..... this missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used ..... Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. ..... Accordingly, no one whatsoever is permitted to infringe or rashly contravene this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, direction, will, decree and prohibition. Should any person venture to do so, let him understand he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.
Pope St. Pius V, Papal Bull, QUO PRIMUM,
Tridentine Codification of the traditional Roman Rite of the Mass.
Sixteenth Sunday after Pentecost
Most Holy Name of Mary
September 12, 2021
Today’s lessons from the divine office, like those of last Sunday, are often identical with the passages from the book of Job which are read on the first and second Sundays of September. The readings from the third and fourth Sunday’s in September are from Ecclesiasticus. The commentary on today’s liturgy is related to the reading from Job.
Job is the very type of a just man whom the devil, inflated with pride, wishes to humble to the dust to make him rebel against God. “Let me try him,” says Satan to the most High, “and he will blaspheme Thee.” And God allowed him to make Job the model of a soul who proclaims the sovereign dominion of God and who submits himself entirely to the divine will. So the devil gives the reins to his jealously, and in a cleverly graded series, makes one misfortune follow another to overwhelm the unhappy Job.
Robbed of everything and seated on his dunghill, Job does not curse the almighty hand of God which has allowed the devil to vent his rage upon him, but rather kisses it with humility. The Introit psalm is an admirable rendering of the spirit of his prayer. “Have mercy on me, O Lord. Bow down thy ear to me, O Lord, and hear me for I am needy and poor.” The Gradual psalm is to the same effect: the prayer of the poor man when he was anxious, and the words (verses 3-6), “I am smitten as grass…through the voice of my groaning my bone hath cleaved to my flesh.” Seem to be an echo of Job’s words when he said: “The flesh being consumed, my bone hath cleaved to my skin, and nothing but lips are left about my teeth.” Also the Offertory psalm speaks of the “poor and needy man” who implores God: “Withhold not Thou, O Lord, Thy tender mercies from me: ….for evils without number have surrounded me…Let them be confounded and ashamed together that seek after my soul to take it away” (verses 12 and 14).
Finally, in the psalm for the Communion we read: “Incline Thy ear unto me…How great troubles hast Thou shown me, many and grievous! Yea and my tongue shall meditate justice all the day, when they shall be confounded and put to shame that seek evils to me” (verses 2,20, and 24).
“God,” the friends of Job say in effect, “exalts those who are humble; he comforts and heals the afflicted. The triumph of the wicked is short and the joy of the hypocrite is only for a moment. When his pride raises itself to heaven and his head touches the clouds, he will perish at the last. Such is the lot which God reserves for the wicked. They are lifted up for the moment but they will be humbled.” Job adds: “God will rescue the poor man from his misery. God is exalted in His power. Who can say to Him: ‘Thou hast wrought injustice.’ The man who discusses with God will not be found just.”
“In reality,” comments St. Gregory, “whoever holds a discussion with almighty God is putting himself on an equality with the author of all good. He takes to himself the merit of whatever qualities he has received, and makes war on God with His own gifts. So it is just that the proud shall be humbled and the humble exalted” (2nd Nocturn for second Sunday of September). Today’s Gospel speaks in the same sense: “Every one that exalteth himself shall be humbled, and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.” In the sequel, after He had humbled him, God exalted Job and gave him twice as much as he had before. In this respect the patriarch is a type of Christ, who having been humbled to the depths was wonderfully exalted; and he is also a figure of all Christian people to whom God will give a place of honor at the eternal wedding feast if, on earth, they have practiced the virtues of humility with a good heart.
Pride, says St. Thomas, is a vice by which man seeks to exalt himself beyond right reason above what he is; it is based on error and illusion. On the contrary, humility is founded upon truth. It is a virtue which tempers and restrains the soul, so that it does not pretend to be more than it really is. The humble soul accepts with complete submission the supreme and infallible truth. Humility manifested in word and deed, and in our way of bearing trials and contradictions, is the virtue thought us by Job in his whole life and which our Lord sets before us in today’s Gospel. “After he had healed the man with the dropsy,” says St. Ambrose, “Jesus gives a lesson in humility” (3rd Nocturn).
Seeing how the Pharisees chose the best places, He wanted to make them understand the spiritual disease from which they were suffering and so to encourage them to seek its cure. For this purpose He first heals an unfortunate man swollen with sickness and then veiling the lesson under a parable, seeks to cure the spiritual inflation with which the guests before Him and the majority of men, are only too much afflicted. The world is given over to all the boastfulness and infatuation of pride, while humility is the absolute condition of entrance into the kingdom of God.
This same virtue, which the Church brings before us in the Collect, which refers to our need that God’s grace should “ever both go before and follow us,” is taught by St. Paul in a striking way to Christian people on our part, but solely that we may minister to the praise of His glory, God has chosen us in Christ. While yet we were children of wrath, the almighty, rich in mercy on account of the great love He bore us, restored us to life in Jesus Christ. Heathen and strangers to the covenant of God with Israel, we have been reconciled through the Redeemer’s blood, for He is our peace, who out of two nations has made one and by whom we both have access to the Father in one Spirit. Now we are no longer strangers, but members of the family of God. This is not our work but God’s, so that no one has any cause to boast.
Let us, therefore, cast ourselves at the feet of the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is our Father too, so that from the boundless treasure of His divinity He may more and more send down upon us the Holy Ghost, whom He poured out on the Church at Pentecost and who united us to our Lord by faith and love, that we may be filled with the fullness of God.
Who can measure this boundless charity which God has shown us by His Son? This love of the Father for His children infinitely surpasses what we could conceive or ask of God. To Him, then be glory forever, because the Lord hath done wonderful things” (Alleluia). “The Gentiles shall fear Thy Name, O Lord, and all the kings of the earth Thy glory. For the Lord hath built up Sion and He shall be seen in His majesty” (Gradual).
And the people who will take part in the great feast of the Beatific Vision, will consist of those who fleeing from an ambition full of the spirit of pride, have always been humble on earth and whom God will exalt in the measure in which they have gladly submitted to His holy will.
Just as a few days after Christmas we celebrate the holy Name of Jesus, so, after the Nativity of Mary we glorify her holy name. Eight days after the birth of the Virgin, according to the custom of the Jews, her holy parents inspired by God, say St. Jerome and St. Antonius, gave the name of Mary. Wherefore, during the octave of the Nativity, the liturgy gives a feast in honor of this holy name.
Spain, with the approval of Rome, in 1513, was the first to celebrate it, and in 1683 it was extended to the universal Church by Pope Innocent XI to thank Mary for the victory which John Sobieski, King of Poland, had just gained against the Turks who besieged Vienna and threatened the West.
“The name of the Virgin,” says the Gospel, “was Mary.” The Hebrew name of Mary, in Latin Domina, means Lady or sovereign; for the authority of her Son, Lord of the World, makes her a sovereign from her birth in fact as well as in name. Whence, as we call Jesus our Lord, we say of Mary that she is our Lady. To pronounce her name, is to proclaim her power.
Let us offer the Holy Sacrifice to God to honor the most holy name of Mary and to obtain by her intercession her continual protection.
Ps. 85. Have mercy on me, O Lord, for I have cried to Thee all the day; for Thou, O Lord, art sweet and mild, and plenteous in mercy to all that call upon Thee.
Ps. Bow down Thine ear to me, O Lord, and hear me; for I am needy and poor. Glory be, etc. Have mercy on me, etc.
O Lord, we pray Thee that Thy grace may always precede and follow us, and make us continually devoted to all good works. Through our Lord, etc.
Grant, we pray, almighty God, that even as Thy faithful people rejoice in the name and under the protection of the most holy Virgin Mary, by her loving intercession, may they be delivered from all evils here on earth, and be accounted worthy to enter into eternal joy in heaven. Through our Lord, etc.
EPISTLE: Ephes. 3, 13-21.
Brethren, I pray you not to faint at my tribulations for you, which are your glory. For this cause I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom all paternity in heaven and earth is named, that he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened by his Spirit with might unto the inward man, that Christ may dwell by faith in your hearts: that being rooted and founded in charity, you may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth, and length, and height, and depth: to know also the charity of Christ, which surpasseth all knowledge, that you may be filled unto all the fulness of God. Now to him who is able to do all things more abundantly than we desire or understand, according to the power that worketh in us: to him be glory in the Church and in Christ Jesus, unto all generations, world without end. Amen.
EXPLANATION In the epistle of the following Sunday St. Paul tells us, that he was at the time of writing this letter in prison at Rome, whither he was brought upon the false accusations of the Jews. From prison he wrote to the Ephesians, whom he had converted to Christianity, and who zealously obeyed his counsels, in order to confirm them in their zeal and to console them in their grief on account of his sufferings which he bore for Christ's sake. These sufferings which I bear, he writes, redound to your honor, since I, your spiritual father, am considered by God worthy to suffer like His Son; yes, I thank the Father of our Lord Jesus for it, and beg Him on my knees, that He vouchsafe to strengthen you with His Holy Spirit, so that you overcome, your evil inclinations and passions, cleanse your hearts more and more, and sanctify your souls, that if you live thus according to your faith, you may be made the habitations of Christ. He begs God also to give them a well-grounded charity, which not only loves God on account of the reward, but also on account of our sufferings, thus to become like to Christ, the Crucified. By this constant love for Jesus, even in adversities, we only comprehend with the saints the greatness of the love of Jesus, the Crucified; its breadth, since all the members of His body, all the powers of His soul were tormented with all sorts of tortures, on account of the sins of all men; the length, since He had all these sufferings for thirty-three years before His eyes, and bore them in His soul; the depth, since these tortures surpassed in intensity all which men ever suffered or will suffer; the height, since Christ on the cross saw, with the most perfect knowledge, the malice of each single sin, and the terrible insult offered to the sublime Majesty of God, and He bore the punishment for them in Himself and did penance for them. Other holy Fathers say that by these words the whole mystery of our redemption is to be understood, and, indeed, the breadth thereof is, that it is for all men; the length, that it lasts for all centuries and reaches into eternity; the height, that its contemplation takes us away from earth and raises us to heaven; the depth, that it even penetrates the kingdom of the dead. By contemplating these mysteries we learn to know the infinite love of God, to love Him more and more, and thus make ourselves partakers of His graces. Obey the teaching of this holy apostle, contemplate the suffering Saviour and His love, endeavor to become like to Him by suffering, and when you see how the Church, her ministers, the bishops and priests, are persecuted and in tribulation, be not disheartened, but consider that the discipleship of Jesus consists particularly in suffering, that therefore, the Church and her ministers must suffer, since their Head, Jesus, has suffered. The holy Church has borne the crown of thorns of Jesus for two thousand years and drank from His chalice; but like Jesus, her Head, she will triumph over all her enemies, and whilst these are hastening to destruction, she will continually live victorious until the end of time and will triumph eternally in heaven.
Ps. 101. The Gentiles shall fear Thy name, O Lord, and all the kings of the earth Thy glory. For the Lord hath built up Sion, and He shall be seen in His majesty. Alleluia, alleluia.
Ps. 97. Sing ye to the Lord a new canticle, because the Lord hath done wonderful things. Alleluia.
GOSPEL: Luke 14, 1-11.
At that time, When Jesus went into the house of one of the chiefs of the Pharisees on the Sabbath-day to eat bread, they watched him. And behold there was a certain man before him that had the dropsy. And Jesus answering, spoke to the lawyers and Pharisees, saying: Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath-day? But they held their peace: but he taking him, healed him, and sent him away. And answering them, he said: Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fall into a pit, and will not immediately draw him out on the Sabbath-day? And they could not answer him to these things. And he spoke a parable also to them that were invited, marking how they chose the first seats at the table, saying to them: When thou art invited to a wedding, sit not down in the first place, lest perhaps one more honorable than thou be invited by him; and he that invited thee and him come and say to thee: Give this man place: and then thou begin with shame to take the lowest place: But when thou art invited, go, sit down in the lowest place: that when he who invited thee cometh he may say to thee: Friend, go up higher. Then shalt thou have glory before them that sit at the table with thee; because every one that exalteth himself shall be humbled, and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
To take occasion, as St. Cyril says, to instruct them that it is allowed to heal the sick on the Sabbath, and to show how those who give invitations to a supper, and those who are invited, should conduct themselves. The Pharisees' invitation to Jesus was not actuated by kindness, but by the desire to find something in His actions which they might criticize; Jesus; however, approaches them with meekness and endeavors to inspire them with a better intention. Beware of the spirit of criticism and like Jesus make use of every occasion to do good, even to your enemies.
The debauchees and misers; for the more a dropsical person drinks the more his thirst increases, so the debauchee never succeeds in satisfying his shameful lusts; the same is the case with the miser. And just as the dropsical are hard to cure, so the debauchee and miser are difficult to convert.
Because it is the root of many evils (I Tim. 6, 10), for it leads to usury, theft, to the employment of false weights and measures, to the suppression of justice in courts, to perjury, to the oppression of widows and orphans, nay, even to the denial of faith, as was the case with Judas. Therefore the apostle says: They that will become rich, fall into temptation, and into the snare of the devil, and into many unprofitable and hurtful desires, which drown men into destruction and perdition; and admonishes us: to fly these things: and pursue justice, godliness, faith, charity, patience, mildness (I Tim. 6, 9-11).
A powerful remedy against avarice is to consider that we are not owners of what we possess, and can take nothing with us in death, but must render a strict account of the use we made of our riches (I Tim. 6, 7).
Ps. 39. Look down, O Lord, to help me; let them be confounded and ashamed that seek after my soul, to take it away; look down, O Lord, to help me.
Cleanse us, we pray, O Lord, by the effect of this present sacrifice, and mercifully so work in us that we may deserve to be partakers of it. Through our Lord, etc.
Through Thy mercy, O Lord, at the intercession of blessed Mary ever Virgin, let this offering obtain for us welfare and peace, both now and forever. Through our Lord, etc.
Ps. 70. O Lord, I will be mindful of Thy justice alone; Thou hast taught me, O God, from my youth; and unto old age and gray hairs, O God, forsake me not.
Purify by Thy heavenly sacraments, we pray, O Lord, and renovate in Thy loving-kindness our hearts, that thereby we may gain assistance for our bodies at present and in the future. Through our Lord, etc.
Grant, O Lord, that we who have partaken of the aids of salvation, may be everywhere defended by the intercession of blessed Mary ever Virgin, in whose honor we have offered these gifts to Thy majesty. Through our Lord, etc.
LAST GOSPEL: Luke 1:26-38.
At that time, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be. And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God. Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. And of his kingdom there shall be no end. And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man? And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. And behold thy cousin Elizabeth, she also hath conceived a son in her old age; and this is the sixth month with her that is called barren: Because no word shall be impossible with God. And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word.
Instruction on the “Angelic Salutation” or “Hail Mary”
Why is this prayer called the “Hail Mary” or “Angelic Salutation”?
Because it begins with the words which the archangel Gabriel addressed to the Blessed Virgin when he announced to her that she should be the Mother of God.
Of what does the Angelic Salutation consist?
1. Of the words of the archangel Gabriel.
2. Of the words of Saint Elizabeth.
3. Of words which have been added thereto by the Catholic Church.
Which are the words of the archangel Gabriel?
“Hail [Mary], full of grace, the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women.”
What is the meaning of these words?
The words “Hail Mary” indicate that profound veneration for the Blessed Virgin which was felt by the archangel Gabriel, and which we, in imitation of his example, ought also to cherish.
The words “full of grace” remind us that God bestowed upon the Blessed Virgin greater graces than upon all men and angels together, and that not for herself alone, but for us also; they therefore encourage us to pray to Mary with fervor and confidence, that by her powerful intercession she will obtain for us the graces necessary for our salvation.
“The Lord is with thee” – these words express the peculiar complacency with which God has regarded her, on account of which He wrought in her special miracles of wisdom, omnipotence, and benignity. Let us rejoice with Mary over these prerogatives, and implore her to intercede for us, that God may be with us also, to sustain us by His almightiness, to govern us by His wisdom, to incite us to all that is good by the fire of His infinite love.
Finally, the words “Blessed art thou among women” are as much as to say: Thou art the happiest of all women, since thou alone of them all hast no stain of sin on thee; thou art chosen to be the Mother of God; thou shalt conceive Him by the Holy Ghost, and shalt bring Him forth without losing thy virginity. Thus it was that the angel saluted the most blessed Virgin, and yet there are men who are ashamed thus to salute Mary, and to give praise for the graces which God conferred upon her.
Which are the words of Elizabeth, and what do they mean?
“And blessed is the fruit of thy womb” – the word blessed is equivalent to praised. In saying these words, therefore, we desire that the fruit of Mary’s womb, Jesus, may be worshiped and praised by all men.
Which are the words which the Catholic Church has added?
To the words “Blessed is the fruit of thy womb” she has added “Jesus,” in order thereby to explain them, and to indicate that this prayer is to be offered in the name of Jesus. Thereupon follow the words, “Holy Mary, Mother of G6d” pray for us sinners, now, and at the hour of our death. Amen.”
What do these words mean?
With the words, “Holy Mary,” we apply to her who is full of grace as our intercessor, and thereby are reminded to strive to imitate her holiness, if we would be sure of her intercession, and of being heard before God. We call her” Mother of God,” because she brought forth Jesus, the Son-of God. Thereby we at the same time remind her that she is our mother also, and pray her to care for us as a mother, not as though we believed she could of herself help us, but with the design that she should offer to God her all-prevailing prayers for us, hence we say, “Pray for us,” adding, “sinners.” By these words we remind Mary of our misery, al!d ourselves of our powerlessness for good, and of our guiltiness in the sight of God, praying her to procure for us the grace of God to do true penance, to acquire virtues, and to gain true peace, and that” now,” inasmuch as at every moment, and throughout our whole life, we have so many dangers to meet, so many virtues to gain; “and at the hour of our death,” that we may overcome the temptations of the last decisive hour, and stand complete victors before the throne of the eternal Judge. “Amen,” so may it be, is, as it were, to repeat and make stronger the whole prayer.
“….because every one that exalteth himself shall be humbled, and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.”
PROPER OF THE SAINTS FOR THE WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 12TH:
16th Sunday after Pentecost
The Most Holy Name of Mary
Mass 9:00 AM & Noon; Confessions 8:00AM; Rosary of Reparation 8:30 AM; Mass for Mission Members
Mass 8:30 AM; Rosary of Reparation before Mass
Exaltation of the Holy Cross
Mass 8:30 AM; Rosary of Reparation before Mass
Seven Sorrows of the BVM
St. Nicomedes, M
Mass 8:30 AM; Rosary of Reparation before Mass
Ss. Cornelius, P & Cyprian, BpMm
St. Euphemia, V & Comp., Mm
Mass 8:30 AM; Rosary of Reparation before Mass
Stigmata of St. Francis of Assisi, C
Mass 8:30 AM; Rosary of Reparation before Mass
St. Joseph of Cupertino, C
Mass 9:00 AM; Confessions 8:00AM; Rosary of Reparation 8:30 AM.
17th Sunday after Pentecost
St. Januarius, Bp & Comp., Mm
Mass 9:00 AM & Noon; Confessions 8:00AM; Rosary of Reparation 8:30 AM; Mass for Mission Members
“In the evening of life, we shall be judged on love.”
St. John of the Cross
“If anyone despises or rejects either written or unwritten ecclesiastical tradition, let him be anathema.”
