A corporal work of mercy.

A corporal work of mercy.
Click on photo for this corporal work of mercy!
Showing posts with label Bergoglian Church of the New Paradigm. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bergoglian Church of the New Paradigm. Show all posts

Friday 12 January 2024

JamesMartinType Blessings coming in St. Peter's Basilica

Remember the bowing down to a demon idol in the Vatican Gardens and parading it into St. Peter's Basilica/ Even worse was the bowl of greens and a red flower at the "offertory" placed on the Altar. At that moment, Bergoglio offered to Satan an "abomination of desolation." Marini is a coward, he should have dropped the demon. "Oops, sorry, Your Holiness!" What a wuss.


Stay away from St. Peter's Basilica, the same rector that canceled all Masses, Novus, and Vetus at the side Altars is now preparing to bless JamesMartinTypes over the bones of St. Peter on the Holy Altar of God. Blasphemous. Abominable. Deplorable.

Why do I say "stay away?" Do you not think this place will be destroyed and wicked deaths to those who did this? A meteor? A terror strike? God will not be mocked.

Vatican official says St. Peter's Basilica will bless homosexual 'couples' - LifeSite (lifesitenews.com)



Saturday 11 November 2023

BISHOP STRICKLAND CANCELLED BY BERGOGLO!

Not that we didn't see this coming. 

Patience friends. Bergoglio's time is short, very short. The dividing is there for all to see. The sifting of the flour continues. 

Keep the faith. 


Pope removes Texas bishop who’s been a frequent Francis critic | Crux (cruxnow.com)




Tuesday 10 May 2022

Bergoglio's continued attack on Catholics and the liturgy

The bombastic pompous pontificating Bergoglio has laid another attack on faithful Catholics and the holy liturgy accusing those who follow the traditional rites to be doing the work of the "devil" and fostering division. He opines on Sacrosanctam Concilium which, if one reads it, is not the Novus Ordo liturgy. He is a liar. It stated that "Latin" is the language of the liturgy. "Gregorian chant has pride of place." That the people must be taught to "sing in Latin those parts of the Mass pertaining to them." It called for no major changes. He is a liar. He whines about his experiences with the communion fast and how many readings for the Holy Saturday/Easter Vigil liturgy.

Where is Pinocchio in Sacrosanctam Concilium?

 

Stinking hypocrite! Sheer poppycock and psychological projection.

The only division is coming from this Argentinian boil on the literal seat of Peter. It's a boil long passed being lanced - an infection that is filled with the Sulphur from the devil he accuses the rest of us of following.

Mark Lambert details the "gaslighting" of this evil clown.

https://marklambert.blogspot.com/2022/05/pope-francis-gaslighting-pope-attacking.html

The man does not edify, build-up or bring peace. He is a nasty, mean, abusive bully raging at the little people who only desire liturgical peace and prayer and a happy life and to worship God the way their ancestors before 1965 did!

"May his days be shortened and another his bishopric take!" 




Dear brothers and sisters, good morning and welcome!

Thank you, Father Abbot Primate, for your introduction. Italian has improved! That is fine. I greet the Father Rector, the Father Dean, the Professors, and all of you, dear students and former students of the Pontifical Liturgical Institute.

I am happy to receive you on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of its foundation. It came as a response to the growing need of the People of God to live and participate more intensely in the liturgical life of the Church; a requirement that found illuminating verification in the Second Vatican Council with the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium. By now, your institution's dedication to the study of the liturgy is well recognized. Experts trained in your halls promote the liturgical life of many dioceses, in very different cultural contexts.

Three dimensions clearly emerge from the conciliar drive for the renewal of liturgical life. The first is active and fruitful participation in the liturgy; the second is ecclesial communion animated by the celebration of the Eucharist and the sacraments of the Church; and the third is the impulse to the evangelizing mission starting from the liturgical life that involves all the baptized. The Pontifical Liturgical Institute is at the service of this triple need.

First of all, formation to live and promote active participation in the liturgical life. The in-depth and scientific study of the Liturgy must encourage you to favor, as the Council wished, this fundamental dimension of Christian life. The key here is to educate people to get into the spirit of the liturgy. And to know how to do it, it is necessary to be impregnated with this spirit. I would like to say that this should happen to Sant’Anselmo: to become imbued with the spirit of the liturgy, to feel its mystery, with ever new amazement. The liturgy is not possessed, no, it is not a profession: the liturgy is learned, the liturgy is celebrated. To arrive at this attitude of celebrating the liturgy. And one participates actively only to the extent that one enters this spirit of celebration. It is not a question of rites, it is the mystery of Christ, who once and for all revealed and fulfilled the sacred, the sacrifice and the priesthood. Worship in spirit and truth. All this, in your Institute, must be meditated upon, assimilated, I would say "breathed". At the school of the Scriptures, the Fathers, the Tradition, the Saints. Only in this way can participation be translated into a greater sense of the Church, which makes us live evangelically in every time and in every circumstance. And this attitude of celebrating also suffers temptations. On this I would like to underline the danger, the temptation of liturgical formalism: to go after forms, formalities rather than reality, as we see today in those movements that try to go back a little and deny the Second Vatican Council itself. Then the celebration is recitation, it is a thing without life, without joy.

Your dedication to liturgical study, on the part of both professors and students, also makes you grow in ecclesial communion. The liturgical life, in fact, opens us to the other, to the closest and most distant from the Church, in the common belonging to Christ. Giving glory to God in the liturgy finds its confirmation in love of neighbor, in the commitment to live as brothers in everyday situations, in the community in which I find myself, with its strengths and limitations. This is the path of true sanctification. Therefore, the formation of the People of God is a fundamental task for living a fully ecclesial liturgical life.

And the third aspect. Every liturgical celebration always ends with the mission. What we live and celebrate leads us to go out to meet others, to meet the world around us, to meet the joys and needs of many who perhaps live without knowing the gift of God. Genuine liturgical life, especially the Eucharist, pushes us always to charity, which is above all openness and attention to the other. This attitude always begins and is founded in prayer, especially in liturgical prayer. And this dimension also opens us to dialogue, to encounter, to the ecumenical spirit, to welcome.

I dwelt briefly on these three fundamental dimensions. I emphasize again that the liturgical life, and the study of it, must lead to greater ecclesial unity, not to division. When liturgical life is a bit of a banner of division, there is the smell of the devil in there, the deceiver. It is not possible to worship God and at the same time make the liturgy a battlefield for issues that are not essential, indeed, for outdated issues and to take a stand, starting with the liturgy, with ideologies that divide the Church. The Gospel and the Church's Tradition call us to be firmly united on the essential, and to share legitimate differences in the harmony of the Spirit. Therefore the Council wished to prepare abundantly the table of the Word of God and of the Eucharist, to make possible the presence of God in the midst of his People. Thus the Church, through liturgical prayer, prolongs the work of Christ in the midst of men and women of all times, and also in the midst of creation, dispensing the grace of his sacramental presence. The liturgy must be studied while remaining faithful to this mystery of the Church.

It is true that every reform creates resistance. I remember, I was a boy, when Pius XII began with the first liturgical reform, the first: you can drink water before communion, fast for an hour ... "But this is against the holiness of the Eucharist!" dress up. Then, the evening Mass: “But, why, the Mass is in the morning!”. Then, the reform of the Easter Triduum: "But how, the Lord must rise again on Saturday, now they send him back to Sunday, Saturday evening, Sunday does not ring the bells ... And where do the twelve prophecies go?". All these things scandalized closed minds. It also happens today. Indeed, these closed mindsets use liturgical schemes to defend their point of view. Using the liturgy: this is the drama we are experiencing in ecclesial groups that distance themselves from the Church, question the Council, the authority of the bishops ..., to preserve tradition. And the liturgy is used for this.

