Catholic World News Chicago archdiocese, Georgia diocese to shut traditionalist churches
July 18, 2022 Cardinal Blase Cupich has ordered the priests of the traditionalist Institute of Christ the King to stop celebrating the Tridentine Mass in Chicago by August 1. And in Savannah, Georgia, Bishop Stephen Parkes has announced that permission for the traditional liturgy in three parish churches will be withdrawn in May 2023—saying that he is acting on instructions from the Vatican.
Cardinal Cupich is apparently withdrawing the faculties of the priests of the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest (ICKSP) on August 1, so that they will not be authorized to celebrate Mass or administer the sacraments. Neither the Chicago archdiocese nor the ICKSP has issued a public statement about the cardinal’s decision, but multiple sources have confirmed it.
The situation in Chicago is complicated by the fact that the ICKSP owns title to the church—the shrine of Christ the King Sovereign Priest—where its priests have celebrated the traditional Mass. The site is also the provincial headquarters for the traditionalist group, which has over 120 priests at work around the world, dedicated to the use of the traditional liturgy.
Cardinal Cupich reportedly made the decision to withdraw faculties from the ICKSP priests when they declined to celebrate the Novus Ordo liturgy once a month.
In Savannah, Bishop Parkes issued a statement on July 15 saying that three diocesan parishes would cease to offer the traditional liturgy after May 20, 2023. Also, a Tridentine Mass that had been offered at the diocesan cathedral will be discontinued after August 7 of this year.
Bishop Parkes recalled that after the publication of Traditionis Custodes he had announced that the tradition liturgy could be continued until further notice in the parishes where it was being celebrated. In his July 15 statement he said that he had then written to the Congregation for Divine Worship, seeking permission for the continuation of that policy. It was the Congregation’s decision to curtail the traditionalist celebrations.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on GOD SAVE TRADITIONAL CATHOLICS IN CHICAGO AND SAVANNAH
“Canadian Casket Maker: ‘Never before have we Ordered Children’s Coffins in Bulk’” & Former NY Times reporter Berenson reports “Stunning Official Canadian Data show Vaccines now RAISE the Risk of Death from Covid”
Vaccinated people are now more likely to be hospitalized or die from Covid, even after adjusting for fact they’re older than the unvaccinated, according to official government estimates from the Canadian province of Manitoba.
In May, the most recent month for which figures are available, only 9 percent of Covid deaths and 14 percent of hospital admissions in Manitoba occurred among unvaccinated people, even though they are 17 percent of the population.
Manitoba, which has about 1.4 million residents, also provides figures that are adjusted for the fact that vaccinated and boosted people tend to be older.
Those show that in May, vaccinated but unboosted people were about 50 percent more likely to be hospitalized or die of Covid than unvaccinated people. People who had received boosters had roughly the same risk of hospitalization or death as the unvaccinated.[https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/stunning-official-canadian-data-show/comments?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email]
Pray an Our Father now for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis’s Amoris Laetitia.
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Stop for a moment of silence, ask Jesus Christ what He wants you to do now and next. In this silence remember God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost – Three Divine Persons yet One God, has an ordered universe where you can know truth and falsehood as well as never forget that He wants you to have eternal happiness with Him as his son or daughter by grace. Make this a practice. By doing this you are doing more good than reading anything here or anywhere else on the Internet.
Francis Notes:
– Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation:
“[T]he Pope… WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See.” (The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)
– LifeSiteNews, “Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers,” December 4, 2017:
The AAS guidelines explicitly allows “sexually active adulterous couples facing ‘complex circumstances’ to ‘access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'”
– On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:
“The AAS statement… establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense.”
– On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:
“Francis’ heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents.”
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church by the bishops by the grace of God.
What is needed right now to save America from those who would destroy our God given rights is to pray at home or in church and if called to even go to outdoor prayer rallies in every town and city across the United States for God to pour out His grace on our country to save us from those who would use a Reichstag Fire-like incident to destroy our civil liberties. [Is the DC Capitol Incident Comparable to the Nazi Reichstag Fire Incident where the German People Lost their Civil Liberties?: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/is-dc-capital-incident-comparable-to.html?m=1 and Epoch Times Show Crossroads on Capitol Incident: “Anitfa ‘Agent Provocateurs‘”: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/epoch-times-show-crossroads-on-capital.html?m=1]
Pray an Our Father now for the grace to know God’s Will and to do it.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on “NEVER BEFORE HAVE WE ORDERED CHILDREN’S COFFINS IN BULK”
Archbishop Lenga, Bishop Gracida and St. Francis de Sales vs. The Sammons Creed & his latest “Blab Blab Blab… it’s so Dangerous to think there might be an Antipope” or that Francis is a Heretic
Benepapist position argues that every single active [non-retired] Catholic bishop is wrong about who is pope. -Eric Sammons [https://www.crisismagazine.com/2022/the-spiritual-dangers-of-sedevacantism]
Moreover, Bishop Gracida’s Open Letter and Pope John Paul II’s document make a number of points which neither Skojec, Peters or anyone else to my knowledge have even brought up or offered any counter argument against.
They are both wrong if they ignore this important Open Letter of Bishop Gracida.
If Skojec and Peters as well as the conservative and traditional Catholic media are ignoring Bishop Gracida because he isn’t a cardinal and retired, remember that St. Athanasius wasn’t a cardinal (that is involved in the selection or election process of the pope of the time) and was retired.
During the Arian heresy crisis, Pope Liberius excommunicated Athanasius. You don’t get any more retired than being excommunicated. – The Catholic Monitor [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2020/01/might-remnants-matt-finally-be-willing.html]
The following is from a Catholic Monitor reader on Eric Sammons latest “blab blab blab… it’s so dangerous to think there might be an antipope:
… blab blab blab… it’s so dangerous to think there might be an antipope.
They aren’t even trying to make sense.
Mr. Sammons read and, please, give serious arguments against Bishop Rene Gracida’s Open Letter to the Cardinals analyzing and quoting Pope John Paul II’s Universi Dominici Gregis calling for an investigation into the Francis conclave.
Please read and give serious arguments against Latin langauge expert Br. Bugnolo’s in-depth thesis “Munus and Ministerium: A Textual Study of their Usage in the Code of Canon Law of 1983” using exhaustive quotations from canon law showing why canon law explicitly states that ministerium and munus cannot be synonyms that mean the exact same thing or nearly the same thing.
Mr. Sammons, are you too lazy to seriously debate?
Moreover, Archbishop Jan Lenga rejected “being de facto suspended by Wioclawek Bishop Wieslaw Meeting, Poland.” (Glovia.tv, “Archbishop Lenga will not Respect Sanctions,” February 25, 2020)
There are reports that Texas Bishop Rene Gracida supports Archbishop Lenga.
Is Archbishop Lenga in schism as some are stating for claiming Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation was invalid thus Francis is an antipope?
It must be remembered in history that St. Bernard of Clairvaux claimed the supposed pope in Rome was an antipope as Lenga is doing and was declared correct by an imperfect council which he headed.
Was St. Bernard in schism?
The Arian heretics were saying the same thing about St. Athanasius. That he was in schism.
The saint was resisting the Arian heretic bishops even apparently outside the valid pope’s approval.
It appears that Archbishop Lenga may force the cardinals and bishops to do an investigation and call an imperfect council into the validity of the Francis’s papacy because a bishop cannot suspend a bishop, but only by a valid pope.
But, Lenga states Benedict is still pope because of a invalid resignation and therefore Francis isn’t pope according to the archbishop.
Cardinal John Henry Newman it appears showed that a validly appointed bishop can’t suspend another validly appointed bishop.
Newman said Athanasius ordained priests against the authority of the Arian heretical bishops who were validly appointed bishops.
In fact, scholar Joseph Bingham on page 98 in “The Antiquities of the Christian Church” said:
“Athanasius… made no scruples to ordain… [Bishop] Euesebius of Samosata… ordained bishops also in Syria and Cilicia.”
Moreover, Newman in his “The Development of Christian Doctrine” denied that Bishop Athanasius’s “interference” in the dioceses of the heretical Arian bishops was schism:
“If interference is a sin, division which is the cause of it is a greater; but where division is a duty, there can be no sin interference.” (Gutenberg.org, “An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine,” Sixth Edition)
Was Doctor of the Church St. Athanasius a schismatic?