Canon 4, Ecumenical Council of Nicea in 787 A.D
“We are only worth the price at which God values us. True merit must be weighed in His scales, for it is His judgment which alone can decide between real and counterfeit virtue.”
St. John Berchmans
Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath-day? (Luke 14, 3)
Why did Christ put this question?
Because the Jews, particularly the Pharisees, were so very superstitious in keeping the Sabbath, they would not recognize Jesus as the Messiah, while He healed on the Sabbath, which was really a good work. But, if the Jews were so conscientious, through superstition and hypocrisy, and considered the performing of an external good work on this day as a sin, some Christians, on the contrary, blinded by avarice and worldly pleasure, place themselves heedlessly, nay, insolently above the commandment to observe the Sabbath, and do not consider those things as wrong which are sometimes very grievous sins.
Consider, my dear Christian, you serve your body the whole week, you use all your powers for temporal business, to support yourself and your family, and God blesses you, if you work with a good intention. Now God chose one day in the week, Sunday, and in the year several other holidays, which you should devote to His service and the salvation of your soul; is it not, therefore, the greatest ingratitude to steal these days from God and your soul, and employ them to gain a transient good, or to indulge in vain, sinful pleasures? At certain times man gives rest to irrational animals, and you give the powers of your body and soul none of the rest they would and should find in quiet devotion, in prayer and meditation, in attending divine service, in receiving the holy Sacraments, etc. If you inquire whence come these shameful violations of Sundays and holidays, you will find that there is no other reason than love of gain and avarice, sinful love of pleasure, and often complete want of faith and confidence in God’s providence. We wish to become rich by all means, and we do not reflect that. this will not happen without the blessing of God, and that wealth is a net, in which thousands entangle themselves to their eternal, perdition. We wish to live merrily and enjoy ourselves, but we do not consider that our life is only a time of penance, to attain that eternally blissful rest, of which Sunday is an emblem. We spend Sundays and holydays in idleness, vain conversations, buying and selling, servile work, or in still worse things, without experiencing the slightest scruple. But God will cover the violators of His sacred days with confusion and shame (Malach. 2, 3), and permit many temporal evils to come upon them, as proved by daily experience. The blessing of God can never rest upon those who never care for it, but rather make themselves unworthy to receive it, by violating days consecrated to God. Let this be a warning to you.
PRAYER O good Saviour! how manifest are meekness, and wisdom in all Thy words and actions! O, grant that we may regulate all our actions in such a manner, that they may be acceptable to Thee and tend to the edification of our neighbor. Give us the grace to employ all the days, consecrated to Thee, for Thy honor and our salvation, that we may never raise ourselves above others, but follow Thee in all humility.
PRESENCE OF GOD ‑ Grant, O Lord, that my soul may be deeply rooted in charity and in humility.
I. The Epistle (Eph 3, 13-21) which we read in today’s Mass is one of the most beautiful passages in the letters of St. Paul. In it we find the famous counsel of the Apostle addressed to the Ephesians, which summarizes in three parts, the whole of the spiritual life.
“That the Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ. . .would grant you . . . to be strengthened by His Spirit with might unto the inward man.” The inward man is the human spirit regenerated by grace; it is the spiritual man who has renounced all material things and the pleasures of the senses. This man is in each one of us and should be strong in order to keep up the struggle against our lower nature, which will always be a part of us while we are on earth, and is always trying to drag us down. The Apostle rightly asks this fortitude of the Holy Spirit, because the strength of our virtue is not sufficient unless it is supported by what the Holy Spirit infuses into us through His gifts.
“That Christ may dwell by faith in your hearts.” Christ with the Father and the Holy Spirit already dwells in the soul in the state of grace, but His presence can always become more profound. And the more profound His presence, the more deeply will the soul be penetrated with divine charity, until it becomes truly “rooted and founded” in love. If we wish to grow in love we should keep ourselves in contact with the fount of love, with God living in our soul.
“That you may be able to comprehend . . . the charity of Christ, which surpasseth all knowledge.” To comprehend the mystery of God’s love, insofar as it is possible to our limitations, is the summit of the spiritual life. Christianity is all love: we are Christians in the measure that we live in love, in the measure that we understand God’s love. Yet this mystery always leaves us a little incredulous, a little skeptical. Oh! if we could see as the blessed do, that God is love and wishes nothing but love; that the way to go to Him is the way of love; that suffering, mortification and humility, are only means to reach perfect love, and to correspond with the love of the God who is Charity! Then indeed, we would be “filled unto all the fullness of God.”
2. St. Paul in the Epistle has exhorted us to be rooted in love, and in the Gospel (Lk 14, 1-11) Jesus exhorts us to be rooted in love and in humility.
Despite the tacit disapproval of the Pharisees, caused by their narrowness of mind and heart, Jesus cured a man of dropsy on the Sabbath, thus teaching us again the great importance of love of neighbor. In vain would we believe that we were rooted in the love of God if we failed in our love of neighbor. How could one think that an act of fraternal charity might be in opposition to the law for sanctifying the Sabbath? Such are the aberrations of one who pretends to love God while paying attention solely to his own interests, without any thought for the needs of others. This is not Christianity, but Pharisaism and the destruction of charity.
To be rooted in love, we must also be rooted in humility, for only he who is humble is capable of really loving God and his neighbor. The Gospel continues with a practical lesson in humility, condemning those who seek the first places. We should not think that this refers only to material places; it refers also to those places which our pride seeks to occupy in the esteem and regard of others. It is really humiliating to note how our self‑love always tries to make us take a higher place than that which is due us, and this to our own confusion, for “he that exalteth himself shall be humbled.” “Let us always take the lowest place,” says St. Bernard, “there is no harm in humbling ourselves and believing that we are less than we really are. But there is exceeding harm and great evil in wishing to elevate ourselves, even if only a finger’s breadth, above what we are and in preferring ourselves to even one. There is no danger in stooping too much to pass through a low doorway, whereas there would be great danger in lifting our head even an inch above the lintel, as we would strike against it and injure our head; similarly, we should not be afraid that we shall humble ourselves too much, but should fear and abominate the slightest movement of presumption.” Let us, like the saints, ask God to send us a humiliation every time our pride tries to raise us above others; this will be the surest way to become rooted in humility. At the same time, we shall be rooted in charity and shall thus possess the two fundamental characteristics of a Christian soul.
“O Lord, increase my faith in Your love, so that I may be able to say to You in all truth: ‘I have known and have believed the charity which God hath to me.’ It seems to me that this is the greatest act of our faith, the most beautiful way to render You love for love; in it is the hidden secret of which St. Paul speaks, a secret which my soul longs to understand, because in understanding it, I shall thrill with joy. Make me capable of believing in Your exceeding love for me. Then I shall not stop at preferences or feelings. It will matter little if I feel Your presence or not, whether You send me joy or suffering. I shall believe in Your love and that will suffice. Grant, O God, that my soul may penetrate into Your depths and remain there, rooted and founded in love.
“O Lord, when I ponder within myself Your immensity, Your faithfulness, the proofs of love You have shown me, and Your benefits, and then look at myself and see how I have outraged You, I can only turn upon my soul with a profound feeling of contempt; yet this self‑contempt is not strong enough to cast me down as low as I would wish. O Lord, plunge me into humility! It seems to me that to be plunged into humility is to be plunged into You; for, living in You who are the Truth, I cannot fail to realize my nothingness. The humble soul is the chosen recipient, the vessel capable of receiving Your grace, and only into it do You wish to pour Your grace. Grant then, O Lord, that I may be humble, and make me understand that the humble soul will never put You high enough or itself low enough” (cf. E.T. 1, 6‑11, 8‑1, 9).
ABCs of the Spiritual Life
MAN HAS a twofold nature, the one superior, the other inferior. The first is generally termed reason, the second is called appetite, sensuality, or passion. Reason is the distinguishing property of man, and he is not considered responsible for the primary impulses of his appetite unless his superior faculty confirms the choice.
The entire spiritual warfare, consequently, consists in this: the rational faculty is placed between the Divine will above it and the sensitive appetite below it, and is attacked from both sides------God moving it by His grace, and the flesh by its appetites strive for victory.
It is apparent, then, that inconceivable difficulties arise when persons who during their youth have contracted vicious habits resolve to change their life, mortify their passions, and break with the world in order to devote themselves to the service of God.
The will is violently attacked by Divine grace and by its own sensual appetites, and wherever it turns, it absorbs these withering attacks with the greatest difficulty.
This onslaught is not experienced by those who are firmly settled in their way of life, whether in virtue by conforming to the will of God, or in vice by indulging their sensual desires.
No one should delude himself that he can acquire virtue and serve God in the proper way, unless he is willing to undergo a violent struggle. He must conquer the difficulty he will experience when he deprives himself of the pleasures, great or small, to which he has been viciously attached.
The result is that very few attain any great degree of perfection. After conquering their greatest vice, after undergoing tremendous exertions, they lose courage and fail to pursue their objective. And this when only small trials are to be overcome, such as subduing the feeble remnants of their own will, and annihilating some weaker passions which revive and then completely regain their hearts.
Many persons of this type, for example, do not take what belongs to others, but they are passionately attached to what is their own. They do not use any illegal methods of aggrandizement, but instead of spurning advancement, they are fond of it and seek it by any means they think lawful. They observe the appointed fasts, but, on other days, they indulge in the most exotic delicacies. They are very careful to observe chastity, and yet they refuse to give up their favorite amusements, even though they constitute great obstacles to a spiritual life and real union with God. Since these things are so highly dangerous, particularly for those who do not recognize their bad results, they must be dealt with very cautiously.
Without such caution, we may be assured that most of our good acts will have as attendants, slothfulness, vanity, human respect, hidden imperfections, conceit, and a desire for the notice and approval of others.
Dom Lorenzo Scupoli, The Spiritual Combat
“Clearly, what God wants above all is our will which we received as a free gift from God in creation and possess as though our own. When a man trains himself to acts of virtue, it is with the help of grace from God from whom all good things come that he does this. The will is what man has as his unique possession.”
St. Joseph of Cupertino, from the Franciscan breviary
Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller was a ‘Zero to the Left’ at the CDF: Heretics are “fully incorporated and integrated into the Church of God” but traditional Catholics who maintain that the faith is necessary for Church membership and salvation are not?
“Baptism is the fundamental sign that sacramentally unites us in Christ, and which presents us as the one Church in front of the world. Thus, we as Catholic and Evangelical Christians are already united even in what we call the visible Church.”
Bishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
“Also the Christians that are not in full community with the Catholic Church regarding teaching, means of salvation and the apostolic episcopacy, are justified by faith and baptism and they are fully incorporated and integrated into Church of God, being the Body of Christ.”
Bishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller, eulogy for Protestant “bishop” Dr. Johannes Friedrich, 10-11-11
“The SSPX must fully return to the ground of the Catholic Church and recognize the authority of the Pope, the decisions of the Second Vatican Council and recognize existing canon law. If they do, they also accept that the seminary of Zaitzkofen falls under the supervision of the Diocese of Regensburg. The seminary should be closed and the students should go to seminaries in their home countries — if they are suitable for this purpose.”
Bishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
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.
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
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.
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!
“Though the path is plain and smooth for people of good will, those who walk it will not travel far, and will do so only with difficulty if they do not have good feet, courage, and tenacity of spirit.”
St. John of the Cross
Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter Sings the Swan Song
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” Sun Tzu, The Art of War
“The Motu proprio Traditionis Custodes and its accompanying letter from Pope Francis have shocked us all. We have not yet been informed of any definitive decisions regarding the future of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter and its apostolates….. The Roman Congregation for Religious Orders, which in the future will be responsible for us instead of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, will also begin its work in a few weeks and will also make the first decisions concerning the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter. [….] With your help, the Rosary will be prayed without interruption during the month of September. […..] Each rosary should be prayed with the following intention: We pray for our Holy Father and for all the bishops, as well as all those in authority in the Church who will have to make significant decisions regarding the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter in the near future. We pray for all the priests and seminarians of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, that they may continue to carry out their ministry in the Church with fidelity, reverence and obedience, giving guidance to the faithful through a clear ecclesial and humble attitude. We pray for all the faithful in our apostolates and for all the people attached to the traditional Mass, that they will not lose heart, but will be able to accept this time of trial and, with the help of God’s grace, come out of it stronger.”
Fr. Stefan Reiner, Chaplain General of the Confraternity of St. Peter
COMMENT: The Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter knows neither itself nor the enemy. They “will succumb in every battle.” They have never understood that it is the faith itself that is under attack and that the faith itself must firstly be defended even at the cost of one’s life. They have never understood that Dogma is the proximate rule of faith and that Dogma is irreformable in both its form and matter. They have never understood that our immemorial traditions are images of the faith grounded in dogmatic canons and that the destruction of these images is heresy, a neo-Iconoclasm, already condemned. They have never understood that obedience is only a virtue when properly regulated by the virtue of Religion which under the virtue of Justice firstly “renders to God the things that are God’s”. When obedience is not directed by the virtue of Religion, it is a sin. They have never understood that subjecting what is of God in the faithful to what is of man in the faithless is not humility but the act of a groveling spineless coward.
Only the willfully blind would be “shocked” by the action of Pope Francis. Let’s suggest a more manly intention for the continual Rosary recitation for the month of September:
Grant us our good God, Thine unworthy servants, through the intercession of the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Thy beloved Mother, the gift of Understanding so as to know the Truth; the gift Fortitude to defend the Truth and to withstand to the face any authority who would betray the truths of our Faith even at the cost of life; the gift of Knowledge to know the deep seated malice of any ecclesiastical authority who would destroy the immemorial images of our Faith by which alone the Faith can be known and communicated to others; the gift of Fear of God that we may give no consideration to the strength of the enemy or his malice; the gift of Piety that we may serve our good God without weight or measure but offer all to Him who has given all for us; the gift of Counsel to reject any and every voice of conciliation and accommodation with error; the gift of Wisdom to seek only the glory of God and his holy will.
The Fraternity of St. Peter was born in accommodation of error and it will be destroyed. May its priests organize themselves under Our Lady of Battles for the war they have yet to fight. Where is all this leading: Expect Rome to relent by offering the SSPX a prelature and then herd all Indultist communities into one corral. The hierarchy of the SSPX has already reached a sub rosa accommodation with Rome and will be used as reeducation camps for their followers. It is time to know yourself, to know the enemy, and to know what the fight is about.
Modernists hate St. Thomas most of all because he was holy!
The last word of St. Thomas is not communication but silence. And it is not death which takes the pen out of his hand. His tongue is stilled by the superabundance of life in the mystery of God. He is silent, not because he has nothing further to say; he is silent because he has been allowed a glimpse into the inexpressible depths of that mystery which is not reached by any human thought or speech.
The acts of the canonization process record: On the feast of St. Nicholas, in the year 1273, as Thomas turned back to his work after Holy Mass, he was strangely altered. He remained steadily silent; he did not write; he dictated nothing. He laid aside the Summa Theologica on which he had been working. Abruptly, in the middle of the treatise on the Sacrament of Penance, he stopped writing.
Reginald, his friend, asks him, troubled: “Father, how can you want to stop such a great work?” Thomas answers only, “I can write no more.” Reginald of Pipemo seriously believed that his master and friend might have become mentally ill through his overwhelming burden of work. After a long while, he asks and urges once again. Thomas gives the answer: “Reginald, I can write no more. All that I have hitherto written seems to me nothing but straw.”
Reginald is stunned by this reply. Some time later, as he had often done before, Thomas visits his younger sister, the Countess of San Severino, near Salerno. It is the same sister who had aided Thomas in his escape from the castle of San Giovanni, nearly thirty years ago. Shortly after his arrival, his sister turns to his traveling companion, Reginald, with a startled question: what has happened to her brother? He is like one struck dumb and has scarcely spoken a word to her. Reginald once more appeals to Thomas: Would he tell him why he has ceased writing and what it is that could have disturbed him so deeply? For a long time, Thomas remains silent. Then he repeats: “All that I have written seems to me nothing but straw... compared to what I have seen and what has been revealed to me.”
This silence lasted throughout a whole winter. The great teacher of the West had become dumb. Whatever may have imbued him with a deep happiness, with an inkling of the beginning of eternal life, must have aroused in the men in his company the disturbing feeling caused by the uncanny.
At the end of this time, spent completely in his own depths, Thomas began the journey to the General Council at Lyons. His attention continued to be directed inward. The acts of the canonization report a conversation which took place on this journey between Thomas and Reginald. It seems to have arisen out of a long silence and to have receded immediately into a long silence. This brief exchange clearly reveals to what degree the two friends already live in two different worlds. Reginald, encouragingly: “Now you are on your way to the Council, and there many good things will happen; for the whole Church, for our order, and for the Kingdom of Sicily.” And Thomas: “Yes, God grant that good things may happen there!”
The prayer of St. Thomas that his life should not outlast his teaching career was answered. On the way to Lyons he met his end.
The mind of the dying man found its voice once more, in an explanation of the Canticle of Canticles for the monks of Fossanova. The last teaching of St. Thomas concerns, therefore, that mystical book of nuptial love for God, of which the Fathers of the Church say: the meaning of its figurative speech is that God exceeds all our capabilities of possessing Him, that all our knowledge can only be the cause of new questions, and every finding only the start of a new search.
Josef Pieper, On St. Thomas Aquinas’ last days
Looking ahead: What is the ultimate goal of the ‘color revolution’ U.S. coup that traces its support to the likes of George Soros, Norm Eisen, et al.?
“Let me tell you the following words as if I were showing you the rungs of a ladder leading upward and upward: Herzl, the Zionist Congress, the English Uganda proposition (a planned temporary Jewish settlement in East Africa abandoned in 1905), the future World War, the peace conference where, with the help of England, a free and Jewish Palestine will be created.”
Max Nordau, co-founder with Theodor Herzl of the World Zionist Organization, addressing the Sixth Zionist Congress in 1903 in Basle, Switzerland
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).
“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
Where Tikkun Olam can lead
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.