The challenges of our world and of the present moment are very strong. Today, as always, the Church needs to live by the liturgy. The Council Fathers did a great job to make it so. We must continue this task of forming the liturgy in order to be formed by the liturgy. The Holy Virgin Mary together with the Apostles prayed, broke the Bread and lived charity with everyone. Through their intercession, the liturgy of the Church makes this model of Christian life present today and always.

I thank you for the service you render to the Church and I encourage you to carry it forward in the joy of the Spirit. I bless you from my heart. And I ask you to please pray for me. Thanks.

             

Monday 15 November 2021

Seriously, Jorge?

Good grief man, You are holding the very Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Is it really that hard for you? 


”We need to overcome our self-absorption, our interior rigidity, which is a temptation of today’s restorationists, who want an ordered, all rigid, Church. This is not the Holy Spirit. We need to overcome this.”

Let me tell you this. Bergoglio's actions and words are not of the Holy Spirit. What God did before does not change now. God does not change. God does not trick us or play us from one generation to another.

Hold fast.

Saturday 13 November 2021

Dominican schools Bergoglio on theology, liturgy and truth.


Jamna, August 17, 2021

His Holiness Pope Francis
Domus Sanctae Marthae
The Holy See
Vatican City

For the attention of:

Rev. General Master of the Order, Gerard Francisco Timoner III OP
Rev. Provincial of the Polish Province, Paweł Kozacki OP
H.E. Bishop of the Tarnów Diocese, Andrzej Jeż
Rev. Superior of the House in Jamna, Andrzej Chlewicki OP

Brothers and Sisters in the Order

Rev. Superior of the Polish District of the Fraternity of St Pius X, Karl Stehlin FSSPX
Omnes quos res tangit

Most Holy Father,

I was born 57 years ago and joined the Dominican Order 35 years ago. I took my perpetual vows 29 years ago and have been a priest now for 28 years. I had only vague recollections from my early childhood of the Holy Mass in its form predating the reforms of 1970. Sixteen years after my ordination, two lay friends (unknown to each other) urged me to learn how to celebrate the Holy Mass in its traditional form. I listened to them.

It was a shock to me. I discovered that the Holy Mass in its classical form:

- directs the entire attention of both priest and faithful towards the Mystery,

- expresses, with great precision of words and gestures, the faith of the Church in what is happening here and now on the altar,

- reinforces, with a power equal to its precision, the faith of the celebrant and of the people,

- does not lead either priest or faithful towards an invention or creativity of their own during the liturgy,

- places them, quite on the contrary, on a path of silence and contemplation,

- offers by the number and nature of its gestures the possibility of incessant acts of piety and love towards God,

- unites the priest and faithful, placing them on the same side of the altar and turning them in the same direction: versus Crucem, versus Deum.

I said to myself: so this is what the Holy Mass is! And I, a priest of 16 years, did not know it! It was a powerful eureka, a discovery, after which my idea of the Mass could not remain the same.

From the beginning it had struck me that this rite is the opposite of the stereotype. Instead of formalism, free expression of the soul before God. Instead of frigidity, the fervour of divine cult. Instead of distance, closeness. Instead of strangeness, intimacy. Instead of rigidity, security. Instead of the passivity of the laity, their deep and living connection to the mystery (it was through the laity, after all, that I was led to the traditional Mass). Instead of a chasm between priest and the faithful, a close spiritual union between all those present, protected and expressed by the silence of the Canon. In making this discovery it became clear to me: this very form is our bridge to the generations who lived before us and passed on the faith. My joy in this ecclesial unity that transcends all time was enormous.

From the beginning, I experienced the powerful force of spiritual attraction of the Mass in its traditional form. It was not the signs in themselves which attracted me, but their significance, which the soul knows how to read. The very thought of the next celebration filled me with joy. I sought every opportunity to celebrate with eagerness and longing. Very soon a complete certainty matured within me, that, were I to celebrate Mass (as well as every Sacrament and ceremony) only in its traditional form till the end of my days, I would not miss the post-conciliar form in the least.

Had someone asked me to express with a single word my feelings about the traditional celebration in the context of the reformed rite, I would have replied “relief.” For it was indeed a relief, one of indescribable depth. It was like that of someone who, having walked all his life in shoes with a pebble in them that rubs and irritates his feet, but who has no other experience of walking, is offered, 16 years later, a pair of shoes with no pebble and the words: “Here,” “Put them on,” “try them!” Not only did I rediscover the Holy Mass, but also the astounding difference between the two forms: that which had been in use for centuries and the post-conciliar one. I had not known this difference because I had not known the earlier form. I cannot compare my encounter with the traditional liturgy to a meeting with someone who has adopted me and has become my adoptive parent. It was a meeting with a Mother who has always been my Mother, yet I had not known her.

I was accompanied in all this by the blessing of the Supreme Pontiffs. They had taught that the missal of 1962 “had never been legally abrogated and remained, therefore, in principle, always permitted,” adding that “what had been sacred for previous generations remained sacred and great also for us, and could not suddenly become completely forbidden nor even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed through the faith and prayer of the Church and to give them their proper place” (Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops, 2007). The faithful were also taught: “On account of its venerable and ancient use, the forma extraordinaria is to be maintained with the honour due to it”; it has been described as “a precious treasure to be preserved” (Instruction Universae Ecclesiae, 2011). These words followed earlier documents which made it possible for the faithful to use the traditional liturgy after the reforms of 1970, the first being Quattuor abhinc annos of 1984. The foundation and source for all these documents remain the Bull of Saint Pius V, Quo primum tempore (1570).

Holy Father, if, without forgetting the solemn document of Pope Pius V, we take into consideration the lapse of time covering the declarations of your immediate predecessors we have a duration of 37 years, from 1984 to 2021, during which the Church said to the faithful, concerning the traditional liturgy, and ever more strongly: “There is such a way. You may walk along with it.”

I, therefore, took the path offered to me by the Church.

Whoever takes this road—whoever wants this rite, which is the vessel of divine Presence and divine Oblation, to bear fruit within his own life—should open himself entirely so as to entrust himself and others to God, present and acting within us through the vessel of this holy rite. This I did, with complete confidence.

Then came the 16th of July 2021.

From your documents, Holy Father, I learnt that the path I had been walking on for 12 years had ceased to exist.

We have affirmations of two Popes. His Holiness Benedict XVI had said that the Roman Missal promulgated by Saint Pius V “must be considered the extraordinary expression of the lex orandi of the Catholic Church of the Roman Rite.” Yet His Holiness Pope Francis says that “the liturgical books promulgated by Popes St. Paul VI and St. John Paul II (...) are the only expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.” The affirmation of the successor thus denies that of his still-living predecessor.

Can a certain manner of celebrating Mass, confirmed by immemorial, centuries-old Tradition, recognized by every Pope, including yourself, Holy Father, until the 16th of July of 2021, and sanctified by its practice over so many centuries, suddenly cease to be the lex orandi of the Roman Rite? If this were the case, it would mean that such a characteristic is not intrinsic to the rite but is an external attribute, subject to the decisions of those who occupy places of high authority. In reality, the traditional liturgy expresses the lex orandi of the Roman Rite by its every gesture and every sentence and by the whole that they compose. It is guaranteed also to express this lex orandi, as the Church has always held, on account of its uninterrupted use, since time immemorial. We must conclude that the first papal affirmation [of Benedict] has solid foundations and is true and that the second [of Francis] is groundless and is false. But despite its being false, it is nevertheless given the power of law. This has consequences about which I will write below.