Moreover, serious scholars are claiming Francis is a material heretic. The 19 Scholar’s Open Letter say that Francis is a material heretic which also brings into play the Bellarmine and Francis de Sales option of declaring an explicit heretical pope self-deposed.
However, the Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales option might not be available to him because of his creed:
The Sammons Creed
“I believe in Francis and that it is infallible dogma that he is pope no matter what evidence shows that he violated the Pope John Paul II constitution that governed the validity or invalidity of the 2013 conclave. He suffered under Bishop Rene Gracida who classified the evidence that the constitution was violated and called the cardinals to investigate. He descended into the Vatican gay lobby. He ascended to the papal throne where he sits surrounded by the gay lobby cardinals from where he shall judge the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Ten Commandments and all the infallible Catholic teachings.”
“I believe in Amoris Laetitia, the Communion of adulterers, Francis’s representation of globalist teachings which embodies the Soros gospel of unlimited mass immigration, climate change, a one-world government and the goddess Mother Earth everlasting.”
I wrote this ecumenical creed in honor of Sammons with the hope that it will help all the Francis traditionalists and the Francis liberals to unite in their common communion with Francis.
After all, isn’t it true that the leftist Mark Shea Catholics have joined hands with their Francis traditionalist brothers in using the Steve Skojec and Sammons talking points of “schismatic” and “sedevacantist” against all Catholics who present evidence that the 2013 conclave Pope John Paul constitution was violated including Bishop Gracida and even Cardinal Raymond Burke for daring to imply that the Francis conclave could be invalid and that Francis’s Communion for adulterers could be heretical.
While it is well know that Skojec, Sammons and all the Francis traditionalists feel uncomfortable with the Soros gospel part of the Francis creed, they must endure this temporary discomfort.
They must remember that they do agree with the Francis liberals in the part of the creed that says it is a infallible dogma that Francis is a valid pope no matter what the evidence shows and moreover they must stay in communion with him even when by his “authentic Magisterium” authority he teaches Communion for adulterers without committing obstinate heresy.
They must never forget that they are in union with the Francis liberals in believing that he cannot be corrected nor can he as Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales proclaimed be “deprived… of his Apostlic See” for being “explicitly a heretic”:
“The Pope… when he is explicitly a heretic… the Church must either deprive him or as some say declare him deprived of his Apostlic See.” (The Catholic Controversy by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)
Stop for a moment of silence, ask Jesus Christ what He wants you to do now and next. In this silence remember God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost – Three Divine Persons yet One God, has an ordered universe where you can know truth and falsehood as well as never forget that He wants you to have eternal happiness with Him as his son or daughter by grace. Make this a practice. By doing this you are doing more good than reading anything here or anywhere else on the Internet.
Francis Notes:
– Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation:
“[T]he Pope… WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See.” (The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)
– LifeSiteNews, “Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers,” December 4, 2017:
The AAS guidelines explicitly allows “sexually active adulterous couples facing ‘complex circumstances’ to ‘access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'”
– On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:
“The AAS statement… establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense.”
– On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:
“Francis’ heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents.”
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church by the bishops by the grace of God.
Is Abortion Good For Blacks? July 13, 2022 Catholic League president Bill Donohue questions why some black leaders are championing abortion for blacks: White supremacists have always championed population control for blacks, whether it be in the form of birth control or abortion. Today this cause is being led by black Congresswomen. Last month, 20 black Congresswomen—all Democrats—led by Rep. Ayanna Pressley, wrote a letter to President Biden pleading with him to address the impact of abortion restrictions on black women (note: they incorrectly used the term “pregnant people,” implying men can get pregnant). Anticipating the reversal of Roe v. Wade, they said this decision “will be devastating” to black women. The effects of abortion on the unborn child—sudden death—was not the problem. The alleged “increase in maternal deaths” was the problem. Thus did they slice and dice this issue. This week, Pressely went further, stating that the pro-life movement is “rooted in white supremacy.” She is factually wrong: it is the pro-abortion movement that has been “rooted in white supremacy” all along. Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood for the purpose of decreasing the black population. She was a white supremacist, par excellence. Initially, Planned Parenthood focused on birth control, but it eventually became the major driver of abortion in the United States. Sanger was a eugenicist who shared the identical mindset of the Nazis. She sought to extinguish those “meaningless, aimless lives which cram this world of ours…. Such human weeds clog up the path, drain up the energies and the resources of this little earth.” Who she had in mind is incontestable—she meant blacks. They were the “undesirables” in need of being “weed[ed] out.” Her eugenicist journal, Birth Control Review, boasted that “Many of the colored citizens are fine specimens of humanity.” Thus did she sound very much like a slavemaster at an auction. Not all blacks, however, were a choice cut. “A good share of them, however, constitute a large percentage of Kalamazoo’s human scrap pile.” This was written in 1932, the year before Hitler took over in Germany. In fact, Sanger published several articles by Nazi officials; they were dealing with the “human scrap pile” of Jews on their way to the concentration camps. Edwin Black wrote an influential book about Sanger’s contribution to the eugenics movement, War Against the Weak. While he defended her against her critics, he admitted that she “surrounded herself with some of the eugenics movement’s most outspoken racists and white supremacists.” She also “openly welcomed” racists and anti-Semites into “the birth control movement.” The ruling class has long supported Sanger, especially the Rockefellers. In 1972, John D. Rockefeller presented President Richard Nixon with a report arguing that “if blacks could have the number of children they want and no more, their fertility and that of the majority white population would be very similar.” This was the polite WASP way of dealing with the “urban problem.” What has since changed is the advent of black Congresswomen joining the white supremacist cause of decreasing the black population. It’s working: In 2020, 86% of Planned Parenthood’s clinics were located in or near minority neighborhoods. Moreover, in the CDC’s latest report on abortion, it found that the abortion rate for blacks (38.4 percent) was higher than that of whites (33.4 percent) or Hispanics (21.0 percent). Blacks are approximately 13 percent of the population. When I taught in Spanish Harlem in the 1970s, I was able to tell my black and Puerto Rican students that Rev. Jesse Jackson called abortion “black genocide.” But like almost all pro-life Democrats in the 1970s, Jackson became a pro-abortion advocate. Rep. Pressley is not only ignorant of history—she has become an existential threat to the health and safety of African Americans. Howironic that she is now on the same side as the Klan.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on WHAT IS THE PRESENT DAY EQUIVALENT OF JEWS SUPPORTING ADOLPH HITLER’S PERSECUTION OF JEWS: IT IS BLACK LEADERS SUPPORTING PLANNED PARENTHOOD’S KILLING OF BLACK BABIES
It appears that the biggest mistake Donald Trump has made was that he chose to hold his “Stop the Steal” rally on January 6, 2021. He didn’t realize that January 6 is such a sacred day in the United States that any offense committed that day automatically becomes the gravest crime in American history and an existential threat to our country. Looking back over the last two years, we’ve witnessed countless riots and political violence by many people and groups, but by the way, the media and the Democrats are reacting, the only day when riots and political violence are illegal and a threat to our country is on January 6.
Maybe there is something intrinsically different about that day – January 6. Senator Chuck Schumer did say it was the date that would “live in infamy”. So, there must be something unique about the actual date which makes it more sacred than any other day – almost like Holy Days to Catholics, Sundays to Christians, the Sabbath to Jews, and Ramadan to Muslims – sacred, special, separate days when sins are much more egregious.
We have all witnessed the scores of political violence over the last two years, that created no outrage, no wringing of hands, no dire warnings about threats to democracy, that all happened to have occurred on days other than January 6.
· May 29, 2020, a police station in Minneapolis was attacked by rioters and burned to the ground.
· May 31, 2020, rioters attempted to attack the White House while our President was inside.
· June 8, 2020, rioters violently seized control over the Capital Hill neighborhood in downtown Seattle, referred to as the Chop Zone, and held the area in anarchy control for over 6 weeks, allowing murder and rape to occur.
· July 22, 2020, over one thousand rioters firebombed a federal courthouse in Portland, Oregon.
· April 13, 2021, over 100 rioters descended on a police station in Portland and set it on fire.