Remember in your charity:
Remember the welfare of our expectant mother: Flavia McDonald,
Michael Brigg requests our prayers for the health of John Romeo,
The health and welfare of Gene Peters who will be having cardiac surgery,
Conversion of Anton Schwartzmueller, is the paryer request of his children,
Stacy Fernandez requests are prayers for the heath of Terry Patterson, Steven Becerra, and Roberto Valez,
Christine Kozin, for her health,
Teresa Gonyea, for her conversion and health, is the petition of her grandmother, Patricia McLaughlin,
Nolan Moran, a three year old diagnosed with brain tumor, and his family,
For the health of Sonia Kolinsky,
Jackie Dougherty asks our prayers for her brother who is gravely ill, John Lee,
Rose Bradley asks our prayers for the health and spiritual welfare of her granddaughter, Meg Bradley,
Timothy & Crisara, a couple from Maryland have requested our prayers for their spiritual welfare,
Roger & Mandy Owen Family, for their welfare is the request of Monica Bandlow,
Celine Pilegaard, the seven year old daughter of Cynthia Pilegaard, for her recovery from burn injuries,
Rafaela de Saravia, for her health and welfare,
Mary Mufide, requests our prayers for her family,
Rosemary Bradley, who is in failing health, for her welfare,
Abbe Damien Dutertre, traditional Catholic priest arrested by Montreal police while offering Mass,
Francis (Frank) X. McLaughlin, for the recovery of his health from a serious work injury,
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,
Thomas Thees, recently hospitalized,
Thomas A. Nelson, long time faithful traditional Catholic the founder and former owner of TAN Books & Publishing, suffered a recent stroke,
The Joseph Cox Family, their spiritual welfare,
The Thomas Dube Family, for their conversion and spiritual welfare,
Luis Rafael Zelaya, the brother of Claudia Drew, who is seriously ill,
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,
John and Joann DeMarco, for their 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,
The health and spiritual welfare of Tom Grow, Amanda Gardner, and Alex Estrada,
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, who is recovering from a stroke,
Kimberly Ann, the daughter of John and Joann DeMarco, for her health and spiritual welfare,
Mufide Rende, a traditional Catholic from India has asked our prayers for her welfare and he family members, living and deceased,
Mary and Bill Glatz, the welfare of their family,
Barbara Harmon, who is ill, and still cares for her ailing parents,
Jason Green, a father of ten children who has been seriously injured,
For the health and welfare of Robert Kolinsky and his family, and the 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,
Welfare of Bishop Richard Williamson, for strength and courage in the greater battles to come,
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 who has been ill, and for Fr. Thomas Blute,
For the health and welfare of Kathryn Lederhos, the aunt of David Drew,
For the welfare of Fr. Paul DaDamio and Fr. William T. Welsh,
The Drew’s ask our prayers for the welfare of Joe & Tracy 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 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,
For the welfare of Anthony & Joyce Paglia, who are responsible for the beautiful statuary in our chapel,
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, and the welfare of Frank D’Agustino who is ill, and his brother, Thomas Thees, John Calasanctis, Tony Rosky, James Parvenski and Kathleen Gorry.
Pray for the Repose of the Souls:
Fr. Dominique Bourmaud, of the SSPX, Prior of St. Vincen 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,
Fr. Anthony Cekada, a traditional Catholic priest, died September 11,
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,
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,
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,
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,
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 Haigh, died October 21, 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,and Rev. Hector Bolduc, who died September 10,
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,
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 Wather, 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.
What every normal person already knows! Anyone supporting the novelty of Gender Ideology is de facto guilty of child abuse!
Gender Ideology Leads to Child Abuse: Pediatricians
Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D. | NEW YORK, Center for Family & Human Rights
“Facts – not ideology – determine reality,” the American College of Pediatricians (ACP) said in a warning to legislators and educators about the dangers of surgical and medical sex change operations to children.
“Conditioning children into believing that a lifetime of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex is normal and healthful is child abuse,” the physicians said, “Rates of suicide are twenty times greater among adults who use cross-sex hormones and undergo sex reassignment surgery, even in Sweden which is among the most LGBTQ – affirming countries.”
The group, which aims at getting parents involved in their children’s health and education about health, said, “Gender (an awareness and sense of oneself as male or female) is a sociological and psychological concept; not an objective biological one,” and that, “A person’s belief that he or she is something they are not is, at best, a sign of confused thinking.”
To the contrary, the group maintained that human sexuality is a “binary trait” and said the XY and XX chromosomes that determine female or male sex are “genetic markers of health” not “genetic markers of a disorder.”
“No one is born with a gender. Everyone is born with a biological sex,” the statement said.
The American Academy of Pediatricians, the larger professional society from which the ACP broke away in 2002, has surgical and medical interventions in youth to suppress the hormones that naturally cause girls to grow into women and boys to men.
The ACP says this change in position has put American teens at higher risk for physical and mental illness. ”Puberty is not a disease and puberty-blocking hormones can be dangerous…as many as 98% of gender confused boys and 88% of gender confused girls eventually accept their biological sex after naturally passing through puberty,” the ACP pointed out, and noted that children who use puberty blockers to “impersonate the opposite sex” will require cross-sex hormones in late adolescence that in turn can cause dangerous health risks such as high blood pressure, blood clots, stroke and cancer.
One of the statement’s authors is psychologist Paul McHugh. Drawing upon his clinical work with LGBTQ persons as chief psychologist at Johns Hopkins hospital and research as distinguished professor at the university’s medical school, McHugh has criticized what he sees as the American Psychological Association’s embracing of gender ideology at the expense of sound medical practice. McHugh authored an amicus brief filed in the U.S. Supreme Court case that overturned man-woman marriage laws in the U.S. last year.
Pro-LGBT groups criticized the ACP statement saying it would incite discrimination; one group called it an “attack on transgender children”. A public interest law firm labeled the ACP a “hate group” when it filed an amicus brief with the Alabama Supreme Court which favored exceptions to the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling knocking down U.S. laws protecting marriage as between a man and a woman.
Activists similarly criticized Pope Francis’ recent remarks to Polish bishops where he identified gender “ideology” as a form of “ideological colonization” and linked it to government corruption. He said, “Today children – children! – are taught in school that everyone can choose his or her sex. Why are they teaching this? Because the books are provided by the persons and institutions that give you money. These forms of ideological colonization are also supported by influential countries. And this is terrible!”
Hermeneutics of Continuity/Discontinuity
Tradition: from an Objective Truth Received reduced to a Subjective Impression of Historical Events
Now I make known unto you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you have received, and wherein you stand; By which also you are saved, if you hold fast after what manner I preached unto you, unless you have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all, which I also received.
St. Paul, 1 Cor. 15: 1-3
Concluding and summing up, we can therefore say that Tradition is not the transmission of things or words, a collection of dead things. Tradition is the living river that links us to the origins, the living river in which the origins are ever present, the great river that leads us to the gates of eternity.
Pope Benedict XVI, General Audience, April 26, 2006
Both the Catholic and Protestant interpretation of Christianity have meaning each in its own way; they are true in their historical moment... Truth becomes a function of time... fidelity to yesterday’s truth consists precisely in abandoning it, in assimilating it into today’s truth. [.....] The truth is whatever serves progress, that is, whatever serves the logic of history.
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology: Building Stones for a Fundamental Theology
Rights Created from Duties - In the conflict of Law - The “Ends” Determine the Law that Must be Followed
Let us examine these words of Aquinas. First, he says that “since a precept of law is binding, it is about something to be done.” This is a truth to which we seldom if ever advert, namely, that although right and duty are correlatives, duty is ultimately the basis of right - not vice versa. And this is so because right and duty are grounded upon law. Law, as we saw, is a directive norm of action which carries with it an obligation. It binds us to do or avoid something. The Eternal, Natural and Positive Laws are ordinations, commands of reason. The fundamental notion of law then is obligation - not the concept of right. We have rights because we have duties. Since a precept of law is binding it is about something to be done.
Secondly, “that a thing must be done arises from the necessity of some end.” Whenever a man does anything, i.e., whenever he acts as a reasonable being, he acts for an end - to obtain some good; and so the necessity of his doing anything as a man must come from the end. However, because man is a rational being he is free and consequently the necessity exercised by any particular end or good cannot be psychological; it must be moral. That is, man’s will remains free but he is obliged morally, he has a duty to seek the end - and that because a precept of law binds him to do so.
Rights, therefore, are founded upon duties, duties are grounded upon Natural or Positive Law, and because these laws are themselves based upon the Eternal Law all rights and duties have their ultimate source in the same Eternal Law.
Rev. John A. Driscoll, O.P., S.T.Lr., Ph.D., Rights and Duties - Their Foundation
Indultists have kept their mouths shut in the fact of some of the most egregious blasphemies committed by Pope Francis. They have been unwilling to risk the loss of their grant of privilege by offending the blasphemer, and now even that is being taken away. Those who don’t defend the faith don’t deserve anything!
Ecclesia Dei communities issue official response to Pope Francis’ restrictions on the TLM
The superiors asked the pontiff to heed the promise of the 1988 document Ecclesia Dei that 'all measures would be taken to guarantee the identity of their Institutes in the full communion of the Catholic Church.'
LifeSiteNews | Michael Haynes | COURTALAIN, France | Sep 2, 2021
Superiors from twelve Latin Mass communities have issued a joint official statement to Pope Francis and the French bishops in response to Traditionis Custodes.
The priests and abbots have asked for a “humane, personal, trusting dialogue” and promised to “convert if party spirit or pride has polluted our hearts.”
The joint statement, issued on September 2 in English and in French, addresses Pope Francis’ recent restrictions on the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) in Traditionis Custodes. It asks for security for the members of the traditional communities in their way of life, something which Dr. Peter Kwasniewski described as the statement’s “strongest argument,” as a substantial change to the rule of such communities would be an “internal ecclesiological contradiction.”
A message of submission from Courtalain
The twelve superior-generals met on August 31 in Courtalain, France. They represented male and female Ecclesia Dei communities, groups devoted to the celebration and promulgation of the Church’s ancient liturgy. Courtalain is home to the seminary of one of the communities, the Institute of the Good Shepherd (IBP).
Joining superiors from well-known traditional communities – the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter, the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest, the Institute of the Good Shepherd – with those from less known societies and with abbots from France’s traditional Benedictine monasteries, the meeting was an extremely rare event.
“The signatory Institutes want, above all, to reiterate their love for the Church and their fidelity to the Holy Father,” the letter began before explaining that this love is “tinged with great suffering today.”
“We feel suspected, marginalized, banished,” wrote the signatories, adding that “we do not recognize ourselves in the description” which Pope Francis gave of those devoted to tradition in the letter accompanying Traditionis Custodes.
The papal letter has been described as “worse than the MP [Traditionis Custodes] itself.” In it, the Pope attacked “the instrumental use of Missale Romanum of 1962” which, he said, “is often characterized by a rejection not only of the liturgical reform, but of the Vatican Council II itself, claiming, with unfounded and unsustainable assertions, that it betrayed the Tradition and the ‘true Church’.”
Twelve signatories firmly denied the papal accusation, writing: “We do not see ourselves as the ‘true Church’ in any way. On the contrary, we see in the Catholic Church our Mother in whom we find salvation and faith.”
In one passage, the signatories reaffirmed their “adherence to the magisterium (including that of Vatican II and what follows), according to the Catholic doctrine of the assent due to it (cf. in particular Lumen Gentium, n ° 25, and Catechism of the Catholic Church , n ° 891 and 892), as evidenced by the numerous studies and doctoral theses carried out by several of us over the past 33 years.”
“The virtue of fortitude protects a person from loving his life so much that he loses it.”
Josef Pieper, A Brief Reader on the Virtues of the Human Heart
“Prayer draws its merits from charity; but its imperative efficacy comes from faith and confidence.”
“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
September is dedicated to Our Lady of Sorrows
Prayer to Our Lady of Sorrows
Novena to Our Lady of Sorrows September 6th to the 14th
Most holy and afflicted Virgin, Queen of Martyrs, thou stood beneath the cross, witnessing the agony of thy dying Son. Look with a mother’s tenderness and pity on me, who kneel before thee. I venerate thy sorrows and I place my requests with filial confidence in the sanctuary of thy wounded heart.
Present them, I beseech thee, on my behalf to Jesus Christ, through the merits of His own most sacred passion and death, together with thy sufferings at the foot of the cross. Through the united efficacy of both, obtain the granting of my petition.
To whom shall I have recourse in my wants and miseries if not to thee, Mother of Mercy? Thou who have drunk so deeply of the chalice of thy Son, thou can compassionate our sorrows.
Holy Mary, thy soul was pierced by a sword of sorrow at the sight of the passion of thy divine Son. Intercede for me and obtain from Jesus Christ this grace, if it be for His honor and glory and for the good of my soul. Amen
SPECIAL FAVORS FOR THOSE DEVOTED TO THE SORROWS OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN
The graces which Our Lord promises to those who are devoted to the sorrows of His Blessed Mother are very great. St. Alphonsus, in his discourse on the dolors of Mary, states: It was revealed to St. Elizabeth that some years after the Blessed Virgin was assumed into heaven, St. John, the beloved disciple, was seized with an ardent desire to see her again. This favor was granted him. His dear Mother appeared to him in company with our Divine Lord. Then St. John heard Mary asking of her Son some special graces for those who were devoted to her dolors. Our Lord promised the four following graces:
1) Those who invoke the Heavenly Mother through her sorrows will obtain true sorrow for their sins before death.
2) Our Savior will protect them in their tribulations, especially at the hour of death.
3) He will impress upon them the memory of His Passion, and will reward them for it in Heaven.
4) He will commit such devout servants to the hands of Mary, that she may dispose of them according to her pleasure, and obtain for them all the graces she desires.
St. Alphonsus Ligouri, Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Besides these great graces, Father Faber enumerates others which are obtained through devotion to Mary's sorrows:
1) This devotion has a remarkable connection with great interior holiness.
2) It reveals the emptiness of worldly joys. Worldliness finds no soul harder to attack than one entrenched in the sorrows of our Blessed Lady. The world can graft itself upon nothing in this devotion.
3) It gives us a permanent share in the sorrow for sin which Jesus and Mary felt.
4) It keeps our thoughts close to Jesus Christ, and to Him Crucified.
5) It communicates to our souls the spirit of the Cross, and gives us strength to endure our own sufferings with resignation to the holy will of God.
6) This devotion is wholly covered with the Precious Blood of Jesus and leads us directly into the depths of the Heart of our Savior.
7) Anyone who during his lifetime has cherished compassion for this afflicted Mother may consider this as a most assured sign of predestination.
What “Religious Submission” to the ‘Ordinary Authentic Magisterium’ Actually Means
Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent just because in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power [i.e., extra-ordinary magisterium] of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary Teaching Authority [ordinary and universal magisterium], of which it is true to say: “He that heareth you, heareth Me.” [Luke 10:16].
Pius XII, Humani Generis, par. 20.
COMMENT: This quotation taken from Pope Pius XII is now referenced to support the Novus Ordo Church’s claim that every Catholic must give unconditional submission of his “mind and will to the authentic magisterium” of Pope Francis. Pope Pius XII in his encyclical is referring to the “ordinary and universal magisterium” and this can be clearly seen for two reasons: The examples provided by Pope Pius XII that follow this statement in his encyclical refer specifically to modern theological novelties that reject, for example, the infallible teaching of the Church on the inerrancy of sacred scripture, the identity of the Church and the Mystical Body of Christ, and the nature of Original Sin. These are all examples of the “ordinary and universal” magisterium that Vatican I dogmatically defined as “infallible.”
The other reason is God cannot bind the authority of His Truth to what can and have in the past contained errors. Fr. Joseph Fenton, in an article published in the AER in 1949 entitled, On the Doctrinal Authority of Papal Encyclicals, documents specific historical errors published in those documents. Whenever the pope teaches by virtue of his grace of state from the ‘authentic ordinary magisterium’, his teaching must be accepted by a religious submission which is always and necessarily a prudent and conditional submission to the personal teaching authority of the pope. Such conditional acceptance of the word of God is not possible when the pope teaches infallibly by engaging the “extra-ordinary magisterium” or the “ordinary and universal magisterium” of the Church from which alone it can be said without qualification whatsoever, “He that heareth you, heareth Me.” [Luke 10:16].
The modern encyclical by Pope Francis on global warming/earth worship, for example, is wholly conscribed within a very narrow and tenuous ideological framework that has little or nothing to do with Catholic doctrine or morality. This document has nothing to do with the “ordinary and universal” magisterium. It is entirely a product of the personal authentic ordinary magisterium of Pope Francis teaching by his grace of state. Anyone to whom the document is addressed is free to toss the document in the trash along with the junk mail if he, upon mature consideration, finds it to be a novelty and, in its overall tone, an ideological screed divorced from natural truth.
“He who does not keep the true Catholic faith whole and without error will undoubtedly be lost. He who is separated from the Catholic Church will not have life.”
Pope Gregory XVI, Perlatum Ad Nos
That the Mystical Body of Christ and the Catholic Church in communion with Rome are one and the same thing is a doctrine based on Revealed Truth. That we must necessarily belong to the true Church if we are to attain everlasting salvation is a statement which some people reduce to meaningless formula.
Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis
Nature of DOGMA - “A genuine supernatural message or communication from the living God Himself” - and its Denial by Modernists
Thus, We have reached one of the principal points in the Modernists’
system, namely the origin and the nature of dogma. For they place the origin of
dogma in those primitive and simple formulae, which, under a certain aspect,
are necessary to faith; for revelation, to be truly such, requires the clear
manifestation of God in the consciousness. But dogma itself they apparently
hold, is contained in the secondary formulae.
To ascertain the nature of dogma (for the modernist), we must first find the relation which exists between the religious formulas and the religious sentiment. This will be readily perceived by him who realises that these formulas have no other purpose than to furnish the believer with a means of giving an account of his faith to himself. These formulas (for the modernist) therefore stand midway between the believer and his faith; in their relation to the faith, they are the inadequate expression of its object, and are usually called symbols; in their relation to the believer, they are mere instruments.
Hence it is quite impossible (for the modernist) to maintain that they express absolute truth: for, in so far as they are symbols, they are the images of truth, and so must be adapted to the religious sentiment in its relation to man; and as instruments, they are the vehicles of truth, and must therefore in their turn be adapted to man in his relation to the religious sentiment. But the object of the religious sentiment, since it embraces that absolute, possesses an infinite variety of aspects of which now one, now another, may present itself. In like manner, he who believes may pass through different phases. Consequently, the formulae too, which we call dogmas, must be subject to these vicissitudes, and are, therefore, liable to change. Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. An immense collection of sophisms this, that ruins and destroys all religion. Dogma is not only able, but ought to evolve and to be changed.
St.Pius X, Pascendi
If the teaching proposed by the Church as dogma is not actually and
really the doctrine supernaturally revealed by God through Jesus Christ Our
Lord, [........] then there could be nothing more pitifully inane than the work
of the Catholic Magisterium. [........] This common basis of the false
doctrinal Americanism and of the Modernist heresy is, like doctrinal
indifferentism itself, ultimately a rejection of Catholic dogma as a genuine
supernatural message or communication from the living God Himself. It would
seem impossible for anyone to be blasphemous or silly enough to be convinced,
on the one hand, that the dogmatic message of the Catholic Church is actually a
locutio Dei ad homines, and to imagine, on the other hand, that he, a
mere creature, could in some way improve that teaching or make it more
respectable. The very fact that a man would be so rash as to attempt to bring
the dogma of the Church up to date, or to make it more acceptable to those who
are not privileged to be members of the true Church, indicates that this
individual is not actually and profoundly convinced that this dogmatic teaching
of the Catholic Church is a supernatural communication from the living and
Triune God, the Lord and Creator of heaven and earth. It would be the height of
blasphemy knowingly to set out to improve or to bring up to date what one would
seriously consider a genuine message from the First Cause of the universe.
Fr. Joseph C. Fenton, AER, The Sacrorum Antistitum and the Background of the Oath Against Modernism
“Nothing occurs by chance in the whole course of our life. God overrules all. 'Good things and evil, life and death, poverty and riches, are from God' (Ecclus. 11:14).”
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:
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.’” St. Eugene IV, Cantate Domino
A Catholic View on Religious Liberty
Among the slogans of “politically correct” language there is the term “religious liberty”, which is used incorrectly at times by Catholics as a synonym for freedom for the Church or freedom for Christians. In reality the terms and concepts are different and it is necessary to clarify them. The ambiguity present in the Conciliar declaration Dignitatis humanae (1965) arose from the lack of distinction between the internal forum, which is in the sphere of personal conscience, and the public space, which is in the sphere of the community, or rather the profession and propagation of one’s personal religious convictions.