Concessions regarding the use of the Missal of 1962 now have a different character than earlier ones. It is no longer about responding to the love with which the faithful adhere to the traditional form, but about giving the faithful time—how much time, we are not told—to “return” to the reformed liturgy. The words of the Motu Proprio and your Letter to the Bishops make it entirely clear that the decision has been taken, and is already being implemented, to remove the traditional liturgy from the life of the Church and cast it into the abyss of oblivion: it may not be used in parish churches, new groups must not be formed, Rome must be consulted if new priests are to say it. The bishops are now indeed to be Traditionis Custodes, “custodians of Tradition,” yet not in the sense of guardians who protect it, but rather in the sense of custodians of a jail.

Allow me to express my conviction that this will not happen, and that the operation will fail. What are the grounds for this conviction? A careful analysis of both Letters of July 16th exposes four components: Hegelianism, nominalism, belief in the Pope’s omnipotence, and collective responsibility. Each one is an essential component of your message and none of them can be reconciled with the deposit of the Catholic faith. Since they cannot be reconciled with the faith, they will not be integrated into it either in theory or in practice. Let us examine each of them in turn.

1) Hegelianism. The term is a conventional one: it does not mean literally the system of the German philosopher Hegel, but something that derives from this system, namely the understanding of history as a good, rational, and inevitable process of continuous changes. This way of thinking has a long history, from Heraclitus and Plotinus, to Joachim of Fiore, down to Hegel, Marx, and their modern heirs. The characteristic of this approach is to divide history into phases, such that the beginning of each new phase is joined to the end of the preceding one. Attempts to “baptize” Hegelianism are nothing other than attempts to endow these supposed historical phases with the authority of the Holy Spirit. It is assumed that the Holy Spirit communicates to the next generation something that He has not spoken of to the preceding one, or even that He imparts something that contradicts what He has said before. In the latter case, we must accept one of three things: either in certain phases the Church failed to obey the Holy Spirit, or the Holy Spirit is subject to change, or He carries contradictions within Him.

Another consequence of this worldview is a change in how we understand the Church and Tradition. The Church is no longer seen as a community uniting the faithful by transcending time, as the Catholic faith holds, but as a set of groups belonging to the various phases. These groups no longer have a common language: our ancestors had no access to what the Holy Spirit says to us today. Tradition itself is no longer one message that is continuously studied; it consists rather in receiving, again and again, new things from the Holy Spirit. We then come to hear instead, as in Your Letter to the Bishops, Holy Father, of “the dynamic of Tradition,” often with an application to specific events. An example of this is when you write that this dynamic’s “last stage is the Second Vatican Council, during which Catholic bishops gathered in order to listen and discern the way shown to the Church by the Holy Spirit.” This line of reasoning implies that a new phase requires new liturgical forms because the former ones were suited to the previous stage, which is over. Since this sequence of stages is sanctioned by the Holy Spirit, through the Council, those who hold on to the old forms despite having access to new ones oppose the Holy Spirit.

Such views, however, are contrary to the faith. Holy Scripture, the norm of the Catholic faith, provides no grounds for such an understanding of history. Rather, it teaches us an altogether different understanding. King Josiah, having learned about the discovery of the old book of the Law, ordered that the celebration of Passover be conducted in accordance with it, despite an interruption of half a century (2 Kgs 22-23). In the same way, Ezra and Nehemiah on their return from the Babylonian captivity celebrated the Feast of Tabernacles with the entire people, strictly according to the ancient records of the Law, despite many decades have passed since the previous celebration (Neh 8). In each case, the old documents of the law were used to renew the divine worship after a period of turmoil. No one demanded a change in the ritual on the ground that new times had arrived.

2) Nominalism. While Hegelianism influences one’s understanding of history, nominalism affects one’s understanding of unity. Nominalism implies that introducing outward unity (by means of a top-down administrative decision) is equivalent to achieving real unity. This is because nominalism abolishes spiritual reality by seeking to grasp and regulate it with material measures. You write, Holy Father, that: “It is to defend the unity of the Body of Christ that I am forced to withdraw the faculty granted by my predecessors.” But to reach this goal, true unity, your predecessors made the opposite decision, and not without reason. When one understands that true unity includes something spiritual and internal, and thus differs from mere external unity, one no longer seeks it simply by the uniformity of external signs. We do not obtain true unity in this way, but rather, impoverishment, and the opposite of unity: division.

Unity does not result from the withdrawal of faculties, the revocation of consent, and the imposition of limitations. King Rehoboam of Judah, before deciding how to treat the Israelites, who wished him to improve their lot, consulted two groups of advisors. The older ones recommended leniency and a reduction of the people’s burdens: age, in Holy Scripture, often symbolizes maturity. The young, who were contemporaries of the king, recommended increasing their burdens and the use of harsh words: youth, in Scripture, often symbolizes immaturity. The king followed the advice of the young. This failed to bring unity between Judah and Israel. On the contrary, it started the division of the country into two kingdoms (1 Kgs 12). Our Lord healed this division through mildness, knowing that the lack of this virtue had caused the split.

Before Pentecost, the apostles assessed unity by external criteria. This approach was corrected by the Saviour Himself, who, in reply to the words of St. John: “Master, we saw a man driving out evil spirits in your name, and we did not let him do it, because he was not one of us,” answered “Let him do so, for he who is not against you is with you” (Lk 9,49-50, cf. Mt 9,38-41). Holy Father, you had many hundreds of thousands of the faithful who “were not against” you. And you have done so much to make things difficult for them! Would it not have been better to follow the words of the Saviour indicating a deeper, spiritual foundation of unity? Hegelianism and nominalism frequently become allies, since the materialistic understanding of history leads to the conviction that each stage must irrevocably end.

3) Belief in the Pope’s omnipotence. When Pope Benedict XVI granted greater freedom to the use of the classic form of liturgy, he referred to a centuries-old custom and uses. These provided a solid basis for his resolve. The decision of Your Holiness is based on no such foundations. On the contrary, it revokes something that has existed and endured for a very long time. You write, Holy Father, that you find support in the decisions of St. Pius V, but he applied criteria that are exactly the opposite of your own. According to him, what had existed and lasted for centuries would continue undisturbed; only what was newer was abrogated. The sole basis left for your decision is therefore the will of one person endowed with papal authority. Can this authority, though, however great it may be, prevent ancient liturgical customs from being an expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Church? Saint Thomas Aquinas asks himself whether God can cause something which once existed, never to have existed. The answer is no because contradiction is not part of God's omnipotence (Summa Theologiae, p. I, qu. 25, art. 4). In a similar way, papal authority cannot cause traditional rituals that have expressed the faith of the Church (lex credendi) for centuries, suddenly, one day, no longer to express the law of the prayer of the same Church (lex orandi). The Pope may make decisions, but not ones that violate a unity that extends to the past and to the future, far beyond the duration of his pontificate. The Pope is at the service of a unity greater than his own authority. For it is a God-given unity and not one of human origin. It is therefore unity that takes precedence over authority, and not authority over unity.

4) Collective responsibility. Indicating the motives of your decision, Holy Father, you make various and grave allegations against those who exercise the faculties recognized by Pope Benedict XVI. It is not specified, however, who perpetrates these abuses, or where, or in what number. There are only the words “often” and “many.” We do not even know whether it is a majority. Probably not. Yet not a majority, but all those who make use of the above-mentioned faculties have been affected by a draconian penal sanction. They have been deprived of their spiritual path, either immediately or at some unspecified future time. There are certainly people who misuse knives. Should the production and distribution of knives, therefore, be banned? Your decision, Holy Father, is far more grievous than would be the hypothetical absurdity of a universal prohibition against making knives.

