A significant number of supporters of the traditional Roman Rite have always held the opinion that the rite of 1970 is a new creation and represents a break with the traditional Roman Rite. There are good arguments for this. However, until now this has never been stated authoritatively.
There are no obstacles to create a new rite for the Mass (provided that this is done by the competent church authorities). Such a new rite can apply to certain regions, it can apply to certain orders, or it can support the reunification of separated Christians. There are also no obstacles to change an existing rite (for example by adding further feasts). However, significant changes were strictly avoided in the past. Likewise, nothing speaks against bringing a rite closer to its original form by removing duplications and later insertions; the great figures of liturgical reform – Pope Gregory the Great and Pope Pius V – have carried out precisely these types of reform, however they avoided self-serving liturgical archeology. The careful handling of the Roman Rite in the past has resulted in the Roman Rite showing a high degree of continuity dating back to early Christian times.Advertisement – Continue Reading Below
The essential immutability of the liturgy was so self-evident that in the 19th century the Magna Cartaof papal rights – the Constitution Pastor aeternus of the First Vatican Council – did not even mention liturgy as a field in which a pope has any kind of freedom to make changes. A pope making significant changes in the liturgy would have appeared as absurd as a pope recognizing a fifth gospel or deleting St. Paul’s letters from the canon of the Bible. In the section on papal infallibility it is clearly noted that the Pope’s freedom of action and infallibility are only given with regard to preservation, but not with regard to new creations.[1] The First Vatican Council thus indirectly confirmed the ban on changes of the Roman Rite, as expressed in the Apostolic Constitution Quo primum by Pius V from 1570.
As with many topics, Pope Paul VI has shown a considerable ambiguity in the choice of words: In the Apostolic Constitution Missale romanum (1969) he spoke of a renovatio (“revision”) and a compositionem novam (“new composition”) of the Roman Missal. Reform, revision and new composition are expressions that stand for fundamental continuity. At the same time, however, at the general audience on November 19, 1969, Pope Paul VI described the liturgical reform beginning with the upcoming Advent as nuovo rito della Messa (“new rite of the Mass”).
Pope John Paul II convened a high-ranking commission of cardinals in 1986 to review the legal status of the “old rite.” Their conclusions were never published, but can be identified from subsequent events: In 1988 the papal letter Ecclesia Dei removed obstacles to the celebration of the Mass in the Rite of 1962 and became the founding document for many communities following the traditional Roman Rite. Above all, the conclusions of the commission are reflected in the apodictic statement by Pope Benedict (as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger member of the commission) in the letter accompanying Summorum Pontificum (2007) that the old rite “was never (…) abrogated (replaced).”
Benedict XVI has also stated in his accompanying letter that the forma ordinaria (rite 1970) and forma extraordinaria (rite 1962) are two expressions of one and the same rite. Although his reasoning leaves some questions (wide) open, this was at least a noble attempt to put the unresolved relationship between the rites on a sustainable basis. In Pope Benedict’s view, the rite of 1970 must be seen in the light of the traditional Roman Rite. This ultimately rules out that the lex orandi of the new rite – if it is celebrated properly (and maybe even if not celebrated properly) – differs from the lex orandi of the traditional Roman rite. The subtlety of the deliberations of Pope Benedict XVI lies in the fact that he imposes the recognition of the rite of 1970 on the followers of the traditional Roman Rite, and – at the same time – he embeds the rite of 1970 in the theology and ecclesiology of the traditional Roman Rite.Advertisement – Continue Reading Below
Against this view Pope Francis is now taking action in Traditionis custodes: “The liturgical books promulgated by Saint Paul VI and Saint John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, are the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite,” says Article 1 of Traditionis custodes. The Pope does not even notice that this sentence contains a logical impossibility: If the rite of 1970 is a (reformed) continuation of the Roman Rite, it must – out of necessity – adhere to the same law of prayer (lex orandi). If, on the other hand, it represents a different law of prayer, then there is no continuity between the traditional Roman Rite and the rite of 1970. Then it is impossible that the Roman Rite was renewed “in faithful observance of the Tradition,” as Pope Francis wrote in the accompanying letter to Traditionis custodes: The rite of 1970 cannot be both faithful to tradition and incompatible with the traditional Roman Rite regarding the lex orandi.
What remains somewhat vague in the Motu proprio Traditionis custodies and in the accompanying letter was made crystal clear by Pope Francis on August 30, 2021 in an interview with COPE, the radio station of the Spanish Bishops’ Conference: In this interview the Pope said that priests, who want to celebrate Mass in the traditional Roman Rite, need a permiso de bi-ritualismo, a permission for the celebration in two rites, from Rome.[2] For the first time ever a pope indicated that the traditional Roman Rite and the rite of 1970 are two distinct rites.
While Pope Benedict XVI struggled to preserve unity in Summorum Pontificum, Pope Francis cuts this unity and describes the traditional Roman Rite and the rite of 1970 as two rites that represent an incompatible law of prayer (“lex orandi”). This raises the question (which will not be addressed here) whether the faith of the Church has remained the same: “lex orandi, lex credendi (…). The law of prayer is the law of faith: the Church believes as she prays” (CCC 1124).
If the rite of 1970 is a separate rite, with a lex orandi separate from the traditional Roman Rite, this means basically two things: First, Pope Paul VI created a new rite, which is also (confusingly) called the “Roman Rite.” Whether this rite has its merits or shows deficits is as irrelevant, as is the question of whether this rite corresponds to the ideas outlined in the document Sacrosanctum Conciliumdecreed by the Second Vatican Council; in any case, the rite of 1970 is undeniably new. Second, the traditional Roman Rite has not been reformed into the new rite, but – as Pope Benedict rightly recognized – it continues to exist and can’t be abolished.Advertisement – Continue Reading Below
The traditional Roman Rite continues and is not subject to the mood swings and wishes of popes. The traditional Roman Rite is protected by the venerability of its long tradition. Protected forever. The rite of 1970, on the other hand, was only protected by wrapping itself into the cloak of the venerable traditional Roman Rite, claiming to be its rightful (reformed) continuation. In Summorum PontificumPope Benedict XVI did not only hand back the traditional Roman Rite its legitimate place, but also tried to integrate the rite of 1970 into the history of the development of the Roman Rite.
By smashing the work of his predecessor, Pope Francis is removing the historical integration of the 1970 rite into a two-thousand-year history of the Roman Rite, and leaves the rite of 1970 naked and defenseless. With reference to Pius V – ironically quoted by Pope Francis – every future Pope could remove the rite of 1970 with the stroke of a pen. That might not seem likely in view of the current balance of power within the Catholic Church. But looking at the enormous and often rapid upheavals within the church in the last 150 years, such a constellation cannot be ruled out even within a foreseeable period of time.
This raises the question of the providential role of the present Pope in a completely new way. It is obvious that Pope Francis is not a friend of the traditional Roman Rite and apparently he wants to push it back or even dispose of it. With Traditionis custodies he has presented an extremely harsh, downright hostile document. However, in the end, he was not able to shake the traditional Roman Rite, but rather robbed the rite of 1970 of its historical anchoring. Are we just seeing an impressive demonstration of how God is writing straight with crooked lines?
Photo: Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Paris, Paris, France by Pedro Lastra on Unsplash.Advertisement – Continue Reading Below
—
[1] Pastor Aeternus, Caput IV: “Neque enim Petri successoribus Spiritus Sanctus promissus est, ut eo revelante novam doctrinam patefacerent, sed ut eo assistente traditam per Apostolos revelationem seu fidei depositum sancte custodirent et fideliter exponerent.”