The Church, with Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos (1836), with Pope Pius IX in the Syllabus and in Quanta Cura (1864), but also with Pope Leo XIII in Immortale Dei (1885) and in Libertas (1888) teaches that:
· 1. No one can be constricted to believe in the private forum, because faith is a personal choice formed in the conscience of man.
· 2. Man has no right
· to religious freedom in the public space, or rather freedom to profess whatever religion, because only the true and the good have rights and not what is error and is evil.
· 3. Public worship of false religions may be, in cases, tolerated by the civil authorities, with the view of obtaining a greater good or avoiding a greater evil, but, in essence, it may be repressed even by force if necessary. But the right to tolerance is a contradiction, because, as is evident even from the term, whatever is tolerated is never a good thing, rather, it is always a purely bad thing. In the social life of nations, error may be tolerated as a reality, but never allowed as a right. Error “has no right to exist objectively nor to propaganda, nor action” (Pius XII Speech Ci Riesce 1953)
Further, the right of being immune to coercion, or rather the fact that the Church does not impose the Catholic Faith on anyone, but requires the freedom of the act of faith, does not arise from a presumed natural right to religious freedom or a presumed natural right to believe in any religion whatever, but it is founded on the fact that the Catholic Religion, the only true one, must be embraced in complete freedom without any constraints. The liberty of the believer is based on the truth believed and not on the self-determination of the individual. The Catholic and only the Catholic has the natural right to profess and practice his religion and he has it because his religion is the true one. Which means that no other believer apart from the Catholic has the natural right to profess his religion. The verification of this is in the fact that rights do not exist without responsibilities and duties and vice versa. The natural law, summed up in the ten commandments, is expressed in a prescriptive manner, that is, it imposes duties and responsibilities from which rights arise. For example, in the Commandment “Do not kill the innocent” the right of the innocent to life arises. The rejection of abortion is a prescription of natural rights which is separated from religion and whoever conforms to it. And this is the same for the seven Commandments of the Second Table. Comparing the right to religious liberty to the right to life, considering them both as natural rights, is however, nonsense.
The first three commandments of the Decalogue in fact do not refer to all and sundry divinities, but only to the God of the Old and the New Testaments. From the First Commandment, which imposes adoration of the Only True God, arises the right and the duty to profess not any religion but the only true one. This counts for both the individual and the State. The State, like each individual, has the duty to profess the true religion, also because the aims of the State are no different from those of the individual.
The reason the State cannot constrain anyone to believe does not arise from the religious neutrality of the State, but from the fact that adhering to the truth must be completely free. If the individual had the right to preach and profess publically any religion whatever, the State would have the obligation of religious neutrality. This has been repeatedly condemned by the Church.
For this reason we say that man has the right to profess, not any religion, but to profess the only true one. Only if religious liberty is intended as Christian liberty, will it be possible to speak of the right to it.
There are those who sustain that we live actually in a pluralistic and secularized society, that the Catholic States have disappeared and that Europe is a continent that has turned its back on Christianity. Therefore, the real problem is that of Christians persecuted in the world, and not that of a Catholic State. Nobody denies this, but the verification of a reality is not equivalent to the affirmation of a principle. The Catholic must desire a Catholic society and State with all his heart, where Christ reigns, as Pope Pius XI in the encyclical Quas Primas (1925) explains.
The distinction between the “thesis” (the principle) and the “hypothesis” (the concrete situation) is noted. The more that we are obliged to suffer under the hypothesis, the more we have to try to make the thesis known. Hence, we do not renounce the doctrine of the Social Kingship of Christ: let us speak of the rights of Jesus Christ to reign over entire societies as the only solution to modern evils. So, instead of fighting for religious liberty, which is the equalizing of the true religion with the false ones, let us fight in defense of liberty for Christians, today persecuted by Islam in the East and by the dictatorship of relativism in the West.
Roberto de Mattei, Roman Catholic Historian
“In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to Me, and she will be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world.”
Blessed Virgin Mary to the children at Fatima
The “DOGS” and the “SWINE” are Wearing Clerical Collars
“Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.” Matt 7:6
Let us see now what is the holy thing, what are the dogs, what the pearls, what the swine? The holy thing is all that it were impiety to corrupt; a sin which may be committed by the will, though the thing itself be undone. The pearls are all spiritual things that are to be highly esteemed. Thus though one and the same thing may be called both the holy thing and a pearl, yet it is called holy because it is not to be corrupted; and called a pearl because it is not be contemned.
The dogs are those that assault the truth; the swine we may not unsuitably take for those that despise the truth. Therefore because dogs leap forth to rend in pieces, and what they rend, suffer not to continue whole, He said, “Give not that which is holy to the dogs;” because they strive to the utmost of their power to destroy the truth. The swine though they do not assault by biting as dogs, yet do they defile by trampling upon, and therefore He said, “Cast not your pearls before swine.”
That which is despised is said to be trodden under foot: hence it is said, “Lest perchance they tread them under foot.”
That which follows, “Turn again and rend you,” He means not the pearls themselves, for these they tread under foot, and when they turn again that they may hear something further, then they rend him by whom the pearls on which they had trode had been cast. For you will not easily find what will please him who has despised things got by great toil. Whoever then undertake to teach such, I see not how they shall not be trode upon and rent by those they teach.
We must be careful therefore not to explain ought to him who does not receive it; for men they rather seek that which is hidden than that which is opened. He either attacks from ferocity as a dog, or overlooks from stupidity as swine.
But it does not follow that if the truth be kept hid, falsehood is uttered. The Lord Himself who never spoke falsely, yet sometimes concealed the truth, as in that, “I have yet many things to say unto you, the which ye are not now able to bear” [John 16:12]. But if any is unable to receive these things because of his filthiness, we must first cleanse him as far as lays in our power either by word or deed.
St. Augustine, Serm. in Mont., ii, 20
“Opinions opposed to reason inevitably produce actions opposed to nature.”
Louis de Bonald, (1754-1840) French counter-revolutionary, statesman, philosopher
Hermeneutics of Continuity/Discontinuity
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
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
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
“Those who indulge in impurities are wont to hold spiritual things in disgust.”
Msgr. Gerard Van Noort, S.T.D., Dogmatic Theology
Pope Francis abrogates Summorum Pontificum
COMMENT: Pope Francis abrogates Summorum Pontificum: Indult crowd in panic. Why? These conservative Catholics would oppose Francis to Benedict and JPII, but only a casual examination of this Motu Proprio and the accompanying letter reveals that Francis is wholly consistent with the intent of his predecessors. This apostolic letter is an act of the “authentic magisterium” of Pope Francis, that is, it is his personal directive based upon his grace of state and has nothing to do with the Magisterium of the Church and divine intervention of the Holy Ghost. This Motu Proprio is just as much an act of his “authentic magisterium” as was his worship of Pachamama, or JPII’s pagan exhibition at Assisi, or Benedict’s “fellowship” in the Jewish synagogue in Rome.
Perhaps this will be a wakeup call to some, but like before, most conservative Catholics will betray the faith under the pretext of ‘obedience.’ We remind them again: ‘We must obey God rather than man.’ For those faithful who keep Dogma as their proximate rule of faith this presents no problem. The faith is the essential sign and cause of unity in the Church. The pope is only secondarily and accidentally the cause and sign of unity in the Church. When the pope falls from the faith, he must be ‘withstood to his face.’
We can rejoice in that this Motu Proprio buries the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal. It has been on life support for far too long and for pulling the plug we can extend our gratitude to Pope Francis. Every Catholic faithful to the true worship of God will necessarily, in time, embrace the “received and approved” rite of Catholic worship before Bugnini ever laid his filthy Masonic hands on it. As far as the rest of the document, he displays, like his predecessors, an ideological agenda that is remarkable for its ignorance of historical fact and fundamental alienation to Catholic Tradition.
Pope Francis abrogates Summorum Pontificum: Indult crowd in panic.
ISSUED “MOTU PROPRIO”
BY THE SUPREME PONTIFF
ON THE USE OF THE ROMAN LITURGY PRIOR TO THE REFORM OF 1970
Guardians of the tradition, the bishops in communion with the Bishop of Rome constitute the visible principle and foundation of the unity of their particular Churches. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, through the proclamation of the Gospel and by means of the celebration of the Eucharist, they govern the particular Churches entrusted to them.
In order to promote the concord and unity of the Church, with paternal solicitude towards those who in any region adhere to liturgical forms antecedent to the reform willed by the Vatican Council II, my Venerable Predecessors, Saint John Paul II and Benedict XVI, granted and regulated the faculty to use the Roman Missal edited by John XXIII in 1962. In this way they intended “to facilitate the ecclesial communion of those Catholics who feel attached to some earlier liturgical forms” and not to others.
In line with the initiative of my Venerable Predecessor Benedict XVI to invite the bishops to assess the application of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum three years after its publication, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith carried out a detailed consultation of the bishops in 2020. The results have been carefully considered in the light of experience that has matured during these years.
At this time, having considered the wishes expressed by the episcopate and having heard the opinion of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, I now desire, with this Apostolic Letter, to press on ever more in the constant search for ecclesial communion. Therefore, I have considered it appropriate to establish the following:
Art. 1. The liturgical books promulgated by Saint Paul VI and Saint
John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, are the
unique only expression of
the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.
Art. 2. It belongs to the diocesan bishop, as moderator, promoter, and guardian of the whole liturgical life of the particular Church entrusted to him, to regulate the liturgical celebrations of his diocese. Therefore, it is his exclusive competence to authorize the use of the 1962 Roman Missal in his diocese, according to the guidelines of the Apostolic See.
Art. 3. The bishop of the diocese in which until now there exist one or more groups that celebrate according to the Missal antecedent to the reform of 1970:
§ 1. is to determine that these groups do not deny the validity and the legitimacy of the liturgical reform, dictated by Vatican Council II and the Magisterium of the Supreme Pontiffs;
§ 2. is to designate one or more locations where the faithful adherents of these groups may gather for the eucharistic celebration (not however in the parochial churches and without the erection of new personal parishes);
§ 3. to establish at the designated locations the days on which eucharistic celebrations are permitted using the Roman Missal promulgated by Saint John XXIII in 1962. In these celebrations the readings are proclaimed in the vernacular language, using translations of the Sacred Scripture approved for liturgical use by the respective Episcopal Conferences;
§ 4. to appoint a priest who, as delegate of the bishop, is entrusted with these celebrations and with the pastoral care of these groups of the faithful. This priest should be suited for this responsibility, skilled in the use of the Missale Romanum antecedent to the reform of 1970, possess a knowledge of the Latin language sufficient for a thorough comprehension of the rubrics and liturgical texts, and be animated by a lively pastoral charity and by a sense of ecclesial communion. This priest should have at heart not only the correct celebration of the liturgy, but also the pastoral and spiritual care of the faithful;
§ 5. to proceed suitably to verify that the parishes canonically erected for the benefit of these faithful are effective for their spiritual growth, and to determine whether or not to retain them;
§ 6. to take care not to authorize the establishment of new groups.
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
Art. 5. Priests who already celebrate according to the Missale Romanum of 1962 should request from the diocesan Bishop the authorization to continue to enjoy this faculty.
Art. 6. Institutes of consecrated life and Societies of apostolic life, erected by the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, fall under the competence of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies for Apostolic Life.
Art. 7. The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments and the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, for matters of their particular competence, exercise the authority of the Holy See with respect to the observance of these provisions.
Art. 8. Previous norms, instructions, permissions, and customs that do not conform to the provisions of the present Motu Proprio are abrogated.
Everything that I have declared in this Apostolic Letter in the form of Motu Proprio, I order to be observed in all its parts, anything else to the contrary notwithstanding, even if worthy of particular mention, and I establish that it be promulgated by way of publication in “L’Osservatore Romano”, entering immediately in force and, subsequently, that it be published in the official Commentary of the Holy See, Acta Apostolicae Sedis.
Given at Rome, at Saint John Lateran, on 16 July 2021, the liturgical Memorial of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, in the ninth year of Our Pontificate.
 Cfr Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church “Lumen Gentium”, 21 november 1964, n. 23 AAS 57 (1965) 27.
 Cfr Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church “Lumen Gentium”, 21 november 1964, n. 27: AAS 57 (1965) 32; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Decree concerning the pastoral office of bishops in the Church “Christus Dominus”, 28 october 1965, n. 11: AAS 58 (1966) 677-678; Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 833.
 Cfr John Paul II, Apostolic Letter given Motu proprio ”Ecclesia Dei”, 2 july 1988: AAS 80 (1988) 1495-1498; Benedict XVI, Apostolic Letter given Motu proprio ”Summorum Pontificum”, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 777-781; Apostolic Letter given Motu proprio ”Ecclesiae unitatem”, 2 july 2009: AAS 101 (2009) 710-711.
 John Paul II, Apostolic Letter given Motu proprio ”Ecclesia Dei”, 2 july 1988, n. 5: AAS 80 (1988) 1498.
 Cfr Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Costitution on the sacred liturgy “Sacrosanctum Concilium”, 4 december 1963, n. 41: AAS 56 (1964) 111; Caeremoniale Episcoporum, n. 9; Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacrament, Instruction on certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist “Redemptionis Sacramentum”, 25 march 2004, nn. 19-25: AAS 96 (2004) 555-557.
 Cfr CIC, can. 375, § 1; can. 392.
 Cfr Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Decree “Quo magis” approving seven Eucharistic Prefaces for the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite, 22 february 2020, and Decree “Cum sanctissima” on the liturgical celebration in honour of Saints in the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite, 22 february 2020: L’Osservatore Romano, 26 march 2020, p. 6.
Rome, 16 July 2021
Dear Brothers in the Episcopate,
Just as my Predecessor Benedict XVI did with Summorum Pontificum, I wish to accompany the Motu proprio Traditionis custodes with a letter explaining the motives that prompted my decision. I turn to you with trust and parresia, in the name of that shared “solicitude for the whole Church, that contributes supremely to the good of the Universal Church” as Vatican Council II reminds us.
Most people understand the motives that prompted St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI to allow the use of the Roman Missal, promulgated by St. Pius V and edited by St. John XXIII in 1962, for the Eucharistic Sacrifice. The faculty — granted by the indult of the Congregation for Divine Worship in 1984 and confirmed by St. John Paul II in the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei in 1988 — was above all motivated by the desire to foster the healing of the schism with the movement of Mons. Lefebvre. With the ecclesial intention of restoring the unity of the Church, the Bishops were thus asked to accept with generosity the “just aspirations” of the faithful who requested the use of that Missal.
Many in the Church came to regard this faculty as an opportunity to adopt freely the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and use it in a manner parallel to the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Paul VI. In order to regulate this situation at the distance of many years, Benedict XVI intervened to address this state of affairs in the Church. Many priests and communities had “used with gratitude the possibility offered by the Motu proprio” of St. John Paul II. Underscoring that this development was not foreseeable in 1988, the Motu proprio Summorum Pontificum of 2007 intended to introduce “a clearer juridical regulation” in this area. In order to allow access to those, including young people, who when “they discover this liturgical form, feel attracted to it and find in it a form, particularly suited to them, to encounter the mystery of the most holy Eucharist”, Benedict XVI declared “the Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and newly edited by Blessed John XXIII, as a extraordinary expression of the same lex orandi”, granting a “more ample possibility for the use of the 1962 Missal”.
In making their decision they were confident that such a provision would not place in doubt one of the key measures of Vatican Council II or minimize in this way its authority: the Motu proprio recognized that, in its own right, “the Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the lex orandi of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite”. The recognition of the Missal promulgated by St. Pius V “as an extraordinary expression of the same lex orandi” did not in any way underrate the liturgical reform, but was decreed with the desire to acknowledge the “insistent prayers of these faithful,” allowing them “to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass according to the editio typica of the Roman Missal promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as the extraordinary form of the Liturgy of the Church”. It comforted Benedict XVI in his discernment that many desired “to find the form of the sacred Liturgy dear to them,” “clearly accepted the binding character of Vatican Council II and were faithful to the Pope and to the Bishops”. What is more, he declared to be unfounded the fear of division in parish communities, because “the two forms of the use of the Roman Rite would enrich one another”. Thus, he invited the Bishops to set aside their doubts and fears, and to welcome the norms, “attentive that everything would proceed in peace and serenity,” with the promise that “it would be possible to find resolutions” in the event that “serious difficulties came to light” in the implementation of the norms “once the Motu proprio came into effect”.
With the passage of thirteen years, I instructed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to circulate a questionnaire to the Bishops regarding the implementation of the Motu proprio Summorum Pontificum. The responses reveal a situation that preoccupies and saddens me, and persuades me of the need to intervene. Regrettably, the pastoral objective of my Predecessors, who had intended “to do everything possible to ensure that all those who truly possessed the desire for unity would find it possible to remain in this unity or to rediscover it anew”, has often been seriously disregarded. An opportunity offered by St. John Paul II and, with even greater magnanimity, by Benedict XVI, intended to recover the unity of an ecclesial body with diverse liturgical sensibilities, was exploited to widen the gaps, reinforce the divergences, and encourage disagreements that injure the Church, block her path, and expose her to the peril of division.
At the same time, I am saddened by abuses in the celebration of the liturgy on all sides. In common with Benedict XVI, I deplore the fact that “in many places the prescriptions of the new Missal are not observed in celebration, but indeed come to be interpreted as an authorization for or even a requirement of creativity, which leads to almost unbearable distortions”. But I am nonetheless saddened that the instrumental use of Missale Romanum of 1962 is often characterized by a rejection not only of the liturgical reform, but of the Vatican Council II itself, claiming, with unfounded and unsustainable assertions, that it betrayed the Tradition and the “true Church”. The path of the Church must be seen within the dynamic of Tradition “which originates from the Apostles and progresses in the Church with the assistance of the Holy Spirit” (DV 8). A recent stage of this dynamic was constituted by Vatican Council II where the Catholic episcopate came together to listen and to discern the path for the Church indicated by the Holy Spirit. To doubt the Council is to doubt the intentions of those very Fathers who exercised their collegial power in a solemn manner cum Petro et sub Petro in an ecumenical council, and, in the final analysis, to doubt the Holy Spirit himself who guides the Church.
The objective of the modification of the permission granted by my Predecessors is highlighted by the Second Vatican Council itself. From the vota submitted by the Bishops there emerged a great insistence on the full, conscious and active participation of the whole People of God in the liturgy, along lines already indicated by Pius XII in the encyclical Mediator Dei on the renewal of the liturgy. The constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium confirmed this appeal, by seeking “the renewal and advancement of the liturgy”, and by indicating the principles that should guide the reform. In particular, it established that these principles concerned the Roman Rite, and other legitimate rites where applicable, and asked that “the rites be revised carefully in the light of sound tradition, and that they be given new vigor to meet present-day circumstances and needs”. On the basis of these principles a reform of the liturgy was undertaken, with its highest expression in the Roman Missal, published in editio typica by St. Paul VI and revised by St. John Paul II. It must therefore be maintained that the Roman Rite, adapted many times over the course of the centuries according to the needs of the day, not only be preserved but renewed “in faithful observance of the Tradition”. Whoever wishes to celebrate with devotion according to earlier forms of the liturgy can find in the reformed Roman Missal according to Vatican Council II all the elements of the Roman Rite, in particular the Roman Canon which constitutes one of its more distinctive elements.