Holy Father: why are you doing this? Why have you attacked the holy practice of the ancient form of celebrating the Most Holy Sacrifice of Our Lord? The abuses committed in other forms, widespread or universal though they are, lead to nothing beyond words, to declarations expressed in general terms. But how can one teach with authority that “the disappearance of a culture can be just as serious, or even more serious, than the disappearance of a species of plant or animal” (Laudato si 145), and then a few years later, with a single act, destine a great part of the Church’s own spiritual and cultural heritage to extinction? Why do the rules of “deep ecology” formulated by you fail to apply in this case? Why did you not instead ask whether the constantly growing number of the faithful assisting at the traditional liturgy could be a sign from the Holy Spirit? You did not follow the advice of Gamaliel (Acts 5). Instead, you struck them with a ban that had not even a vacatio legis.

The Lord God, the model for earthly rulers and, in the first place, for church authorities, does not use His power in this way. Holy Scripture speaks thus to God: “For thy power is the beginning of justice: and because thou art Lord to all, thou makest thyself gracious to all (…) But thou being master of power, judgest, and with great favour disposest of us: for thy power is at hand when thy wilt” (Wis 12, 16-18). Real power does not need to prove itself by harshness. And harshness is not an attribute of any authority which follows the divine model. Our Saviour Himself left us precise and reliable teaching on this (Mt 20, 24-28). Not only has the carpet been pulled, so to speak, from beneath the feet of people who were walking towards God; an attempt has been made to deprive them of the very ground they walk on. This attempt will not succeed. Nothing which is in conflict with Catholicism will be accepted in God’s Church.

Holy Father, it is impossible to experience the ground under one’s feet for 12 years and suddenly assert that it is no longer there. It is impossible to conclude that my own Mother, found after many long years, is not my Mother. Papal authority is immense. But even this authority cannot make my Mother cease to be my Mother! A single-life cannot bear two mutually exclusive ruptures, one of which opens a treasure, whilst the other claims that this treasure must be abandoned because its value has expired. If I were to accept these contradictions I should no longer be able to have any intellectual life, nor, therefore, any spiritual life either. From two contradictory statements, any affirmation, true or false, may be made to follow. This means the end of rational thinking, the end of any notion of reality, the end of effective communication of anything to anyone. But all these things are basic components of human life in general, and of Dominican life in particular.

I have no doubts about my vocation. I am firmly resolved to continue my life and service within the Order of St Dominic. But to do so I must be able to reason correctly and logically. After the 16th of July 2021, this is no longer possible for me within the existing structures. I see with complete clarity that the treasure of the holy rites of the Church, the ground under the feet of those who practice them, and the mother of their piety, continues to exist. It has become equally clear to me that I must bear witness to it.

I have been left no choice now but to turn to those who from the very beginning of the radical changes (changes, let it be noted, that go far beyond the will of the Second Vatican Council) have defended the Tradition of the Church, together with the Church’s respect for the requirements of reason, and who continue to pass on the unchangeable deposit of Catholic faith to the faithful: the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X. The SSPX has shown a readiness to accept me, whilst fully respecting my Dominican identity. It is providing me not only with a life of service to God and the Church, a service not impeded by contradictions, but also with an opportunity to oppose those contradictions which are an enemy to Truth, and which have attacked the Church so vigorously.

There is a state of controversy between the SSPX and the official structures of the Church. It is an internal dispute within the Church, and it concerns matters of great importance. The documents and the decisions of the 16th of July have caused my position on this subject to converge with that of the SSPX. As in the case of any important dispute, this one too must be resolved. I am determined to devote my efforts towards this end. I intend this letter to be part of this effort. The means used can only be humble respect for Truth, and gentleness, both springing from a supernatural source. Thus we can hope for the solution of the controversy and the rebuilding of a unity that will embrace not only those living now but also all generations, both past and future.

I thank you for the attention you have granted to my words and beg, Most Holy Father, for your apostolic blessing.

With filial devotion in Christ,

Fr. Wojciech Gołaski, O.P.

Saturday 31 July 2021

Martin Mosebach on Bergoglio's attempt to destroy the traditional Holy Mass

Some of you have, no doubt, read Martin Mosebach's book, The Heresy of Formlessness, published in 2003. Four years before  Summorum Pontificum there is no doubt, at least in this writer's view, that it had an influence on then-Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI. I read it five years ago, perhaps it is time to take it off the shelf and read it again as we once again pick up our weapons for the battle.

First Things features a piece by Mosebach on the cruel, uncharitable and vindictively unjust and illegal action of Bergoglio in his attempt to create the church of the new paradigm. 

I have commented on this blog, on social media and in the discussion that this illegal attempt at suppression by Bergoglio, (he will not succeed), is not essentially about the form of the liturgy or the language. It is not about smells and bells and chants. Those are all part of a properly offered Novus Ordo. No, it is about something more. It is about what the Mass of All Time represents. It is what it signifies, it is what it teaches and proclaims. It is about the perpetual sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ and right worship to Almighty God and it is about one word, doctrine! It is about a new church, a new paradigm and worship of the Second Vatican Council as a new Pentecost, a lie and deception if ever there were one.

Moseback agrees.

Perhaps the Mass is not what most concerns the pope. Francis appears to sympathize with the “hermeneutic of rupture”—that theological school that asserts that with the Second Vatican Council the Church broke with her tradition. If that is true, then indeed every celebration of the traditional liturgy must be prevented. For as long as the old Latin Mass is celebrated in any garage, the memory of the previous two thousand years will not have been extinguished.

 Mass and Memory | Martin Mosebach | First Things



Wednesday 30 June 2021

THE ENEMIES OF SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM WANT WAR - Paix Liturgique. AND THEY WILL GET IT! - Vox Cantoris

A warning to Bergoglio, Parolin, Ouellette, Roche and the rest of these effetes, hirelings and Christ-hating demonic episcopal scum. If you want war, you will get war. 

This is not 1969. This is not even 1965. We are not our parents.

Forewarned is forearmed!

There is no going back.

Paix Liturgique France

Our 805 letter published on June 28, 2021 

THE ENEMIES OF SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM WANT WAR

"You are going to have a new Motu proprio in the coming days or weeks," Bishop Minnerath, Archbishop of Dijon, told the faithful of the traditional Mass who came to demonstrate their displeasure in front of the bishopric on June 26. But even before the publication of this text, if it is well published, the testimonies on the intentions of the enemies of the previous motu proprio, that of Benedict XVI multiply: 

Thus, Cardinal Parolin, Secretary of State, said before a group of cardinals: "We must put an end to this Mass forever!" Bishop Roche, the new Prefect of the Congregation of Divine Worship, explained with a laugh to seminary officials in Rome and members of the Curia, all English-speaking: "Summorum Pontificum is practically dead! We will give power back to the bishops on this point, but especially not to the conservative bishops." 

It should also be noted that Bishop Minnerath, who opened hostilities against the traditional community of Dijon, is a member of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and therefore finds himself every month in Rome, immersed in the circles of the Curia that prepared the offensive against Summorum Pontificum. 

Benedict XVI's motu proprio Summorum Pontificum of 2007 was a compromise that ingeniously established a coexistence between the Mass of Paul VI and the Tridentine Mass, in other words, it is true, between water and fire. The fact remains that the peace achieved has been widely acclaimed by the Christian people, whether or not they attend the old Mass, as all our surveys have shown. 

It is known, since the Pope spoke about it at the Conference of Bishops of Italy on Pentecost Monday, that the new text will reduce the possibility of diocesan priests to celebrate traditional Mass. In addition, measures should be taken to lead the priests of the Ecclesia Dei institutes to also celebrate the new Mass and to bring both this new Mass and the conciliar magisterium into the training given in the seminaries of these communities. 

