Many Americans are outraged over Biden’s unconstitutional vaccine mandates.
But now this recently released document shows why many illegal aliens are in favor of Biden’s vaccine mandates.
The crisis at the southern border continues to rage on and the Biden administration is doing nothing about it.
Instead, they’re focused on forcing Americans to get the COVID vaccine, and they’re using every possible measure to make it happen.
No sooner did Joe Biden step into the Oval Office than he swung the doors to the southern border wide open.
It has been an absolute disaster ever since and has put the security of the United States and its citizens at risk.
Despite the mounting issues at the border, Biden continues to focus on getting people vaccinated, even if he has to force them to do it.
Now Joe Biden’s federal vaccine mandate is about to make the crisis at the southern border even worse.
The executive order issued by Biden that mandates all federal employees be vaccinated goes into effect on November 22.
So, why is this making the border crisis look even darker than it already does?
And according to a new Fox News report, almost 50 percent of the Border Patrol workforce could be terminated on November 22 because of Biden’s vaccine mandate.https:
The report leaked by Fox News states:
CBP laid out three scenarios regarding the officers who have yet to report their status. The vaccine mandate may not increase attrition from Fiscal Year 2021 levels (scenario 1), in which case the agency would lose about 1,130 agents, dropping the force of 19,536 to 18,403.
Alternately, agents who have not yet responded will have gotten vaccinated at the same rate as those who have responded (scenario 2), so the agency would lose 3,084 agents, leaving the force with 16,452 agents.
In the worst-case scenario, agents who have not reported their status have done so because they refuse to take the jab, and so they will be terminated (scenario 3). In that case, net attrition could exceed 11,523 agents, leaving a mere 8,013 border agents on patrol.
The Border Patrol agents already can’t keep up with the flood of illegals entering the country and now they’re going to lose employees because of a vaccine.
“The Border Patrol cannot afford to lose a single member of its workforce while the crisis at the border continues to spiral out of control,” stated President of the National Border Patrol Council,
This, of course, means more illegals will be entering the United States by way of an even weaker southern border because they’re not subject to Joe Biden’s mandates.
Joe Biden should be thrown out of office for this.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on BIDEN MUST BE IMPEACHED FOR FLOODING THE United States WITH ILLEGAL ALIENS
For its own moral and practical survival, the FBI should be moved far away from the political and media tentacles that have so deeply squeezed and corrupted it.
By Victor Davis Hanson
American Greatness
November 17, 2021
The Washington, D.C.-based Federal Bureau of Investigation has lost all credibility as a disinterested investigatory agency. Now we learn from a whistleblower that the agency was allegedly investigating moms and dads worried about the teaching of critical race theory in their kids’ schools.
In truth, since 2015, the FBI has been constantly in the news—and mostly in a negative and constitutionally disturbing light.
The fired former Director James Comey injected himself into the 2016 political race by constantly editorializing on his ongoing investigation of candidate Hillary Clinton’s email leaks. In a bizarre twist, the public learned later that Comey had allowed Hillary Clinton’s own private computer contractor, CrowdStrike, to run the investigation of the hack. The private firm was allowed to keep possession of pertinent hard drives central to the investigation. How odd that CrowdStrike’s point man was Shawn Henry, a former high-ranking FBI employee.
During the Robert Mueller special investigation, the FBI implausibly claimed it had no idea how requested information on FBI cell phones had mysteriously disappeared.
It was also under Comey’s directorship that the FBI submitted inaccurate requests for warrants to a FISA court. Elements of one affidavit to surveil Trump supporter Carter Page were forged by FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith, who later pleaded guilty to a felony.
The FBI hired the disreputable ex-British spy Christopher Steele as a contractor, while he was peddling his fantasy—the Clinton-bought dossier—to Obama government officials and the media.
Former FBI general counsel James Baker was reportedly the subject of a federal investigation. He allegedly conducted prominent meetings both with media outlets that later leaked lurid tales from the Steele dossier. He also met repeatedly with the now-indicted Perkins Coie attorney Michael Sussman.
Comey himself, through third-party intermediaries, leaked to the media his own confidential memos detailing private meetings with President Trump. His assurances both to Congress and to Trump that the president was not the current subject of FBI investigations were either misleading or outright lies.
In sworn testimony to the House Intelligence Committee, Comey on some 245 occasions claimed he could not remember or had no knowledge of key elements of his own “Russian collusion” investigation.
Comey’s replacement, acting FBI director Andrew McCabe, was fired for leaking sensitive information to the media. He then lied on at least three occasions about his role to federal attorneys and his own FBI investigators.
McCabe is now a paid CNN consultant who often has offered misleading information on the Russian collusion hoax that he helped promulgate.
Former FBI director and special counsel Robert Mueller conducted a 22-month, $40 million wild goose chase after some mythical “Russian Collusion” plot. When called before Congress, Mueller claimed he had little or no knowledge about Fusion GPS or the Steele Dossier, the twin sources that birthed the entire collusion hoax.
FBI lawyer Lisa Page was removed from Mueller’s investigation, along with her paramour FBI investigator Peter Strzok. Both misused FBI communications, revealing their pro-Clinton biases during their investigations of “Russian collusion,” while hiding their own unprofessional relationship.
Mueller himself staggered their firings and delayed explanations about why they were let go from his investigation team.
When the FBI arrested pro-Trump activist Roger Stone, it did so with a SWAT team—to the tipped-off and lurking CNN reporters.
The FBI repeated such politicized performance art recently when they stormed the home of Project Veritas director James O’Keefe. The agency confiscated his electronic devices on the grounds that he had knowledge of the contents of the allegedly lurid missing diary of Joe Biden’s daughter.
The FBI—an apparent retrieval service of misplaced Biden family embarrassments—also did not disclose that it had possession of Hunter Biden’s laptop at a time when the media was erroneously declaring the computer inauthentic.
O’Keefe was accosted in the pre-morning hours by a crowd of FBI agents, wielding a battering ram, who pushed him out of his home in his underwear.
The time and location of the FBI raid, as in the Stone case, were leaked to the media that cheered the raid shortly after it was conducted. A federal judge recently stopped the FBI’s ongoing monitoring of O’Keefe’s communications.
Wall Street Journal columnist Holman Jenkins recently detailed other FBI lapses such as downplaying evidence that former Olympic gymnastics team doctor Larry Nassar was a known and chronic molester of teenage gymnasts. The agency also extended its witch hunt against the innocent researcher wrongly accused of involvement in the anthrax attacks of 2001.
One could add to such misadventures the mysterious leadership roles of at least 12 FBI informants in the harebrained kidnapping scheme of Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer. We can also cite the agency’s inability to follow up on clear information about the dangers posed by criminals as diverse as the Tsarnaev brothers, the Boston Marathon bombers, and the sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein.
For its own moral and practical survival, the FBI should be given one last chance at redemption by moving to the nation’s heartland—perhaps Kansas—far away from the political and media tentacles that have so deeply squeezed and corrupted it.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on For its own moral and practical survival, the FBI should be given one last chance at redemption by moving to the nation’s heartland—perhaps Kansas—far away from the political and media tentacles that have so deeply squeezed and corrupted it.
Flashback: Why is Ferrara saying Communion for Adulterers isn’t “Doctrine, but a Disciplinary Permission” & Running away from Fr. Gruner’s Teachings?
On Dr. Taylor Marshall’s YouTube channel Catholic lawyer Christopher Ferrera said that Francis’s teaching that adulterers may receive Communion is “not really a doctrine, but a disciplinary permission.” (Dr. Taylor Marshall YouTube channel, “Is Pope Francis Against Fatima? with Christopher Ferrara, 42:57)
So it appears that according to Ferrera if Pope Paul VI instead of teaching contraception and abortion can never be permitted had taught that contraception and abortion can be permitted that would not be a heretical doctrine or teaching, but only a “disciplinary permission.”
So it appears that according to Ferrara if Francis were to teach that pagan Pachamama idol worshiping in all Catholic churches is now permitted that would not be a heretical doctrine or teaching, but only a “disciplinary permission.”
Moreover, in the YouTube show Ferrera said he “learned more about” theology from Fr. Nicholas Gruner than if he had went to a advance theological educational program.
But, as Ferrara knows Fr. Gruner agreed with canon law expert Br. Alexis Bugnolo on Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation:
“Canon 17 requires that canon 332 S2 be read in accord with the meaning of canon 145 S1 and canon 41… [which] requires that ministerium and munus be understood as referring to two different things.” (From Rome, “Ganswein, Brandmuller & Burke: Please read Canon 17, February 14, 2019)
Why is Ferrara afraid to respond and running away from his great theological teacher Fr. Gruner’s and Br. Bugnolo’s reasonable canon law arguments about the apparent invalidity of Pope Benedict’s resignation?
I too am totally shocked by what the Attorney just said. He has just thrown the entire Catholic faith into the dustbin. Does he think it is not heretical to teach that it is allowable in certain cases to permit those in the state of mortal sin to commit a sacrilege by receive a Sacrament of the living?
What kind of game is he playing at? That is heresy!
That is like a prosecutor saying, that it is permissible to allow murder in certain cases, so long as the local policemen thinks it will be more inclusive of the comunnity…3:13 AM
I think it is even worse than all that. In Frank Walker’s headline at Canon 212, he said Ferrara stated that popes can make mistakes. If that was the full extent of the assertion, it wouldn’t be so bad, because of course they can. Only Rex Mottram would deny it.
But that is not what Ferrara said. In fact, his rhetorical question specified–Who says popes can’t make mistakes when teaching about faith and morals?
This not only contradicts his own contention that permitting access to the Eucharist for the invalidly remarried is a disciplinary matter alone. It even contradicts Our Lord who, when entrusting the Keys to Peter, specifically linked them to Heaven as well as earth. It is He who guarantees, through the Holy Spirit, that popes cannot commit the errors to which Ferrara alludes. If they could, or if such errors may be downgraded to merely negotiable matters at will, then why be Catholic at all? I’d rather follow my own private judgment than someone else’s, if that is all there is.
If I have understood Ferrara and Marshall correctly, they sought to overcome this objection by citing popes like Honorius who did teach wrong things. The point these commentators fail to factor in is that such teachings were not tolerated by the Church. They were corrected, which apparently is exactly what Christopher Ferrara has now shown himself unwilling to insist upon.
