NFL And Nike Lose On Anti-Slave Bill December 17, 2021 Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on how the NFL and Nike came out on the losing side of an anti-slave labor bill: On December 14, the House of Representatives voted unanimously to ban imports from the Xinjiang region in China that uses slave labor. However, on December 15, the bill was blocked in the Senate by Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden; given Senate rules, his objection was sufficient to prevent the bill from moving forward. Then some Democrats pushed back. Wyden folded on December 16, and the Senate unanimously passed the legislation. For many years, the Uyghurs [pronounced Weegers], a Muslim minority, have been treated like slaves by the Communist Chinese government. That is why an anti-slave bill was needed. Politico gave an accurate summary of the bill. “The Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act effectively bans all imports from China’s Xinjiang region, where the U.S. government has said that the Chinese Communist Party is perpetuating a genocide against the religious minority, including slave labor, forced sterilizations and concentration camps.” The two most important U.S. organizations that are responsible for supporting slave labor in China are the National Football League and Nike. Nike practically owns Sen. Wyden—it has greased him with contributions totaling into more than $60,000—but without the enabling role played by the NFL, the genocide and slave labor would not be flourishing. NFL commissioner Roger Goodell is not shy about his enthusiasm for Communist China. Two years ago he said, “China is a priority market for the NFL. We believe that our game has a great deal of potential to expand to grow and bring new fans into our game. We have had double-digit growth this past year in China in our fan base and people engaging with our game. So we are excited by it.” John Donahoe, Nike’s CEO, is just as exuberant about working with the slavemasters in China. “Nike is a brand that is of China and for China.” (My italics.) Last year, a study by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute named Nike as one of the companies that uses slave labor to make its products. The NFL and Nike are joined at the hip. In 2018, the NFL issued the following press release: “The National Football League and Nike announced a long-term extension to their on-field rights partnership. Central to the extension, Nike will continue to provide all 32 NFL Clubs with uniforms and sideline apparel bearing the Nike brand for use during all games.” The degree of oppression in China, especially among religious minorities, is not in dispute. On July 1, 2021, the U.S. State Department released a damning assessment of conditions there. “Over the last four years, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has carried out a mass detention and political indoctrination campaign against Uyghurs….Authorities use threats of physical violence, forcible drug intake, physical and sexual abuse, and torture to force detainees to work in adjacent or off-site factories or worksites producing garments, footwear…material for solar power equipment” and many other products. Garments and footwear are both Nike products. It is not just a Muslim ethnic minority that is being oppressed. Nina Shea, director of the Center for Religious Freedom at the Hudson Institute, offered an assessment of religious liberty in China.   “China’s Christians, at 100 million strong and constituting that country’s largest religious minority, are facing a new government policy of severe religious repression and persecution.” Minors are barred from attending houses of worship, churches are being closed, desecrations are increasing, Bibles are limited in supply, and adults are subject to state surveillance. Those who disobey are imprisoned. To show how politically corrupt the NFL is, and how desperate it is to please its Communist friends in China, consider that on December 16 it published a map on social media that depicted the sovereign nation of Taiwan as part of China. Taiwan is a free country; China is a slave state. The NFL is in bed with the Communists selling out our democratic allies in Taiwan. President Biden will sign the bill, but no one should trust him. His special climate envoy, John Kerry, who is worth $250 million, has come under fire for owning stakes in an investment group that funds companies linked to the slave labor camps in China. Moreover, in the aforementioned State Department study, “material for solar power equipment” was cited as a good that is produced by slave labor. Last month, Kerry was asked by a reporter why he doesn’t speak to the issue of human rights in China. He said “that’s not my lane here.” No wonder Politico said that the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act “encountered obstacles from the White House and the private sector.” Kerry was the White House obstructionist, and the NFL and Nike played the same role in the private sector. What makes this all the more disgusting is the “social justice” policies promoted by the NFL and Nike. They are quick to side with the likes of Black Lives Matter, condemning America for being a racist country, yet they profit off of slave labor and genocide in China. Contact Brian McCarthy, VP of Corporate Communications, NFL:Brian.McCarthy@nfl.com Contact Nigel Powell, Executive VP & Chief Communications Officer, Nike: Nigel.Powell@nike.com

Why Is the Left Suddenly Worried

About the End of Democracy?

It is quite simple. The Left expects to

lose power over the next two years.

By: Victor Davis Hanson

The Patriot Post

December 16, 2021

(Emphasis added)

What is behind recent pessimistic appraisals of democracy’s future, from Hillary Clinton, Adam Schiff, Brian Williams, and other elite intellectuals, media personalities, and politicians on the Left? Some are warning about its possible erosion in 2024. Others predict democracy’s downturn as early 2022, with scary scenarios of “autocracy” and Trump “coups.”

To answer that question, understand first what is not behind these shrill forecasts.

ü They are not worried about 2 million foreign nationals crashing the border in a single year, without vaccinations during a pandemic. Yet it seems insurrectionary for a government simply to nullify its immigration laws.

ü They are not worried that some 800,000 foreign nationals, some residing illegally, will now vote in New York City elections.

ü They are not worried that there are formal efforts underway to dismantle the U.S. Constitution by junking the 233-year-old Electoral College or the preeminence of the states in establishing ballot laws in national elections.

ü They are not worried that we are witnessing an unprecedented left-wing effort to scrap the 180-year-old filibuster, the 150-year-old nine-person Supreme Court, and the 60-year tradition of 50 states, for naked political advantage.

ü They are not worried that the Senate this year put on trial an impeached ex-president and private citizen, without the chief justice in attendance, without a special prosecutor or witnesses, and without a formal commission report of presidential high crimes and misdemeanors.

ü They are not worried that the FBI, Justice Department, CIA, Hillary Clinton, and members of the Obama Administration systematically sought to use U.S. government agencies to sabotage a presidential campaign, transition, and presidency, via the use of a foreign national and ex-spy Christopher Steele and his coterie of discredited Russian sources.

ü They are not worried that the Pentagon suddenly has lost the majority support of the American people. Top current and retired officers have flagrantly violated the chain-of-command, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and without data or evidence have announced a hunt in the ranks for anyone suspected of “white rage” or “white supremacy.”

ü They are not worried that in 2020, a record 64 percent of the electorate did not cast their ballots on Election Day.

ü Nor are they worried that the usual rejection rate in most states of non-Election Day ballots plunged — even as an unprecedented 101 million ballots were cast by mail or early voting.

ü And they are certainly not worried that partisan billionaires of Silicon Valley poured well over $400 million into selected precincts in swing states to “help” public agencies conduct the election.

What then is behind this new left-wing hysteria about the supposed looming end of democracy?

It is quite simple. The Left expects to lose power over the next two years — both because of the way it gained and used it, and because of its radical, top-down agendas that never had any public support.

After gaining control of both houses of Congress and the presidency — with an obsequious media and the support of Wall Street, Silicon Valley, higher education, popular culture, entertainment, and professional sports — the Left has managed in just 11 months to alienate a majority of voters.

The nation has been wracked by unprecedented crime and nonenforcement of the borders. Leftist district attorneys either won’t indict criminals; they let them out of jails or both.

Illegal immigration and inflation are soaring. 

Deliberate cuts in gas and oil production helped spike fuel prices.

All this bad news is on top of the Afghanistan disaster, worsening racial relations, and an enfeebled president.

Democrats are running 10 points behind the Republicans in generic polls, with the midterms less than a year away.

Joe Biden’s negatives run between 50 and 57 percent — in Donald Trump’s own former underwater territory.

Less than a third of the country wants Biden to run for reelection. In many head-to-head polls, Trump now defeats Biden.

In other words, leftist elites are terrified that democracy will work too robustly.

After the Russian collusion hoax, two impeachments, the Hunter Biden laptop stories, the staged melodramas of the Kavanaugh hearings, the Jussie Smollett con, the Covington kids smear, and the Rittenhouse trial race frenzy, the people are not just worn out by leftist hysterias, but they also weary of how the Left gains power and administers it.

If Joe Biden were polling at 70 percent approval, and his policies at 60 percent, the current doomsayers would be reassuring us of the “health of the system.”

They are fearful and angry not because democracy doesn’t work, but because it does despite their media and political efforts to warp it.

When a party is hijacked by radicals and uses almost any means necessary to gain and use power for agendas that few Americans support, then average voters express their disapproval.

That reality terrifies an elite. It then claims any system that allows the people to vote against the Left is not people’s power at all.

___________________________________________________

The Science of Fear

By: Judd Garrett

Objectivity is the Objective

December 15, 2021

(Emphasis by Judd)

(Emphasis by Rip)

The day after the devastating tornadoes which swept through the Midwest killing over 80 people, President Biden made a statement blaming these tornadoes on climate change to push his climate agenda. Likewise, left-wing Hollywood actor Mark Ruffalo tweeted, ‘this is what climate catastrophe looks like’. The propensity of politicians and activists to exploit the pain and suffering of American citizens for their own agendas is unconscionable. Every time there is a natural disaster from tornadoes to hurricanes to wildfires to even earthquakes and a pandemic, there are scores of politicians and activists chomping at the bit to exploit the suffering of the people to win political points. 

Climate activists tend to use a singular weather event like this as definitive proof of their position, relying on the fear it creates to sway people more so than using facts and data. Ironically, when there are other weather events, like a blizzard or a polar vortex or record freezing temperatures which seemingly disproves their position on global warming, the same climate activists will snap back, lecturing us that blizzards and polar vortexes are weather, and not climate and weather events prove nothing about climate unless it is a hurricane or a tornado that they can use to push their climate agenda.

For all the talk that we hear about following the science, very rarely does anyone follow the science, on either side of the political aisle. Science is measured. Science is unemotional. Science is dispassionate. Scientific decisions should never be based on emotion. Science does not succumb to fear. But too often, these days, emotion and fear have become mixed up, and even confused with science. Everything about the climate change debate from the climate activists has been to tap into the collective fear of the American people. We are continually told that New York City will be 50 feet underwater, or there’s going to be mass starvation, famines, and diseases if we don’t do anything about climate change. 

