not
hear the church, (therefore) let him be to thee as the heathen and publican
(Matt 18:17).
The job of the faithful is to keep the faith.
Dogmas
“are to give light, not to receive light from human reason”!
I answer: The obligation to
believe what God says is a natural duty, it is a natural law, dictated by the
common sense of reason which the Creator has deposited in every human soul. The
Church only enforces this law, which existed before she herself existed,
because from all eternity it was a truth that the creature is bound to believe
the word of the Creator. If the Church allows no denial, no doubt, no
alteration or misconstruction of any of her dogmas, it is because the veracity
of the Son of God, who has revealed these truths, is attacked when any of His
doctrines are denied or doubted. These dogmas are so many fixed stars in the
firmament of holy Church. They cannot be reached by the perversity and
frivolity of man. He may close his eyes against them and deny their existence;
he may misrepresent them and look at them through glasses stained the color of
every prejudice; but he cannot do away with them altogether, nor change in any
way their natural brightness and brilliancy. Like the stars that deck the vault
of heaven, they are to give light, not to receive light from human reason. They
are the word of God, and what God says is truth, that cannot be made untruth.
The mind that receives truth is enlightened thereby; the mind that denies or
misrepresents it is darkened and corrupted.
Besides, every dogma of faith is
to the Catholic cultivated mind not only a new increase of knowledge, but also
an incontrovertible principle from which it is able to draw conclusions and
derive other truths. They present an endless field for investigation so that
the beloved Apostle St. John could write at the end of his Gospel, without fear
of exaggeration: “But there are also many other things which Jesus did: which
if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, world not be able to
contain the books that should be written.”
The Catholic Church, by
enforcing firm belief in her dogmas—which are not her inventions, but were
given by Jesus Christ—places them as a bar before the human mind to prevent it
from going astray and to attach it to the truth; but it does not prevent the
mind from exercising its functions when it has secured the treasure of divine
truth, and a “scribe thus instructed in the kingdom of heaven is truly like a
man that is a householder, who bringeth forth out of his treasure new things
and old.” …. They are new because newly enacted, declared, defined; they are
old because they contain no new revelation or any assumption of power never
granted by Christ, but simply old truths under new forms, the old power
exercised under new circumstances.
Rev. Joseph Prachensky, S.J., The
Church of the Parables and True Spouse of the Suffering Savior
When Pope Leo XIV met with cardinals and bishops residing in Rome at
Christmas, his Master of Ceremonies, Monsignor Marco Agostini, outed them by
identifying them on an open microphone as “culattoni tutti insieme” (all the
faggots together).
Anyone who questions Agostini’s statement is encouraged to read In
the Closet of the Vatican
by Frédéric Martel who estimated that around 80% of the
clergy working in the Vatican are homosexuals. The 555-page work is the
result of over 1,500 interviews with people in the Vatican and in 30 countries:
among them, 41 cardinals, 52 bishops and monsignors, 45 apostolic nuncios and
foreign ambassadors.
Some of Martel’s conclusions include:
·
The
Vatican has one of the biggest gay communities in the world….it is one huge
closet.
·
The
Church has become sociologically homosexual. It is responsible for countless instances
of sexual abuse that are undermining it from within.
·
The
priesthood is (now) the ideal escape route for young homosexuals. Homosexuality
is one of the keys to their vocation.
·
There are
more and more homosexuals as one rises through the Catholic hierarchy. In the
College of Cardinals and at the Vatican, the preferential process is said to be
perfected; homosexuality becomes the rule, heterosexuality the exception.
Gene Thomas Gomulka, is a sexual abuse victims’ advocate,
investigative reporter, author, and screenwriter. A former Navy Captain
Chaplain Corps, seminary instructor, and diocesan Respect Life Director.
Gomulka was ordained a priest for the Altoona-Johnstown diocese and later made
a Prelate of Honor (Monsignor) by JPII.
COMMENT: Apparently Msgr. Agostini did not realize that the microphone
was on when he said, "All the faggots together." For his indiscretion
he has been dismissed from his position. While not knowing anything about
Martel's book that is recommended by Rev. Gomulka, it is just another addition
to the a long list, and growing longer, of documentation of the Homosexual
Lobby's infiltration and control of the Novus Ordo Church. Traditional
Catholics have been exposing this crime for a long time. One of the priests
that help in the establishment of Saints Peter & Paul Roman Catholic
Mission was the late Rev. Enrique Rueda authored The Homosexual Network
published in 1982. Rev. Rueda inspired the work of Randy Engel who continued
his work with her book, Rite of Sodomy published in 2006. The late Rev. John
O'Connor, O.P., a traditional Dominican, exposed in detail the homosexual
takeover of the Dominican Order in the United States and the failure of Rome to
do anything about it. The Polish priest, Rev. Dariusz Oko, a theology professor at the Pontifical
University of John Paul II in Krakow, was fined in Germany in 2022 along with
his published, for "hate speech" in an article that referred to
homosexual priests as "a colony of parasites", "a cancerous
growth" and "a homosexual plague" in the Church. He also called
the "gay-affirming movement" a "homo-heresy." The book
Goodbye, Good Men by Michael S. Rose is another work that documents the
homosexual infiltration of the Church. Should we be surprised? Remember Bella Dodd who was
a teacher, lawyer, and labor union activist, member of the Communist Party of
the U.S.A. and New York City Teachers Union in the 1930s and 1940s. She became
a vocal anti-communist after she underwent a conversion to the Catholic Church
upon meeting Rev. Fulton J. Sheen, Bishop of Rochester, New York. Bella Dodd, under sworn testimony before
Congress in the 1950s, claimed that she had helped place 1,500 committed
communists into Catholic seminaries. None of these homosexuals will ever give
up their sinecures in the Novus Ordo church network. Jesus Christ began and
ended His public life with the 'cleansing of the Temple' driving the profane
from the house of God. Call to mind what God did to Rome in 1527 when the
mercenary Protestant army of Charles V sacked Rome. The destruction and death
lasted about nine months. This cleansing of Rome made possible the rebuilding
and reformation accomplished by the Council of Trent. The punishment that is at
the door today will be a pitiless destruction of the entire Novus Ordo structure
and make possible the great restoration that will follow.
"All ceremonies are professions of
faith, in which the interior worship of God consists. Now man can make
profession of his inward faith, by deeds as well as by words: and in either
profession, if
he makes a false declaration, he sins mortally."
St. Thomas Aquinas, (ST, I-II, Q. 103,
Art. 4)
Queers Always
Hang Together
“Sodomy Is a Gift from God….
Those who oppose sodomy should be debarred from church seminaries.”
Rev. Timothy Radcliffe, O.P., an Oxford
scholar and international celebrity appointed by Pope Francis to the Pontifical
Council of Justice and Peace in 2015. On 6 October 2024, Pope Francis announced
that Radcliffe would be created a cardinal on December 8 but was the date was
later changed to 7 December. Pope Francis, granting him a dispensation from the
current requirement that all cardinals must be bishops, made him a cardinal
deacon and assigned him to the Chiesa dei
Santi Nomi di Gesu e Maria. He participated as a cardinal elector in the
2025 conclave that elected Pope Leo as the sole elector that was not a bishop.
Pro-LGBT Cdl. Radcliffe urges ‘openness to novelty’ in address to
extraordinary consistory
Reports from inside the Vatican suggest growing unease among the
cardinals after Pope Leo’s two-day gathering opened with tightly controlled
group sessions led by liberal voices.
LifeSiteNews | Gaetano Masciullo | Thu
Jan 8, 2026
VATICAN CITY— Pro-LGBT Cardinal Timothy
Radcliffe delivered the opening meditation at the consistory in Rome by urging 
cardinals to remain “in the boat of Peter” amid global crises and
Church divisions while suggesting “memory and openness to novelty must coexist
in the life of the Church.”
On the afternoon of January 7, Pope Leo XIV
opened a two-day extraordinary consistory at the Vatican, convening cardinals
from around the world to reflect on four major themes – the mission of the
Church in today’s world, synodality, the relationship between the Holy See and
the particular Churches, and the liturgy – though only the former two were
selected for detailed discussion, a decision that, according to off-the-record
accounts reported by the Italian blog Messainlatino, prompted discouragement
and concern among several participants.
“I
am here to listen,” Pope Leo XIV told the cardinals in his opening address,
stressing that the meeting was intended not to produce documents but “to
continue a conversation that will help me in serving the mission of the entire
Church.”
According to the blog Messainlatino,
multiple unnamed cardinals described the first session as poorly prepared and
structurally restrictive, noting in particular that there were no free
interventions scheduled for the opening day. Discussions were conducted in
small, pre-assigned working groups based on language and curial affiliation, a
format some participants reportedly said did not resemble the traditional
consistory model of the past.
The same source reported that, for reasons
of time, the theme of the liturgy was effectively excluded from substantive
group discussion, despite being listed among the four initial topics. Several
cardinals allegedly lamented what they perceived as a lack of interest in the
Church understood as “mystery,” and said that the overall approach appeared to
be in continuity with the synodal processes of recent years.
The opening meditation was delivered by
Cardinal Timothy Radcliffe, O.P., a leftist prelate who has praised “gay
sexuality” in blasphemous remarks, celebrated “LGBT Masses,” supported
admitting homosexuals to the priesthood, and encouraged Catholics to watch
homosexual movies and read homosexual novels.
In his reflection on the Gospel of Mark
(6:45–52), Radcliffe urged the cardinals to “remain in the boat of Peter” amid
contemporary storms facing both the world and the Church, including war,
inequality, sexual abuse scandals, and ideological divisions.
Radcliffe warned against remaining “on the
shore” out of fear or disagreement, arguing that unity and mutual charity among
the cardinals were essential to supporting the Pope. He stated that “memory and
openness to novelty must coexist in the life of the Church,” citing Evangelii
Gaudium and Saint Augustine to argue that Tradition and renewal are
inseparable.
Messainlatino also reports that upcoming
sessions of the consistory are expected to open with reflections by pro-LGBT
Cardinal José Tolentino de
Mendonça and Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle, both widely regarded as
prominent liberal voices within the College of Cardinals.
COMMENT: Cardinal Radcliffe
is a notorious homosexual. Pope Leo in selecting him as the spiritual director
of the consistory is making an open declaration that the spirit of the
consistory is NOT the Holy Spirit. The Mission of the Church was established by
its founder, Jesus Christ. It was established with a specific commission to
"make disciples of all nations." Synodality is a denial of the dogma
of the universal jurisdiction of the pope. The Church's relationship with
non-Catholic churches is established by God: "There is no salvation
outside the Catholic Church." It is the relationship is between those who
can be saved and those who are not. Finally, the liturgy is the work of God Who
dogmatically established at the Council of Trent: "Those that say that the
received and approved rites customarily used in the solemn administration of
the sacraments may be changed into other new rites... by any pastor of the
churches whomsoever: anathema sit.
Pope Leo begins a new catechism series dedicated to Vatican II
Pope Leo on Wednesday praised the ‘liturgical reform’ launched by
Vatican II that laid the groundwork for the revolutionary Novus Ordo Missae,
the new Mass.
LifeSiteNews | Emily Mangiaracina | Jan
8, 2026
VATICAN CITY— Pope Leo XIV announced
Wednesday that he is beginning a catechesis series to “closely” study the
Second Vatican Council, which many priests and scholars have affirmed to be in
need of correction.
“We are beginning a new catechesis series dedicated to the Second
Vatican Council and to a fresh reading of its Documents,” Leo wrote in an X
post on January 7. “The Council’s Magisterium remains even today the North Star
guiding the Church’s journey.”
“Closely studying the Council documents
will help us to be attentive interpreters of the signs of the times, and to
proclaim the Gospel to all,” Leo said Wednesday during his general audience.
In Leo’s strong support for Vatican II, he aligns himself with Pope
Francis, who described the Council as “a visit of God to His Church,” and as
“irreversible.”
The pope has not given further details thus far on the forthcoming
“catechesis” of Vatican II. However, during his general audience on Wednesday,
he highlighted aspects of the Council that he highly esteems.
For example, Leo praised the “liturgical reform” launched by Vatican
II, which laid the groundwork for the revolutionary Novus Ordo Missae,
the new Mass. The Council “set in motion an important liturgical reform by
placing at the center the mystery of salvation and the active and conscious
participation of the entire People of God,” Leo said in his general audience.
Liturgist and author Dr. Peter Kwasniewski
has pointed out that the idea articulated in the Second Vatican Council’s Sacrosanctum Concilium that “In the
restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy, this full and active
participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else” is
backward.
“It cannot escape our notice that this text
turns things on their head,” Kwasniewski remarked in 2019. “Where Pius X had
said that what should be ‘provided for before everything else’ is the ‘sanctity
and dignity of the temple,’ Vatican II says that ‘the aim to be considered
before all else’ is ‘full and active participation by all the people.’ In doing
so, it inverts the hierarchy of goods. Now the worship of God and its right
condition becomes secondary to the people’s involvement.”
Pope Leo also on Wednesday lauded Vatican II for being responsible for
a Church committed to “seeking the truth through the way of ecumenism,
interreligious dialogue and dialogue with people of good will,” as if the
Church needs to seek truth outside of Herself. The idea that the fullness of
the truth is not found within the Catholic Church is heretical.
Leo’s description of the Second Vatican
Council during his general audience and in his social media post as the
“guiding star” of the Church’s path suggests he sees this council as surpassing
in importance every other council of the Church, which is especially
significant given that Vatican II appeared to contradict previous magisterial
councils in certain respects.
Prelates such as Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Archbishop Carlo Maria
Viganò have pointed to errors in the Second Vatican Council regarding religious
freedom and other religions, and in doing so have been supported by many
priests and scholars.
For example, Bishop Schneider has said Lumen Gentium is “wrong” and errs by suggesting that Christians and
Muslims participate together in the same act of adoration when it states that
“Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the
one and merciful God.”
It errs because Muslims worship on a
natural level, at the same level of anyone who adores God with the “natural
light of reason,” whereas Christians adore God on a supernatural level as His
adopted children “in the truth of Christ and in the Holy Spirit.”
“This is a substantial difference,”
Schneider observed. He explained that the use of the phrase “with us”
represents a relativization of the act of adoration of God and also of
Christians’ “sonship.”
In addition, Muslims reject the Trinity,
which they consider to be an idolatrous idea. Christ made clear that “whoever
rejects me rejects the one who sent me” (Luke 10:16) and “no one comes to the
Father except through me” (John 14:6).
Schneider criticized texts suggesting that
Buddhists and Hindus can attain illumination on their own, without “the grace
of Christ,” as a heresy. Nostra Aetate
claims that “in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery,” and that
Buddhism “teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be
able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own
efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination.”
The German prelate has also criticized Dignitatis Humanae for putting forth “a
theory never before taught by the constant Magisterium of the Church, i.e.,
that man has the right founded in his own nature, ‘not to be prevented from
acting in religious matters according to his own conscience, whether privately
or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due
limits.’”
Archbishop Viganò agreed with Bishop
Schneider in his criticism of the Second Vatican Council, noting that Vatican
II’s formulation of religious freedom “contradict[s] the testimony of Sacred
Scripture and the voice of Tradition, as well as the Catholic Magisterium which
is the faithful guardian of both.”
It is also noteworthy that Vatican II’s
Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis
Redintegratio, condones “prayers in common” with our “separated brethren”
in “certain special circumstances, such as the prescribed prayers “for unity,”
and during ecumenical gatherings.”
However, the Councils of the Church have
repeatedly made clear that Catholics cannot pray with heretics or schismatics,
let alone those of other religious practices:
· “One must neither pray nor sing psalms with heretics, and whoever shall
communicate with those who are cut off from the communion of the Church,
whether clergy or layman: let him be excommunicated.” — Council of Carthage
· “No one shall pray in common with heretics and schismatics.” — Council
of Laodicea
· If any ecclesiastic or layman shall go into the synagogue of the Jews
or to the meeting houses of the heretics to join in prayer with them, let them
be deposed and deprived of communion. If any bishop or priest or deacon shall
join in prayer with heretics, let him be suspended from communion. — II Council
of Constantinople
COMMENT: Pope
Leo is just another heretic embracing the heresies of Vatican II, a pastoral
council that has by every statistical analysis has proven to be an utter
pastoral failure. A pastoral approach to pastoral problem is comparable to a
business plan to the operation of the business. Now is a business plan leads to
financial ruin of a business the board of directors will immediately fire the
CEO, his staff and advisors, and seek another with a different business plan.
What can be said about the Novus Ordo popes is that the "pastoral
plan" they have adopted from Vatican II is not a failure but rather a
resounding success because the purpose of the plan is to destroy the Church of
Jesus Christ. What they are doing is what they have always intended to do. The
Church was established in Truth by Truth Itself and does not "seek"
truth from those who deny it.
In 2005 the Dover, PA electorate removed the School Board
members that permitted Intelligent Design to be considered in as a possible
explanation for the natural order found in the material universe. Scientists,
while affirming that the natural order in the universe must necessarily be the
result of mechanical chance, “listened with a vast radio telescopic network for
signals (from outer space) that resembled coded intelligence and were not
merely random” for evidence of intelligent life in the universe. If these scientists affirm that the DNA code
of biological life, which is clearly goal directed, is “merely random” and not
a sign of “intelligence” how can they be open to recognize any sign of
intelligible communication!? Is this WSJ article evidence that there is no
intelligence design in the Dover, PA electorate or in modern science?
Science
Increasingly Makes the Case for God
The odds of life existing on
another planet grow ever longer. Intelligent design, anyone?
Eric Metaxas: Dec. 25, 2014
In
1966 Time magazine ran a cover story asking: Is God Dead? Many have accepted
the cultural narrative that he’s obsolete—that as science progresses, there is
less need for a “God” to explain the universe. Yet it turns out that the rumors
of God’s death were premature. More amazing is that the relatively recent case
for his existence comes from a surprising place—science itself.
Here’s
the story: The same year Time featured the now-famous headline, the astronomer
Carl Sagan announced that there were two important criteria for a planet to
support life: The right kind of star, and a planet the right distance from that
star. Given the roughly octillion—1 followed by 27 zeros—planets in the
universe, there should have been about septillion—1 followed by 24
zeros—planets capable of supporting life.
With
such spectacular odds, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, a large,
expensive collection of private and publicly funded projects launched in the
1960s, was sure to turn up something soon. Scientists listened with a vast
radio telescopic network for signals that resembled coded intelligence and were
not merely random. But as years passed, the silence from the rest of the
universe was deafening. Congress defunded SETI in 1993, but the search
continues with private funds. As of 2014, researches have discovered precisely
bubkis—0 followed by nothing.
What
happened? As our knowledge of the universe increased, it became clear that
there were far more factors necessary for life than Sagan supposed. His two
parameters grew to 10 and then 20 and then 50, and so the number of potentially
life-supporting planets decreased accordingly. The number dropped to a few
thousand planets and kept on plummeting.
Even
SETI proponents acknowledged the problem. Peter Schenkel wrote in a 2006 piece
for Skeptical Inquirer magazine: “In light of new findings and insights, it
seems appropriate to put excessive euphoria to rest . . . . We should quietly
admit that the early estimates . . . may no longer be tenable.”
As
factors continued to be discovered, the number of possible planets hit zero,
and kept going. In other words, the odds turned against any planet in the
universe supporting life, including this one. Probability said that even we
shouldn’t be here.
Today
there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support
life—every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls
apart. Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw
away asteroids, a thousand times as many would hit Earth’s surface. The odds
against life in the universe are simply astonishing.
Yet
here we are, not only existing, but talking about existing. What can account
for it? Can every one of those many parameters have been perfect by accident?
At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the
result of random forces? Doesn’t assuming that an intelligence created these
perfect conditions require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining
Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being?
There’s
more. The fine-tuning necessary for life to exist on a planet is nothing
compared with the fine-tuning required for the universe to exist at all. For
example, astrophysicists now know that the values of the four fundamental
forces—gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the “strong” and “weak” nuclear
forces—were determined less than one millionth of a second after the big bang.
Alter any one value and the universe could not exist. For instance, if the
ratio between the nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force had been
off by the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction—by even one part in
100,000,000,000,000,000—then no stars could have ever formed at all. Feel free
to gulp.
Multiply
that single parameter by all the other necessary conditions, and the odds
against the universe existing are so heart-stoppingly astronomical that the
notion that it all “just happened” defies common sense. It would be like
tossing a coin and having it come up heads 10 quintillion times in a row.
Really?
Fred
Hoyle, the astronomer who coined the term “big bang,” said that his atheism was
“greatly shaken” at these developments. He later wrote that “a common-sense
interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with
the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology…. The numbers one calculates
from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost
beyond question.”
Theoretical
physicist Paul Davies has said that “the appearance of design is overwhelming”
and Oxford professor Dr. John Lennox has said “the more we get to know about
our universe, the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator . . . gains in
credibility as the best explanation of why we are here.”
The
greatest miracle of all time, without any close seconds, is the universe. It is
the miracle of all miracles, one that ineluctably points with the combined
brightness of every star to something—or Someone—beyond itself.
Mr.
Metaxas is the author, most recently, of “Miracles: What They Are, Why They
Happen, and How They Can Change Your Life” (Dutton Adult, 2014).
JP II the 'Grate'
- if somehow he made it to Purgatory -
ask him to turn out the lights and lock the place up when he is the last
to leave.
John
Paul II was a pope under whose reign we had the most horrific scandal in the
Church's 2000-year history. Thousands of
children were molested by priests and bishops he ordained. By the end of his pontificate, lawsuits were
bankrupting Catholic Churches all over the world; and between one third and one
half of the clergy (sources available upon request) were admittedly homosexual,
with a significant percentage being pederasts whom the pope didn't even admit
existed when he was told of their crimes, much less did anything to stop them,
even when stark evidence was brought before him, as in the case of Legionnaires
leader Marciel Maciel. At the same time
he hid other clerics from prosecution, as in the case of Cardinal Bernard Law
of Boston.
This
was the pope who allowed the Vatican Bank's corruption that started under Paul
VI to continue with little or no reform; and who protected its chief
perpetrator, Bishop Paul Marcinkus, from prosecution. He did nothing to investigate the suspected
murder of John Paul I, the very pope who made it known in the first days of his
reign that he was going to clean up the financial misdealings of his
curia. This was the pope who took 250
million dollars of the Vatican's money and gave it to Solidarity in Poland,
thereby making the Church a political institution instead of a spiritual one. By the same token he condemned Liberation
theology because if its tendency to get involved in politics.
This
was the pope who went to the hut of an African witch doctor in 1985 and
afterward wrote, "the prayer meeting in the sanctuary at Lake Togo was
particularly striking. There I prayed
for the first time with animists."
In December 1984 he sent a
Vatican representative to the laying of the
foundation of the largest mosque in Europe.
In September 1989 he wrote to Muslim leaders and said: "In the name
of the same God we adore," without any qualifications whatsoever. In May 1999 he kissed the Koran in a public
ceremony; and in 2000 asked John the Baptist "to protect Islam." In February 1986 he received the red dust of
the Hindu religion on his forehead in honor of the goddess Shiva. In March 1986 in New Delhi he stated that
"collaboration between all religions is necessary for the good of
mankind... as Hindus, Buddhists, Jainists, and Christians, we unite to proclaim
the truth about man."
This
was the pope who invited all the world's non-Christian and pagan religions to
pray for world peace at Assisi in 1986 and Assisi in 2002 (with five additional
Assisi-like gatherings in the 1990s in various countries) and never once in
those 16 years did he preach the Gospel to them about conversion to Christ for salvation. Instead he sent them all back to their
countries encouraging them to continue to pray to their false gods, the very
opposite that St. Paul did in Acts 17.
He paid no attention to any of his high-placed clerical advisors who
told him these acts were abominations.
This
was the pope who, against two millennia of Catholic tradition, told husbands to
be mutually submissive to women; dispensed with head coverings for women; and
allowed women and girls to be communion ministers, altar girls, and directors
of chanceries, thereby increasing the feminization of the Church amidst an
already feminized clergy who were by this time at least a third homosexual,
while another significant portion were receiving paternity suits.
This
was the pope who profusely apologized for the ecclesiastical policies of
previous popes; who had his Vatican envoy sign the 1998 Lutheran/Catholic Joint
declaration which, in direct contradiction to the Council of Trent, said
"man is justified by faith alone."
This was the pope who told the Lutherans they had a "profound
religiousness and spiritual heritage" and that Martin Luther was driven by
a "burning passion of the question of eternal salvation," and who
told the Lutheran bishops that Rome's excommunication of Luther had expired,
and that "There is a need for a new evaluation of the questions raised by
Luther and his teaching." This was
the pope who implied or taught universal salvation and that hell may not be
applicable to any human being. This was
the pope who at the very beginning of his pontificate in the 1979 encyclical Redemptor Hominis used the word
"church" 150 times but never once mentioned the word
"Catholic." This was the pope
who continually sided with liberals like Karl Rahner, Urs von Balthasar and
Raymond Brown but who would hardly give an ear to those, such as Archbishop
Lefebvre, who wanted to preserve the tradition and who decried the
anti-Catholic innovations being foisted on the Catholic populace. (Fortunately, Pope Benedict XVI saw John Paul
II's mistake and reversed the decision against Lefebvre). This was the pope who was criticized by his
own admirers for failing to discipline wayward clerics, both in their doctrinal
aberrations and moral laxity (Charles Curran, Edward Schillebeeckx, Hans Kung,
et al). Ironically, the only cleric that
was excommunicated was Lefebvre, yet he was one of the most doctrinally sound
and morally upright clerics the Church had ever known.
This
was the pope who in 1981, contrary to tradition, implied or taught that the
Jewish Old Covenant is not revoked and that Jews have a special relationship
with God, as does Paragraph 121 of his papally-signed 1994 Catechism. He continued to propagate confusing and
doctrinally fallacious teaching about the Jews and Judaism through his cardinals
who taught that the Jews did not need to convert to Christianity to be saved
since they have their own covenant with God (Kasper, Keeler, Willebrands,
George, Ratzinger, et al). This was the
first pope in history to visit Israel and who then placed himself under Judaism
by praying at the Jerusalem's Wailing Wall.
This was the pope who, for the first time in the history of the papacy,
visited and prayed in Jewish synagogues - the religion that denies more than
any other that Jesus Christ is God.
Last
but not least, this was the pope who changed the Church's criterion for
sainthood, which now allows him and all his fellow 20th century popes to be
easily canonized in the face of the fact that there have been only three popes
canonized since 1294 (Pius X, d. 1914; Pius V, d. 1572; Celestine V, d.
1294). As such, the very popes who lived
and reigned during the Church's worst corruptions and scandals are now being
exonerated and place in heaven.
Robert Sungenis, Ph.D., Letter to Editor, Culture Wars Magazine
In pastoral letter, Charlotte's Bishop Martin ends altar rails for holy
Communion
National Catholic Reporter | Patricia L.
Guilfoyle | Charlotte, N.C. — December 23, 2025
Bishop
Michael Martin has established guidelines for the reception of holy Communion in the Diocese
of Charlotte to strengthen unity in worship, uphold the church's
liturgical norms and encourage active participation by the faithful.
Martin announced the new norms in a pastoral letter that affirms the
common posture of standing to receive holy Communion, encourages priests
to offer Communion under both bread and wine more often, and calls for the
broader use of trained laypeople to serve as Eucharistic ministers.
"The liturgy of the Church is the work
of God and the work on behalf of God in the life of the Church," Martin
wrote in the Dec. 17 letter. "These norms for our diocese move us together toward the
Church's vision for the fuller and more active participation of the
faithful."
In his pastoral letter, the bishop
emphasized that the celebration of the Eucharist is a communal act of worship,
not only an individual act of piety.
"Throughout the ages and within the context of our rich liturgical
traditions from the East to the West, our unity as believers in
Holy Communion is expressed through our postures and gestures that reflect
our mystical communion and unity as fellow believers," he said.