Proponents of liturgical reform have become aware of the importance of the traditional world 

The exasperation, which animates the supporters of liturgical reform in the face of the opposition they have met from the beginning, has been revived with the arrival of Pope Francis. It continues to grow as time passes and the pontificate logically moves towards its completion: we must put an end as soon as possible to this opposition to the Council to which Pope Benedict XVI had given a space of liturgical freedom. 

The offensive was led by a pressure group in the Curia and among the Italian bishops who worked to make roman decision-makers understand that the two masses in attendance, the traditional mass and the new mass, represented two incompatible doctrinal states: that of Vatican II and that of before Vatican II. The great idea of Andrea Grillo, professor of liturgy at the Roman University of St. Anselm, is that Summorum Pontificum has introduced an aberrant state of "liturgical exception", which puts the traditional liturgy and the new liturgy on an equal footing, which is monstrous and unbearable*. 

In addition, these hardline conciliars have come to understand that the traditional world, with its priests, its faithful, its works, its schools, which they affected to consider as marginal and despicable, represents in reality a significant weight, especially as the conciliar world for its part is becoming exhausted and is increasingly fading. 

Hence this desire to bring the Summorum Pontificum galaxy into the common law. Undoubtedly what concerns the traditional liturgy and its specialized actors, the priests of the Ecclesia Dei communities, will now be the domain of competence of the Congregation for Divine Worship, which is by its function in charge of the new liturgy. The extraordinary form will therefore be subordinate to the ordinary law of the ordinary form. This could be very expensive, for example, if the authorization to celebrate in extraordinary form were conditional on participation at regular intervals in the new liturgy, or on the use of the calendar of the ordinary form, or the new lectionary. All at the discretion of the diocesan bishops, to whom the management of this "tolerance" would be entrusted, the Congregation for Divine Worship always giving them reason against the priests, the faithful and the Ecclesia Dei communities. The conservative bishops, as Bishop Roche implies, were under surveillance. 

Doves and falcons 

However, the present pontificate, that of a pope who is already 84 years old, seems to be entering a difficult phase. Opposition to his liberal line has always been very strong among conservatives and traditionalists. But in addition, he is now meeting with discontent from a number of those who have supported him until now. 

More than a grumbling, a declared hostility. The historian Alberto Melloni, director of the John XXIII Foundation, also known as the Bologna School, is a major intellectual in progressive Italian Catholicism. On June 14, in the largest left-wing daily, La Repubblica, to which he regularly gives articles, he published a solemn warning to the Pope entitled "Il giugno neo della Chiesa", The Black June of the Church (an allusion to what left-wing historians call "The Black Week of the Council", this week when the most serious crisis took place in the course of Vatican II). Melloni lists Francis' bad practices against figures who were nevertheless close to him, of whom he made enemies: the way in which he refused by a letter made public the resignation of German Cardinal Marx; the confirmation of the dismissal of Enzo Bianchi, Melloni's great friend, because of "serious problems in the exercise of authority" from the ultra-ecumenical monastery of Bose; the visit of a commissioner, ordered against the Congregation for the Clergy after the resignation of Cardinal Stella, 80, one of the pillars of the Bergoglian pontificate; the economic control launched against the services of the Vicariate of Rome of Cardinal De Donatis; the search launched to feed the charges deemed too weak against Cardinal Becciu, accused of economic embezzlement in London when he was Deputy of the Secretary of State. Melloni concludes: either Francis is surrounded by advisers who are bullies, or he has remained the authoritarianist he was when he led the Society of Jesus in Argentina. Let the Pope beware: "He is preparing for a storm!" 

Part of the "left" is therefore seeking to free itself from a chaotic mode of government. It is not surprising, therefore, that some prelates, who are not very friendly to the ancient liturgy, give Francis advice of caution: this is really not the time to open a new liturgical war today. They join Cardinal Ladaria, "on the right", who has put the brakes on this issue. 

In doing so, these doves stand out from the hawks of the Secretary of State and the Congregation of Divine Worship. The hawks seem to prevail: "We must end this Mass forever!" (Cardinal Parolin); "Summorum Pontificum is practically dead!" (Bishop Roche). 

The front of refusal is preparing 

A front of refusal is being prepared, as predicted by the noise raised by the revelation of the fiddling of Summorum Pontificum,and relayed by the great Italian press. Are we heading towards a return to the situation of the 70s, when the new missal of Paul VI was promulgated? With this difference that the Roman institution and the national episcopate are today infinitely weaker. 

In Dijon the priests of the diocese and the faithful who still attend the churches do not understand the policy of the archbishop, illegible for them. This is obviously what the reaction of the entire Christian people will be, with the exception of the most progressive areas: misunderstanding. Why reopen old wounds? Why advocate ecumenism ad extra,but refuse it ad intra? Why show so little mercy? 

And this in a context of dramatic reduction of Catholicism. Andrea Riccardi, main character of the Community of Sant'Egidio, who is the complete opposite of a conservative, in a recent book, where he considers the fire of Notre-Dame de Paris as a parable, deals with the announced social disappearance of the Church: La Chiesa brucia. Crise e futuro del cristianesimo (Tempi nuovi, 2021), The Church burns. Crisis and future of Christianity. He analyses country by country, in Europe, the collapse of Catholicism. In the conclusion, he of course shows an obligatory hope on the theme "the crisis is not decline", but he has previously launched, he too, launched a number of small murderous sentences: "many Catholics have gone from enthusiasm for Bergoglio to disillusionment", "the solution will not come from a reform". And then also this observation: "Traditionalism is a reality of some importance in the Church, both in the organization and in the means". 

Catholics attached to the traditional Mass are promised extermination: "We must put an end to this Mass forever!" (Cardinal Parolin); "Summorum Pontificum is practically dead!" (Bishop Roche). Traditional Catholics will experience difficult times if Roman benevolence, more or less followed by episcopal benevolence, is torn apart. But do we believe that they will let themselves be done? It may well be that, in the trial of strength that is being prepared, it is the guardians of the liturgy of the Council who have the most to lose. 

-------------------------

 * For example, Andrea Grillo: "Il peccato dell'Ecclesia Dei si chiama Summorum Pontificum", The sin of Ecclesia Dei is called Summorum Pontificum, on the Munerawebsite, http://www.cittadellaeditrice.com/munera/il-peccato-dellecclesia-dei-si-chiama-summorum-pontificum/

Paix Liturgique France

Saturday 12 June 2021

On the rumours of an attack on Summorum Pontificum and the battle cry from Archbishop Viganò

With all of the unconstitutional acts of Doug Ford and his toady, Thomas Cardinal Collins, there has been no attention paid by this writer to the matter of the substantial rumours that Bergoglio is about to take an action of some sort against Summorum Pontificum. I see many losing their minds over this, I too am disturbed by the prospect of another fight. If that fight comes, you can be assured that this writer will confront it here and in Toronto itself. 

In the meantime, I issue this warning to any priest or bishop who attempts to restrict our rights. This is not 1965, nor is it 1970 and we are not our parents nor our grandparents.

In the meantime, there is this:


Considerations
on the feared modification of the motu proprio
Summorum Pontificum

On the occasion of the Philosophy Symposium dedicated to the memory of Msgr. Antonio Livi which was held in Venice on May 30 (here), I tried to identify the elements that constantly recur throughout history in the work of deception of the Evil One. In my examination (here), I focused on the fraud of the pandemic, showing how the reasons given to justify illegitimate coercive measures and no less illegitimate limitations of natural freedoms were in reality prophasis, that is, pretexts: ostensible reasons that are actually intended to conceal a malicious intent and a criminal design. The publication of Anthony Fauci’s emails (here) and the impossibility of censoring the ever more numerous voices of dissent with respect to the mainstream narrative have confirmed my analysis and allow us to hope for a blatant defeat of the supporters of the Great Reset. 