Instead of looking at the data like rational thinking people to properly assess the situation and make the best decisions, politicians and activists want you to look at the death and devastation to tap into your fears and emotions. Climate activists claim that climate change is causing a dramatic increase in these types of natural disasters. Every hurricane that hits the United States and tears through a community, is automatically blamed on climate change as if there were no such thing as hurricanes before the invention of the internal combustion engine in 1860. 

But the actual numbers tell a completely different story. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, government statistics, more hurricanes made landfall in the United States in the last half of the 19th century (97) and the first half of the 20th century (95), than there were in the last half of the 20th century (72). Over the 150 years from 1850 to 2000 when there was a dramatic steady increase in the use of fossil fuels and the release of carbon into our atmosphere as a result of the industrial revolution, there was a steady decline in the number of hurricanes that made landfall in the United States. Over the first 20 years of the 21st century, we have seen an uptick in hurricane activity in the United States, but that uptick merely brings the numbers back to where they were previously, 100 years ago. The last half of the 18th century averaged 19.4 hurricanes hitting the US per decade, and the first half of the 20th century averaged 19.0, while the first 2 decades on the 21st centuryaveraged 19.5 which is an increase from the 14.4 which was averaged in the last half of the 20th century.

But the activists do not care about the facts. They do not care about looking at the data. They want to use fear, not facts, emotion, not knowledge to influence people. None of this is about science, none of it is about the truth, this is all about creating a narrative to support their agenda because their agenda could never be supported by the truth or by science. And once they create this narrative based on fear, they try to convince us that the only way to combat it is for the government to seize more power and more control over the people and spend trillions of our tax dollars.

We are continually told that Carbon Dioxide that is released from burning fossil fuels is polluting our planet. Carbon Dioxide is a trace element that makes up 0.04% of the Earth’s atmosphere. Below is the breakdown of the elements in the Earth’s atmosphere:

Nitrogen = 78.1%

Oxygen = 20.9%

Argon = 0.93%

Carbon Dioxide = 0.04%

Neon = 0.002%

Helium = 0.0005%

It seems strange that the one gas which makes up only 0.04% of our atmosphere, which is vital to life on this planet, is the gas that is targeted as the biggest pollutant on the face of the earth. The gas that is the oxygen for plant life has been classified as an existential threat to all life on this planet. If we look at it from a Marxian point of view which is where most people on the left, and those who are the loudest climate change activists come from, as to why they would target carbon dioxide, we would rightfully conclude because it is the gas that is produced when we use our most abundant energy supply, fossil fuels. The Marxian goal in every society is to control the people by controlling the means of production, and the best way to control the means of production without seizing companies outright is to control the energy supply. If the government dictates who gets the energy, the government controls the means of production, which means they control the people. The government is using the guise of science for its political purposes. 

We have witnessed this the last two years with Covid-19. The worst virus threat that humanity has faced in the last 100 years, has come from government bureaucrats’ manipulation of science. The arrogance of these government scientists to think that they could manipulate microscopic pathogens in a lab, and they would be able to control them. They do not have that level of power over nature. Mary Shelley, in her book, Frankenstein, warned us of this level of arrogance that “science” can fall prey to. The total lack of respect that many government scientists have for the powers of nature has caused the millions of deaths that we have witnessed through this pandemic. Did they believe that they could manipulate a pathogen, and then be able to control it? That’s exactly what Dr. Frankenstein did in the book, he created the monster, thinking that he would be able to control the monster, but inevitably, the monster overpowered him, and people died.

But Covid has been used the same way tornadoes and hurricanes are used, to scare people so the government can take more power and more money from the people. They use emotion, not scientific fact. In the many Senate hearings, press conferences, and interviews that people like Dr. Fauci have engaged in, there is very little actual scientific evidence and data that is provided to the American people about this virus. When the virus was first spreading back in 2020, there was a running infection and death count that could be found on almost every news website. 

Surprisingly, the death counts stopped after Joe Biden took office, even though the number of infections and deaths have not decreased under his watch. So, were those running death counts put on the websites to inform the American people, or to scare them? Either way, why are they not put up now considering there has not been a dramatic drop in infections and deaths? The same thing happened with the death tolls in Iraq and Afghanistan. During the Bush presidency, the military casualties and deaths were tallied daily, but when Obama took office, we stopped publicly keeping track of casualties and deaths in foreign wars, as if they suddenly didn’t matter, or more precisely the emotion generated from those deaths could not be exploited anymore for their political purposes.

Our leaders have been very secretive with the facts surrounding the vaccines. We are told to shut up, don’t ask questions, and take the shot. Why aren’t the accurate and up-to-date efficacy rates of all three vaccines readily available for all to see? Why aren’t the negative side effect rates of all three vaccines presented to us? Why don’t we know how many people have died within 24 hours of getting a vaccine? Within 48 hours? Within a week? Within a month? Why don’t we see the death rates from Covid broken down by age? Broken down by comorbidity? Broken down by age and comorbidity? What are the reinfection rates of people who recovered from Covid? And what are their outcomes? Why are they keeping this information from us? Are they not tracking this information? If not, why not? All of this is information we need to make the best decisions for our lives, yet it is all very scant. Instead, we get anecdotal evidence designed to stoke fear, not to inform.

When Donald Trump heralded hydroxy-chloroquine as a potential treatment for Covid based on a handful of examples of people who were sick with Covid and got better after taking the medication, his advocacy for that remedy was rejected because it was based on anecdotal evidence. Yet, Joe Biden and the Democrats use a hurricane or a tornado as proof of climate change. 

Or BLM uses the death of George Floyd as proof that all police departments are systemically racist. All of these singular events never prove anything scientifically, but they are very effective in creating narratives and drumming up fear in the hearts and minds of people which is used to exploit the people. When they cannot win based on the facts or based on scientific evidence, they use emotion created by anecdotal evidence to steer the narrative in their direction.

The scientific advancements in the 20th and 21st centuries are not being used for the benefit of humankind. The Internet was created under the belief that it would make all of our lives easier and better, but it has become the ideal mechanism for those who control the Internet to exploit anecdotal evidence and fear to manipulate people into thinking and behaving the way they want them to behave. Like Frankenstein’s monster, scientific inventions and innovations often grow to the point that we can no longer control them, and they end up controlling or even threatening our very lives. 

___________________________________________________

 

OnePeterFive

Rebuilding Catholic Culture. Restoring Catholic Tradition.

• LEFEBVRE / SSPX

Thank God for the SSPX!

 John JanneyDecember 16, 20210 Comments

• 432Shares
• 432

The Horrors of the New Springtime

Born a “cradle Catholic” just as the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II) was underway in 1962, I was blessed to grow up in a small Western Montana town that was home to the first Catholic Parish established in Montana Territory. Our small parish had a K-6 Catholic school and a convent staffed by faithful nuns in habits. Parish life seemed vibrant and stable until 1970 when it was announced that our Catholic school would be closing (after my 3rd grade year).

At about the same time, our beautiful Gothic-style Church fell to the Vatican II “wreckovation.” The beautiful high altar was replaced by a table, the communion rail ripped out, the tabernacle moved to a corner, the statues removed, the walls whitewashed. In the end, our beautiful Catholic church looked more like a Protestant gathering place or community hall than a Catholic church. Catechism classes, previously taught by priests and religious sisters, were relegated to lay volunteers – the Baltimore Catechism was out, new “modern” texts that often watered down or deviated from Catholic doctrine became the norm. Of course, communion in the hand, girl “altar boys,” “eucharistic ministers,” female lectors and various other novelties soon followed.Advertisement – Continue Reading Below

At the time, my dad, also a cradle Catholic and World War II era Marine, protested these things (primarily the closing of our school) rather firmly with our local pastor and our then-Bishop Raymond Hunthausen (who later became notorious as the very liberal Archbishop of the Archdiocese of Seattle). Dad’s pleas fell on deaf ears as he was told (incredible as it sounds) that the Church had decided it would be better to focus its efforts and resources on Catholic colleges (we now know how that turned out since the notorious 1967 Land O’Lakes Statement).

This and all the other changes were the last straw for my dad. He hasn’t set foot in a Catholic church (other than a few Baptisms, First Communions, Confirmations, weddings, and funerals) since. My mother hung on, eventually becoming involved in (falling prey to?) the “Catholic” charismatic movement in the early 1970’s. Despite all of this, and having nowhere else to turn, my mother suffered through and stood strong in her faith. My siblings all fell away from the faith after high school – all of them married outside the church to non-Catholic spouses.

The Work of Grace

By God’s grace (and mom’s example), I managed to hang in there living a nominally Catholic life. I was blessed to meet a beautiful practicing Catholic woman shortly after attending graduate school in Boston. We were married in the Church and excited about our new life together. However, in retrospect, we were both poorly catechized and didn’t know the true teachings of the Catholic Church or what was expected of us as Catholic spouses and parents. Our marriage prep classes in a suburban Boston parish (under then-Cardinal Bernard Law) consisted of a morning with other engaged couples sitting around a table led by a lay person who didn’t know much more than we did about Church teaching regarding marriage and family.

What I heard (and perhaps what I didn’t hear) that day left me somehow empty and confused although at the time I really couldn’t put my finger on what it was that was troubling me. I subsequently sought counsel from two priests and a deacon. All used the “primacy of conscience” argument to assure me that if my conscience said it was okay to use artificial contraception to delay children, it was okay in the eyes of the Church. None of them mentioned the importance of a well-formed conscience. Nor did they suggest that I read Casti Connubi or Humanae Vitae (which I didn’t know existed at the time) or even the Catechism to form my conscience about such an important matter. (Side note: I find it interesting that many/most of today’s bishops and priests are telling us we don’t have conscience rights to object to an experimental abortion-tainted “vaccine”).Advertisement – Continue Reading Below

To my shame, I proceeded to lead my lovely wife down the wrong path. At the time, my Catholic family and close Catholic friends had used or were using artificial contraception, so I went with the flow even though I should have known better. Of course, we never heard a single word about this from the pulpit or in the confessional at any of the Novus Ordo parishes we attended.