The new guidance does not replace the
diocese's general liturgical norms established in 2005, but builds upon
them and aligns closely with the Catholic Church's universal norms
(what is called the "General Instruction of the Roman Missal") and
directives set by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
The pastoral letter follows months of
consultation with the diocese's Office for Divine Worship and the Presbyteral
Council of priests, which represents all priests of the diocese in
administrative and policy discussions.
In his pastoral letter, Martin affirmed the "normative
posture" for receiving holy Communion in the United States is
standing, after bowing the head as a sign of reverence.
The directive instructs any parishes that currently use altar rails for
distributing Communion to discontinue the practice and remove any portable
kneelers or prie-dieus by Jan. 16, noting that such practices are "a
visible contradiction" to the prescribed posture of standing.
"Instead," his pastoral letter states, the church
"emphasizes that receiving Holy Communion is to be done as the
members of the faithful go in procession, witnessing that the Church journeys
forward and receives Holy Communion as a pilgrim people on their
way."
In many churches, altar rails are architectural elements that
differentiate the sanctuary from the nave and once were used for Communion
distribution.
Over the past decade or so, a small number
of churches in the diocese reintroduced the use of rails or kneelers to
distribute Holy Communion, but most diocesan churches already follow the
practice of receiving Communion while standing, consistent with U.S. norms.
In his pastoral letter, the bishop
reiterated that individuals may not be denied holy Communion if they
choose to kneel, yet he encouraged the faithful to "prayerfully consider
the blessing of communal witness that is realized when we share a common
posture."
Clergy and catechists, he added, "are
to instruct communicants according to the normative posture in the United
States" and "are not to teach that some other manner is better,
preferred, more efficacious, etc."
In guidance to pastors that accompanied the
bishop's pastoral letter, the diocese's Office for Divine Worship noted
that if a communicant wishes to kneel but is physically unable, the pastor
should address the situation privately.
"He is to catechize and remind the person that standing to receive
is no less reverent or worthy a way to receive Our Lord," advised Fr. Noah
Carter, diocesan liturgy director. "In both ways, the communicant
who is properly disposed to receive holy Communion gains the same graces
and gifts contained in the Eucharist, regardless of standing or kneeling."
In his letter, Martin also encouraged pastors, where and when
possible, to distribute holy Communion under the forms of both bread and
wine more often.
While affirming church teaching that Christ
is fully present — body, blood, soul and divinity — under either bread or wine,
he encouraged priests to consider the "fuller sign" of distributing
holy Communion under both kinds to foster "a deeper participation in
the Eucharistic mystery," consistent with prevailing church practice.
The bishop specifically noted that "a
significant number of parishes" did not resume distribution of the
Precious Blood in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. "To foster unity, it
is helpful that we all practice a similar way of distributing Holy Communion,"
he said.
"Parishioners who travel from parish
to parish because of their own needs may otherwise rightly question why the
Precious Blood is always available in one church and never available in
another."
The pastoral letter specifically recommends
distributing the Precious Blood for at least one Mass every Sunday and for
major solemnities, including: Christmas, the Easter Vigil, Divine Mercy Sunday,
Pentecost, Trinity Sunday, Corpus Christi, Christ the King Sunday, and Holy
Thursday. It also encourages distributing holy Communion under both kinds
for first holy Communion Masses, wedding Masses, parish patronal feast
days and church anniversaries.
It reaffirms that the consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or
in the hand, at the discretion of the communicant.
It explicitly prohibits the practice of
intinction — dipping the host into the Precious Blood before placing it on the
communicant's tongue — at public liturgies.
In his pastoral letter, the bishop also encouraged parishes to enlist more
laypeople to help clergy with distributing holy Communion.
Priests and deacons are the "ordinary
ministers of holy Communion," while laypeople may serve as
"extraordinary ministers of holy Communion" when needed, such as
when there are too many communicants for the clergy to
distribute Communion efficiently.
In many parishes, extraordinary ministers
also take Communion to the sick and homebound.
The diocese's existing
liturgical norms already call for extraordinary ministers in such situations
and provide for people to serve in three-year terms. The new guidelines
formalize practices that are already commonplace in the diocese and across the
U.S.
They set eligibility and formation
requirements, and direct parishes to have enough eucharistic ministers
"for roughly 75 communicants" at each Mass. Parishes are also
directed to invite people to serve as extraordinary ministers and offer
training at least once a year.
To be appointed as such, a layperson must:
be a practicing Catholic who has received the sacraments of initiation; be
at least 16 years old; "demonstrate a deep reverence for and devotion to
the holy Eucharist"; be "distinguished in their Christian life, faith
and morals"; and take part in the diocese's safe environment training.
COMMENT: The immemorial rule
of receiving Holy Communion in the Catholic Church is kneeling and on the
tongue from the hands of a Catholic priest or deacon. In the Latin Rite
communion is distributed only under the appearance of bread. The current
practice of the Novus Ordo Church is by Indult granted by the Vatican at the
petition from the Novus Ordo National Conference of Catholic Bishops in the
United States. An Indult is a permission to NOT obey the law. Bishop Martin's
Letter begins with a lie. It ends with imposing the norms of the Lutheran
church on the Novus Ordites and his determination to prevent anyone from
building a Catholic sanctuary. The Lutherans do not believe in the True
Presence in their services and neither does Bishop Martin. The Novus Ordo Mass
was initially defined as a memorial meal, and if that is all it is, then the
Lutheran norms are perfectly reasonable and there is no problem with Bishop
Martin's arguments. But Bishop Martin is liar and therefore we cannot expect
him to acknowledge this truth. A PEW poll in 2019 found that only 26% for all
Catholics under 40 years of age (and only 63% of all Novus Ordites who go to
Mass at least once each week) believe in the Catholic dogma of the True
Presence. These Catholics under 40 years of age were raised on the current
Indult and have lost the Catholic faith. What an established practice does in its signification is
what it was intended to do. The intention of Bishop Martin is to destroy
the belief in any remaining Catholics of the True Presence. The argument that
standing better symbolizes that we are a "pilgrim people" has been
used for more than fifty years. It was a stupid argument in the beginning and
remains a more stupid argument today because the result of the practice are
evident. The Novus Ordo church has yet to publically acknowledge that their
church is on a pilgrimage to hell!
"ALL
HERETICS ARE SCHISMATICS." St. Thomas Aquinas quoting St. Augustine
“It is not to be
excluded that I will enter history as the one who split the Catholic Church.”
Pope Francis,
concluding remarks attributed to him in the Der Spiegel article on the Crisis
in the Catholic Church.
COMMENT: As if that was not Pope Francis' intention
and what in fact he had long been doing throughout his pontificate? The
question remains as to what name in history will Francis be known? But let's
leave that for later. The truth is that Conservative Catholics have never
gotten anything in its right hierarchical order. They stupidly thought the
“split” in the Church began when traditional Catholics were disobedient to
legitimate exercise of authority by resisting the overthrow of our
Ecclesiastical Traditions by which alone the Faith can be known and communicated
to others. Conservative Catholics are only now turning to face the front of
this conflict but they are unarmed for the fight. Pope Francis, who professed
the same doctrine as his conciliar predecessors, only drovethe wedge far deeper
into the Bark of Peter to “split” the Church. The Conservative Catholics are at
last alarmed because the Ship is taking on massive amounts of water.
Unfortunately, the poor Conservative Catholics who are raising their voices
against the corruption of Francis and his successor Leo will surely fail. Let's
call them the Dubiaists. The Dubiaists have doubts but no real convictions.
They will fail because they turned their backs against the literal meaning of
DOGMA long ago and cannot recognize heresy. They now have nothing from which to
mount their defense for DOGMA is the one and only weapon against an abusive
authority. Authority is subject only to Truth. and DOGMA is the most perfect
expression of Truth available to all men.
Greetings from Pope Leo to
Father Franz Schmidberger, SSPX
Pope
Leo extends his heartfelt congratulations to venerable Father Franz
Schmidberger, SSPX on the occasion of his fiftieth anniversary of his priestly
ordination and extends his apostolic blessing.
Friedrichshafen,
Germany, December 14, 2025
COMMENT: We have publically
affirmed that the SSPX was formally regularized with modernist Rome no later
than 2015 and most likely in 2012 although this is not commonly shared with its
member priests or those faithful who attend their chaples for Mass. Fr.
Schmidberger was the general superior of the SSPX after the retirement of
Archbishop Lefebvre, and after his death when Bishop Fellay became the general
superior, Fr. Schmidberger was his direct assistant. It was under the guidance
of Fr. Schmidberger that the secret negotiations with modernist Rome began in
the 1990s that would eventually lead to their regularization. This
"heartfelt" greetings and congratulations from Pope Leo is in
acknowledgment of Fr. Schmidberger's untiring commitment to betray Catholic
tradition.
"There will be two worm-ridden popes".
Blessed Virgin
Mary, Our Lady of La Salette to Melanie
The idea that there would be two worm-ridden popes is an unofficial, unpublished
prophecy of Melanie, one of two children at the apparition of La Salette in
France. It pops up in one of her letters to Fr. Roubaud back on September 30,
1884, and it was brought to light by author Michel Corteville in his book, Découverte
du secret de La Salette. Some say that the phrase actually
translates to: “two shaky, servile, doubtful popes.” The original French reads:
Mais avant ce temps
(des tribulations) il y aura deux fois une paix de peu de durée, deux Papes
vermoulus, plats, douteux.*
TRANSLATION: “But
before this time (of tribulations) there will be twice a peace of short
duration, two worm-eaten, flat, and doubtful Popes.”
“Living Tradition,” synonym for Immanentism of
the Modernist
The term, “living tradition,” a novelty of modernist construction
given official standing at Vatican II, conflates the subjective understanding
with the objective truth, is part of the theological justification to replace
our received traditions with novelties grounded in fantasy.
“The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and
contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take
sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as
the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, “comes from the apostles and
progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in
insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about
in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers
who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of
spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching
of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the
episcopate, the sure charism of truth”.
John Paul II, explaining the
problems with Archbishop Lefebvre’s consecration of four bishops from his
failure to understand the novel Vatican II definition of tradition
Hermeneutics of Continuity/Discontinuity
– Even JPII did not deny this dogma!
Pope Francis Teaches:
We hold the Jewish people in special regard
because their covenant with God has never been revoked, for “the gifts and the
call of God are irrevocable” (Rom.11:29). The Church, which shares with Jews an
important part of the Sacred Scriptures, looks upon the people of the covenant
and their faith as one of the sacred roots of her own Christian identity (cf.
Rom. 11:16-18). As Christians, we cannot consider Judaism as a foreign
religion; nor do we include the Jews among those called to turn from idols and
to serve the true God (cf. 1 Thes. 1:9). With them, we believe in the one God
who acts in history, and with them we accept his revealed word. Pope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium
The Church officially recognizes that the
People of Israel continue to be the Chosen People. Nowhere does it say: “You
lost the game, now it is our turn.” It is a recognition of the People of
Israel.
Pope Francis, On Heaven and Earth
The Catholic Church Teaches:
Hebrews
7:18: “On the one hand, a former commandment is annulled because of its
weakness and uselessness…”;
Hebrews
10:9: “Then he says, ‘Behold, I come to do your will.’ He takes away the
first [covenant] to establish the second [covenant]…”;
2
Corinthians 3:14: “For to this day when they [the Jews] read the Old
Covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it
taken away”;
Hebrews
8:7: “For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no
place would have been sought for another”;
Colossians
2:14: “Having canceled the written code, with its decrees, that was against
us and stood opposed to us; He took it away nailing it to the cross”;
Pope
Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, para. 29: “…the New Testament took the
place of the Old Law which had been abolished…but on the gibbet of His death
Jesus made void the Law with its decrees fastened the handwriting of the Old
Testament to the Cross”;
The
Catechism of the Council of Trent: “…the people, aware of the
abrogation of the Mosaic Law…”;
Council
of Florence: [This council] firmly believes, professes, and teaches that
the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosiac law, which
are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because
they were established to signify something in the future, although they were
suited to the divine worship at that time, after our Lord’s coming had been
signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and
that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law
and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ
could not save without them, sinned mortally. Yet it does not deny that after
the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been
observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but
after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed
without the loss of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who after that time
observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it
declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate
in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors. Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino
Council
of Trent: “but not even the Jews by the very letter of the law of Moses
were able to be liberated or to rise therefrom”;
Cardinal
Ratzinger: “Thus the Sinai [Mosaic] Covenant is indeed superseded” (Many
Religions – One Covenant, p. 70).
St.
John Chrysostom: “Yet surely Paul’s object everywhere is to annul this
Law….And with much reason; for it was through a fear and a horror of this that
the Jews obstinately opposed grace” (Homily on Romans, 6:12); “And so while no
one annuls a man’s covenant, the covenant of God after four hundred and thirty
years is annulled; for if not that covenant but another instead of it bestows
what is promised, then is it set aside, which is most unreasonable” (Homily on
Galatians, Ch 3);
St.
Augustine: “Instead of the grace of the law which has passed away, we have
received the grace of the gospel which is abiding; and instead of the shadows
and types of the old dispensation, the truth has come by Jesus Christ. Jeremiah
also prophesied thus in God’s name: ‘Behold, the days come, says the Lord, that
I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of
Judah…’ Observe what the prophet says, not to Gentiles, who had not been
partakers in any former covenant, but to the Jewish nation. He who has given
them the law by Moses, promises in place of it the New Covenant of the gospel,
that they might no longer live in the oldness of the letter, but in the newness
of the spirit” (Letters, 74, 4);
Justin
Martyr: “Now, law placed against law has abrogated that which is before it,
and a covenant which comes after in like manner has put an end to the previous
one; and an eternal and final law – namely, Christ – has been given to us, and
the covenant is trustworthy…Have you not read…by Jeremiah, concerning this same
new covenant, He thus speaks: ‘Behold, the days come,’ says the Lord, ‘that I
will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of
Judah…’” (Dialogue with Trypho, Ch 11).
John Paul II: “Christ fulfills the
divine promise and supersedes the old law.” (Redemptoris Mater)
Taken from Robert Sungenis, The
Old Covenent: Revoked or Not Revoked?
Pope Leo: Don’t let tension between tradition, novelty become ‘harmful
polarizations’
EWTN | Victoria Cardiel | October 27, 2025
Pope Leo XIV said at a Mass on Sunday that
no one in the Church “should impose his or her own ideas” and asked that
tensions between tradition and novelty not become “ideological contrapositions
and harmful polarizations.”
“The supreme rule in the Church is love. No
one is called to dominate; all are called to serve,” Leo said in St. Peter’s
Basilica on Oct. 26.
“No one should impose his or her own
ideas; we must all listen to one another,” he continued. “No one is excluded;
we are all called to participate. No one possesses the whole truth; we must all
humbly seek it and seek it together.” [.....]
COMMENT: The problem
is this: the love of novelty is an ideology, Tradition along with sacred
Scripture is divine revelation. The Church always and everywhere has condemned
novelty until Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Church of Novelty embraced it. The
conflict between novelty and tradition is the conflict between God's revelation
and demonic lies; the conflict between the Church and the World. Those who are
faithful to tradition do not "impose their own ideas" but defend
God's revealed truth against the novelty of the world. The Novus Ordo Novelty
Church is "seeking truth"; the Church of Jesus Christ possesses it.
Pope Leo like his predecessor likes to characterize tradition as rigid and dead
and the novelty of modernism as mature and hopeful. This was once an intensely
debated matter but, at this time, after all the wreckage of the last 50 years
all tradition has to do is to point at the fruit of Vatican II novelty. Both
Leo and his predecessor Francis worked in South America. The total population
of South and Central America is about 600 million. Since Vatican II about 300
million have apostatized from the Catholic Church. These last two popes have
personally presided over the greatest apostasy over the shortest period of time
in the history of the Catholic Church. Anything Leo has to say, as long as he
is not sitting in the Chair of Peter, must be examined in light of this record.
Fruit of
Vatican II - Apostasy
In Honduras,
the country of the once most powerful man in the Roman Curia under
Francis/Bergoglio, Cardinal Rodríguez Maradiaga, a personally corrupt and
immoral man who had been a bishop in the capital since 1978, first as auxiliary then as Archbishop for 30 years,
the hierarchy led by him managed the
amazing feat of transforming that country in the first Catholic-minority nation
in Central America, a vertiginous fall from 94% to 46% in the same period -
and the same happened in Uruguay, across the Rio de la Plata from (Bergoglio's
home) Buenos Aires.
Rorate Caeli
Data Collapse of Catholic Faith in Latin America from 2014 presided
over by Pope Leo/Provost and his predecessor Francis/Begoglio
The “received and approved rites of the Catholic Church,
accustomed to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments”:
…..Because, as we will see, Catholics must
celebrate only the “received and
approved rites” of the Church as a matter of Divine Law.
God revealed this truth in Scripture
through St. Paul. Before St. Paul teaches the Corinthians liturgical and
theological details concerning the Holy Mass (consecration formula, Real
Presence), he prefaces his teaching by affirming: “For I have received of the Lord that
which I also delivered unto you…”
(I Cor 11:23). St. Paul says again: “For I delivered unto you first of all,
which I also received” (1Cor 15:3). In these and other verses, St. Paul
emphasizes that we must believe and practice only what we have “received” from
Christ and the apostles which has been “delivered” unto us, and which includes
the liturgical rites of the Church. This is a divinely revealed truth and a
matter of Faith.
The Church has taught this divine truth
throughout her history. For example, in the Papal Oath of Coronation, which
originates at least as far back as Pope St. Agatho in 678 A.D. (and which was
set aside by Paul VI), every Pope swore to change nothing of the “received
tradition.” Pope Pius IV’s Tridentine Profession of Faith,
which is binding on the souls of all Catholics, likewise expresses this
principle by requiring adherence to the
“received and approved rites of the Catholic Church used in the solemn
administration of the sacraments.” The “received
and approved rites of the Church” originate from the Spirit of Christ and
the traditions of the apostles which have been handed down to us through the
ages.
Because the “received and approved rites” are part of the Church’s infallible
expression of the unchanging Deposit of Faith, as inspired and nurtured by the
Holy Ghost, they cannot be set aside or changed into new rites. This is why the
Ecumenical Council of Trent (1545-1563) infallibly declared:
“If anyone says
that the received and approved
rites of the Catholic Church, accustomed to be used in the
administration of the sacraments, may be despised or omitted by the ministers
without sin and at their pleasure, or
may be changed by any pastor of the churches to other new ones, let him be
anathema.”
Because the Council declares anathema (that
is, condemned, or severed from the Body of Christ) anyone who would set aside
or change into new rites the already “received
and approved rites” of the Church, proves that adherence to the “received and approved rites” is a
matter of Divine Law. The absolute necessity to preserve the substance of the
Church’s ancient liturgical rites is a requirement of the Faith because the
rites preserve and express that Faith. To hold that the Church’s rites can
change implies a belief that the Church’s doctrines can change, because the
rites preserve and express the doctrines. Hence, those who do not preserve the
Church’s rites (by omitting or changing them) are objectively anathema because they sin
against the Faith itself.
In light of the foregoing
condemnation, the Holy Council of Trent directed that the Roman Missal be
restored so that the faithful would know once and for all what is the “received and approved rite” of Mass.
To that end, Pope St. Pius V issued his papal bull Quo Primum Tempore to legally codify “the decrees of the Holy Council of Trent”
and render a definitive application of the Divine Law dogmatized by the
Council. This judgment mandated a single usage of the Roman rite for the Latin
Church, with some minor exceptions for usages greater than 200 years old, “in order that what has been handed down by
the most holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the rest of the churches
may be accepted and observed by all everywhere.” Hence, the sainted Pope
declared the oft-called “Tridentine
Mass” to be the “received and
approved rite” of the Church, and which precluded the creation of any “new
rite” of Mass in the future. Further, because Quo Primum is an infallible application of
Divine Law (that is, we must use only the “received
and approved rites”), St. Pius V rightly declared the decree to be
irreformable and valid forever.
This brings us to the inevitable and
troubling question: Is the
Novus Ordo a “new rite” of Mass that comes under the anathema of the Council of
Trent, as definitively interpreted by St. Pius V in Quo Primum? The name of the
rite itself (Novus Ordo
which means “new order” or “new ordinary” of the Mass) certainly suggests the
same. More importantly, so do the words of Pope Paul VI. In his November 19,
1969 General Audience address, Paul VI refers to the Novus Ordo as a “new rite” of
Mass several times, for example: “We wish to draw your attention to an event
about to occur in the Latin Catholic Church: the introduction of the liturgy of
the new rite of the Mass.”
He also says, “In the new rite you will find the relationship between the
Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist...”
We also consider the statements of
the members of Paul VI’s liturgical commission that created the New Mass, such
as the secretary and head of the commission, Fr. Annibale Bugnini, who said:
“It is not simply a question of restoring a valuable masterpiece, in some cases
it will be necessary to provide new
structures for entire rites…it will truly be a new creation.” Bugnini’s
assistant, Fr. Carlos Braga, also stated that the New Mass has “an entirely new foundation of
Eucharistic theology” and whose “ecumenical requirements” are “in harmony with
the Church’s new positions.”
Fr. Joseph Gelineau, one of the most influential members of the commission,
also said: “To tell you the truth, it is a different liturgy of the Mass. This
needs to be said without ambiguity: the
Roman rite as we knew it no
longer exists.” Therefore, both Paul VI and his appointed
authors of the Novus Ordo admitted that the New Mass is not the rite “received”
from tradition, but rather a rite created by innovation – an entirely
unprecedented act in the history of the Church.
But we should not rely on these
statements alone. While they may reveal the intent of the innovators, it is
still necessary to look at the substance of the Novus Ordo rite itself. As we have seen, the
Council of Trent and St. Pius V intended to preserve the substantial identity
of the Roman rite forever. If the New Mass does not preserve this identity,
then it cannot be considered the “received
and approved rite” of the Catholic Church no matter what anyone says. Even
the Second Vatican Council, which did not (and could not) mandate the creation
of a new rite of Mass, recognized this truth by directing that the rites “be revised carefully in the light of sound
tradition” with “due care being
taken to preserve their
substance.”
The Council of Trent’s condemnation
of omitting or changing the “received
and approved rites” into “new rites”
is best understood by referring to one of the oldest maxims of the Church’s
sacred theology: “legem credendi statuit lex orandi.”
This is a Latin phrase which means “the rule of prayer determines the rule of
faith” (often referred to as “lex
orandi, lex credendi”). In other words, the way we pray determines
what we believe. If a liturgical tradition which expresses a doctrine of the
Faith is altered or removed altogether, the underlying doctrine will
necessarily be compromised. This is why the “received and approved rites” must be faithfully preserved and
never transformed into “other new ones”
as declared by Trent.
…… However, the Novus Ordo Missae deviates from the Roman Missal
of St. Pius V to such an extent that it no longer retains the substantial
identity of the Roman rite. Even before the introduction of such abuses as
audible canons, vernacular and versus
populum (toward the people) celebrations, lay ministers, Communion
under both species, Communion in the hand to standing communicants and the
like, Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci advised Paul VI that “the Novus Ordo
represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the
Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the
Council of Trent.” Consequently, Cardinal Ottaviani (who, as head of the
Holy Office, was responsible for safeguarding the doctrine of the Faith), in
his famous intervention, concluded that the Novus Ordo was indeed a different
rite of Mass.
For example, Ottaviani says: “To abandon a liturgical tradition which
for four centuries stood as a sign and pledge of unity in worship, and to replace
it with another liturgy which, due to the countless liberties it
implicitly authorizes, cannot but be a sign of division – a liturgy which
teems with insinuations or manifest errors against the integrity of the
Catholic Faith – is, we feel bound in conscience to proclaim, an
incalculable error.” He also says,
“It is obvious that the New
Order of Mass has no intention of presenting the Faith taught by the
Council of Trent. But it is to this Faith that the Catholic
conscience is bound forever.” Accordingly, Ottaviani appealed to Paul VI “not to deprive us of the possibility of
continuing to have recourse to the integral
and fruitful Missal of St. Pius V, so highly praised by Your
Holiness, and so deeply venerated by the whole Catholic world.” Therefore,
both the critics and the
creators of the New Mass, including Paul VI himself, agree that the
Novus Ordo differs
in substance from
the Tridentine Missal and, hence, constitutes a “new rite” of Mass.
John Salza, J.D., The Novus Ordo Mass and Divine Law, excerpt from Catholic Family
News
He failed on
two occasions, 1942 & 1952, to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of
Mary as our Lady requested! He
contributed his share in liturgical destruction by establishing the liturgical
commission under Bugnini in 1948 and having Bea, his personal confessor,
undertake a new Latin translation of the Psalms.
“I am concerned
about the messages of the Virgin to the little Lucia of Fatima. This
persistence of the Good Lady in face of the danger that threatens the Church is
a divine warning against the suicide that the alteration of the Faith, in its
liturgy, its theology, and its soul, would represent. I hear around me
innovators who wish to dismantle the Sacred Chapel, destroy the universal flame
of the Church, reject her ornaments, and make her remorseful for her
historical past.”
Pope Pius XII,
1933
And now, addressing the “false prophets that exploit fear
and hopelessness to sell magical formulas of hate and cruelty,” Pope Francis
again insults the Catholic Faith as known and practiced by all our forefathers!
COMMENT: Pope Francis often
referenced St. Vincent of Lérins as if his understanding of Tradition is in
accord with that of the great Church Father.
It most certainly was not which is evident to anyone familiar with his
writings. This corruption can only be attributed to malice. Francis the Lutheran and St. Vincent the
Catholic did not profess the same Faith and only one of them is the Faith
without which it is impossible to please God.
Francis characterized faithfulness to the revelation of God as
“rigidity” which was itself attributed to deeper psychological and moral
failings of traditional Catholics. “Love is not rigid,” claimed Francis while
he counseled the overthrow of God’s commandments, but St. John the Apostle of
Love and devotee of the Sacred Heart reports a very different Gospel of Jesus
Christ:
· If you love me, keep my commandments. John 14:15
· If you keep my commandments, you shall abide in my love; as I also have
kept my Father’ s commandments, and do abide in his love. John 15:10
· He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them; he it is that loveth
me. And he that loveth me, shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him,
and will manifest myself to him. John 14:21
· Jesus answered, and said to him: If any one love me, he will keep my
word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our
abode with him. John 14:23
· In this we know that we love the children of God: when we love God, and
keep his commandments. 1 John 5:2
· And by this we know that we have known him, if we keep his
commandments. 1 John 2:3
Love is never lax or slothful in its pious
attention to duty. The laxism and sloth
of Pope Francis was because without Faith, he had no true love of God.
Leo the Homosexual following in the way of Francis the Homosexual.
Pictured below is Leo and Francis both greeting
homosexual "married" couples for public photo-ops. The other pictures
are Francis and Leo both slumming around with the pervert James Martin.
The Vatican is in the hands of the Homosexual Lobby. We
must pray to God to purge His Church of this gross perversion.
Preaching to the DEAF!
You gather here today, present-day
apostles, as the Church and, therefore, the world stand perched on the edge of
a cliff. And yet you who are entrusted with the keeping of souls choose to
speak not a word of the spiritual danger which abounds. Today we stand on the cusp of all
that has been prophesied about the Church and the abominations which would come
forth in these times, a time when all of hell attacks the Church of Jesus
Christ, and a time when the fallen angels of hell no longer seek entry into her
sacred halls but instead stand inside, peeking out of her windows and unlocking
doors to welcome in more diabolical destruction.
Do you not know that Our Lord will
send forth His avenging angels to heap coals of fire upon the heads of those
who were called to be His apostles and who have not guarded what He has given
unto them?
And yet almost all of you, my
brothers, stood by silently watching as the Synod on Synodality took
place, an abomination constructed not to guard the Deposit of Faith, but to
dismantle it, and yet few were the cries heard from you – men who should be
willing to die for Christ and His Church.