These are a few of the many acts of political violence our country has suffered through that very few people seemed to care about, that were barely a blip on the political radar screen because they did not occur on January 6, 2021.
From May to October of 2020, there were over 500 BLM riots throughout the United States, tearing apart many of our major cities, killing over 30 people, sending thousands of police officers to the hospital, burning thousands of buildings to the ground, causing billions of dollar’s worth of damage, and nobody seemed concerned about the destruction, the injury, the death those riots caused. There were very few arrests, even fewer prosecutions, and no accountability of the people and groups that planned and financed those riots. George Soros funnels millions of dollars to Antifa to fund their violence and our Intelligence Agencies never give him a second look.
On January 6, 2021, Donald Trump told his supporters to “peacefully and patriotically” walk over to the Capitol to protest, and he has been impeached because of those words, and now is the target of a 1½-year-long investigation claiming he incited the riot.
On June 25, 2018, Maxine Waters told her supporters at the Wilshire Federal Building, “If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.” In an interview that same day, she said she has “no sympathy” for members of the Trump administration, and her supporters are “going to absolutely harass them [Trump officials].” There were no hearings, no indictment for inciting violence; she was not even censured by Congress. It was fine because it was not on January 6.
On May 5, 2020, Chuck Schumer made a direct threat to the lives of two sitting Supreme Court Justices when he screamed, “I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you,” Schumer then turned and looked at the Supreme Court building. Again, threatening violence against Supreme Court Justices is acceptable as long as it does not occur on January 6.
On May 2, 2022, a clerk for one of the Supreme Court justices leaked a confidential draft of the majority opinion of an upcoming case to the media. It was done as a way to unduly influence and possibly intimidate the court members. The leak was a direct threat to the legitimacy, integrity, and independence of the Supreme Court – one of the three co-equal branches of our government, and nobody batted an eye. Where is the investigation? Who has been held accountable? When will the hearings be held to protect the Supreme Court? Nothing has been done, and nothing will be done because it did not happen on January 6. It appears that is the only date when people are held accountable for political crimes.
On May 4, 2022, far-left pro-abortion group, “Ruth Sent Us”, doxed the home addresses of the six Supreme Court Justices who were planning on voting to overturn the 1973 Roe v Wade decision, to encourage mobs to swarm their homes, threaten their lives, and use mob violence to intimidate the Justices to vote their way, and no one has done anything about that. Joe Biden has even publicly supported mobs showing up at Justice’s homes, trying to intimidate them. Has the doxer been arrested or charged? Is there an investigation into this attempt to intimidate federal judges? No, apparently because it didn’t happen on January 6.
On June 8, 2022, Nicholas John Roske showed up outside the home of Justice Brett Kavanaugh with the intent and weapons to assassinate the Justice. There was not much outrage, nobody is aghast that a Justice in the United States was almost assassinated. The politicians calling for violence against Supreme Court Justices were not arrested. There were no lectures about how our democracy is being threatened. No steps were put in place to protect the Justices. It is not a big deal, and not a threat to our country probably because it occurred in June, not in January.
On July 8, 2022, the far-left group, Shut Down DC, tweeted,“DC Service Industry Workers… If you see Kavanaugh, Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Coney Barrett, or Roberts, DM us with the details! We’ll Venmo you $50 for a confirmed sighting and $200 if they’re still there 30 mins after your message.” They are encouraging their supporters to swarm them, intimidate, and threaten justices out in public, and nobody is doing anything about it. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez mocked Justice Brett Kavanaugh after he was harassed and forced to leave a restaurant in Washington, DC.
January 6, 2021, is the most sacred day in the history of America where even the slightest infractions are treated like the most serious felonies. People spent months in prison for merely being at the Capital that day without entering the building or committing violence of any kind.
Antifa and BLM were smart, they choose to riot, firebomb courthouses, and seize large sections of cities on days other than January 6, when those acts of extreme violence are treated like misdemeanors and given a slap on the wrist.
Obviously, the reason why there is a stark difference between the way the Capital riot is being dealt with compared to all the other riots and political violence that we’ve witnessed over the last two years is not because the date of the event, it is because of the political affiliation of those involved. The people who get away with all the political violence are Democrats, and the ones that are held to the highest account are Republicans. If you’re a Democrat you can riot, threaten, intimidate, and even attempt to assassinate, and there are little to no consequences. If you’re a Republican, if you merely trespass, you’ll spend months in solitary confinement and years in jail.
This is not an attempt to condone or excuse what happened at the Capitol on January 6. It is merely a call for equal justice under the law, that all people should be treated equally in the eyes of our justice system regardless of their political affiliation. If people are being treated more severely or more leniently for the same criminal offense based solely on their political leanings, then that is much more of an existential threat to the United States of America and our constitutional republic than anything that happened on January 6.
If there needs to be an investigation, we need to have an investigation of the investigators of January 6. They are the ones who are threatening our democracy by using their political power to attack their political opponents. That is not what our country and our political system stand for. In fact, the United States of America stands for the exact opposite of what the January 6 investigation is doing.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on If people are being treated more severely or more leniently for the same criminal offense based solely on their political leanings, then that is much more of an existential threat to the United States of America and our constitutional republic than anything that happened on January 6.
“[T]he [Kantian/Modernist] Blondelian schema holds that justification for the faith is to be found by turning inwards to the personal experience of the human subject. This turn to the subject is characteristic of modern philosophy, from Descartes right up to the Idealism of Kant and Hegel and beyond, and presented a major challenge to the traditional Catholic apologetics… If it were the case that inner experience justified the faith, if each person was to find the proof of God’s existence within their own life, then what would be the basis for the teaching authority of the Church?” – Liberal AnthonyCarroll [https://www.thinkingfaith.org/articles/20090724_1.htm]
Scholar Douglas Flippen in the philosophical article “Was John Paul II a Thomist or a [Kantian] Phenomenologist?” gives an intellectual history of Pope John Paul II (Karol Wojtyla). He shows how Kantian philosophy mostly in the form of the Kantian philosopher Max Scheler’s phenomenology became important to him.
After reading Flippen and other scholars it appears that Wojtyla’s attempt to mix Thomist’s metaphysics of objective reality and being with the Kantian Scheler subjectivist thought lead to things like the disastrous “ecumenical” Assisi “prayer meeting” and many of the other problematic actions of his pontificate.