In any case we did have children and began to grow a Catholic family. But even though we attended weekly Mass and holy days of obligation, we fell into a lukewarm existence at various Novus Ordo parishes around the country (we’ve lived in 9 states since our marriage in 1993). In none of these parishes did we hear sound teaching on the critical matters of our faith. Even the few “good” priests we encountered were admittedly afraid to speak about the “hard teachings” of the Church for fear of offending their more liberal parishioners or, worse, their local bishop.

Looking back, our experience with the Novus Ordo parishes in all these places was marginally Catholic (at best) where, sadly, most of the Sunday Mass attendees rejected one or more teachings of the Church – e.g., contraception, cohabitation, divorce and remarriage, gay “marriage” (doesn’t this describe Protestants?).

Roughly 12-15 years ago, we began to sense that something just wasn’t right. A pivotal moment came shortly after stumbling across an article that defended the true Catholic position on artificial contraception. It prompted me to research further and led to the discovery of how little I knew about my faith – and worse, how we had been lied to (about contraception and a myriad of other things) by the leadership of the Church (including bishops, priests, deacons, and catechists along our journey).Advertisement – Continue Reading Below

At the time, we lived in Washington State in a very liberal diocese with nothing that could be considered a “reverent” Novus Ordo parish. I became increasingly concerned about exposing my wife and kids to a weekly diet of what I came to recognize as heterodox (at best) sermons and CCD/youth group gatherings that did little to promote and teach the truths of our faith. Most critically, after speaking with our bishop and local priests about various matters, I became fearful of how our priests might instruct my wife and then-teenage children in the Sacrament of Penance.

Finally, we found a Latin Mass parish. Here the fullness of the Catholic faith was preached and catechized to our children. It was like a breath of fresh air for our souls. At that point we went Trad and never looked back.

Trad Life

For almost 3 years, we did our best to make a nearly 3-hour (one way) trek to attend the TLM (both FSSP and SSPX), go to confession, and the rest. Eventually, it became evident that this was not a tolerable situation for my family, so roughly five years ago I left a very good job and moved my family to a desert Southwest suburb with several TLM options nearby.

Our new home has a vibrant FSSP parish and a large SSPX Chapel (including a priory, retreat house and K-12 school). We also have access to a handful of Novus Ordo parishes that allow periodic celebrations of the TLM. For the first three years, we attended both the FSSP parish and SSPX chapel off and on. We were thrilled to find many good faithful priests and good, well-meaning faithful at both. Sadly, we also recognized some common myths and misconceptions among the FSSP and SSPX faithful about each other.Advertisement – Continue Reading Below

We eventually settled into the local FSSP parish that had outgrown a small but beautiful building and needed more space to accommodate a burgeoning flock (most Sunday masses accommodated an overflow crowd in the adjacent hall with a live feed on a big screen TV). The crime rate in the surrounding neighborhood was an ongoing concern as well.

It was here that I began to see what I considered troubling dichotomies within the FSSP. For example, parish fundraising was not noticeably different than that of most Novus Ordo parishes we experienced. We were still pressured by our Pastor to support the annual bishop’s appeal(s), even though he would quietly acknowledge that money is fungible and some of these funds may go towards organizations and causes that are inconsistent with traditional Catholic beliefs. Our parish also followed the lead of our Bishop and did not publicly oppose fundraising efforts for other Catholic organizations promoted by our bishop, some of which are known to undermine Catholic teaching (e.g., CCHD). Even a portion of the weekly collection plate goes to the diocese and some of that money goes to the USCCB (directly or indirectly). Realizing these things, we had to find other ways to support the FSSP and, indirectly, our local FSSP priests.

It also became clear from conversations with FSSP priests that they had serious reservations about elements of Vatican II and the words/actions (or inactions) of the pope and many of our bishops. Yet these priests would rarely if ever address the elephants in the room publicly due to fear of reprisal from their local bishop (and others) even when it was clear that these things were causing obvious questioning and confusion among their flocks (their silence is not unlike that of better Novus Ordo priests mentioned above).

Enter COVID

When COVID hit in early 2020, I began to hear rumblings about parish closings. At the time, I wasn’t too worried because I believed that our bishop (arguably one of our better bishops) would resist and do everything he could to keep churches open and ensure access to the Sacraments. I was shocked when he announced the closing of all churches in his Diocese (including our FSSP parish) – even though our governor designated churches as essential services. Thankfully, our local SSPX chapel worked within the confines of federal, state and local health authorities and found a way to remain fully open. After one Sunday watching mass from home on TV, we were able to participate in the full spectrum of Holy Week services at the SSPX Chapel. We’ve been (almost) exclusively attending the SSPX chapel ever since, even though it adds about 30 minutes to our commute.Advertisement – Continue Reading Below

These and other things caused me to think a bit differently about the FSSP. While I believe their priests and faithful are solid Catholics genuinely trying to promote and defend the one true faith, below the surface are uncomfortable compromises. Without exception, the FSSP priests I know (inwardly) object to the errors (and the “spirit”) of Vatican II, as well as other modern errors. In this regard, their beliefs are very similar to those of the SSPX priests I know. While the SSPX has been open in opposing these errors, the FSSP seems willing to merely harbor their concerns in private in order to remain in the good graces of the Pope, their local bishops, and others. For me, this begs the question: which position is the more charitable and intellectually honest?

We recently watched in dismay as FSSP parishes around the country bowed to the bishops’ unlawful church closing orders. It begs the question: what the FSSP will do as Traditionis Custodes is fully implemented? They may soon be faced with the same dilemma Archbishop Lefebvre faced in 1988. While the Archbishop had a unique and personal “birds’ eye view” of the crisis of the church at that time, it was relatively hidden from most Catholics. Given what has transpired over the last several years under Pope Francis, it is now nearly impossible for good Catholics to deny that a serious crisis exists. I can only hope that God is allowing this to bring about a greater good and I pray that God’s will prevails for the good of His Church for the salvation of souls.

For our family, we saw from experience that the SSPX – despite any shortcomings of individual priests or faithful – has been the only group faithfully Catholic through all these years. For this reason above all, we are at home in the SSPX chapel.

Unite the Clans!

We cannot fail to mention another sad observation of our experiences with both the FSSP and SSPX. While I admire and respect the good priests and faithful in both traditional communities, even today, roughly 33 years after the 1988 consecrations and the split with FSSP, there exist myths and misunderstandings among FSSP adherents about the SSPX. Many of them even believing that the SSPX embraces sedevacantism. Most FSSP priests I’ve known seem content to let these misperceptions persist among their flocks when they know better. But to be fair, there are misconceptions about the FSSP among SSPX faithful as well.Advertisement – Continue Reading Below

I admire and respect the good priests and faithful of the FSSP and SSPX. As faithful Catholics, we can’t afford to let these myths and misunderstandings perpetuate and fester any longer. Let us pray that all Catholics of good will can take up the mantles of humility and charity and begin the process of healing. We need each other now more than ever.

I would like to leave off with a hopeful and happy note. We’ve been blessed with four awesome children who remain faithful traditional Catholics, thanks be to God. Our three older children, now young adults out on their own, remain faithful while striving to live out their Catholic faith in an increasingly hostile culture while our home-schooled 10-year-old knows far more about his Catholic faith than I did as a young adult and is the first to remind his dad about our daily rosary. While there remains a gaping hole in my heart and my soul knowing what could have been since 1993, I am eternally grateful for what God has given us despite my failures.

It is my hope that, by sharing our story, others might be encouraged to do their own research regarding the SSPX, FSSP and other traditional Catholic options and put to rest some of the more common myths and misperceptions. We pray that our story might help others avoid falling prey to the errors that are all too rampant in the Novus Ordo parishes today and find their way home to a good, traditional Catholic community.

John Janney

John is a cradle Catholic husband and father of four from rural Western Montana. Born as the second Vatican Council was getting underway, John lived through the “new springtime” in the church which had disastrous effects on his family and many close Catholic friends from his youth. Years later, by God’s grace, John and his family discovered that the unadulterated Catholic faith was still promoted and defended in a few traditional Catholic communities which has restored their faith in Christ and His Church. Now semi-retired and living in the desert Southwest with his lovely wife of 28 years and homeschooling their youngest son, John shares their story in the hopes that it might help even one Catholic avoid the many mistakes he made as a young husband and father that were all too common in the Novus Ordo parishes.

Why Is the Left Suddenly Worried

About the End of Democracy?

It is quite simple. The Left expects to

lose power over the next two years.

By: Victor Davis Hanson

The Patriot Post

December 16, 2021

(Emphasis added)

What is behind recent pessimistic appraisals of democracy’s future, from Hillary Clinton, Adam Schiff, Brian Williams, and other elite intellectuals, media personalities, and politicians on the Left? Some are warning about its possible erosion in 2024. Others predict democracy’s downturn as early 2022, with scary scenarios of “autocracy” and Trump “coups.”

To answer that question, understand first what is not behind these shrill forecasts.

ü They are not worried about 2 million foreign nationals crashing the border in a single year, without vaccinations during a pandemic. Yet it seems insurrectionary for a government simply to nullify its immigration laws.

ü They are not worried that some 800,000 foreign nationals, some residing illegally, will now vote in New York City elections.

ü They are not worried that there are formal efforts underway to dismantle the U.S. Constitution by junking the 233-year-old Electoral College or the preeminence of the states in establishing ballot laws in national elections.

ü They are not worried that we are witnessing an unprecedented left-wing effort to scrap the 180-year-old filibuster, the 150-year-old nine-person Supreme Court, and the 60-year tradition of 50 states, for naked political advantage.

ü They are not worried that the Senate this year put on trial an impeached ex-president and private citizen, without the chief justice in attendance, without a special prosecutor or witnesses, and without a formal commission report of presidential high crimes and misdemeanors.