God is not mocked. It must be one way or the other. Either Bergoglio was never the Pope in the first place or, as Pope, he has deviated so severely from the Faith that Cardinal Burke’s long-awaited Formal Correction must come to pass at last. For us all to succumb to Bergoglio Derangement Syndrome like poor Counselor Ferrara, voluntarily warping our view of reality itself rather than dealing with the possibility that we have an anti-pope on our hands, is no solution at all.4:13 AM
St. Benedict’s Thistle said…Thank you for stating what must be deduced by Ferrara’s statement…that he has thrown the Catholic faith away.
The confusion grows when one’s premise is incorrect.
Islam_Is_Islam said…To be clear, even Louie Verrecchio at akaCatholic questioned why Fatima Center seemed to bury Fr. Gruner’s video comments from Deerborn, IL in 2014.
A once hidden video rediscovered
As I prepared to write the aforementioned post, I went to the Fatima Center’s Youtube channel where I had previously watched a video wherein Fr. Gruner publicly called into question the validity of Benedict’s resignation, and likewise the pontificate of Francis.
The setting was Deerfield, IL; the date, 14 November 2014.
I was present for Fr. Gruner’s talk, but I wanted to post the video for the benefit of those who may have doubted the accuracy of my memory.
Strangely, however, upon returning to the Fatima Center’s list of videos taken at that conference, I discovered that the video I was seeking had apparently (as you may see for yourself) been made “private;” i.e., it was no longer available for public viewing.
I reached out to one of my friends at the Fatima Center for an explanation, but never received an answer as to why Fr. Gruner’s talk was no longer available.
Make of this what you will.
In any case, I am pleased to say that I have since been able to obtain a copy of Fr. Gruner’s presentation. The relevant excerpt (about 6 minutes in length in order to provide adequate context) follows; with specific mention of Benedict’s resignation beginning at roughly the 5 minute mark. [NOTE: Father misspeaks when giving the date of Benedict’s alleged departure when he says “2012.” It actually took place in 2013.]
One may have noticed that Fr. Gruner left precious little doubt that, in the celebration of Holy Mass, he did not pray for Francis as if he were a true pope!
Is the current brain trust of the Fatima Center embarrassed by this? Are they concerned that Father’s well-founded doubts concerning the so-called Bergoglian “pontificate” may scare off potential new supporters from among the ranks of the neo-conservatives? 8:41 PM
Charmaine said…How tragic that even Louie Verrecchio has abandoned Fr. Gruner’s position that he had so valiantly upheld on his akaCatholic blog, as he has now succumbed to the error of sedevacantism; and worse yet, working to influence others to go along with it as well. 9:04 AM
Sendero said…This comment has been removed by the author.9:49 AM
Sendero said…Very Sad but this is what happens (queue Barnhardt) when you start with the wrong premise. You end in cognitive dissonance. Pray that a warrior for the faith has enough intellectual honesty to correct his public statement. “For the worthy reception of the Eucharist, the STATE of GRACE as well as the proper and pious disposition are necessary” Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” 9:52 AM
Fr. VF said…Popes can teach error about faith and morals, when they are not solemnly teaching ex cathedra.11:18 AM
Fr. VF said…Define “sedevacantism.” It is not, as many people seem to believe, a heresy. It is the opinion that there is no pope. It may be erroneous at times to hold this opinion, but sedevacantism is not, in itself, an “error.” The Church does not “teach” the name of the pope. Those who hold a minority opinion regarding the identity of the pope do not offend against the virtue of faith.3:15 PM
Fr. VF said…Ferrara said nothing objectionable. He pointed out that Bergoglio resorts to the subterfuge that “I’m not changing doctrine; I’m only changing discipline.” Ferrara nowhere said that this was an honest distinction, or that the laity should accept it.
At regular intervals, certain trads go crazy, accusing men who have written multiple books defending Tradition over the past fifty years of “throwing the entire Catholic Faith in the dustbin” and suchlike–because of a turn of phrase in a YouTube video.3:22 PM
Badcatholic said…The errors of Bergoglio are working quite well without resorting to solem ex cathedra statements, as he is well aware. I find it incomprehensible that one could believe that he will not do so in the future if he feels it advances his agenda. The explanation I have is that for his teachings to be binding, ex cathedra or not, they cannot contradict the prior magisterium of the Church. A simple application of the basic principle of all rational discourse, the law of non-contradiction, when seeking truth. What say you?4:26 PM
11rhymesandreasons said…Extraordinary magisterium is used to sharpen the clarity of ordinary magisterium, for example the Immaculate Conception. If there was no solemn definition, the Immaculate Conception is still infallible doctrine because of ordinary magisterium, but a heretic pope might be able to make a deceptive argument against it. After the solemn definition, that tactic is no longer feasible. The problem the modernists face is that the particular teachings they want overturned have all been at one time or another, solemnly defined. So they must resort to a different tactic altogether; attempt to overturn solemn magisterium with what appears to be ordinary magisterium. And the reason that tactic has been effective (V2) is because, unlike extraordinary magisterium which was solemnly defined at V1, ordinary magisterium is itself only defined by ordinary magisterium (maybe because that council was never completed). So there is enough wiggle room to allow attempts at deception. The only doctrine I can see the modernists to ever consider defining solemnly, is the doctrine of ordinary magisterium. But it’s proven much more effective to simply do what they’ve been doing. My 2 cents. 8:34 AM
Nathan said…Exactly. Thank you.1:38 PMPost a Comment Pray an Our Father now for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis’s Amoris Laetitia.
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Stop for a moment of silence, ask Jesus Christ what He wants you to do now and next. In this silence remember God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost – Three Divine Persons yet One God, has an ordered universe where you can know truth and falsehood as well as never forget that He wants you to have eternal happiness with Him as his son or daughter by grace. Make this a practice. By doing this you are doing more good than reading anything here or anywhere else on the Internet.
Francis Notes:
– Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation:
“[T]he Pope… WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See.” (The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)
– LifeSiteNews, “Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers,” December 4, 2017:
The AAS guidelines explicitly allows “sexually active adulterous couples facing ‘complex circumstances’ to ‘access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'”
– On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:
“The AAS statement… establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense.”
– On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:
“Francis’ heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents.”
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church by the bishops by the grace of God.
Flashback: Why is Ferrara saying Communion for Adulterers isn’t “Doctrine, but a Disciplinary Permission” & Running away from Fr. Gruner’s Teachings?
On Dr. Taylor Marshall’s YouTube channel Catholic lawyer Christopher Ferrera said that Francis’s teaching that adulterers may receive Communion is “not really a doctrine, but a disciplinary permission.” (Dr. Taylor Marshall YouTube channel, “Is Pope Francis Against Fatima? with Christopher Ferrara, 42:57)
So it appears that according to Ferrera if Pope Paul VI instead of teaching contraception and abortion can never be permitted had taught that contraception and abortion can be permitted that would not be a heretical doctrine or teaching, but only a “disciplinary permission.”
So it appears that according to Ferrara if Francis were to teach that pagan Pachamama idol worshiping in all Catholic churches is now permitted that would not be a heretical doctrine or teaching, but only a “disciplinary permission.”
Moreover, in the YouTube show Ferrera said he “learned more about” theology from Fr. Nicholas Gruner than if he had went to a advance theological educational program.
But, as Ferrara knows Fr. Gruner agreed with canon law expert Br. Alexis Bugnolo on Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation:
“Canon 17 requires that canon 332 S2 be read in accord with the meaning of canon 145 S1 and canon 41… [which] requires that ministerium and munus be understood as referring to two different things.” (From Rome, “Ganswein, Brandmuller & Burke: Please read Canon 17, February 14, 2019)
Why is Ferrara afraid to respond and running away from his great theological teacher Fr. Gruner’s and Br. Bugnolo’s reasonable canon law arguments about the apparent invalidity of Pope Benedict’s resignation?
I too am totally shocked by what the Attorney just said. He has just thrown the entire Catholic faith into the dustbin. Does he think it is not heretical to teach that it is allowable in certain cases to permit those in the state of mortal sin to commit a sacrilege by receive a Sacrament of the living?
What kind of game is he playing at? That is heresy!
That is like a prosecutor saying, that it is permissible to allow murder in certain cases, so long as the local policemen thinks it will be more inclusive of the comunnity…3:13 AM
I think it is even worse than all that. In Frank Walker’s headline at Canon 212, he said Ferrara stated that popes can make mistakes. If that was the full extent of the assertion, it wouldn’t be so bad, because of course they can. Only Rex Mottram would deny it.
But that is not what Ferrara said. In fact, his rhetorical question specified–Who says popes can’t make mistakes when teaching about faith and morals?
This not only contradicts his own contention that permitting access to the Eucharist for the invalidly remarried is a disciplinary matter alone. It even contradicts Our Lord who, when entrusting the Keys to Peter, specifically linked them to Heaven as well as earth. It is He who guarantees, through the Holy Spirit, that popes cannot commit the errors to which Ferrara alludes. If they could, or if such errors may be downgraded to merely negotiable matters at will, then why be Catholic at all? I’d rather follow my own private judgment than someone else’s, if that is all there is.
If I have understood Ferrara and Marshall correctly, they sought to overcome this objection by citing popes like Honorius who did teach wrong things. The point these commentators fail to factor in is that such teachings were not tolerated by the Church. They were corrected, which apparently is exactly what Christopher Ferrara has now shown himself unwilling to insist upon.
God is not mocked. It must be one way or the other. Either Bergoglio was never the Pope in the first place or, as Pope, he has deviated so severely from the Faith that Cardinal Burke’s long-awaited Formal Correction must come to pass at last. For us all to succumb to Bergoglio Derangement Syndrome like poor Counselor Ferrara, voluntarily warping our view of reality itself rather than dealing with the possibility that we have an anti-pope on our hands, is no solution at all.4:13 AM
St. Benedict’s Thistle said…Thank you for stating what must be deduced by Ferrara’s statement…that he has thrown the Catholic faith away.
The confusion grows when one’s premise is incorrect.
Islam_Is_Islam said…To be clear, even Louie Verrecchio at akaCatholic questioned why Fatima Center seemed to bury Fr. Gruner’s video comments from Deerborn, IL in 2014.
A once hidden video rediscovered
As I prepared to write the aforementioned post, I went to the Fatima Center’s Youtube channel where I had previously watched a video wherein Fr. Gruner publicly called into question the validity of Benedict’s resignation, and likewise the pontificate of Francis.