Flippin shows the Kantian influences on Wojtyla:
“Father Wojtyla lived at the Belgian college in Rome and the center for… Transcendental Thomism… so called because its approach to the thought of St. Thomas is influenced by the transcendental system of philosophy of Immanuel Kant…”
” … After earning a second doctorate with a thesis on the ethics of the [Kantian] phenomenologist Max Scheler, Father Wojtyla was appointed in 1954 to the philosophy department of the Catholic University of Lublin…” [https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8105]
Scholar Flippen gives an exact time when Wojtyla started thinking that Kantian philosophy became possibly as important as Thomism. He thought that Scheler’s Kantian thought could make up for “acertain lack in the approach of ” Thomism. The supposedly solid Thomist Etienne Gilson so-called “historic or existential Thomis[m],” it appears, may have helped turned him towards Kant through Scheler:
“It seems likely that at this time Father Wojtyla would have become more aware of different approaches to the thought of St. Thomas. The reason for this is not only the fact that he was studying at the Angelicum with Father Garrigou-Lagrange, called a traditionalist Thomist for his approach to Thomas through the tradition of the commentaries of Cajetan and John of St. Thomas, but also because Jacques Maritain and Etienne Gilson, the two most famous [supposed] Thomists of the twentieth century, had been active in promoting the thought of Thomas since the 1920s, and this would hardly have escaped notice at the Angelicum. Both Gilson and Maritain, but especially Gilson, could be called historic or existential Thomists because of their interest in recovering the authentic thought of Thomas and because of their conviction that the historic thought of Thomas centered itself on the act of existing as being at the heart of reality…”
“… Father, and then Bishop, Wojtyla lectured at Lublin from 1954 until 1961. In this period of time his understanding and appreciation of the metaphysical approach of St. Thomas increased. This was due not only to his own continuing work on St. Thomas, but also to his interaction with a colleague named Stefan Swiezawski. As George Weigel notes in his biography of John Paul II, “Through faculty colleagues at KUL, and especially Stefan Swiezawski, Wojtyla had his first serious encounter with Etienne Gilson’s historical rereading of Thomas Aquinas and with Jacques Maritain’s modern Thomistic reading of Catholic social ethics.”8 During this period, Father Wojtyla published a number of essays, many of them taking into account the thought of St. Thomas and comparing it favorably with modern thinkers. And yet there is a change of tone in his treatment of the thought of St. Thomas during this period. In the beginning, his praise of Thomas seems unqualified. Toward the end we find criticisms of a certain lack in the approach of Thomas and an emphasis on a positive contribution coming from the phenomenological movement. (Was John Paul II a Thomist or a Phenomenologist?: https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8105)
Wikipedia gives a very rough (not exact) idea of what so-called “existential Thomists” such as Gilson and Henri de Lubac meant when they falsely claimed “the historic thought of Thomas centered itself on the act of existing as being at the heart of reality“:
“The proposition that existence precedes essence (French: l’existence précède l’essence) is a central claim of existentialism, which reverses the traditional philosophical view that the essence (the nature) of a thing is more fundamental and immutable than its existence (the mere fact of its being).[1] To existentialists, human beings—through their consciousness—create their own values and determine a meaning for their life because the human being does not possess any inherent identity or value. That identity or value must be created by the individual. By posing the acts that constitute them, they make their existence more significant.[2][3]
Sadly, Wojtyla trusted that dishonest “existential Thomist” Gilson’s“rereading of Thomas Aquinas” was true. It was not Thomism. Renowned Thomist Dr. Ralph McInerny shows in detail in his book “”praeambula fidei : Thomism and the God of the Philosophers” the deception of Gilson:
“Gilson’s… passage of [Thomist] Cajetan… when Thomas says that esse [existence] is the actuality of all things, even of forms. Gilson asserts that this is a novelty, unknown to Aristotle… Gilson’s attack on Cajetan is one aspect of his criticism of Aristotle… is seen from the angle of Gilson’s increasingly inventive interpretation of esse [existence]… it is… painfully clear that he is out to make a case against [Thomist] Cajetan and fairness to the great commentator [of Thomas] will not characterize his criticism… For now, consider what he stresses: a substance as Thomas understands it can only be the term of generation, as it is, because it has its own act of existing… Being is the term of a generation; that which is generated exists thanks to that process of generation. Surely, Gilson does not mean to suggest that something is generated and then receives an act of existence. Or is he suggesting that existent things are not the terms of generation for Aristotle… ”
“… the Gilsonian attack on Cardinal Cajetan… is embarrassing to read this… attack [on] one of the giants of the Thomistic school… Cajetan… [and Thomist] Garrigou-Lagrange is demonized by Gilson and Maritain… It is possible that those he criticized got it right [on Thomas] and that he got it wrong…”
“…Gilson makes his own the position of Kant that existence is not a predicate… Gilson wrote…’Being,’ Kant says ‘is evidently not a predicate or a concept of something that can be added to a thing’… What is the Thomististicity of Gilson’s claim…”
“… [W]hat he [Gilson] is attributing to Thomas is not found in Thomas… ‘No Thomist,’ Gilson concedes, ‘aiming to express it, should write that existence (esse) is not known by a concept.’ Coming from a historian [Gilson] who has been so severe on other interpreters of Thomas [such as Cajetan and Garrigou-Lagrange], it is somewhat disarming to be told that ‘historically speaking, our [Gilson’s] formulas are inaccurate’ and that he should have made clear that he was not using the language of Saint Thomas.” (“praeambula fidei : Thomism and the God of the Philosophers,” page 52-54,68, 152-153)
The deceptive Gilson who is called by many “the chief scholar of Aquinas in the 20th century” not only mislead John Paul II, but most of the orthodox (even some traditionalists) Catholics to accept the equally dishonest or simply poor scholar Henri de Lubac who made the false claim that Thomas Aquinas didn’t make a distinction between nature and the supernatural grace.
As one reads the scholar McInerny’s “praeambula fidei” it is obvious that he considers Gilson a real scholar who was dishonest in his discourses on Cajetan and Aquinas while he doesn’t, it seems, appear to consider de Lubac “orthodox” or much of a scholar:
“‘Supernatural’ brought de Lubac… silenced… eventually De Lubac learned that it had been other Jesuits, not Dominicans, who had questioned the the orthodoxy of his views… If de Lubac got Cajetan’s reading of St. Thomas wrong, what is to be said of De Lubac’s own understanding of Thomas.” (“praeambula fidei,” Pages 70, 84)
The point is, as McInerny shows in his book, that Gilson and de Lubac were a team who worked to discredit Cajetan and ultimately St. Thomas’ real teachings. The poor scholar de Lubac needed Gilson’s reputation as a honest scholar to cover for his “question[able]… orthodoxy” and dishonest or poor scholarship.
It can be argued that part of what the nouvelle theologian de Lubac’s teaching has done is replace the infallible teachings of the Church with Kantian/Modernist teaching in which all human experience (pagan, heretical, mundane, etc…) is equal to the redemption, grace and teachings given to us by Jesus Christ’s Incarnation, Passion and Resurrection as taught and administered through the Sacraments by the Church He established:
“The rejection of the proportionate human nature separate de Lubac more decisively from St. Thomas than anything else, doubtless because this rejection is at the basis of his thought… Grace, as the words suggests, is gratuitous, unowed, above and beyond what our nature is naturally ordered to. The supernatural, as the word suggests, is added onto natural… In de Lubac’s account… [it] is almost as if for him the supernatural replaces the natural.” ( “praeambula fidei,” Pages 85-86)
It might better be said that de Lubac’s teachings replaced the supernatural with the natural.
Thomist scholar Taylor Marshall, in the best paragraph of his book “Infiltration,” summarized what nouvelle theologians like de Lubac did:
“They [nouvelle theologians] sought to make everything grace, and by doing so, they, in fact, reduced everything to the natural, so that the natural longings [human experiences] of every human became the means of salvation. Hence, all human nature itself is ‘open’ to attaining salvation. This means that liturgy should be less supernatural and that other religions are ‘open’ as means of salvation. This theology necessitates a new liturgy, a new ecumenism, and a new form of Catholicism. It is Freemasonic naturalism cloaked with quotations of the Church Fathers. The nouvelle theologie was a frontal attack on Thomas Aquinas.” (“Infiltration,” Page 135)
Pope John Paul II’s Vatican II attempt to mix Aquinas’ metaphysics of objective reality with the semi-Kantian/Modernist subjectivist thought lead to things like the disastrous “ecumenical” Assisi “prayer meeting” and many of the other problematic actions of his pontificate, but kept intact, for the most part, the moral and dogmatic teachings of the Church despite the Vatican II ambiguities and lack of clear definition in that council’s documents as Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre pointed out during and after Vatican II.
Unfortunately, Francis’ apparently unambiguous pure Kantian/Modernist subjectivist theology unmixed with Thomist’s metaphysics is bringing about “a new form of Catholicism. It is Freemasonic naturalism cloaked with quotations of the Church Fathers… a frontal attack on Thomas Aquinas.” This theology appears to be leading to his attack on the moral and dogmatic teachings of the Church such as Communion for adulterers and other errors.
Pray an Our Father now for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis’s Amoris Laetitia.
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Stop for a moment of silence, ask Jesus Christ what He wants you to do now and next. In this silence remember God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost – Three Divine Persons yet One God, has an ordered universe where you can know truth and falsehood as well as never forget that He wants you to have eternal happiness with Him as his son or daughter by grace. Make this a practice. By doing this you are doing more good than reading anything here or anywhere else on the Internet.
Francis Notes:
– Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation:
“[T]he Pope… WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See.” (The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)
– If Francis betrays Benedict XVI & the”Roman Rite Communities” like he betrayed the Chinese Catholics we must respond like St. Athanasius, the Saintly English Bishop Robert Grosseteste & “Eminent Canonists and Theologians” by “Resist[ing]” him: https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/12/if-francis-betrays-benedict-xvi.html
– LifeSiteNews, “Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers,” December 4, 2017:
The AAS guidelines explicitly allows “sexually active adulterous couples facing ‘complex circumstances’ to ‘access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'”
– On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:
“The AAS statement… establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense.”
– On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:
“Francis’ heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents.”