ü They are not worried that the FBI, Justice Department, CIA, Hillary Clinton, and members of the Obama Administration systematically sought to use U.S. government agencies to sabotage a presidential campaign, transition, and presidency, via the use of a foreign national and ex-spy Christopher Steele and his coterie of discredited Russian sources.

ü They are not worried that the Pentagon suddenly has lost the majority support of the American people. Top current and retired officers have flagrantly violated the chain-of-command, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and without data or evidence have announced a hunt in the ranks for anyone suspected of “white rage” or “white supremacy.”

ü They are not worried that in 2020, a record 64 percent of the electorate did not cast their ballots on Election Day.

ü Nor are they worried that the usual rejection rate in most states of non-Election Day ballots plunged — even as an unprecedented 101 million ballots were cast by mail or early voting.

ü And they are certainly not worried that partisan billionaires of Silicon Valley poured well over $400 million into selected precincts in swing states to “help” public agencies conduct the election.

What then is behind this new left-wing hysteria about the supposed looming end of democracy?

It is quite simple. The Left expects to lose power over the next two years — both because of the way it gained and used it, and because of its radical, top-down agendas that never had any public support.

After gaining control of both houses of Congress and the presidency — with an obsequious media and the support of Wall Street, Silicon Valley, higher education, popular culture, entertainment, and professional sports — the Left has managed in just 11 months to alienate a majority of voters.

The nation has been wracked by unprecedented crime and nonenforcement of the borders. Leftist district attorneys either won’t indict criminals; they let them out of jails or both.

Illegal immigration and inflation are soaring. 

Deliberate cuts in gas and oil production helped spike fuel prices.

All this bad news is on top of the Afghanistan disaster, worsening racial relations, and an enfeebled president.

Democrats are running 10 points behind the Republicans in generic polls, with the midterms less than a year away.

Joe Biden’s negatives run between 50 and 57 percent — in Donald Trump’s own former underwater territory.

Less than a third of the country wants Biden to run for reelection. In many head-to-head polls, Trump now defeats Biden.

In other words, leftist elites are terrified that democracy will work too robustly.

After the Russian collusion hoax, two impeachments, the Hunter Biden laptop stories, the staged melodramas of the Kavanaugh hearings, the Jussie Smollett con, the Covington kids smear, and the Rittenhouse trial race frenzy, the people are not just worn out by leftist hysterias, but they also weary of how the Left gains power and administers it.

If Joe Biden were polling at 70 percent approval, and his policies at 60 percent, the current doomsayers would be reassuring us of the “health of the system.”

They are fearful and angry not because democracy doesn’t work, but because it does despite their media and political efforts to warp it.

When a party is hijacked by radicals and uses almost any means necessary to gain and use power for agendas that few Americans support, then average voters express their disapproval.

That reality terrifies an elite. It then claims any system that allows the people to vote against the Left is not people’s power at all.

_

St. Nathaniel

December 10, 2021

“The world moves forward in approximations,

And near hits are considered as good as a bull’s eye,

And whether the glass is half full or half empty

Seems immaterial to anyone as long as there is something in the glass at all.

But into such a world Truth was born,

Arriving as fully man and fully God,

And stopping approximations in their tracks.

The world attempted to fit Him neatly

Into the framework of a world where “maybe” was as good as a promise,

And “almost” was as good as right on the mark,

But He sliced through their framework

With razor-sharp precision.

And then the glass was not half-full or half-empty; it was overflowing.

And there was no mention of a promise,

But, instead, there was a covenant between God and His people,

Sealed with the blood of the Lamb.

The world moves forward in approximations,

And considers near hits as good as a bull’s eye.

But not in Our Lord’s Church!

For what He has revealed is not a wisp or a hint of something solid;

It is a rock, and it cannot be moved.

So you holy men and women,

Speak not of blurred lines,

Of things that are true one day and false the next,

Of ambiguities and illusions.

For His truth is a sword that cuts through all that is laid out

With razor-sharp precision,

Leaving truth on one side and error on the other.

How then, apostles, shall you allow what you have been given to guard

To be sacrificed on the altar of ambiguity?

For what you have been given to guard

Is to be presented intact and without compromise when He calls your name.

And I have indeed given my life for it,

And now it has been handed to you.

Will you not hold it secure?”

-S

The Death of California

Why does California keep embracing 

ever-more-radical policy?

By: Ben Shapiro

The Patriot Post

December 15, 2021

(Emphasis added)

In The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Victor Hugo told the tale of Esmerelda, a gypsy dancer falsely accused of attempted murder, set to be hanged by an unjust state. Quasimodo, the titular hunchback, swings down from the cathedral of Notre Dame and saves her, carrying her off while crying “Sanctuary!” In fact, throughout European history, churches provided places of safe haven for accused criminals; the claim of “sanctuary” is made to this day by people seeking refuge from the law.

It is strange, however, to see the language of sanctuary adopted to protect precisely the sort of activity abhorred by anyone of religious bent: abortion. The secular sacrament of abortion has become so sacred, however, that the governor of California, Gavin Newsom, recently announced his intent to make his state the first abortion sanctuary in the nation. “We’ll be a sanctuary,” Newsom announced. “We are looking at ways to support that inevitability and looking at ways to expand our protections.”

The state of California, according to Newsom’s Democratic legislative allies, could provide travel expenses including gas, lodging, transportation, and child care for those seeking to kill their unborn children. Already, some 15% of America’s abortions occur in California, according to the Guttmacher Institute. That number would skyrocket if the state began subsidizing abortions across the land.

None of this is particularly surprising. It is telling, however, that as California sinks into the mire, it embraces ever more radical social policy. This is a state that currently houses — no pun intended — some 162,000 homeless people, a number that increased approximately 24% from 2018 to 2020. About a quarter of all homeless people in the United States currently reside in California.

Meanwhile, crime in California has become endemic, with smash-and-grabs roiling major cities and even wealthy residents murdered in their homes. This week, the head of the Los Angeles police union, Jamie McBride, warned people to stay out of the city, explaining, “We can’t guarantee your safety. It is really, really out of control.” Even former LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa laments, “Rome is burning.”

And California’s economy trails the nation’s, too. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, California is tied for the worst unemployment rate in the nation, at 7.3%. And while California is currently experiencing a seven-day rolling average of just 67 COVID-19 deaths — compared with 550 at the height of the pandemic — Newsom recently reimposed another monthlong statewide indoor mask mandate.

So why does California keep embracing ever-more-radical policy? Because radicalism is itself the moral justification for policy failure.

Sure, Democrats can argue, crime and homelessness are out of control, the economy is stagnating, and businesses are leaving. But that’s morally excusable because California seeks a higher purpose: the purpose of Leftist utopianism. Thus, Newsom has little to say about California’s stagnation, but much to say about how California will push new laws targeting gun ownership.

For years, Democrats have claimed that California leads the nation. We can only hope they’re wrong.

___________________________________________________

OnePeterFive

Rebuilding Catholic Culture. Restoring Catholic Tradition.

• ARCHITECTURE
• MUSIC
• THE PAPACY

The Tough Pope and His Great Works

 Massimo ScapinDecember 13, 20210 Comments

Five centuries ago, on December 13, 1521, in Le Grotte, now Grottammare, a charming town on the Adriatic coast in the Marche region, was born the tough pope: Sixtus V, whose original name was Felice Peretti.

The great Roman dialect poet Giuseppe Gioachino Belli (1791–1863) celebrates him in one of his gracious sonnets:

Among all those who have held the place
Of God’s vicar, there had never been seen before
Such a quarrelsome, tough, crazy
Pope as Pope Sixtus[1]

Advertisement – Continue Reading Below

Felice was born into a humble family, originally from Montalto Marche. The future pope will always be linked to his popular origins and his fellow-countrymen, granting them gifts and privileges. Entering the Order of Friars Minor Conventual at the age of 13, at 27 he became a doctor in theology in the town of Fermo. Four years later he was connected with Cardinal Michele Ghislieri, the future Pope Pius V (1504-1572), who consecrated him bishop in 1566 and created him cardinal in 1570. Elected pope by acclamation on April 24, 1585, Sixtus V ruled for just five years with the utmost vigor.

Reviewing these years in brief, the tough pope eradicated the serious problem of banditry; he implemented the decrees of the Council of Trent (1545-1563) and in 1586 the number of Cardinals was fixed by him to 70; in the field of international relations he maintained the vital freedom for the Church and fought the Protestant infection.

His trusted architect, Domenico Fontana (1543-1607), to change the face of Rome in just five years. His major works were these: he erected four ancient obelisks surmounted by crosses (the Vatican Obelisk, the Flaminian Obelisk, the Esquilino Obelisk and the Lateran Obelisk); he crowned the two triumphal columns of imperial Rome (the Column of Marcus Aurelius and the Trajan’s Column) with statues of Saints Peter and Paul, apostles, respectively; he completed the dome of St. Peter’s and had his Sistine Chapel built in the Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore, where he is buried today; he ordered the expansion of the Vatican Apostolic Library, where you can admire the wonderful Sistine Hall, decorated by some of the greatest painters of the time; he built the very important aqueduct, called Acqua Felice, solving the problems of water distribution in the center of Rome; he built the current Lateran Palace and expanded the papal residence of the Quirinal. Struck by fevers, he died at the Quirinale on the evening of August 27, 1590, at the age of sixty-eight.