A final reason for my decision is this: ever more plain in the words and attitudes of many is the close connection between the choice of celebrations according to the liturgical books prior to Vatican Council II and the rejection of the Church and her institutions in the name of what is called the “true Church.” One is dealing here with comportment that contradicts communion and nurtures the divisive tendency — “I belong to Paul; I belong instead to Apollo; I belong to Cephas; I belong to Christ” — against which the Apostle Paul so vigorously reacted. In defense of the unity of the Body of Christ, I am constrained to revoke the faculty granted by my Predecessors. The distorted use that has been made of this faculty is contrary to the intentions that led to granting the freedom to celebrate the Mass with the Missale Romanum of 1962. Because “liturgical celebrations are not private actions, but celebrations of the Church, which is the sacrament of unity”, they must be carried out in communion with the Church. Vatican Council II, while it reaffirmed the external bonds of incorporation in the Church — the profession of faith, the sacraments, of communion — affirmed with St. Augustine that to remain in the Church not only “with the body” but also “with the heart” is a condition for salvation.
Dear brothers in the Episcopate, Sacrosanctum Concilium explained that the Church, the “sacrament of unity,” is such because it is “the holy People gathered and governed under the authority of the Bishops”. Lumen gentium, while recalling that the Bishop of Rome is “the permanent and visible principle and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the multitude of the faithful,” states that you the Bishops are “the visible principle and foundation of the unity of your local Churches, in which and through which exists the one and only Catholic Church”.
Responding to your requests, I take the firm decision to abrogate all the norms, instructions, permissions and customs that precede the present Motu proprio, and declare that the liturgical books promulgated by the saintly Pontiffs Paul VI and John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, constitute the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite. I take comfort in this decision from the fact that, after the Council of Trent, St. Pius V also abrogated all the rites that could not claim a proven antiquity, establishing for the whole Latin Church a single Missale Romanum. For four centuries this Missale Romanum, promulgated by St. Pius V was thus the principal expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite, and functioned to maintain the unity of the Church. Without denying the dignity and grandeur of this Rite, the Bishops gathered in ecumenical council asked that it be reformed; their intention was that “the faithful would not assist as strangers and silent spectators in the mystery of faith, but, with a full understanding of the rites and prayers, would participate in the sacred action consciously, piously, and actively”. St. Paul VI, recalling that the work of adaptation of the Roman Missal had already been initiated by Pius XII, declared that the revision of the Roman Missal, carried out in the light of ancient liturgical sources, had the goal of permitting the Church to raise up, in the variety of languages, “a single and identical prayer,” that expressed her unity. This unity I intend to re-establish throughout the Church of the Roman Rite.
Vatican Council II, when it described the catholicity of the People of God, recalled that “within the ecclesial communion” there exist the particular Churches which enjoy their proper traditions, without prejudice to the primacy of the Chair of Peter who presides over the universal communion of charity, guarantees the legitimate diversity and together ensures that the particular not only does not injure the universal but above all serves it”. While, in the exercise of my ministry in service of unity, I take the decision to suspend the faculty granted by my Predecessors, I ask you to share with me this burden as a form of participation in the solicitude for the whole Church proper to the Bishops. In the Motu proprio I have desired to affirm that it is up to the Bishop, as moderator, promoter, and guardian of the liturgical life of the Church of which he is the principle of unity, to regulate the liturgical celebrations. It is up to you to authorize in your Churches, as local Ordinaries, the use of the Missale Romanum of 1962, applying the norms of the present Motu proprio. It is up to you to proceed in such a way as to return to a unitary form of celebration, and to determine case by case the reality of the groups which celebrate with this Missale Romanum.
Indications about how to proceed in your dioceses are chiefly dictated by two principles: on the one hand, to provide for the good of those who are rooted in the previous form of celebration and need to return in due time to the Roman Rite promulgated by Saints Paul VI and John Paul II, and, on the other hand, to discontinue the erection of new personal parishes tied more to the desire and wishes of individual priests than to the real need of the “holy People of God.” At the same time, I ask you to be vigilant in ensuring that every liturgy be celebrated with decorum and fidelity to the liturgical books promulgated after Vatican Council II, without the eccentricities that can easily degenerate into abuses. Seminarians and new priests should be formed in the faithful observance of the prescriptions of the Missal and liturgical books, in which is reflected the liturgical reform willed by Vatican Council II.
Upon you I invoke the Spirit of the risen Lord, that he may make you strong and firm in your service to the People of God entrusted to you by the Lord, so that your care and vigilance express communion even in the unity of one, single Rite, in which is preserved the great richness of the Roman liturgical tradition. I pray for you. You pray for me.
 Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church “Lumen Gentium”, 21 november 1964, n. 23 AAS 57 (1965) 27.
 Cfr. Congregation for Divine Worship, Letter to the Presidents of the Conferences of Bishops “Quattuor abhinc annos”, 3 october 1984: AAS 76 (1984) 1088-1089.
 John Paul II, Apostolic Letter given Motu proprio ”Ecclesia Dei”, 2 july 1988: AAS 80 (1998) 1495-1498.
 Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops on the occasion of the publication of the Apostolic Letter “Motu proprio data” Summorum Pontificum on the use of the Roman Liturgy prior to the reform of 1970, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 796.
 Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops on the occasion of the publication of the Apostolic Letter “Motu proprio data” Summorum Pontificum on the use of the Roman Liturgy prior to the reform of 1970, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 796.
 Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops on the occasion of the publication of the Apostolic Letter “Motu proprio data” Summorum Pontificum on the use of the Roman Liturgy prior to the reform of 1970, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 797.
 Benedict XVI, Apostolic Letter given Motu proprio ”Summorum Pontificum”, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 779.
 Benedict XVI, Apostolic Letter given Motu proprio ”Summorum Pontificum”, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 779.
 Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops on the occasion of the publication of the Apostolic Letter “Motu proprio data” Summorum Pontificum on the use of the Roman Liturgy prior to the reform of 1970, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 796.
 Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops on the occasion of the publication of the Apostolic Letter “Motu proprio data” Summorum Pontificum on the use of the Roman Liturgy prior to the reform of 1970, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 797.
 Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops on the occasion of the publication of the Apostolic Letter “Motu proprio data” Summorum Pontificum on the use of the Roman Liturgy prior to the reform of 1970, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 798.
 Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops on the occasion of the publication of the Apostolic Letter “Motu proprio data” Summorum Pontificum on the use of the Roman Liturgy prior to the reform of 1970, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 797-798.
 Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops on the occasion of the publication of the Apostolic Letter “Motu proprio data” Summorum Pontificum on the use of the Roman Liturgy prior to the reform of 1970, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 796.
 Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church “Lumen Gentium”, 21 november 1964, n. 23: AAS 57 (1965) 27.
 Cfr. Acta et Documenta Concilio Oecumenico Vaticano II apparando, Series I, Volumen II, 1960.
 Pius XII, Encyclical on the sacred liturgy “Mediator Dei”, 20 november 1947: AAS 39 (1949) 521-595.
 Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Costitution on the sacred liturgy “Sacrosanctum Concilium”, 4 december 1963, nn. 1, 14: AAS 56 (1964) 97.104.
 Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Costitution on the sacred liturgy “Sacrosanctum Concilium”, 4 december 1963, n. 3: AAS 56 (1964) 98.
 Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Costitution on the sacred liturgy “Sacrosanctum Concilium”, 4 december 1963, n. 4: AAS 56 (1964) 98.
 Missale Romanum ex decreto Sacrosancti Oecumenici Concilii Vaticani II instauratum auctoritate Pauli PP. VI promulgatum, editio typica, 1970.
 Missale Romanum ex decreto Sacrosancti Oecumenici Concilii Vaticani II instauratum auctoritate Pauli PP. VI promulgatum Ioannis Pauli PP. II cura recognitum, editio typica altera, 1975; editio typica tertia, 2002; (reimpressio emendata 2008).
 Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Costitution on the sacred liturgy “Sacrosanctum Concilium”, 4 december 1963, n. 3: AAS 56 (1964) 98.
 1 Cor 1,12-13.
 Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Costitution on the sacred liturgy “Sacrosanctum Concilium”, 4 december 1963, n. 26: AAS 56 (1964) 107.
 Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church “Lumen Gentium”, 21 november 1964, n. 14: AAS 57 (1965) 19.
 Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Costitution on the sacred liturgy “Sacrosanctum Concilium”, 4 december 1963, n. 6: AAS 56 (1964) 100.
 Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church “Lumen Gentium”, 21 november 1964, n. 23: AAS 57 (1965) 27.
 Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Costitution on the sacred liturgy “Sacrosanctum Concilium”, 4 december 1963, n. 48: AAS 56 (1964) 113.
 Paul VI, Apostolic Constitution “Missale Romanum” on new Roman Missal, 3 april 1969, AAS 61 (1969) 222.
 Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church “Lumen Gentium”, 21 november 1964, n. 13: AAS 57 (1965) 18.
And now, a reaction posted by the voice of Conservative Catholicism that has done less the nothing to defend the faith and preserve the immemorial traditions of the Catholic Church.
RORATE: Our comment?
The attack on Summorum is the strongest rebuke any Pontiff has done to any predecessor in living memory. Shocking, and terrifying. Francis HATES US. Francis HATES Tradition. Francis HATES all that is good and beautiful.
Francis HATES the Catholicism practiced by his mother and grandmother. Francis by this action shows himself to be the most prominent Anti-Christical (in the sense of AGAINST JESUS CHRIST) figure for this age.
We were also asked if this is “huge”. Yes, it is huge.
It is the most stinging rebuke by a Pope against his predecessor in living memory -- there has never been anything like it. Remember that the document itself is just 14 years old, and that Benedict XVI is still alive.
Legally, it's a complete mess. Benedict had made clear in Summorum that it is basically impossible for an ancient rite to be simply abolished. Paul VI had never truly abolished it, it was implied, because he could not do it. And the commission of cardinals that advised John Paul II had basically said the same.
Now, in the article 1 of his document, Francis basically abolishes it.
You will forgive if Traditional Catholics who withstood much more difficult times under Paul VI are skeptical. Basically, what we believe is that Francis IS NOT ENTITLED TO DO what he has just done. And our inexorable growth will eventually force a future pope to do to Francis what Francis THINKS he has done to Benedict: the impossible abolition of something that has refused to die even under the direst of circumstances.
In practical terms, it will mean little in the beginning, but much more in the years ahead. It will probably lead to a considerable strengthening in the long term of the Society of Saint Pius X and its position.
FRANCIS WILL DIE, THE LATIN MASS WILL LIVE FOREVER
Aberosexual Clerics may be the Novus Ordo Norm
John Vennari: According to a news report, a Catholic attorney in Florida recently said, “The good priests who keep in contact with me say that 70 percent of the U.S. bishops are homosexual.” That statement would have shocked many Catholics, but I am sure it did not shock you.
Randy Engel: No. The existence of a
large and dominant homosexual contingent in the American hierarchy and within
the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (formerly the National
Conference of Catholic Bishops/United States Catholic Conference) in
Washington, D.C. is one of the dominant themes of my book.
The rise of this phenomenon, that is, the emergence of a large number of homosexual cardinals and bishops in AmChurch (American Church), has been a gradual process covering more than 100 years and closely parallels the rise of the secular Homosexual Movement in the United States and abroad. It is the presence of the Homosexual Collective within Am-Church’s hierarchy that has made possible the wholesale homosexual colonization of many dioceses in the United States, and the subsequent cover-up of clerical sexual abuse cases by the American hierarchy with the co-operation of the Holy See. When shepherds turn into wolves, not only are seminarians, priests and religious under their care at risk, but their flock as well.
John Vennari: Is there a difference between the Homosexual Collective within the Church and the secular Homosexual Collective?
Randy Engel: Generally speaking, no.
Catholic homosexual clergy and religious toe the secular party line. They use
the same language, promote the same rhetoric and advance the same political
agenda. This becomes startling clear in the chapter devoted to the so-called
Catholic pro-homosexual organization New Ways Ministry.
I think there are many Catholics who think that a self declared “gay” bishop, priest or religious doesn’t behave like other homosexuals, that is, he’s not into sodomy, porn, drugs, or sexual seduction, etc., but this is just wishful thinking. The odds are that he is.
Catholic Family News, excerpt of interview of Mrs. Randy Engel, author of The Rite of Sodomy, Homosexuality, Satanism, and the Roman Catholic Church, interview published in April 2011
Vatican-backed interfaith comples to open in 2022”
LifeSiteNews | June 17, 2021
”The ‘Abrahamic Family House,’ a juxtaposition of three places of worship on Saadiyat Island in Abu Dhabi – one Muslim, one Jewish and one Christian – will open in 2022, according to a release from Higher Committee of Human Fraternity echoed by the Abu Dhabi Government Media Office and by Vatican News, the Vatican’s own media service run by the Dicastery for Communication.
The ‘Abrahamic Family House’ is an architectural complex in which the three so-called ‘Abrahamic’ religions, or (abusively), the ‘religions of the Book’ born of God’s promise to Abraham, are presented side by side in places of worship of equal proportions, set in a triangle around a ‘common ground,’ a garden where believers can meet and enter into ‘dialogue’ with each other.
The projected interfaith complex presents itself as an embodiment of the Abu Dhabi Document on Human Fraternity signed by Pope Francis and Imam Al-Tayeb of the Sunni Al-Azhar University of Cairo, and the ‘Higher Committee for Human Fraternity’ to which the joint declaration gave birth, and has been ‘endorsed’ and is being ‘closely followed’ both by Pope Francis and the Grand Imam.
Together with photos of the construction site, which show the foundations of the three religious buildings while one of them appears to be nearing completion, the release revealed the names officially chosen for the three religious buildings.”
Abp. Viganò rebukes pro-LGBT Cardinals Cupich, Gregory, Tobin: They’re ‘unworthy to celebrate’ Mass
'It is a suicidal gesture in which the leaders of the Church surrender unconditionally to the antichristic ideology of globalism and hand over the entire flock of Christ as a hostage to the Enemy, abdicating their role as Pastors and showing themselves for who they really are: mercenaries and traitors,' the archbishop said.
LifeSiteNews | John-Henry Westen | July 8, 2021– In a new exclusive written interview with LifeSiteNews, former U.S. nuncio Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò condemns Pope Francis’s recent endorsement of homosexuality-promoting priest Father James Martin.
“It is a suicidal gesture in which the leaders of the Church surrender unconditionally to the antichristic ideology of globalism and hand over the entire flock of Christ as a hostage to the Enemy, abdicating their role as Pastors and showing themselves for who they really are: mercenaries and traitors,” he said.
It is, said Archbishop Viganò, “outrageous towards God, scandalous for the honor of the Church, a matter of grave scandal for the faithful and a desolating abandonment for priests and confessors that a voice can be given to a Jesuit [Fr. James Martin] who bases his personal success not on proper pastoral action seeking the conversion of individual homosexuals with respect to Morality, but on the illusory promise of some change in Catholic doctrine that would legitimize people’s sinful behavior.”
The former Vatican representative to the U.S., who is known internationally for his exposing of the cover up of the abuses of now-ex-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, shows himself in the interview to be an outstanding teacher of the faith able to reach the simple and the erudite simultaneously with a truth which, while stark, is imbued with charity.
Explaining the teaching of the Church on the touchy subject of homosexuality, Archbishop Viganò said, “The Church, faithful to the teaching of her Head, is Mother and not stepmother: she does not indulge her children’s weaknesses and inclination to sin, but she admonishes them, exhorts them, and punishes them with medicinal sanctions in order to lead every soul to the purpose for which it has been created, that is, eternal beatitude.”
“It is necessary to show, with patient but firm spiritual direction,” he said, “that every human being has a supernatural destiny and a path of suffering and sacrifices that temper him and make him worthy of his eternal reward. There is no Resurrection without Calvary, no victory without a fight!”
“This is true,” he added, “for every soul redeemed by Our Lord: both the married person and the celibate, the priest and the layperson, the man and the woman, the child and the elder.”
“The battle against one’s own nature corrupted by Original Sin unites us all: the one who manages money must fight against the temptation to steal, the one who is married must fight against the temptation to betray his or her spouse, the one who lives in chastity must fight against temptations against purity, the one who eats nice food must fight against the temptation to gluttony, and the one who is exposed to public applause must fight against the temptation to pride.”
“Thus, with humility and trust in the Grace of God, and having recourse to the intercession of the Immaculate Virgin, every person whom the Lord puts to the test – even in the painful situation of homosexuality – must understand that it is in the battle against sin that one conquers one’s place in eternity.”
And while his words for those struggling with tendencies to sin were clear, firm, and loving, his commentary on the shepherds who would mislead the sheep was severe.
Viganò praised pastors who in charity use discipline to call wayward Catholics back to the truth by refusing them Holy Communion: “Pastors who are faithful to the mandate conferred on them by Our Lord not only recognize their situation of public sin but also do not wish to aggravate it with the profanation of the Blessed Sacrament,” he said.
However, he said, those prelates who advocate the opposite, “like Cupich, Tobin, Gregory, and their followers” are “even more rebellious” than the pro-abortion politicians that they grant Holy Communion and are themselves “unworthy of celebrating the Sacred Mysteries.”
The Abolition of Summorum Pontificum could come within days or weeks — declarations from Bishops and Cardinals
After faithful of the abolished FSSP mission in Dijon came to complain in front of the Archdiocesan office building, on June 26, Abp. Roland Minnerath came to talk to them and had ominous menacing words.
From Paix Liturgique:
“You will have a new motu proprio in the upcoming days or weeks,” Abp. Minnerath, Archbishop of Dijon, said on June 26 to the faithful of the Traditional Mass who came to display their discontent before the archdiocesan building.
But even before the publication of this text, if it comes to be published, the testimonials on the intentions of the enemies of the previous motu proprio, that of Benedict XVI, grow:
- Cardinal Parolin, the Secretary of State, affirmed thus before a group of Cardinals: “We must put an end to this mass forever!”
- And Abp. Roche, new Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, explained, while laughing, to those responsible for [some] seminaries in Rome and members of the Curia, all English-speaking: “Summorum Pontificum is practically dead! We will give back to the bishops power on this matter, but particularly not to conservative bishops.”
It must be known additionally that Abp. Minnerath, who opened the hostilities against the traditional community of Dijon, is a member of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith [curently in charge of the application of Summorum] and due to this is present every month in Rome, surrounded by the Curial milieux that have prepared the offensive against Summorum Pontificum.
Abp. Viganò issues ‘severe warning’ to Pope Francis in wake of his support for Fr. James Martin
'The one who sits in Rome is surrounded by immoral persons who wink at LGBTQ+ movements and hypocritically simulate a welcome and an inclusivity that betrays their choice of field and their sinful tendencies. There is no more courage; there is no more fidelity to Christ...'
LifeSiteNews | June 29, 2021 – The following text comes from Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò.
THE WORLD, THE FLESH, AND THE DEVIL
Scitote quoniam Dominus ipse est Deus:
Ipse fecit nos, et non ipsi nos.
Know that the Lord is God:
He made us, and not we ourselves.
The enemies of our soul are always the same, and the snares they set for us are always the same. The world, with its seductions; the flesh, corrupted by original sin and inclined to evil; and the Devil, the eternal enemy of our salvation who uses the flesh to besiege us. Two external enemies and one internal one, always ready to make us fall in a moment of distraction, of weakness. These spiritual enemies accompany each one of us from infancy to old age, and all of humanity down the generations and ages.