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church by the bishops by the grace of God.
What is needed right now to save America from those who would destroy our God given rights is to pray at home or in church and if called to even go to outdoor prayer rallies in every town and city across the United States for God to pour out His grace on our country to save us from those who would use a Reichstag Fire-like incident to destroy our civil liberties. [Is the DC Capitol Incident Comparable to the Nazi Reichstag Fire Incident where the German People Lost their Civil Liberties?: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/is-dc-capital-incident-comparable-to.html?m=1 and Epoch Times Show Crossroads on Capitol Incident: “Anitfa ‘Agent Provocateurs‘”: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/epoch-times-show-crossroads-on-capital.html?m=1]
Pray an Our Father now for the grace to know God’s Will and to do it.SHARESHARECommentsPost a Comment
Today, the bishops of Colorado gave an apparent Vaxx ” exemption” letter (21_8_Vaccine_Exemption_CCC_Fin…docx(20KB)) and stated that “Vaccination is Not Morally Obligatory and so Must Be Voluntary”: COLORADO CATHOLIC CONFERENCE 1535 Logan Street | Denver, CO 80203-1913 303-894-8808 | cocatholicconference.org [Date] To Whom It May Concern, [Name] is a baptized Catholic seeking a religious exemption from an immunization requirement. This letter explains how the Catholic Church’s teachings may lead individual Catholics, including [name], to decline certain vaccines. The Catholic Church teaches that a person may be required to refuse a medical intervention, including a vaccination, if his or her conscience comes to this judgment. While the Catholic Church does not prohibit the use of most vaccines, and generally encourages them to safeguard personal and public health, the following authoritative Church teachings demonstrate the principled religious
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on Francis’ apparently unambiguous pure Kantian/Modernist subjectivist theology unmixed with Thomist’s metaphysics is bringing about “a new form of Catholicism. It is Freemasonic naturalism cloaked with quotations of the Church Fathers… a frontal attack on Thomas Aquinas.
================== Letter #85, 2022, Friday, July 8: Viganò Supports and Extends the Critique of Crepaldi The retired Italian archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, 81, has released a new reflection on the present crisis in the world and in the Church in response to a June 30 essay published in Italy by Italian Archbishop Giampaolo Crepaldi, 74, of Trieste, Italy. Viganò speaks warmly at the opening of his own essay of the “great clarity” of the analysis made by Crepaldi in his June 30 essay, and he calls Crepaldi’s analysis “courageous.” Viganò’s essay is entitled on the website of Italian Vatican journalist Marco Tosatti, Stilum curiae: Viganò. Declaration regarding the Apostolic Letter “Desiderio Desideravi” (link). For this reason, we give that same title here. The essay begins by citing Crepaldi and summarizing his argument, then continues to apply this argument, not just to civil society, but to the Church, and to the question of the old and new rites of the Mass. Here Viganò makes his central point, which is a critique of the new liturgy and so a defense of the older form of the Mass, writing: “The principal instrument of the progressivist propaganda and of Cancel culture that was applied in the ecclesial sphere was the reformed liturgy.” And his diagnosis is this: that what we face in both the world and the Church is a desire on the part of some “to be like God” and so to set aside all that impedes that goal, including, especially, the saving role of Jesus Christ. He writes: “The antichristic matrix resides in deception, which is the mark of the Liar: a deception that began with making Adam and Eve believe that their disobedience would make them similar to God, when in reality they had been created ‘in the image and likeness of God’ precisely in freely conforming to the divine cosmos impressed by the Creator in creatures and in creation.” The essay was written on July 2, but published on July 7 on Tosatti’s website. What seems significant is that the essay may signify, in a certain sense, the creation of a sort “group of two” among the Italian bishops, in that Viganò gives his clear support to Crepaldi’s views. In this sense, we may perhaps discern in these two essays the possible beginnings of a sort of Catholic episcopal intellectual alliance with regard to the threat of an exaggerated idea of revolutionary “progress” in our civil society, but also in the Church, with regard to the faith, in this present time. —RM ======================== Vigano. Declaration regarding the Apostolic Letter “Desiderio Desideravi” (link) July 7, 2022 By Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò In an editorial titled “Cancel Culture: The Eternal Gnostic Dream of Starting Over from Zero,” that appeared on June 30, 2022, in the Bulletin of Social Doctrine of the Church of the Cardinal Van Thuân International Observatory (here), Archbishop Giampaolo Crepaldistigmatized, with great clarity of analysis, the “attitude that favors the new over the old, which makes virtue coincide with adhesion to historical novelties and sin coincide with the preservation of the past,” and which consists in a systematic and ruthless damnatio memoriae of all that is opposed to modernity. The Archbishop of Trieste writes: “Progress wants everything to change except for progress itself, which must remain. Progress must preserve progress as something incontestable and never able to be criticized, never surmountable, never erasable. The same may be said of the revolution: revolutions change everything except for the immutable reality of the revolution, which remains absolute. Likewise, ‘cancellation’ must cancel everything, but cancellation must remain an absolute principle.” This denunciation highlights the return of anti-Christian gnosis, which not coincidentally is an ally “of the Enlightenment and anti-religious propaganda of the English-speaking Protestant bourgeoisie,” the fruit of “centuries of planned disinformation.” From the Lutheran pseudo-reform onward, the unity of Catholic Europe was broken apart by the heresy of the German monk and the Anglican schism, unequivocally demonstrating how civil revolutions (which we could define as political heresies) find their ideological basis in previous doctrinal and moral errors. Archbishop Crepaldi’s courageous examination limits itself, at least apparently, to Cancel culture in civil society, while overlooking the no less serious one that has been pursued with tetragonal obstinacy in the very heart of the Catholic Church, beginning with Second Vatican Council. This confirms that the apostasy of the Christian nations, which has systematically eliminated any trace of Christianity from the social body, necessarily had to be preceded by a similar removal of the past from the ecclesial body, to which it was necessary to accompany the imposition of the new as ontologically better and morally superior, regardless of its basis, that is, regardless of the intentions of those who imposed it and above all regardless of any evaluation of its consequences. Saint Pius X defined Modernism as the heresy that derives from this philosophical error. Whatever is new is considered an absolute good simply because it is new. And this despite the evidence of the disastrous effects that the cancellation of the past in the Church would cause – on the doctrinal, moral, liturgical, and disciplinary levels, but also on the cultural, artistic, and popular level as well – as predictably happened. The Council erected novelty and so-called progress as a norm, but it did not limit itself to this: its architects had to cancel the past, because a simple comparison between novus and vetus repudiates any idea that the new is good and the old is to be condemned, due to the results of each. The liturgical reform itself was “planned disinformation”: first of all because it was imposed on the basis of a specious lie, that is, that the faithful did not understand the celebration of the rites in Latin; and secondly because of the fact that the lex orandi became the expression of a lex credendi that was deliberately unmoored from Catholic orthodoxy, and indeed actively negated it. The principal instrument of the progressivist propaganda and of Cancel culture that was applied in the ecclesial sphere was the reformed liturgy, just as was done by the Lutheran pseudo-reform, which progressively eliminated from the Christian people the inheritance of Faith, traditions, and daily gestures which centuries of lived Catholicism had impregnated into the life of the faithful and of nations. Cancel culture is inevitable wherever what is new must be accepted uncritically, and where what is ancient – dismissed as being “old” – must be forgotten so that it does not hang over the present as a severe warning. And it is not a coincidence if George Orwell’s novel 1984 foretold the censorship of information ex post, after the fact, making corrections to past news according to its changing utility in the present. On the other hand, the simple presence of a term of comparison, in itself, reveals a difference that stimulates thoughtful judgment, questions the dogma of progress, and reveals treasures of the past that today no one would be capable of replicating, precisely because they were the result of a world that the present rejects a priori. But if in recent decades the followers of “Catholic progressivism” – an expression that in itself is already an oxymoron – have worked to undermine Tradition and replace it with its antithesis, in these ten years of the Bergoglian “pontificate” cancel culture has taken on the connotations of an ideological fury, ranging from the situation ethics of Amoris Laetitia to the neo-Malthusian ecologism of Laudato Si’ to the masonic ecumenism of Fratelli Tutti, but also manifesting itself in the brazen removal of exterior signs, from liturgical vestments to papal insignia and titles, and even with Traditionis Custodes and Desiderio Desideravi