While the Vatican Philatelic and Numismatic Office dedicated to him two stamps, we want to recall two events that affect music. The first concerns the Orchestra and Choir of the Accademia Nazionale di Santa Cecilia: “these two institutions, because of their history, the quality of their musical skill and their typically ‘Italian’ sound represent Rome and Italy in the global musical arena.”[2] On May 1, 1585, with the bull Ratione congruit,  Sixtus V established the Congregazione dei Musici sotto l’invocazione della Beata Vergine e dei Santi Gregorio e Cecilia (The Congregation of Musicians under the invocation of the Blessed Virgin, Saint Gregory and Saint Cecilia) which would have so much importance in Roman musical life — thus linking among its patrons alongside the woman of the Magnificat the two musical saints par excellence. The great Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina (1525-1594) was also part of that Congregation, which lasted until the 18th century. In the 19th century it revived, dividing into two branches, for “secular” music with the name of Accademia Nazionale di Santa Cecilia; and for “sacred” music with the name of Associazione Italiana Santa Cecilia.[3]

The raising of the obelisk in 1586The second event is certainly a memorable event which took place in the Year of Grace 1586: the transportation of the Neronian obelisk from where it was located near the Sacristy in the center of St. Peter’s Square, and its raising. The undertaking, which took 800 men, 160 horses, 40 windlasses and dozens of ropes, is documented by Domenico Fontana. The day of September 10, when the works are finished, was marked by a solemn procession. Bishop Bartolomeo Ferratino junior celebrated mass at the altar set up near the obelisk.[4] The “spire” was blessed with the singing of the Cappella Giulia (St. Peter’s singers in Rome), conducted Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina. Fontana himself, after having listed the psalms and the  recited prayers, recounts:

And then the Bishop gave the Cross to the Deacon, who, helped by clerics, lifted it up, and while it was pulled up, the Hymn Vexilla regis prodeunt [“The banners of the King go forth”]. was sung till the verse O crux ave Spes unica in hoc solemni tempore, [“Hail O Cross our only hope”] and when the Cross was placed on the top of the Spire, the Deacon holding it by the foot, while it was supported by the builders, everyone downstairs knelt down, and the Singers sang: O crux ave spes unica in hoc solemni tempore, etc., finishing the Hymn, and the trumpets gave a sign of joy.[5]

Advertisement – Continue Reading Below

Further on, the author names all the participants in the procession: the Mansionari (priests reciting Mass for the soul of a benefactor), the Chaplains, the Beneficiary Clerics, the Beneficiaries. After these Mr. Giovan Pietro Prenestini with eighteen Singers came.[6]https://www.youtube.com/embed/ui-N4E-OG8M?feature=oembed

Here is Palestrina, of which Sixtus V is great admirer and patron, conducting his own Vexilla regis for 4 voices. Taken from the hymn text by Venantius Fortunatus (530-607) in which Christ, who reigns from the height of that throne of love and not of dominion that is the Cross, is exalted, this version was published by the Prince of Music in the grandiose collection of 45 Hymni totius anni (hymns for the whole year) dedicated precisely then to the happily reigning tough pope. “This work” — the composer writes in the Latin dedicatory —

Whatever it may be, I offer to your holiness with all humility. As the matter itself has always been deeply appreciated by your holiness, so I hope that my care for it will be approved, if not for the artistic ability, at least for the intention and the attempt. Rome, April 16, 1589.[7]

Poor Pierluigi with only eighteen singers facing St. Peter’s Square: what a consolation for those of us who have to perform this music in the open air!Advertisement – Continue Reading Below

How many things to remember and how many to enjoy, thanks to a humble boy born 500 years ago and who became Sixtus the Fifth! Indeed Sixtus the Last — Belli docet —

Because not too soon
Another pope may have the whim
Of naming himself Sixtus the Sixth![8]

Photos: wikipedia commons.

[1] I sonetti romaneschi di G. G. B., a cura di L. Morandi, Vol. 3, Città di Castello 1886, p. 266.Advertisement – Continue Reading Below

[2] Benedict XVI, Address, October 1, 2020.

[3] Cf. John Paul II, Homily, September 21, 1980

[4] D. Rezza & M. Stocchi, Il capitolo di San Pietro in Vaticano dalle origini al XX secolo, Edizioni Capitolo Vaticano, 2008, p. 330.

[5] D. Fontana, Della trasportatione dell’obelisco vaticano et delle fabriche di Nostro Signore Papa Sisto V. Libro primo, Roma 1590, p. 33 verso.Advertisement – Continue Reading Below

[6] D. Fontana, Ibidem, p. 34 verso.

[7] In L. Bianchi, Palestrina: nella vita, nelle opere, nel suo tempo, Fondazione Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina, 1995, p. 226.

[8] G. G. Belli, ibídem.

Massimo Scapin

Massimo Scapin, an Italian conductor of both opera and the symphonic repertoire, composer, and pianist, holds degrees in piano and choral conducting from the State Conservatory of Music in Perugia, in orchestral conducting and composition from the National College of Music in London, and in religious science (magna cum laude) from the Pontifical Lateran University.  Massimo appeared as guest conductor and pianist in Europe, Japan, Kazakhstan, Korea, and the United States. He was also a Vatican Radio commentator and entertainer. He currently serves as Director of Liturgical Music at St. John Cantius Church in Chicago.

OnePeterFive

Rebuilding Catholic Culture. Restoring Catholic Tradition.

• LEFEBVRE / SSPX
• THE SSPX DEBATE

Defense of the SSPX – A Thomistic Approach

 Joshua MayDecember 15, 20210 Comments

The question of the legitimacy and canonical status of the Priestly Society of St Pius X has been debated in all variety of media and formats. It seems most fitting to me, however, to approach the question from a perspective that would surely meet with the approval of the Society’s saintly founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. I speak, namely, of a Thomistic approach. The Archbishop was trained as a seminarian under the famed French Thomist Fr. Henri Le Floch who taught him the value of Thomism. Lefebvre spoke repeatedly of how the scholastic approach to theology confirmed him in the faith, helped him to reject a brief flirtation with modernism, and set him on the path of solid doctrine and adherence to Eternal Tradition that became the calling card of his entire later career. It is within this Thomistic framework of a well-reasoned argument that I hope to present a defense of the SSPX.

On a personal note, I once counted myself as an ardent opponent of the Society, before I had a “Saul on the Road to Damascus” moment. It was systematic examination of the issue—considering the arguments of the Society, the most common counterarguments, and rebuttals to said counterarguments—that, after over a year of prayer and study, finally convinced me that the Society’s positions are not only defensible, but indispensable. I present here a few common questions and objections regarding the Society and its canonical status, considering and responding to each in the manner of St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica. Not all aspects of the SSPX debate can be covered here—and in those questions I address, I offer not a comprehensive coverage of all aspects of the issue, but rather a summary and starting point—but I offer for the reader a few of the more pressing questions. For a deeper examination of these and other questions, I enthusiastically refer the reader to the Society’s “Crisis in the Church” podcast series, which admirably and comprehensively summarizes the entire matter.Advertisement – Continue Reading Below

Editor’s note: if you are unfamiliar with a Thomistic argument, read the question and then skip to “On the contrary” where the author gives his argument.

Does the Society of St Pius X espouse the heresy of sedevacantism?

Objection 1: It would seem that the Society is sedevacantist. They have repeatedly disobeyed the popes, an implicit denial of their legitimate authority over the Church.

Objection 2: Further, by discouraging attendance at the Novus Ordo—the Mass celebrated by the Holy Father but which the Society claims is laden with heretical leanings—the Society would have the faithful to believe that the Pope is a public heretic and thus not worthy of obedience.

On the contrary, the Society and its leaders have never denied that the Holy See has been filled and the powers of the papacy have been lawfully exercised by Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis.Advertisement – Continue Reading Below

I answer that, there is manifest evidence that the Society neither espouses nor tolerates sedevacantist attitudes. First and most importantly, the name of the current pontiff is always mentioned in the Canon of the Mass. This alone is sufficient evidence of the Society’s recognition of Pope Francis (and his predecessors) as Pope, as one cannot be “una cum,” in the words of the Canon, “one with” an antipope. The Society’s use of this name in the Canon indicates explicit and visible unity with, and recognition of, Pope Francis as Bishop of Rome. Further, Pope Francis’s picture is readily visible on the walls of SSPX chapels and seminaries around the world. Finally, Angelus Press—the publishing arm of the Society—publishes works specifically dedicated to refuting the sedevacantist position.

Reply Obj. 1: Adherence to the reigning pontiff in all things lawful is so important to the Society that it occasioned a split within the SSPX itself, in 1983. A group of priests advocating greater resistance to Rome and entertaining sedevacantist notions split away from the SSPX and founded the Society of St Pius V, a schismatic group that at the very least tolerates sedevacantism. These priests would have had no reason to leave if the SSPX on these grounds were truly disobedient to the Pope.

Reply Obj. 2: The Society has never said that the Pope is a heretic, simply that he, like the vast majority of prelates and priests, celebrate an immensely problematic rite that could and often does foster heresy. Theological and doctrinal criticisms of the Novus Ordo are not limited to the ranks of the SSPX alone. Theologians, liturgists, scholars, and lay people of every walk of life have sounded the alarm on issues like the obscuring of the sacrificial nature of the Mass, its implicitly ecumenical prejudice, and its violent rupture with the organic development of the liturgy.

Is the SSPX in schism?

Objection 1: It would seem that Archbishop Lefebvre’s consecration of four bishops—against the express orders of Pope John Paul II—constitute ipso facto an act of schism.Advertisement – Continue Reading Below

Objection 2: Further, the Society sets up chapels and priories around the world without the consent of the local ordinary, thus creating a parallel Church not in union with the bishops of the world.

On the contrary, the Society has never intended to leave the visible unity of the Church, nor to establish a parallel hierarchy. A group that does not declare its intention (by word or deed) to separate from the Pope is not, by definition, in schism.

I answer that, while the position of the Society is one of the complex issues in ecclesiology today, a careful examination of the facts will bear out the truth that they are manifestly not in schism, defined as separation from the visible hierarchy of the Church under the Bishop of Rome.