In that address, you may recall, I dwelt on that fact that the Second Vatican Council was also in a certain way a Great Reset for the ecclesial body, like other historical events planned and designed in order to revolutionize the social body. Also in this case, the excuses given to legitimize liturgical reform, ecumenism, and the parliamentarization of the authority of the Sacred Pastors were not founded on good faith but on deceit and lies, in such a way so as to make us believe that we were renouncing things that were unquestionably good – the Apostolic Mass, the uniqueness of the Church as the means of salvation, the immutability of the Magisterium and the Authority of the Hierarchy – for the sake of a higher good. But as we know, not only did this higher good not come about (nor could it have), but in fact the true intent of the Council manifested itself in all its disruptive subversive value: churches were emptied, seminaries deserted, convents abandoned, authority discredited and perverted into tyranny for the sake of the wicked Pastors or rendered ineffective for the good ones. And we also know that the purpose of this reset, this devastating revolution, was from the very beginning iniquitous and malicious, despite being clothed in noble intentions in order to convince the faithful and the clergy to obey. 

In 2007 Benedict XVI restored full citizenship to the venerable Tridentine liturgy, giving back to it the legitimacy that had been abusively denied it for fifty years. In his Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum he declared: 

It is therefore permitted to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal, which was promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Church’s Liturgy. […]  For such a celebration with either Missal, the priest needs no permission from the Apostolic See or from his own Ordinary (here). 

In reality the letter of the Motu Proprio and the implementing documents associated with it was never completely applied, and the cÅ“tus fidelium who today celebrate in the Apostolic Rite continue to have to go to their Bishop to ask permission, essentially still abiding by the dictate of the Indult of the preceding Motu Proprio of John Paul II Ecclesia Dei. The just honor in which the traditional liturgy ought to be held was tempered by its being placed on an equal level with the liturgy of the post-conciliar reform, with the former being defined as the “extraordinary form” and the latter as the “ordinary form,” as if the Bride of the Lamb could have two voices – one fully Catholic and another equivocally ecumenical – with which to speak at one moment to the Divine Majesty and at the next to the assembly of the faithful. But there is also no doubt that the liberalization of the Tridentine Mass has done much good, nourishing the spirituality of millions of people and bringing many souls closer to the Faith who, in the sterility of the reformed rite, have not found any incentive either for conversion or even less for spiritual growth. 

Last year, displaying the typical behavior of the Innovators, the Holy See sent a questionnaire to the dioceses of the world in which they were asked to provide information about the implementation of Benedict XVI’s Motu Proprio (here). The way in which the questions were written betrayed, once again, a second purpose, and the responses that were sent to Rome were supposed to create a basis of apparent legitimacy for imposing limitations on the Motu Proprio, if not its total abrogation. Certainly, if the author of Summorum Pontificum were still seated on the Throne, this questionnaire would have allowed the Pontiff to remind the Bishops that no priest needs to ask for permission to celebrate Mass in the ancient rite, nor may a priest be removed from ministry for doing so. But the real intention of those who wanted to consult the Ordinaries does not seem to reside in the salus animarum so much as in theological hatred against a rite that expresses with adamantine clarity the immutable Faith of the Holy Church, and which for this reason is alien to the conciliar ecclesiology, to its liturgy, and to the doctrine it presupposes and conveys. There is nothing more opposed to the so-called magisterium of Vatican II than the Tridentine liturgy: every prayer, every pericope – as liturgists would say – constitutes an affront to the delicate ears of the Innovators, every ceremony is an offense to their eyes. 

Simply tolerating that there are Catholics who want to drink from the sacred sources of that rite sounds like a defeat for them, one that is bearable only if it is limited to little groups of nostalgic elderly people or eccentric aesthetes. But if the “extraordinary form” – which is such in the ordinary sense of the word – becomes the norm for thousands of families, young people, and ordinary people who consciously choose it, then it becomes a stone of scandal and must be relentlessly opposed, limited, and abolished, since there must be no counter to the reformed liturgy, no alternative to the squalor of the conciliar rites – just as there can be no voice of dissent or argued refutation against the mainstream narrative, and just as effective treatments cannot be adopted in the face of the side effects of an experimental vaccine because they would demonstrate the latter’s uselessness. 

Nor can we be surprised: those who do not come from God are intolerant of everything that even remotely recalls an era in which the Catholic Church was governed by Catholic pastors and not by unfaithful pastors who abuse their authority; an era in which the Faith was preached in its integrity to the nations and not adulterated in order to please the world; an era in which those who hungered and thirsted for Truth were nourished and refreshed by a liturgy that was earthly in form but divine in substance. And if all that until yesterday was holy and good is now condemned and made an object of scorn, then allowing any trace of it to remain is inadmissible and constitutes an intolerable affront. Because the Tridentine Mass touches chords of the soul that the Montinian rite does not even begin to approach. 

Obviously, those who maneuver behind the scenes in the Vatican to eliminate the Catholic Mass see decades of work compromised in the Motu Proprio, they see a threat against the possession of so many souls whom today they keep subjugated and their tyrannical hold over the ecclesial body weakened. The same priests and bishops who, like me, have rediscovered that inestimable treasure of faith and spirituality – or which by the grace of God they have never abandoned, despite the ferocious persecution of the post-council – are not disposed to renounce it, having found in it the soul of their Priesthood and the nourishment of their supernatural life. And it is disturbing, as well as scandalous, that in the face of the good that the Tridentine Mass brings to the Church, there are those who want to ban it or limit its celebration on the basis of specious reasons. 

Yet, if we place ourselves in the shoes of the Innovators, we understand how perfectly consistent this is with their distorted vision of the Church, which for them is not a perfect society instituted by God for the salvation of souls but a human society in which an authority that is corrupt and subservient to the elite it favors steers the needs of the masses for vague spirituality, denying the purpose for which Our Lord willed it, and in which the good Pastors are constrained to inaction by bureaucratic shackles which they alone obey. This impasse, this juridical dead end, means that the abuse of authority can be imposed on subjects precisely in virtue of the fact that they recognize the voice of Christ in it, even in the face of evidence of the intrinsic wickedness of the orders that are given, the motivations that determine them, and the individuals who exercise it. On the other hand, even in the civil sphere, during the pandemic, many people obeyed absurd and harmful rules because they were imposed on them by doctors, virologists, and politicians who should have had the health and well-being of citizens at heart; and many did not want to believe, not even in the face of evidence of the criminal design, that they could directly intend the death or illness of millions of people. It is what social psychologists call cognitive dissonance, which induces individuals to take refuge in a comfortable niche of irrationality rather than recognize that they are victims of a colossal fraud and therefore having to react manfully. 

So let us not ask ourselves why – in the face of the multiplication of communities tied to the ancient liturgy, the flowering of vocations almost exclusively in the context of the Motu Proprio, and the increase in the frequent reception of the Sacraments and consistency of Christian life among those who follow it – there is a desire to wickedly trample an inalienable right and hinder the Apostolic Mass: the question is wrong and the answer would be misleading. 