reaching the point of the substantial cancellation of the Apostolic Liturgy, which the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum had given a parenthesis of relative liberty after forty years of ostracism. And it is Cancel culture in all respects, in terms of the method of realization, the purposes it intends, the ideology that underlies it, and the common denominator that unites those who promote it. A subversive operation, certainly, because it uses the authority of the Church for the purpose of destroying the Church, subverting her proper end, just as the authority of the State is usurped against the interests of the Nation and the common good of its citizens. “Sometimes bringing some of grandma’s lace is ok, but only sometimes. It’s in order to pay homage to grandma, no?” Bergoglio said [while speaking to a group of priests in June]. And he did so with the same irreverent superficiality that someone who is ignorant would show before a great work of art or a literary masterpiece. Or rather, just like someone who knows its value well, but having only trash and junk to offer as an alternative, can only resort to discrediting and derision. Liquidating the inestimable treasures of doctrine and spirituality of the Apostolic Liturgy with simplifications from social media – “grandmother’s lace” – betrays his awareness that he has no arguments and explains the reason for so much intolerance toward something that a person with good faith would be driven to preserve, guard, and understand. Those who still persist in individually refuting Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s “acts of magisterium and governance” are refusing to take note of a terrible and painful reality, which significantly finds its counterpart in the Western world. A world which, as has always been the case, takes its example from the Church – in the past drawing inspiration from its goodness and today following it in evil. And thus, it is useless to refute this or that document or declaration, being scandalized by what it may represent with respect to Catholic tradition: Cancel culture – as an expression of Gnostic and revolutionary thought – is ontologically the enemy of reason, even before it is an enemy of Faith. And those who denounce the incalculable damages of this criminal operation of removal and condemnation of the past, even by simply demonstrating the disastrous state into which parishes and religious communities have fallen, do not seem to realize that it is precisely these damages that were knowingly pursued. They fall into the same deception as those who, at the time of the psychopandemic, are surprised that in the presence of serious side effects and “sudden illnesses” obviously caused by the experimental serum, health authorities are not forbidding the distribution of the so-called vaccine, when it is obvious that it was intended to reduce the world’s population by 10-15%, as Mr. Gates has explained to us. In reality, not wanting to consider the relationship between cause and effect is a consequence of the rejection of the entire Western system of logic and philosophy that is essentially Aristotelian and Thomistic. Because a deviant thought can only be accepted in blind irrationality and servile obedience. Even if, in hindsight, the architects of the revolution have a very lucid and logical plan, which however they cannot declare openly since it is subversive and criminal. Deep church and deep state move in parallel and in sync, because what moves them both is hatred for Jesus Christ. The antichristic matrix resides in deception, which is the mark of the Liar: a deception that began with making Adam and Eve believe that their disobedience would make them similar to God, when in reality they had been created “in the image and likeness of God” precisely in freely conforming to the divine cosmos impressed by the Creator in creatures and in creation. We find the same deception in making us believe that man can deny God and rebel against his Holy Law without consequences, when Satan first of all, sinning through pride, has damned himself for eternity. The myth of liberty, of which license and libertinism are counterfeits, is a lie. The secular state, which denies the Lordship of Christ the King in society, is a lie. Ecumenism, which places the Truth of God on the same level as error in the name of a peace and fraternity that cannot exist outside the one Church of Christ, the Holy Catholic Church, is a lie. It is a lie to have erected progress as an absolute good, because what it considers a good is in reality an evil that affects individuals and society, both secular society and spiritual society. It is a lie to pass off as a victory of popular demand something that an elite of conspirators has decided to impose on the masses, with the sole intent of dominating them and leading them to perdition. This is why, in the face of all the Bergoglian nonsense, which celebrates as beyond dispute the successes of Vatican II and the conquests of the post-conciliar church despite the presence of a huge crisis, any comment is superfluous. What is sold to us as the latest discovery of modernity – from gender ideology to neo-Malthusian health ideology – is old ideological rubbish whose only purpose is to distance souls from God, so that the adage “misery loves company” becomes an apt summary of the evil action of the devil, who is envious that creatures endowed with a soul and body have been granted by Providence the Redemption that the angels, as pure spirits, were not granted. A Redemption accomplished by means of the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity, perpetuated in its fruits by the Mystical Body of Christ, the Holy Church. Bergoglio accuses people of Gnosticism and Pelagianism if they cannot accept the idea of a Gnostic and Pelagian pope, for whom the good does not consist in conforming oneself to the model of perfection intended for us by God the Creator and Redeemer, but rather in doing whatever each one of us believes is good. But this is, after all, nothing other than the sin of Lucifer, setting up his Non Serviam as a moral rule. Archbishop Crepaldi did well to point out the antichristic matrix of the Cancel culture. But this analysis, which is valid and true regarding what is happening in the civil world, must also be courageously extended to the Catholic world, in which the same antichristic matrix has existed uncontested ever since the Second Vatican Council made an idol out of the new and transient, denying two thousand years of Tradition founded on the Word of God and on the teaching of the Apostles and the Roman Pontiffs. The ideological fury of Bergoglio is simply the logical consequence of these premises, and the fact that a massage therapist can design the gay-friendly logo for the 2025 Jubilee (here) is merely the latest dismal confirmation of an ongoing metastasis. I urge my brothers in the episcopate, the priests and all the faithful to understand this fundamental aspect of the present apostasy, because we will not be able to do any good to convert civil society and restore the royal Crown to Christ as long as that Crown has been usurped by His enemies within the very womb of the Church. + Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop July 2, 2022 [End, essay of Archbishop Viganò]
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on ARCHBISHOP VIGANO JOINS ARCHBISHOP CREPALDI IN HIS ESSAY ON DESIDERIO DESIDERAVI
Is Francis like “Fringe/Extremist” Andrew Cuomo & his father Mario Cuomo “personally opposed to abortion,” BUT “he had no right to impose his personal religious views on a pluralistic society”?
I think the key is that a very large percentage of people don’t like abortion at all and want to see it banned except in quite exceptional cases. However, my guess is that these same people think that overturning Roe v. Wade would mean banning the very small percentage of abortions that they would allow. Thus you end up with a quite large majority favoring the “Republican” position while also not wanting Roe overturned! What these people are going to learn over the next months is that the SCOTUS has actually given them what they preferred—by overturning Roe.Admittedly it’s all weird and frustrating for politicians, but what really jumps out from the responses is just how extreme the Dem positions and rhetoric are in the eyes of most halfway normal Americans. So, one more issue on which Dems are cruising for a bruising, by espousing rhetoric that most Americans regard as fringe/extremist or even un-American. – Mark Wauck
Is Francis like Andrew Cuomo and his father Mario Cuomo “personally opposed to abortion,” BUT “he had no right to impose his personal religious views on a pluralistic society”?:Reading Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s New York Times op-ed in defense of New York State’s new and perversely titled Reproductive Health Act, I was reminded of his father Mario Cuomo’s own tendentious arguments explaining why he, as a Catholic, could support Roe v. Wade. Andrew Cuomo’s arguments share the same weakness for pious dissembling.
Both Cuomo père et fils approach the issue as political animals, and their support for abortion on demand was and is driven by Democratic party politics. Recall: Mario Cuomo entered the abortion culture wars in 1977 to provide intellectual cover for his friend, New York Representative Geraldine Ferraro, who as Walter Mondale’s presidential running mate in 1984 was the first woman, the first Italian-American and first pro-choice Catholic to run for vice president of the United States. The ticket lost both the Catholic and the Italian-American vote.
The younger Cuomo’s op-ed is a bumbling political effort to tie the pro-life movement to Trumpism and—astonishingly—to argue that the Catholic Church he claims to identify with is part of evangelicalism’s faded religious right. It is also an attempt to wave away the prominent critiques of his legislation by numerous Catholic bishops, including Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York and Father John Jenkins, the president of the University of Notre Dame. Unlike his father, the governor is prone to public pratfalls.