[2] Quoted according to Revista Ecclesia (magazine of the Spanish Bishops’ Conference), vol. LXXX, No. 4.087, special edition because of the Pope’s interview from September 4, 2021, p.8.
Christoph Hartmann is a journalist from Austria. In his career, spanning 35 years, he has written for different types of print and internet media and has produced radio programs. Following his studies at the university he specialized on writing about economics, ultimately serving 15 years as editor-in-chief of economic publications. However, he has always looked beyond economics and has written frequently about history, the long term development of society, religion – his first article published in this field was about Sollicitudo rei socialis, an encyclical letter by Pope John Paul II, in 1987 – and philosophy. He is a lifelong Catholic and became a Catechist in 2010. Christoph Hartmann is married and has one daughter.
When I heard that traditional Catholic historian Roberto de Mattei had published a four hundred page biography of Pius V I simply couldn’t resist. Saint Pius V:The Legendary Pope Who Excommunicated Queen Elizabeth I, Standardized the Mass, and Defeated the Ottoman Empire by Roberto de Mattei was published by Sophia Institute Press on May 25, 2021. This work is badly needed by Christ’s Mystical Body since we’re currently struggling with a very weak Pope. I also knew that it would be fantastic since it was written by one of the greatest Catholic intellectuals alive.
What does De Mattei’s book tell us about Pope Pius V and Christianity? If you were to ask an educated traditional Catholic why Pius V was a great Pope they’d probably bring up the same handful of reasons: the Battle of Lepanto, the excommunication of Queen Elizabeth, the promulgating of the doctrines of Trent and the Tridentine mass. They also might throw in the fact that he started the tradition of Popes wearing the white cassock.Advertisement – Continue Reading Below
The last of these facts is quite interesting. Not because it’s a tradition that stands until this day but because of the reason behind it. Pope Pius V wore a white cassock because he was a Dominican. What were Dominicans known for? Among other things, they were known for being elite inquisitors. All of the most famous inquisitors in Christian history have been Dominicans; Bernard Gui, Nicholas Eymerich, Tomas de Torquemada, and many others. Before he was elected Pope Pius V, Antonio Ghisleri had a long history as an inquisitor. During his reign, Pope Paul IV appointed Ghisleri prefect of the Palace of the Inquisition.
During his reign as Pope, Pius V brought his inquisition character to his office. De Mattei talks about three inquisitors of that era who became popes; Paul IV, Pius V, and Sixtus V. On page 87 Mattei writes: “Of these three inquisitor popes, the one who is most identified with the institution of the Inquisition was, according to the historian Adriano Prosperi, is St. Pius V.”
On December 21, 1566, Pius V issued the bull Inter Multiplices Curas with the goal of stamping out all heresy and false doctrine. Regarding this promulgation, on page 95, Mattei writes:
The pope appealed to his long experience as supreme inquisitor, which had taught him how many of those tried by the Holy Office presented false witnesses on their behalf and used artifice and deception to mislead their judges.
In his manner of dealing with heretics, one can view the entire pontificate of Pius V as an exercise of the mentality of the inquisition. One may reasonably ask, isn’t this primitive? Isn’t this barbaric? Isn’t the inquisition just about killing people with whom you disagree theologically? That could not be further from the truth. The goal of the inquisition wasn’t to kill heretics. It was to reconcile them to the true faith. We could even say that the inquisition was simply carrying out the Gospel of Our Lord Jesus Christ.Advertisement – Continue Reading Below
In carrying out the Great Commission at the end of the Gospel of Matthew, there are two kinds of people that need to be evangelized. The first are the unbaptized which include Jews, Muhammadans, pagans, and atheists. The second are those properly baptized but who adhere to a false or perverted Gospel. This includes the followers of Martin Luther, John Calvin, Michael Cerularius, Dioscorus of Alexandria and many other schismatic or heretical groups. Groups like this aren’t new. The spirit of rebellion is seen as early as the pages of the New Testament. The false teachers of Galatia are a perfect example, a baptized group of people claiming to be Christians but preach a gospel that is no gospel at all. Our attitude towards these groups should be that of the inquisition and Pius V. In short, help them drop their heresy and embrace Christ fully. There isn’t a more Christian message than this.
The 16th century Church also struggled with a problem that the 21st century church struggles with and that is the issue of sodomites in the clerical ranks. Sodomy had always been considered a mortal sin in Christendom and that is made explicitly clear by many saints before the 16th century including Peter Damian, Pope Leo IX and Bernardine of Siena. In the bull Horrendum Illud Pius V writes about how to deal with sodomite clergy:
Therefore, desiring to pursue more rigorously that which we have exercised since the beginning of our pontificate, we establish that any priest or member of the clergy, whether secular or regular, who commits such an execrable crime shall by the authority of the present canon be deprived of every clerical privilege, every post, dignity, and ecclesiastical benefice. And after being degraded by the ecclesiastical judge, he shall be immediately consigned to the secular authority so that he may be destined for that sentence foreseen by the law as an opportune punishment inflicted upon the laity who have fallen into such an abyss.
The Church in the days of Pius V seemed to have the same problem as we do now. However if the current Roman Pontiff used words like this, I don’t think we’d be reading stories of priests caught with Grindr accounts.
At the same time in the 16th century, the Church was full Catholic kings and princes who didn’t want to fight the largest enemy of Christendom – the Turks. In 1453, the Muhammadan Turks had captured Constantinople, mutilated the Hagia Sophia and many other holy churches and embarked on a centuries long campaign to subdue Catholic lands. Mehmed the Conqueror’s conquering career didn’t end with Constantinople, that was just the beginning. By the sixteenth century the Turks had expanded and were ready to march into the heart of Europe. Pius V was able to organize a Holy League and smash the Turkish enemies of God at the Battle of Lepanto on October 7, 1571. Catholic nations like France and Poland had no interest in joining the Holy League since it would interfere with their petty and worldly interests. On his deathbed Pope Pius V lamented the attitude of Catholic nations who had no interest in combatting the Turkish menace. He longed to see the end of the Ottoman Empire. While he didn’t see its death, he did manage do deal it a painful blow at Lepanto while it was at the height of its power.Advertisement – Continue Reading Below
Pius V faced Catholic powers who were indifferent to the cause of Christendom, and we face secular powers who are hostile to it. Pius fought manfully and Christendom conquered against all odds and eventually tipped the balance against the Ottomans. We too must fight manfully against all odds and by the cross of Christ, God will deliver many souls from the enemies of Christ. The brilliance of De Mattei is that he is able to write a hagiography and academic biography under one cover. I suppose it’s pretty easy after all, since Pope Pius V never committed a mortal sin in his entire life. It’s certainly a book we Catholics need to read, especially while the worldly politicians have us locked up at home.
Allan Ruhl is a YouTube apologist and blogger who lives in Western Canada. He holds a Bachelors of Science in engineering from the University of Alberta. His main interests are Church history and Islamic apologetics. Follow him on Twitter @AllanRuhl.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on Trent and the Tridentine mass.