The Synod’s final document has
been released, yet with the sleight of hand which is so characteristic
of the Francis-controlled Vatican. By drawing attention to the issues which
worried many, they have slipped in what was always their real goal without
anyone even noticing. What they were after in the first place was the
dismantling of Christ’s Church by replacing the structure of the Church as
Our Lord instituted it with a diabolically-inspired new structure of
“synodality” which in actuality is a new church that is in no way Catholic.
Bishop Joseph Strickland, former bishop of
Tyler, TX who was removed from his office by Pope Francis the Diabolical for
preaching Catholic truth, addressing the U.S. bishops gathered at their annual
meeting
Latae sententiae crimes in the
external forum require a determination of guilt!
“A
sentence declaratory of the offence is always necessary in the forum externum, since
in this tribunal no one is presumed to be excommunicated unless convicted of a
crime that entail such a penalty.”
Pope
Benedict XIV, De syndod, X, I, 5
COMMENT: Recently
a group of young men and women missionaries for the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints (Mormons) were doing their required missionary work in
central city York. A friendly theological discussion took place on the steps of
our Mission chapel. The friendly exchanged ended and the climate cooled when
the question about the exact number of Joseph Smith's and Brigham Young's wives
was brought up. Mormons believe that Jesus Christ founded one Church. They
believe that that Church became corrupted and God abandoned it. God then,
centuries later, reconstituted His Church when the angel Moroni lead the
illiterate Joseph Smith to a hidden book and provided him with mystical
spectacles permitting him to read it. When you ask a Mormon how is it that
Jesus Christ promised to be with His Church until the end of time and taught
that marriage is between one man and one woman until death, why is it that they
believe Joseph Smith or Brigham Young and not believe Jesus Christ? They answer
by walking away. Jesus Christ uses the metaphor of marriage to describe His
relationship with His Church and with each of the faithful individually. Every
man-made heretical and schismatic sect eventually repudiates marriage because
they cannot abide the metaphor. Luther permitted bigamy. The Orthodox permit
divorce and remarriage three times. Joseph Smith had "up to forty
wives" and Brigham Young had "fifty-six wives, twenty-one had
never been married before; seventeen were widows; six were divorced; six had
living husbands; and the marital status of six others is unknown. Nine of his
wives had previously been plural wives of Joseph Smith, and Young was sealed to
them as a proxy for Smith" (WIKI). The first clue to the Mormons that they were being lead into a spiritual desert was
polygamy but some like the desert. Mormons claim that Brigham Young saw the
light and abandoned the practice for the Latter Day Saints but this occurred
only after the U.S. government told they to give it up or get out. Although
Mormons are no longer polygamists, they permit divorce and "temple"
remarriage which is just serial polygamy. These "missionaries" now
know that Jesus Christ did not abandon His Church and will not do so no matter
how corrupt churchmen become. The Catholic Church alone offers the possibility
of salvation.
It’s Official: Mormon Founder Had Up
to 40 Wives...
Mormon leaders have acknowledged for the first time that the church’s
founder and prophet, Joseph Smith, portrayed in church materials as a loyal partner
to his loving spouse Emma, took as many as 40 wives, some already married and
one only 14 years old.... The biggest
bombshell for some in the essays is that Smith married women who were already
married, some to men who were Smith’s friends and followers.
Religious Liberty from Vatican II has its root in the
Americanist Heresy
On
every side the dread phantom of war holds sway: there is scarce room for
another thought in the minds of men. The combatants are the greatest and
wealthiest nations of the earth; what wonder, then, if, well provided with the
most awful weapons modern military science has devised, they strive to destroy
one another with refinements of horror. There is no limit to the measure of
ruin and of slaughter; day by day the earth is drenched with newly-shed blood,
and is covered with the bodies of the wounded and of the slain. Who would
imagine as we see them thus filled with hatred of one another, that they are
all of one common stock, all of the same nature, all members of the same human
society? ....We implore those in whose hands are placed the fortunes of nations
to hearken to Our voice. Surely there are other ways and means whereby violated
rights can be rectified. Let them be tried honestly and with good will, and let
arms meanwhile be laid aside.
Benedict
XV, Ad beatissimi apostolorum,
November 1, 1914
“We
consider the establishment of our country’s independence, the shaping of its
liberties and laws, as a work of special Providence, its framers ‘building
better than they knew,’ the Almighty’s hand guiding them. We believe that our
country’s heroes were the instruments of the God of nations in establishing
this home of freedom; to both the Almighty and to His instruments in the work
we look with grateful reverence. And to maintain the inheritance of freedom
which they have left us, should it ever–which God forbid—be imperiled, our
Catholic citizens will be found to stand forward as one man, ready to pledge
anew ‘their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.’”
Archbishop
(soon to be Cardinal) James Gibbons, addressing the American bishops at the
Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, 1884 attended by 14 archbishops and 61
bishops.
Moved
to the very depths of our hearts by the stirring appeal of the President of the
United States, and by the action of our national Congress, we accept
whole-heartedly and unreservedly the decree of that legislative authority
proclaiming this country to be in a state of war. Inspired neither by hate nor
fear, but by the holy sentiments of truest patriotic fervor and zeal, we stand
ready, we and all the flock committed to our keeping, to cooperate in every way
possible with our President and our national government, to the end that the
great and holy cause of liberty may triumph and that our beloved country may
emerge from this hour of test stronger and nobler than ever. Our people, as
ever, will rise as one man to serve the nation.
Pledge
of U.S. Catholic Archbishops, April 18, 1917; sent to President Woodrow Wilson
by Cardinal James Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore, the leading Catholic
prelate in the United States.
“The
primary duty of a citizen is loyalty to country. It is exhibited by an absolute
and unreserved obedience to his country’s call.”
Cardinal
James Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore (1877-1921), April 1917 in support of
the U.S. declaration of war against Germany and Austria-Hungary. The Balfour
Declaration agreement committed the British to deliver Palestine into Jewish
hands in return for the Jews bringing the United States into WWI in support of
the British. Cardinal James Gibbons was the chief propagator of the heresy of
Americanism which became settled Novus Ordo doctrine after Vatican II
(religious liberty) primarily by the work of Fr. John Courtney Murray who greatly
admired Cardinal Gibbons. Gibbons did his best to align American Catholics with
Jewish interests to bring the United States into the Great War. In doing so
Gibbons worked directly to undermine the peace plans of Pope Benedict XV. Pope
Benedict devised a generous peace plan and contacted Cardinal Gibbons to do
what he could to influence the United States government to back his offer of a
negotiated peace. Gibbons did nothing of the sort. While giving lip service to
the Pope's peace plan six months too late, he in fact never contacted President
Wilson or any official of the government to even mention Pope Benedict's peace
plan. Gibbons was too busy building the National Catholic War Council (NCWC)
and supporting the call of universal military service. The purpose of the NCWC
as Gibbons said in a letter to all American bishops was to form “the mental and
moral preparation of our people for the war.”
To Congar's
credit, he at least told the truth about what he helped destroy!
“It cannot be denied that the Declaration on
Religious Liberty does say materially something else than the Syllabus of 1864;
it even says just about the opposite of
Propositions 15 and 77 to 79 of this document..... I collaborated on the
final paragraphs which left me less satisfied.
It involved demonstrating that the theme of religious liberty was
already contained in Scripture. Now, it isn't there.”
Cardinal
Yves Marie Joseph Congar, O.P., forbidden to teach by the Church and
whose books were suppressed in the early 1950s, made a peritus at Vatican II by
Novus Ordo St. John XXIII, and is considered by many to have been the most
influential of all the periti. He was raised to the cardinalate by Novus Ordo
St. John Paul II. He rejected the dogmatic teaching of Trent which his teacher
and mentor, Fr. Marie-Dominique
Chenu, O.P., derisively called “Baroque
theology”.
Excerpts from the Diary of Msgr. Joseph Fenton:
·
“He
[Cardinal Ottaviani] remarked that we were on the eve of the Council, and that
no one knew who the Council’s theologians were to be.” (Sept. 28, 1962)
·
“It is a
crime that we did not take the Anti-Modernist Oath. Poor O[ttaviani] must have
failed to have our own profession passed by the central commission. It
contained his condemnation of [Fr. John Courtney] Murray [the Americanist
heretic who structured the Council teaching on Religious Liberty].” (Oct. 9,
1962)
·
“I had
always thought that this council was dangerous. It was started for no
sufficient reason. There was too much talk about what it was supposed to
accomplish. Now I am afraid that real trouble is on the way.” (Oct. 13,
1962)
·
“I
started to read the material on the Liturgy, and I was shocked at the bad
theology. They actually have been stupid enough [to say] that the Church
is ‘simul humanam et divininam, visibilem et invisibilem’ [at the same
time human and divine, visible and invisible]. And they speak of the Church
working ‘quousque unum ovile fiat et unus pastor’ [until there be one fold
and one shepherd], as if that condition were not already achieved.” (Oct. 19,
1962)
·
“I do not
think that any little work on our part is going to bring good to the Church. We
should, I believe, face the facts. Since the death of [Pope] St. Pius X the
Church has been directed by weak and liberal popes, who have flooded the
hierarchy with unworthy and stupid men. This present conciliar set-up makes
this all the more apparent. [Fr.] Ed Hanahoe, the only intelligent and
faithful member of [Cardinal] Bea’s secretariat has been left off the list of
the periti. Such idiots as [Mgr. John
S.] Quinn and the sneak [Fr. Frederick] McManus have been put on. [Fr. George]
Tavard is there as an American, God help us. From surface appearance it
would seem that the Lord Christ is abandoning His Church. The thoughts of many
are being revealed. As one priest used to say, to excuse his own
liberalism, which, in the bottom of his heart he knew was wrong, ‘for the
last few decades the tendency in Rome has been to favor the liberals.’ That
is the policy now. We can only do what we can to overt an ever more
complete disloyalty to Christ.” (Oct. 19, 1962)
·
“[Fr.] Ed
Hanahoe gave me two books on Modernism. In one of them I found evidence that
the teaching in the first chapter of the new schema on the Church [that became
the Vatican II dogmatic constitution Lumen
Gentium] and the language are those of [the excommunicated Modernist Fr.
George Tyrrell [who died outside the Catholic Church and was denied
ecclesiastical burial]. May God preserve His Church from that chapter. If it
passes, it will be a great evil. I must pray and act.” (Sept. 24, 1963)
Paul VI
declared Novus Ordo Saint. So just what is a “Novus Ordo Saint”?
A Novus Ordo
Saint is a man-made saint. Contrasted with Catholic saints who are God-made saints.
In virtue of their union with God they are sanctified, and therefore, Catholic
Saints exhibit heroic virtue in their lives. God confirms their sanctity by
working miracles through their intercession and thus, a cult of veneration
(dulia) develops and spreads throughout the Church. The Church recognizes God's
evidence that they are saints and declares this fact to the universal Church.
Contrary to this, Novus Ordo Saints are man-made saints and their elevation to
the title of sainthood is for the purpose of promoting the human ideology
exemplified in their lives. There is no real cult of veneration (dulia) among
the faithful to Novus Ordo Saints. Since God does not work true miracles
through the intercession of man-made saints, only man-made miracles are
required for the beatification of man-made Novus Ordo Saints. Finally, the
Novus Ordo beatification process does have a promotor fidei, the
so-called “devil’s advocate,” although his role has been change as the promotor ideologiae. The greatest
difference between Catholic Saints and Novus Ordo Saints is that the former are
in heaven and the latter, very well may not be.
COMMENT ON THE
MODERN MIND DEVOID OF GOD’S GRACE
“But instead of a mind, universal literacy has given [the common
man] a rubber stamp, a rubber stamp inked with advertising slogans, with
editorials, with published scientific data, with the trivialities of tabloids
and the profundities of history, but quite innocent of original thought. Each
man's rubber stamp is the twin of millions of others, so that when these
millions are exposed to the same stimuli, all receive identical imprints. [...]
The amazing readiness with which large masses accept this process is probably
accounted for by the fact that no attempt is made to convince them that black
is white. Instead, their preconceived hazy ideas that a certain gray is almost
black or almost white are brought into sharper focus. Their prejudices,
notions, and convictions are used as a starting point, with the result that they
are drawn by a thread into passionate adherence to a given mental picture.”
Edward Bernays, from his book, The Minority Rules, 1927. Bernays was a Jewish double nephew of
Sigmund Freud and a pioneer in public relations and propaganda. He was called
"the father of public relations" in his obituary. Bernays was named
one of the 100 most influential Americans of the 20th century by Life Magazine.
He was the subject of a full-length biography called The Father of Spin
(1999) and later an award-winning 2002 documentary for the BBC called The Century of the Self. (Wiki)
"Pray for the
conversion of Russia." Blessed Virgin Mary at Fatima
Your must
understand. The leading Bolsheviks who took over Russia were not Russians. They
hated Russians. They hated Christians. Driven by ethnic hatred they tortured
and slaughtered millions of Russians without a shred of human remorse. The
October Revolution was not what you call in America the "Russian
Revolution." It was an invasion and conquest over the Russian people. More
of my countrymen suffered horrific crimes at their bloodstained hands than any
people or nation ever suffered in the entirety of human history. It cannot be
understated. Bolshevism was the greatest human slaughter of all time. The fact
that most of the world is ignorant of this reality is proof that the global
media itself is in the hands of the perpetrators. We cannot state that all Jews
are Bolsheviks. But: without Jews there would have been no Bolshevism. For a
Jew nothing is more insulting than the truth. The blood maddened Jewish
terrorists murdered sixty-six million in Russia from 1918 to 1957.
Aleksandr
Solzhenitsyn (1918-2008), Noble Prize winning novelist, historian and victim of
Jewish Bolshevism
American Catholic Apostasy: PEW POLE 2025
29% of U.S. Catholics say they attend
Mass weekly.
59% of Catholics say abortion should be
legal.
76% U.S. Catholics say society should be
accepting of homosexuality.
61% U.S. Catholics support legal
homosexual "marriage."
80% of Catholics view Pope Francis favorably.
84% of U.S. Catholics say they have a favorable view of Leo although
67% say they know little about Leo, and 25% know nothing at all.
Pope Leo XIV commemorates Nostra Aetate anniversary with interfaith
celebrations
Catholic NewsAgency | Vatican City |Kridina
Millare | Oct 29, 2025
Pope Leo XIV joined faith leaders on
Tuesday to commemorate the 60th anniversary of Nostra Aetate, the Church’s
declaration on building relationships with non-Christian religions.
Approximately 300 representatives of world
religions and cultures joined the Holy Father for an evening ecumenical prayer
service for peace organized by the Community of Sant’Egidio and held at the
Colosseum in Rome.
“Peace is a constant journey of
reconciliation,” the Holy Father said at the Oct. 28 event.
Thanking religious leaders for coming
together in Rome, he said their interfaith meeting expressed their shared
“conviction that prayer is a powerful force for reconciliation.”
“This is our witness: offering the immense treasures of ancient
spiritualities to contemporary humanity,” he said.
“We need a true and sound era of
reconciliation that puts an end to the abuse of power, displays of force, and
indifference to the rule of law,” he added. “Enough of war, with all the pain
it causes through death, destruction, and exile!”
In his remarks, the pope urged people not to be indifferent to the “cry
of the poor and the cry of the earth” in their pursuits for peace in countries
scarred by ongoing conflict and injustice.
“In the power of prayer, with hands raised
to heaven and open to others, we must ensure that this period of history,
marked by war and the arrogance of power, soon comes to an end, giving rise to
a new era,” he said.
“We
cannot allow this period to continue. It shapes the minds of people who grow
accustomed to war as a normal part of human history,” he continued.
Pope Leo and other religious leaders lit
candles to symbolize their shared prayer and renewed commitment to engage in
interfaith dialogue.
Several people waved small blue banners
with the word “peace” in different languages while Pope Leo and the other
religious leaders lit candles to symbolize their shared prayer and renewed
commitment to engage in interfaith dialogue.
After the prayer gathering at Rome’s iconic landmark, the Holy Father
returned to the Vatican to join colorful celebrations jointly organized by the
Dicastery for Interreligious Dialogue and the Dicastery for Promoting Christian
Unity.
To mark the 60th anniversary of Nostra Aetate, several multicultural music
and dance performances were held inside the Vatican’s Paul VI Audience Hall as
well as a presentation highlighting papal initiatives to promote the Church’s
dialogue with other religions since the pontificate of Pope Paul VI.
Pope Leo’s appearance and special address
toward the end of the two-hour gathering highlighted the Church’s reverence for
all people and its desire to collaborate with others for the common good.
“We belong to one human family, one in origin, and one also in our
final goal,” he said. “Religions everywhere try to respond to the restlessness
of the human heart.”
“Each in its own way offers teachings, ways of life, and sacred rites
that help guide their followers to peace and meaning,” he said.
Emphasizing the common mission shared among people of different
religions to “reawaken” the sense of the sacred in the world today, the Holy
Father encouraged people to “keep love alive.”
“We have come together in this place
bearing the great responsibility as religious leaders to bring hope to a
humanity that is often tempted by despair,” Leo said.
“Let us remember that prayer has the power
to transform our hearts, our words, our actions, and our world,” he said.
COMMENT: Now for the third
time in his short pontificate Leo/Provost quotes Leonard Boff's Cry of the Earth, Cry of the Poor. Boff
is a former Franciscan priest who was censored by the liberal Cardinal
Ratzinger when he headed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under
the liberal JPII for his extreme Marxist liberation theology. Boff is famous
for his development of an integrated theology of Marxism, Gaia cult earth
worship and "social justice." He was admired by Francis/Bergoglio and
he is admired thrice as much by Leo/Provost. The picture with its Satanic
imagery was reportedly published by the Vatican. Leo/Provost, like
Francis/Bergoglio, wants to restore native American culture and religious
traditions. It should be remembered that Christopher Columbus encountered
cannibalism on his second voyage of exploration and ritual murder was
widespread not only among the Aztecs and Incas but in smaller tribes across
both North and South America as reported by Jesuit missionaries. In the
interfaith celebrations at the Vatican a young native American boy half dressed
paraded an image of a snake into the assembly before Leo/Provost. Is this the
native American tradition that the Vatican wants to recover?
Doctrinal Note on Marian titles: Mother of the faithful, not
Co-redemptrix
The document of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, approved
by Pope Leo XIV, offers clarifications on titles applied to the Blessed Virgin
Mary, and calls for special attention to the use of the expression, “Mediatrix
of all graces.”
Vatican News
The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith
on Tuesday, 4 November 2025, published Mater populi fidelis (“The Mother of the
Faithful People”), a Doctrinal Note “On Some Marian Titles Regarding Mary’s
Cooperation in the Work of Salvation.” Signed by the Prefect, Cardinal Víctor
Manuel Fernández, and the Secretary for the Dicastery’s Doctrinal Section,
Monsignor Armando Matteo, the Note was approved by the Pope on 7 October.
Mater populi fidelis (MPF) is the fruit of
a long and complex collegial effort. It is a doctrinal document on Marian
devotion, centred on the figure of Mary, who is associated with the work of
Christ as Mother of believers. The Note provides a significant biblical
foundation for devotion to Mary, as well as marshalling various contributions
from the Fathers, the Doctors of the Church, elements of Eastern tradition, and
the thought of recent Popes.
In this positive framework, the doctrinal
text analyses a number of Marian titles, encouraging the adoption of some of
those appellations and warning against the use of others. Titles such as
“Mother of Believers,” “Spiritual Mother,” “Mother of the Faithful” are noticed
with approval in the Note. Conversely,
the title of “Co-redemptrix” is deemed inappropriate and problematic. The title
of “Mediatrix” is considered unacceptable when it takes on a meaning that
excludes Jesus Christ; however, it can used appropriately so long as it
expresses an inclusive and participatory mediation that glorifies the power of
Christ. The titles “Mother of Grace” and “Mediatrix of All Graces” are
considered acceptable when used in a very precise sense, but the document also
warns of particularly broad explanations of the meaning of the terms.
Essentially, the Note reaffirms Catholic
doctrine, which has always emphasised that everything in Mary is directed
towards the centrality of Christ and His salvific work. For this reason, even
if some Marian titles admit of an orthodox interpretation through correct
exegesis, Mater populi fidelis says it is preferable to avoid them.
In his presentation of the Doctrinal Note,
Cardinal Fernández expresses appreciation for popular devotion but warns
against groups and publications that propose a certain dogmatic development and
raise doubts among the faithful, including through social media. The main
problem in interpreting these titles applied to Our Lady, he says concerns the
way of understanding Mary's association with Christ's work of redemption
(paragraph 3).
Co-redemptrix
Regarding the title “Co-redemptrix,” the
Note recalls that “some Popes have used the title “without elaborating much on
its meaning.” Generally, it continues, “they have presented the title in two
specific ways: in reference to Mary’s divine motherhood (insofar as she, as
Mother, made possible the Redemption that Christ accomplished) or in reference
to her union with Christ at the redemptive Cross. The Second Vatican Council
refrained from using the title for dogmatic, pastoral, and ecumenical reasons.
Saint John Paul II referred to Mary as ‘Co-redemptrix’ on at least seven
occasions, particularly relating this title to the salvific value of our
sufferings when they are offered together with the sufferings of Christ, to
whom Mary is united especially at the Cross” (18).
The document cites an internal discussion
within the then-Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which in February
1996 had discussed the request to proclaim a new dogma on Mary as
“Co-redemptrix or Mediatrix of all graces.” Then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was
opposed to such a definition, arguing, “the precise meaning of these titles is
not clear, and the doctrine contained in them is not mature. […] It is not
clear how the doctrine expressed in these titles is present in Scripture and
the apostolic tradition.”
Later, in 2002, the future Benedict XVI
expressed himself publicly in the same way: “The formula ‘Co-redemptrix’
departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the
Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings… Everything comes from
Him [Christ], as the Letter to the Ephesians and the Letter to the Colossians,
in particular, tell us; Mary, too, is everything that she is through Him. The
word ‘Co-redemptrix’ would obscure this origin.”
The note clarifies that Cardinal Ratzinger
did not deny the good intentions behind the proposal, nor the valuable aspects
reflected in it, but nonetheless maintained that they were “being expressed in
the wrong way” (19).
Pope Francis also expressed his clear
opposition to the use of the title Co-Redemptrix on at least three occasions.
Tuesday’s Doctrinal Note concludes: “It is
always inappropriate to use the title ‘Co-redemptrix’ to define Mary’s
cooperation. This title risks obscuring Christ’s unique salvific mediation and
can therefore create confusion and an imbalance in the harmony of the truths of
the Christian faith. […] When an expression requires many, repeated
explanations to prevent it from straying from a correct meaning, it does not
serve the faith of the People of God and becomes unhelpful” (22).
Mediatrix
The Note emphasises that “the biblical
statement about Christ’s exclusive mediation is conclusive. Christ is the only
Mediator” (24).
At the same time, MPF recognises “the fact
that the word ‘mediation’ is commonly used in many areas of everyday life,
where it is understood simply as cooperation, assistance, or intercession. As a
result, it is inevitable that the term would be applied to Mary in a
subordinate sense. Used in this way, it does not intend to add any efficacy or
power to the unique mediation of Jesus Christ, true God and true man” (25).
Further, “it is clear that Mary has a real
mediatory role in enabling the Incarnation of the Son of God in our humanity”
(26).
Mother of believers and Mediatrix of all graces
Mary’s maternal role “in no way obscures or
diminishes” the unique mediation of Christ, “but rather shows its power […]
Understood in this way, Mary’s motherhood does not seek to weaken the unique
adoration due to Christ alone but, rather, seeks to enkindle it.”
Therefore, the Note states, “one must avoid titles and expressions that
present Mary as a kind of ‘lightning rod’ before the Lord’s justice, as if she
were a necessary alternative before the insufficiency of God’s mercy” (37b).
Thus, the title “Mother of Believers”
“enables us to speak of Mary’s role in our relation to our life of grace”.
However, MPF goes on to urge caution concerning the use of expressions that may
convey “less acceptable notions” (45).
“Cardinal Ratzinger already affirmed” for example, “that the title
‘Mary, Mediatrix of All Graces’ was not clearly grounded in Revelation.” So,
the Note continues, “in line with this conviction, we can recognize the
difficulties this title poses, both in terms of theological reflection and
spirituality” (45). In fact, “no human person — not even the Apostles or the
Blessed Virgin — can act as a universal dispenser of grace. Only God can bestow
grace, and he does so through the humanity of Christ” (53).
“Some titles, such as ‘Mediatrix of All Graces,’ have limits that do
not favour a correct understanding of Mary’s unique place,” MPF explains,
adding, “In fact, she, the first redeemed, could not have been the mediatrix of
the grace that she herself received” (67).
Nonetheless, the Doctrinal Note
acknowledges that “the term ‘graces,’ when seen in reference to Mary’s maternal
help at various moments in our lives, can have an acceptable meaning. The
plural form expresses all the aids — even material — that the Lord may grant us
when He heeds His Mother’s intercession” (68).
COMMENT: Amazing to hear these apostates chirping
about the lack of "precise meaning" of theological terms while
obscurity in definition is, and has been since Vatican II, the calling card of
the Novus Ordo theologian and prelates. They like to muddle what is clear.
Let's start with the title, "Mother of Believers" and "Mother of
the Faithful." These are, in fact, worthy titles of the Mother of God and
frequently occur in St. Mary of Agreda's City of God, yet the Novus Ordo
clerics would never be found offering a precise definition and meaning for the
term "faithful" and then identify exactly who the
"faithful" are.
The term "faithful" has a precise
Catholic definition. It refers to those who have been baptized into the
Catholic Church and profess the one, holy, catholic and apostolic faith. By
virtue of this incorporation by baptism they have become "children of
God." They faithfully believe all the truths that God has revealed on the
authority of God the Revealer. Only those who have become thus members of the
Mystical Body of Christ share by participation in His divine nature and become
brothers and sister of Jesus Christ and therefore, sons of His Mother. This
definition excludes all heretics, schismatics, Jews, pagans, and any other form
of idolaters. Novus Ordo clerics heretically teach that everyone is a child of
God by virtue of the Incarnation. Everyone by nature is a creature of God
created in His image and likeness with the spiritual soul with the powers of
reason and free will, but every creature is born in original sin and cut off
from the friendship of God. He is only a "child of God" in potentia. Without the sacrament of
Baptism and the Catholic faith they can never become "children of
God." This obscurity of definition as to who is a child of God and thus a
child of the Blessed Virgin Mary ultimately obscures what is necessary as a
necessity of means to obtain salvation.
The title Mediatrix of all grace is long
established and of sound and precise theological understanding. Those that
pretend otherwise are ignorant, proud, and deceitful. They have no excuse. 'The
law of prayer determines the law of belief' is, as affirmed by St. Pius X in Pascendi, a canon of faith from the time
of Celestine I, that is, a dogma of the Catholic Church. The immemorial Roman
rite has a Mass in honor of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mediatrix of all grace
celebrated on May 31 established by Pope Benedict XV. Regarding this feast, Dom
Gaspar Lefebvre, O.S.B. of the Abby of St. Andrew teaches:
"The will of God is that we should
have everything through Mary," says St. Bernard. The Father has sent us
His Son, but His will was to make His coming depend upon the Fiat of the
Virgin, which He commanded to the angel Gabriel to solicit on the day of the
Annunciation.
The Father and the Son send us the Holy
Ghost, but it is through Mary that He comes down to men. On the day of
Pentecost, according to an ancient Tradition, the heavenly fire which descended
on the Cenacle first rested on Mary, and then on the apostles. This is a figure
of what happens every day in the Church where the Holy Ghost is sent invisibly
into our souls. "All the gifts of the Holy Ghost are distributed by Mary
to those whom she chooses, whenever she wishes and as much as she wishes,"
says St. Bernardine of Siena.