The Society has never declared the See of Peter to be vacant; has never denied the authority of the bishops; has never called into question the validity of the new rite of Holy Orders; and has never established a parallel hierarchy. All of the above are common features among Catholic schismatic groups. Several times, the SSPX has willingly received apostolic visitators, most recently Bishop Athanasius Schneider. As mentioned above, the priests of the Society name the pope in the canon, and so too do they mention the local Catholic ordinary. The SSPX has a standing policy of answering summons from Rome without question, always willing to discuss. The best thought experiment to show that the Society is not in schism would be to consider how a genuinely schismatic group with lawful orders and apostolic succession, such as the Eastern Orthodox, would respond in similar situations. Can one truly imagine the Greek schismatics naming the Pope or Catholic bishop in their Divine Liturgies? Or accepting official inspectors from Rome? It stretches the bounds of believability. This contrast shows clearly how different in position and temperament is the Society from genuinely schismatic groups.Advertisement – Continue Reading Below

Reply Obj. 1: The consecration of bishops by Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Meyer endowed four men with the power to confer Holy Orders, Confirmation, and other sacramental prerogatives of a bishop. It expressly did not confer on them jurisdiction—the power of binding and loosing, which is reserved to the holder of the keys, the pope.

Archbishop Lefebvre himself said that he could do no more than consecrate auxiliary bishops, not bishops with dioceses or jurisdiction of any kind. To underscore this point, SSPX bishops have only ever served exceptionally as Superior General of the Society since the death of Archbishop Lefebvre. This role is usually reserved to priests, in part to make clear that the bishops of the Society do not have any more legitimate right to govern than the priests.

To put the matter crudely: Archbishop Lefebvre did not consecrate members of the hierarchy, he consecrated “sacrament machines” whose sole purpose was to ensure the propagation of the faith and the continuity of the sacraments in an emergency situation—his own declining health and the utter lack of likeminded bishops who could carry on his work. Indeed, the move to consecrate was called “Operation Survival,” highlighting the exigency involved. Only the pope could ever award powers of jurisdiction to the bishops of the SSPX, or any other bishop—something that Lefebvre, far from denying, explicitly acknowledged.

Reply Obj. 2: The mention of the name of the local ordinary in the canon of the Mass indicates a visible expression of unity with the head of a diocese where an SSPX chapel exists. On matters where the SSPX has no, and claims no, jurisdiction, such as marriage tribunal cases, said matters are always referred to the local diocese. Before a new SSPX chapel is dedicated, the local ordinary is always notified. A schismatic group would not do any of this.

Was Archbishop Lefebvre legitimately excommunicated in 1988?

Advertisement – Continue Reading Below

Objection 1: It would seem that Archbishop Lefebvre was excommunicated legitimately. In his apostolic letter Ecclesia Dei adflicta, Pope John Paul II wrote that “Mons. Lefebvre…[has] incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.”

Objection 2: Further, regardless of the provisions of canon law, the pope reserves the right to excommunicate whom he will, even in the absence of a formal canonical trial.

Objection 3: It would seem that, because obedience is essential to the unity of the Church, that there is no excuse for disobeying an order of the Pope.

On the contrary, the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre was never promulgated or enacted on a valid basis, and thus cannot be held to have been at any time valid or binding.Advertisement – Continue Reading Below

I answer that, according to the Code of Canon Law of 1983 (canon 1323),

A person who acted coerced by great fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity, or grave inconvenience unless the act is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls” is “not subject to a penalty when they have violated a law or precept.

A careful examination of this canon supports the official position of the Society, which is that Archbishop Lefebvre was not validly excommunicated, even though the pope quapope had the power to effect an excommunication. Even a superficial look at the Archbishop’s life reveals a man engaged in profound spiritual battle with the forces of darkness enveloping the Church. Agree or disagree with his positions or actions, one must admit that the Archbishop was genuinely concerned with the situation in the Church and that he saw himself as duty-bound, by virtue of his office, to respond.

He saw his own actions through the lens of a “state of necessity”: as he saw it, no one else was around to carry on the traditional liturgy or the perennial teachings of the Magisterium, especially teachings on Liberalism, Modernism, ecumenism, and religious liberty. A sober analysis of the goings-on of the latter half of the twentieth century revealed a Church in perhaps the starkest crisis since the times of Arius: mass apostasy, scandal at the highest levels of the Church, a turning away from Tradition.

Especially key to understanding Archbishop Lefebvre’s state of mind is the Assisi World Day of Prayer for Peace in 1986, just two years before the fateful consecrations. Motivated by a fear for the loss of the faith and fully convinced of the necessity of action—especially the necessity for his action, as a bishop and successor to the apostles, with obligations and duties proper to his state of life that are not proper to the same degree to the state of life of priests or laypeople—Archbishop Lefebvre saw no recourse but to do what he did. Given these motivations, the fact of his advancing age and declining health, and the fact that the act of consecrating bishops is manifestly not “intrinsically evil or tend[ing] to the harm of souls,” it can only be concluded that no grounds existed for the incurring of ecclesiastical penalty.Advertisement – Continue Reading Below

Reply Obj. 1: The Pope in this document does not positively excommunicate Lefebvre (i.e., he does not say “I excommunicate you” in the active voice) but rather states, as if it were a matter of fact, that Lefebvre and the others “have incurred the grave penalty” (emphasis added), in the passive. This indicates that it is referring to an act not taken by the pope himself but automatically incurred by canon law, with no positive declaration of the pope needed—indeed, under the 1983 code, such consecrations would be worthy of excommunication latae sententiae; that is, not needing an explicit declaration by the pope. However, the pope predicates his declarative statement on the following phrase: “envisaged by ecclesiastical law.” Thus, the Pope says not “I excommunicate” but “the law excommunicates.” According to the same ecclesiastical law, such a penalty emphatically was not in this case automatically binding for the reasons discussed above.

Reply Obj. 2: Excommunications are not an infallible act of the magisterium and thus are subject to the errancy of the Pope as a man and sinner. History contains numerous examples of nakedly unjust excommunications, with the most famous example being that of the St Athanasius—a man later canonized and declared a Doctor of the Church. In the Middle Ages, Popes Martin IV and Boniface VIII wielded excommunication as a political weapon, without moral justification. In one infamous case, Boniface even excommunicated unborn children. These cases demonstrate that excommunication can in some cases be invalidly applied, and an invalid punishment has no standing in God’s eyes.

Reply Obj. 3: The pope, while owed all lawful obedience, is not to be obeyed blindly and unthinkingly, as if he were incapable of error. We must avoid an exaggerated ultramontanism that violates the strictly defined boundaries of the Pope’s infallibility. According to Canon 1752, “the salvation of souls[…]must always be the supreme law in the eyes of the Church,” taking precedence even over obedience.

If a spiritual work, such as the consecration of a bishop, is necessary for the salvation of souls, it cannot be forbidden or wrong, even if the letter of the law in another place would seem to forbid it. To take an example from secular life: civil law in the United States prescribes driving on the right side of the road. This is ordinary law. But if I am driving in the right hand lane, in full accord with the law, and suddenly see a car ahead of me, hurtling toward me at full speed, am I not only right but bound to swerve into the left lane, supposing that it is empty? In other words, am I not only allowed but obligated to suspend the application of a given law (and human law, as Aquinas tells us, must always be dispensable in principle, as a matter of justice) to adhere to a higher law, that of saving life?

This is essentially what Archbishop Lefebvre did when he consecrated bishops against the orders of the Pope. As the Archbishop said,

We adhere with our whole heart, and with our whole soul to Catholic Rome…to eternal Rome…we refuse and have always refused to follow the Rome of neo-modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies.

Joshua MayJoshua May lives in Warsaw, Poland with his wife and daughter. He has BAs in political science and history and focuses professionally on Eastern and Central Europe. He has particular interests in the traditional liturgy, Church history, integralism, and political philosophy.  He attends the Immaculate Conception priory of the Society of St. Pius X in Warsaw.

THIS EGREGIOUS ACT OF BERGOLIO AGAINST TRADITION ATTACKED THE MARGINALIZED SHEEP WHILE SCREAMING “UNITY! UNITY!” WHEN THERE IS NO UNITY.

OnePeterFive

Rebuilding Catholic Culture. Restoring Catholic Tradition

• FEATURED COMMENTARY
• TRADITIONIS CUSTODES

Rome Against the Roman Rite: A Template for Cowardice Continued

 Timothy FlandersDecember 15, 20210 Comments

Dear OnePeterFive donors, supporters and readers,

It has now been confirmed by Rorate that this is going to be a “template for cowardly bishops” as OnePeterFive writer Raymond Kowalski said.

The heretics who hate the Roman rite are hoping to implement their error-ridden motu proprio from the model in Rome. This egregious act of the Pontiff against Tradition attacked the marginalized sheep while screaming “Unity! Unity!” when there is no unity.

Pope Francis says, “Mercy! Mercy!” when there is no mercy.

Peace! Peace! they say. When there is no peace (Jer. vi. 14).

What kind of justification will come now? It doesn’t matter. They’re not even trying any more with the propaganda. As Dom Alcuin Reid quite rightly asked, “Does Traditionis Custodes pass liturgical history 101″? (From Benedict’s Peace to Francis’s War, 252-259).Advertisement – Continue Reading Below

Still, in the motu proprio they did not dare to explicitly contradict Summorum Pontificum, but invented the historical fiction that Benedict’s document was primarily about the SSPX.

In a comical twist of the Holy Spirit’s Providence, this exact idea was posed to Benedict XVI by Peter Seewald before the motu proprio. In other words, the entire justification given in Traditionis Custodes was explicitly proposed to Benedict XVI after Summorum Pontificum. Peter Seewald told Benedict in 2017 what Francis would say about Benedict’s work in 2021. How did Benedict respond?

[Peter Seewald:] The reauthorization of the Tridentine Mass is often interpreted primarily as a concession to the Society of St Pius X.