The setting was Deerfield, IL; the date, 14 November 2014.
I was present for Fr. Gruner’s talk, but I wanted to post the video for the benefit of those who may have doubted the accuracy of my memory.
Strangely, however, upon returning to the Fatima Center’s list of videos taken at that conference, I discovered that the video I was seeking had apparently (as you may see for yourself) been made “private;” i.e., it was no longer available for public viewing.
I reached out to one of my friends at the Fatima Center for an explanation, but never received an answer as to why Fr. Gruner’s talk was no longer available.
Make of this what you will.
In any case, I am pleased to say that I have since been able to obtain a copy of Fr. Gruner’s presentation. The relevant excerpt (about 6 minutes in length in order to provide adequate context) follows; with specific mention of Benedict’s resignation beginning at roughly the 5 minute mark. [NOTE: Father misspeaks when giving the date of Benedict’s alleged departure when he says “2012.” It actually took place in 2013.]
One may have noticed that Fr. Gruner left precious little doubt that, in the celebration of Holy Mass, he did not pray for Francis as if he were a true pope!
Is the current brain trust of the Fatima Center embarrassed by this? Are they concerned that Father’s well-founded doubts concerning the so-called Bergoglian “pontificate” may scare off potential new supporters from among the ranks of the neo-conservatives? 8:41 PM
Charmaine said…How tragic that even Louie Verrecchio has abandoned Fr. Gruner’s position that he had so valiantly upheld on his akaCatholic blog, as he has now succumbed to the error of sedevacantism; and worse yet, working to influence others to go along with it as well. 9:04 AM
Sendero said…This comment has been removed by the author.9:49 AM
Sendero said…Very Sad but this is what happens (queue Barnhardt) when you start with the wrong premise. You end in cognitive dissonance. Pray that a warrior for the faith has enough intellectual honesty to correct his public statement. “For the worthy reception of the Eucharist, the STATE of GRACE as well as the proper and pious disposition are necessary” Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” 9:52 AM
Fr. VF said…Popes can teach error about faith and morals, when they are not solemnly teaching ex cathedra.11:18 AM
Fr. VF said…Define “sedevacantism.” It is not, as many people seem to believe, a heresy. It is the opinion that there is no pope. It may be erroneous at times to hold this opinion, but sedevacantism is not, in itself, an “error.” The Church does not “teach” the name of the pope. Those who hold a minority opinion regarding the identity of the pope do not offend against the virtue of faith.3:15 PM
Fr. VF said…Ferrara said nothing objectionable. He pointed out that Bergoglio resorts to the subterfuge that “I’m not changing doctrine; I’m only changing discipline.” Ferrara nowhere said that this was an honest distinction, or that the laity should accept it.
At regular intervals, certain trads go crazy, accusing men who have written multiple books defending Tradition over the past fifty years of “throwing the entire Catholic Faith in the dustbin” and suchlike–because of a turn of phrase in a YouTube video.3:22 PM
Badcatholic said…The errors of Bergoglio are working quite well without resorting to solem ex cathedra statements, as he is well aware. I find it incomprehensible that one could believe that he will not do so in the future if he feels it advances his agenda. The explanation I have is that for his teachings to be binding, ex cathedra or not, they cannot contradict the prior magisterium of the Church. A simple application of the basic principle of all rational discourse, the law of non-contradiction, when seeking truth. What say you?4:26 PM
11rhymesandreasons said…Extraordinary magisterium is used to sharpen the clarity of ordinary magisterium, for example the Immaculate Conception. If there was no solemn definition, the Immaculate Conception is still infallible doctrine because of ordinary magisterium, but a heretic pope might be able to make a deceptive argument against it. After the solemn definition, that tactic is no longer feasible. The problem the modernists face is that the particular teachings they want overturned have all been at one time or another, solemnly defined. So they must resort to a different tactic altogether; attempt to overturn solemn magisterium with what appears to be ordinary magisterium. And the reason that tactic has been effective (V2) is because, unlike extraordinary magisterium which was solemnly defined at V1, ordinary magisterium is itself only defined by ordinary magisterium (maybe because that council was never completed). So there is enough wiggle room to allow attempts at deception. The only doctrine I can see the modernists to ever consider defining solemnly, is the doctrine of ordinary magisterium. But it’s proven much more effective to simply do what they’ve been doing. My 2 cents. 8:34 AM
Nathan said…Exactly. Thank you.1:38 PMPost a Comment Pray an Our Father now for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis’s Amoris Laetitia.
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Stop for a moment of silence, ask Jesus Christ what He wants you to do now and next. In this silence remember God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost – Three Divine Persons yet One God, has an ordered universe where you can know truth and falsehood as well as never forget that He wants you to have eternal happiness with Him as his son or daughter by grace. Make this a practice. By doing this you are doing more good than reading anything here or anywhere else on the Internet.
Francis Notes:
– Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation:
“[T]he Pope… WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See.” (The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)
– LifeSiteNews, “Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers,” December 4, 2017:
The AAS guidelines explicitly allows “sexually active adulterous couples facing ‘complex circumstances’ to ‘access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'”
– On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:
“The AAS statement… establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense.”
– On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:
“Francis’ heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents.”
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church by the bishops by the grace of God.
My darling wife Ellen is an editor for the Association of the United States Army, working closely with numerous senior officers, both active and retired, to help prepare their articles for publication. In the wake of President Biden’s recent choice regarding our position in Afghanistan, Ellie has remarked more than once on the tact and solidarity of her contributing authors (men of unassailed integrity and moral courage, not disposed to sycophancy) in discussing what a more neutral observer might call a misstep on the part of our Commander in Chief; and I, who have struggled to be a worthy soldier of Christ, feel impelled to follow their example in speaking of our Supreme Pontiff. By that very token, however, I note striking parallels between Joseph and Francis—the latter’s Chinese policy of radical appeasement, at the cost of torture and murder for the faithful there, springs to mind—and I’m haunted by the image of a Heaven-bound chariot ascending ever more swiftly as the clinging bodies of loyal supporters fall screaming from the wings.
I’ve just now read Fr. Wojciech Gołaski’s open letter to His Holiness, proclaiming that in the wake of Traditionis Custodes, his recourse must be the Society of St. Pius X, which exists in what he describes (rather mildly) as “a state of controversy.” I have the utmost sympathy and respect for the SSPX; I was brought to the Traditional Latin Mass by my wife, whose parents were married in the Society, and it was a sort of triumphal homecoming for both our families when my dad, the damp flotsam of preconciliar times (known here as Deacon Jim), and Ellie’s brother, Canon Turner ICKSP, blessed us with an unabashedly orthodox TLM wedding. But it terrifies me to hear in Fr. Gołaski’s words the initial rumble of what could all too easily become a geometrically accelerating tectonic fragmentation, shattering Simon Bar-Jonah’s Pangaea into one-man islands and gulag archipelagos.Advertisement – Continue Reading Below
The saint whose name our Pontiff bears would have been aghast if his most rabid followers, the Fraticelli, had successfully formed a splinter-church, and I think we have to believe Pope St. Pius X would feel the same. In any case, it’s all been done before: Martin Luther splintered away, and the splintering has never stopped. A mind-blasting 45,000 Protestant denominations now exist. God shield us from another such Deluge of endlessly ramifying diaspora! But what am I saying? God has shielded us, providing a supreme authority whose function is precisely to mediate the internal disputes that engender sectarian division and multiplication. The bitter irony, of course, is that Roman power was one of the very things that led to the break in the first place; and indeed, Fr. Golanski cites Francis’ tacit assumption of Papal omnipotence as one of his insuperable objections to the Motu Proprio of 16 July.
Unlike the current Vicar of Christ, however, the Popes of Luther’s time—Leo X, Adrian VI, Clement VII—were obliged to wield their powers in a largely military capacity, helping to defend Europe against the onslaught of Islamic hordes from the Ottoman Empire. If their influence stretched its rightful limits, it was in hopes of preserving the tradition of which they had been entrusted with custody. Pope Francis, on the other hand, has shown by perfectly clear signs—the honoring of heathen idols in the citadel of St. Peter, the Munich Pact-like “fraternity” document co-signed with the Muslim Grand Imam, the aforementioned Sino-Vatican collusion—that he prizes the camaraderie of openly anti-Catholic forces above the welfare of his own flock of souls, and his recent Apostolic Letter only serves to underscore the fact. From this, the difficult question arises: what, then, is his goal? To what end does he deploy the Petrine authority?
Dr. Kwasniewski, in his recent article “Clandestine Ordinations Against Church Law,” briefly mentions the novel A Windswept House. This tale of Church intrigue, geopolitics, and spiritual warfare was described by its author, Jesuit priest Malachi Martin, as 95% nonfiction, only nominally veiled. The book’s doggedly unidentified “Slavic Pope,” obviously St. John Paul II, is depicted as hideously enmeshed in the razor wire of plots by bishops and Cardinals consciously toiling to place the Church at the service of materialistic pundits and world leaders for whom Christ’s Mystical Body would be merely another useful tool. But, to a chosen few among the ecclesial hierarchy, the true objective (guided by the tenets and practices of Freemasonry) is to bring about the Reign of Antichrist on Earth. The late Fr. Martin, a highly experienced exorcist, did not speak lightly of these matters, and if the general public had comprehended his allegations, Windswept House would have been immeasurably more controversial than the tepid page-turners exuded by Dan Brown.
Back in March, I wrote an article (“Innominate Abomination”) in which I mentioned how discouraging it was to hear that Pope Francis was working to suppress the TLM. At the time, 1P5edited my remark to the less accusatory phrase, “to hear rumors” that he was so employed. This was, of course, prior to his hand-tipping Motu Proprio, and it was the right decision to withhold judgment on a matter not yet settled. In the same spirit of doubt’s benefit, and in view of my already tenuous resolution to speak respectfully of the Fisherman’s office, I wish to make it clear that the following hypothesis is strictly conjectural, predicated on circumstantial evidence and extrapolations therefrom. That said—Advertisement – Continue Reading Below
In studying the Enemy’s rhetoric, the most consistent feature I’ve observed has been that of flat-out, barely concealed self-contradiction. Thus, for instance, the pro-choice rationale argues from the premise that the female body is sacrosanct and concludes that, for that exact reason, it should receive bloody surgery to mutilate one of the very foundations of its sanctity. Thus, on college campuses, Christians must be silenced and vilified for their intolerance toward viewpoints which differ from their own. Thus the bygone figure of the American slave-owner typifies the hatefulness of that same European religion that so brutally oppressed the indigenous Aztec culture and its religious practice of cutting out the hearts of slaves. Now observe the words of Pope Francis. As Fr. Gołaski points out, he claims to “withdraw the faculty granted by his predecessors” in the name of unity, while self-evidently annihilating that unity by his own decree. He claims to find ratification in the decisions of St. Pius V, whose criteria were precisely the opposite of his own. He claims in Laudato Si that the disappearance of a culture is graver than the extinction of a species, yet bends his will to eradicating the selfsame culture that forms the beating heart of his own Church.