The graces which the Holy Ghost pours down
on us are due to the merits of Christ on Calvary; but in order that God may
bestow them on the world, it is necessary that Mary should intervene. Having
cooperated by her divine maternity and by her sufferings at the foot of the
Cross in the Incarnation and Redemption, she has deserved to co-operate when
they are continually applied to creatures by the most High. "By the
communion of sorrows and of will between Christ and Mary," says St. Pius
X, "she has deserved to become the dispenser of all the blessings which
Jesus acquired for us by His blood" (Encyclical 2-2-1904). Such is His
will, but it is essential that she should constantly intercede for each one of
us. This she does, relying on the blood of Christ by whom she was herself
saved, and who alone saves us. This actual intervention of Mary plays a
preponderating part in the salvation of the world. It is important that we
should realize this, and it is the object of the feast of Mary Mediatrix of all
Graces. A clear idea of the fact may be obtained by simple reading the texts of
the Mass and Vespers.
"Through the Virgin," says St.
Bernardine of Siena, "life-giving graces flow from Christ, who is the
head, into His mystical body." "Through her," adds St.
Antoninus, "come from heaven all the graces granted to the world."
"What all the saints united to thee may obtain for us by their
intercession," writes St. Anselm, "thy pleading alone may obtain without
the help of their prayers." The maternal solicitude of Mary for the whole
human race is therefore continual, and it is because of this that unceasingly,
through the Mass, the sacraments, the hierarchy and other channels of grace,
the merits of Calvary are applied to our souls. "We may affirm,"
declared Pope Leo XIII, "that by the will of God, nothing is given to us
without Mary's mediation, in such a way that
just as no one can approach the almighty Father but through His Son, so
no one, so to speak, can approach Christ but through His Mother"
(Encyclical, 9-22-1891).
Let us therefore not consider as of small
importance the efforts made to establish this point of doctrine of Mary's
mediation, since this doctrine enables us to understand the divine plan, and
clearly manifests the mediation of the Son of God of which it is a corollary.
St.
Mary of Agreda at the Coronation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Queen of Heaven,
writes that Jesus Christ addressed the entire heavenly assembly of angels and
saints saying:
"My
Father and eternal God, this is the Woman, that gave Me my human form in her
virginal womb, that nourished Me at her breast and sustained labors for Me,
that shared in my hardships and co-operated with Me in the works of Redemption.
This is She, who was always most faithful and fulfilled our will according to
our entire pleasure; She, pure and immaculate as my Mother, through her own
works, has reached the summit of sanctity according to the measure of the gifts
We have communicated to Her; and when She had merited her reward and could have
enjoyed it forever, She deprived Herself of it for Our glory and returned to
attend to the establishment, the government, and instruction of the Church
militant; and We, in order that She might live in it for the succor of the
faithful, deferred her eternal rest, which She has merited over and over again.
In the highest bounty and equity of our Providence it is just, that my Mother
should be remunerated for her works of love beyond all other creatures; and
toward Her the common law of the other mortals should not apply. If I have
merited for all infinite merits and boundless graces, it is proper that my
Mother should partake of them above all the others who are so inferior; for She in her conduct
corresponds to our liberality and puts no hindrance or obstacle to our infinite
power of communicating our treasures and participating them as the Queen and
Mistress of all that is created."
Sanctifying
grace is the created participation in the divine nature. The Blessed Virgin is
the "Queen and Mistress of all that is created." In this Mass the
Church prays:
"
O Lord Jesus Christ, our Mediator with the Father, who hast appointed the most
blessed Virgin, Thy mother, to be our mother also and our mediatrix before
Thee: Grant that whosoever draweth nigh to Thee to beseech any benefit, may
receive all things through her and rejoice.
Rev.
Gregory Alastruey's theological work titled, The Blessed Virgin Mary, says that, "There are five principle titles and offices due
Mary, the Mother of God, by reason of her cooperation in redemption: Mediatrix,
Co-redemptrix, Mother of Christians, Patroness or Advocate, and Queen and
Mistress of the universe. I would recommend those who deny this proper
honor to the Mother of God obtain a copy of the book and have their stupidity
erased. I do not say, ignorance erased because willful ignorance is stupidity. Fr. Alastruey affirms that
"Mary is truly mediatrix of the human race and this doctrine pertains to
the deposit of faith." He then draws from Scripture, the Fathers,
and theologians in support of this truth. He proves from the Church Fathers
that the word "mediatrix" was explicitly used by St. Ephrem, St.
Epiphanius, St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil of Seleucia, St. Andrew of Crete, St
Germanus of Constantinople, St. John Damascene, St Theodore, St. Antoninus and
Denis the Carthusian. He draws richly from the divine liturgy from both Eastern
and Roman traditions. The errors of the Protestant heretics are addressed and
exposed which are curiously the same as expressed by the Novus Ordo popes.
Lastly,
it is worth asking Why do the Novus Ordo popes hate these proper titles of the Mother
of God? The answer is simple. The Blessed Virgin asked the three children at
Fatima on June 13, 1917, "Are
you willing to offer yourselves to God to bear all the sufferings He wills to
send you, as an act of reparation for the sins by which He is offended, and of
supplication for the conversion of sinners?" To which question all
answered, "Yes, we are willing." The Mother of God said on July 13
after the children had seen a vision of Hell, "Sacrifice yourselves for
sinners, and say many times, especially whenever you make some sacrifice: O
Jesus, it is for love of You, for the conversion of sinners, and in reparation
for the sins committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary." On August 19
(the apparition did not occur on the August 13 because the children were in
prison) the Mother of God continued saying, "Pray, pray very much, and
make sacrifices for sinners; for many souls go to hell, because there are none
to sacrifice themselves and to pray for them." The Blessed Virgin is
asking the children to be co-redemptors and co-mediators of grace with her in
union with our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ for the conversion and salvation of
sinners. If the title of Co-Redemtrix and Mediatrix of all Grace can be taken
away from the Mother of God then no one is responsible to do penance for their
own sins or the sins of others. This falls back to the Protestant heresy on the
dogma of justification and the very nature of our incorporation into the divine
nature in the Mystical Body of Christ. Leo/Provost, like his predecessor
Francis/Bergoglio, believes that proselytism is "solemn nonsense."
They attack the titles to excuse their own faithless sloth. They are working to
obscure the very means of salvation. As Jesus Christ said: "But woe to you
scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you shut the kingdom of heaven
against men, for you yourselves do not enter in; and those that are going in,
you suffer not to enter" (Matt 23:13).
Pope
Leo is just another heretic who denies the Blessed Virgin Mary her just titles
of Mediatrix of all Grace and Co-Redemtrix. Only a few days ago, he celebrated
with heretics, schismatics, Jews, Moslems, and a variety of idolaters a shared
communion praying to their common god a united petition for peace in the world.
He continues to ignore the peace plan offered by the Blessed Virgin Mary,
Mediatrix of all Grace, at Fatima. Pope Leo will soon learn that those who
insult the Mother have made an enemy of the Son.
This
demonstrats the fruit of the “New Evangelization” - which is shameless
apostasy!
Brazil: Catholic Church on
the decline
Catholic Church loses
followers to Evangelicals
Between 2000 and 2010, the number of Brazilians
describing themselves as Catholics has dropped by 12.2%. This record fall
brings the proportion of Catholics down to 65% – the lowest share since
religious affiliations was first surveyed in 1872. In 2000, 74% of the
population had classified themselves as Catholics.
Brazilian census: Catholic population falls to 57%
Catholic News Agency | Nathália
Queiroz | Sao Paulo,
Brazil, Jun 9, 2025
The percentage of Brazilians who identify
as Catholic fell to 56.75% in 2022, a reduction of 8.4% compared with 2010,
according to data from the 2022 demographic census released by the Brazilian
Institute of Geography and Statistics. [....]
“The Rosary is the most powerful weapon for
defending ourselves on the field of battle.”
… The decadence
which exists in the world is without any doubt the consequence of the lack of
the spirit of prayer. Foreseeing this disorientation, the Blessed Virgin
recommended recitation of the Rosary with such insistence. And since the Rosary
is, after the holy Eucharistic liturgy, the prayer most apt for preserving
faith in souls, the devil has unchained his struggles against it.
Unfortunately, we see the disasters he has caused.
… We must
defend souls against the errors which can make them stray from the good road. …
We cannot and we must not stop ourselves, nor allow, as Our Lord says, the
children of Darkness to be wiser than the children of Light … The Rosary is the
most powerful weapon for defending ourselves on the field of battle.
Sr. Lucy of
Fatima, Letter to Dom Umberto Pasquale
“Necessity
Knows No Law”
In 1976, the
head of the UGCC, Cardinal Josef Slipyj, living in exile in Rome after 18 years
in the Soviet gulag, feared for the future of the UGCC. Would it have bishops
to lead it, given that Slipyj himself was now over 80? So he ordained three
bishops clandestinely, without the permission of the Holy Father, Blessed (sic)
Paul VI. At the time, the Holy See followed a policy of non-assertiveness
regarding the communist bloc; Paul VI would not give permission for the new
bishops for fear of upsetting the Soviets. The consecration of bishops without
a papal mandate is a very grave canonical crime, for which the penalty is
excommunication. Blessed (sic) Paul VI—who likely knew, unofficially, what
Slipyj had done—did not administer any penalties.
Fr. Raymond J.
DeSouza
John
Henry Newman: A Novus Ordo Saint and, fittingly, a Doctor of the Novus Ordo
Church
"I see much danger of an English Catholicism
of which Newman (Cardinal John Henry Newman) is the highest type. It is the old
Anglican, patristic, literary, Oxford tone transplanted into the Church. It
takes the line of deprecating exaggerations, foreign devotions, Ultramontanism,
anti-national sympathies. In one word, it is worldly Catholicism."
Cardinal Manning, Primate of England, Letter
to Monsignor Talbot, written in 1866, the second year of his reign as
archbishop
Salvation by
“Implicit” Faith?
But without faith it is impossible to please God. For he that cometh to
God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him. Heb. 1,
6
Of course charity itself is
impossible without faith and hope. Could
anyone love a man if he did not believe it was possible to be or become his
friend? Or if he despaired of ever
gaining his friendship? So it is with
man in relation to God as He is in Himself.
Man must believe it is possible to attain a perfect friendship with God
in Heaven and he must hope to attain this friendship through God’s power before
he can love God as his supernatural destiny.
Fr. Walter Farrell, O. P. and
Fr. Marin Healy, My Way of Life – The
Summa Simplified for Everyone
Looming ahead is the
Great Apostasy predicted by St. Paul to the Thessalonians when the Antichrist,
“the man of sin” (2 Thess. 2: 3), will engage mankind in wholesale flight from
God and reality. From him can be
expected perfect acquiescence to the three temptations by which the devil
failed to seduce Christ in the desert.
Turning stones into bread by substituting false teaching for true
doctrine, he will confirm the satanic religion by false miracles, (that is
“lying wonders”), as it were casting himself down from the pinnacle of the
temple to be borne up by spiritual hands.
Given “all the kingdoms of the world and all their glory” (Matt. 4: 8-9)
in return for falling down and adoring Satan, Antichrist the King will
establish a universal empire in the fallen angel’s name. Aping as closely as possible Christ’s
consummation of the law and the prophets, he will capitulate in his person the
whole of the world’s apostatic tradition.
Solange Strong Hertz, Apostasy
in America
The Reason the
Message of LaSalette is Rejected or Unknown? They Are NOT 'Her People'!
It was 1846
and France was suffering social and political upheaval. Catholic churches had
been abandoned and the Sacraments neglected… On the eve of the Feast of Our
Lady of Sorrows, eleven-year-old Maxim Giraud and fourteen-year-old Melanie
Mathieu beheld a luminous sphere, radiating like the sun, curiously unfolding
before their eyes. Gradually they made out a woman seated with her face in her
hands, weeping. She slowly arose and crossed her arms on her breast, her head
some what inclined.
The children
were drawn immediately to the lady's tears that adorned her face like perfectly
cut diamonds glimmering the in the sun's rays. Her dynamic features were framed
delicately in a white-satin headdress, on which rested a crown of roses, a
bouquet in all shades of reds and pinks. A crucifix with pincers on one end and
a hammer on the opposite end hung over her satin shawl, which was lined with
more roses. The Madonna wore a long ivory dress embroidered in precious pearls
and a yellow apron tied neatly to her waist. Wearing pearl slippers that peeked
out from underneath her satin robe, she sheltered herself atop a bouquet of
roses.
"Come to
me, my children," she tenderly addressed the two who stood afar,
motionless. "Be not afraid. I am here to tell you something of the
greatest importance."
As soon as
they were in touching distance of her, she began to speak with the urgency of
an ending world:
"If my
people will not obey, I shall be compelled to loose my Son's arm. It is so
heavy, so pressing that I can no longer restrain it."
She told the children that her Son was especially
concerned that people were not keeping holy Sunday, and that religion had lost
its place in their country…. "You will make this known to all my people;
you will make this known to all my people," she repeated to them. Solange
Hertz, Our Lady of LaSalette
"It is a sin to believe there is salvation outside the
Catholic Church!"
Blessed Pope Pius IX
The Church is One, Holy, Catholic Apostolic,
and Roman : unique, the Chair founded on Peter. Outside her fold is to
be found nether the true faith nor eternal salvation, for it is impossible to
have God for a Father if one does not have the Church for a Mother.
Blessed Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quidem
The Great Error of Vatican
II –
The “pastoral” blunder that
there exists a disjunction between Divine Revelation and Dogma
The greatest concern of the
Ecumenical Council is this: that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine
should be guarded and taught more efficaciously….. the authentic doctrine…
should be studied and expounded through the methods of research and through the
literary forms of modern thought. The
substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the
way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must
be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being
measured in the forms and proportions of a Magisterium which is predominantly
pastoral in character. Pope John XXIII,
Opening Speech for Vatican II
Peace Plan of Our Lady of
Fatima
1.
WHAT DOES THE MESSAGE OF FATIMA REQUEST?
At Fatima Our Lady said that God wished to
establish in the world devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Our Lady said that
many souls would be saved from Hell and the annihilation of nations averted if,
in time, devotion to Her Immaculate Heart were established principally by these
two means:
A. the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate
Heart of Mary by the Pope together with the world's bishops in a solemn public
ceremony, and
B. the practice or receiving Holy Communion (and
other specific devotions of about 1/2 hour in duration) in reparation for the
sins committed against the Blessed Virgin Mary, on the first Saturdays of five
consecutive months--a practice known to Catholics as "the First
Saturday" devotion.
2.
HAVE THESE REQUESTS OF OUR LADY OF FATIMA BEEN HONORED?
No, not entirely. A
number of the Faithful practice the "First Saturday" devotion, but
Russia has yet to be consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary in a solemn
public ceremony conducted by the Pope together with the world's Catholic
bishops.
In 1982 the last
Fatima seer, Lucia, when a cloistered nun living in Coimbra, Portugal, was
asked if an attempted consecration by Pope John Paul II had sufficed. She
replied that it did not suffice, because Russia was not mentioned and the
world's bishops had not participated. Another attempted consecration in 1984
likewise did not mention Russia or involve the participation of many of the
world's bishops, and Sister Lucia stated immediately afterwards that this
consecration, too, had failed to meet Our Lady's requirements.
3. WHAT DOES THE MESSAGE OF FATIMA WARN?
It warns that if the
requests of Our Lady of Fatima for the Consecration of Russia and the First
Saturday devotion are not honored, the Church will be persecuted, there will be
other major wars, the Holy Father will have much to suffer and various nations
will be annihilated. Many nations will be enslaved by Russian militant
atheists. Most important, many souls will be lost.
4.
WHAT DOES THE MESSAGE OF FATIMA PROMISE?
The Message of
Fatima promises that if the requests of Our Lady of Fatima are carried out
"My Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will Consecrate Russia
to Me, which will be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to
mankind."
The
United States is, as much as Israel, guilty for the Genocide of the Palestinian
People.
“I love Israel. I’m with you all the way...... Thanks to
the bravery and incredible skill of the Israeli Defense Forces and Operation
Rising Lion, the forces of chaos, terror, and ruin now stand weakened,
isolated, and totally defeated.”
“The story of fierce Israeli
resolve and triumph since October 7 should be proof to the entire world that
those who seek to destroy this nation are doomed to bitter failure.”
President Donald Trump, addressing the Israeli Knesset with Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
“Donald Trump is the greatest friend that the State of Israel
has ever had in the White House. No American president has ever done more for
Israel, and, as I said in Washington, it ain’t even close. It’s really not a
match.”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressing Israeli
Knesset with President Trump
"It is sentiments like these (from President Trump) – backed by a long list of pro-Israel actions
over two terms, including moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem, recognizing
Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights, recognizing Jewish claims in Judea
and Samaria for a 'Greater Israel', brokering the Abraham Accords, striking
Iran alongside Israel, decapitation strikes against Iranian and Hamas peace
negotiators, and directly supporting the Israeli genocide of Gaza with over $30
billion direct aid, billions more in indirect air with military, intelligence,
logistical and political support both in the United States and at the United
Nations including censorship in mainstream media and suppression of free speech
at college campuses."
Catholic political commentary
“For the Jews, ‘Anti-Semitism’ is anything that is in
opposition to the naturalistic Messianic domination of their nation over all
the others.”
Rev. Denis Fahey, C.S.Sp., B.A., D.Ph., D.D.
On the Charge of
Anti-Semitism in Our Time
“…Two reasons can be assigned to the fact
that Our Lord’s faithful members will often be betrayed by those who should be
on the side of Christ the King. Firstly, many Catholic writers speak of Papal
condemnations of Anti-Semitism without explaining the meaning of the term, and
never even allude to the documents which insist on the Rights of Our Divine
Lord, Head of the Mystical Body, Priest and King. Thus, very many are
completely ignorant of the duty incumbent on all Catholics of standing
positively for Our Lord’s Reign in society in opposition to Jewish Naturalism.
The result is that numbers of Catholics are so ignorant of Catholic doctrine
that they hurl the accusation of Anti-Semitism against those who are battling
for the Rights of Christ the King, thus effectively aiding the enemies of Our
Divine Lord. Secondly, many Catholic writers copy unquestioningly what they
read in the naturalistic or anti-Supernatural Press and do not distinguish
between Anti-Semitism in the correct Catholic sense, as explained above, and
‘Anti-Semitism’ as the Jews understand it. …”
Fr. Fahey’s Preface in Grand Orient
Freemasonry Unmasked: As the Secret Power Behind Communism by Monsignor George
F. Dillon, D.D.
Jews have
hated & persecuted the Catholic Church from the time of Jesus Christ to
this very day!
[The Jews are] a people who,
having imbrued their hands in a most heinous outrage [Jesus’ crucifixion], have
thus polluted their souls and are deservedly blind. . . . Therefore we have
nothing in common with that most hostile of people the Jews. We have received
from the Savior another way . . . our
holy religion. . . . On what subject
will that detestable association be competent to from a correct judgment, who
after that murder of their Lord . . .
are led… by. . . their innate fury?
Council of Nicaea, 325 AD
Jewish
Power is inversely proportional to the spiritual health of the Catholic Church
“Jews should not be placed in
public offices, since it is most absurd that a blasphemer of Christ should
exercise power over Christians.”
Fourth Lateran Council
Good Night, Sweet Princeton! By Fr. Leonard Feeney, 1952
Maritainism is a system of thought which
allows Catholics to be both Catholic and acceptable in the drawing rooms of
Protestant and Jewish philosophers. Maritainism is not a seeking and a finding
of the Word made flesh. It is a perpetual seeking for un-fleshed truth in an
abstract scheme called Christianity. Maritainism is the scrapping of the
Incarnation in favor of a God Whose overtures to us never get more personal or
loving than the five rational proofs for His existence. This plot to encourage
only pre-Bethlehem interest in God takes its name from its perpetrator, that
highly respected religious opportunist, Jacques Maritain.
The slightest acquaintance with Maritain’s
history is sufficient to indicate how awry he must be in his Catholicism. He is
a former Huguenot who married a Jewish girl named Raïssa. During their student
days in Paris, both Jacques and Raïssa felt a double pull in the general
direction of belief. Intellectually they were attracted to the religious
self-sufficiency of a Jewish intuitionist named Henri Bergson. Sociologically
they were attracted to the spurious Catholicism of Leon Bloy, a French exhibitionist
who made a liturgy of his own crudeness and uncleaness and tried to attach it
to the liturgy of the Church. At some point in their association with an
unbaptized Bergson and an unwashed Bloy, the Maritains figured out that there
was a promising future ahead of them in Catholicism.
Jacques Maritain is noted for his
solemn-high, holier-than-thou appearance. For this reason, more than one priest
reports that by the time a Maritain lecture is over, any priest who is present
has been made to feel that the Roman collar is around the wrong neck and that
perhaps he, the priest, ought to put on a necktie and kneel for Maritain’s
blessing.
One explanation of Maritain’s distant
expression is that he fancies himself to be the Drew Pearson of the Christian social
order. Judging by Maritain’s passion for the abstract, the fulfillment of all
his prophecies will come in an era when mothers can sing such songs as
“Rock-a-bye Baby, on the Dendrological Zenith,” and children recite such
bedtime prayers as “The Hail Mariology.”
Jacques Maritain prefers Thomism to Saint
Thomas Aquinas and, similarly, he much prefers the notion of the papacy to the
person of the Pope. He could not, however, turn down the prestige of an
appointment as French ambassador to the Vatican. Maritain went to Rome, but he
protected himself against over exposure to Italian faith by visits to Dr.
George Santayana. In Maritain, Santayana recognized a brother, the kind of
European intellectual cast-off that is annually being grabbed-up by American Universities.
That Jacques Maritain should now be found
preaching at Princeton University is not so strange. It did not require too
much insight on Princeton’s part to see that a Catholic who hates Franco,
speaks at Jewish seminaries, and favors “theocentricity” in place of Jesus,
would be a bizarre, but harmless, addition to anybody’s faculty club.
Perhaps Princeton realized also that a
Catholic’s admirers are a good measure of his militancy. Among Maritain’s more
prominent sympathizers are John Wild, Charles Malik and Mortimer Adler (N.B.
Adler was converted and received into the Catholic Church in 1999 only 18
months before he died at 98 years of age), who are, respectively, an Anglican,
a Greek schismatic, and a Jew. Naturally Maritain could not insult intellectuals
like these by telling them that although they are outside the Church they can
get into Heaven because of their “invincible ignorance.” It was necessary that
Maritain concoct a new way of getting around the dogma, “No Salvation Outside
the Catholic Church.”
After a lot of abstract deliberation,
Maritain decided that a man could be “invisibly, and by a motion of his heart,
a member of the Church, and partake of her life, which is eternal life.”
According to Maritain’s new covenant, the important salvation-actions in our
world are no longer a head bowed to the waters of Baptism, a hand raised in
Absolution, a tongue outstretched to receive Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament. “A
motion of his heart,” says Maritain, is all that is required before a man may
partake of eternal life.
The Sacred Heart might have saved Himself a
lot of inconvenience had He only known this, one Friday afternoon on Calvary.
COMMENT: Jacques Maritain was Paul VI’s favorite philosopher. Maritain's reputation as a great philosopher is based on his supposed integration of the Scholastic principles of St. Thomas with the modern world. He had a world-wide reputation and following that extending beyond his
native France to hold visiting professorships
at Princeton and the University of Chicago, as well as a visiting lecturer at Notre Dame, Yale, Harvard, and the University of Toronto. Pope Paul VI publicly confessed his
profound respect and influence by
Maritain’s thought on his Credo of the People of God (1968). At
the close of the Second Vatican Council on December 8, 1965, the pope’s “Address
to Men of Thought and Science” was dedicated to his “dear friend and mentor, Jacques Maritain.” Pope Paul offered Maritain a cardinal’s hat, but the philosopher declined
it. Vatican II’s Declaration on Religious Freedom—Dignitatis Humanae—which teaches that the dignity of man is so exalted
that he possesses the inalienable right to neither conform his mind to God’s
revealed truth nor obey God’s commandments, drew as its inspiration Maritain’s book Man and the State (1951) which is an
articulation of the language
of “rights” that Dignitatis
Humanae employs.
“By
their fruit you shall know them!”; & by their fruit you had better well
know them!
For such false
apostles are deceitful workmen, transforming themselves into the apostles of
Christ. And no wonder: for Satan himself transformeth himself into an angel of
light. Therefore it is no
great thing if his (Satan's) ministers be transformed as the ministers of
justice, whose end shall be according to their works.
II Corinthians
11:13-15
The order of divine justice exacts that
whosoever consents to another's evil suggestion, shall be subjected to him in his punishment; according to II Peter
2:19: "By whom a man is overcome, of the same also he is the
slave."
St. Thomas Aquinas
The proper literal understanding of this dogma from the
Council of Trent:
Canon 4 on the sacraments in
general: If anyone says that the
sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous,
and that without them or without the desire of them men obtain from God
through faith alone the grace of justification, though all are not necessary
for each one, let him be anathema.
The Dogma defines two revealed doctrinal truths:
1.
If anyone says: that the sacraments of the
New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, let him be
anathema.
2.
If anyone says: that without the
sacraments or (if anyone says) without the desire of the sacraments men
obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification, let him be
anathema.
Both the Sacrament of Baptism and the will to
receive the Sacrament are necessary for salvation!
“But
God desired that his confession should avail for his salvation, since he preserved him in this life until the
time of his holy regeneration.” St. Fulgentius
“If anyone is not baptized, not only in
ignorance, but even knowingly, he can in no way be saved. For his path to salvation was through the confession,
and salvation itself was in baptism.
At his age, not only was confession
without baptism of no avail: Baptism
itself would be of no avail for salvation if he neither believed nor
confessed.” St. Fulgentius
Notice,
both the CONFESSION AND THE BAPTISM are necessary for salvation, harkening back
to Trent’s teaching that both the laver AND the “votum” are required for
justification, and harkening back to Our Lord’s teaching that we must be born
again of water AND the Holy Spirit.
In fact, you see the language of St. Fulgentius reflected in the Council of
Trent. Trent describes the votum (so-called “desire”) as the PATH
TO SALVATION, the disposition to Baptism, and then says that “JUSTIFICATION
ITSELF” (St. Fulgentius says “SALVATION ITSELF”) follows the dispositions in
the Sacrament of Baptism.
Yet another solid argument for why Trent is teaching that BOTH the votum
AND the Sacrament are required for justification.
“Hold
most firmly and never doubt in the least that not only all pagans but also all
Jews and all heretics and schismatics who end this present life outside the
Catholic Church are about to go into the eternal fire that was prepared for the
Devil and his angels.” St. Fulgentius
“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes,
professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church,
not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share
in life eternal; but that they will go into the ‘eternal fire which was
prepared for the devil and his angels.’”
Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino
Ladislaus, CathInfo
We will see
the same from Pope Leo!
The
end of dialogue is to produce opinion. The purpose of logical argument is to
appeal to the intellect to arrive at truth.
Rhetoric appeals to the will and poetry to the imagination. The emphasis
of the Novus Ordo Church since Vatican II on dialogue is therefore a
repudiation of any claim to truth offering in its place only the opinions of
churchmen. It is the debasement of Jesus Christ’s gospel from Truth to just
another opinion, from historical fact to mythology. It is only incidental that
Novus Ordo Church, having turned its back against the truth, has also turned
away from rhetoric and poetry which explains why it is both effeminate and
ugly.
“The Church will have to opt for dialogue as her style and method,
fostering an awareness of the existence of bonds and connections in a complex
reality. . . . No vocation, especially within the Church, can be placed outside
this outgoing dynamism of dialogue . . . . [emphasis added].”
Pope Francis’ Instrumentum
Laboris, XV ORDINARY GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF SYNOD OF BISHOPS: YOUNG
PEOPLE, THE FAITH AND VOCATIONAL DISCERNMENT
And
thus, the 'spirit of Vatican II' - dialogue so that everyone can reach an
accomodation of error and the repudiation of logical argument appealing to
truth!