Let us ask ourselves, rather, why notorious heretics and fornicators without morals would tolerate their errors and their deplorable way of life being placed into question by a minority of the faithful and clergy without protectors when they have the power to prevent it. At this point we understand well that this aversion cannot fail to be made explicit precisely by putting an end to the Motu Proprio, abusing a usurped and perverted authority. Even at the time of the Protestant pseudo-Reformation, tolerance towards certain liturgical customs rooted in the people was short-lived, because those devotions to the Virgin Mary, those hymns in Latin, those bells rung at the Elevation – which no longer existed – necessarily had to disappear, since they expressed a Faith that Luther’s followers had denied. And it would be absurd to hope that there could be a peaceful coexistence between the Novus and Vetus Ordo, as well as between the Catholic Mass and the Lutheran Lord’s Supper, given the ontological incompatibility between them. On closer inspection, at least the defeat of the Vetus hoped for by the supporters of the Novus is consistent with their principles, just as the defeat of the Novus by the Vetus should likewise be hoped for. They are mistaken therefore who believe that it is possible to hold together two opposing forms of Catholic worship in the name of a plurality of liturgical expression that is the daughter of the conciliar mentality no more and no less than it is the daughter of the hermeneutic of continuity. 

The modus operandi of the Innovators emerges once again in this operation against the Motu Proprio: first some of the most fanatical opponents of the traditional liturgy call for the abrogation of Summorum Pontificum as a provocation, calling the ancient Mass “divisive.” Then the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith asks the Ordinaries to respond to a questionnaire (here), the answers to which are practically pre-packaged (the Bishop’s career depends on the way he goes along with what he reports to the Holy See, because the content of his responses to the questionnaire will also be made known to the Congregation of Bishops). Then, with a nonchalant air, during a closed-door meeting with the members of the Italian Episcopate, Bergoglio says that he is concerned about seminarians “who seem good, but are rigid” (here) and the spread of the traditional liturgy, always reiterating that the conciliar liturgical reform is irreversible. Furthermore, he appoints a bitter enemy of the Vetus Ordo as Prefect of Divine Worship who will be an ally in the application of any future restrictions. Finally, we learn that Cardinals Parolin and Ouellet are among the first to desire this downsizing of the Motu Proprio (here). This obviously leads “conservative” Prelates to come scurrying in defense of the present system of the co-existence of the two forms, ordinary and extraordinary, giving Francis the opportunity to show that he is the prudent moderator of two opposing currents by moving towards “only” a limitation of Summorum Pontificum rather than its total abrogation: which – as we know – was exactly what he was aiming for from the start of his operation. 

Regardless of the final outcome, the deus ex machina of this predictable play is, as always, Bergoglio, who is even ready to take credit for a gesture of clement indulgence towards conservatives as well as unloading the responsibilities for a restrictive application onto the new Prefect, Archbishop Arthur Roche, and his followers. Thus, in the event of a choral protest of the faithful and an unhinged reaction by the Prefect or other Prelates, once again Bergoglio will enjoy the clash between progressives and traditionalists, since he will then have excellent arguments to affirm that the coexistence of the two forms of the Roman Rite causes divisions in the Church and that it is thus more prudent to return to the pax montiniana, that is, the total proscription of the Mass of all time. 

I exhort my Brothers in the Episcopate, Priests, and laity to strenuously defend their right to the Catholic liturgy solemnly sanctioned by the Saint Pius V’s Bull Quo Primum, and by means of it to defend the Holy Church and the Papacy, which have both been exposed to discredit and ridicule by the Pastors themselves. The question of the Motu Proprio is not in the least negotiable, because it reaffirms the legitimacy of a rite that has never been abrogated nor is able to be abrogated. Furthermore, in addition to the certain damage that airing these novelties will cause to souls and to the certain advantage that will come from them to the Devil and his servants, there is also added the indecorous rudeness displayed to Benedict XVI, who is still living, by Bergoglio, who ought to know that the authority the Roman Pontiff exercises over the Church is vicarious and that the power which he holds comes to him from Our Lord Jesus Christ, the One Head of the Mystical Body. Abusing the Apostolic authority and the power of the Holy Keys for a purpose opposed to that for which they were instituted by the Lord represents an unheard-of offense against the Majesty of God, a dishonor for the Church, and a sin for which he will have to answer for to the One whose Vicar he is. And whoever refuses the title of Vicar of Christ knows that by doing so the legitimacy of his authority also fails. 

It is not acceptable for the supreme authority of the Church to allow itself to cancel, in a disturbing operation of cancel culture in a religious key, the inheritance it has received from its Fathers; nor is it permissible to consider as being outside of the Church those who are not prepared to accept the privation of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated in the form that has molded almost two thousand years of Saints. The Church is not an agency in which the marketing office decides to cancel old products from the catalog and propose new ones in their stead according to customer requests. Imposing the liturgical revolution with force on priests and the faithful in the name of obedience to the Council, stripping away from them the very soul of the Christian life and replacing it with a rite that the Freemason Bugnini copied from Cranmer’s Book of Common Prayer, was already painful. That abuse, partially healed by Benedict XVI with the Motu Proprio, cannot be repeated in any way now in the presence of elements that are all largely in favor of the liberalization of the ancient liturgy. If one really wanted to help the people of God in this crisis, the reformed liturgy should have been abolished, which in fifty years has caused more damage than Calvinism has done. 

We do not know if the feared restrictions that the Holy See intends to make to the Motu Proprio will affect diocesan priests, or if they will also affect the Institutes whose members celebrate the ancient rite exclusively. I fear, however, as I have already had the occasion to say in the past, that it will be precisely on the latter that the demolishing action of the Innovators will be unleashed, who can perhaps tolerate the ceremonial aspects of the Tridentine liturgy but absolutely do not accept adherence to the doctrinal and ecclesiological structure that they imply, which contrasts sharply with the conciliar deviations that the Innovators want to impose without exception. This is why it is to be feared that these Institutes will be asked to make some form of submission to the conciliar liturgy, for example by making the celebration of the Novus Ordo mandatory at least occasionally, as diocesan priests must already do. In this way, whoever makes use of the Motu Proprio will be constrained not only to an implicit acceptance of the reformed liturgy but also to a public acceptance of the new rite and its doctrinal mens. And whoever celebrates the two forms of the rite will find himself ipso facto discredited above all in his consistency, passing off his liturgical choices as a merely aesthetic – I would say almost choreographic – in fact, depriving him of any sort of critical judgment towards the Montinian Mass and the mens that gives it form: because he will find himself forced to celebrate that Mass. This is a malicious and cunning operation, in which an authority that abuses its power delegitimizes those who oppose it, on the one hand by granting the ancient rite, but on the other hand making it a merely aesthetic question and obligating an insidious bi-ritualism and an even more insidious adherence to two opposing and contrasting doctrinal approaches. But how can a priest be asked to celebrate a venerable and holy rite in which he finds perfect coherence between doctrine, ceremony, and life at one moment, and at the next a falsified rite that winks at heretics and contemptibly keeps silent about what the other proudly proclaims? 

Let us pray, therefore: let us pray that the Divine Majesty, to which we render perfect worship celebrating the venerable ancient rite, will deign to enlighten the Sacred Pastors so that they desist from their purpose and indeed promote the Tridentine Mass for the good of Holy Church and for the glory of the Most Holy Trinity. Let us invoke the Holy Patrons of the Mass – Saint Gregory the Great, Saint Pius V, and Saint Pius X in primis, and all the Saints who over the course of the centuries have celebrated the Holy Sacrifice in the form that has been handed down to us, so that we may faithfully preserve it. May their intercession before the throne of God beg for the preservation of the Mass of all time, thanks to which we are sanctified, strengthened in virtue, and able to resist the attacks of the Evil One. And if ever the sins of the men of the Church should merit for us a punishment so severe as that prophesied by Daniel, let us prepare to descend into the catacombs, offering this trial for the conversion of the Shepherds. 

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop


Wednesday 25 November 2020

Bergoglio meets with rich American sports stars to talk about social justice

He won't meet with Cardinal Zen over his destructive pro-communist China policies and the persecution of the real Catholic Church in China. He refused to meet Cardinal Burke. But he never misses and opportunity to meet with celebrities.