St. Paul states explicitly that “when the pagans offer sacrifice, it is received by demons” (1 Cor. 10:20). In 2019, Pope Francis quite publicly and undisguisedly offered prayers to the pagan entity Pachamama, reverently processing through the Basilica to enthrone it on the altar of God. That he has been in communion with demonic beings is therefore simply a fact, a matter of public record, undisputed. And every back-bent word of his “A is not A” elocution declares that he speaks not with the Mind of Christ but with the forked, self-masticating tongue of the Father of Lies. I’ll say it more plainly yet: I believe Pope Francis to be in the possession of Satan. He has followed the road of the worst of popes before him—John XII, Julius II or Urban VIII.
Again, this view is my own. I offer it as the only solution to our generation’s darkest mystery—“Why is he doing this to us?!”—that seems to fit all the known data. On this hypothesis, the schismatic breakup of the One True Faith is exactly what he seeks, and he is going about it in exactly the right way.
What to do with this conviction, I do not know. I hope to look back someday on my silly, disproven paranoia and revel in the gentle mockery of my brethren in Christ. Or I hope that, if Providence substantiates my belief, wiser persons than myself will have been forewarned before the crisis reaches a boil. We can trust that God is in control, because just as John XII toasted Satan and trafficked in devils, yet God preserved His Church at that time, so too He will deliver us again in our own day.
It’s crucial to remember that Despair is the Enemy’s greatest weapon, closing us off from the aid of the Holy Ghost. We mustn’t (and needn’t!) lose hope for the Papacy, nor for the embattled individual who now holds it: our turning our backs on Francis and the Church is precisely what the Devil wants, but Christ has harrowed out those legions before and will again. This isn’t a theological clash but a family crisis; that misled shepherd on the Throne is our papa, and he needs us. I wish I had some powerful new deliverance prayer to offer, but I haven’t been given such a weapon. If you, friend, care to join me in my own frail personal devotion, it’s merely this: throughout the day, whenever I touch my keys, I’m reminded to offer up a prayer to St. Michael for the man who carries the Keys of the Most Precious Blood:
St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle. Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the Devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray, and do thou, O prince of the heavenly host, by the Power of God cast into Hell Satan and all the evil spirits who prowl throughout the world seeking the ruin of souls.
Amen.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on We mustn’t (and needn’t!) lose hope for the Papacy, nor for the embattled individual who now holds it:
My darling wife Ellen is an editor for the Association of the United States Army, working closely with numerous senior officers, both active and retired, to help prepare their articles for publication. In the wake of President Biden’s recent choice regarding our position in Afghanistan, Ellie has remarked more than once on the tact and solidarity of her contributing authors (men of unassailed integrity and moral courage, not disposed to sycophancy) in discussing what a more neutral observer might call a misstep on the part of our Commander in Chief; and I, who have struggled to be a worthy soldier of Christ, feel impelled to follow their example in speaking of our Supreme Pontiff. By that very token, however, I note striking parallels between Joseph and Francis—the latter’s Chinese policy of radical appeasement, at the cost of torture and murder for the faithful there, springs to mind—and I’m haunted by the image of a Heaven-bound chariot ascending ever more swiftly as the clinging bodies of loyal supporters fall screaming from the wings.
I’ve just now read Fr. Wojciech Gołaski’s open letter to His Holiness, proclaiming that in the wake of Traditionis Custodes, his recourse must be the Society of St. Pius X, which exists in what he describes (rather mildly) as “a state of controversy.” I have the utmost sympathy and respect for the SSPX; I was brought to the Traditional Latin Mass by my wife, whose parents were married in the Society, and it was a sort of triumphal homecoming for both our families when my dad, the damp flotsam of preconciliar times (known here as Deacon Jim), and Ellie’s brother, Canon Turner ICKSP, blessed us with an unabashedly orthodox TLM wedding. But it terrifies me to hear in Fr. Gołaski’s words the initial rumble of what could all too easily become a geometrically accelerating tectonic fragmentation, shattering Simon Bar-Jonah’s Pangaea into one-man islands and gulag archipelagos.Advertisement – Continue Reading Below
The saint whose name our Pontiff bears would have been aghast if his most rabid followers, the Fraticelli, had successfully formed a splinter-church, and I think we have to believe Pope St. Pius X would feel the same. In any case, it’s all been done before: Martin Luther splintered away, and the splintering has never stopped. A mind-blasting 45,000 Protestant denominations now exist. God shield us from another such Deluge of endlessly ramifying diaspora! But what am I saying? God has shielded us, providing a supreme authority whose function is precisely to mediate the internal disputes that engender sectarian division and multiplication. The bitter irony, of course, is that Roman power was one of the very things that led to the break in the first place; and indeed, Fr. Golanski cites Francis’ tacit assumption of Papal omnipotence as one of his insuperable objections to the Motu Proprio of 16 July.
Unlike the current Vicar of Christ, however, the Popes of Luther’s time—Leo X, Adrian VI, Clement VII—were obliged to wield their powers in a largely military capacity, helping to defend Europe against the onslaught of Islamic hordes from the Ottoman Empire. If their influence stretched its rightful limits, it was in hopes of preserving the tradition of which they had been entrusted with custody. Pope Francis, on the other hand, has shown by perfectly clear signs—the honoring of heathen idols in the citadel of St. Peter, the Munich Pact-like “fraternity” document co-signed with the Muslim Grand Imam, the aforementioned Sino-Vatican collusion—that he prizes the camaraderie of openly anti-Catholic forces above the welfare of his own flock of souls, and his recent Apostolic Letter only serves to underscore the fact. From this, the difficult question arises: what, then, is his goal? To what end does he deploy the Petrine authority?
Dr. Kwasniewski, in his recent article “Clandestine Ordinations Against Church Law,” briefly mentions the novel A Windswept House. This tale of Church intrigue, geopolitics, and spiritual warfare was described by its author, Jesuit priest Malachi Martin, as 95% nonfiction, only nominally veiled. The book’s doggedly unidentified “Slavic Pope,” obviously St. John Paul II, is depicted as hideously enmeshed in the razor wire of plots by bishops and Cardinals consciously toiling to place the Church at the service of materialistic pundits and world leaders for whom Christ’s Mystical Body would be merely another useful tool. But, to a chosen few among the ecclesial hierarchy, the true objective (guided by the tenets and practices of Freemasonry) is to bring about the Reign of Antichrist on Earth. The late Fr. Martin, a highly experienced exorcist, did not speak lightly of these matters, and if the general public had comprehended his allegations, Windswept House would have been immeasurably more controversial than the tepid page-turners exuded by Dan Brown.
Back in March, I wrote an article (“Innominate Abomination”) in which I mentioned how discouraging it was to hear that Pope Francis was working to suppress the TLM. At the time, 1P5edited my remark to the less accusatory phrase, “to hear rumors” that he was so employed. This was, of course, prior to his hand-tipping Motu Proprio, and it was the right decision to withhold judgment on a matter not yet settled. In the same spirit of doubt’s benefit, and in view of my already tenuous resolution to speak respectfully of the Fisherman’s office, I wish to make it clear that the following hypothesis is strictly conjectural, predicated on circumstantial evidence and extrapolations therefrom. That said—Advertisement – Continue Reading Below
In studying the Enemy’s rhetoric, the most consistent feature I’ve observed has been that of flat-out, barely concealed self-contradiction. Thus, for instance, the pro-choice rationale argues from the premise that the female body is sacrosanct and concludes that, for that exact reason, it should receive bloody surgery to mutilate one of the very foundations of its sanctity. Thus, on college campuses, Christians must be silenced and vilified for their intolerance toward viewpoints which differ from their own. Thus the bygone figure of the American slave-owner typifies the hatefulness of that same European religion that so brutally oppressed the indigenous Aztec culture and its religious practice of cutting out the hearts of slaves. Now observe the words of Pope Francis. As Fr. Gołaski points out, he claims to “withdraw the faculty granted by his predecessors” in the name of unity, while self-evidently annihilating that unity by his own decree. He claims to find ratification in the decisions of St. Pius V, whose criteria were precisely the opposite of his own. He claims in Laudato Si that the disappearance of a culture is graver than the extinction of a species, yet bends his will to eradicating the selfsame culture that forms the beating heart of his own Church.
St. Paul states explicitly that “when the pagans offer sacrifice, it is received by demons” (1 Cor. 10:20). In 2019, Pope Francis quite publicly and undisguisedly offered prayers to the pagan entity Pachamama, reverently processing through the Basilica to enthrone it on the altar of God. That he has been in communion with demonic beings is therefore simply a fact, a matter of public record, undisputed. And every back-bent word of his “A is not A” elocution declares that he speaks not with the Mind of Christ but with the forked, self-masticating tongue of the Father of Lies. I’ll say it more plainly yet: I believe Pope Francis to be in the possession of Satan. He has followed the road of the worst of popes before him—John XII, Julius II or Urban VIII.
Again, this view is my own. I offer it as the only solution to our generation’s darkest mystery—“Why is he doing this to us?!”—that seems to fit all the known data. On this hypothesis, the schismatic breakup of the One True Faith is exactly what he seeks, and he is going about it in exactly the right way.