“Don’t proselytize; respect others’ beliefs. We can inspire others
through witness so that one grows together in communicating. But the worst
thing of all is religious proselytism, which paralyzes: ‘I am talking with you
in order to persuade you,’ No. Each person dialogues, starting with his and her
own identity. The church grows by attraction, not proselytizing.”
Pope Francis
Explicit Supernatural
Faith in God’s Revealed Truth is Necessary as a Necessity of Means for
Salvation.
If you do not
believe this, you do not possess Supernatural Faith!
Responses of the Holy Office under Pope Clement XI, 1703:
Q. Whether a minister
is bound, before baptism is conferred on an adult, to explain to him all the
mysteries of our faith, especially if he is at the point of death, because this
might disturb his mind. Or, whether it is sufficient, if the one at the point
of death will promise that when he recovers from the illness, he will take care
to be instructed, so that he may put into practice what has been commanded him.
Resp. A promise is not
sufficient, but a missionary is bound to explain to an adult, even a dying one
who is not entirely incapacitated, the mysteries of faith which are necessary by a necessity of means, as
are especially the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation.
Q. Whether it is
possible for a crude and uneducated adult, as it might be with a barbarian, to
be baptized, if there were given to him only an understanding of God and some
of His attributes, especially His justice in rewarding and in
punishing, according to this passage of the Apostle "He that
cometh to God must believe that he is and that he is a rewarder' [Heb . 11:23],
from which it is inferred that a barbarian adult, in a certain case of urgent
necessity, can be baptized although he does not believe explicitly in Jesus
Christ.
Resp. A missionary should not baptize
one who does not believe explicitly in the Lord Jesus Christ, but is bound to
instruct him about all those matters which are necessary, by a necessity of
means, according to the capacity of the one to be baptized.”
COMMENT: The infamous 1949 Holy Office Letter, sent privately to
Cardinal Richard Cushing of Boston for the purpose of censoring Fr. Lenard
Feeney for his belief in the Dogma that there is no salvation outside the
Catholic Church, affirmed the novel doctrine of 'salvation by implicit desire'.
The "implicit desire" was to be a "member of the Church"
and the evidence of this "implicit desire" was an explicit belief in
a 'god who rewards and punishes'. The Letter teaches that the only requirement
for salvation is found in St. Paul's Letter to the Hebrews 11:13. No longer
were the belief in any revealed truth, the reception of any sacrament, or being
a subject of the Roman Pontiff necessary as necessities of means for salvation.
This Letter teaches that any "good-willed" Jew as a Jew, Hindu as a
Hindu, Mohammedan as a Mohammedan, Protestant as a Protestant, etc., etc. can
be members of the Church and can obtain salvation because they believe in a
'god who rewards and punishes'. The Holy Office response of 1703 makes it clear
that the belief in a God who rewards and punishes is only the natural philosophical
prerequisite for receiving the gospel good-news of salvation and of itself is
insufficient grounds for receiving the sacrament of Baptism.
After
40 Years of Dialogue, Rabbi identifies papal “conundrum.”
The real conundrum that faces Benedict XVI on his visit to Israel… is
should he be loyal to the Gospels which claim that only acceptance of Christ
can bring the messianic age, or should he endorse Vatican II which acknowledges
that Jews… can find the kingdom of God via a different route? Should he look inwards, backwards or
forwards?
Rabbi Jonathan Romain, The Pope’s Jewish Dilemma, The Guardian
There is yet a time of stillness and indifference. Liberalism is a
twilight state in which all errors are softened, in which no persecution for
religion will be countenanced. It is the stillness before the storm. There is a
time coming when nothing will be persecuted but truth, and if you possess the
truth, you will share the trial.
Cardinal Henry Edward Manning, Archbishop of Westminster
Pope Leo calls for unity in climate action on 10-year anniversary of
Laudato si’
Pope Leo XIV appealed to all of humanity to unite, overcome
differences, and work together to respond to climate change and ecological
destruction
The Tablet | Aili Winstanley Channer | 02
October 2025
He was speaking to climate activists and
religious leaders commemorating the ten-year anniversary of the encyclical Laudato si’ at Castel Gandolfo
yesterday.
It was the opening of the three-day
“Raising Hope for Climate Justice” conference organised by the Laudato si’
Movement in collaboration with ecclesial and institutional partners. Pope Leo reiterated Pope
Francis’ concern about “those who deride climate change” in the 2023
Apostolic Exhortation Laudate
Deum, and asserted, “there
is no room for indifference”.
He asked, “What must be done now to ensure that caring for our common
home and listening to the cry of the earth and the poor do not appear as mere passing
trends or, worse still, that they be seen and felt as divisive issues?”
Attendees at the conference include
Christine Allen of Cafod. Bishop John Arnold, the lead bishop for the
environment for the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, said, “Pope Leo reminded us that Pope
Francis had emphasised that ‘the most effective solutions will not come from
individual efforts alone, but above all from major political decisions on the
national and international levels’. More than ever, we need to work together,
to think of future generations, and take urgent action if we are to truly
respond to the scale of this climate crisis: a crisis which affects those who
are poorest and most vulnerable and have done least to cause it.”
This view reflects Pope Leo’s call for ecological conversion at all
levels of society, including by strengthening democracy: “Citizens need to take
an active role in political decision-making at national, regional and local
levels. Only then will it be possible to mitigate the damage done to the
environment.”
Pope Leo was joined by Marina Silva,
Brazil’s minister of the environment and climate change and the head of the
United Nations Global Ethical Stocktake, an initiative to foster societal
reflection on ethical responsibility for climate change ahead of the 2025 UN
Conference of Parties (COP30), which will be held in Belem, Brazil, in
November. Pope Leo expressed his hope that COP30 and other upcoming
international summits “will
listen to the cry of the Earth and the cry of the poor, families, indigenous
peoples, involuntary migrants and believers throughout the world”.
But Pope Leo also emphasised that although these challenges are “of a
social and political nature”, they are “first and foremost of a spiritual
nature: they call for conversion”. He reaffirmed the spiritual
importance of caring for the Earth as God’s creation and its inseparability
from our responsibility towards the poor and vulnerable: “We cannot love God, whom we
cannot see, while despising his creatures. Nor can we call ourselves disciples
of Jesus Christ without participating in his outlook on creation and his care
for all that is fragile and wounded.”
The film star Arnold Schwarzenegger, known for his roles in
high-profile action films as well as his climate activism as Governor of
California and head of the Schwarzenegger Climate Initiative, spoke alongside
Pope Leo and called him an “action hero” for his message on the environment.
Pope Leo smiled as he began his address. He affirmed the crucial and diverse
contributions made to mitigating the crisis by every individual at the
conference: “There is
indeed an action hero with us this afternoon: it is all of you, who are working
together to make a difference.”
As he closed, he said: “God will ask us if we have cultivated and cared
for the world that he created, for the benefit of all and for future
generations, and if we have taken care of our brothers and sisters. What will
be our answer?”
Pope Leo XIV Blesses Huge 20,000-Year-Old Chunk Of Greenland Ice
Forbes | Leslie Katz | Oct 06, 2025
Pope Leo XIV stood on stage at a climate
conference in Rome last week and laid his right hand on a massive chunk of ice,
blessing it.
This wasn’t just any ice. It had broken off
the vast Greenland Ice Sheet, a key regulator of global climate that’s
shrinking quickly as it melts due to climate change. The resulting rise in
global sea levels could flood many tens of millions of homes, scientists warn.
Danish-Icelandic artist Olafur Eliasson
transported the ice to the Raising Hope Conference with the help of Danish
geologist Minik Rosing to serve as a stark symbol of how quickly the world’s
glaciers are disappearing.
“Lord of life, bless this water,” the pope
said after touching the dripping ice. “May it awaken our hearts, cleanse our
indifference, soothe our grief and renew our hope through Christ our lord.”
Eliasson is known for his installation
art using light, water, and air. Eliasson called it “striking” to
witness the pope bless the 20,000-year-old piece of Greenlandic glacial ice.
“We felt the presence of the fragile ice underscored the importance of
recognizing that nature is not separate from humanity,” the artist wrote on
Instagram.
COMMENT: Pope Leo,
celebrating the 10th anniversary of Laudato si', the earth worshiping
encyclical of Pope Francis, blessed a block of Ice to counteract the diabolical
forces of global warming striking a grave and focused posture that was in
marked contrast to the stupidity of the gesture. The act says a lot more about
Leo than it does about climatology. Leo, like Francis, is believer in the pagan
Gaia cult of Mother Earth worship. Leo refers twice in his sermon to the
"Cry of the Earth, the Cry of the Poor." Leo took this phrase from
Francis' Laudato si' and Francis took
the quote without attribution from Leonard Boff's Cry of the Earth, Cry of the Poor. Boff is a former Franciscan
priest who was censored by the liberal Cardinal Ratzinger when he headed the
CDF under the liberal JPII for his extreem Marxist liberation theology. Boff is
famous for his development of an integrated theology of Marxism, Gaia cult earth
worship and "social justice." He was admired by Francis and he is
admired twice as much by Leo.
If
the ice block is 20,000 years old then the Genesis creation account and the
global flood of Noe is reduced to mythology and not divine revelation. The fact
is, ancient mythology ended with the Christian revelation of Jesus Christ but
the modern scientific world is doing its best to resurrect the cult of
mythology. The world likes to talk about the scientific fables of Big Bang,
primordial soups with lightening bubbling forth proteins that congeal into
cellular life with the teleological purpose of producing the DNA of Darwinian
man. These fables are believed and shamelessly pandered by our neo-modernists
popes. The absurdity is that the neo-modernists popes have embraced the myths
of scientology when science itself has discredited their claims. Scientists
have been predicting global flooding of coastal areas for the last fifty years
with no evidence of rising sea levels. Global warming is not science. It is liberal
ideology applied to climatology that always calls for a one-world governance to
enforce its dictatorial and anti-Catholic mandates. The alleged global warming
is always without exception a man made assault on Mother Earth that requires
the ritual murder of 6.5 billion people for a world "sustainable"
population of 500 million for expiation. Never is it considered in their
calculus that the increase of global
temperature would make available millions of more acres of arable land and
lengthen the growing season in millions of additional acres creating a massive
increase in the food supply and areas of habitable land. Scientists have no
idea whatsoever if global warming, if it is in fact happening at all, would
have overall beneficial or harmful effects. While Pope Leo is a resident in
Rome he might ask what became of Rome's ancient Port City of Ostia which was at
the time of Jesus Christ located directly on the sea at the mouth of the Tiber
River. It is today three kilometers from the coast. Citizens of Ostia may have
lost their beach front property but they are not under water.
Exsurge Domine - USA; Archbishop Carlo Maria
Viganò
The Association Exsurge
Domine is committed to provide assistance,
support and material aid for clerics, religious and consecrated persons who are
victims of the Bergoglian Regime. It is of highest importance to act, to defend
the immutable Tradition of the Catholic Faith, to preserve and promote the
Apostolic Mass, and to save Christendom. In this decisive moment, we must
choose to counter evil, or be swallowed up by its most pestilent breath. Only
those who fight as the Maccabee’s did shall merit victory.
DEFENDE ECCLESIAM TUAM
In
many nations that are no longer Catholic-such as England, Germany or the
Netherlands, for example-you can still see small chapels carved out of attics
and cellars, or home altars hidden in invisible closets or niches: they were
used for the clandestine celebration of Mass in times of persecution, when it
was a crime to be faithful to the Church of Rome and priests had to hide to
avoid imprisonment or the death sentence. Without going back to Diocletian,
even in the 16th and 17th centuries “papists” were considered a threat, and
were barely tolerated as long as they had no churches, convents, seminaries, or
schools.
These persecutions are recurring today,
in perhaps a less bloody form, and the perpetrators are not Lutherans or the
thugs of Olivier Cromwell, but Cardinals, Bishops and Prelates of the Conciliar
sect, infiltrated into the Vatican and well determined to wipe out all traces
of the “old religion” and the “old Mass” that they have replaced with the
religion of ecology, of welcome, of inclusiveness, of the New World Order.
The apostasy we are experiencing is not
very different from that of the bishops who swore allegiance to Henry VIII in
order not to lose rents and benefits: the difference is that today the act of
obedience is required toward Bergoglio, the Second Vatican Council,
the Novus Ordo, the “synodal church,” Pachamama.
Those who do not yield, those who remain
faithful to the Priesthood or Religious Vows are ostracized, mocked, vilified,
persecuted and above all deprived of ministry, a dwelling place and means of
livelihood. Without mercy, without charity, without humanity.
Exsurge
Domine is
the response of those who do not surrender to this betrayal of the modernist
Hierarchy: it joins us to our brothers of past ages, to the faithful who gave
hospitality to the monk wanted by the soldiers of Elizabeth I, a hot meal to
the nun with no convent left in revolutionary France, a hiding place to the
Mexican priest pursued by the soldiers of the Masonic government. We can help
those persecuted priests, religious men and women who in anonymity, silence,
and humble acceptance of trials show us the suffering face of Christ ascending
Golgotha.
Let us therefore prove that we know how
to accompany the Faith we profess with good works, with prayer, with charity
and almsgiving. For these priests, these friars, these nuns can stop the arm of
divine Justice and give hope for the future in our children.
“Exsurge Domine – USA”
Address: PO Box 121, Rice Lake, WI 54868
Email:
info@exsurgedomineusa.org
501(c)3 approved Tax Code: 93-3884604
EXCERPT: The Vatican has been
covering-up the crimes of homosexual pederasts since 1922 but the practice became
actively enforced policy since 1962!!!
The total payouts by the Catholic Church for sex abuse claims in the
United States have exceeded $5 billion over the past two decades with almost
all of this for homosexual crimes.
FROM FORGIVENESS, TO SILENCE... TO BETRAYAL, By
Michael Kenny
THE FEAR OF SCANDAL: A DEEPENING MOTIF
As the Church gained public visibility and
institutional structure, the fear of scandal – that is, anything that could
bring shame or doubt upon the Church – grew proportionally. This concern is not
without biblical foundation. Apparently Christ Himself warned that:
“Scandals must come, but woe to the one
through whom they come.”
In a world where the Church was often
maligned, the temptation to protect its reputation – even at the cost of truth
– grew strong.
This approach reached its most formal
expression in the 20th century.
CRIMEN SOLICITATIONIS: CODIFYING SECRECY
In 1962, the Vatican issued a secret
instruction titled CRIMEN SOLICITATIONIS. Which laid out procedures
for dealing with priests accused of using the confessional to solicit sexual
acts (an update of canon 904 in 1741). While its original focus was on
confessional abuse – a particularly grievous offense – it extended its
protocols to cover ALL sexual misconduct by clergy, including child abuse.
This document mandated strict secrecy:
“Cases of this nature are subject to the strictest pontifical secret –
under pain of excommunication.”
This meant the victims, witnesses, and
Church authorities were all bound by silence, ostensibly to protect the
sacrament and the dignity of the Church. But in practice, this secrecy
protected the perpetrators and silenced the victims.
The same theological instinct that once
prompted Origen to counsel forgiveness now found its legal expression in
institutional concealment.
The Church fathers were not wrong to value
forgiveness. But forgiveness without justice is not sanctity – it is surrender.
And the Church must never surrender the innocent to the sins of the powerful.
THE COST OF MISAPPLIED MERCY
What unites the early Christian response to
personal violation with the institutional culture of silence centuries later is
a tragic misapplication mercy – a prioritizing of the Church's image, or of the
offender's soul, over the immediate demands of justice and the protection of
the innocent.
In the name of forgiveness, the Church
failed to act.
In the name of avoiding scandal, it created
a greater one.
In the name of unity, it tolerates wolves
among the sheep.
The very teachings of Christ – meant to
uphold truth, protect the weak, and heal the broken – were twisted into
realizations for secrecy and inaction.
TOWARD A NEW ETHOS OF ACCOUNTABILITY
The path forward must involve more
than policy reform. It requires a re-examination of the Church's spiritual
instincts – a return to the full Gospel, where mercy and justice walk hand in
hand.
Forgiveness does not mean the abandonment
of truth.
Compassion does not mean the protection of
the predator.
The Church must rediscover the moral courage
to expose evil, even when it dwells in its own house.
EPILOGUE: A WAR ON INNOCENCE
There is a deeper layer to this crisis.
Darker than secrecy. Worse than betrayal. It is diabolical.
Satan hates God. This hatred is total,
consuming and unrelenting. But Satan can't hurt God directly – God is beyond
his reach. So he strikes where it hurts most: at what God loves – CHILDREN.
Jesus told us to let the children come to
Him. Jesus warned about the millstone. So, what then is a perfect way for
Satan's followers to do his bidding and please him, and hate God at the same
time...
VIOLATE A CHILD, and do it wearing the robes of Christ
In this perverse inversion of the
priesthood, the altar becomes a hunting ground, and the confessional, a trap.
[....]
COMMENT: The problem was
magnified in the 1983 Code of Canon Law protecting homosexual predators. Their
hypocrisy is evident when compared to the treatment given to Fr. Samuel Waters.
Homosexual predators are given the full canonical rights of due process while Fr.
Waters was denied canonical due process for the "crime" of offering
the "received and approved" immemorial Roman rite of Mass.
COMMENT: From the 1917 Code
of Canon Law, clerical homosexual predators and other sex offenders who were found guilty were laicized and
turned over to the state for suffer criminal penalties. Such a response was
necessary to restore justice, protect the faithful, and begin the hard work of
rebuilding. Everything changed in 1922 with a new canon law which required all
bishops of the world to violate mandatory reporting laws of the state by
concealing child abuse and homosexuality by clerics from criminal state law
enforcement. This document, Crimens Sollicitationis, was included in
the 1983 Code of Canon Law and remained in force until 2001.
Abp. Vigano the former apostolic nuncio to
the United States was required first by Crimens Sollicitationis and then by Sacramentum Sanctitatis
Tutela of 2001 and then by Graviora Delicta of 2010 to conceal any
knowledge of sexual crimes by clergy from public disclosure. The “Spotlight”
investigation of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church in 2002 revealed that many
clerics found guilty of child sexual abuse were repeatedly returned to Catholic
ministry where they repeated their crimes on new children. Following this
investigation, the United States was the only country that received an
exemption from the Vatican policy to conceal sexual abuse from state criminal
law enforcement.
Canon 1341 of the current 1983 Code of
Canon Law, requires bishops whenever possible to ask priests to stop committing
crimes, instead of punishing them for their actions. What is perhaps worse,
Canon 1324 in the 1983 Code is used to decrease punishment for pedophiles on
the grounds that pedophiles have less freedom than non-pedophiles to control
their perverse passions. Thus, a diagnosis of pedophilia lessens culpability
and imputability of the crime of pedophilia. As a result, bishops have
concluded pedophiles should receive a lesser punishment for pedophilia than
other sex offenders.
The SSPX follows the 1983 Code and has used
it cover up sexual offenders within the SSPX. This includes the former district
superios in the United States for the SSPX, Fr. Arnaud Rostand who was
sentenced to a French prison after conviction of homosexual pederasty in
France, Spain and Switzerland against seven boys on scouting trips between 2002
and 2018. The purpose of this is not detraction of the SSPX but to point out an
ugly fact that every faithful Catholic should be aware of when receiving their
sacraments, attending their schools or participating in their supervised camps
and other summer activities. They as an organization follow the Vatican policy
to cover up any crimes of sexual abuse of children.
"Only the Prudent man can be brave."
Josef Pieper
Pro-abortion Sen. Durbin says he’s ‘overwhelmed’ by Pope Leo’s apparent
defense of his award
‘It is amazing to me. It’s quite a moment,’ Durbin said about Pope Leo appearing
to support the pro-abortion and pro-LGBT senator’s ‘lifetime achievement award’
from Cdl. Blase Cupich.
LifeSiteNews | Emily Mangiaracina | Oct
2, 2025 — Pro-abortion Senator Dick Durbin said he is “overwhelmed” by
Pope Leo XIV’s apparent support for his “lifetime achievement award” from
Cardinal Blase Cupich.
Leo on Tuesday appeared to imply that he
was not opposed to Cupich’s decision to give the award to the radically
pro-abortion and pro-LGBT Durbin, when asked about the matter by a journalist.
“I think that it is very important to look
at the overall work that a senator has done during … 40 years of service in the
United States Senate,” he stated. “I understand the difficulty and the tensions
but I think, as I myself have spoken to in the past, it is important to look at
many issues that are related to what is the teaching of the Church.”
“Someone who says I’m against abortion but
says I’m in favor of the death penalty is not really pro-life. Someone who says
I’m against abortion but I’m in agreement with the inhuman treatment of
immigrants in the United States, I don’t know if that’s pro-life,” Leo then
said. He went on to conclude, “So, they are very complex issues, I don’t know
if anyone has all the truth on them.”
On the same day Leo appeared to defend Sen.
Durbin receiving the lifetime award from Cupich, the pro-abortion politician
announced that he will decline the award from the Archdiocese of Chicago after
facing a strong backlash, including criticism from several U.S. bishops.
Durbin told NBC News he was surprised by
“the level of controversy” over the award, and that he declined it “because the
reaction has been so controversial against the cardinal who proposed it, and I
see no point in going forward with that.”
Commenting on the pope’s defense of his
award, Durbin said, “It is amazing to me. It’s quite a moment. I didn’t expect
it. I didn’t know it was gonna happen.”
As the Lepanto Institute has pointed out on
X, Durbin’s award violates the very laws of Cupich’s archdiocese. Bishop Thomas
Paprocki of Springfield has affirmed, “The U.S. bishops have clearly taught
that support for abortion disqualifies individuals from receiving honors from
Catholic institutions.”
Durbin’s award, and Leo’s failure to
denounce his award, is even more shocking considering that since his election
to the U.S. Senate in 1997, Durbin has supported every possible brutal method
of abortion, as well as even post-abortion infanticide: He voted against the
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act,
and the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.
He also supported legislation aimed at
codifying and expanding Roe v. Wade – the “Women’s Health Protection Act” –
despite the Supreme Court’s ruling that it was unconstitutional.
COMMENT: Pope Leo is defending the
pro-abortion Sen. Durbin while at the same time slandering faithful Catholics.
His appeal to the 'seamless garment,' subsequently called the "consistent
ethic of life," is grounded on the Vatican II novelty that the dignity of
the human person is so great that he is not obligated to believe the truths
that God has revealed or obey the commandments God. The novelty was developed
by his Cardinal Joseph Bernardin of Chicago in 1984 who was a notorious and
clever homosexual who did as much damage to the Church as the notorious
Cardinal Theodore McCarrick. To say as Leo has that Catholics who oppose
abortion are not really pro-life if they do not oppose the death penalty for
convicted murderers is to claim that a murderer has a greater right to life
than his victim. As for opposing unjust wars the homosexual crowd and their
liberal Catholic supporters have done precious little over the last 35
years.
Vatican Council I listing the beneficial Fruits of the
Council of Trent which are in every detail exactly the opposite which we have
seen from Vatican Council II
Now this redemptive providence appears very clearly in unnumbered
benefits, but most especially is it manifested in the advantages which have
been secured for the Christian world by ecumenical councils, among which the council of Trent requires special
mention, celebrated though it was in evil days.
Thence came:
1. a closer definition and more fruitful
exposition of the holy dogmas of religion and
2. the condemnation and repression of errors;
thence too,
3. the restoration and vigorous strengthening
of ecclesiastical discipline,
4. the advancement of the clergy in zeal for
·
learning and
·
piety,
5. the founding of colleges for the training of
the young for the service of religion; and finally
6. the renewal of the moral life of the
Christian people by
· a more accurate instruction of the faithful, and
· a more frequent reception of the sacraments. What is more, thence also
came
7. a closer union of the members with the
visible head, and an increased vigour in the whole Mystical Body of Christ.
Thence came:
1. the multiplication of religious orders and
other organisations of Christian piety; thence too
2. that determined and constant ardour for the
spreading of Christ’s kingdom abroad in the world, even at the cost of shedding
one’s blood.
While we recall with grateful hearts, as is
only fitting, these and other outstanding gains, which the divine mercy has
bestowed on the church especially by means of the last ecumenical synod, we
cannot subdue the bitter grief that we feel at most serious evils, which have
largely arisen either because
o the authority of the sacred synod was held in contempt by all too many,
or because
o its wise decrees were neglected.
First Vatican Council, Dogmatic
Constitution on the Faith, listing some of the manifold beneficial fruits from
the Council of Trent!
Regarding the Sin of Schism
and Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò
There
are no manifest acts of schism with one and only one important exception which
will be identified below. This means there are no acts that are necessarily
always and everywhere evidence of a schismatic motive in the internal forum
excepting one. Contrasted, for example, with abortion and blasphemy which are
acts that are manifest sins because they can never be done with a morally right
intention; the act itself reveals the intent of the internal forum as being
vicious. These are always and everywhere necessarily mortal sins. As St. Paul
says, "Some men's sins are manifest, going before to
judgment: and some men they follow after" (1Tim 5:24). St. Paul gives
specific examples of "manifest sins": "Nor the
effeminate, nor liers with mankind (sodomites), nor thieves, nor covetous, nor
drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of
God" (1 Cor 6:10). What exactly is the schismatic motive that a
contentious canonical process must discover for conviction and attribution of
imputability of the crime?
The
canonical definition for both heresy and schism are taken directly almost
verbatim from St. Thomas Aquinas: "Schismatics are those who refuse to
submit to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to hold communion with those members of
the Church who acknowledge his supremacy." Schism is the repudiation of
the universal jurisdiction of Sovereign Pontiff and communion with those who
accept it. It is the burden of the canonical trial to prove the schismatic
intention for all schismatics are disobedient to the Sovereign Pontiff but not
all who are disobedient to the Sovereign Pontiff are schismatics. St. Thomas'
in his examination identifies schism as a specific species of sin. St. Thomas says, "Hence the sin of schism is,
properly speaking, a special sin, for the reason that the schismatic intends to sever
himself from that unity which is the effect of charity: because charity
unites not only one person to another with the bond of spiritual love, but also
the whole Church in unity of spirit." The genus to which schism belongs is acts opposed to peace which is
the fruit of "that
unity which is the effect of charity." Regarding peace, St. Thomas
continues: "Peace implies a twofold union... The first is the result of
one's own appetites being directed to one object; while the other results from
one's own appetite being united with the appetite of another: and each of these
unions is effected by charity." All acts that disturb the fruit of peace
are directed against the cause of peace which is charity."
Acts
of disobedience against properly constituted authority are only acts of schism
when the intention is to overturn the peace of unity caused by charity. This
intention constitutes the species
difference of schism from other acts opposed to peace, as St. Thomas says, the
schismatic "intends
to separate himself from the unity that charity makes" (Q.39, a.1.) among the faithful. St.
Thomas is offering an essential
definition of schism which is the best of all definitions because it is the
most intelligible because it identifies the essence.
Schism, just as other acts opposed to peace enumerated by St. Thomas, which
include discord, contention,
war, strife and sedition, requires contextualization. Specifically for the case
of Archbishop Viganò, St. Thomas says that morality of contention, which is the opposition to
another in speech, is determined by the intention: "As to the intention,
we must consider whether he contends against the truth, and then he is to be
blamed, or against falsehood, and then he should be praised." Archbishop
Carlo Maria Viganò's "contention" against Pope Francis is the
contention of truth against falsehood and is therefore praiseworthy and not
schismatic. This is why a canonical trial is called "contentious" for
it is intended to reveal who is contending for truth.
The
poles of contention are truth-falsehood which is the same for dogmas of faith.
As St. Jude admonishes: "I was under a necessity to write unto you: to
beseech you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the
saints" (Jude 1:3). Schism is the rejection of the divinely revealed truth
of papal universal jurisdiction, a dogma of faith since Vatican I. Schism is
manifested by disobedience but all disobedience is not schism. Obedience to God
is unqualified. All other acts of obedience are morally good only to the degree
that they are properly regulated by the virtue of Religion which is the primary
subsidiary virtue under Justice. Any act of obedience that violates the virtue
of Religion is a sin. The virtue of Religion above all requires that we
"give unto God the things that are God's." This first and necessary
act of obedience is to believe all that God has revealed and to keep his
commandments. Without this first necessary condition, it is impossible to keep
the greatest commandment to love God above all things and it is impossible to
have "the unity that charity makes."