Rich celebrities.

Not a mask in site. Not one. Though he has cancelled all Advent and Christmas liturgies due to the China Virus.

Not. One. Mask.

Surely he preached to them of Jesus Christ and the need to enter fully His Church outside of which there is no salvation.

Surely.



 

Saturday 3 November 2018

Pope Francis is an enemy of the people of Europe and North America

My grandparents came from Lebanon, my wife, born in South Africa. When they came to Canada, they did it through the established laws.

What we are witnessing from the Middle East and Africa to Europe and from Central America and Mexico to the United States and even to here in Canada is nothing more than an invasion. It is not legitimate immigration, these are mostly not legitimate refugees. 

The international law on refugees is clear. When one reaches a safe haven that nation is responsible. Therefore, Turkey or Mexico as examples.

Europe and North America are under attack. 

In a recent talk to the General Chapter of the Scalabrini Congregation, Bishop of Rome Bergoglio addressed one of his favourite topics, migration. 

Clearly, this man is an enemy of the nation-state.  

Image result for bergoglio

http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/it/speeches/2018/october/documents/papa-francesco_20181029_scalabriniani.html


" I was a foreigner". This word made me "noise" when you said it ... It's easier to welcome a stranger than to be welcomed, and you have to do both. You must teach, help welcome the stranger, and give all the possibilities to the nations that have everything or enough to use these four words that you have said. How to welcome a foreigner. The Word of God strikes me so much: already in the Old Testament it underlines this: to welcome the stranger, "because you remember that you have been a stranger". It is true that today there is a wave of closure towards the foreigner, and there are also many situations of trafficking of foreign people: the foreigner is exploited. I am a child of migrants, and I remember in the post-war period - I was a boy of 10/12 years - when, where Dad worked, the Poles arrived to work, all migrants; and how well they were welcomed. Argentina has this experience of welcoming because there was work and it was also needed. And Argentina - for my experience - is a cocktail of migratory waves, you know it better than me. Because migrants build a country; how they built Europe. Because Europe was not born this way, Europe has been made by many waves of migration over the centuries.

Once you used a bad word: "well-being". But wellbeing is suicidal, because it leads you to two things. To close the doors, so that they do not disturb you: only those people who serve for my well-being can enter. And on the other hand, for well-being, do not be fruitful. And today we have this drama: a demographic winter and a closing of doors. This must help us to understand this problem a bit about receiving the stranger: yes, he is a stranger, he is not one of us, he is one who comes from outside. But how do you welcome someone who is a stranger? And this is the work you do and help you do: to form consciences to do it well. And I thank you for this.

But there is the other dimension. We are not the masters who say: "Ah, you, if you are foreigners, come". No. We are foreigners too. And if we do not try to be welcomed by people, those who are migrants and those who are not, another part is missing in our conscience: we will become the "masters", the masters of immigration, those who know more of migrations. No. You need to have this experience in your religious experience: to be you too migrants, at least cultural migrants. This is why I have always liked, in your training itinerary, the fact of making the students turn around: doing theology here, the philosophy there ..., so that they can learn about different cultures. Being a foreigner. And this is very important. From the experience of having been a foreigner, for studies or for destinations, the knowledge of how a foreigner is welcomed grows.

These two things, these two directions are very important, and you have to do them well. This is the first thing I wanted to say.

She also used another word: to pray . The migrant prays. Pray because you need so many things. And pray in his own way, but pray. A danger for all of us, men and women of the Church, but for you more, for your vocation, it would not need prayer. "Yes, yes, I think, I study, I do, but I do not know how to beg, I can not ask to be welcomed by the Lord as I am also migrant to the Lord". This is why I liked it when he spoke of prayer: prayer that is so often boring, or brings anguish to you. But stand before the Lord and knock on the door, as the migrant does, knocking on the door. How did that "migrant" in Israel - the Syro-Phoenician woman - who also managed to discuss with the Lord (cf. Mt.15,21-28). Knock at the door of prayer. To be migrants in the experience of migration, as you do in destinations, and to be migrants in prayer, knocking on the door to be received by the Lord: this is a very important help.

And another phenomenon of migrants - let's think of the caravan that goes from Honduras to the United States - is to pile up . The migrant usually tries to go in groups. Sometimes it has to go alone, but it is normal to pile up, because we feel stronger in migration. And there is the community. In football there is the possibility of a "free", that can move according to the opportunities, but from you there is no possibility, the "free" from you fail. Always the community. Always in the community, because your vocation is precisely for migrants who pile up. Feel migrants. Feel, yes, migrants facing needs, migrants before the Lord, migrants among you. And for this the need to pile up.

These three things came to my mind while you spoke. These ideas that maybe can help you. Thank you for everything you do. You are an example. And you are also brave, because you often go beyond the limits, you risk. And risking is also a characteristic of the migrant. It risks. He also risks life sometimes. And this is something that helps: brave, they can risk. The prudence in you has another shade compared to the prudence of a cloistered monk: they are different prudences. Both virtues, but with different colorings. To risk.


There is still some time. I do not know if anyone wants to ask a few questions to enrich the meeting. Come on!

Friday 2 March 2018

The Bergoglian-Parolin blindness (or is it?) to the reality of the Church in China

From UCA News

https://www.ucanews.com/news/church-in-china-has-religious-features-forcibly-demolished/81677

Church in China has religious features forcibly demolished

State orders Yining Catholic Church in Xinjiang region to have its crosses, statues and bell towers pulled down

Church in China has religious features forcibly demolished
Under orders from communist authorities, workers in a crane get to work on removing religious features from Yining Catholic Church in Urumqi Diocese. (Photo supplied)
ucanews.com reporter, Hong Kong
China

March 1, 2018


A church in northwest China's Xinjiang region had its crosses, statues, bell towers and other religious features demolished by order of communist authorities.
Using a crane, state-instructed workers removed the exterior religious features from the Catholic church of Yining city in Urumqi Diocese on Feb. 27.
A source told ucanews.com that no reason was given for the action but it  is believed to have been carried out because the religious features were "incompatible with sinicization."
Yining Catholic Church before it had its religious features demolished. (Photo supplied)

The source said three crosses and two bell towers on the top of Yining Catholic Church were demolished and that all religious symbols, two big statues and any reliefs were removed.
"It was originally said religious features inside the church should been demolished as well but it was suspended without any reasons given," the source said.
The church received a letter from the authorities the day before informing them the demolition would occur.
The source said he was puzzled by what has happened to the church because of it occurred just before the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference and the National People's Congress are both held in Beijing on March 3 and 5 respectively and while a Sino-Vatican agreement was supposedly being worked out.
A crane is used to dismantle another cross from Yining Catholic Church. (Photo supplied)

The source said that last November a cross on a church steeple in Manas city of Xinjiang was also demolished for sinicization purposes.
"So it appears that crosses should be demolished for sinicization," said the source. "Maybe one day, all the churches will be demolished since they are so modern and beautiful and are against the purpose of sinicization?" he asked.
In eastern Zhejiang province, more than 1,500 churches, both Catholic and Protestant, have been targeted for demolition or cross removals in recent years, sources have said in a campaign against churches not coming under state control. Chinese authorities are increasingly using property regulations to remove crosses and demolish churches.
The source said he thinks what occurred to Yining Catholic Churchit may be related to local political tensions in the region. The Chinese authorities have long repressed ethnic minorities, especially the Uyghurs,  and religions in Xinjiang, often under the guise of fighting "terrorism." In recent months, tens of thousands of Uyghurs have been forced into reeducation camps and prisons across the region.
Yining Catholic Church after it had its religious features removed. (Photo supplied)