The allies we can count on to defeat the world, the flesh, and the Devil are the Grace of God, the frequent reception of the Sacraments, the exercise of the Virtues, prayer, penance, the consideration of the Last Things, meditation on the Passion of the Lord, and living in His presence.
In this rebellious and de-Christianized age, in which society not only does not help us in the pursuit of our ultimate goal but actually does everything to drive us away from it, civil authority makes us follow the world, indulge the desires of the flesh, and serve the Enemy of the human race. It is a perverse and perverting authority, which has failed in its duty to rule and govern the social body in order to lead individuals to eternal salvation. On the contrary, it denies eternal salvation, rejects the Divine Author, and adores the Adversary.
It is therefore no wonder if this apostate modernity, in which unlawful action is the norm and vice is offered as an example to be imitated, wants to cancel every trace of God and the Good in society and in individuals, making a hellish pact with the world, the flesh and the devil. This is what we see happening in the brazen promotion of sodomy, the perversion of vice in all of its most abject forms, and in the derision, delegitimization and condemnation of purity, righteousness, and virtue.
But if today our daily struggle against our enemies must also include a titanic effort to fight against the State as well, which we ought to be able to consider our friend but which instead works to corrupt us from an early age, it is painful and tragic to see other traitors and mercenaries join in this siege: wicked Shepherds who abuse the sacred authority that they have received from Our Lord to push us towards damnation, to convince us that what up until yesterday was considered sinful and unworthy of those who have been redeemed by the Blood of Christ has now become licit and good.
The worldly spirit, the enslavement to concupiscence, and – what is even more grave – the refusal to fight against the Evil One have infected a large part of the Hierarchy of the Catholic Church, up to its highest levels, making it the enemy of God, His Law, and our souls. As has happened with civil authority, so also religious authority has abdicated its proper role, disowning the very purpose for which it was willed by Divine Providence.
The novelty of this perversion of authority, which heralds the epochal clash of the End Times, lies precisely in the corruption of the Shepherds and in the fact that the individual members of the faithful, as a flock without a leader, find themselves having to heroically resist an assault on the Citadel on several fronts, in which they have been abandoned by their leaders, who are opening the gates and allowing the enemy hordes to enter in order to exterminate us.
The discussion about the proposed Zan bill, the imposition of LGBTQ+ ideology, and the indoctrination of gender theory in Italy follows a targeted plan organized on the global level, which in many nations has already been brought to completion. Nations in which, even after two centuries of revolutions, the imprint of Catholicism had survived in the social fabric, have now become completely paganized. Rainbow flags fly not only on the front of public institutions but even on the facades of Cathedrals, the balconies of Bishops’ residences, and even inside churches.
In recent times – even only thirty years ago – it was said by some that in order to support a minority of people misled by vice and to defend them from discrimination, the State had to intervene with forms of protection and guarantees of their liberty. In hindsight, this was an unreasonable and illogical statement, because the freedom of the human person consists in adherence of the will to the good to which its nature is ordered and in the pursuit of its material and supernatural purpose. But in the great deception with which the Devil has always tried to entice man, that apparent pretext has seduced many. It seemed that courage was needed to claim the right to vice and sin against the cruel harshness of a “respectable majority” still tied to the precepts of Religion. The Pride of being diverse in a world of equals was claimed, of having the right to a space for vice in a “virtuous world.”
In those years, the Church still raised, perhaps with less conviction but still always faithful to her divine mandate, the voice of the immutable Magisterium to condemn the legitimization of intrinsically disordered behaviors. Attentive to the eternal salvation of souls, she saw what disasters would befall society with the approval of lifestyles totally antithetical to the Natural Law, the Commandments, and the Gospel. The Shepherds knew how to be courageous defenders of the Good, and the Popes were not afraid to become the object of indecorous attacks from those who saw in them the katechon which prevented the definitive corruption of the world and the establishment of the Reign of the Antichrist.
Today that heroic battle – which we have learned is already weakened by an extensive internal corruption of Bishops and priests – seems to no longer make sense, just as the teaching of Sacred Scripture, the Fathers of the Church, and the Roman Pontiffs no longer seems to make sense. The one who sits in Rome is surrounded by immoral persons who wink at LGBTQ+ movements and hypocritically simulate a welcome and an inclusivity that betrays their choice of field and their sinful tendencies. There is no more courage; there is no more fidelity to Christ; and it has reached the point of insinuating that, if Bergoglio was able to change the doctrine on capital punishment – an unheard of and absolutely impossible thing – he will certainly also be able to make sodomy licit in the name of a charity which has nothing Catholic about it and which is repugnant to Divine Revelation.
The blasphemous processions that parade through the streets of the capitals of the world, and which have reached the point of blaspheming and wickedly mocking the Sacrifice of Our Lord in the Holy City consecrated by the blood of the Apostles Peter and Paul, are greeted by the mercenaries of the conciliar sect, which is silent before the sacrilegious blessings of homosexual couples but condemns those who want to remain faithful to the Savior’s teaching as “rigid.” And while the good Bishops and priests are daily confronted with the demolition that comes from above, we see published the enchanting and seductive words written by Bergoglio to James Martin, S.J., in support of a perverse and perverting ideology that offends the Majesty of God and humiliates the mission of the Church and the sacred authority of the Vicar of Christ.
As a Successor of the Apostles and a Teacher of the Faith, in a spirit of true communion with the See of Most Blessed Peter and with the Holy Church of God, I address a severe warning to them, recalling that their authority derives from Jesus Christ, and that it has strength and value only if it remains oriented to the end for which He has constituted it. Let these Shepherds consider the scandals which they cause to the faithful and the simple, and the wounds they inflict on the tormented ecclesial body – scandals and wounds for which they will have to answer to Divine Justice on the day of their Particular Judgment and also before the entire human race on the day of the Universal Judgment.
I exhort the many members of the faithful who are scandalized and bewildered by the apostasy of the Shepherds to multiply their prayers with a supernatural spirit of prayer and penance, imploring the Lord that He may deign to convert the mercenaries, leading them back to Himself and to fidelity to His divine teaching. Let us pray to the Most Pure Mother, the Virgin of Virgins, to inspire sentiments of repentance in the ministers who have been corrupted by sin and impurity, so that they may consider the horror of their sins and the terrible pains that await them: may they take refuge in the Most Holy Wounds of Christ and be purified by the laver of the Blood of the Lamb.
To our brothers seduced by the world, the flesh, and the Devil, I address a heartfelt appeal, so that they may understand that there is no pride in offending God, in knowingly contributing to the torments of His Passion, in perverting one’s own nature and wickedly refusing the salvation that He won from His Father through his Death on the Wood of the Cross. Make your weaknesses an occasion of holiness, a reason for conversion, an opportunity to make the greatness of God shine forth in your lives. Do not allow yourselves to be deceived by an Enemy who today seems to indulge your vices with the sole intention of stealing your souls and damning you for eternity. Be proud, truly proud: not of enslavement to sin and perversion, but of having known how to resist the seductions of the flesh for love of Jesus Christ. Think of your immortal soul, for which the Lord did not hesitate to suffer and die. Pray! Pray to Mary Most Holy, that she may intercede with Her Divine Son, giving you the Grace to resist, to fight, and to conquer. Offer your sufferings, your sacrifices, and your fasting to the Lord in order to obtain that freedom from Evil which the Seducer wants to take away from you by deceit. This will be your true pride, and ours as well.
+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop
June 29, 2021
SS. Apostolorum Petri et Pauli
Pope calls for an end to ‘intransigent defense of tradition’
In his homily for the feast of Saints Peter and Paul, the Pope appeared to compare ‘rigid’ Catholics to St. Paul’s persecution of the Church
LifeSiteNews | Michael Haynes | VATICAN CITY, June 29, 2021 — In his homily for the feast of Saints Peter and Paul, Pope Francis has once again launched an attack on so-called “rigid” Catholics, seemingly comparing them to the way St. Paul acted before his conversion, claiming that Paul was freed by God from his “rigid and inflexible” religious zeal.
Pope Francis celebrated Mass in the Vatican today — with the largest congregation since the start of COVID-19 restrictions. His homily focused on the concept of freedom, as pertaining to Peter and Paul, and provided an opportunity for another attack on those Catholics he describes as “rigid.”
Both Apostles were described by the Pope as having a “Passover experience,” being set free by God, and thus able to lead lives following Christ.
St. Paul was liberated from “the most oppressive form of slavery, which is slavery to self,” stated the Pope. Not only this, but Paul was “set free from the religious fervour that had made him a zealous defender of his ancestral traditions (cf. Gal 1:14) and a cruel persecutor of Christians.”
Francis alluded to St. Paul’s persecution of the early Church, describing it as a defense of tradition which turned him against God: “Formal religious observance and the intransigent defence of tradition, rather than making him open to the love of God and of his brothers and sisters, had hardened him: he was a fundamentalist.”
“God set him free from this,” declared the Pontiff.
Highlighting the importance of the two great saints of the Church, the Pope stated that they could only “set free the power of the Gospel” because they had already been “set free by their encounter with Christ.”
“Jesus did not judge them or humiliate them,” declared Francis. “Instead, he shared their life with affection and closeness.” However, he continued by noting that Christ in fact “reproached them to make them change.”
Such freedom from “formal religious observance and the intransigent defence of tradition” is something the Pope wished to be extended to the whole Catholic Church.
“We too have been touched by the Lord; we too have been set free. Yet we need to be set free time and time again, for only a free Church is a credible Church.”
Addressing the assembled clergy, the Pope urged them “to be set free from a sense of failure before our occasionally disastrous fishing,” which was an imitation of St. Peter, he claimed.
Pope Francis then launched into what has become a regular attack on the “rigid” Catholics, seeming to suggest that “rigid” Catholics are like St. Paul in his anti-Catholic zeal.
“Like Paul, we are called to be set free from hypocritical outward show, free from the temptation to present ourselves with worldly power rather than with the weakness that makes space for God, free from a religiosity that makes us rigid and inflexible; free from dubious associations with power and from the fear of being misunderstood and attacked.”
Dissident Jesuit-run America Magazine highlighted this aspect of the Pope’s homily, reporting that he had issued a call for the Church to be freed from the “intransigent defence of tradition.”
Nevertheless, it was St. Paul himself who wrote: “Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.” (2 Thessalonians 2:14)
Then, in his letter to Titus, St. Paul stipulated that bishops must faithfully adhere to the doctrine of the Church: “Embracing that faithful word which is according to doctrine, that he may be able to exhort in sound doctrine, and to convince the gainsayers.”
Commenting on the Pope’s interpretation of St. Paul’s theology, popular author Deacon Nick Donnelly wrote:”Pope Bergoglio interprets every page of the Bible through the prism of himself. This is not a St. Paul I recognise, this is Bergoglio Paul.”
Donnelly’s concern was echoed by Eric Sammons, editor-in-chief of Crisis Magazine, who took issue with the Pope’s biblical knowledge: “This sounds like the most fundamentalist Protestant interpretation of St. Paul’s life imaginable. I take that back: even fundamentalist Protestants would cringe at this interpretation.”
Recent attacks against “rigid” Catholics
Pope Francis’ attacks on those he describes as “rigid” have increased in regularity of late, with today’s being the third such attack in as many weeks.
In his general audience last week, the Pope denigrated online preachers he described as “rigid” and who seek “solutions to the crises of today.”
“It is precisely the way of the evil one, of these people who divide, who do not know how to build,” he said.
“Today too there is no shortage of preachers who, especially through the new means of communication, can disturb communities,” continued Pope Francis. “They present themselves not primarily to announce the Gospel of God who loves man in Jesus, Crucified and Risen, but to insist, as true ‘keepers of the truth’ — so they call themselves — on the best way to be Christians.”
Conservative Catholics Get Weak Kneed in the Face of Catholic TRUTH!
The Viganò Case: The Archbishop and His Double
By Dr. Roberto De Mattei; June 21, 2021
The pontificate of Pope Francis is heading into the sunset, as many admit by now, but a sunset can be stormy and no one knows how deep a night will follow it before the dawn finally comes up.
Cardinal Marx’s resignation from the archdiocese of Munich is one of the signs of the gathering storm, but there is another threatening cloud, all the more troubling in that it is brought not by the wind of progressivism, but by the wind of what is called traditionalism. The cloud has the shape, if not the identity, of an illustrious prelate: the Most Reverend Carlo Maria Viganò, titular archbishop of Ulpiana and former apostolic nuncio in the United States. So what is happening?
Archbishop Viganò has distinguished himself in service to the Church, always carried out with generosity and a spirit of dedication. After a brilliant diplomatic career, from 2009 to 2011 he was secretary of the Governorate of Vatican City, making many enemies through the decisiveness with which he acted to rehabilitate the finances of the Holy See. In 2011, Benedict XVI appointed him apostolic nuncio in the United States of America. He performed brilliantly in this position until April 12 of 2016, after he had reached the age of 75, when Pope Francis accepted his resignation. As Archbishop Viganò himself revealed on June 23 of 2013, he was received by the new pontiff and with his customary frankness brought him up to speed on the disastrous situation of part of the clergy in the United States, with particular reference to the case of Cardinal McCarrick.
The pope listened to him but did nothing, and on the contrary allowed the situation to get worse. The Bergoglian pontificate reached the acme of its crisis after the promulgation of the Exhortation Amoris Laetitia of March 19 2016. Archbishop Viganò’s growing concern drew him closer to the Catholics who were showing a spirit of filial resistance toward Pope Francis. Finally, on August 22, 2018, the former nuncio of the United States published a dramatic testimony in which he brought to light the existence of a network of corruption in the Church, calling out those responsible, starting with the highest ecclesiastical authorities. Archbishop Viganò’s revelations were never denied, but on the contrary confirmed by the measures that Pope Francis took against Cardinal McCarrick. Fearing for his safety but also for the sake of discretion Archbishop Viganò withdrew to a secret location where he still resides. Other statements followed the courageous first declaration, from the document Scio cui credidi of September 28, 2018 to the long interview with the Washington Post of June 10, 2019. What characterized these statements was that they were rare and circumscribed in their contents. Archbishop Viganò expressed himself firmly, but only on matters of which he had direct knowledge, with simplicity and nobility of language. This was the basis of his credibility.
In 2020, the year of the pandemic, something unexpectedly changed and a new Archbishop Viganò appeared onstage. When we speak of a “new” Archbishop Viganò, we are naturally not referring to his private persona but to his public identity, as appears from the barrage of statements that he began to publish, starting with the May 8 2020 appeal against the “New World Order.” This appeal did not fail to raise serious doubts in the Catholic world close to him, to the point of driving some of his friends and admirers not to endorse it. The tone of his ever more numerous publications became pompous and sarcastic, and the topics expanded to the fields of theology and liturgy, in which he had always said he had no expertise, stretching even to considerations of geopolitics and the philosophy of history, extraneous to his way of thinking and expressing himself. Two themes dear to the traditionalists, the liturgy and Vatican Council II, became his hobbyhorse, in the context of a philosophy of history dominated by the idea of a “great reset,” which through medical dictatorship and mass vaccination would lead to the extermination of humanity. Pope Francis, generally referred to as “Bergoglio,” would be one of the architects of this plan.
To those who knew him best, or those who had paid close attention to his statements, it was immediately clear that there were discrepancies between Archbishop Viganò’s statements of 2020-2021 and those of 2018-2019. One question keeps growing more insistent: is Archbishop Viganò really the author of the writings of the past year?
At this point a clarification has to be made. Using contributors for one’s own statements does not in itself have anything terrible about it. Popes and heads of state routinely use “ghost writers” who carry out research for them or give literary form to their ideas. Often athletes and performers also turn to journalists when writing their books of impressions or memoirs.
But there are two risks to keep in mind. First of all, someone who signs a text, whether he is the author or not, takes responsibility for it in terms of both the form and the content of the statement, and must be very careful to keep his thought and language from coming across as distorted.
In the second place, someone who acknowledges paternity of a text should give general guidelines so that the writer may act as his arm and not as his mind. It would in fact be dangerous for the “ghost writer” to be the one to determine the line of thought of the text’s signatory. And this can happen when the invisible author overshadows the visible one, on account of greater expertise or power of personality.
An even more dangerous situation would be the creation of such a relationship of dependence that the visible author could no longer do without the invisible one, whose disappearance or desire to push unacceptable content would create for the visible author a dramatic “communication void.”
The question we pose is therefore this: analysis of the language and content of the documents produced by Archbishop Viganò during the years 2020-2021 reveals an author different from that of the years 2018-2019. But if Archbishop Viganò is not the author of his writings, who now is filling in his words, and perhaps even his thoughts?
We would never have opened the case if so many good traditionalists were not presenting as a quasi-magisterium the statements, not of Archbishop Viganò, but of his “double.” A clarification is necessary for the good of the Church and of souls who have in Archbishop Viganò a point of reference, but also for the sake of the prelate who has served the Church so well and could continue to serve it.
Roberto de Mattei
P.S. Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò has already been informed in private, by several persons, of the existence of this problem, for more than a year now.
Archbishop Viganò’s Response:
Concerning some declarations of Professor Roberto de Mattei which recently appeared at Corrispondenza Romana
”If I have spoken evil, give testimony of the evil; but I have spoken well, why do you strike me? —Jn 18:23
By Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò
The article The Viganò Case: The Archbishop and His Double, which appeared yesterday at Corrispondenza Romana in both Italian and English, signed by Professor Roberto de Mattei, has been pointed out to me.
I am unable not to express my amazement at the statements that an illustrious Catholic intellectual, hailed as a champion of Tradition and who has not spared the Hierarchy criticism that is at times severe but always carefully considered and just, felt that he had to make in my regard.
In reality, it would have been enough to consult me verbally or by letter in order to dispel his suspicions and feel reassured that all of my writings, declarations, and interviews which I have given are the fruit of a maturation of convictions of which I proudly claim full paternity.
The idea that I have a “double” must be the fruit of some adviser to whom Professor de Mattei has improvidently lent his faith, without realizing that by doing so he has exposed himself to the public refutation of completely unfounded allegations, which also sound, if I may be allowed to say so, not very charitable in my regard.
I am therefore taking the opportunity afforded by his article to deny his impudent and fanciful theses, reassuring those who have the goodness to read me and listen to me that there is no ghost writer, and that by the grace of God I still have full possession of my faculties, I am not manipulated by anyone, and I am absolutely determined to continue my apostolic mission for the salvation of souls.
In other times, de Mattei would have been proud to be at my side in the common battle for Catholic truth, for the defense of the immutable Magisterium and of the venerable Traditional Liturgy against the assaults of the Modernists. He would have probably also been at my side in denouncing the pandemic fraud and the intrinsic immorality of experimental vaccines produced with fetal material derived from abortions.
His recent interventions – published with his own name or under a pseudonym – have demonstrated, not without heartfelt sorrow, that if there is a “double” it must be sought in the recent writings of the Professor; writings that seem to be composed by a dull regime official who is obedient to the mainstream narrative, and not by the sharp mind and genuine faith of the de Mattei I once knew. Quantum mutatus ab illo. [“How much he has changed since that time.”]