“This is what the LORD says: ‘Stand at the crossroads and look. Ask for the ancient paths: Where is the good way? Then walk in it and find rest for your souls.’ But they said, ‘We will not walk in it!’ And I set watchmen over you, saying, ‘Listen to the sound of the trumpet!’ But they said, ‘We will not listen.'” —Jeremiah 6:16-17 Letter #145, 2021, Monday, November 15: Rome In a decision made public last week, the Pope’s vicar for the city of Rome, Cardinal Angelo De Donatis (whom at least one observer has suggested could be Pope Francis‘ candidate to be the next Pope; see below, at the very end) has decreed that the sacraments of the Church(that is, baptisms, confirmations, confessions, marriages, ordinations, funerals) are prohibited from being celebrated in the diocese of Rome inthe old Latin liturgy. This is the implementation for the city and diocese of Rome of the decree Traditionis custodes (“Of tradition the custodians” or “Of tradition the guardians”) issued by Pope Francis on July 16, 2021, the Feast of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel. What it means is that, in the city of Rome, the traditional Roman liturgy itself — the liturgy in Latin of the city of Rome for generation upon generation — has been prohibited. This comes as one of the five churches in Rome where the old liturgy had been regularly celebrated, Santissima Trinità dei Pellegrini — run by the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, a community dedicated to the celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass — has experienced a doubling or even a tripling of faithful attending in the months since July. (Some observers are saying that this very growth in attendance is one of the reasons for the issuing of this decree.) Here is the actual decree, in Italian (link). The old liturgy was accepted and revered as the liturgy of the entire Church from the 1500s (but its roots are 1,000 or more years earlier) until the 1960s. It was the liturgy known to St. Robert Bellarmine,St. John Henry Newman, St. Maximilian Kolbe, St. Edith Stein, and so many more saints and believers over the centuries. It is the liturgy our fathers asked us with solemn conviction to study, learn, respect, honor and defend from every attack, because it was for them the most sublime worship of God and brought graces into the world for the redemption of sinful, fallen mankind. Now, in Rome, since five days ago, this liturgy is forbidden. Below are two reports about this development.—RM
Cardinal Angelo De Donatis (link), the vicar of Pope Francis for the city of Rome. (Pope Francis is the Bishop of Rome, but, because of his global duties as Pope, he chooses a “vicar” or “deputy” to administer all of the Church matters in the diocese of Rome; so De Donatis makes all the decisions for the diocese of Rome, but he would not do anything not ordered or approved of by Pope Francis, the actual bishop of Rome.) The words of De Donatis’ Latin episcopal motto, nihil caritate dulcius (“nothing is sweeter than love” in English), are taken from St. Ambrose‘s De officiis ministrorum (in English: On the Duties of the Clergy): “Be among you the peace that surpasses all feeling. Love one another. Nothing is sweeter than love, nothing more pleasing than peace.” Traditionis custodes: Rome diocese bans Traditional Latin Mass for Easter Triduum (link) By Hannah Brockhaus Rome, Italy, Nov 10, 2021 / 04:20 am The vicar general for the Diocese of Rome has banned the celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass during the Easter Triduum in his implementation of Pope Francis’ motu proprio Traditionis custodes. In a letter dated Oct. 7, but made public on several blogs Nov. 9 [Note: Six days ago now…], Cardinal Angelo De Donatis said that Mass could continue to be celebrated according to the 1962 Roman Missal at five churches in Rome on all days except from the evening of Holy Thursday to the evening of Easter Sunday, the period known as the Triduum. De Donatis also stated that no other sacraments or sacramentals may be celebrated according to the pre-Vatican II missal except the Mass. The diocesan press office confirmed on Nov. 10 that the letter, addressed to the priests and faithful of the Diocese of Rome, was authentic. As pope, Francis is also the bishop of Rome, but because the pope has many other responsibilities, the day-to-day care of the Diocese of Rome is entrusted to the vicar general, whose full title is Vicar General of His Holiness. A vicar general is given, by canon law, executive power over the diocese in all administrative acts except those reserved to the bishop. In the Diocese of Rome, the cardinal vicar functions like a de facto diocesan bishop. Rome diocese’s guidelines were issued in response to Pope Francis’ motu proprioTraditionis custodes, published in July, which placed tight restrictions on Mass using the 1962 Roman Missal, known variously as the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite, the Tridentine Mass, and the Traditional Latin Mass. In a letter to the world’s bishops explaining his decision, the pope said he felt compelled to act because the use of the 1962 Missal was “often characterized by a rejection not only of the liturgical reform, but of the Vatican Council II itself, claiming, with unfounded and unsustainable assertions, that it betrayed the Tradition and the ‘true Church.’” Responding to the pope’s motu proprio, the cardinal vicar of Rome said “it seemed fitting to continue to exercise a lively pastoral charity towards the faithful” who wish to participate in the Traditional Latin Mass. He said that all priests in the diocese who sought to celebrate Mass according to the 1962 Missal must be authorized in writing by the diocesan bishop, as stipulated in Traditionis custodes. The cardinal designated the pastor of Santissima Trinità dei Pellegrini, a church run by the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP), as responsible “pro tempore” (for the time being) for the “dignified celebration of the Eucharistic liturgy, as well as the ordinary pastoral and spiritual care of the faithful.” The readings during Traditional Latin Masses must be proclaimed in Italian according to the 2008 translation by the Italian bishops’ conference, De Donatis’ letter said. He added that with Pope Francis’ motu proprio, “it is no longer possible to use the Roman Ritual and the other liturgical books of the ‘ancient rite’ for the celebration of sacraments and sacramentals (e.g., not even the Ritual for the Reconciliation of Penitents according to the ancient form).” Issued with immediate effect on July 16, Traditionis custodes (“Guardians of the tradition”) made changes to Benedict XVI’s 2007 apostolic letterSummorum Pontificum, which acknowledged the right of all priests to say Mass using the Roman Missal of 1962. With Traditionis custodes, Pope Francis said that it is now each bishop’s “exclusive competence” to authorize the use of the Traditional Latin Mass in his diocese. Since the motu proprio’s promulgation, some bishops have said that priests may continue to offer the Traditional Latin Mass in their dioceses, while others have banned it. ======== And here below is an interesting article from Dr. Jules Gomes, who covers the Vatican and Rome for Church Militant (link). The article is written from the perspective of those who wish the continued celebration of the sacraments and Mass in the old rite, and so it cites a number of people who are saddened by this decision and opposed to it. —RM *** DIOCESE OF ROME OUTLAWS OLD RITE HOLY WEEK Pope’s vicar general also bans other sacraments using the Roman ritual By Dr. Jules Gomes November 10, 2021 ROME, Italy (ChurchMilitant.com) – Pope Francis‘ vicar general has banned Latin Mass clergy and laity in the diocese of Rome from celebrating the Easter Triduum — from Maundy Thursday to Easter Sunday — according to the Extraordinary Form. Cardinal Vicar Angelo de Donatis has also “expressly forbidden” the celebration of all other sacraments and sacramentals — including the sacrament of confession — according to the ancient form. The proclamations came in a letter that has stunned Latin Mass Catholics in Rome. The cardinal vicar of Rome, who is handpicked by the pontiff, serves as the de facto bishop of the city in place of the pope — the official bishop of Rome. Addressed “to all priests engaged in the pastoral work of the diocese of Rome” and “to all the faithful of the diocese,” the vicar general’s letter cites Pope Francis’ diktat Traditionis Custodes (TC) as the pretext for the ban. ”Truly Astonishing” and “Vindictive” Donatis’ letter, dated Oct. 7, was released through unofficial sources Tuesday (November 9). Priests serving Latin Mass congregations in Rome told Church Militant they were