What to do with this conviction, I do not know. I hope to look back someday on my silly, disproven paranoia and revel in the gentle mockery of my brethren in Christ. Or I hope that, if Providence substantiates my belief, wiser persons than myself will have been forewarned before the crisis reaches a boil. We can trust that God is in control, because just as John XII toasted Satan and trafficked in devils, yet God preserved His Church at that time, so too He will deliver us again in our own day.Advertisement – Continue Reading Below
It’s crucial to remember that Despair is the Enemy’s greatest weapon, closing us off from the aid of the Holy Ghost. We mustn’t (and needn’t!) lose hope for the Papacy, nor for the embattled individual who now holds it: our turning our backs on Francis and the Church is precisely what the Devil wants, but Christ has harrowed out those legions before and will again. This isn’t a theological clash but a family crisis; that misled shepherd on the Throne is our papa, and he needs us. I wish I had some powerful new deliverance prayer to offer, but I haven’t been given such a weapon. If you, friend, care to join me in my own frail personal devotion, it’s merely this: throughout the day, whenever I touch my keys, I’m reminded to offer up a prayer to St. Michael for the man who carries the Keys of the Most Precious Blood:
St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle. Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the Devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray, and do thou, O prince of the heavenly host, by the Power of God cast into Hell Satan and all the evil spirits who prowl throughout the world seeking the ruin of souls.
J.B. Toner studied Literature at Thomas More College; He has contributed to First Things, Dappled Things, National Catholic Register, The Remnant, The Wanderer, Catholic Lane, America Magazine, and numerous secular venues.www.amazon.com/J.-B.-Toner
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle. Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the Devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray, and do thou, O prince of the heavenly host, by the Power of God cast into Hell Satan and all the evil spirits who prowl throughout the world seeking the ruin of souls.
Biden’s War On Religious Liberty Spikes November 18, 2021 Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the latest attacks on religious liberty: Never has religious liberty been more seriously threatened than it is today. That the man responsible for this all-out assault professes to be a Catholic is all the more offensive. It is his Office of Civil Rights (OCR) and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that are leading the charge. News of Biden’s latest war on religious liberty was selectively leaked to the media this week. A draft memo by OCR to HHS indicates the Biden administration is planning to revoke the Trump administration’s policies governing religious liberty, including conscience rights. HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra, who has long record of trampling on religious liberty, is working in tandem with OCR to eviscerate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). In his capacity as California Attorney General, he sued the Little Sisters of the Poor for resisting the HHS mandate of the Obama administration; it tried to force the nuns to provide for abortion-inducing drugs in their healthcare plans. OCR is contending that the Trump administration “took an expansive view of the use of RFRA that resulted in negative impacts for underserved communities.” Translated this means that attempts of radical homosexual and transgender activists to impose their secular agenda on religious institutions and agencies were blocked from doing so by the previous administration. The Biden team wants to undo all of that. We are delighted that Sen. James Lankford has called out the Biden administration on this issue. Unfortunately, another news story has just broken, detailing how matters have only worsened. Becerra is actively seeking to gut a wide range of religious liberty exemptions that lawmakers and the courts have granted. He is doing an end run around legislators, appealing to the courts to satisfy his agenda. In court filings obtained by the Catholic Benefits Association, there is a symbiotic relationship between HHS and left-wing activist organizations, the most prominent of which is the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. The evidence shows that transgender rights and abortion rights are being pursued full throttle. Their success depends on the destruction of religious liberty exemptions put in place by the courts, lawmakers and administrative agencies. More than any other entity, it is Catholic institutions that are under the most severe attack. If Biden gets his way, Catholic doctors and hospitals will lose their autonomy. They will either have to shut down or bend to the anti-Catholic norms of his administration. It’s just that serious. Currently, no Catholic doctor can be forced to perform gender-transition surgery, and Catholic hospitals can refuse a request by a transgender woman—meaning a woman who claims to be a man—from doing a hysterectomy. Biden wants to change that. He also wants to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions. Not to be outdone, Biden wants to deny Catholic hospitals the right not to hire abortionists, doctors who perform abortions. Biden has also invented a new right: the right of “socially infertile” single persons and homosexual couples to receive fertility treatments. His administration actually believes that these people cannot “reproduce via sexual intercourse due to social factors (my italic).” And what might these social factors be? A “lack of a partner or because of a person’s sexual orientation.” In other words, it is not biology that stops single people and homosexual couples from having babies—it is society. This is the kind of insanity that happens when nature, and nature’s God, are dismissed and disdained. Regrettably, not only is this nonsense accepted by left-wing organizations, it is embraced by the ruling class, including elites in the healthcare industry. None of them have the guts to call this out for what it is—madness. They are complicit in this contrived universe. Similarly, denying a woman an abortion, or what Biden prefers to call “termination of pregnancy,” is a matter of sex discrimination. He, and those who work for him, contend that men can also become pregnant. Yet none of them can provide a scintilla of evidence—taken from any country in the history of the world—to verify this baseless claim. There are several pieces of legislation written by Democrats, such as the Equality Act, that are designed to crush Catholic institutions, but they have been stalled in committee due to their lack of public support. That is why OCR and HHS have elected to bypass Congress and seek court approval for their extremist policies. The Leadership Conference, which is feeding the Biden team, is comprised of many familiar left-wing organizations. The ACLU, American Atheists, the Anti-Defamation League, the Human Rights Campaign, the Southern Poverty Law Center, Planned Parenthood, and the Center for American Progress are all on board. Their hostility to religious liberty in general, and Catholic rights in particular, are well known. What is not widely known is that AARP is a member of this organization. Catholics take note. We are contacting every senator, in both parties, about our concerns. We ask that you contact your own senators. It is also important to let OCR know of your objections to its radical agenda.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on The Leadership Conference, which is feeding the Biden team, is comprised of many familiar left-wing organizations. The ACLU, American Atheists, the Anti-Defamation League, the Human Rights Campaign, the Southern Poverty Law Center, Planned Parenthood, and the Center for American Progress are all on board. Their hostility to religious liberty in general, and Catholic rights in particular, are well known. What is not widely known is that AARP is a member of this organization. Catholics take note.
Letter #149, 2021, Thur, Nov 18: LefebvreInboxDr. Robert Moynihanvia icontactmail4.com 2:06 PM (1 hour ago)to me “This mystical ascension is a very real event.”—A reflection on the meaning of the divine liturgy in the eastern (Byzantine) tradition on the website of Fr. Vasil Bunik of Presentation Of Our Lord Ukrainian Catholic Church in Lansdale, Pennsylvania, USA (link) Letter #149, 2021, Thursday, November 18: Lefebvre(Letters on the Liturgy #1) A number of inter-related questions of Catholic faith and life have emerged with new insistence in the months since the July 16, 2021, issuance by Pope Francis of Traditionis custodes (“Of the tradition the guardians”), a decree which seems to have the intent of preparing the complete suppression of the old Latin Mass, though 14 years earlier Pope BenedictXVI had attempted to give the old Mass a secure, honored place in the liturgical life of the Church in his motu proprio Summorum Pontificum of July 7, 2007. These questions concern the Church’s liturgy — what the liturgy is, why it is important — and they concern the Christian faith — how the faith is kept in its fullness, and how it becomes fruitful in souls unto salvation, that is, unto eternal life. These questions have been debated intensely ever since the 1960s, especially since the promulgation in 1969 of the “Novus Ordo” of the Mass by Pope Paul VI (Pope from 1963 to 1978). Still, despite more than 50 years of debate, there remains considerable confusion in the Church on these matters. I feel the confusion myself, not least because the words written by Pope Benedict and by Pope Francisabout the old liturgy seem — seem — to contradict one another. Hence, I want to understand that apparent contradiction and then, if possible, find a way to overcome it. So this means I am now planning, out of my own personal desire to try to study my way to the resolution of an apparent contradiction, to go more deeply into these questions. As I do so, I ask the indulgence of those for whom the questions seem irrelevant, or unimportant. I understand some may may these matters irrelevant, or unimportant. Still, I find them quite relevant, quite important, and indeed, central, as they involve our faith, and our understanding of Christ, and our relationship to Christ, so I do intend, if I have the time and sufficient good health, to take up these questions, in these letters, in coming weeks — as I have promised to do a couple of times in recent years (and then failed to carry out my promise — first when I spoke of reading through Joseph Ratzinger’s The Spirit of the Liturgy in the copy of that book that my late father had owned, and read, and annotated; then when I spoke in a similar way, more recently, of reading carefully through Annibale Bugnini‘s The Reform of the Liturgy, 1948-1975, again in a copy that my late father had owned and annotated). So this is still my intent. We will see if I can manage to make a small contribution to deeper, clearer, understanding, and hence, deeper spiritual communion with Christ. I will try to give these letters a certain continuity, and a special title: “Letters on the Liturgy,” of which this will be the first. *** I just came across some lines from the website of a Ukrainian Greek Catholic website which confirmed me in this purpose. The author writes: ”The ‘theology’ of the Divine Liturgy is one of spiritual ascent. ”Many have described the atmosphere at a Liturgy as ‘Heaven on earth’; however, this is not quite correct. Heaven came down to earth when the Son of God became man. Now, because of Christ’s Resurrection and Ascension into Heaven, the Kingdom of God does not come down to earth; instead, earth has the potential of being raised up to Heaven. ”For the person who is willing to open his heart and soul to the spiritual dynamics of the Divine Liturgy, this mystical ascension is a very real event. Like the steps of a stairway, or rungs of a ladder, every litany, every hymn, every prayer and Scripture passage of the service takes us one step closer to the Heavenly Kingdom. ”We begin our spiritual ascent by singing the earthly hymns found in the Old Testament Psalms, and soon we join the choirs of Angels and Saints in their heavenly ‘Thrice Holy Hymn’ of praise to the Lord. Eventually, we will ask that God, our Lord and Creator, accept us as His children and allow us to call upon Him as ‘Our Father.’ ”We then conclude our spiritual journey to God’s Holy Domain in the Liturgy by approaching Christ Himself, the King of Kings, and partaking of His Precious Body and Blood. In this way, we unite ourselves with Him, and become heirs to His Kingdom.” So, the liturgy is a journey. It is a “spiritual ascent.” It is a “real event” which takes us “closer to the Heavenly Kingdom,” that is, closer to Christ. If the liturgy becomes anything less, if it becomes something rote, something cold, something distant and uninspiring, something is very wrong. *** About three months ago, Dr. John Pepino, Ph.D., on August 5 on the website OnePeterFive published the texts of two very interesting letters, both written in 1966, just after the end of the Second Vatican Council. (link) One was written by Italian Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani (1890-1979, so he died at the age of 88) who was the head of the Holy Office in Rome and, as such, the chief doctrinal officer in the Church. The other was written in response to Ottaviani’s letter by French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre(1905-1991, so he died at the age of 85), who had just spent four years at the Second Vatican Council, and had very clear memories of what had happened in those sessions in the autumns of 1962, 1963, 1964, and 1965. So I begin this journey of discovery, this effort to understand more profoundly the Church’s liturgy, and the reform of that liturgy which followed the Council, by reading these two letters, with sincere thanks to Dr. Pepino and to OnePeterFive… Above, French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (link) Just After the Council, Lefebvre Responds to Ottaviani (link) By John Pepino, Ph.D. August 5, 2021 The Council had been over for less than a year. Catholics were excited and confused. Different moves towards implementation, sometimes contradictory, were rumored. Already Catholic liberals were hard at work to lead the Church in their direction. What was Rome to do? After fifty-five years, we know what Cardinal Ottaviani, one of Cardinal Ratzinger’s predecessors as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, decided to do: on July 24, 1966, he wrote to the Ordinaries of the world to sound the alarm. He had been receiving daily indications of a revolt against sound doctrine; some were already falsely appealing to the Council to spread their errors. These errors had to be dealt with. Cardinal Ottaviani, best known in liturgically-minded circles for his intervention regarding the Mass of Paul VI in 1969, begins his letter by praising the Council’s wise documents in doctrine and discipline. He soon points out, however, that his office has been receiving worrisome indications of drifts in the Council’s interpretation. He lists these drifts—“theses [that] go beyond simple opinion” and “affect dogma”—and reduces them to ten specific points. He thus produces a sort of post-conciliar syllabus of errors. His list is prophetic. It outlines attacks on Biblical inerrancy, the Magisterium, objective truth, Christology, the True Presence, and other essentials of the Faith. It was against the consequences of these errors, which he foresaw back in 1966, that he asked the bishops and superiors general of the world to “take care to repress [these errors] or to prevent them.” Perhaps the most famous response to this letter, sent just five days before its deadline of Christmas 1966, is that from Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers and of course the future founder of the Society of St. Pius X. At this point, the archbishop was imputing the reigning confusion not so much to erroneous interpretations of the Council as to the Council itself. In his response we find the early expression of some of his better known theses: that the Council marked an accommodation of the Church to the ideas leading to the French revolution; that the Council marked a break in the continuity of Tradition; that the new notion of Episcopal collegiality had broken the unity of the Church centered upon the Supreme Pontiff, etc. We also find an expression of filial hope in the Pope: “And yet, the Successor of Peter and he alone can save the Church.” The archbishop follows this with some advice on how the Pope should proceed—most smarting is the reproach that “Wednesday allocutions cannot take the place of encyclicals, of commands, of letters to bishops.” This answer, therefore, forms an important document for the study of the development of Archbishop Lefebvre’s thought. For what I believe is the first time, his response is translated into English below. The original French of these two letters is in Lettre à nos frères prêtres 29/30 (June 2006): 8-11. The following translations are my own [i.e., by Dr. Pepino]. For the sake of readability, Cardinal Ottaviani’s letter is in blue, and Archbishop Lefebvre’s letter is in red. *** Below, Cardinal Ottaviani SECRET LETTER OF CARDINAL OTTAVIANI: Sacred Congregation For the Doctrine of the Faith Prot. No 871/66Rome, 24 July 1966Piazza del S. Uffizio, 11 Since the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, which was recently and successfully brought to a close, promulgated most wise documents in both doctrinal and disciplinary matters for the efficient promotion of the life of the Church, the entire people of God has the grave duty of making every effort to implement all that has been solemnly proposed or decreed in that great assembly of bishops under the presidency of the Supreme Pontiff. Now it is up to the hierarchy—it is its right and its duty—to supervise, to direct, and to promote the movement of renewal undertaken by the Council, so that this Council’s documents and decrees may receive a correct interpretation and be implemented in keeping with the meaning and the spirit of the documents themselves. For indeed it is the bishops who must protect this doctrine, since they enjoy—under their head, Peter—the office of teaching authoritatively. It is thus praiseworthy that many Pastors have already begun to explain the Council in a fitting manner. Nevertheless it is regrettable that from diverse quarters there is sad news of increasing abuses in the interpretation of the Council’s doctrine, as well as errant and bold opinions arising here and there that in no small measure distort the minds of many of the faithful. Though studies and efforts for a deeper investigation of the truth, rightly distinguishing between what must be believed and what is a matter of free opinion, are worthy of praise, nevertheless, upon examination of the documents submitted to this Sacred Congregation, it is clear that no inconsiderable number of theses effortlessly go beyond simple opinion or hypothesis and to a certain degree seem to affect dogma itself as well as the foundations of the faith. It is appropriate to touch upon some of these theses by way of example as they are manifested either from the accounts of learned men or in their public writings.In the first place, sacred Revelation itself: some men have recourse to Sacred Scripture by knowingly putting aside Tradition; they also reduce the extent and force of biblical inspiration and inerrancy and do not have a correct idea of the worth of historical texts.As far as concerns the doctrine of the Faith, it is said that dogmatic formulas are subject to historical evolution in such a way that their objective meaning itself is subject to change.The ordinary Magisterium of the Church, especially that of the Roman Pontiff, is sometimes so neglected and undervalued that it is relegated to the area of free opinion.Objective and absolute truth, firm and immovable, comes close to not being admitted by certain men who subject all things to a sort of relativism. This for the faulty reason that all truth necessarily follows the rhythm of the evolution of conscience and history.The adorable Person of Jesus Christ Himself is hit when, in dealing with Christology, such concepts of person and nature are used as are hardly compatible with dogmatic definitions. A sort of Christological humanism creeps about according to which Christ is reduced to the condition of a mere man who, allegedly, became conscious of His divine Sonship gradually. His miraculous conception, his miracles, even his Resurrection are granted verbally but in reality are reduced to the purely natural order.Likewise in the theological tract on the sacraments certain elements are ignored or insufficiently taken into account, especially as concerns the Most Holy Eucharist. There is no dearth of those who discuss the true presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine by favoring an excessive symbolism, as if the bread and wine were not converted into the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ through transubstantiation, but were simply transferred towards a certain signification. There also are those who push further than is reasonable the concept of agape for the Mass, giving it priority over the idea of Sacrifice.Some, preferring to explain the sacrament of Penance as a means of reconciliation with the Church, do not sufficiently express reconciliation with God who is Himself offended. They claim that personal confession of sins is not necessary to the celebration of this sacrament; rather they are content to express only the social function of reconciliation with the Church.There are many too who underrate the doctrine of the Council of Trent on original sin, or who comment on it in such a way that the original sin of Adam and its very transmission are obfuscated.No less important errors are spread in the realm of moral theology. Indeed some, in no small number, dare to reject the objective rule of morality; others do not accept natural law and affirm the legitimacy of situation ethics, as they call it. Pernicious opinions are proposed on morality and responsibility in sexual and matrimonial matters.To all of this one must add a note on ecumenism. The Apostolic See fully praises those who, in the spirit of the conciliar decree on ecumenism, promote initiatives with a view to favor charity towards separated brethren and to attract them to the unity of the Church, but it deplores the fact that there is no lack of those who, interpreting after their own fashion the conciliar decree, make claims to such ecumenical action as offends the truth of the unity of the Faith and of the Church, favoring a dangerous irenicism and indifferentism, which is assuredly foreign to the spirit of the Council. These sort of errors and perils are widely distributed, but are nevertheless brought together in this letter in a summary synthesis and submitted to the Ordinaries, so that each of them, in keeping with his charge and office, may take care to repress them or to prevent them. Moreover, this Sacred Dicastery earnestly entreats these same Ordinaries of regions, assembled in their respective Episcopal conferences, to take care of them, to refer them opportunely to the Holy See and to share their reflections before the Feast of the Nativity of Our Lord of the current year. May the Ordinaries and those—whoever they are—to whom they have deemed it just to communicate this letter, which an obvious reason of prudence forbids to render public, cover it in utmost secrecy.Card. OTTAVIANIPrefect ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE’S ANSWER TO THE SECRET LETTER OF CARDINAL OTTAVIANI:Rome, 20 December 1966 Most Reverend Eminence, Your letter of July 24 concerning the questioning of certain truths has been forwarded to all our major superiors. Few answers have reached us. Those that reached us from Africa do not deny that a great mental confusion reigns today. Though these truths appear not to be questioned, nevertheless in practice there is a diminishment of fervor and of regularity in the reception of the sacraments, especially penance. There is a much diminished respect for the Holy Eucharist, especially among priests; a dwindling of priestly vocations in French-language missions; English- and Portuguese-language missions are less hit by the new spirit, but periodicals and journals are already spreading the most advanced theories there too. It seems that the cause of the slight number of responses received stems from the difficulty in grasping these errors, which are diffused everywhere; the trouble is to be found especially in a literature that spreads mental confusion through ambiguous and equivocal descriptions in which one discovers a new religion. I think it my duty to expose to you very clearly what emerges from my conversations with many bishops, priests and laymen of Europe and Africa, and which emerges also from my reading in English- and French-language countries. I should gladly follow the order of truth outlined in your letter, but I dare say that the present trouble seems to me far graver than the denial or questioning of a truth of our Faith. It manifests itself today in an extreme confusion of ideas, by the collapse of the Church and religious institutions, seminaries, Catholic schools, in a word of all that has been the abiding support of the Church. It is none other than the logical continuation of the heresies and errors that have been sapping the Church these last few centuries, especially since the last century’s liberalism, which has made every effort to reconcile the Church to the ideas that led to the Revolution. To the extent that the Church has opposed these ideas that are against healthy philosophy and theology, she has progressed; contrariwise, any compromise with these subversive ideas has brought about an accommodation of the Church in common law and the risk of enslaving her to civil society. Moreover every time Catholic groups have allowed themselves to be drawn to these myths, Popes have bravely