[Benedict XVI Emeritus:] That is just absolutely false! It was important for me that the Church is one with herself inwardly, with her own past; that what was previously holy to her is not somehow wrong now. The rite must develop. In that sense reform is appropriate. But the continuity must not be ruptured. The Society of St Pius X is based on the fact that people felt the Church was renouncing itself. That must not be. But as I said, my intentions were not of a tactical nature, they were about the substance of the matter itself. Of course it is also the case that, the moment one sees a Church schism looming, the Pope is obliged to do whatever is possible to prevent it happening. This also includes the attempt to lead these people back into unity with the Church, if possible.[1]

It is fallacious to claim, as Pope Francis did, that Summorum Ponitificum was “primarily” about the SSPX. Benedict says clearly “this is just absolutely false!” It is, rather, “about the substance of the matter itself.” It is quite clear to anyone who studies Ratzinger’s thought that he condemned Paul VI’s suppression of the Latin Mass in 1969, without any consideration of what the SSPX was or was not doing.[2] That’s why His Eminence Cardinal Sarah, the greatest living exponent of Ratzinger’s thought (whom Benedict appointed to implement his “reform of the reform”) condemned Traditionis Custodes on the basis of the reform itself, regardless of the SSPX. (His Eminence’s text is also found in From Benedict’s Peace to Francis’s War, pp. 295-297.)[3] Reconciling with the SSPX, as Benedict says above, was of secondary importance. In other words, Summorum Pontificum would have been necessary even if SSPX never existed.

It was about the substance of the matter itself.Advertisement – Continue Reading Below

But we saw that Archbishop Roche is willing to explicitly contradict Summorum Pontificum, in his letter to Cardinal Nichols, privately stating that the Roman Rite of our forefathers “in fact, was abrogated by Pope Saint Paul VI.” So we can see that what the propaganda says and what they say privately is not the same thing.

The Decline of the Revolution

Dr. Sebastian Morello observed recently that in the early days of a Communist takeover, the enemies of Christ pour loads of money into propaganda and intelligentsia campaigns to convince the people that the brave new world is just around the corner. They work very hard to re-educate and re-program.

They put “the four olds” down the memory hole and shout “New! New! New!”

Eventually, however, their voice becomes hoarse from shouting this over and over, and they simply grow tired of trying to suppress the natural use of human reason. The Marxists have never been able to make the present or future generations fail to have brains in their heads and logos in their nature.Advertisement – Continue Reading Below

Thus after a strong beginning, the Communists get bored and begin to use more and more violence and brute force, without any appeal to propaganda anymore.

That’s when the mask comes off.

We’re getting to that point now with the pornocratic Vatican mafia. At first, the iconoclasm of the Novus Ordo was defended with buckets of ink. Now historical research has debunked most of the false premises that undergirded the Novus Ordo. And the new rite has been an objective failure to bring about the intended renewal.

This is indeed a glorious time to be a Catholic.Advertisement – Continue Reading Below

As Kwasniewski pointed out months ago, this is the same situation that our fathers faced in 1969 but eventually triumphed. And they had a much worse predicament than we have now, even if His Excellency Archbishop Roche has the temerity to think his high office can rewrite history or turn stones into bread (or feed stones to sheep!).

No, we will prevail because of one thing: the truth. The two greatest empires in the world at the time of Christ – the Roman and Persian – attempted to destroy the faith then, and the Blessed Apostle only rejoiced when he was chained in his jail cell, writing to the Philippians.

Let us then, chained by the “jailers [custodes] of Tradition,” rejoice.

I’ll say it again: rejoice in the Lord! Nothing and no one can overcome the truth. Rather, you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free (Jn. viii. 32).Advertisement – Continue Reading Below

This is why we will never give up.

T. S. Flanders
Editor
Ember Wednesday of AdventAdvertisement – Continue Reading Below

[1] Benedict XVI, Last Testament: In His Own Words, trans. Jacob Philips (Bloomsbury, 2016), 201-202.

[2] “The prohibition of the missal that was now decreed [in 1969], a missal that had known continuous growth over the centuries, starting with the sacramentaries of the ancient Church, introduced a breach into the history of the liturgy whose consequences could only be tragic.” Joseph Ratinzger, Milestones, trans. Erasmo Leiva-Merikakis (Ignatius, 1998), 146-148.

[3] Cardinal Sarah: “What is at stake is therefore much more serious than a simple question of discipline. If she were to claim a reversal of her faith or of her liturgy, in what name would the Church dare address the world? Her only legitimacy is her consistency in her continuity.”

Timothy Flanders

Timothy Flanders is the editor of OnePeterFive. He is the author of City of God versus City of Man: The Battles of the Church from Antiquity to the Present and Introduction to the Holy Bible for Traditional Catholics. His writings have appeared at OnePeterFive and Crisis, as well as in Catholic Family News. In 2019 he founded The Meaning of Catholic, a lay apostolate dedicated to uniting Catholics against the enemies of Holy Church. He holds a degree in classical languages from Grand Valley State University and has done graduate work with the Catholic University of Ukraine. He lives in the Midwest with his wife and four children.meaningofcatholic.com

Archbishop Viganò defends Cardinal Müller and his Great Reset critique

---

Vigano comments on those considered by the ‘globalist Sanhedrin’ to be heretics, ‘unworthy to ask questions about the new dogmas of the health religion defined ex cathedra by the experts in the pay of BigPharma.’

---

Maike
Hickson

Thu Dec 16, 2021 – 10:29 am EST

(LifeSiteNews) – After Cardinal Gerhard Müller gave Catholic activist Alexander Tschugguel a thoughtful and good interview concerning the coronavirus lockdowns, vaccine mandates, and especially the dangerous and anti-democratic agenda of the Great Reset, he came under strong attacks in Germany. Both state and faith leaders rebuked him for purportedly spreading “conspiracy theories” and even “anti-semitic codes,” because he mentioned George Soros as one of the globalists whose worldview he is rejecting.

LifeSite reached out to Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, whose strong position against the Great Reset is well-known, asking him whether he would like to comment on the strong reaction against Cardinal Müller’s reasonable critic of the current political developments which seem to use the health crisis in order to establish an anti-democratic, globalist order.

We thank Archbishop Viganò for his immediate response and help.

Please see here the full statement by the Italian prelate (an Italian version follows the below English translation):

Ephpheta, quod est, Adaperire!

“Ephphatha!”, which means: “Be opened!”

Mk 7:34

The virologist who affirms the ineffectiveness of the vaccine and highlights the serious conflicts of interest in the officials responsible for the authorization of drugs or therapies; the member of the Parliament who objects to the advisability of imposing lockdowns after they have proved useless to contain the pandemic and disastrous for the nation’s economy; the jurist who criticizes the rules imposed by the Government in violation of the Constitution; the parish priest who from the pulpit questions the morality of an experimental serum produced with abortive fetuses; the intellectual who points out how the criminal plan of the Great Resetpromoted by the World Economic Forum and the United Nations Agenda 2030 find timely and disturbing realization precisely following that pandemic emergency hoped for since 2009 by Jacques Attali in the French weekly L’Express are considered by the globalist Sanhedrin as heretics, unworthy to ask questions about the new dogmas of the health religion defined ex cathedra by the experts in the pay of BigPharma. We can imagine what honesty and impartiality can be ensured by controllers paid by the controlled. am not surprised that the truth provokes mixed reactions in those who propagate the error that opposes it. The reactions of the Pharisees to the words of Our Lord – starting with the theatrical gestures of Caiaphas to the proclamation of His divinity by the Messiah – always betray the anger of liars and people in bad faith in the face of the affirmation of truth and intellectual honesty. And this indignation as forced as it is unmotivated, having no arguments to counter the refutation, often moves to the interlocutor, in an attempt to ridicule him, make him pass for mad or a dangerous criminal: the examples we have been able to witness to those who have put in any of the cornerstones of the official narrative on Covid are the confirmation of an intolerant attitude on the part of those who lie, and at the same time the accusation of intolerance towards those who limit themselves to saying a clear evidence of truth.

There is no point in citing the writings and the statements of the exponents of the deep state in which they brazenly confess their criminal project. Let’s take for example the quote from Jacques Attali:

«History teaches us that humanity evolves significantly only when it is really afraid: then it initially develops defense mechanisms; sometimes intolerable (of scapegoats and totalitarianisms); sometimes useless (of distraction); sometimes effective (therapies that deny all previous moral principles if necessary). Then, once the crisis is over, fear transforms these mechanisms to make them compatible with individual freedom and enroll them in a democratic health policy» (https://scenarieconomici.it/jacques-attali-una-piccola-pandemia-permettera- to-establish-a-world-government /).

These words were spoken in 2009, in the imminence of the swine flu for which the WHO was then denounced. In them we can have confirmation of an exact picture of the methods of managing the health emergency, indeed even of the planning of the emergency itself, with the provision of possible responses from citizens. Just a few days ago Attali was interviewed without wearing a mask by two prone journalists, whom he scolded because they were holding the mask under their noses. The anecdote – which you can find in a video on the Internet – is proven proof of the absurdity of the pandemic narrative, which applies to the subjects and slaves of the system, but not to those in charge. Biden, Johnson, Merkel, Draghi, Bergoglio and all the “greats of the world” flaunt contempt for the masses, imposing on them absurd rules that they are the first to break precisely to demonstrate that adherence to this pandemic cult requires fideistic assent, and not it has nothing scientific.

 SUBSCRIBE TO OUR DAILY HEADLINES US Canada Catholic

His Eminence Müller, who is an intellectually honest person, said things already denounced by Cardinal Burke, by Msgr. Schneider and myself, among others; things that Klaus Schwab, George Soros, Bill Gates and all the followers of the Great Reset have always publicly declared, even producing official documents and printing books in which they explain in detail the different scenarios that can be predicted, from pandemic to climatic emergency. And the words of the Cardinal are the confirmation that his name affixed to my Appeal for the Church and for the world of last May 2020 was meditated and desired. I thank Eminence of him for that gesture in some respects courageous.

And I regret that in Germany the mainstream media have accused Cardinal Müller of anti-Semitism, for the simple fact that George Soros and Klaus Schwab have Jewish origins, while they have scrupulously avoided entering into the merits of the matter. Yet similar denunciations against the globalist elite and in particular against Schwab, Gates, Soros, the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers are made by orthodox rabbis and Jews who survived the Nazi concentration camps: are they anti-Semites too? But, again: asking reasonable questions to those who are biased is useless. As in Aesop’s tale, the wolf at the top of the waterway believes he has the right not to let the water be polluted by the lamb downstream.