previously unaware of the letter and speculated that it may have been wrongly dated Oct. 7 instead of Nov. 7. ”It is truly astonishing that Cdl. de Donatis feels it necessary to try to prohibit even the blessings of the old ritual,” Dr. Joseph Shaw, president of the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) society Una Voce International, told Church Militant. ”This really seems vindictive and hardly calculated to promote the unity of the Church,” lamented Shaw, an Oxford academic in medieval philosophy. Shaw, who is also chairman of the Latin Mass Society of England and Wales, explained: “This letter appears to go far beyond the letter or spirit of Traditionis Custodes, which does nothing to restrict the celebration of marriage, baptism and other sacraments, as the (new) letter does, or to prevent priests from celebrating Mass in the older form over Easter. From the point of view of canon law, it must be said clearly that this letter is based on a misreading of TC and should not be regarded as an example to follow in other dioceses. I hope it is speedily clarified in Rome.” In July, Francis issued Traditionis Custodes, canceling Pope Benedict‘s Summorum Pontificum — the 2007 decree that liberated the TLM by permitting a priest to celebrate the TLM without permission from the Apostolic See or from his bishop. For ‘The Spiritual Good of the Faithful’ The cardinal vicar’s letter targets the parish of Santissima Trinità dei Pellegrini — the main center for the TLM in Rome run by the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter — a community dedicated to the celebration of the TLM. The letter also bans the Easter Triduum and sacraments according to the Old Rite in the Basilica of Sts. Celso and Giuliano, administered by the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest (ICRSS) — also devoted to celebrating the sacraments in the Old Rite. Other churches authorized to offer the TLM — like Sts. Dominic and Sixtus, St. Joseph at Capo le Case and St. Anne at the Lateran — are also prohibited from offering the Easter Triduum in the Extraordinary Form. In his letter, Donatis insists he is exercising “a lively pastoral charity” and the cancellation of Holy Week and other sacraments is for “the spiritual good of the faithful.” Donatis’ letter also orders priests celebrating the TLM in Rome to proclaim the Scripture readings in Italian (not Latin) and only according to the Italian Episcopal Conference (CEI) 2008 translation. The CEI version contains several innovations, including a mistranslation of Matthew 6:13 and Luke 11:4 as “and do not abandon us to temptation.” Par for Francis: Killing Growing Orthodoxy Church Militant spoke to two traditionalist priests in Rome who said that Donatis’ letter was almost certainly instigated directly by Pope Francis. One priest suggested the attack on Holy Week “may stem from a desire to placate Jews and keep the peace with the chief rabbi in Rome, putting to rest the controversy about the Good Friday prayer ‘for the conversion of the Jews.'” In the Old Rite, the Great Intercessions of Good Friday include a prayer “for the Jews: that our God and Lord may illuminate their hearts: so that they may acknowledge Jesus Christ, the savior of all mankind.” ”It shows the persecution of traditional Catholics is growing,” another priest remarked, citing the words of a high-ranking European bishop at a recent conference in France: “The Old Mass is finished.” ”Such a prohibition is even more scandalous because since COVID, the congregation at Santissima Trinità dei Pellegrini has almost doubled if not tripled,” he said. ”There are more people going to Mass there now than over the last few years. This includes people from all over the world,” he noted. “Ironically, numbers have increased after TC. Francis’ decree has had the opposite effect, and this may explain the backlash.” The Messa in Latino website slammed Donatis’ letter as “the worst (at least so far) and most restrictive implementation of Traditionis Custodes.” ”It could only come from the diocese of Rome, which from the heart of Christianity has become the epicenter of the senseless war against the traditional liturgy,” the Italian blog commented. Complete TLM Ban Ahead? Interestingly, a leaked July 28 letter from Cdl. Vincent Nichols, head of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, to Abp. Arthur Roche, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, asks if TC also “abrogates” the celebration of other sacraments, including a Requiem Mass, in the Extraordinary Form. Roche’s reply advocates “pastoral prudence” towards a “full implementation” of TC “for a very limited time only,” suggesting bishops are working towards a complete ban of the TLM and sacraments celebrated according to the Old Rite. Vatican journalist Franca Giansoldati earlier observed Donatis is “considered a loyal executor of Pope Francis’ thought,” and is “dutifully working to shape the pontiff’s diocese according to accurate directives he receives directly from the pope.” [Special note: On the internet, commenters on this part of the article wrote as follows: Romano: “This is rubbish. I live in Rome and we all know that when De Donatis ordered all Catholic churches to be closed in March 2020 because of the virus, Pope Francis called him in and overruled him. That’s why the parish churches were all reopened, after being closed for only a few hours. I am not a fan of Pope Francis, but it is evident to all that De Donatis doesn’t work for him, De Donatis works for someone else.” Mogue: “I remember that episode too! The decree came out on Friday afternoon, we were in SS. Trinita and told by unhappy fathers tomorrow there’ll be no more “secret mass”. But that evening the brave Card. Konrad Krajewski angrily stated that he will be stationed in his titular church [Krajewski is Cardinal-Deacon of Santa Maria Immacolata all’Esquilino 28 June 2018 – present] tomorrow with the blessed sacrament exposed whole day long and the door widely open, he said they Polish didn’t close churches under neither Nazis nor Communists, and they won’t do it now. The next day PF [Pope Francis] spoke up trying to sooth the situation, and Card. Donatis withdrew the order on Saturday evening with a new statement… The first sentence was to say that he made previous measures only after counseling PF! Such an embarrassing scandal! Seeing princes of the Church openly forsake each other so basely like some lousy politicians. This time probably will be the same. They will push it only if there’re no fierce resistances. If there’s a big riot then PF would come out to become the “peacemaker” again. And all are Card. Donatis’ fault, again. I live in Rome too. I don’t know where to turn now, Norcia or some nearby towns with catacomb communities….” [End, Special Note; below is the end of the Julian Gomes article] In 2019, historian Mirticeli Dias de Medeiros described Donatis as “a major nuisance” because of his “‘Franciscan’ line of government.” ”This leads us to believe the vicar is the name chosen by Pope Francis to be part of the list of papabiles for the next conclave,” Medeiros wrote. [End, article by Julian Gomes]
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on CONFUSION IN ROME OVER THE CELEBRATION OF THE TRADITIONAL (LATIN) MASS
Is Anti-Viganò Woke Ignatius Press Enamored with a Promoter of “LGBT Propagandist Fr. Martin” & Balthasar’s apparent Heresies on the Incarnation & Hell?
Coffin said that the Woke publisher apparently promotes Bishop Robert Barron who is a promoter and supporter of “LGBT propagandist Fr. [James] Martin.” It appears that Ignatius Press is enamored with Bishop Barron and his promotion of the “LGBT propagandist” and the apparent heretical theologianHans Urs von Balthasar. – The Catholic Monitor
[Bishop Robert Barron’s beloved theologian] Balthasar makes the shocking statement that the Incarnation is “suspended” while Jesus is in the tomb:“Holy Saturday is thus a kind of suspension, as it were, of the Incarnation, whose result is given back to the hands of the Father and which the Father will renew and definitively confirm by the Easter Resurrection” (“The Descent into Hell”, Spirit and Institution, Explorations in Theology, vol. IV, pp 411-412) – Unam Sanctam Catholicam website
Conservative Catholic Patrick Coffin who is an author and the former host of the top-rated Catholic radio show in America, “Catholic Answers Live,” in a Rumble video called “Canceled By Ignatius Press” explained that he was “canceled by Ignatius Press” for talking about the apparent heretical theologianHans Urs von Balthasar and the reasonable investigation into the evidence that Francis’s papacy may be invalid as well as being a collaborator with Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò.