Mario Cuomo’s central argument, in his famous speech at the University of Notre Dame, was that while he was personally opposed as a Catholic to abortion on moral grounds—indeed, he averred, he and his wife Matilda would never abort a pregnancy—he had no right to impose his personal religious views on a pluralistic society. His son Andrew’s underlying argument mimics his father’s: that “religious values” should not “drive political decisions.” This both distorts Catholic arguments against abortion. [https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2019/02/12/andrew-cuomo-and-sad-inheritance-personal-opposition-abortion]
Might leftist Francis be a cold and scheming diplomat whose only concern might be to protect the power of the leftist Biden and Pelosi abortion federal government and its attempt to impose abortion even against the Supreme Court decision while claiming to be “personally opposed to abortion”?
Why does Francis refuse to even denounce the Nancy Pelosi/Joe Biden’s extreme support of the killing of unborn babies that “most Americans regard as fringe/extremist”?
Mark Wauck showed how Francis seems to be refusing to condemn what “most Americans regard as fringe/extremist or even un-American”:
It seems pretty clear that most pollsters simply aren’t asking the right questions. To see this a bit better here is a nice twitter thread that analyzes the polling results. Note that this is very mainstream-to-liberal polling, done by former Clintonista Mark Penn’s outfit. Note also how restrictive the majority would prefer the laws to be.
5) Only 10% support Dem. position of allowing abortion up until birth.
6) 44% say it is better for states to set abortion standards; 31% say Congress; and 25% say #SCOTUS
7) 63% say #SCOTUS is legitimate; 59% say it is wrong for Dems to call #SCOTUSillegitimate
8) 36% say #Dobbs makes it more likely they will vote GOP in ’22; 36% say more likely to vote for Dem.; 29% no difference
I think the key is that a very large percentage of people don’t like abortion at all and want to see it banned except in quite exceptional cases. However, my guess is that these same people think that overturning Roe v. Wade would mean banning the very small percentage of abortions that they would allow. Thus you end up with a quite large majority favoring the “Republican” position while also not wanting Roe overturned! What these people are going to learn over the next months is that the SCOTUS has actually given them what they preferred—by overturning Roe.
Admittedly it’s all weird and frustrating for politicians, but what really jumps out from the responses is just how extreme the Dem positions and rhetoric are in the eyes of most halfway normal Americans. So, one more issue on which Dems are cruising for a bruising, by espousing rhetoric that most Americans regard as fringe/extremist or even un-American. [https://meaninginhistory.substack.com/p/abortion-politics-disconnect?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email]
Pray an Our Father now for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis’s Amoris Laetitia.
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Stop for a moment of silence, ask Jesus Christ what He wants you to do now and next. In this silence remember God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost – Three Divine Persons yet One God, has an ordered universe where you can know truth and falsehood as well as never forget that He wants you to have eternal happiness with Him as his son or daughter by grace. Make this a practice. By doing this you are doing more good than reading anything here or anywhere else on the Internet.
Francis Notes:
– Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation:
“[T]he Pope… WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See.” (The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)
– If Francis betrays Benedict XVI & the”Roman Rite Communities” like he betrayed the Chinese Catholics we must respond like St. Athanasius, the Saintly English Bishop Robert Grosseteste & “Eminent Canonists and Theologians” by “Resist[ing]” him: https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/12/if-francis-betrays-benedict-xvi.html
– LifeSiteNews, “Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers,” December 4, 2017:
The AAS guidelines explicitly allows “sexually active adulterous couples facing ‘complex circumstances’ to ‘access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'”
– On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:
“The AAS statement… establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense.”
– On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:
“Francis’ heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents.”
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church by the bishops by the grace of God.
What is needed right now to save America from those who would destroy our God given rights is to pray at home or in church and if called to even go to outdoor prayer rallies in every town and city across the United States for God to pour out His grace on our country to save us from those who would use a Reichstag Fire-like incident to destroy our civil liberties. [Is the DC Capitol Incident Comparable to the Nazi Reichstag Fire Incident where the German People Lost their Civil Liberties?: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/is-dc-capital-incident-comparable-to.html?m=1 and Epoch Times Show Crossroads on Capitol Incident: “Anitfa ‘Agent Provocateurs‘”: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/epoch-times-show-crossroads-on-capital.html?m=1]
Pray an Our Father now for the grace to know God’s Will and to do it.
Pray an Our Father now for America.
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.SHARE
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on IS IT ANY WONDER THAT YOUNG AMERICANS ARE CONFUSED ABOUT RIGHT AND WRONG
For 120 days in the summer of 2020, violent protesters destroyed some $2 billion in property and injured 1,500 police officers in riots that led to over 35 deaths.
Because blue-state mayors and governors saw BLM and Antifa instigators as useful street soldiers, most of those arrested were never tried in court. Street thugs paid no price for declaring themselves de facto owners of downtown areas of Seattle, which police themselves conceded were no-go zones. Why did public officials in blue states ignore the violence? They were certain that it enjoyed majority support among their leftwing constituencies.
Indeed, some leftist icons cheered the violence. Well after the failed attempt to storm the White House grounds, in June 2020, the Democratic candidate for vice president Kamala Harris warned us that protestors were “not going to let up, and they should not.” What did Harris mean by “should not?”—when she knew numerous protests that summer had ended in terrible violence? Was she reckless in the manner Trump was said to be by encouraging a demonstration on January 6?
The architect of the “1619 Project” Nikole Hannah-Jones assured the nation that the vast destruction of (someone else’s property) was not a real crime. CNN’s Chris Cuomo gushed that violent demonstrations and riots were American traditions. Were these national voices urging calm during weeks of violent rioting and looting?
There were no investigations, no congressional committees, and no voices of outrage from the left-wing establishment over months of such carnage. Indeed, much of the organization of the violent protests was facilitated by social media that was apparently unbothered that the medium under their stewardship was used to torch and loot.
The Attack on Norms and Customs
Representative Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) urged her followers to tail, dog, and get in the faces of Trump government officials to the point that they would lose their freedom to even be seen in public. “And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere,” she famously admonished.
Corporations began boycotting events deemed illiberal in fears of being boycotted themselves. Not saluting the flag for professional athletes was considered patriotic, saluting it insurrectionary. Mobs of leftists, cheered on by Democratic grandees, began tearing down statues of Confederate generals—but only as a preliminary to defacing the Lincoln Memorial and other statues of Lincoln, Jefferson, and Frederick Douglass.
From 2015-16, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with impunity wiped away thousands of her supposedly personal emails on a likely illegal private server. To cover her tracks, she ordered her devices destroyed, despite many being under subpoena.
Clinton also sought to warp the entire machinery of the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Clinton’s skullduggery was hidden behind three firewalls—the Democratic National Committee, the Perkins-Coie legal firm, and the Fusion GPS opposition research firm—to mask her likely illegal payments that enlisted a foreign national and ex-spy, Christopher Steele, to assist her campaign by destroying Donald Trump.
Steele proved a clumsy, grifting con artist who tapped Clinton’s money, her friends, and her former subordinates in concocting a fake “dossier” of gossip, lies, and slander aimed at rendering Trump unelectable. No matter—Steele used Clinton’s State Department contacts and former government clients to compile and seed the lies among a toady media to undermine her political opponent and later sabotage the Trump presidency.
The War Against Institutions
The Left, in revolutionary fashion, has waged a sustained and unapologetic attack on constitutional norms and long-held institutions—whenever it senses they no longer prove conducive to its radical agendas.
Barack Obama declared during a funeral oration for the late Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) that the filibuster was racist and must end—although as a senator Obama had used it and declared it essential.
The Electoral College? When the so-called “blue wall” fell, it transmogrified from valuable to a bankrupt fossil. The Left has wanted to create two new blue states (the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico) to fast-track four left-wing senators, and cram through a national voting law to make the states’ constitutional prerogative to require voter IDs illegal.
There is no border. For two years, Joe Biden, again in true revolutionary fashion, has simply abrogated federal immigration law by fiat. In less than two years, he has welcomed 3 million illegal aliens without audit—or COVID-19 tests or vaccinations—during a pandemic in which unvaccinated federal employees and military personnel faced dismissal. Biden had taken an oath of office to faithfully execute the laws of the United States, but then shortly thereafter destroyed immigration laws as we knew them. No prior president has simply rendered an entire corpus of law null and void.