brought them back into line, enlightening them and if necessary condemning them. Catholic liberalism was condemned by Pius IX; modernism by Leo XIII, “Le sillon” by Saint Pius X; communism by Pius XI; neo-modernism by Pius XII. Thanks to this admirable vigilance, the Church grew stronger and developed. Conversions of pagans and Protestants were very numerous; heresy was completely routed and civil governments accepted a more Catholic legislation. On the other hand groups of religious, imbued with these false notions, managed to spread within “l’Action catholique” and in seminaries, thanks to a certain indulgence on the part of bishops and the tolerance of certain Roman dicasteries. Soon bishops were chosen from among these priests. This is the point at which the Council occurred. It had been readying itself, through its preparatory Commissions, to proclaim the truth before these errors in order to make them disappear for a long time from the Church’s midst. It might have been the end of Protestantism and the beginning of a fruitful era for the Church. Yet this preparation was odiously rejected to make way for the worst tragedy the Church has ever endured. We have witnessed the marriage of the Church with liberal ideas. It would be to deny the facts, to close one’s eyes, not to affirm boldly that the Council has allowed those who profess the errors and the tendencies condemned by the aforementioned Popes to believe legitimately that their doctrines are now approved. Whereas the Council was preparing to be a luminous cloud in the world of today—if use had been made the preconciliar texts, in which a solemn profession of sure doctrine regarding modern problems was to be found—nevertheless one can and unfortunately must affirm: That, in a nearly universal manner, when the Council innovated, it has shaken certitude in the truths taught by the authentic Magisterium of the Church as definitively belonging to the treasure of Tradition. Whether one speaks of the transmission of the jurisdiction of bishops, of the two sources of Revelation, of biblical inspiration, of the necessity of grace for justification, of the necessity of Catholic Baptism, of the life of grace among heretics, schismatics, and pagans, of the ends of marriage, of religious liberty, of the last things, etc…. On these fundamental points, traditional doctrine was clear and unanimously taught in Catholic universities. Yet many conciliar texts on these truths now allow them to be called into doubt. The consequences of this have been quickly drawn and applied in the life of the Church: -Doubts regarding the necessity of the Church and of the sacraments beget the disappearance of priestly vocations. -Doubts regarding the necessity and nature of “conversion” of the soul beget the disappearance of religious vocations, the ruin of traditional spirituality in novitiates, the uselessness of missions. -Doubts regarding the legitimacy of authority and the necessity of obedience, brought about by the exaltation of human dignity, of the autonomy of conscience, and of freedom, shake up all societies, starting with the Church, religious societies, diocese, civil society, the family. Pride has, as a normal consequence, every concupiscence of the eyes and of the flesh. One of the most appalling things to note is, perhaps, the moral degeneracy to which most Catholic publications have fallen. There is no reserve in talking about sexuality, the limitation of births by any and all means, the legitimacy of divorce, coeducation, flirting and dances as means of Christian education, about priestly celibacy, etc. -Doubts regarding the necessity of grace for salvation bring about disregard for baptism, which is now postponed, and the abandonment of the sacrament of penance. All of this is principally the attitude of priests, not of the faithful. The same applies to the Real Presence: it is the priests who behave as if they no longer believe, hiding the Holy Reservation, suppressing all marks of respect toward the Blessed Sacrament and all ceremonies in Its honor. -Doubts regarding the necessity of the Church as only source of salvation and regarding the Catholic Church as one true religion, derived from declarations on ecumenism and on religion freedom, destroy the authority of the Church’s Magisterium. Indeed, Rome is no longer the sole and necessary “Magistra Veritatis” [“Teacher of truth”]. Overcome by the facts, therefore, we must conclude that the Council has fostered the spreading of liberal ideas in an inconceivable way. Faith, morals, ecclesiastical discipline: these are shaken to their foundations, in keeping with the predictions of all the popes. The Church’s destruction is proceeding apace. Through an exaggerated authority granted to Episcopal conferences, the Sovereign Pontiff has rendered himself impotent. In a single year, how many painful examples! And yet, the Successor of Peter and he alone can save the Church. Let the Holy Father surround himself with vigorous defenders of the Faith, let him appoint them to significant dioceses. Let him deign to proclaim the truth in weighty documents, let him hunt down error without fear of opposition, without fear of schism, without fear of casting doubt upon the pastoral dispositions of the Council. May the Holy Father deign to encourage the bishops to set faith and morals aright individually, as befits any good shepherd; to support courageous bishops, to incite them to reform their seminaries, to reestablish studies according to St. Thomas in them; to encourage superiors general to maintain in their novitiates and communities the fundamental principles of all Christian asceticism, especially obedience; to encourage the development of Catholic schools, of a doctrinally healthy press, of associations of Christian families; at last also to repress those who instigate error and to reduce them to silence. Wednesday allocutions cannot take the place of encyclicals, of commands, of letters to bishops. Doubtless I am rather bold to express myself in this manner! But it is with ardent love that I write these lines, love of the glory of God, love of Jesus, love of Mary, of her Church, of the Successor of Peter, bishop of Rome, vicar of Jesus Christ. May the Holy Ghost, to Whom our congregation is dedicated, deign to come to the assistance of the Shepherd of the Church universal. May it please your Eminence to accept the assurance of my very respectful devotion in Our Lord.+ Marcel LefebvreTitular Archbishop of Synnada in PhrygiaSuperior General of the Congregation of the Holy Ghost. [Here continues the analysis of Dr. Pepino.] These two letters reveal a few items of importance for the history of the post-conciliar era. On the one hand, we see that Rome did not remain inactive in the face of the whirlwind. She responded appropriately: the Prefect of the CDF fulfilled his function by informing all ordinaries of the problem; he asked them to nip error in the bud and to report to him on the local situation within five months. Clearly, he felt this to be a matter of urgency. Only further research will reveal what responses he received from the majority of ordinaries at the time. Archbishop’s Lefebvre’s response in this regard is not encouraging: even he seems to have had trouble getting answers from his inferiors. The response of the Archbishop is revealing in another way too. He already finds the cause of the situation in the documents of Vatican II themselves and links them to eighteenth-century revolutionary ideas. In this he is expressing his disagreement with Card. Ottaviani, who had made of point of extolling the wisdom of these documents “in both doctrinal and disciplinary matters.” Ottaviani’s view must have been that Rome could not take the path of revising the texts, as Lefebvre was advocating. This exchange of letters, therefore, represents the fork in the road between the Vatican and Lefebvre. The consequences, fifty-five years later, are to be found in the ongoing dialogue between Rome and the Society of St. Pius X. [End, analysis of Dr. Pepino; to be continued]
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on The World Health Organization (WHO) launched “VigiAccess” in 2015 to provide public access to information in its VigiBase, the WHO global database of reported potential adverse side effects of medicinal products. In its most recent report issued on November 12, 2021 WHO revealed that in the years 1992-2021 the drug Ivermectin had total reported adverse side effects totaling 5,705. Hydroxychlorine in the years 1968-2021 had a total reported adverse side effects totaling 32,641. Tylenol in the years 1968-2021 had reported adverse side effects totaling 169,359. Aspirin in the years 1968-2021 had reported adverse side effects totaling 168,359. Influenza vaccine had reported in the years 1968-2021 reported adverse side effects totaling 272,202. Covid-19 vaccine in the years 2020-2021 reported adverse side effects totaling 2,457,386. What I find amazing is that Ivermectin which is so much safer than the Covid-19 vaccine is ignored by the medical profession whereas the Covid-19 vaccine is so pushed on the public. The reader should have no difficulty realizing that financial profit partly explains this anomaly. But the disparity between the numbers 5,705 and 2,457,386 staggers the mind.
Dr. Robert Moynihan 
Above, French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (
SECRET LETTER OF CARDINAL OTTAVIANI: Sacred Congregation For the Doctrine of the Faith Prot. No 871/66Rome, 24 July 1966Piazza del S. Uffizio, 11 Since the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, which was recently and successfully brought to a close, promulgated most wise documents in both doctrinal and disciplinary matters for the efficient promotion of the life of the Church, the entire people of God has the grave duty of making every effort to implement all that has been solemnly proposed or decreed in that great assembly of bishops under the presidency of the Supreme Pontiff. Now it is up to the hierarchy—it is its right and its duty—to supervise, to direct, and to promote the movement of renewal undertaken by the Council, so that this Council’s documents and decrees may receive a correct interpretation and be implemented in keeping with the meaning and the spirit of the documents themselves. For indeed it is the bishops who must protect this doctrine, since they enjoy—under their head, Peter—the office of teaching authoritatively. It is thus praiseworthy that many Pastors have already begun to explain the Council in a fitting manner. Nevertheless it is regrettable that from diverse quarters there is sad news of increasing abuses in the interpretation of the Council’s doctrine, as well as errant and bold opinions arising here and there that in no small measure distort the minds of many of the faithful. Though studies and efforts for a deeper investigation of the truth, rightly distinguishing between what must be believed and what is a matter of free opinion, are worthy of praise, nevertheless, upon examination of the documents submitted to this Sacred Congregation, it is clear that no inconsiderable number of theses effortlessly go beyond simple opinion or hypothesis and to a certain degree seem to affect dogma itself as well as the foundations of the faith. It is appropriate to touch upon some of these theses by way of example as they are manifested either from the accounts of learned men or in their public writings.In the first place, sacred Revelation itself: some men have recourse to Sacred Scripture by knowingly putting aside Tradition; they also reduce the extent and force of biblical inspiration and inerrancy and do not have a correct idea of the worth of historical texts.As far as concerns the doctrine of the Faith, it is said that dogmatic formulas are subject to historical evolution in such a way that their objective meaning itself is subject to change.The ordinary Magisterium of the Church, especially that of the Roman Pontiff, is sometimes so neglected and undervalued that it is relegated to the area of free opinion.Objective and absolute truth, firm and immovable, comes close to not being admitted by certain men who subject all things to a sort of relativism. This for the faulty reason that all truth necessarily follows the rhythm of the evolution of conscience and history.The adorable Person of Jesus Christ Himself is hit when, in dealing with Christology, such concepts of person and nature are used as are hardly compatible with dogmatic definitions. A sort of Christological humanism creeps about according to which Christ is reduced to the condition of a mere man who, allegedly, became conscious of His divine Sonship gradually. His miraculous conception, his miracles, even his Resurrection are granted verbally but in reality are reduced to the purely natural order.Likewise in the theological tract on the sacraments certain elements are ignored or insufficiently taken into account, especially as concerns the Most Holy Eucharist. There is no dearth of those who discuss the true presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine by favoring an excessive symbolism, as if the bread and wine were not converted into