Here is what his Facebook page says on the matter:
Canceled By Ignatius Press
In this video, I discuss getting canceled by Ignatius Press, the premier establishment Catholic publisher. Talking about certain ideas out loud will put you outside the Catholic Con Inc. but quick. This is where we are, folks.
POINTS COVERED:
👉Been banned or shadowbanned by Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram, YouTube Facebook, and Kartra. Now Ignatius Press.
👉My name is scrubbed from an upcoming book due to the sin of collaborating with Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò and his “extreme criticisms” of Vatican II, and his manner of “criticizing Pope Francis.”
👉His Excellency gave an outstanding keynote address at our Truth Over Fear Summit which is devoted to the Covid vaccine. [https://m.facebook.com/patrickcoffin.media/videos/canceled-by-ignatius-press/996284727768915/?_rdr]
In the video, as another reason for his being cancelled, Coffin mentioned his interview with historian Edmund Mazza on the reasonable investigation into the evidence on the possibility that Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation was done in substantial error and therefore possibly invalid despite the fact as Dr. Mazza brought forward that such investigations are endorsed by saints and Catholic theology:
Here is one from Saint Cardinal Thomas Cajetan, whose feast day we celebrated back on August 7th. He wrote a multi-volume commentary on the Suma Theologica. And this is what Saint Cajetan says, “If someone for a reasonable motive holds the person of the Pope in suspicion and refuses his presence, even his jurisdiction, he does not commit the delict of schism, nor any other whatsoever, provided that he’d be ready to accept the Pope were he not held in suspicion. It goes without saying that one has the right to avoid what is harmful and to ward off dangers. In fact, it may happen that the Pope could govern tyrannically, and that is all the easier as he is the more powerful and does not fear any punishment from anyone on earth.”
And the second quote is from, back before Vatican II, the most respected commentary on Canon aw was an eight volume set by Francis Xavier Wernz and Peter Vidal. And this is what they wrote in volume seven of their commentary on Canon Law. “Finally, they cannot be numbered among the schismatics who refuse to obey the Roman pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumors in circulation.” I think we have a lot more than rumor to go on here.[https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/10/part-4-of-exclusive-transcription-is.html]
Moreover, if they really think those who investigate this matters are wrong and headed to hell for being in schism from Francis then out of simple charity for our souls they should counter our dissertations and arguments instead of cancel us.
If Ignatius Press really believes we are wrong and headed to hell for calling for a formal correction, a St. Francis de Sales/St. Bellarmine imperfect council, a canonical trial and cardinal investigation of the Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation as well as Francis’s conclave and refuse to give us real arguments then they apparently have lost the supernatural virtue of charity.
If they really believe what they say then for charity’s sake they should attempt to save us from hell for being in “schism” from Francis:
But, all everyone and we see are cancelled culture or hear are straw man agruments that don’t counter the stated dissertations, name calling propaganda, silence or the noise of them running away as fast as they can from serious reasoned back and forth argumentation.
Also, Coffin said that the Woke publisher apparently promotes Bishop Robert Barron who is a promoter and supporter of “LGBT propagandist Fr. [James] Martin.” It appears that Ignatius Press is enamored with Bishop Barron and his promotion of the “LGBT propagandist” and the apparent heretical theologianHans Urs von Balthasar.
In 2018, Francis owed the Church and the whole world a public denial of the heretical words attributed to him by Eugenio Scalfari, a 93-year-old atheist and abortion advocate, that made worldwide headlines.
The Vatican’s statement that Scalfari’s article is not “faithful” to Francis’s exact words is not enough to redress the damage that the Francis has done by allowing this to happen for the second time.
In 2018, Vox reported the denial of Hell is mostly a liberal Protestant andHans Urs von Balthasar heresy and that “Francis’s ‘doublespeak’ puts him in a precarious spot” as a Catholic:
Still, most of these modern theologians largely come from Protestant traditions, which lack the same formalized structure and codified doctrine as the Catholic Church. That said, some recent major Catholic thinkers have indeed pushed back on the idea of hell as popularly understood. In the 1980s, Swiss theologianHans Urs von Balthasar, for example, flirted with reconciliation in his book Dare We Hope That All Men Be Saved?…
… Francis’s “doublespeak” puts him in a precarious spot
But by participating in a kind of bait and switch — putting forth potentially heretical ideas, then formally denying them — Francis leaves himself open to the charge of disingenuousness. He’s able to signal sympathy for progressive theology, but does not have the responsibility of answering to conservatives or formally advocating for doctrinal change. It’s a canny political move, but one that destabilizes the nature of the Catholic Church as a centralized, formal body: the very thing that sets the Catholic Church apart from other Western Christian denominations. [https://www.vox.com/2018/3/30/17179952/pope-francis-hell-vatican-interview-scalfari-italian]
Carolyn Chau, who is a theologian at King’s University College at the University of Western Ontario, and Peter Casarella, a theologian at DePaul University, say Francis despite the Vatican’s “doublespeak” is a Balthasarian:
At the same time, it is hard to pigeonhole Father von Balthasar as a conservative. “Von Balthasar was also a sharp critic of an inward-looking, self-referential church,” said Peter Casarella, a theologian at DePaul University.
Dr. Chau said… what seems to resonate most with Pope Francis has been the Balthasarian emphasis on how the church encounters the world.
When he was still cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, the new Pope cited Father von Balthasar when he visited Quebec City for the 49th International Eucharistic Congress in 2008…
… The most unconventional part of Father von Balthasar’s work came after he met Adrienne von Speyr, a medical doctor who had mystical visions. From their encounter came one of his most disputed ideas: that on Holy Saturday, Christ didn’t go to the realm of the dead as a victorious liberator of righteous souls but as one who suffered so others wouldn’t. The claim triggered an academic row, with one theologian branding it quasi-heretical, Dr. Kilby said.[https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/theologians-parse-popes-words-for-the-gospel-of-balthasar/article10548791/]
In First Things, Theologian Alyssa Lyra Pitstick, in a back and forth with Francis CatholicFr. Edward T. Oakes, S.J., saidthat apparently Francis the Balthasarian is a liberal Protestant heretic:
Then, too, Oakes claims I dismiss Luther and Calvin “just for being Protestant” and that I consider the genealogy from Nicholas of Cusa to Balthasar via these two “probative merely by mentioning” it. I highlighted this lineage first to indicate that the doctrine of Christ suffering in hell has relatively recent origins; from its beginnings to the Reformation, the Church believed quite the opposite. But this genealogy is also important to the question of Balthasar’s status as a Catholic ecclesial theologian: The Catholic tradition rejected Nicholas’ proposal, while the idea was deliberately developed against the Catholic doctrine in the Protestant ambience. If Balthasar takes up what Catholics rejected and what Protestants used to distinguish themselves, one may legitimately question Balthasar’s Catholicity on these grounds-for it is not what we share that separates us but precisely our differences. It is fallacious for Oakes to suggest I think non-Catholics speak no truth simply because I argue that some of them are mistaken on one point.
Perhaps Oakes might now address my original difficulties: Can one doctrine truly be the development of another if the two are contradictory? Does the tradition’s material profession (the content of belief) have as much authority as the formal profession? And since Balthasar’s theology of Christ’s descent entails a de facto rejection of Catholic tradition and its authority, what must we conclude about Balthasar’s service as a Catholic ecclesial theologian? Perhaps in the end we must say, however reluctantly, that after Luther, Calvin, and Barth, Balthasar has made a real contribution to Protestant ecclesial theology. [https://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/more-on-balthasar-hell-and-heresy]
The Unam Sanctam Catholicam explains “The Heresies of Balthasar” and apparently Francis the Balthasarian heresies:
Balthasar’s dissatisfaction with the privation theory of sin leads him to posit a real, ontological existence for sin, contrary to Augustine, Thomas, the implications of the Catechism and almost all of ancient and medieval Catholic tradition. Sin becomes an ontological reality by a sort of negative creation, in which man, by the passion and willfulness that he puts into sinning, turns sin into a positive reality. Balthasar says:
“It is possible to distinguish between the sin and the sinner…Because of the energy that man has invested in it, sin is a reality, it is not ‘nothing.'” (Theo-Drama, vol. V, pp. 266, 314).