Fueled by leftist billionaires, the Left waged a multiyear effort to elect big-city district attorneys whose agendas were pure nihilism: to not enforce laws, to release arrested criminals without indictments, to end cash bail, and prematurely to release convicted and hardened lawbreakers. The guiding principle was the revolutionary theory that the law was a simple construct used against marginalized peoples and the poor, and therefore simply could be ignored or discarded.
There is no longer free speech on college campuses. Guests who voice minority opinions are in danger of being shouted down or put into physical danger—with the near certainty that their attackers will face few if any consequences.
“Safe spaces,” dorms, and graduation ceremonies are often racially exclusive—all knowingly in violation of the spirit and the letter of once-vaunted civil rights legislation. At many colleges, faculty and potential faculty are asked to write “diversity statements,” apparently in emulation of the old McCarthy “loyalty oaths” that likewise served both to eliminate any dissent and to frighten would-be apostates. Any dissident professor will have his biography thoroughly scanned for thought crimes, and then be libeled as a “racist” or “sexist”—as a clear warning to others to keep silent.
There is a revolutionary war now being waged against the Supreme Court because it no longer characteristically legislates from the bench. If the Court was once beloved as an iconic institution that was a sort of liberal judiciary, legislature, and executive all in one, it is now utterly despised as counterrevolutionary. Indeed, it is declared illegitimate, and its rulings to be ignored.
Former law professor Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) screams about a need to pack the Court—an insurrectionary attempt to end 160 years of judicial law and custom, that would be impossible without first ending the 180-year filibuster.
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) called out Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanagh by name at the doors of the Court, issuing biblical warnings of violence to both: “You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”
What sort of “force” did a U.S. senator refer to by screaming to a mob about what might “hit” the justices or when he further threatened, that the two “have released the whirlwind and [they] will pay the price”? What price? What whirlwind?
Did such physical threats incite would-be nuts to seek out a court justice—as in the recent case of 26-year-old Nicholas John Roske arrested armed near the home of Justice Kavanaugh and who currently faces a charge of attempting to murder an associate justice of the Supreme Court?
Illegally leaking rough drafts of future opinions is now not unlawful but a voice of conscience—as long as it is seen as another effective leftist tool to intimidate conservative justices.
Leftists, egged on by Democratic politicians, now routinely mass, circle, shout, and seek to intimidate at the homes of conservative Supreme Court justices—a felony violation that is never prosecuted.
Joe Biden, who claimed Trump showed insufficient respect for the judiciary, now while abroad savagely attacks the U.S. Supreme Court in off-topic rants before his smiling foreign hosts.
In sum, laws are said to be irrelevant and to be ignored by states, cities, and counties at will—depending on their usefulness or impediments to the Left’s agenda.
Indeed, leftists are at times states’ rights extremists. They attack the federal government’s authority on immigration issues and simply nullify it—as evidenced by 550 sanctuary city jurisdictions in blue states designed to render inert federal immigration law.
Yet at other times, the Left seeks to crush states’ rights. Currently, it is calling for the federal government, in violation of the Hyde Amendment, to nullify states’ rights to establish abortion laws—by creating abortion clinics on federal military bases and national parks inside red states (that is, in states where about 10 percent of the nations’ yearly abortions occur).
The common denominators are not principles—but only the retention of power, and the notion that law is fluid and gains legitimacy only when advancing leftist dogma.
Our Revolutionary Agencies
Former Obama Administration Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and CIA Director John Brennan both lied under oath—without legal consequences—to the Congress.
The FBI itself has descended into a sort of revolutionary police force rather than a disinterested investigative body focusing mostly on intrastate and federal crimes. The fired former Director James Comey feigned amnesia or ignorance 245 times in his responses under oath to a House committee.
The subsequent interim director Andrew McCabe admittedly lied three times to federal investigators and likely discussed wearing a wire to entrap the president of the United States. He was never charged with any federal crime.
An FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith altered a federal affidavit to warp a FISA court hearing. Former FBI Director Robert Mueller claimed under oath that he had no idea what the Steele dossier or Fusion GPS was, even though, arguably, they were the goads that prompted his 22-month-long investigation.
There is no need to review the creepy careers and texts of FBI lawyer Lisa Page and her paramour FBI agent Peter Strzok, other than to note both used FBI resources to advance political agendas. The entire agency was knee-deep in fueling the Russian collusion hoax, itself a veritable revolutionary attempt to destroy a political campaign, a presidential transition, and a presidency.
In the fashion of the former East German Stasi, the FBI hounds political opponents on the Right by surveilling parents at school board meetings, sending a SWAT team to arrest a flamboyant Trump supporter Roger Stone, arriving at the house of journalist James O’Keefe in the deep of night to confiscate his files and devices, and putting former White House advisor Peter Navarro in veritable shackles. The common denominator is the FBI devolving into a retrieval service for the Biden family syndicate, whether by putting on ice Hunter Biden’s incriminating laptop or hounding out Ashley Biden’s lurid diary, or intimidating Biden critics.
Yet when asked to produce relevant cell phones of possibly wayward agents, the FBI claims that such data was erased, shrugs, and does not comply. Apparently, the FBI leadership fears the progressive Washington political-bureaucratic-media nexus far more than it fears the consequences of violating the law it is sworn to uphold.
Retired four-star admirals and generals no longer just revolve out of service to woke corporate boards and lobbying firms. Now they must first prepare their trajectories by violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice, by damning their commander-in-chief, and thus virtue signaling their bankable corporate orthodoxy.
As a result, the left-wing media and elite have dropped their traditional dislike of such federal authorities, be they the FBI, the CIA, or the Pentagon. Indeed, the Left has come to love those with badges and guns—but solely as a revolutionary force far more efficient than the clumsy Congress in greenlighting their progressive agendas and making life hell for their opponents.
Sort of Sacrosanct Elections, Sort of Not
As far as rejecting the outcomes of federal and state elections, for leftist insurrectionists the validity of an election hinges on whether the Left is a declared winner or loser. Once Hillary Clinton lost the election in 2016, her opponent became “illegitimate.” She joined the “Resistance” and later advised Joe Biden to reject the ballot tally if he lost the popular vote. No one claimed she was endangering hallowed institutions or sounding insurrectionary.
For Time journalist Molly Ball, the billionaire effort to undermine the 2020 election by infusing hundreds of millions of dollars of dark money to usurp the work of selected county registrars was a giddy “conspiracy.” For former Obama Pentagon lawyer Rosa Brooks in 2017, the 11-day tenure of newly inaugurated President Donald Trump was already an occasion to weigh the relative advantages of either impeachment, invocation of the 25th Amendment—or a military coup to remove him.
Failed Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams became a left-wing cult figure by touring the country claiming she was the real governor of her state who somehow, nonetheless and illegitimately, had lost her campaign by 50,000 votes.
Good Threats of Violence
As far as violence goes, the Left has descended into full assault pornography over the last few years.
Former vice president and “uniter” Joe Biden boasted that he would like to beat up President Trump: “If we were in high school, I’d take him behind the gym and beat the hell out of him . . .” or “He’s the bully that used to make fun when I was a kid that I stutter, and I’d smack him in the mouth.”
Do we remember when Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), another 2020 presidential hopeful, railed, “My testosterone sometimes makes me want to feel like punching him [Trump], which would be bad for this elderly, out-of-shape man that he is if I did that. This physically weak specimen.”
Robert De Niro similarly announced that he had his sights on Trump, “I’d like to punch him in the face.”
Do such threats have consequences? Maybe. On the day Trump was inaugurated, Madonna incited a crowd outside the White House by warning that she had thought of blowing up the White House. Comedian Kathy Griffin trumped that in a video in which she held up a facsimile of a decapitated Trump head.
Few today remember James Hodgkinson—a former Bernie Sanders campaign worker—and his 2017 attempt to assassinate Republican congressmen at a practice for a charity baseball game.
So yes, let us fear that democracy is dying in media darkness. Real insurrectionists are seeking to dismantle the Constitution, end centuries-long customs and traditions, justify the use of political violence, and disobey all the laws they find inconvenient.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on For 120 days in the summer of 2020, violent protesters destroyed some $2 billion in property and injured 1,500 police officers in riots that led to over 35 deaths.
[
ABYSSUS ABYSSUM INVOCAT / DEEP CALLS TO DEEP 
You must be logged in to post a comment.