+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop
June 22, 2021
S. Paulini, Episcopi et Confessoris
Roberto De Matei, despite all his education, knowledge and experience, is just another Conservative Catholic. This means he holds the pope as his proximate rule of faith; he holds that the source and sign of unity in the Church is first and foremost the person of the pope; he regards our immemorial ecclesiastical traditions as mere accidents of the faith and therefore as proper questions of Church discipline subject to the free and independent will of the legislator to do with whatever he pleases. He further believes that obedience to authority will necessarily excuse him from the imputation of guilt for any crime.
Archbishop Viganò has become a true faithful Catholic grounded in Church's immemorial traditions. For him the proximate rule of faith is dogma, that is, divine revelation formally defined by the Magisterium. For Archbishop Viganò the source and sign of unity of the Church is essentially and primarily the faith and only secondarily and accidentally the person of the pope. He now knows that the immemorial ecclesiastical traditions of the Catholic Church are not and have never were merely matters of Church discipline but are necessary attributes of the faith by which alone the faith is known and communicated to others.
While Conservative Catholics applauded Archbishop Viganò when he first exposed the McCarrick homosexual network cover-up scandal, they have become increasingly uncomfortable with his expositions of the heresies of Vatican II and the Bugnini-Montini liturgical revolution and its corruption of true worship. So what can Conservative Catholics do to discredit Archbishop Viganò? The Conservative Catholic is an intellectual and moral dwarf when confronted by Traditional Catholic arguments so they do what they have always done over the last fifty years - resort to calumny.
De Matei believes that the COVID “vaccine,” derived in part from cell lines harvested from tissue taken from a murdered fetus, is morally licit because it is approved by Pope Francis and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Archbishop Viganò embraces the Catholic moral truth that it is always illicit to employ evil means to obtain a good end. De Matei like all Conservative Catholics believes that human authority of the Pope can overturn Catholic truth, while Archbishop Viganò holds that all human authority is itself subject to and regulated by Catholic truth. This present conflict between the Conservative Matei and the Traditional Archbishop Viganò exemplifies why the true enemy of Catholic Tradition is not the liberal Catholic or the Modernist Catholic, but Conservative Catholic who will ultimately trample upon truth in the name of authority.
So then De Matei attempts to discredit Archbishop Viganò accusing him of not being the true author of his published letters. The evidence for this conclusion is based upon De Matei's himself and his textual critique of the letters. Archbishop Viganò has directly denied this to De Matei yet De Matei publishes his accusations giving greater weight to his own personal intellectual prowess above the word of Archbishop Viganò. He is publically accusing Archbishop Viganò of being a liar. This shameless act of De Matei is typical of Conservative Catholics. They have no intellectual arguments and can only attack traditional Catholics by slander. There is not a single traditional Catholic over the past fifty years that does not carry the scars from being stabbed in the back countless times by Conservative Catholics.
Let this be clearly understood. The sorry state of the Church today is not due to liberal Catholics or Modernist Catholics doing what they always do. The collapse of the Church since Vatican II is due entirely to cowardly spineless Conservative Catholics who have stood by with their hands in their pockets and done less than nothing to defend Catholic truth while the neo-Iconoclasts have trampled upon the sanctuary of God and destroyed every image of the true faith they could lay their filthy hands on.
Abp. Viganò discusses ‘failure’ of Vatican II, Novus Ordo Mass
The next Pope will have to restore all the liturgical books and banish from Catholic churches their unseemly parody, in whose realization notorious modernists and heretics collaborated.
LifeSiteNews | Jun 15, 2021
Excerpt: Abp. Carlo Maria Viganò interviewed by Abbé Claude Barthe
Barthe: The liturgical reform, which began in
1964 and produced a new missal in 1969, may seem more radical than its
programmatic document, the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Sacred
Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium. Do
you think that Archbishop Bugnini’s Consilium betrayed Vatican II, as some say,
or that it developed it, as others suggest?
Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò: Archbishop Annibale Bugnini was one of the collaborators in the drafting of the Ordo Hebdomadae Sanctae instauratus promulgated during the pontificate of Pius XII. The serious deformations of the new Missal are in nuce [essentially] contained in the rite of Holy Week, demonstrating that the demolition plan had already begun. There is therefore no betrayal of the Council, so much so that none of its architects ever considered the liturgical reform inconsistent with the mens of Sacrosanctum Concilium. A careful study of the genesis of the Ordo Hebdomadae Sanctae instauratus allows us to understand that the innovators’ demands were only partially accepted but were re-proposed with Montini’s Novus Ordo.
However, it must be clearly said that, unlike all the other Ecumenical Councils, this Council deliberately used its authority to sanction a systematic betrayal of faith and morals, pursued through pastoral, disciplinary and liturgical means. The transitional Missals between the 1962 rubrics and the 1970 Editio typica, and the one that immediately followed — the Editio typica altera of 1975 — show how the process was carried out in small steps, accustoming clergy and faithful to the provisional nature of the rite, to continuous innovation, and to the progressive loss of many elements that initially made the Novus Ordo closer to the last Missale Romanum of John XXIII. I am thinking, for example, of the recitation submissa voce of the Roman Canon in Latin, with its sacrificial Offertory and the Veni Sanctificator, which in the course of adaptation led to the recitation of the Roman Canon aloud, with its Talmudic Offertory and the suppression of the invocation of the Holy Spirit.
Those who prepared the conciliar documents to have them approved by the Council Fathers acted with the same malice that the drafters of the liturgical reform adopted, knowing that they would interpret ambiguous texts in a Catholic way, while those who were to disseminate and utilize them would interpret them in every sense except that.
In fact, this concept is confirmed in everyday practice. Have you ever seen a priest who celebrates the Novus Ordo with the altar facing East, entirely in Latin, wearing the fiddleback (Roman) chasuble and distributing Communion at the Communion rail, without this arousing the ire of his Ordinary and confreres, even though, strictly speaking, this way of celebrating would be perfectly legitimate? Those who have tried — certainly in good faith — have been treated worse than those who habitually celebrate the Tridentine Mass. This demonstrates that the continuity hoped for in the Council’s hermeneutic does not exist, and that the break with the pre-conciliar Church is the norm to which one must conform, to the satisfaction of conservatives.
Lastly, I would like to point out that this awareness of the doctrinal incompatibility of the ancient rite with the ideology of Vatican II is claimed by self-styled theologians and progressive intellectuals, for whom the “Extraordinary Form” of the rite can be tolerated as long as the entire theological framework that it implies is not adopted. This is why the liturgy of the Summorum Pontificum communities is tolerated, provided that in preaching and catechesis one is careful not to criticize Vatican II or the new Mass.
On the method of Restoration:
Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò: I ask myself: if Paul VI
had no problem recklessly abolishing the Tridentine liturgy between one day and
the next, replacing it with cobbled-together excerpts from the Book of Common
Prayer, and imposing this new rite despite the protests of clergy and laity,
why exactly should we today use any more consideration in restoring the ancient
Roman Rite to its place of honor, by prohibiting the celebration of the Novus
Ordo? Why such delicacy of
mind today, and such ruthless iconoclastic fury yesterday? And why this
cosmetic surgery, if not to hold together the last conciliatory frill by giving
it the appearance of what it did not intend to be?
The next Pope will have to restore all the liturgical books previous to the conciliar reform and banish from Catholic churches its unseemly parody, in whose realization notorious modernists and heretics collaborated.
On the Indultists who betray the faith:
Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò: I do not believe that Bergoglio has any interest in the liturgy tout court, and a fortiori in the Tridentine liturgy, which is as alien to him and disliked as anything remotely reminiscent of Catholicism. His approach is political: he tolerates the Ecclesia Dei communities because they keep the conservatives out of the parishes, and at the same time he maintains control over them, forcing them to limit their dissent solely to the liturgical level, while ensuring their fidelity to the conciliar ideology……
The canonical position of the Ecclesia Dei communities has always been at risk. Their survival is linked to their at least implicit acceptance of the conciliar doctrine and liturgical reform. Those who do not conform, by criticizing Vatican II or refusing to celebrate or attend the reformed rite, ipso facto put themselves in a position of being expelled. The superiors of these societies of apostolic life themselves end up being the overseers of their clerics, who are strongly advised to refrain from criticism and to give tangible signs of alignment from time to time, for example, by taking part in celebrations in the “Ordinary Form.” Paradoxically, a diocesan parish priest has greater freedom of speech in doctrinal matters than a member of one of these institutes. [….]
Making the celebration of
the Catholic Mass “normal”—according to the dictates of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum — without
“liturgical reservations” and dedicated spaces, would give the impression that
it is really possible for any faithful to attend Mass without any other title
of belonging than being a Catholic. On the contrary, this Kafkaesque bureaucratic castle forces all
conservatives into an enclosure, obliging them to follow the rules of
confinement and to demand nothing more than what the sovereign grace deigns to
grant them, almost always with the ill-concealed opposition of the diocesan
Bergoglio’s actions are now clearly exposed: his latest encyclical theorizes about heterodox doctrines and a scandalous subservience to the dominant ideology, which is profoundly anti-Catholic and anti-human. From this perspective, questions about the liturgical sensitivity of this or that institute seem to me frankly negligible: not because the liturgy is not important, but because once one is willing to remain silent on the doctrinal front, the complex ceremonies of the Pontifical end up being reduced to a manifestation of aestheticism that poses no real danger to the magic circle of Santa Marta.
Modernism vs. Neo-Modernism: What is the Difference?
The overarching principle of post-conciliar theology is not modernism,
properly speaking. Let us get our terms straight.
Modernism is the idea that there are no eternal truths, that truth is the correspondence of the mind with one's lifestyle (adaequatio intellectus et vitae), and that, therefore, old dogmas must be abandoned and new beliefs must arise that meet 'the needs of modern man'. This is a radical denial of the traditional and common sense notion of truth: the correspondence of the mind with reality (adaequatio intellectus et rei), which is the basis of the immutability of Catholic dogma.
No, the post-conciliar theological principle is neo-modernism, and the theology that is based on it is known as the nouvelle theologie. It is the idea that old dogmas or beliefs must be retained, yet not the traditional 'formulas': dogmas must be expressed and interpreted in a new way in every age so as to meet the 'needs of modern man'. This is still a denial of the traditional and common sense notion of truth as adaequatio intellectus et rei (insofar as it is still an attempt to make the terminology that expresses the faith correspond with our modern lifestyle) and consequently of the immutability of Catholic dogma, yet it is not as radical as modernism. It is more subtle and much more deceptive than modernism because it claims that the faith must be retained; it is only the 'formulas' of faith that must be abandoned--they use the term 'formula' to distinguish the supposedly mutable words of our creeds, dogmas, etc. from their admittedly immutable meanings. Therefore, neo-modernism can effectively slip under the radar of most pre-conciliar condemnations (except Humani Generis, which condemns it directly) insofar as its practitioners claim that their new and unintelligible theological terminology really expresses the same faith of all times. In other words, neo-modernism is supposed to be 'dynamic orthodoxy': supposedly orthodox in meaning, yet always changing in expression to adapt to modern life (cf. Franciscan University of Steubenville's mission statement).
Take extra ecclesiam nulla salus as a clear example of a dogma that has received a brutal neo-modernist re-interpretation: they claim that the old 'formula' that ”there is no salvation outside the Church” must be abandoned; rather it is more meaningful to modern man to say that salvation is not in, but through, the Church; people who are not in the Church may still be saved through the Church; thus, to them the dogma that “there is no salvation outside the Church” means that there is salvation outside the Church. Hence see Ven. Pope Pius XII condemning those “reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation.” (Humani generis 27).
Yet this mentality of reinterpreting everything anew in order to 'meet the needs of the times' is generally tends to be found in different degrees among different post-conciliar sources:
It tends to be (1) rampant in men like De Lubac, Von Balthasar, Congar, etc.: it is the ultimate goal of their writings, teachings, and activities as churchmen. To achieve this end, they employ the technique of 'resourcement', the neo-modernist strategy of fishing for the few dubious, questionable, or idiosyncratic teachings of some Fathers of the Church and other authoritative writers, and gather them into a massive, heterodox theological argument against the traditional understanding of the faith (which they like to relativize by giving it names such as “Counter-Reformation” Theology, “Tridentine” Theology, or “Scholastic” Theology, instead of just admitting that it is Catholic Theology plain and simple). This technique accomplishes three things that go hand-in-hand: (a) offers a refutation of traditional Catholicism, (b) defends an interpretation that meets the needs of modern times, and (c) gives it a semblance of being traditional, because it appears to be based in the Fathers et al. This type of argument is used, for example, by Von Balthasar in his nearly heretical book, Dare We Hope that All Men be Saved? to 'prove', not that Hell does not exist (that is a dogma), but that it is empty. But this technique and its neo-modernistic underpinnings is not only practiced in almost all of these men's writings; it is also defended in theory by many of them, particularly in Von Balthasar's daring little book, Razing the Bastions, where he demonstrates that “Tridentine” theology must be rejected in our times because it is 'boring'.
It also tends to be (2) present in a more moderate way in the non-binding statements by post-conciliar popes, since they themselves were deeply involved in the developing of the nouvelle theologie. Just to give one of a million possible examples, see Pope Benedict's evolutionistic re-interpretation of the Resurrection of Our Lord. Nothing here obviously contradicts the dogma of the Resurrection (it may be interpreted as a simple analogy, even if a bad one, and nothing more), but it is a novelty that can be easily understood as claiming that the Resurrection is part of the natural development of nature (thus giving credence to some of the nouvelle theologie's pet doctrines, such as De Lubac's heterodox notion of the supernatural and De Chardin's pantheistic evolutionism). This happens almost on a daily basis in what comes out of the Vatican, not to mention what comes from local bishops.
And finally, neo-modernism tends to be present (3) mostly implicitly or behind-the-scenes in the Council,
the Catechism, etc., even though it seldom comes out more explicitly.
Things are done at this level under the pretext
of 'aggiornamento', a euphemism for neo-modernism. That is
usually all the justification provided since at this authoritative level, there
is no need to justify things theologically. Hence, Vatican II and the
Catechism are not outright neo-modernistic. Rather, they (like most of
post-conciliar doctrine) tend in that direction and/or are inspired
by that mentality. In other words, most of the time these documents do
not explicitly teach neo-modernist errors (the kind of errors you hear
explicitly from neo-modernist theologians and priests). Rather, they are full
of dangerous ambiguities: statements that in a technical sense could be
interpreted as being in harmony with the traditional faith, but that, in their
natural, non-forced, interpretation are heterodox. One clear example of
this is Dignitatis humanae, par. 2; entire monographs have been written
in order to prove that, despite appearances, this document does not contradict
previous teaching. Maybe in fact it ultimately does not, but it is
obvious that the prima facie meaning does; otherwise there would be no
need to write so many volumes to prove it.
It must be noted that these are general tendencies, and that in some documents (cf. Gaudium et Spes) and every now and then in papal and episcopal statements neo-modernist principles come out more explicitly.
For a more detailed philosophical and theological critique of neo-modernism, and how it is nothing but a re-hashing of modernism, see Garrigou-Lagrange's Where is the New Theology Leading Us? and his The Structure of the Encyclical Humani Generis.
Francisco J. Romero Carrasquillo, Ph.D., Professor of Theology and Philosophy
“The pluralism and the diversity of religions, color, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings..... An insincere stance of openness to the other, as well as a corporatist attitude, which reserves salvation exclusively to one’s own creed, is destructive of the same creed. In the parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus explained this to the inquiring lawyer. Love lived in any religion pleases God. ‘Through an exchange of gifts, the Spirit can lead us ever more fully into truth and goodness.’”
Pope Francis approved Abu Dhabi document
COMMENT: “For all the gods of the Gentiles are devils” (Ps. 96:5). Pope Francis is affirming that the worship of idols is “willed by God in His wisdom.” This is blasphemy but not a surprising blasphemy from Francis the Blasphemer. What Pope Francis calls a “corporatist attitude, which reserves salvation exclusively to one's own creed” is the denial of a revealed truth of God that has been dogmatically defined by the Catholic Church on three separate occasions. It is a dogma that there is “no salvation outside the Catholic Church.” The denial of this dogma is heresy by definition and anyone holding this heresy cannot be saved. Furthermore, membership in the Catholic Church also dogmatically requires profession of the true faith and reception of the sacrament of Baptism.
In the parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus may very well have had in mind a specific Samaritan man who received him as the Messiah through the calling by the Samaritan Woman at the Well. Be that as it may, are good works alone sufficient for salvation? Those that affirm this are Pelagian heretics which is a favorite calumny that Francis mindlessly smears Catholics faithful to tradition. But unlike Francis, who accuses traditional Catholics of Pelagianism without a shred of evidence, our accusations are supported with the bile that flows routinely from Francis' mouth. The recognition of Logos, “which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world” (John 1:9), leads to the regulation of life according to the natural law and is an essential prerequisite to receiving the truth of the Gospel and the sacrament of Baptism, but of itself, it with all the good works in the world, insufficient for salvation. Jesus' conversation with the Samaritan Woman itself destroys this heretical claim of Francis. According to Francis, the Samaritan Woman could have been saved in her idolatrous and adulterous state.
What every faithful Catholic must know is that the faith is the necessary and sufficient cause of and the sign of unity in the Catholic Church. The pope is only secondarily and accidentally the cause and sign of unity in the Catholic Church. When the pope falls from the faith he is to be opposed to his face as St. Paul did to St. Peter (Galatians 2:11). Those who make the pope their proximate rule of faith will follow Francis in his heresy and eventual apostasy. Those who keep dogma as their proximate rule of faith will save their souls.
Jesus Christ, Highpriest according to the order of Melchisedech, both Priest and King.
It is God Himself who imparts His powers to the priest. No one can and no one may venture to exercise the priestly office, if he has not been chosen and invested therewith by God. “Neither doth any man take the honor (of priesthood) to himself, but he that is called by God, as Aaron was” (Heb. 5, 4). It is self-evident that Christ is a priest, not according to His divine, but according to His human nature; for it is only by acts of His sacred humanity that He can perform the part of mediator and priest. “So Christ also did not glorify Himself that He might be made a highpriest” (Heb. 5, 5), but God has constituted Him a highpriest forever, and that with solemn oath: “The Lord hath sworn, and He will not repent: Thou art a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech (Ps. 109, 4).
The vocation and selection of Christ for the dignity of highpriest was already contained in the eternal decree of God that His divine Son should redeem the world by means of the Sacrifice of the Cross. His installation into the office of highpriest took place at the first moment of the Incarnation. Namely, as soon as the human nature was created and hypostatically (personally) united to the Eternal Word, the God-Man undertook, in cheerful obedience to the will and decree of His Heavenly Father, the task and mission of offering His precious life on the Cross as a sacrifice for the world, whereby the ancient sacrifices were not only replaced but far surpassed. This is touchingly expressed by St. Paul quoting and explaining the words of the Prophet (Ps. 39, 7-9; Heb. 10, 5-7).