Because sin has this ontological reality, it can be abstracted from the sinner and, consequently, removed to another locus. Here Balthasar’s theology of sin crosses into his soteriology. Because sin is a reality that can be separated from the sinner, it is possible to “load” it on to Christ, who literally assumes the sins of every person in His death, but especially in His Descent:
“[Sin] has been isolated from the sinner…separated from the sinner by the work of the Cross” (ibid., 285, 314).
Thus, because sin is able to be loaded onto Christ, Christ literally takes the sins, and the guilt, of every sinner on to Himself, and in His death and Descent, literally becomes sin, in such a real, metaphysical sense that Balthasar makes the shocking statement that the Incarnation is “suspended” while Jesus is in the tomb:
“Holy Saturday is thus a kind of suspension, as it were, of the Incarnation, whose result is given back to the hands of the Father and which the Father will renew and definitively confirm by the Easter Resurrection” (“The Descent into Hell”, Spirit and Institution, Explorations in Theology, vol. IV, pp 411-412).. [http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2012/02/heresies-of-balthasar.html?m=1]
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.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on Contrary to ancient and medieval Catholic tradition, according to Hans Urs von Balthasar, sin becomes an ontological reality by a sort of negative creation, in which man, by the passion and willfulness that he puts into sinning, turns sin into a positive reality.
Soros Entities Attack Archbishop Gomez November 15, 2021 Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the attacks on Archbishop Gomez: Los Angeles Archbishop José Gomez is under attack by left-wing Catholics and outside activists for his stellar speech given in Spain on November 4th. They are particularly angered over his comments on contemporary social justice movements, which he properly labeled as “pseudo-religions.” John McWhorter is a Columbia University professor and he understands what Gomez is talking about. An African American, he has written a new book, Woke Racism: How a New Religion Has Betrayed Black America. Both men call attention to identity politics and radical race theories—which judge people on the basis of their race, not their individual characteristics. These ideological currents are not only profoundly racist in themselves, they satisfy the religious yearnings of those drawn to them. Anyone is free to disagree with Gomez’s address, but there is something unseemly about left-wing organizations launching a petition drive against him. Gomez, who is president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, should he commended, not condemned, for his courage to speak the truth. Those who started the petition, Faith in Public Life and Faithful America, have both received funding from George Soros, the atheist billionaire who has long been at war with the Catholic Church. The former is a front group for left-wing zealots seeking to create havoc in the Church; the latter is run by a rogue Episcopalian priest who sticks his nose into the Church’s affairs.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on Archbishop Gomez, President of the USSB attacked for calling attention to identity politics and radical race theories—which judge people on the basis of their race, not their individual characteristics. These ideological currents are not only profoundly racist in themselves, they satisfy the religious yearnings of those drawn to them.
Is St. Monitor of Orleans the Patron Saint of the Catholic Monitor?
A Catholic Monitor friend texted this:I was thinking of you & your Catholic Monitor, when I saw one of the Saints for the day, yesterday, Nov. 11th.
I never knew there was a Saint Monitor!😄🙏☘️✝️
I found it on the excellent & FREE Catholic App, LAUDATE.
I’m sorry that I got busy & forgot to send it to you, yesterday.
Anyway, if you don’t have a special Saint for your Catholic Monitor, maybe you could ask Saint Monitor to pray for it. 🙏 And I found this:
St. Monitor of Orleans Biography
Saint Monitor of Orleans Profile. Born: N/A in France, Europe. Worked in France. Died: 490 AD in N/A. Feast Day is celebrated on November 10.
St. Monitor of Orleans Biography, Feast Day, Date of Birth, Country of Birth, Profession, Place of Work, Date of Death, Place of Death, Beatification Date, Canonization Date
St. Monitor of Orleans was a Bishop of Orleans, France. He supported monastic expansion in his jurisdiction.
St. Monitor of Orleans [https://catholicrehttps://catholicreadings.org/saint-monitor-of-orleans-saint-of-the-day-november-10/adings.org/saint-monitor-of-orleans-saint-of-the-day-november-10/]
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.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE A PATRON SAINT! SURPRISE! THE CATHOLIC MONITOR HAD TO GO ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE YEAR 490 A.D. TO FIND A SAINT WHO WAS WILLING TO BE ITS PATRON SAINT! THANKS BE TO GOD THAT THE CATHOLIC MONITOR HAS FINALLY LOCATED ITS PATRON SAINT
Above, Pope Paul VI (1963-1978). On the left of the photo, Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, (1890-1979), in the 1960s the head of the Holy Office “Paul VI had some concerns regarding this reform of the Ordo Missae. On three different occasions (October 25, 1965, December 10, 1965, and March 7, 1966), he had his Secretary of State, Cardinal Cicognani, address official letters to Cardinal Lercaro to recommend prudence and reserving to the Holy See any decision involving ‘any possible changes proposed for the rite of celebration of the divine sacrifice.’” —Yves Chiron, July 22, 2021, “How the Novus Ordo Mass was made,” Church Life Journal (link) ”On October 25 [1967], at the Synod, Cardinal Heenan, Archbishop of Westminster, took the floor to accuse the Consilium of technicism and intellectualism and to blame it for lacking pastoral sense. More significant yet, in the sense that they came from the highest authority in the Church after the pope, were the words of Cardinal Cicognani, Secretary of State, who on the very same day asked for an end to liturgical changes ‘lest the faithful be confused.‘” —Ibid. “What had been sacred for previous generations remained sacred and great also for us, and could not suddenly become completely forbidden nor even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed through the faith and prayer of the Church and to give them their proper place.” —PopeBenedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops, 2007 ”Can a certain manner of celebrating Mass, confirmed by immemorial, centuries-old Tradition, recognized by every Pope, including yourself, Holy Father, until the 16th of July of 2021, and sanctified by its practice over so many centuries, suddenly cease to be the lex orandi of the Roman Rite?” —question posed to Pope Francis by Polish Dominican Fr. Wojciech Gołaski in the open letter published below… =============== Note about “The Schneider Tapes”: We have decided to publish our “Bishop Schneider Tapes” not each day, but every other day. So “Tape #2” will be posted at noon tomorrow. Please go to our Rumble channelor our YouTube channel to subscribe, and then you will automatically receive a notification when we publish a new video. ================ Letter #140, 2021, Thursday, November 11: An Open Letter by Fr. Wojciech Gołaski Almost four months after the July 16, 2021 decree Traditionis custodes [“Of tradition the guardians”] of Pope Francis reversed the July 7, 2007 compromise of Pope Benedict XVI in Summorum pontificum, the question of the Church’s liturgy continues to arouse intense debate. Some have argued that Pope Francis was quite right to order the suppression of the old rite. They have argued that Benedict’s 2007 compromise in fact failed, and allowed a traditional movement to grow up in the Church which — they contend — now threatens to become a type of narrow, un-Catholic “traditional sect” marked by “rigidity,” so Francis was right to “bite the bullet” and suppress the source of that movement, the old liturgy. But others say this judgment is tendentious and flawed. say These observers that the old liturgy was for centuries, and is still today, a source of great spiritual inspiration and benefit for individual souls and for the entire Catholic Church (and so also for the world as a whole), and that Francis was persuaded to write and issue this decree by those who fail to see this, or see this and do not wish it to be so. These observers say the problem first arose in the months and years after the Second Vatican Council, when, instead of simply translating the old Latin liturgy into modern languages — English, Italian, Spanish, et cetera — the committee entrusted with implementing the Council’s wishes for the reform of the liturgy, the Consilium [Council for the Implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy], headed by Monsignor Annibale Bugnini, went far