Archbishop
Carlo Maria Viganò was administratively "excommunicated" for
"schism" because the administrative process avoided the canonical
requirement to prove that his intent was to "separate himself from the
unity that charity makes" among the faithful. They denied the right of
Archbishop Viganò to defend himself in a contentions forum against the charge which would
obviously have included discussing the heretical acts of Pope Francis which are
manifest. The ultimate purpose of the canonical process is to determine truth
and bring those who have deviated from truth back from error. But for many the
contention itself irrespective of truth or falsehood is the manifest evidence
of schism. The reason for this will become clearer after discussing the
relationship in the context of faith and charity, and heresy and schism.
Schismatics
"refuse to submit to the Sovereign Pontiff" because they deny that
the pope possesses universal jurisdiction conferred by God for the legitimate exercise of the
papal office which produces unity and peace. Universal jurisdiction of the pope
is a divinely revealed truth that was dogmatized at Vatican I Council. St.
Thomas says:
"Heresy and schism are distinguished in
respect of those things to which each is opposed essentially and directly. For
heresy is essentially opposed to faith, while schism is essentially opposed to
the unity of ecclesiastical charity. Wherefore just as faith and charity are different virtues, although
whoever lacks faith lacks charity, so too schism and heresy are different
vices, although whoever is a heretic is also a schismatic, but not
conversely."
Since
the universal jurisdiction of the pope has become a dogma at Vatican Council I,
a schismatic is now also conversely always a heretic. Importantly, faith
precedes charity. "Without faith, it is impossible to please God"
(Heb 11-6) because "whoever
lacks faith lacks charity." The keys of universal jurisdiction were
promised to St. Peter after his profession of faith which is its proximate
material cause. Many Church Fathers, such as St. Augustine and St. John
Chrysostom, describe an analogical identity of the rock (petra) with divine
faith, with St. Peter, with Jesus Christ the "cornerstone," and the
Church itself. The faith
proceeds and is the proximate cause of the universal jurisdiction conferred by
Jesus Christ because faith is indispensible to the bond of unity which is
charity. Cardinal Henry Edward
Manning wrote:
“The
interpretation by the Fathers of the words ‘On this rock; etc. is fourfold, but
all four interpretations are not more than four aspects of one and the same
truth, and all are necessary to complete its full meaning. They all implicitly
or explicitly contain the perpetual stability of Peter’s faith...:’
“In
these two promises [i.e. Lk 22:32, Mt 16:18] a divine assistance is pledged to
Peter and to his successors, and that divine assistance is promised to secure
the stability and indefectibiity of the Faith in the supreme Doctor and Head of
the Church, for the general good of the Church itself.”
Cardinal
Henry Edward Manning, “The Vatican Council and Its Definitions: A Pastoral
Letter to the Clergy”, p. 83-84, 1870
All this is nicely summed up by St. Paul who
admonishes "that you walk worthy of the vocation in which you are called;
With all humility and mildness, with patience, supporting one another in
charity. Careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the
bond of peace. One body and one Spirit; as you are called in one hope of
your calling. One Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Eph. 4:1-5). The primary and essential cause and sign of
the unity in the Church is the faith. The pope is only secondarily and
accidentally the sign and cause of unity in the Church. If the pope falls from
the faith he is to be confronted as St. Paul did to St. Peter when he
"walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel" and accommodated
the Judaizers leading others into "dissimulation" (Gal. 2:11). If the
pope is a heretic he "lacks faith (and) lacks charity". Without
charity he breaks the bond of unity in the Church and necessarily becomes
schismatic. Manifest Heresy is the one and only sin that identifies a
schismatic because it manifests a schismatic intent.
Tikkun olam (Hebrew תיקון עולם,
literally, 'repair of the world') is
a concept in Judaism, often interpreted as aspiration to behave and act
constructively and beneficially. Documented use of the term dates back to the
Mishnaic period (ca. 10-220 AD), (that is, the time when the oral traditions of
the Jews were committed to the written form in the Mishna, also called the Oral
Torah). Since medieval times, kabbalistic literature has broadened use of the
term. In the modern era, among the post-Haskalah (Jewish enlightenment,
1770-1880) movements, tikkun olam is the idea that Jews bear responsibility not
only for their own moral, spiritual, and material welfare, but also for the
welfare of society at large. For many contemporary pluralistic rabbis, the term
refers to "Jewish social justice" or "the establishment of Godly
qualities throughout the world". Wikipedia
COMMENT: Jews repeatedly since the
time of Jesus Christ are the passionate creators and principle instigators of ideological
movements conceived as necessary for the moral and material improvement of
political and social order. When one after the other proves to be a political
and social failure, it is simply dropped and they move on to another. They
recognize a ‘fall from grace’ because they recognize the ‘world needs to be
repaired.’ Since they have rejected Jesus Christ, the incarnate Logos, the
eternal Wisdom of the Father, they have rejected His divine plan for the
‘repair of the world’ and in its place offer what Fr. Denis Fahey, C.S.Sp.
described as “Organized Naturalism” in opposition to the Supernatural Order of
Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, the truth of the matter is that whoever is not
working for God is working for the Devil. There is no middle ground. As Jesus
said, “He that is not with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with
me, scattereth” (Matthew 12:30).
Where Tikkun Olam
can lead
OPINION: Stalin’s Jews
We mustn't forget that some
of greatest murderers of modern times were Jewish
Israel News | ynetnews | Sever Plocker
Here's
a particularly forlorn historical date: More than 100 years ago, between the
19th and 20th of December 1917, in the midst of the Bolshevik revolution and
civil war, Lenin signed a decree calling for the establishment of The
All-Russian Extraordinary Commission for Combating Counter-Revolution and
Sabotage, also known as Cheka.
Within a short period of time, Cheka became
the largest and cruelest state security organization. Its organizational
structure was changed every few years, as were its names: From Cheka to GPU,
later to NKVD, and later to KGB.
We cannot know with certainty the number of
deaths Cheka was responsible for in its various manifestations, but the number
is surely at least 20 million, including victims of the forced
collectivization, the hunger, large purges, expulsions, banishments,
executions, and mass death at Gulags.
Whole population strata were eliminated:
Independent farmers, ethnic minorities, members of the bourgeoisie, senior
officers, intellectuals, artists, labor movement activists, "opposition
members" who were defined completely randomly, and countless members of
the Communist party itself.
In his new, highly praised book "The
War of the World," Historian Niall Ferguson writes that no revolution in
the history of mankind devoured its children with the same unrestrained
appetite as did the Soviet revolution. In his book on the Stalinist purges, Tel
Aviv University's Dr. Igal Halfin writes that Stalinist violence was unique in
that it was directed internally.
Lenin, Stalin, and their successors could
not have carried out their deeds without wide-scale cooperation of disciplined
"terror officials," cruel interrogators, snitches, executioners,
guards, judges, perverts, and many bleeding hearts who were members of the
progressive Western Left and were deceived by the Soviet regime of horror and
even provided it with a kosher certificate.
All these things are well-known to some
extent or another, even though the former Soviet Union's archives have not yet
been fully opened to the public. But who knows about this? Within Russia
itself, very few people have been brought to justice for their crimes in the
NKVD's and KGB's service. The Russian public discourse today completely ignores
the question of "How could it have happened to us?" As opposed to
Eastern European nations, the Russians did not settle the score with their
Stalinist past.
And us, the Jews? An Israeli student
finishes high school without ever hearing the name "Genrikh Yagoda,"
the greatest Jewish murderer of the 20th Century, the GPU's deputy commander
and the founder and commander of the NKVD. Yagoda diligently implemented
Stalin's collectivization orders and is responsible for the deaths of at least
10 million people. His Jewish deputies established and managed the Gulag
system. After Stalin no longer viewed him favorably, Yagoda was demoted and
executed, and was replaced as chief hangman in 1936 by Yezhov, the
"bloodthirsty dwarf."
Yezhov was not Jewish but was blessed with
an active Jewish wife. In his Book "Stalin: Court of the Red Star",
Jewish historian Sebag Montefiore writes that during the darkest period of
terror, when the Communist killing machine worked in full force, Stalin was
surrounded by beautiful, young Jewish women.
Stalin's close associates and loyalists
included member of the Central Committee and Politburo Lazar Kaganovich.
Montefiore characterizes him as the "first Stalinist" and adds that
those starving to death in Ukraine, an unparalleled tragedy in the history of
human kind aside from the Nazi horrors and Mao's terror in China, did not move
Kaganovich.
Many Jews sold
their soul to the devil of the Communist revolution and have blood on their
hands for eternity. We'll mention just one more: Leonid Reichman, head of the
NKVD's special department and the organization's chief interrogator, who was a
particularly cruel sadist.
In 1934, according to published statistics,
38.5 percent of those holding the most senior posts in the Soviet security
apparatuses were of Jewish origin. They too, of course, were gradually
eliminated in the next purges. In a fascinating lecture at a Tel Aviv
University convention this week, Dr. Halfin described the waves of soviet
terror as a "carnival of mass murder," "fantasy of purges",
and "essianism of evil." Turns out that Jews too, when they become
captivated by messianic ideology, can become great murderers, among the
greatest known by modern history.
The Jews active in official communist
terror apparatuses (In the Soviet Union and abroad) and who at times led them,
did not do this, obviously, as Jews, but rather, as Stalinists, communists, and
"Soviet people." Therefore, we find it easy to ignore their origin
and "play dumb": What do we have to do with them? But let's not
forget them. My own view is different. I find it unacceptable that a person
will be considered a member of the Jewish people when he does great things, but
not considered part of our people when he does amazingly despicable
things.
Even if we deny it, we cannot escape the
Jewishness of "our hangmen," who served the Red Terror with loyalty
and dedication from its establishment. After all, others will always remind us
of their origin.
“Don’t Jews still believe in a Messias to come?” asks the credulous
Christian. “And don’t they believe in the same Biblical Heaven and Hell that we
do?”
The answer to both these questions is — no.
And it is an emphatic “No!” as the subsequent Jewish testimony will verify.
Concerning
the Messias: The Jews of today reject the notion of a personal
redeemer who will be born of them and lead them to the fulfillment of the Old
Testament prophecies. The Jews believe that the whole Jewish race is to be
elevated to a position of prosperity and overlordship and that, when this happy
day arrives (the Messianic Age), they will have achieved all that is coming to
them by way of savior and salvation. In his recent book, The Messianic Idea in Israel, Jewish theologian Dr. Joseph Klausner
explains: “Thus the whole people Israel in the form of the elect of the nations
gradually became the
Messiah of the world, the redeemer of mankind.”
Concerning
Heaven and Hell: A succinct summary of Jewish teaching on
“life after death” was given in the May, 1958 issue of B’nai B’rith’s National
Jewish Monthly. Under the caption, “What Can A Modern Jew Believe?” there appeared: “Judaism
insists that ‘heaven’ must be established on this earth. The reward of the
pious is life and happiness in this world, while the punishment of the wicked
is misery on earth and premature death … By hitching its star to the Messianic
future on this earth, Israel became the eternal people.” The article goes on:
“The best Jewish minds have always held that a physical hereafter is a
detraction from mature belief.” And the conclusion: “There is neither hell nor
paradise, God merely sends out the sun in its full strength; the wicked are
consumed by its heat, while the pious find delight and healing in its rays.”
Fr. Leonard Feeney, MICM, The Point, October
1958
Mons. Carlo Maria Viganò: Replies to the claim that obedience is
unqualified even when the faith itself is in question!!
NON SEQUITUR
Further Clarifications in Response to the Reply of
Prof. Daniele Trabucco
I can only agree with almost everything that Professor Trabucco has stated in
response to my comment [1]. As he writes at the Duc in Altum blog [2]:
A saint who obeys a disciplinary measure that is unjust but not
contrary to faith (as in the case of Padre Pio) performs an act of heroic
self-denial, because he recognizes that even in harshness and iniquity, a
command does not break the bond with the revealed deposit of faith. The
situation, however, is different when an ecclesiastical authority commands
something that contradicts faith: in that case, the order is no longer
authentically disciplinary but is transformed into a deviation that strikes at
the very rationale of the authority. Here, refusal is not rebellion, but
fidelity.
Given that this principle is valid – and
which I agree with sine glossa – I find it difficult to accept as valid the
exception that Trabucco adds immediately afterwards:
However […] such refusal can never translate into schismatic acts, nor
into attitudes that cause public scandal. For if it is true that discipline and
faith complement each other, it is equally true that discipline, as a visible
order, also serves to preserve the unity of the Church. And unity is part of
the supernatural common good of the Mystical Body. Therefore, the truth of
faith cannot be defended at the cost of tearing apart ecclesial communion.
It is true that “discipline, as a visible
order, also serves to safeguard the unity of the Church. And unity is part of
the supernatural common good of the Mystical Body.” But the unity achieved
through obedience is the effect, not the cause, of the profession of the same
Faith: the faithful are united in the Church under the authority of the Roman
Pontiff because they believe the same doctrine, not the other way around. And
this is the error that undermines Professor Trabucco’s argument on obedience.
The refusal to obey an ecclesiastical authority, when that authority commands
something that contradicts the Faith, cannot constitute an attack on unity,
because it is the illegitimate order of the Superior that is schismatic and
scandalous in nature, not the disobedience of the subject who remains faithful
to God.
If the refusal to obey an illegitimate authority or order “is not rebellion,
but fidelity”; if the Regula Fidei is the supreme principle that finds its
rationale in the Truth coessential and consubstantial with God [3]; if
obedience itself, as a moral virtue, is ordered toward the good and therefore
toward the Truth – because Faith and discipline, as Professor Trabucco states,
“though different in object, are united in purpose: the glory of God and the
salvation of souls” – how can the Professor affirm: “Therefore, one cannot
defend the truth of faith at the cost of tearing apart ecclesial communion”?
Given an absolute principle, how is it possible to derogate from it with an
exception that makes unity in obedience absolute while the Truth becomes
relative and secondary to obedience?
In fact, just the opposite is true: ecclesial communion cannot be defended at
the cost of tearing apart the Truth of the Faith, because it is obedience that
is ordered to the Faith, and not vice versa [4].
I would add that anyone who contradicts, adulterates, or silences the Faith is
the first to cause scandal, especially if he finds himself in the position of
exercising coercive force as an ecclesiastical Superior over a priest or
religious. It is the duty of every baptized person to defend and proclaim sound
doctrine and to denounce anyone in authority who abuses it, causing grave
scandal to the common people. They are rightly accustomed to
obeying—instinctively, I would almost say—the authority of the Hierarchy and
consider its deviation unthinkable under normal circuмstances. This is
especially true for the priest subject to the jurisdiction of his Superiors and
the sanctions they can impose: dutiful disobedience to an abusive and illicit
order entails canonical sanctions for anyone who dutifully resists, as Trabucco
hopes. This punishment of the disobedient is the scandal – not the act of
denouncing the corruption of ecclesiastical authority. Just as it is a scandal
that heretics, schismatics, corrupt individuals, and notorious fornicators are
not prosecuted but rather encouraged, while anyone who denounces the crisis,
identifies its causes, and identifies those responsible, who have fraudulently
held power for sixty years and can abuse it at will, is declared schismatic and
excommunicated.
The Communion of Saints—which is the archetype and model of ecclesial
communion—is founded in God, who is Truth, not obedience. God is not obedient, because
that would presuppose an authority superior to Him. The obedience of the
Son—factus obœdiens usque ad mortem (Phil 2:8)—is a unity of will (idem velle)
between the Three Divine Persons, without an internal hierarchical relationship
between Them [5]. At the same time, God is the primary recipient of all
obedience, because by obeying the Superiors to whom He has granted authority,
we also obey God. But obedience cannot exist if the Superior who asks to be
obeyed does not in turn recognize God’s authority over himself. Such obedience
would accept the premise, even if only theoretical, of being able to disobey
God in order to obey men, contravening the precept of Saint Peter (Acts 5:29)
and making earthly authority self-referential and therefore potentially
tyrannical. In this, the concept of synodality is shown to be absolutely
subversive of the order willed by God, in that it tampers with the monarchical
structure of the Church—on the model of Christ the King and Pontiff who is her
Head—by placing sovereignty in the hands of “the people” (even if in reality,
power, as in civil republics, is in the hands of an elite) and by affirming
“that Christ wanted His Church to be governed in the manner of a republic.” [6]
Only universal submission to a true and good God makes obedience a sure means
of sanctity for those who obey their Superiors. And this is why we have both
reason and the Sensus Fidei: to discern when obedience is a virtuous act and
when instead “it transforms into a deviation that strikes at the very rationale
of authority.”
If Professor Trabucco recognizes the possibility that ecclesiastical superiors
may issue orders contrary to Faith or Morals (a possibility confirmed by daily
abuses of authority against traditional Catholics and the equally daily
tolerance of unprecedented scandals), he must also acknowledge the possibility
that subordinates may reject the illegitimate orders of their superiors. The
Church’s hierarchical ladder allows for appeal to a higher authority when one
finds oneself in conflict with another authority subordinate to it. But if the
highest echelons of the hierarchical ladder—in this case, the Roman Pontiff and
the Roman Dicasteries—are themselves implicated in a general subversion of the
Faith (beginning with Leo’s recent declaration that “we must change attitudes”
before we can change doctrine [7]), it is clear that hierarchical recourse is
impracticable and that no earthly authority can remedy the disobedience of
those who are Superiors.
In a nutshell: amidst the obvious general disobedience of Church Authority to
God’s law at all levels, how can a priest or a simple believer subjected to
this Authority remain obedient to it, if one is still bound to continue to obey
God rather than men?
The true h0Ɩ0cαųst of the will that the mystics speak of is
this: knowing how to be obedient unto death, even death on a cross, in
obedience to God. But never, under any circuмstances, can one even
imagine sycophantically obeying heretical and schismatic Superiors, for fear of
shattering “with acts of a schismatic nature” the apparent unity of their
church. Because the unity they claim is a simulacrum, a fiction, a grotesque
imposture hiding the indifferentism of the synodal pantheon, which includes
both the conservatives of Summorum Pontificuм as well as the LGBTQ+
progressives of James Martin, both Our Lady of Fatima as well as the Pachamama,
the Mass of the ages along with the Novus Ordo. The only inalienable dogma is
that everyone must recognize the Second Vatican Council: its ecclesiology, its
morality, its liturgy, its saints and martyrs, and above all its excommunicated
people and its heretics—that is, the “radical traditionalists” who refuse to be
tamed by the new synodal demands. As for the rest of what we believe, Leo has
explicitly said that one can safely gloss over it in the name of
ecuмenical and synodal unity, including the Filioque of the Creed. But
not Vatican II: it is the founding act of a church born in 1962 which claims
the authority of the True Church, from whose Magisterium, however, it distances
itself and opposes it.
We therefore find ourselves before an Authority—the supreme authority—that is
clearly disobedient to Christ, the Head of the Mystical Body, but which,
usurping Christ’s authority, claims to decide in what respects those subject to
it must obey it, disobeying God’s commands.
Can we even imagine recognizing this authority as legitimate and owing it
obedience, lest we tear apart the “unity” that the Hierarchy has already
shattered with its own disobedience to God? How could we possibly ratify its
abuses, making ourselves accomplices of those who are betraying the Truth?
+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop, 23 September 2025
NOTE
1 – Cfr. https://exsurgedomine.it/250917-trabucco-ita/
2 – Cfr. https://www.aldomariavalli.it/2025/09/21/a-proposito-di-obbedienza-note-sulle-osservazioni-di-monsignor-vigano/
3 – Saint Augustine, De Trinitate, VIII, 2: God is truth itself – ipsa veritas
–, and everything that is true comes from Him, because He is the origin of all
truth.
4 – The decree of the Holy Office of 20 December 1949 condemning the
ecuмenical movement also recalls this: This unity cannot be achieved
except in the recognition of Catholic truth.
5 – Saint Augustine, In Joannis Evangelium tractatus, 51, 8: Christ’s obedience
is not a diminution of His divinity, but an expression of His perfect union
with the Father, for the will of the Son is one with that of the Father.
6 – Pius VI, Brief Super Soliditate of 28 November 1786 condemning Febronianism.
This doctrine fits into the context of the Enlightenment and the tensions
between the temporal power of states and the authority of the Catholic Church,
promoting a vision that limited the primacy of the Pope and strengthened the
autonomy of national Churches and local bishops. Febronius (the pseudonym of
Johann Nikolaus von Hontheim, Bishop of Trier) argued that the authority of the
Pope was not absolute, but derived from the universal Church, understood as the
community of the faithful and bishops. Febronianism also influenced the Council
of Pistoia (1786), in which there appeared heretical demands that are
substantially identical to those that would re-appear in Vatican II.
7 – Cfr. https://chiesaepostconcilio.blogspot.com/2025/09/papa-leone-parla-con-elise-ann-allen-di.html
8 – Cfr. https://youtube.com/watch?v=IkPJn2L9BBs&si=oGcPhGwR5nxQ6jva
TO KNOW THE FAITH, YOU MUST
KNOW THE RULE
The Rule of
Faith was given to the Church in the very act of Revelation and its
promulgation by the Apostles. But for this Rule to have an actual and permanently
efficient character, it must be continually promulgated and enforced by the
living Apostolate, which must exact from all members of the Church a docile
Faith in the truths of Revelation authoritatively proposed, and thus unite the
whole body of the Church, teachers and taught, in perfect unity of Faith. Hence
the original promulgation is the remote Rule of Faith, and the continuous
promulgation by the Teaching Body, (i.e.: DOGMA) is the proximate Rule.
Rev. Scheeben’s
Manual of Catholic Theology
“O Timothy, keep that which is
committed to thy trust, avoiding
the profane novelties of words, and oppositions of knowledge falsely so
called. Which some
promising, have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.” St. Paul,
letter to his disciple, Bishop St. Timothy (1 Timothy 6:20-21)
... We wish to make our own the
important words employed by the Council; those words which define its spirit,
and, in a dynamical synthesis, form the spirit of all those who refer to it, be
they within or without the Church. The word “NOVELTY”,
simple, very dear to today’s men, is much utilized; it is theirs... That
word... it was given to us as an order, as a program... It comes to us directly
from the pages of the Holy Scripture: “For, behold (says the Lord), I create
new heavens and a new earth”. St. Paul echoes these words of the prophet Isaiah
(II Corinthians 5, 17); then, the Apocalypse: “I am making everything new” (II
Corinthians 21, 5). And Jesus, our Master, was not He, himself, an innovator?
“You have heard that people were told in the past ... but now I
tell you...” (Matthew 5) – Repeated in the “Sermon on the Mount”.
It
is precisely thus that the Council has come to us. Two terms characterize it:
“RENOVATION” and “REVISION”. We are particularly keen that this “spirit of
renovation” – according to the expression of the Council – be understood and
experienced by everyone. It responds to the characteristic of our time, wholly
engaged in an enormous and rapid transformation, and generating novelties in
every sector of modern life. In fact, one cannot shy away from this spontaneous
reflection: if the whole world is changing, will not religion change as well?
Between the reality of life and Christianity, Catholicism especially, is not there
reciprocal disagreement, indifference, misunderstanding, and hostility? The
former is leaping forward; the latter would not move. How could they go along?
How could Christianity claim to have, today, any influence upon life?
And
it is for this reason that the Church has undertaken some reforms, especially
after the Council. The Episcopate is about to promote the “renovation” that
corresponds to our present needs; Religious Orders are reforming their
Statutes; Catholic laity is qualified and found its role within the life of the
Church; Liturgy is proceeding with a reform in which anyone knows the extension
and importance; Christian education reviews the methods of its pedagogy; all
the canonical legislations are about to be revised. And how many other
consoling and promising novelties we shall see appearing in the Church! They
attest to Her new vitality, which shows that the Holy Spirit animates Her
continually, even in these years so crucial to religion. The development of
ecumenism, guided by Faith and Charity, itself says what progress, almost
unforeseeable, has been achieved during the course and life of the Church. The
Church looks at the future with Her heart brimming with hope, brimming with
fresh expectation in love... We can say... of the Council: It marks the onset
of a new era, of which no one can deny the new aspects that We have indicated
to you.
Pope
Paul VI, General Audience of July 2, 1969
And Then, Only Three Years
Later:
Through
some cracks the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God: there is doubt,
uncertainty, problematic, anxiety, confrontation. One does not trust the Church
anymore; one trusts the first prophet that comes to talk to us from some
newspapers or some social movement, and then rush after him and ask him if he
held the formula of real life. And we fail to perceive, instead, that we are
the masters of life already. Doubt has entered our conscience, and it has
entered through windows that were supposed to be opened to the light
instead....
Even
in the Church this state of uncertainty rules. One thought that after the
Council there would come a shiny day for the history of the Church. A cloudy
day came instead, a day of tempest, gloom, quest, and uncertainty. We preach
ecumenism and drift farther and farther from the others. We attempt to dig
abysses instead of filling them.
How
has all this come about? We confide to you our thought: there has been the
intervention of a hostile power. His name is the Devil; this mysterious being
who is alluded to even in the letter of St. Peter. So many times, on the other
hand, in the Gospel, on the very lips of Christ, there recurs the mention of
this enemy of man. We believe in something supernatural (post-correction:
“preternatural”!), coming into the world precisely to disturb, to suffocate
anything of the Ecumenical Council, and to prevent that the Church would
explode into the hymn of joy for having regained full consciousness of Herself
(!!).
Pope
Paul VI, June 29, 1972
Pope Leo on LGBTQ: ‘We have to change attitudes before we ever change
doctrine’
In this first extended interview he’s just done with Crux Now, Leo XIV
has basically said that the Church’s teaching on sexual morality could change.
LifeSiteNews
| Sep 18, 2025
Friends,
you are not going to believe this.
In
this first extended interview he’s just done with Crux Now, Leo XIV
has basically said that the Church’s teaching on sexual morality could change.
He actually even went there and implied that he could – in his words – “change
the Church’s teaching” on women’s ordination.
Take
a listen to what he said first on sexual morality. This is what he says after
having been talking about LGBT issues for a while:
People want the Church doctrine to
change, want attitudes to change. I think we have to change attitudes before we
ever change doctrine.
That’s
right, he’s strongly implying – well, he’s saying – that
Church teaching could shift, if attitudes change first.
Might
that be why we’ve had so much LGBT stuff in Rome lately, from Fr. James Martin
to the LGBT pilgrimage? Are they trying to get our “attitudes to change”?
And
what do you think the so-called “LGBT Catholics” are hearing when they hear Leo saying such a thing? It’s a very
clear invitation and instruction: work to change attitudes, then we can change
the teaching. Wow.
And
rather than stating such changes were impossible, Leo said he thought it
was unlikely that it would happen soon:
I find it highly unlikely, certainly in
the immediate future, that the Church’s doctrine in terms of what the Church
teaches about sexuality, what the Church teaches about marriage [will change].
Later,
instead of stating that the Church’s teaching could not change, he
merely said that he thought that it would remain the same:
I think that the Church’s teaching will
continue as it is, and that’s what I have to say about that for right now.
You think it’s
going to continue as it is? Aren’t you supposed to be the Pope – the one
responsible for making sure that it continues as it is?
Look
friends, this is just stunning. Catholic teaching on sexual morality –
including the sinfulness of homosexual acts, as well as fornication, adultery
and others – aren’t matters of probabilities or personal conjecture, or
contingent and waiting to be changed.
They’re
definitive, grounded in both the natural law and divine revelation – and so
they’re incapable of being changed.
Reason
alone tells us that sexual activity outside marriage – and thus, obviously, all
sexual activity between two same sex couples – is contrary to the natural law.
This
is also and separately a dogma – divinely revealed in Scripture and
proposed by the universal ordinary magisterium of the Church.