the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ through transubstantiation, but were simply transferred towards a certain signification. There also are those who push further than is reasonable the concept of agape for the Mass, giving it priority over the idea of Sacrifice.Some, preferring to explain the sacrament of Penance as a means of reconciliation with the Church, do not sufficiently express reconciliation with God who is Himself offended. They claim that personal confession of sins is not necessary to the celebration of this sacrament; rather they are content to express only the social function of reconciliation with the Church.There are many too who underrate the doctrine of the Council of Trent on original sin, or who comment on it in such a way that the original sin of Adam and its very transmission are obfuscated.No less important errors are spread in the realm of moral theology. Indeed some, in no small number, dare to reject the objective rule of morality; others do not accept natural law and affirm the legitimacy of situation ethics, as they call it. Pernicious opinions are proposed on morality and responsibility in sexual and matrimonial matters.To all of this one must add a note on ecumenism. The Apostolic See fully praises those who, in the spirit of the conciliar decree on ecumenism, promote initiatives with a view to favor charity towards separated brethren and to attract them to the unity of the Church, but it deplores the fact that there is no lack of those who, interpreting after their own fashion the conciliar decree, make claims to such ecumenical action as offends the truth of the unity of the Faith and of the Church, favoring a dangerous irenicism and indifferentism, which is assuredly foreign to the spirit of the Council. These sort of errors and perils are widely distributed, but are nevertheless brought together in this letter in a summary synthesis and submitted to the Ordinaries, so that each of them, in keeping with his charge and office, may take care to repress them or to prevent them. Moreover, this Sacred Dicastery earnestly entreats these same Ordinaries of regions, assembled in their respective Episcopal conferences, to take care of them, to refer them opportunely to the Holy See and to share their reflections before the Feast of the Nativity of Our Lord of the current year. May the Ordinaries and those—whoever they are—to whom they have deemed it just to communicate this letter, which an obvious reason of prudence forbids to render public, cover it in utmost secrecy.Card. OTTAVIANIPrefect ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE’S ANSWER TO THE SECRET LETTER OF CARDINAL OTTAVIANI:Rome, 20 December 1966 Most Reverend Eminence, Your letter of July 24 concerning the questioning of certain truths has been forwarded to all our major superiors. Few answers have reached us. Those that reached us from Africa do not deny that a great mental confusion reigns today. Though these truths appear not to be questioned, nevertheless in practice there is a diminishment of fervor and of regularity in the reception of the sacraments, especially penance. There is a much diminished respect for the Holy Eucharist, especially among priests; a dwindling of priestly vocations in French-language missions; English- and Portuguese-language missions are less hit by the new spirit, but periodicals and journals are already spreading the most advanced theories there too. It seems that the cause of the slight number of responses received stems from the difficulty in grasping these errors, which are diffused everywhere; the trouble is to be found especially in a literature that spreads mental confusion through ambiguous and equivocal descriptions in which one discovers a new religion. I think it my duty to expose to you very clearly what emerges from my conversations with many bishops, priests and laymen of Europe and Africa, and which emerges also from my reading in English- and French-language countries. I should gladly follow the order of truth outlined in your letter, but I dare say that the present trouble seems to me far graver than the denial or questioning of a truth of our Faith. It manifests itself today in an extreme confusion of ideas, by the collapse of the Church and religious institutions, seminaries, Catholic schools, in a word of all that has been the abiding support of the Church. It is none other than the logical continuation of the heresies and errors that have been sapping the Church these last few centuries, especially since the last century’s liberalism, which has made every effort to reconcile the Church to the ideas that led to the Revolution. To the extent that the Church has opposed these ideas that are against healthy philosophy and theology, she has progressed; contrariwise, any compromise with these subversive ideas has brought about an accommodation of the Church in common law and the risk of enslaving her to civil society. Moreover every time Catholic groups have allowed themselves to be drawn to these myths, Popes have bravely brought them back into line, enlightening them and if necessary condemning them. Catholic liberalism was condemned by Pius IX; modernism by Leo XIII, “Le sillon” by Saint Pius X; communism by Pius XI; neo-modernism by Pius XII. Thanks to this admirable vigilance, the Church grew stronger and developed. Conversions of pagans and Protestants were very numerous; heresy was completely routed and civil governments accepted a more Catholic legislation. On the other hand groups of religious, imbued with these false notions, managed to spread within “l’Action catholique” and in seminaries, thanks to a certain indulgence on the part of bishops and the tolerance of certain Roman dicasteries. Soon bishops were chosen from among these priests. This is the point at which the Council occurred. It had been readying itself, through its preparatory Commissions, to proclaim the truth before these errors in order to make them disappear for a long time from the Church’s midst. It might have been the end of Protestantism and the beginning of a fruitful era for the Church. Yet this preparation was odiously rejected to make way for the worst tragedy the Church has ever endured. We have witnessed the marriage of the Church with liberal ideas. It would be to deny the facts, to close one’s eyes, not to affirm boldly that the Council has allowed those who profess the errors and the tendencies condemned by the aforementioned Popes to believe legitimately that their doctrines are now approved. Whereas the Council was preparing to be a luminous cloud in the world of today—if use had been made the preconciliar texts, in which a solemn profession of sure doctrine regarding modern problems was to be found—nevertheless one can and unfortunately must affirm: That, in a nearly universal manner, when the Council innovated, it has shaken certitude in the truths taught by the authentic Magisterium of the Church as definitively belonging to the treasure of Tradition. Whether one speaks of the transmission of the jurisdiction of bishops, of the two sources of Revelation, of biblical inspiration, of the necessity of grace for justification, of the necessity of Catholic Baptism, of the life of grace among heretics, schismatics, and pagans, of the ends of marriage, of religious liberty, of the last things, etc…. On these fundamental points, traditional doctrine was clear and unanimously taught in Catholic universities. Yet many conciliar texts on these truths now allow them to be called into doubt. The consequences of this have been quickly drawn and applied in the life of the Church: -Doubts regarding the necessity of the Church and of the sacraments beget the disappearance of priestly vocations. -Doubts regarding the necessity and nature of “conversion” of the soul beget the disappearance of religious vocations, the ruin of traditional spirituality in novitiates, the uselessness of missions. -Doubts regarding the legitimacy of authority and the necessity of obedience, brought about by the exaltation of human dignity, of the autonomy of conscience, and of freedom, shake up all societies, starting with the Church, religious societies, diocese, civil society, the family. Pride has, as a normal consequence, every concupiscence of the eyes and of the flesh. One of the most appalling things to note is, perhaps, the moral degeneracy to which most Catholic publications have fallen. There is no reserve in talking about sexuality, the limitation of births by any and all means, the legitimacy of divorce, coeducation, flirting and dances as means of Christian education, about priestly celibacy, etc. -Doubts regarding the necessity of grace for salvation bring about disregard for baptism, which is now postponed, and the abandonment of the sacrament of penance. All of this is principally the attitude of priests, not of the faithful. The same applies to the Real Presence: it is the priests who behave as if they no longer believe, hiding the Holy Reservation, suppressing all marks of respect toward the Blessed Sacrament and all ceremonies in Its honor. -Doubts regarding the necessity of the Church as only source of salvation and regarding the Catholic Church as one true religion, derived from declarations on ecumenism and on religion freedom, destroy the authority of the Church’s Magisterium. Indeed, Rome is no longer the sole and necessary “Magistra Veritatis” [“Teacher of truth”]. Overcome by the facts, therefore, we must conclude that the Council has fostered the spreading of liberal ideas in an inconceivable way. Faith, morals, ecclesiastical discipline: these are shaken to their foundations, in keeping with the predictions of all the popes. The Church’s destruction is proceeding apace. Through an exaggerated authority granted to Episcopal conferences, the Sovereign Pontiff has rendered himself impotent. In a single year, how many painful examples! And yet, the Successor of Peter and he alone can save the Church. Let the Holy Father surround himself with vigorous defenders of the Faith, let him appoint them to significant dioceses. Let him deign to proclaim the truth in weighty documents, let him hunt down error without fear of opposition, without fear of schism, without fear of casting doubt upon the pastoral dispositions of the Council. May the Holy Father deign to encourage the bishops to set faith and morals aright individually, as befits any good shepherd; to support courageous bishops, to incite them to reform their seminaries, to reestablish studies according to St. Thomas in them; to encourage superiors general to maintain in their novitiates and communities the fundamental principles of all Christian asceticism, especially obedience; to encourage the development of Catholic schools, of a doctrinally healthy press, of associations of Christian families; at last also to repress those who instigate error and to reduce them to silence. Wednesday allocutions cannot take the place of encyclicals, of commands, of letters to bishops. Doubtless I am rather bold to express myself in this manner! But it is with ardent love that I write these lines, love of the glory of God, love of Jesus, love of Mary, of her Church, of the Successor of Peter, bishop of Rome, vicar of Jesus Christ. May the Holy Ghost, to Whom our congregation is dedicated, deign to come to the assistance of the Shepherd of the Church universal. May it please your Eminence to accept the assurance of my very respectful devotion in Our Lord.+ Marcel LefebvreTitular Archbishop of Synnada in PhrygiaSuperior General of the Congregation of the Holy Ghost. [Here continues the analysis of Dr. Pepino.] These two letters reveal a few items of importance for the history of the post-conciliar era. On the one hand, we see that Rome did not remain inactive in the face of the whirlwind. She responded appropriately: the Prefect of the CDF fulfilled his function by informing all ordinaries of the problem; he asked them to nip error in the bud and to report to him on the local situation within five months. Clearly, he felt this to be a matter of urgency. Only further research will reveal what responses he received from the majority of ordinaries at the time. Archbishop’s Lefebvre’s response in this regard is not encouraging: even he seems to have had trouble getting answers from his inferiors. The response of the Archbishop is revealing in another way too. He already finds the cause of the situation in the documents of Vatican II themselves and links them to eighteenth-century revolutionary ideas. In this he is expressing his disagreement with Card. Ottaviani, who had made of point of extolling the wisdom of these documents “in both doctrinal and disciplinary matters.” Ottaviani’s view must have been that Rome could not take the path of revising the texts, as Lefebvre was advocating. This exchange of letters, therefore, represents the fork in the road between the Vatican and Lefebvre. The consequences, fifty-five years later, are to be found in the ongoing dialogue between Rome and the Society of St. Pius X. [End, analysis of Dr. Pepino; to be continued]
ABYSSUS ABYSSUM INVOCAT / DEEP CALLS TO DEEP 
You must be logged in to post a comment.