beyond a simple translation, and became a total rewriting of the old liturgy. In other words, the Council did call for a liturgical reform, and especially called for making the words of the Mass more accessible to ordinary people, so there was a mandate to make at least partial translations of the Latin Mass into the vernacular, but not a clear mandate to redraft the entire Mass. That is why, when Pope Paul VI promulgated the new Mass on May 2, 1969, then implemented throughout the Church on November 30, 1969, there was an immediate sense, and not only among “traditionalists,” that the mandate of the Council had been exceeded by a small committee. (see link and link). Paul VI approved the new Mass, declaring that it was the expression of the will of the Council, though he did so with some hesitation, as many accounts of the time attest. From his time to the present, now 52 years, the question has been posed: Was the new Mass prepared by the liturgical reform committee after the Council fully faithful to the Council, or did it exceed the mandate and will of the Council, thus, in fact, going against the Council? To this day, the question remains debated, and now reaches an acute pitch, which might be formulated as follows: Would any bishop who attended Vatican II have in fact said that the Second Vatican Council intended the complete suppression of the old Latin Mass, as if the old Mass were something flawed and evil? The answer, many believe, is no, that fidelity to the mind of Vatican II is not reflected by the complete suppression of the old Mass. And the open letter below, sent on August 17 by a Polish Dominican priest, Fr. Wojciech Gołaski, to Pope Francis and several other leading Churchmen, makes this point in a powerful way, and explains why it has led him to make an unusual and dramatic choice in his life… —RM Open letter by Dominican theologian Fr. Wojciech Gołaski: “I must bear witness to the treasure of the holy rites of the Church” (link) The following open letter to Pope Francis was composed by Fr. Wojciech Gołaski,O.P. and has been published already in Polish. Below is the English translation that was provided to Rorate Caeli by the author. Regardless of where one stands on the question of the SSPX [“Society of St. Pius X”], it deserves an attentive reading for its formidable critique of Traditionis Custodes. Jamna, August 17, 2021 His Holiness Pope Francis Domus Sanctae Marthae The Holy See Vatican City For the attention of: Rev. General Master of the Order, Gerard Francisco Timoner III OP Rev. Provincial of the Polish Province, Paweł Kozacki OP H.E. Bishop of the Tarnów Diocese, Andrzej Jeż Rev. Superior of the House in Jamna, Andrzej Chlewicki OP Brothers and Sisters in the Order Rev. Superior of the Polish District of the Fraternity of St Pius X, Karl Stehlin, FSSPX Omnes quos res tangit [“All those who are concerned”] Most Holy Father, I was born 57 years ago and joined the Dominican Order 35 years ago. I took my perpetual vows 29 years ago and have been a priest now for 28 years. I had only vague recollections from my early childhood of the Holy Mass in its form predating the reforms of 1970. Sixteen years after my ordination, two lay friends (unknown to each other) urged me to learn how to celebrate the Holy Mass in its traditional form. I listened to them. It was a shock to me. I discovered that the Holy Mass in its classical form: — directs the entire attention of both priest and faithful towards the Mystery, — expresses, with great precision of words and gestures, the faith of the Church in what is happening here and now on the altar, — reinforces, with a power equal to its precision, the faith of the celebrant and of the people, — does not lead either priest or faithful towards any invention or creativity of their own during the liturgy, — places them, quite on the contrary, on a path of silence and contemplation, — offers by the number and nature of its gestures the possibility of incessant acts of piety and love towards God, — unites the priest and faithful, placing them on the same side of the altar and turning them in the same direction: versus Crucem, versus Deum. I said to myself: so this is what the Holy Mass is! And I, a priest of 16 years, did not know it! *** It was a powerful eureka, a discovery, after which my idea of the Mass could not remain the same. From the beginning it had struck me that this rite is the opposite of the stereotype. Instead of formalism, free expression of the soul before God. Instead of frigidity, the fervour of divine cult. Instead of distance, closeness. Instead of strangeness, intimacy. Instead of rigidity, security. Instead of the passivity of the laity, their deep and living connection to the mystery (it was through the laity, after all, that I was led to the traditional Mass). Instead of a chasm between priest and the faithful, a close spiritual union between all those present, protected and expressed by the silence of the Canon. In making this discovery it became clear to me: this very form is our bridge to the generations who lived before us and passed on the faith. My joy in this ecclesial unity which transcends all time was enormous. Not only did I rediscover the Holy Mass, but also the astounding difference between the two forms: that which had been in use for centuries and the post-conciliar one. I had not known this difference because I had not known the earlier form. I cannot compare my encounter with the traditional liturgy to a meeting with someone who has adopted me and has become my adoptive parent. It was a meeting with a Mother who has always been my Mother, yet I had not known her. *** I was accompanied in all this by the blessing of the Supreme Pontiffs. They had taught that the missal of 1962 “had never been legally abrogated and remained therefore, in principle, always permitted,” adding that “what had been sacred for previous generations remained sacred and great also for us, and could not suddenly become completely forbidden nor even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed through the faith and prayer of the Church and to give them their proper place” (Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops, 2007). The faithful were also taught: “On account of its venerable and ancient use, the forma extraordinaria is to be maintained with the honour due to it”; it has been described as “a precious treasure to be preserved” (Instruction Universae Ecclesiae, 2011). These words followed earlier documents which made it possible for the faithful to use the traditional liturgy after the reforms of 1970, the first being Quattuor abhinc annos of 1984. The foundation and source for all these documents remains the Bull of Saint Pius V, Quo primum tempore (1570). Holy Father, if, without forgetting the solemn document of Pope Pius V, we take into consideration the lapse of time covering the declarations of your immediate predecessors we have a duration of 37 years, from 1984 to 2021, during which the Church said to the faithful, concerning the traditional liturgy, and ever more strongly: “There is such a way. You may walk along it.” I therefore took the path offered to me by the Church. Whoever takes this road—whoever wants this rite, which is the vessel of divine Presence and divine Oblation, to bear fruit within his own life—should open himself entirely so as to entrust himself and others to God, present and acting within us through the vessel of this holy rite. This I did, with complete confidence. *** Then came the 16th of July 2021. From your documents, Holy Father, I learnt that the path I had been walking on for 12 years had ceased to exist. We have affirmations of two Popes. His Holiness Benedict XVI had said that the Roman Missal promulgated by Saint Pius V “must be considered the extraordinary expression of the lex orandi of the Catholic Church of the Roman Rite.” Yet His Holiness Pope Francis says that “the liturgical books promulgated by Popes St. Paul VI and St. John Paul II (…) are the only expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.” The affirmation of the successor thus denies that of his still-living predecessor. Can a certain manner of celebrating Mass, confirmed by immemorial, centuries-old Tradition, recognized by every Pope, including yourself, Holy Father, until the 16th of July of 2021, and sanctified by its practice over so many centuries, suddenly cease to be the lex orandi of the Roman Rite? If this were the case, it would mean that such a characteristic is not intrinsic to the rite but is an external attribute, subject to the decisions of those who occupy places of high authority. In reality, the traditional liturgy expresses the lex orandi of the Roman Rite by its every gesture and every sentence and by the whole that they compose. It is guaranteed also to express this lex orandi, as the Church has always held, on account of its uninterrupted use, since time immemorial. We must conclude that the first papal affirmation [of Benedict] has solid foundations and is true and that