Vatican
I taught that such truths which are to be believed with divine and Catholic
faith.
Female ordination
Leo
also talked about the possibility of the ordination of women to the diaconate
in similar terms:
What the synod had spoken about specifically
was the ordination, perhaps, of women deacons, which has been a question that’s
been studied for many years now. There’ve been different commissions appointed
by different popes to say, what can we do about this? I think that will
continue to be an issue.
Ok,
so in the early Church, there was indeed an office of “deaconess” – but
everyone knows that these women were not ordained to any sacramental holy
order of the diaconate.
But
Leo calls even this into question by equating the female diaconate with that of
the permanent diaconate established after the Second Vatican Council. He gives
a long anecdote about meeting deacons and their wives in Rome before
concluding:
[T]here are parts of the world that
never really promoted the permanent deaconate, and that itself became a
question: Why would we talk about ordaining women to the diaconate if the
diaconate itself is not yet properly understood and properly developed and
promoted within the church?
He
also expressed his willingness for study and debate on the matter to continue,
saying he was “certainly
willing to continue to listen to people,” and pointing to the study
groups in Rome on the subject. “We’ll walk with that and see what comes,” he said.
But
do you know what’s even more shocking? Leo said this:
I at the moment don’t have an intention
of changing the teaching of the Church on the topic.
Friends,
if you say a thing like that, it’s clear what you think. You’re saying
you do have the power to “change the teaching of the Church.”
The immutability of dogma
But
the teaching of the Church says that this isn’t possible. Can that be changed
too?
Vatican
I denied that the Pope could change the Church’s teaching or
introduce new dogmas. It taught:
For the holy Spirit was promised to the
successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some
new doctrine.
It
goes on to say that the purpose of the papacy is to safeguard and preserve the
deposit of faith. Not to consider whether the time is right to change it.
Oh,
some will say, we’re not talking about changes. This is just a development
of dogma.
Come
on. That’s what they always say to justify this stuff. And anyway, Leo was
pretty clear: he’s the one who was talking about changing Church teaching.
And
anyway, that defense is excluded too. There’s a legitimate sense of the
development of doctrine, but changing the meanings of dogmas to something
totally different isn’t it.
Such
an idea has been condemned time and again by the Church.
Pope Pius IX condemned, in the Syllabus of Errors, the idea that divine
revelation is “subject to a continual and indefinite progress.”
Vatican I declared that the “meaning
of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained” and that “there must never be
any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more
profound understanding.”
That same
Council anathematized anyone who says dogma can be assigned “a sense
different from that which the Church has understood and understands.”
Pope St Pius X cited all these
teachings in his encyclical Pascendi
Dominici Gregis against Modernism.
In his Oath
Against Modernism, he also required clergy to profess that dogma is handed
down “in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport.”
This oath also states that the idea “that
dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one
which the Church held previously” is a – get this –
“heretical misrepresentation.”
Grave implications
“Heretical”
is a big word. But the truth is clear: homosexual acts are intrinsically
disordered, marriage is between one man and one woman, and these teachings
cannot change.
As
I said above, both the Church’s teaching on sexual morality, and the
immutability of dogma are the sorts of truths we have to believe with divine
and Catholic faith.
The
censure attached to the obstinate denial or doubt of such truths is
indeed heresy. (Can. 751 of 1983 CIC, Can. 1325 of 1917 CIC)
So,
where does that leave us?
The
hugely problematic situation of Leo XIV raising hopes for an impossible change
in the future.
And
claiming the power to change Church teaching, which he certainly does not have.
And…
publicly doubting (or even denying) these two sets of truths in a video
interview – which, as I said, is heresy.
You
know what St. Paul said about those who try to introduce new dogmas, doctrines
or Gospels:
If I, or an angel from heaven, preach to
you a Gospel different to that which we have preached to you, which you have
received: let him be anathema.
COMMENT: The very essence of the Modernist heresy is the denial of immutability
of dogma because they deny that dogma is divine revelation of an immutabile
truth from an immutable God. The Modernist believe that dogma is not a truth
revealed by God but rather a human expression of the subjective religious sentiment
and therefore dogma must change over time as the human sentiment changes. Leo
the Heretic professes that the "attitudes" of Catholics will change
only gradually. therefore, when there is a sufficient number expressing the new
attitude then the dogmas will change to express the new religious attitude. It
is absolutely impossible to hold this belief and be a faithful Catholic at the
same time. Leo is just another Bergoglian who will bring ruin to himself and
others.
Pope Leo is now the CEO of the same HomoLobby his
predecessor chaired! It is impossible to be a defender of homosexuality and a
Catholic at the same time.
Bishop Schneider: Vatican ‘LGBTQ pilgrimage’ an ‘abomination,’ Pope Leo
must make ‘public reparation’
Pope Leo must ‘urgently’ make reparation after the Vatican endorsed an
LGBT Jubilee ‘pilgrimage’ and allowed unrepentant homosexuals to pass the Holy
Doors at St. Peter’s, Bishop Schneider said.
LifeSiteNews | Sept 10, 2025— Bishop
Athanasius Schneider expressed “horror” at the Vatican’s endorsement of the
“LGBTQ Jubilee pilgrimage,” rebuking priests who support homosexuality as
“spiritual criminals” and “murderers of souls.”
“My
reaction was a silent cry of horror, indignation, and sorrow,” the auxiliary of
Astana, Kazakhstan, said regarding the Vatican’s approval of an LGBT-themed
“pilgrimage” on its Jubilee website, in an interview with Diane Montagna, a
journalist in Rome.
Montagna had highlighted the fact that
photos captured an array of rainbow paraphernalia in St. Peter’s Basilica, as
well homosexual male couple “brazenly holding hands there, one with a backpack
saying F*** the Rules,” at the conclusion of their “pilgrimage.”
What took place there could be described as
an “abomination of desolation standing in the holy place,” in the words of
Christ (cf. Mt. 24:15), said Bishop Schneider.
He pointed out that the embrace of
homosexuality by these “pilgrims” contradicted one of the very key meanings of
the Jubilee Year and the Holy Door: “Leading man to conversion and penance,” as
Pope John Paul II explained in the Bull of Indiction of the Holy Year
2000.
“There were no signs of repentance and
renunciation of objectively grave homosexual sins … on the part of the
organizers and participants in this pilgrimage,” noted Schneider. “To pass through
the Holy Door and participate in the Jubilee without repentance, while
promoting an ideology that openly rejects God’s Sixth Commandment, constitutes
a kind of desecration of the Holy Door and a mockery of God and the gift of an
indulgence.”
The bishop had strong words for the Vatican
authorities who “collaborated de facto” in this open rejection of God’s
commandment, expressed aptly in the “f*** the rules” message.
“They stood by and allowed God to be mocked
and His commandments to be scornfully cast aside,” said Schneider.
When asked to compare it to the Pachamama
scandal, he noted that while direct transgression of the First Commandment is
even more grave, the endorsement of sodomy – a sin that cries to Heaven for
vengeance – “amounts to a form of indirect idolatry.”
“Both events must be publicly repaired by
the Pope himself. This is urgently needed, before it is too late, for God will
not be mocked,” said the bishop.
Bishop Francesco Savino, vice president of
the Italian Bishops Conference, welcomed “everyone” to receive Holy Communion
at a Mass for the “pilgrims,” Montagna then pointed out. Schneider affirmed
that assent to “all of the Church’s teaching” is a precondition for receiving
Christ in the Eucharist, as was expressed by St. Paul: “Anyone who eats and
drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. (1 Cor.
11:29).
He added that this has been clearly stated
by the Catechism of the
Catholic Church: “Anyone aware of having sinned mortally must not receive
Communion without having received absolution in the sacrament of penance”
(n.1415).
Furthermore, it notes, “Sacred Scripture
‘presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, [and] tradition has
always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.… Under no
circumstances can they be approved’ (n. 2357).”
Thus, by granting these LGBT groups passage
through the Holy Door and approving their “pilgrimage,” Vatican authorities in
effect rejected “the very doctrine they are bound to uphold.”
Schneider said his message for participants
in the LGBT “pilgrimage” is one of compassion, and he called for all Christians
to show compassion towards not just those living homosexual lifestyles, but
those who support its legitimization and “persist in it unrepentant and even
proudly.”
“For when a person consciously rejects
God’s explicit commandment prohibiting any sexual activity outside a valid
marriage, he places himself in the gravest danger – that of losing eternal life
and being eternally condemned to Hell,” said the prelate.
“True love for such persons consists in
calling them, gently yet persistently, to genuine conversion to God’s revealed
will,” he continued, adding that such people are “ultimately unhappy” even when
they have suppressed their conscience.
“We must be filled with great zeal to save
these souls, to free them from poisonous deceits. Those priests who confirm
them in their homosexual activity or in a homosexual lifestyle are spiritual
criminals, murderers of souls, and God will demand a strict account from them,”
Schneider declared.
To those who defend Pope Leo XIV amid the
Vatican’s approval of the LGBT scandalous “pilgrimage” because he did not
receive a delegation from them or send them a message, Schneider said that “one
cannot reasonably presume naivety on his part,” because it was “entirely
foreseeable” that an LGBT activist group would take advantage of the Holy Door
to promote their sinful lifestyle.
Furthermore, by meeting with Father James
Martin, S.J., a heretical pro-LGBT priest, as well as pro-homosexual “marriage”
Sister Lucia Caram, Pope Leo XIV has expressed that he is not opposed to their
“heterodox and scandalous teaching and behavior – particularly since the Holy
See offered no clarification afterward and did not correct Fr. James Martin’s
triumphant messages circulated on social media,” noted Schneider.
He pointed out that in doing so, Pope Leo
XIV broke with the precedent of all popes before Francis, who “neither received
officially nor posed for photographs with those who, by word or deed, openly
rejected the doctrinal and moral teaching of the Church.”
“There is a common saying that goes: ‘Qui
tacet consentire videtur’ – ’He who is silent is taken to agree,’” Schneider
added.
The prelate called upon all Catholics to
“make a collective act of reparation for the outrage committed against the
sanctity of God’s house and the holiness of His commandments,” and implored
Pope Leo XIV to follow in the footsteps of Pope John Paul II, who Montagna
noted had denounced the first “World Pride” event in Rome during the Great
Jubilee of 2000.
“Should Pope Leo XIV make public acts of
regret and even reparation, he will lose nothing; should he fail to do so, he
will forfeit something before the eyes of God – and God alone matters,” said
Schneider.
“May Our Holy Father Pope Leo XIV take to
heart the following words of Our Lord which He once spoke through St. Bridget
of Sweden to one of his predecessors (Pope Gregory XI)”:
Uproot, pluck out and destroy all the vices of your court! Separate
yourself from the counsel of carnal-minded and worldly friends and follow
humbly the spiritual counsel of My friends. Get up like a man and clothe
yourself confidently in strength! Start to reform the Church that I purchased
with My Own Blood in order that it may be reformed and led back spiritually to
its pristine state of holiness, for nowadays more veneration is shown to a
brothel than to My Holy Church. My son, heed My counsel. If you obey Me in what
I told you, I will welcome you mercifully like a loving father. Bravely
approach the way of justice and you shall prosper. Do not despise the One Who
loves you. If you obey, I will show you mercy and bless and dress you and adorn
you with the precious pontifical regalia of a holy pope. I shall clothe you
with Myself in such a way that you will be in Me and I in you, and you shall be
glorified in eternity (The Book of Revelations, Book IV, chap. 149).
Argumentum ex concessis
Notes in the Margin of an
Article by Abbé Claude Barthe
For if you live according to the flesh,
you will die;
but if by the Spirit
you put to death the deeds of the flesh, you will live.
Rom 8: 13
The
essay by Abbé Claude Barthe’s, recently published in an Italian translation at
Aldo Maria Valli’s blog Duc in altum [1], deserves some attention.
What is most interesting in it is not so much his assessment of the newly
elected Leo XIV, nor the pragmatic realism with which he recognizes Prevost’s
continuity with his predecessor or calls for a loosening of restrictions on the
traditional liturgy.
Abbé Barthe writes:
There is a paradox, even a risk, for
those who invoke freedom for the traditional liturgy and catechism: that of
being granted a sort of “authorization” for liturgical and doctrinal
Catholicism. We have already cited as an example the paradoxical situation that
arose in the 19th-century French political system, when the most staunch
supporters of the monarchical Restoration, enemies in principle of the modern
freedoms introduced by the Revolution, continually fought to be granted a space
for life and expression, freedom of the press, and freedom of teaching. All
things being equal, in the ecclesiastical system of the 21st century, at least
in the immediate future, a relaxation of the ideological despotism of the
Reformation could be beneficial. But while it may be advantageous in the short
and medium term, it could ultimately prove radically unsatisfactory.
What I believe should be highlighted is
the not-so-veiled warning that Abbé Barthe addresses to those who resort to the
adversary’s arguments to gain legitimacy in the ecclesial world, applying
the argumentum ex concessis [2]. In this case, “those who invoke freedom
for the traditional liturgy and catechism” – and who condemn Bergoglian
synodality – appeal to that same synodality so that the “Summorum Pontificum communities”
may be recognized as one among the many expressions of the composite ecclesial
polyhedron.
Abbé Barthe’s denunciation reveals
not a paradox, but the paradox, the contradiction that
fundamentally undermines any claim to orthodoxy on the part of self-styled
conservatives: the acceptance of the revolutionary principles of the so-called
“synodal church” as the (incomplete, moreover) counterpart to being tolerated
by it. In reality, this exchange is far from equal. The “synodal church” merely
applies to conservatives the same legitimacy of existence it grants to any
other “movement” or “charisma” present in the multifaceted ecclesial fabric,
but it carefully avoids acknowledging that their demands might go beyond a mere
aesthetic and ceremonial concession. The unwritten contract between
conservatives and the post-Bergoglian Hierarchy stipulates that the “liturgical
preferences” of a group of clerics and faithful can be tolerated if and
only if they refrain from highlighting the heterogeneity, incompatibility,
and alienation between the ecclesiology and the entire doctrinal framework
underlying the Vetus Ordo and those expressed in the reformed
Montinian rite.
Abbé Barthe does not ignore the critical
issues: referring to Leo XIV’s Electors, he calls them “all of the conciliar
menagerie,” demonstrating a certain courage, especially considering his public
role and his dependence on those Prelates. Nor does he ignore the
deception embraced by those who exploit religious liberty to invoke
for themselves a tolerance that is not denied even to the worshippers of
Amazonian idols.
The deception is twofold: not only
because of the paradox that Abbé Barthe has rightly highlighted; but also and
above all because of a much worse trap, consisting of accepting at least
implicitly the forced, unnatural, and impossible separation between the
ceremonial form of the rite and its doctrinal substance.
This is an operation
of de-signification of the Liturgy, which consists in being
recognized with the right to celebrate in the Tridentine Rite on the condition
that the celebrant does not also accept the doctrinal and moral implications of
that rite. But if that “Summorum priest” accepts this principle, he must
also accept its inverse application. Indeed, the moment one admits that the
Liturgy can be celebrated without regard for the traditional doctrine it
expresses – a doctrine the “synodal church” does not recognize and considers to
be other than itself – one ends up accepting that even the reformed
liturgy can ignore the errors and heresies it insinuates, errors which no
Catholic worthy of the name can absolutely ratify. In doing so, however, one
plays into the hands of the adversary, under the illusion of being more cunning
than the devil. It all comes down to a question of dress and choreography, of
aesthetics and sentiment that satisfies or does not satisfy personal taste, as
Cardinal Burke’s recent words confirmed: “You don’t take something so rich
in beauty and begin to strip away the beautiful elements without having a
negative effect.” [3] Nothing could be more alien to the mindset of the
Roman Liturgy, according to which the beauty of ceremonies is such because it
is a necessary expression of the Truth it teaches and the Good it practices.
The “synodal church” includes
conservatives in its coveted pantheon not only because it gives them
what they want – solemn pontifical liturgies celebrated by influential
prelates, without doctrinal implications – but also because none of the Holy
See’s interlocutors has the slightest intention of demanding more; and even if
someone were to dare ask for more, the gatekeeper on duty –
literally, the ostiarius –would promptly intervene, calling for
“prudence” and “moderation,” more concerned with preserving his own prestige
than with the fate of the Catholic resistance. This is accompanied by the “Zip
it” [4] policy advocated by Trad Inc. [5], according to which the possible
concessions the moderates hope to obtain from Leo suggest they should not
criticize him openly so as not to alienate him.
The path of being persecuted, ostracized,
and excommunicated do not seem to be among the options for my brothers: it
seems they are already resigned to a fate of tolerance, in which they can
neither be truly Catholic nor fully synodal; neither friends of those who fight
the enemy infiltrated into the Church, nor of those who seek to replace her
with a human surrogate of Masonic inspiration. The Lord will hold these
lukewarm priests accountable with greater severity than He will many poor
parish priests who have other, more pressing pastoral priorities. Let us hope
that Abbé Barthe’s warning does not fall on deaf ears, for the hour of battle
approaches, and to be found defenseless and unprepared, in these circumstances,
would be irresponsible.
And it is precisely in times of
persecution that we must rediscover the relevance and validity of the words of
Saint Vincent of Lérins:
In ipsa item catholica ecclesia magnopere
curandum est ut id teneamus quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus creditum
est; hoc est etenim vere proprieque catholicum. [6]
If anything does not meet these three
criteria – semper, ubique, et ab omnibus – it must be rejected as
heretical. This norm protects us from the errors spread by false pastors, in
the serene certainty of acting in accordance with Tradition and thus being able
to compensate, due to the present state of emergency, for the absence of
ecclesiastical authority.
+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop
3 September MMXXV
S.cti Pii X Papæ, Conf.
FOOTNOTES
1 – Abbé Claude Barthe, Leone, il pompiere nella Chiesa
divorata dal fuoco della divisione. Ma quale unità ricerca?, published
at Duc in Altum on August 9, 2025 – https://www.aldomariavalli.it/2025/08/09/analisi-leone-il-pompiere-nella-chiesa-divorata-dal-fuoco-della-divisione-ma-quale-unita-ricerca/ – English translation: https://www.resnovae.fr/the-pontificate-of-leo-xiv-a-transitional-stage/
2 – Argumentum ex concessis is a rhetorical and logical
technique in which an interlocutor uses the premises, arguments, or claims
accepted by an opponent to construct their own argument, often to refute them
or demonstrate the inconsistency of their position. This strategy is based on
the idea of temporarily accepting the opponent’s claims (the “concessions”) and
using them to draw conclusions that either challenge them or support their own
thesis.
3 – Cfr. https://x.com/mljhaynes/status/1954919906492747838
4 – Cfr. https://www.radiospada.org/2025/09/leone-xiv-lipotesi-zip-e-la-contropartita-per-i-conservatori-una-strategia-gia-tentata-e-che-lascia-perplessi-in-7-punti/
5 – “Trad Inc.” is the American expression which refers to
conservative believers and blogs organized like companies, which operate
according to market logic and are dependent on their shareholders.
6 – Commonitorium, 2. “In this same Catholic Church, we must take
the greatest care to maintain what has always been believed, everywhere and by
all; this is in fact truly and properly Catholic.”
COMMENT: It is encouraging
for us who have refused the compromises of faith that conservative Catholics
have made in return for their privileged Indult to have a man of Archbishop Carlo
Maria Viganò's stature
agree and defend what we have been doing at Ss. Peter & Paul Roman Catholic
Mission for the last 25 years. We hope and pray that he may have a greater
influence on other resistance bishops and priests.
The proper understanding of this dogma from the Council
of Trent:
Canon 4 on the sacraments in general: If anyone
says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are
superfluous, and that without them or without the desire of them men
obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification, though all are
not necessary for each one, let him be anathema.
The Dogma defines two revealed doctrinal truths:
3.
If anyone says: that the sacraments of the
New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, let him be
anathema.
4.
If anyone says: that without the
sacraments or (if anyone says) without the desire of the sacraments
men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification, let him be
anathema.
Both the Sacrament of Baptism and the will to
receive the Sacrament are necessary for salvation!
“But
God desired that his confession should avail for his salvation, since he preserved him in this life until the
time of his holy regeneration.” St. Fulgentius
“If anyone is not baptized, not only in
ignorance, but even knowingly, he can in no way be saved. For his path to salvation was through the confession,
and salvation itself was in baptism.
At his age, not only was confession
without baptism of no avail: Baptism
itself would be of no avail for salvation if he neither believed nor
confessed.” St. Fulgentius
Notice,
both the CONFESSION AND THE BAPTISM are necessary for salvation, harkening back
to Trent's teaching that both the laver AND the “votum” are required for
justification, and harkening back to Our Lord's teaching that we must be born again
of water AND the Holy Spirit.
In fact, you see the language of St. Fulgentius reflected in the Council of
Trent. Trent describes the votum (so-called “desire”) as the PATH
TO SALVATION, the disposition to Baptism, and then says that “JUSTIFICATION
ITSELF” (St. Fulgentius says “SALVATION ITSELF”) follows the dispositions in
the Sacrament of Baptism.
Yet another solid argument for why Trent is teaching that BOTH the votum
AND the Sacrament are required for justification.
“Hold
most firmly and never doubt in the least that not only all pagans but also all
Jews and all heretics and schismatics who end this present life outside the
Catholic Church are about to go into the eternal fire that was prepared for the
Devil and his angels.” St. Fulgentius
“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes,
professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church,
not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share
in life eternal; but that they will go into the ‘eternal fire which was
prepared for the devil and his angels.’”
St. Eugene IV, Cantate Domino
Ladislaus, CathInfo
John Cardinal Newman, another Novus Ordo "saint" soon to be
declared a "Doctor" of the Novus Ordo Church, comments following the
dogmatic declaration of papal infallibility.
“But
we must hope, for one is obliged to hope it, that the Pope (Pius IX) will be
driven from Rome, and will not continue the Council (Vatican I), or that there
will be another Pope. It is sad he should force us to such wishes.”
John
H. Newman, Letter to his companion, Fr. Ambrose St. John, 22 August, 1870
“We
have come to a climax of tyranny. It is not good for a Pope to live 20 years.
It is anomaly and bears no good fruit; he becomes a god, has no one to
contradict him, does not know facts, and does cruel things without meaning it.”
John
H. Newman, The Letters and Diaries of John Henry Newman, v. XXVI by Charles
Stephen Dessain
"This (Divine) law, as apprehended in
the minds of individual men, is called "conscience;" and though it
may suffer refraction in passing into the intellectual medium of each, it is
not therefore so affected as to lose its character of being the Divine Law, but
still has, as such, the prerogative of commanding obedience."
John Henry Cardinal Newman
"It seems, then, that there are
extreme cases in which Conscience may come into collision with the word of a
Pope, and is to be followed in spite of that word."
John Henry Cardinal Newman
COMMENT: Pope Gregory XVI
said, "This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and
erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be
maintained for everyone." Conscience is not the Divine Law. St. Thomas
says that, "Conscience is nothing else than the application of knowledge to
some action." He is referring to the knowledge of the Law of God. The Law
of God, whether the eternal law or the positive revealed law of God, is the
objective criteria by which the conscience is obligated to use as the standard
by which any judgment regarding the moral goodness or evil of any particular
act is made. All men are obligated to
obey their conscience because they are obligated to apprehend the objective
Divine Law as the proper criteria. They are not free to invent their personal
subjective criteria in determining what is the right or the wrong thing to
do. Liberalism claims the exact
opposite. It is a fundamental axiom of liberalism that the conscience is free
to establish its own moral criteria. This has been condemned by popes Gregory
XVI, PiusIX and Pius X. John Henry Cardinal Newman can be identified as the
"Spirit of Vatican II."
Hermeneutics of Continuity/Discontinuity
The woman saith to him: Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet. Our fathers
adored on this mountain, and you say, that at Jerusalem is the place where men
must adore. Jesus saith to her: Woman, believe me, that the hour cometh, when
you shall neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, adore the Father. You
adore that which you know not: we adore that which we know; for salvation is of
the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true adorers shall adore
the Father in spirit and in truth. For the Father also seeketh such to adore
him. God is a spirit; and they that adore him, must adore him in spirit and in
truth.
John 4:19-24
Novus Ordo Doctrine: Moslems and Novus Ordo Catholics
Worship the same God!
CCC 841, quoting the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church,
Lumen Gentium 16, from Vatican II, declared:
"The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the
Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold
the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God,
mankind’s judge on the last day."
CCC 841 also references Vatican II’s Declaration on the Relation of the Church
to Non-Christian Religions, Nostra Aetate,
3, that makes the teaching of the Council perhaps even clearer:
"The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the
one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all-powerful, the
Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit
wholeheartedly to even his inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the
faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to
God."
Catholic Church Doctrine: Catholics and Moslems DO
NOT worship the same God.
“Now
the Samaritans had a false idea of God in two ways. First of all, because they
thought He was corporeal, so that they believed that He should be adored in
only one definite corporeal place. Further, because they did not believe that
He transcended all things, but was equal to certain creatures, they adored
along with Him certain idols, as if they were equal to Him. Consequently, they
did not know Him, because they did not attain to a true knowledge of Him. So
the Lord says, you adore that which you do not know [John 4:22], that is, you do not adore God
because you do not know Him, but rather your imagination, by which you
apprehend something as God, just as the Gentiles also walk in the foolishness
of their mind (Eph 4:17).” St.
Thomas Aquinas, Commentary On John 4:22
“How
then did the Samaritans know not what they worshipped? Because they thought
that God was local and partial; so at least they served Him, and so they sent
to the Persians, and reported that the God of this place is angry with us [2
Kings 26], in this respect
forming no higher opinion of Him than of their idols. Wherefore they continued
to serve both Him and devils, joining things which ought not to be joined.” St. John Chrysostom, Homily 33 On The Gospel
of John
COMMENT: When
Jesus said to the Samaritan Woman, "You adore that which you know
not," He is not saying that they adore the One True God that they are
ignorant of. He is saying, that in their ignorance they do not know who they
are adoring meaning that they are adoring in ignorance a devil, for "all
the gods of the gentiles are devils" (Psalm 95:5). Jesus then says, that
"true adorers shall adore the Father in spirit and in truth..... they that
adore him, must adore him in spirit and in truth." To adore in
"spirit" means that to adore God you must be baptized and made sons
of God for as Jesus said: "Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born
again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God That
which is born of the flesh, is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit, is
spirit" (John 3:5-7). And to adore in "truth" means who must
believe what has been revealed by God. Without the true faith it is "impossible
to please God" (Hebrews 11:6). As such, right knowledge of God is
essential to true worship. This is the great sin of Modernism and
Neo-modernism: They make a right knowledge of God impossible!
Hermeneutics
of Continuity/Discontinuity
Catholic
Faith:
Physical
substances come into being through the union of substantial form and primary
matter. The Soul is the Substantial Form of the Human Body; it is immortal and
will be judged after the death of the person and directed to Heaven or Hell for
all eternity awaiting to be joined again to its Body at the Resurrection of the
Dead for the Last Judgment.
“In order that
all may know the truth of the faith in its purity and all error may be
excluded, we define that anyone who presumes henceforth to assert defend or
hold stubbornly that the rational or intellectual soul is not the form of the
human body of itself and essentially, is to be considered a heretic.”
Council of
Vienne
Neo-Modernists
Ideology: [Ratzinger quotes provided by James Larson, War Against Being]
“The medieval
concept of substance has long since become inaccessible to us.”
Rev. Joseph
Ratzinger, Faith and the Future
“The proper
Christian thing, therefore, is to speak, not of the soul’s immortality, but of
the resurrection of the complete human being [at the Final Judgment] and of
that alone… The idea that to speak of the soul is unbiblical was accepted to
such an extent that even the new Roman Missal (i.e.: the Novus Ordo) suppressed
the term anima in its liturgy for the dead. It also disappeared from the ritual
for burial.”