I can imagine that, for a Cardinal who was also Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, it is somehow challenging and not so easy to take a stand on an issue that sees Bergoglio on the opposite side of propagating Pfizer vaccines and supporting the green economy and inclusive capitalism with the Rothschilds and Rockefellers. But I also think that, if His Eminence had the honesty to denounce the anti-human conspiracy of the New World Order and the interference of the billionaires Gates and Soros in the destiny of nations based on the evidence and the consent of their statements, he will recognize with equal clarity of analysis the same consent to the globalist ideology in the tenant of Santa Marta, who just recently blessed an inter-religious park in Argentina and approved the Foundation Fratelli tutti and its “holistic training” for dialogue with religions. If the interference of Soros and Gates in the government of nations is evident, Bergoglio’s responsibility in giving dignity and legitimacy to the accomplices of the WEF and the UN, to their plans and to those who cooperate with them is undeniable; because ecumenism, the divinization of Mother Earth, the “Amazonian” dimension of the Church, the synodal path, the transhumanism of the Foundation for Artificial Intelligence and all the unfortunate innovations of this pontificate are perfectly consistent with this framework, are instrumental to it and pursue the same end, namely the establishment of the Religion of Humanity which is the necessary goal of the New World Order.

If the health emergency has caused incalculable damage, it has nevertheless the merit of having opened the eyes of so many blind people, of having healed so many deaf and dumb, who return to listen and speak. This grace must be an opportunity for all of us to be able to evaluate with a supernatural gaze what is happening before our eyes, to perceive the inspiring principles and the undeclared purposes, to denounce those responsible and to warn the simple, who rightly expect let their Pastors be the ones to give them healthy indications, and not to push them into the abyss. And to understand how true are the words of the Lord: «Without me you can do nothing» (Jn 15: 5).

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop
December 16, 2021

Ephpheta, quod est, Adaperire!

Effatà, cioè: Apriti! 

Mc 7, 34

Il virologo che afferma l’inefficacia del vaccino e evidenzia i gravi conflitti di interesse nei funzionari preposti all’autorizzazione dei farmaci o delle terapie; il parlamentare che obbietta l’opportunità di imporre lockdown dopo che si sono dimostrati inutili al contenimento della pandemia e disastrosi per l’economia della Nazione; il giurista che critica le norme imposte dal Governo in violazione della Costituzione; il parroco che dal pulpito mette in dubbio la moralità di un siero sperimentale prodotto con cellule di feti abortivi; l’intellettuale che fa notare come il piano criminale del Great Reset promosso dal World Economic Forum e dall’Agenda 2030 delle Nazioni Unite trovino puntuale e inquietante realizzazione proprio a seguito di quell’emergenza pandemica auspicata sin dal 2009 da Jacques Attali sul settimanale francese L’Express, vengono ritenuti dal Sinedrio globalista come eretici, indegni di porsi domande sui nuovi dogmi della religione sanitaria definiti ex cathedra dagli esperti al soldo di BigPharma. Possiamo immaginare quale onestà e quale imparzialità possa essere assicurata da controllori pagati dai controllati.on mi stupisce che la verità provochi reazioni scomposte in chi propaganda l’errore che ad essa si oppone. Le reazioni dei farisei alle parole di Nostro Signore – ad iniziare dai gesti teatrali di Caifa alla proclamazione della propria divinità da parte del Messia – tradiscono sempre la rabbia dei bugiardi e delle persone in malafede davanti all’affermazione della verità e all’onestà intellettuale. E questa indignazione tanto forzata quanto immotivata, non avendo argomenti per ribattere alla confutazione, spesso si sposta sull’interlocutore, nel tentativo di ridicolizzarlo, farlo passare per matto o per un pericoloso criminale. Gli esempi a cui abbiamo potuto assistere a chi abbia messo in discussione uno qualsiasi dei capisaldi della narrazione ufficiale sul Covid sono la conferma di un atteggiamento intollerante da parte di chi mente, e allo stesso tempo all’accusa di intolleranza nei confronti di chi si limita a dire una palese evidenza di verità.

A nulla vale citare gli scritti degli esponenti del deep state in cui confessano sfrontatamente il loro progetto criminale. Prendiamo ad esempio proprio la citazione di Jacques Attali:

«La storia ci insegna che l’umanità evolve significativamente soltanto quando ha realmente paura: allora essa inizialmente sviluppa meccanismi di difesa; a volte intollerabili (dei capri espiatori e dei totalitarismi); a volte inutili (della distrazione); a volte efficaci (delle terapie che negano se necessario tutti i principi morali precedenti). Poi, una volta passata la crisi, la paura trasforma questi meccanismi per renderli compatibili con la libertà individuale ed iscriverli in una politica di salute democratica» (https://scenarieconomici.it/jacques-attali-una-piccola-pandemia-permettera-di-instaura- re-un-governo-mondiale/).

Queste parole sono state pronunciate nel 2009, nell’imminenza dell’influenza suina per la cui falsa emergenza fu poi denunciata l’OMS. In esse possiamo avere conferma di un quadro esatto circa le modalità di gestione dell’emergenza sanitaria, anzi addirittura circa la programmazione dell’emergenza stessa, con la previsione delle possibili risposte da parte dei cittadini. Proprio alcuni giorni fa Attali si è fatto intervistare senza indossare la mascherina da due proni giornalisti, che ha redarguito perché tenevano la mascherina sotto il naso. L’aneddoto – che potete trovare in un video su Internet – è la prova provata dell’assurdità della narrazione pandemica, che vale per i sudditi e gli schiavi del sistema, ma non per chi comanda. Biden, Johnson, la Merkel, Draghi, Bergoglio e tutti i “grandi della terra” ostentano disprezzo per le masse, imponendole norme assurde che essi per primi infrangono proprio per dimostrare che l’adesione a questo culto pandemico richiede un assenso fideistico, e non ha nulla di scientifico.

Sua Eminenza il Cardinale Müller, che è persona intellettualmente onesta, ha detto cose già denunciate dal Card. Burke, da Mons. Scheider e da me, tra gli altri; cose che Klaus Schwab, George Soros, Bill Gates e tutti gli adepti del Great Reset hanno sempre dichiarato pubblicamente, addirittura producendo documenti ufficiali e stampando libri in cui spiegano per filo e per segno i differenti scenari che possono essere ipotizzati, dalla pandemia all’emergenza climatica. E le parole del Porporato sono la conferma che il suo nome apposto al mio Appello per la Chiesa e per il mondo dello scorso Maggio 2020 era meditato e voluto. Di quel gesto per certi aspetti coraggioso ringrazio Sua Eminenza.

E mi dispiace che in Germania i media mainstream abbiano accusato il Cardinale Müller di antisemitismo, per il semplice fatto che George Soros e Klaus Schwab abbiano origini ebraiche, mentre hanno evitato scrupolosamente di entrare nel merito della questione. Eppure, analoghe denunce contro l’élite globalista e segnatamente contro Schwab, Gates, Soros, i Rothschild e i Rockefeller siano formulate da rabbini ortodossi e da Ebrei sopravvissuti ai campi di concentramento nazisti. Sono dunque anche costoro antisemiti? Ma, ancora una volta, porre domande ragionevoli a chi è prevenuto non serve a nulla. Come nella fiaba di Esopo, il lupo in cima al corso d’acqua crede di avere il diritto di non farsi inquinare l’acqua dall’agnello che sta a valle.

Posso immaginare che, per un Cardinale che è stato anche Prefetto della Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede, sia in qualche modo impegnativo e non così semplice prendere posizione su una questione che vede Bergoglio sul fronte opposto a propagandare i vaccini Pfizer e a sostenere la green economy e il capitalismo inclusivo con i Rothschild e i Rockefeller. Ma penso parimenti che, se Sua Eminenza ha avuto l’onestà di denunciare la cospirazione antiumana del Nuovo Ordine Mondiale e le interferenze dei miliardari Gates e Soros nelle sorti delle nazioni, basandosi sull’evidenza e la consentaneità delle loro dichiarazioni, saprà con altrettanta lucidità di analisi riconoscere la stessa consentaneità all’ideologia globalista nell’inquilino di Santa Marta, che proprio in questi giorni ha benedetto un parco interreligioso in Argentina e approvato la Fondazione Fratelli tutti e la sua “formazione olistica” per il dialogo con le religioni. Se sono palesi le interferenze di Soros e di Gates nel governo delle Nazioni, è innegabile la responsabilità di Bergoglio nel dare dignità e legittimità ai complici del WEF e dell’ONU, ai loro piani e a quanti con essi cooperano; perché l’ecumenismo, la divinizzazione della Madre Terra, la dimensione “amazzonica” della Chiesa, il “synodal path”, il transumanesimo della Fondazione per l’Intelligenza Artificiale e tutte le sciagurate innovazioni di questo pontificato sono perfettamente coerenti con questo quadro, sono ad esso strumentali e perseguono il medesimo fine, ossia l’instaurazione quella Religione dell’Umanità che è meta necessaria del Nuovo Ordine Mondiale.

Se l’emergenza sanitaria ha causato danni incalcolabili, essa ha nondimeno il pregio di aver aperto gli occhi a tanti ciechi, di aver guarito tanti sordomuti, che tornano ad ascoltare e a parlare. Questa grazia deve essere per tutti noi un’occasione per saper valutare con uno sguardo soprannaturale quanto accade sotto i nostri occhi, scorgervi i principi ispiratori e gli scopi non dichiarati, denunciarne i responsabili e mettere in guardia i semplici, i quali giustamente si aspettano che siano i loro Pastori a dar loro salutari indicazioni, e non a spingerli nel baratro. E per capire quanto vere siano le parole del Signore: «Senza di me non potete fare nulla» (Gv 15, 5).

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Arcivescovo
16 Dicembre 2021