After depicting the impotency and the inadequateness of the priesthood of the Old Law and of its sacrifices, the apostle continues: “Wherefore when Christ cometh into the world (that is, at the first moment of the Incarnation) He saith to God: Sacrifice and oblation (these empty figures of future goods) Thou wouldst not; but a body Thou hast fitted to Me (for sacrifice). Holocausts for sin did not please Thee. Then, said I, behold I come: at the head of the book it is written of Me: that I should do Thy will, O God (by the sacrifice of Myself)!” These words constitute the vow of Christ’s sacrifice, that is, the solemn formula in which He vowed to His Heavenly Father, by the Sacrifice of the Cross “to re-establish all things that are in heaven and on earth” (Eph. 1, 10). Therefore, the Apostle adds: “In this will we were sanctified once for all by the Sacrifice of the Body of Jesus Christ,” that is, by the one offering of His bloody atoning sacrifice, which was of infinite value and merit. Christ has acquired for us all grace and sanctification, in obeying with His human will the Divine will of His Father even to the death of the Cross.
Jesus Christ was infinitely worthy of being clothed and adorned with the most eminent dignity of highpriest. The priest, by his office, is mediator between God and man: it is chiefly by the offering of Sacrifice that he is to glorify God and to reconcile man to Him, and to obtain for man in return the favor and friendship of God, applying to him the fruits and graces of the Sacrifice. To be enabled to exercise, in a perfect manner, the office of mediator, he must also take a medium position, namely, be related and united to God as well as to men, in order to transact the affairs of both properly and successfully. The priest “is ordained for men in all things that appertain to God,” to appease God’s anger and to draw down His blessing upon the earth: therefore, he must be pleasing in the sight of God by being free from sin and by exalted sanctity; but he is also “ordained for men” to care for their salvation, to pray, to labor and to suffer: hence “he is taken from among men, that he may have compassion on them that are ignorant and that err; because he himself is also encompassed with infirmity” (Heb. 5, 1-2). In this twofold relation Christ unites in His person, in the most perfect manner, all that can render the priest acceptable to God and powerful with Him, full of compassion and mercy toward men.
Rev. Nicholas Gihr, The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass: Dogmatically, Liturgically and Ascetically Explained
“With them that hated peace I was peaceable: when I spake unto them, they fought against me without cause.” (Ps. cxix) “Forty years long was I nigh unto that generation, and said: They do always err in their heart; and they have not known My ways to whom I swore in My wrath that they should not enter into My rest.” (Ps. xciv)
“In the later editions of the Talmud the allusions to Christianity are few and cautious compared with the earlier or unexpurgated copies. The last of these was published at Amsterdam in 1645. In them our Lord and Saviour is ‘that One,’ ‘such a One,’ ‘a fool,’ ‘the leper,’ ‘the deceiver or Israel,’ &c.; efforts are made to prove that He is the son of Joseph Pandira before his marriage with Mary. His miracles are attributed to sorcery, the secret of which He brought in a slit in his flesh out of Egypt. His teacher is said to have been Joshua, the son of Perachlah. This Joshua is said to have afterwards excommunicated Him to the sound of 800 rams’ horns, although he must have lived seventy years before His time. Forty days before the death of Jesus a witness was summoned by public proclamation to attest his innocence, but none appeared. He is said to have been first stoned and then hanged on the eve of the Passover. His disciples are called heretics, and opprobrious names. They are accused of immoral practices; and the New Testament is called a sinful book. The references to these subjects manifest the most bitter aversion and hate.”
Dr. Joseph Barclay, LL.D, Rector of Stapleford, Herts, London, The Talmud, 1878, from Introduction, p. 30
St. John Eudes: “That there is a special contract made between God and man in Baptism.”
THE name of contract is given to any agreement entered into by two or more persons, in which the parties contracting incur mutual obligations. This clearly shows that a contract. has been entered into by the most Blessed Trinity and you in Baptism; since you have incurred many obligations towards the Blessed Trinity, and the Blessed Trinity has also obliged itself in regard to you. What is the nature of this contract? It is a reciprocal contract of gifts, the highest and most entire that can “enter into the heart of man to conceive;” for in making it you are obliged to give yourself entirely and forever to God; you have renounced all things to be united to Him, and for Him, and God on his part has given Himself entirely to you. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, come to you and take up their abode in your soul, in order to confer honors and benefits on you. They enrich you ‘with spiritual treasures to render you worthy of their three divine Persons.
It is a contract of adoption, since God the Father has taken you for his child, and has conferred on you the right of his inheritance with his only Son, and you have taken God for your Father, and have promised to entertain for him all the love and respect which a child owes to a so good a parent. “Consider,” writes St. John the Evangelist, “what love the Father has testified to you in wishing that you should be called, and that you should, really, be his children.”
Behold the admirable effect of the contract which you have made with God in Baptism, from being the child of wrath and an heir of hell, you have become the child of God and an heir to heaven! What you should not do to acknowledge the infinite goodness of God in your regard?
It is a contract of alliance with the Son of God, since in receiving Baptism you have united yourself to him as to your head, your master, and your sovereign, and since the Son has taken you for His servant and one of the members of his body, which is his Church. How great is the goodness of God, says St. Paul to the newly converted Christians of Corinth; “By whom you arc called unto the fellowship of His Son Jesus Christ our Lord.”
What were you before Baptism but the unhappy slave of Satan, and subject like him to eternal punishment? But by Baptism you have been delivered from this unhappy subjection, through the divine alliance which you have contracted with Jesus Christ, which procures you the enjoyment of eternal happiness, if you observe all its conditions.
Finally, it is a contract of alliance with the Person of the Holy Ghost; for faith teaches us, that the Holy Ghost takes the Christian soul as his spouse, and that the Christian reciprocally takes the Holy Ghost for his spouse. In consequence of this sacred alliance, the Holy Ghost calls you “his sister and his spouse,” and as, of yourself, you are poor indeed, he adorns your soul with all the gifts necessary to render it worthy of him, and he comes to take up his abode in it, and to consecrate it as his temple and his sanctuary. […..]
When you had been presented to the church to receive Baptism, you were treated as a person in the possession of the devil, for the priest pronounced over you the exorcism of the church, commanding the wicked spirit to depart from you, and to give place to the Holy Ghost.
This ceremony teaches you that by original sin you were really in possession of the devil, and that he abided in you, but that, through Baptism, he has been cast out of you; that your soul has been purified from the horrible stain which disfigured it, and that the Holy Ghost, having sanctified and ornamented it with his grace, comes to take up his abode in it. […..]
That 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’s therefore, 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. […..]
The Priest introduced you into the Church, by saying, “Enter into the house of God, that you may have eternal life.” This ceremony teaches you that Baptism enables you to enter into the Society of Jesus Christ, and of all the faithful who compose the house or family of God. By this entry, you begin to partake of all the good works of the faithful and you acquire a right to the sacraments, to the prayers, and to all the other good works which are done in the Church. Moreover, in entering into the Church, you have become her child, and have been made a child of God, the heir of God, and co-heir of Jesus Christ; you entered into society and communion with the angels and all the blessed who are in Heaven. By this ceremony you are likewise taught that, in order to be united to Jesus Christ, and to have eternal life, it is necessary to be a member of the Church, and to persevere therein to the end, believing all she teaches, obeying all she commands.
St. John Eudes, excerpt from Man’s Contract with God in Baptism
COMMENT: St. John Eudes makes clear what every faithful Catholic should already know, that is, it is by virtue of the sacrament of Baptism received with Faith that makes a person a Child of God. The Neo-modernist popes since Vatican II heretically teach that everyone is a child of God by virtue of the Incarnation of the Logos, the Word becoming flesh, where the second Person of the Trinity, by personally uniting Himself with our human nature, thereby elevated all humanity to being children of God by virtue of this shared humanity. For them, Baptism is only an outward sign signifying what has already taken place. It reduces Baptism from a performative sign that is necessity of means for salvation to a simple necessity of precept which obligates only those who feel some inner compulsion to obey. It is this fundamental corruption of revealed truth that makes modern ecumenism with such events as the blasphemous “Prayer Meeting at Assisi” possible. For them the “spiritual character” imprinted on the soul at Baptism is meaningless. The “spiritual character” is both the sign of and cause of the adoption as Sons of God. The character is like a receptacle that makes the reception of the sacramental grace of adoption possible. Those who have the character of the sacrament without the sanctifying grace of adoption will suffer the greatest torments of all in hell.
It is an unfortunate fact that the many traditional Catholics and conservative Catholics believe this tripe and profess that any “good-willed” Protestant, Jew, Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, etc., etc. can be a child of God, a member of the Church, a temple of the Holy Ghost and an heir to heaven by virtue of being a “good” Protestant, Jew, Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, etc., etc. This error is derived essentially from the more fundamental error of denying Dogma as Dogma, by overturning Dogma in its very nature. For these Neo-modernists, Dogma is not the revealed truth of God but only a human axiom open to unending refinement and new interpretations.
But the truth is that Dogma is divine revelation formally and infallibly defined by the Magisterium of the Church. It is irreformable in both the truth it declares (its form) and the words that it uses to define (its matter). It constitutes the formal object of divine and Catholic faith and is the proximate rule of faith for every faithful child of God. Not until every traditional Catholic recognizes and defends this truth will any effective resistance to Neo-modernist error be effectively mounted.
Abp. Viganò offers considerations on the Great Reset
It is our duty to uncover the Great Reset's deception, because the same deception may be attributed to all the other assaults that have sought to nullify the work of Redemption and establish the tyranny of the Antichrist.
Great Reset Shutterstock
By Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò
LifeSiteNews | May 18, 2021— I offer heartfelt thanks to dear Professor Massimo Viglione, who wanted to invite me to take part — remotely so to speak — in the conference he has organized as President of the Confederation of the Triarii. I also extend my warmest greetings to each of the illustrious participants in this event. Please allow me to express to you my profound esteem and my fervent thanks for your courageous testimony, for the enlightening contributions and the tireless commitment you have not ceased to display in the most pressing and incisive way, beginning in February of last year. I encourage you not to retreat and not to disarm in this deadly battle that we are called to fight in this fatal hour of history as never before.”Be strengthened in the Lord and in the might of his power. Clothe yourselves in the armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the deceits of the devil. Our battle is not against flesh and blood but against the Principalities and Powers, against the rulers of this world of darkness, against the spirits of evil that dwell in the high places. Take up therefore the armor of God, so that you may be able to resist on the day of evil and remain standing after having endured all trials” (Eph 6:10-13). The brief reflection I am about to offer you is in some manner a shortened preview of my presentation at the Venice Summit which will take place on May 30, organized by Professor Francesco Lamendola, in which some of you will participate.
When Stalin decided in 1932 to eliminate millions of Ukrainians in the genocide of Holodomor, he planned a famine by seizing food supplies, forbidding commerce, prohibiting travel, and censoring those who reported the facts. This crime against humanity, recently recognized as such by many nations around the world, was conducted with methods not unlike those that have been adopted during the so-called “emergency pandemic” as part of the Great Reset.
A Ukrainian peasant could have asked: “Why doesn’t Stalin send provisions, instead of forbidding shops to open and forbidding travel? Doesn’t he realize that he is making everyone starve to death?” Yet an observer who was not influenced by communist propaganda would have responded to him: “Because Stalin wants to eliminate all the Ukrainians, and he is blaming a famine he knowingly caused for this purpose.” The peasant who asked the question would have committed the same error as many today who, in the presence of an alleged pandemic, ask why governments have pre-emptively undermined public health, weakened national pandemic plans, forbidden effective cures, and administered harmful if not deadly treatments. Furthermore, they are now forcing citizens — using the blackmail of perpetual lockdowns, stay-at-home orders, and unconstitutional “green passes” — to submit to vaccines that not only do not guarantee any immunity, but rather involve serious short-term and long-term side effects, as well as further spreading more resistant forms of the virus.
Looking for any logic in what we are told by the mainstream media, government officials, virologists, and so-called “experts” is practically impossible, but this enchanting unreasonableness will disappear and turn into the most cynical rationality if we only reverse our point of view. That is, we must renounce thinking that our rulers are acting with our good in mind, and more generally we must stop believing that those who speak to us are honest, sincere, and motivated by good principles.
Of course, it is easier to think that the pandemic is real, that a mortal virus exists that is killing millions of victims, and that our leaders and doctors should be appreciated for the effort they have made in the face of an event that caught all of them unprepared; or that the “invisible enemy” has been effectively defeated by the amazing vaccine which the pharmaceutical companies, with the purest humanitarian spirit and without any economic self-interest, have produced in record time. And then there are the relatives, friends, and colleagues who look at us as if we are crazy, calling us “conspiracy theorists” or — as a certain conservative intellectual has begun to do with me — they will accuse us of exasperating the tones of a debate which, if moderated, they say, would help us to better understand the terms of the matter. And if our friends also attend our parish, we will hear them say that even Francis has recommended the vaccines, which Professor So-and-So has declared to be morally acceptable even if they are produced with aborted fetuses, since — he admonishes us — those who today criticize the COVID vaccine accept other vaccines that have been administered up until now, even if those, too, were also obtained with abortions.
The lie seduced many, even among conservatives and traditionalists themselves. We too, at times, find it difficult to believe that the traders of iniquity are so well-organized, that they have succeeded in manipulating information, blackmailing politicians, corrupting doctors, and intimidating businessmen in order to force billions of people to wear a useless muzzle and consider the vaccine as the only way to escape certain death. And yet all it takes is one read through the guidelines that the WHO wrote in 2019 — regarding the “Covid-19” that was still to come — to understand that there is a single script under a single direction, with actors who stick to the part assigned to them and a claque of mercenary journalists who shamelessly distort reality.
Let us observe the entire operation from the outside, trying to identify the recurring elements: the unconfessability of the criminal design of the elite, the need to cloak it with acceptable ideals, the creation of an emergency situation for which the elite have already planned a solution that would otherwise be unacceptable. It could be an increase in funding for weapons or a tightening of controls such as happened immediately after the attack on the Twin Towers, the exploitation of Iraq’s energy resources with the pretext that Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons, or the transformation of society and work in the wake of a pandemic. There is an always an excuse behind these actions, an apparent cause, something false that hides reality, a lie; in short: a fraud.
Lying is the trademark of the architects of the Great Reset of the last few centuries: the Protestant pseudo-reformation, the French Revolution, the Italian Risorgimento, the Russian Revolution, the two World Wars, the Industrial Revolution, the Revolution of 1968, and the fall of the Berlin Wall. Each time, if you notice, the apparent reasons for these revolutions never corresponded to the real one.
In this long series of Great Resets organized by the same elite of conspirators, not even the Catholic Church has managed to escape. Think about it: What did the liturgists of the Council tell us when they wanted to impose the reformed Mass on us? That the people did not understand, that the liturgy had to be made understandable in order to allow for a greater participation of the faithful. And in the name of that prophasis, of that false pretext, they did not simply translate the Apostolic Mass into the vernacular, but instead they invented a different Mass altogether, because they wanted to cancel the primary doctrinal obstacle to ecumenical dialogue with the Protestants, indoctrinating the faithful into the new ecclesiology of Vatican II.
Like all frauds, those that are hatched by the devil and his servants are based on false promises that will never be kept, in exchange for which we give up a certain good that will never be restored to us. In Eden, the prospect of becoming like gods led to the loss of friendship with God and to eternal damnation, which only the redemptive Sacrifice of Our Lord was able to repair. And Satan also tempted Our Lord, lying as usual: “I will give you all this power and the glory of these kingdoms, because it has been placed in my hands and I give it to whomever I will. If you will prostrate yourself before me, all this will be yours” (Lk 4:6-7). But nothing that Satan offered to Our Lord was really his, nor could he give it to whomever he wanted, least of all to the One who is Lord and Master of all. The temptation of the devil is based on deception: What can we ever expect from the one who is “a murderer from the beginning,” “a liar and the father of lies” (Jn 8:44).
With the pandemic, little by little they told us that isolation, lockdowns, masks, curfews, “live-streamed Masses,” distance-learning, “smartworking,” recovery funds, vaccines, and “green passes” would permit us to come out of the emergency, and, believing in this lie, we renounced the rights and lifestyles that they warned us would never return: “Nothing will be the same again.” The “new normal” will still be presented to us as a concession that will require us to accept the deprivation of freedoms that we had taken for granted, and accordingly we will compromise without understanding the absurdity of our compliance and the obscenity of the demands of those who command us, giving us orders so absurd that they truly require a total abdication of reason and dignity. At each step there is a new turn of the screw and a further step towards the abyss: If we do not stop ourselves in this race towards collective suicide we will never go back.
It is our duty to uncover the deception of this Great Reset, because the same deception may be attributed to all the other assaults that over the course of history have sought to nullify the work of Redemption and establish the tyranny of the Antichrist. Because, in reality, this is what the architects of the Great Reset are aiming for. The New World Order — a name which significantly echoes the conciliar Novus Ordo — overturns the divine cosmos in order to spread infernal chaos, in which everything that civilization has painstakingly constructed over the course of millennia under the inspiration of Grace is overturned and perverted, corrupted and cancelled.
Each of us must understand that what is happening is not the fruit of an unfortunate sequence of chance occurrences, but corresponds rather to a diabolical plan — in the sense that the Evil One is behind all this — which over the centuries pursues a single goal: destroying the work of Creation, nullifying the Redemption, and cancelling every trace of Good on the earth. And in order to obtain this, the final step is the establishment of a synarchy in which command is seized by a few faceless tyrants who thirst for power, who are given over to the worship of death and sin and to the hatred of Life, Virtue, and Beauty because in them shines forth the greatness of that God against whom they still cry out their infernal “Non serviam.” The members of this accursed sect are not only Bill Gates, George Soros, or Klaus Schwab, but also those who for centuries have been plotting in the shadows in order to overthrow the Kingdom of Christ: the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, the Warburgs, and those who today have formed an alliance with the highest levels of the Church, using the moral authority of the Pope and Bishops to convince the faithful to get vaccinated.
We know that the lie is the emblem of the devil, the distinctive sign of his servants, the hallmark of the enemies of God and the Church. God is Truth; the Word of God is true, and He Himself is God. Speaking the Truth, shouting it from the rooftops, uncovering the deception and its creators is a sacred work, and no Catholic — nor anyone who has still preserved a shred of decency and honor — may shrink from this duty.
Each of us was thought of, desired, and created in order to give glory to God and to be part of a great design of Providence: from all eternity the Lord has called us to share with Him in the work of Redemption, to cooperate in the salvation of souls and the triumph of Good. Each of us today has the possibility of choosing to take sides either with Christ or against Christ, either to fight for the cause of Good or to become an accomplice to the workers of iniquity. The victory of God is most certain, as is the reward that awaits those who make the choice to enter the battle on the side of the King of kings, and the defeat of those who serve the Enemy is also certain, as is their eternal damnation.
This farce will collapse; it will collapse inevitably! Let us all commit ourselves, with renewed zeal, to return to our King the Crown which His enemies have snatched from Him. I exhort you to make Our Lord reign in your souls, your families, your communities, in the Nation, in the workplace, in the schools, in the laws and courts, in the arts, in the media, in all areas of private and public life.
We have just celebrated the anniversary of the Apparitions of the Immaculate Virgin to the shepherd children of Fatima: Let us recall Our Lady’s warning about the dangers and punishments that await the world if it does not convert and do penance. “This sort of demon is cast out only by prayer and fasting” (Mt 17:21), says the Lord. As we wait for a Pope to fully obey the requests of the Mother of God by consecrating Russia to Her Immaculate Heart, let us consecrate ourselves and our families, persevering in the life of Grace under the standard of Christ the King. May our Most Holy Mother and Queen, Mary Most Holy, also reign with Him.
+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop
15 May 2021
Sabbato post Ascensionem