Rev. Joseph
Ratzinger, Eschatology: Death and Eternal
Life
“‘The soul’ is our term for that in us which
offers a foothold for this relation [with the eternal]. Soul is nothing other
than man’s capacity for relatedness with truth, with love eternal.”
Rev. Joseph
Ratzinger, Eschatology: Death and Eternal
Life
“The challenge
to traditional theology today lies in the negation of an autonomous,
‘substantial’ soul with a built-in immortality in favor of that positive view
which regards God’s decision and activity as the real foundation of a
continuing human existence.”
Rev. Joseph
Ratzinger, Eschatology: Death and Eternal
Life
And those who
have denied the reality of substantial
being are those who are responsible for the “dictatorship of relativism.”
“Every
day new sects are created and what Saint Paul says about human trickery comes
true, with cunning which tries to draw those into error (Eph 4, 14).
Having a clear faith, based on the Creed of the Church, is often labelled today
as a fundamentalism. Whereas, relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed
and ‘swept along by every wind of teaching,’ looks like the only attitude
(acceptable) to today’s standards. We are moving towards a dictatorship of
relativism which does not recognise anything as for certain and which has as
its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires.”
Cardinal
Joseph Ratzinger, Homily of the Dean of the College of Cardinals, 2005
Sacrament of Baptism: Significance of the Baptismal
Character and why it is absolutely necessary for salvation. Explains why St.
Ambrose said regarding catechumens who die before receiving the sacrament of
Baptism, they are “forgiven but not crowned”.
To be baptized is to become one with the
Church, and one with Christ. Thus
the ritual can say: “enter into the temple of God, that you may have part with
Christ, unto life everlasting.” The two ideas are correlative: to be baptized
into the Church and to be baptized into Christ; they are the visible and
invisible aspects of the same real effect. [….]
The effecting this incorporation into
Christ, Baptism marks the soul as permanently His; it stamps upon the soul a
spiritual “character”, or, as antiquity more commonly called it, a “seal”. For this reason, and putting the cause for
the effect, the rite of Baptism was itself called “the seal”, or “the seal of
faith”, or “the seal of water”, or “the seal of the Trinity” (which last
appellation endures still in the liturgical prayers for the dying, wherein God
is asked to remember His promises to the soul that in its lifetime was “stamped
with the seal of the Most Holy Trinity”).
The word “seal” derives from a group of
texts in St. Paul, which suggest this stamping of the soul at Baptism: “And in
Him (Christ), you too, when you had heard the word of truth, the good news of
your salvation, and believed in it, were sealed with the Holy Spirit of the
promise” (Eph. 1:13); “And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, in Whom you
were sealed for the day of redemption” (Eph. 4:30). However, nowadays we are
accustomed to speak rather of the baptismal “character”, a term that suggests
the text wherein Christ is called “the brightness of His (the Father’s) glory
and the image (in Greek, character) of His substance” (Hebr. 1:3).
Basically, two words give the same meaning:
a seal imprints an image, and a “character”, in the original sense of the word,
means image. Baptism, therefore, stamps the soul with the image of Christ, Who
is Himself the image of the Father. And in the Scripture, this stamping is
attributed to the Holy Spirit, Who is the Spirit of Christ. The fact that we
are stamped with such a character is clearly defined by the Council of Trent:
“If anyone says that by the three Sacraments, to wit, Baptism,
Confirmation and Orders, there is not imprinted in the soul a Character, that
is a certain spiritual and indelible sign on account of which they cannot be
repeated; let him be anathem.” (Denz. 852).
The Council of Trent teaches that this
seal, once stamped on the soul, is indelible. Just as Baptism irrevocable makes
one a member of the Church, so also it irrevocably makes one a member of
Christ. Not the gravest sin, nor even final impenitence and self-condemnation
to eternal separation from Christ in Hell, can avail to erase this baptismal
seal. And the indelibility of the seal is the immediate reason why Baptism can
never be repeated, once it has been validly received. [….]
The sense in which Baptism stamps us with
the image of Christ is suggested in the rite itself, by the anointing which
follows the ablution. It is done with Sacred Chrism, a mixed unguent of oil and
balm, specially consecrated by the bishop on Holy Thursday. Kings and priests
in antiquity (and even today) were anointed with chrism in token of their royal
and priestly dignity. And the baptism anointing signifies, therefore, that the
new Christian has entered into the “royal priesthood” of the Christian people,
and shares in the royal Priesthood of Christ Himself. He bears the image of
Christ, inasmuch as Christ was the Priest of all humanity, Who offered Himself
in sacrifice on the Cross.
The baptismal seal or character, therefore,
endows the Christian with a priestly function, and a priestly power. It is not
that special power and function given by the Sacrament of Holy Orders to
certain selected members of the Church, who are made her official ministers,
and authorized to offer her sacrifice and dispense her Sacraments. But it is
the priestly function and power which is common to all the members of the Body
of Christ. As He was born as Priest, His whole life orientated toward the
Passion and Death which was His priestly Sacrifice, so too, they are priests
from their birth into the Christian life at Baptism; and their lives are
essentially orientated toward sacrifice, in a double sense.
First of all, they receive a function and a
power with respect to the ritual Sacrifice of the Church, which is the Mass.
[….] They are empowered to assist actively in the offering of the Mass, as
members of the Church, in whose name her specially qualified members, priests
and bishops, offer the Mass, which is the sacrifice of the whole Church through
her official ministers. In union with the Priest, the Christian offers up
Christ as a Victim Who belongs to him and to Whom he belongs. An unbaptized
person cannot do this….
Secondly, the baptismal character
consecrates the Christian to sacrifice in a wider sense: it gives him the
function, the duty, the power to lead a life of sacrifice, since He is in the
image of Christ whose life was one long sacrifice – a life of complete
obedience to the will of His Father: “I seek not My own will, but the will of
Him Who sent Me” (Jn. 3:50).The will of the Father is the supreme law of the
Christian’s life; it is all embracing and all pervasive; and constant and total
obedience to it necessarily gives a sacrificial quality to the whole of life,
since it demands the renunciation of many ideas, and a steady refusal to be led
by one’s own emotions or to seek one’s own pleasure and profit – in a word, it
demands the sacrifice of selfishness in all its forms. St. Peter, therefore,
was thinking of Baptism when he wrote:
“Lay aside therefore all malice and all deceit, and pretense, and envy,
and all slander…. Be you yourselves as living stones, built thereon (i.e., on
Christ) into a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual
sacrifices to God through Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 2:1,5).
Rev. John J. Fernan, S.J., Theology, Christ
Our High Priest, Baptismal Seal
Pius XII - the man responsible for planting the seed of
liturgical destruction!
Fr. Annibale Bugnini had been making
clandestine visits to the Centre de Pastorale Liturgique (CPL), a progressivist
conference centre for liturgical reform which organized national weeks for
priests.
Inaugurated in Paris in 1943 on the private initiative of two Dominican priests
under the presidency of Fr. Lambert Beauduin, it was a magnet for all who
considered themselves in the vanguard of the Liturgical Movement. It would play
host to some of the most famous names who influenced the direction of Vatican
II: Frs. Beauduin, Guardini, Congar, Chenu, Daniélou, Gy, von Balthasar, de
Lubac, Boyer, Gelineau etc.
It could, therefore, be considered as the
confluence of all the forces of Progressivism, which saved and re-established
Modernism condemned by Pope Pius X in Pascendi.
According to its
co-founder and director, Fr. Pie Duployé, OP, Bugnini had requested a
“discreet” invitation to attend a CPL study week held near Chartres in
September 1946.
Much more was involved here than the issue of secrecy. The person whose
heart beat as one with the interests of the reformers would return to Rome to
be placed by an unsuspecting (?) Pope (Pius XII) in charge of his Commission
for the General Reform of the Liturgy.
But someone in the Roman Curia did know about the CPL – Msgr. Giovanni Battista Montini, the acting
Secretary of State and future Paul VI – who sent a telegram to the CPL dated
January 3, 1947. It purported to come from the Pope with an apostolic blessing.
If, in Bugnini’s estimation, the Roman authorities were to be kept in the dark
about the CPL so as not to compromise its activities, a mystery remains. Was
the telegram issued under false pretences, or did Pius XII really know and
approve of the CPL? [.....]
This agenda (for liturgical reform) was set
out as early as 1949 in the Ephemerides
Liturgicae, a leading Roman review on liturgical studies of which Fr.
Annabale Bugnini was Editor from 1944 to 1965.
First, Bugnini denigrated
the traditional liturgy as a dilapidated building (“un vecchio edificio”),
which should be condemned because it was in danger of falling to pieces
(“sgretolarsi”) and, therefore, beyond repair. Then, he criticized it for its
alleged “deficiencies, incongruities and difficulties,” which rendered it
spiritually “sterile” and would prevent it appealing to modern sensibilities.
It is difficult to understand how, in the same year that he published this
anti-Catholic diatribe, he was made a Professor of Liturgy in Rome’s Propaganda
Fide (Propagation of the Faith) University. His solution was to return to the
simplicity of early Christian liturgies and jettison all subsequent
developments, especially traditional devotions.
These ideas expressed in 1949 would form the foundational principles of Vatican
II’s Sacrosanctum Concilium. For all practical purposes, the Roman Rite was
dead in the water many years before it was officially buried by Paul VI.
Dr. Carol Byrne, How Bugnini Grew Up under Pius XII
Wisdom is only
possible for those who hold DOGMA as the Rule of Faith!
Besides, every dogma of faith is to the
Catholic cultivated mind not only a new increase of knowledge, but also an
incontrovertible principle from which it is able to draw conclusions and derive
other truths. They present an endless field for investigation so that the
beloved Apostle St. John could write at the end of his Gospel, without fear of
exaggeration: “But there are also many other things which Jesus did: which if
they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to
contain the books that should be written.”
The Catholic Church, by enforcing firm belief
in her dogmas—which are not her inventions, but were given by Jesus
Christ—places them as a bar before the human mind to prevent it from going
astray and to attach it to the truth; but it does not prevent the mind from
exercising its functions when it has secured the treasure of divine truth, and
a “scribe thus instructed in the kingdom of heaven is truly like a man that is
a householder, who bringeth forth out of his treasure new things and old.” He
may bring forth new illustrations, new arguments and proofs; he may show now
applications of the same truths, according to times and circumstances; he may
show new links which connect the mysteries of religion with each other or with
the natural sciences as there can be no discord between the true faith and true
science; God, being the author of both, cannot contradict Himself and teach
something by revelation as true which He teaches by the true light of reason as
false. In all these cases the householder “brings forth from his treasure new
things and old.” They are new inasmuch as they are the result of new investigations;
and old because they are contained in the old articles of faith and doctrine as
legitimate deductions from their old principles.
Fr. Joseph Prachensky, S.J., The Church of
Parables and True Spouse of the Suffering Saviour, on the Parable of the Scribe
Baptism imprints in your soul a
spiritual character, which no sin can efface. This character is a proof that
from this time you do not belong to yourself, but that you are the property of
Jesus Christ, who has purchased you by the infinite price of his blood and of
his death. You are not of yourself, but you are of Christ; wherefore,
St. Paul concludes, “that the Christian should no longer live for himself, but
for Him who died and rose again for him;” that is to say, that the Christian
should live a life of grace, and that he should consecrate to his Redeemer his
spirit, his heart, and all his actions. […..]
First, is true
penance; for, as the holy Council of Trent teaches, penance is no less
necessary for those who have sinned after Baptism, than Baptism is necessary
for those who have not received it. The Holy Scripture informs us, that there
are two gates by which we are to enter into heaven—baptismal innocence, and
penance. When a Christian has shut against himself the gate of innocence, in violating
the holy promises of Baptism, it is necessary that he should strive to enter by
that of penance; otherwise there is no salvation for him. On this account,
Jesus Christ, speaking of persons who have lost innocence, says to them:
“Unless you do penance, you shall all perish.”
But in order
that penance may prevent us from perishing—it must be true Penance. Confessors
may be deceived by the false appearance of conversion, and it is too often the
case; but God is never deceived. If, therefore, those who receive absolution
are not truly penitent and worthy of pardon, their sins are not forgiven before
God. In order to do true penance, it is not sufficient to confess all our sins
and to fulfill what is enjoined on us by the priest. There are two other things
which are necessary: First; to renounce sin with all your heart, and for all
your life… and second; to fly the occasions of sin, and to use the means to
avoid it.
St. John Eudes,
Man’s Contract with God in Baptism
Again, in the Office for the feasts of our Lady,
the Church applies the words of Sirach to the Blessed Virgin and thus
gives us to understand that in her we find all hope: In me is all
hope of life and of virtue. In Mary is every grace: In me is all
grace of the way and of the truth. In Mary we shall find life and eternal
salvation: Those who serve me shall never fail. Those who explain me
shall have life everlasting (Sir. 24:25, 30, 31--- Vulgate). And in the Book
of Proverbs: Those who find me find life and win favor from the Lord (8:35).
Surely such expressions are enough to prove that we require the intercession of
Mary.
St. Alphonsus de Liguori, The Glories of Mary
THE NOVUS ORDO CHURCH OF SLOTH AND ENVY
The first effect of charity is joy in the goodness
of God. But this joy can only live through the union of man’s will with God in
charity. And charity demands that man keep all the commandments. Charity
demands a fellowship in good between God and man. When the effort to live in
this fellowship in good begins to appear too difficult to man he begins to be
sorrowful about the infinite goodness of God. This sorrow weighs down the
spirit of man and leads him to neglect good. This sorrow is the sin of sloth,
sorrow about the goodness of God. Sloth is a capital sin. It leads men into
other sins. To avoid the sorrow or weariness of spirit which is sloth men will
turn from God to the sinful pleasures of the world.
When a man falls victim to sloth and is sorrowful
because of the goodness of God it is only natural that he will begin to be
grieved also at the manifestation of the goodness of God in other men. He will
resent good men simply because they are good. This resentment is envy, hatred
of someone else’s good. Since the love of our neighbor flows from our love of
God, it is natural that when we cease to love God’s goodness, we will also
begin to hate the goodness of men. Envy, like sloth, is a capital sin. It will
lead men to commit other sins to destroy the goodness of their neighbors.
When a man’s heart is filled with sloth and envy
the interior peace of his soul which was the effect of charity is destroyed.
The loss of the interior peace leads to the destruction of the peace of
society. When a man’s heart is no longer centered in God, then his life loses
all proper direction. When the love of God is gone he has nothing left but the
love of himself. When a man loves himself without loving God then he can brook
no opposition to his own judgment or arbitrary will. He can tolerate goodness
in no one else. He will even, by the sin of scandal, by his own words and
example, lead other men into sin. He must disagree with all men. He must
dispute with them, separate himself from them, quarrel with them, go to war
with them, set the whole of the community at war with itself.
Wherever the goodness of God is most manifest,
there will the heart of the man who no longer loves God be most energetic in
sowing the seeds of discord, contentiousness, strife and war. That is why
religion and the true Church of God are so viciously attacked in the world
today. Those who do not love God are driven by sloth and envy to attack God’s
tabernacle on earth.
Fr. Walter Farrell and Fr. Martin Healy, My Way of Life, Pocket Edition of St. Thomas
Amoris Laetitia was published in
2016. No answer or corrective action to this "appeal" was ever made.
That is because no clarification was ever needed. Why? That is because the
"numerous propositions in Amoris Laetitia (that) can be construed as
heretical upon the natural reading of the text" is exactly what the author
intended! So in 2016 these "academics and pastors" did "not
accusing the pope of heresy", but what about now?
“Amoris Laetitia.... scandalous, erroneous in faith, and
ambiguous...”
Catholic academics and pastors appeal to the College of Cardinals over Amoris Laetitia
A group of Catholic academics and
pastors has submitted an appeal to Cardinal Angelo Sodano, Dean of the College
of Cardinals in Rome, requesting that the Cardinals and Eastern Catholic
Patriarchs petition His Holiness, Pope Francis, to repudiate a list of
erroneous propositions that can be drawn from a natural reading of the
post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris
laetitia. During the coming weeks this submission will be sent in various
languages to every one of the Cardinals and Patriarchs, of whom there are 218
living at present.
Describing the exhortation as
containing “a number of statements that can be understood in a sense that is
contrary to Catholic faith and morals,” the signatories submitted, along with
their appeal, a documented list of applicable theological censures specifying “the
nature and degree of the errors that could be attributed to Amoris laetitia.”
Among the 45 signatories are
Catholic prelates, scholars, professors, authors, and clergy from various
pontifical universities, seminaries, colleges, theological institutes,
religious orders, and dioceses around the world. They have asked the College of
Cardinals, in their capacity as the Pope’s official advisers, to approach the
Holy Father with a request that he repudiate “the errors listed in the document
in a definitive and final manner, and to authoritatively state that Amoris laetitia does not require any of
them to be believed or considered as possibly true.”
“We are not accusing the pope of
heresy,” said a spokesman for the authors, “but we consider that numerous propositions
in Amoris laetitia can be construed
as heretical upon a natural reading of the text. Additional statements would
fall under other established theological censures, such as scandalous,
erroneous in faith, and ambiguous, among others.” [......]
Atheists are really anti-theists. They oppose the God who
is God with an idol of their own making.
No atheist chooses merely to deny God. For the
atheist’s spiritual posture against God is at the same time his posture in
preference for some other Being above God. As he dismisses the true God he is
welcoming his New God. Why must this be so? Because every personal commitment
of man presupposes, deep in the metaphysical core of his being, a hunger for
being as truth and goodness. Man is intrinsically burdened with an incurable
hunger for transcendence. If being abhors a vacuum, the vacuum it most
violently shrinks from is the total absence of Infinite Being. And history
demonstrates that man is inconsolable without the True God.
Fr. Vincent Miceli, S.J., The Gods of Atheism
‘When men
choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they
believe in anything.’
There are men who will ruin themselves and ruin
their civilization if they may ruin also this old fantastic tale (of the
Catholic faith). This is the last and most astounding fact about this faith;
that its enemies will use any weapon against it, the sword that cuts their own
fingers, and the firebrands that burn their own homes. … (The atheist fanatic)
sacrifices the very existence of humanity to the non-existence of God. He
offers his victims not to the altar, but merely to assert the idleness of the
altar and the emptiness of the throne. He is ready to ruin even that primary
ethic by which all things live, for his strange and eternal vengeance upon some
one who (he affirms) never lived at all.
G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy
“Cultivate a great desire to be firmly rooted in
the sublime virtue of
confidence. Do not fear, but be courageous in serving and loving our
Most Adorable and Amiable Jesus, with great perfection and holiness. Undertake
courageously great tasks for His glory, in proportion to the power and grace He
will give you for this end. Even though you can do nothing of yourself, you can
do all things in Him and His help will never fail you, if you have confidence in His goodness.
Place your entire physical and spiritual welfare in His hands. Abandon to the
paternal solicitude of His Divine Providence every care for your health,
reputation, property and business, for those near to you, for your past sins,
for your soul’s progress in virtue and love of Him, for your life, death, and
especially for your salvation and eternity, in a word, all your cares. Rest in the assurance that, in
His pure goodness, He will watch with particular tenderness over all
your responsibilities and cares and dispose all things for the greatest good.”
St. John Eudes, The
Life and Kingdom of Jesus in Christian Souls
Cardinal Burke offers the
correction for two mistranslations in the English publication of the Motu
proprio of Pope Francis, “TRADITIONIS CUSTODES”
Art. 1. The
liturgical books promulgated by Saint Paul VI (sic) and Saint John Paul II
(sic), in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, are the unique only expression of
the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.
Art. 4. Priests
ordained after the publication of the present Motu Proprio, who wish to
celebrate using the Missale Romanum of 1962, should must submit a formal
request to the diocesan Bishop who shall consult the Apostolic See before
granting this authorization.
"Not a stone upon a stone" - 9th Sunday after
Pentecost
The 'Western Wall' (Wailing Wall) in
Jerusalem is held by Jews as a remnant of Herod's Temple destroyed by the
Romans in 72 A.D. Yet, Jesus prophesized not only that the Temple would be
destroyed but also that there would not remain a "stone upon a
stone." So how is it that there remains a large wall on the western side
at the south end of the 'Temple Mount'? Some Catholics claim the prophecy of
Jesus was referring only to the edifice itself and not the entire foundation
for the Temple. Jesus words must be taken in literally unless there it is
clearly manifest that the metaphorical sense is intended exclusively.
Therefore, the 'Wailing Wall' where the Jews worship is not a remnant of the
ancient Temple, and the 'Temple Mount', on which is currently situated the
Al-Aqsa mosque and the "Dome of the Rock", is not the location of the
Temple destroyed in 72 A.D. The 36 acre 'Temple Mount' is actually the location
of the Roman fortress Antonia built by Herod.
What is the evidence for this? The current
popular claim is the fortress Antonia was located on a five-acre section on the
north-west side of the 'Temple Mount' while the Temple occupied the remaining
30 acres. Five acres is far too small to accommodate a Roman legion (6,000
soldiers plus auxiliary staff) which we know from the writings of Flavius
Josephus that the fortress Antonia did in fact hold. Many Roman fortresses have
been examined by archeologists and they typically are between 45 and 55 acres
but some are as small as 36 acres. As far as the area needed for the Temple of Herod
itself, consider this, the ancient pagan temple complex at Baalek in Lebanon
built by the Romans is less than six acres in total area and encloses the
largest temple to Jupiter in the Roman Empire as well as a smaller temple
dedicated to Bacchus and another to Venus. The Temple built by Herod was a
single temple and much smaller in overall dimensions.
Furthermore, when Solomon was designated by
King David to succeed him (3 Kings 1), King David directed the prophet Nathan
and the high priest Sadoc to take Solomon on the king's mule to be anointed
king at the "Gihon spring" with oil taken from the tabernacle. The
Gihon spring is located in the City of David directly south and adjacent to the
present-day 'Temple Mount'. There Solomon was anointed with oil taken from the
Tabernacle, proclaimed king and celebrated by the populace with great
jubilation and the sounding of trumpets that could be heard outside the city.
The Temple built by Solomon was in the same location as the Tabernacle
established by King David on the threshing floor of the land he purchased
Areuna the Jebusite as God had commanded by the mouth of Gad (2 Kings 24 and 2
Paralipomenon 3:1).
The water from the Gihon spring was
essential for the sacrificial offerings of the Temple. There is no living water
source on the 'Temple Mount' which was required in the washing of the priests
and the sacrifices offered. The water source for the Antonia fortress was
provided by large cisterns located just north of the Antonia fortress and under
the 'Temple Mount' that are still present today.
There is a Catholic tradition the there was
a church called the Church of the Judgment that was built over and enclosed the
Rock that is now enclosed under the Dome of the Rock built by the Moslems in
692 A.D. The Dome of the Rock is located directly north of the Al-Aqsa mosque
on the 'Temple Mount'. The Church of the Judgment was destroyed either by the
Persians who conquered Jerusalem in 614 A.D. with the help of 26,000 Jewish
allies during the Byzantine-Sasanian War 602-628 A.D. (during which many
churches were destroyed including the Church of the Ascension on Mount Olivet),
or the church was destroyed by the Moslems who conquered Jerusalem in 637 A.D.
No living Jew at the time would have knowledge of the exact location of Herod's
Temple because the Jews were forbidden to enter Jerusalem by the Romans since
the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135 A.D. on the pain of death. Two hundred years
later, the Catholic emperor Constantine permitted the Jews to enter Jerusalem
once a year on the feast of Tisha B'Av (the ninth of Av) which is regarded as
the saddest day in the Jewish calendar because it is the anniversary of the
destruction of both the Temple of Solomon and the Temple of Herod! Be that as
it may, many of the pillars used in the construction of the interior of the
Dome of the Rock have Christian markings indicating that they were salvaged
from a destroyed Catholic church.
The Rock itself is regarded (WIKI) as
The Foundation Stone (Hebrew אֶבֶן
הַשְּׁתִיָּה, romanized: ʾEḇen
haŠeṯīyyā, lit. 'Foundation Stone'), or the Noble
Rock (Arabic:الصخرة
المشرفة, romanized: al-Saḵrah al-Mušarrafah, lit. 'The
Noble Stone') is the rock enclosed by the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem. It is
also known as the Pierced Stone, because it has a small hole on the
southeastern corner that enters a cavern beneath the rock, known as the Well of
Souls. Traditional Jewish sources mention the stone as the place from
which the creation of the world began. Jewish sources also identify its
location with that of the Holy of Holies. Yet, it is not possible for a
threshing floor to be around a large rock or stone.
Before the Muslim conquest, the Rock was
enclosed in the Catholic church known as the Church of the Judgment (destroyed
by the Persians) because it is believed to have been the place where the
condemned stood to hear the judgment against them by the Roman authorities. The
Rock is held to be where Jesus stood when His official condemnation was decreed
by Pontius Pilate and thus, if it is the stone where the "creation of the
world began," it is the stone from which the creation of the world began
anew. John 19:13 says: "Now when Pilate had heard these words, he brought
Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat, in the place that is called
Lithostrotos, and in Hebrew Gabbatha." Lithostrotos in Greek refers to a
stone and Gabbatha in Hebrew an elevated place. According to St. Mary Agreda
after Jesus was condemned by Pilate the decree of condemnation, which she
quotes in its entirety, was then formally read to the Jewish mob assembled
outside the north entrance to Fortress Antonia where Jesus was taken to bear
His cross.
Of the Temple of Herod destroyed in 72 A.D.
there does not remain a "stone upon a stone".
Leo XIV Reinstates Convicted Child-Porn Priest who was protected by
Francis
Carlo Alberto Capella was
Vatican diplomat who was convicted by a Vatican tribunal of possessing and
sharing child pornography. Capella admitted guilt to the charges. He is the
only one who has served a prison sentence in the Vatican jail for this crime or
for any sexually related crime against minors.
Monsignor Capella was ordained a priest in
1993 for the Archdiocese of Milan. After studies of canon law he entered
the Vatican diplomatic corps. He was assigned to the papal nunciature in India
in 2003 and to the nunciature in Hong Kong in 2007. In 2008 he was created Chaplain of His Holiness,
which entitled him to the title of Monsignor. In 2011 he was
transferred to the Vatican to serve in the Secretariat of State. In 2016 he was
assigned to the papal nunciature to the United States.
In 2017, Capella was recalled to the
Vatican by Pope Francis after United States officials informed the Vatican
that he was under investigation for possession and sharing of child
pornography. The government of Canada has issued a warrant for his arrest,
alleging that during his time in Canada in December, 2016 he had possessed and
shared child pornography. He was returned to the Vatican which claimed
diplomatic immunity for Capella protecting him from prosecution in the United
State or Canada.
In 2018, he was convicted and sentenced to
five years in prison, which he served in the Vatican jail. As of 2021, he was
allowed out during the day to work in an office that sells papal blessings. In
2023, following the end of his prison sentence, Capella was permitted to return
to work in the Vatican Secretariat of State.
Now Pope Leo XIV has reinstated Msgr. Capella to a senior diplomatic
position in the Vatican Secretariat of State.
COMMENT: Pope Leo is protégé
of Francis to whom he owns his promotions to bishop and cardinal. It was
Francis who protected this pervert from criminal charges in the United States
and in Canada and now it is Francis' protégé who has restored him the a high
level position in the Vatican. This does not portend well for any serious
reform of the Novus Ordo Church which has become a sinecure for homosexuals and
others perverts.
From Tradition In Action:
You don't have to be a liturgical EXPERT to see that there is no essential difference in the act!
The question is: Is there any essential
difference in the actors?
Top: St. Patrick Catholic Church, Chatham, New Jersey, August 22, 2021
Bottom: First Lutheran Church, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, July 6, 2025
PREVIOUS BULLETIN POSTS THAT ARE NOT
OUTDATED
HOME
| About Us
| Open Letters
| Make a Contribution | Directions | Contact Us
|
Pearl of York | Mass Schedule | List of Closed Parishes in the Diocese of Harrisburg |
| Announcements |
Why Move to Central Pennsylvania? | Canned Answers to Stale Objections