the second [of Francis] is groundless and is false. But despite its being false, it is nevertheless given power of law. This has consequences about which I will write below. *** Concessions regarding the use of the Missal of 1962 now have a different character than earlier ones. It is no longer about responding to the love with which the faithful adhere to the traditional form, but about giving the faithful time—how much time, we are not told—to “return” to the reformed liturgy. The words of the Motu Proprio and your Letter to the Bishops make it entirely clear that the decision has been taken, and is already being implemented, to remove the traditional liturgy from the life of the Church and cast it into the abyss of oblivion: it may not be used in parish churches, new groups must not be formed, Rome must be consulted if new priests are to say it. The bishops are now indeed to be Traditionis Custodes, “custodians of Tradition,” yet not in the sense of guardians who protect it, but rather in the sense of custodians of a jail. Allow me to express my conviction that this will not happen, and that the operation will fail. What are the grounds for this conviction? A careful analysis of both Letters of July 16th exposes four components: Hegelianism, nominalism, belief in the Pope’s omnipotence, and collective responsibility. Each one is an essential component of your message and none of them can be reconciled with the deposit of the Catholic faith. Since they cannot be reconciled with the faith, they will not be integrated into it either in theory or in practice. Let us examine each of them in turn. 1) Hegelianism. The term is a conventional one: it does not mean literally the system of the German philosopher Hegel, but something that derives from this system, namely the understanding of history as a good, rational, and inevitable process of continuous changes. This way of thinking has a long history, from Heraclitus and Plotinus, to Joachim of Fiore, down to Hegel, Marx, and their modern heirs. The characteristic of this approach is to divide history into phases, such that the beginning of each new phase is joined to the end of the preceding one. Attempts to “baptize” Hegelianism are nothing other than attempts to endow these supposed historical phases with the authority of the Holy Spirit. It is assumed that the Holy Spirit communicates to the next generation something that He has not spoken of to the preceding one, or even that He imparts something that contradicts what He has said before. In the latter case, we must accept one of three things: either in certain phases the Church failed to obey the Holy Spirit, or the Holy Spirit is subject to change, or He carries contradictions within Him. Another consequence of this world-view is a change in how we understand the Church and Tradition. The Church is no longer seen as a community uniting the faithful by transcending time, as the Catholic faith holds, but as a set of groups belonging to the various phases. These groups no longer have a common language: our ancestors had no access to what the Holy Spirit says to us today. Tradition itself is no longer one message that is continuously studied; it consists rather in receiving again and again new things from the Holy Spirit. We then come to hear instead, as in Your Letter to the Bishops, Holy Father, of “the dynamic of Tradition,” often with an application to specific events. An example of this is when you write that this dynamic’s “last stage is the Second Vatican Council, during which Catholic bishops gathered in order to listen and discern the way shown to the Church by the Holy Spirit.” This line of reasoning implies that a new phase requires new liturgical forms, because the former ones were suited to the previous stage, which is over. Since this sequence of stages is sanctioned by the Holy Spirit, through the Council, those who hold on to the old forms despite having access to new ones oppose the Holy Spirit. Such views, however, are contrary to the faith. Holy Scripture, the norm of Catholic faith, provides no grounds for such an understanding of history. Rather, it teaches us an altogether different understanding. King Josiah, having learned about the discovery of the old book of the Law, ordered that the celebration of Passover be conducted in accordance with it, despite an interruption of half a century (2 Kgs 22-23). In the same way, Ezra and Nehemiah on their return from the Babylonian captivity celebrated the Feast of Tabernacles with the entire people, strictly according to the ancient records of the Law, despite many decades having passed since the previous celebration (Neh 8). In each case, the old documents of the law were used to renew the divine worship after a period of turmoil. No one demanded a change in the ritual on the ground that new times had arrived. 2) Nominalism. While Hegelianism influences one’s understanding of history, nominalism affects one’s understanding of unity. Nominalism implies that introducing outward unity (by means of a top-down administrative decision) is equivalent to achieving real unity. This is because nominalism abolishes spiritual reality by seeking to grasp and regulate it with material measures. You write, Holy Father, that: “It is to defend the unity of the Body of Christ that I am forced to withdraw the faculty granted by my predecessors.” But to reach this goal, true unity, your predecessors made the opposite decision, and not without reason. When one understands that true unity includes something spiritual and internal, and thus differs from mere external unity, one no longer seeks it simply by uniformity of external signs. We do not obtain true unity in this way, but rather, impoverishment, and the opposite of unity: division. Unity does not result from the withdrawal of faculties, the revocation of consent, and the imposition of limitations. King Rehoboam of Judah, before deciding how to treat the Israelites, who wished him to improve their lot, consulted two groups of advisors. The older ones recommended leniency and a reduction of the people’s burdens: age, in Holy Scripture, often symbolises maturity. The young, who were contemporaries of the king, recommended increasing their burdens and the use of harsh words: youth, in Scripture, often symbolises immaturity. The king followed the advice of the young. This failed to bring unity between Judah and Israel. On the contrary, it started the division of the country into two kingdoms (1 Kgs 12). Our Lord healed this division through mildness, knowing that the lack of this virtue had caused the split. Before Pentecost, the apostles assessed unity by external criteria. This approach was corrected by the Saviour Himself, who, in reply to the words of St. John: “Master, we saw a man driving out evil spirits in your name, and we did not let him do it, because he was not one of us,” answered “Let him do so, for he who is not against you is with you” (Lk 9,49-50, cf. Mt 9,38-41). Holy Father, you had many hundreds of thousands of the faithful who “were not against” you. And you have done so much to make things difficult for them! Would it not have been better to follow the words of the Saviour indicating a deeper, spiritual foundation of unity? Hegelianism and nominalism frequently become allies, since the materialistic understanding of history leads to the conviction that each stage must irrevocably end. 3) Belief in the Pope’s omnipotence. When Pope Benedict XVIgranted greater freedom to the use of the classic form of liturgy, he referred to a centuries-old custom and usus. These provided a solid basis for his resolve. The decision of Your Holiness is based on no such foundations. On the contrary, it revokes something that has existed and endured for a very long time. You write, Holy Father, that you find support in the decisions of St. Pius V, but he applied criteria which are exactly the opposite of your own. According to him, what had existed and lasted for centuries would continue undisturbed; only what was newer was abrogated. The sole basis left for your decision is therefore the will of one person endowed with papal authority. Can this authority, though, however great it may be, prevent ancient liturgical customs from being an expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Church? Saint Thomas Aquinas asks himself whether God can cause something which once existed, never to have existed. The answer is no, because contradiction is not part of God’s omnipotence (Summa Theologiae, p. I, qu. 25, art. 4). In a similar way, papal authority cannot cause traditional rituals that have expressed the faith of the Church (lex credendi) for centuries, suddenly, one day, no longer to express the law of the prayer of the same Church (lex orandi). The Pope may make decisions, but not ones that violate a unity which extends to the past and to the future, far beyond the duration of his pontificate. The Pope is at the service of a unity greater than his own authority. For it is a God-given unity and not one of human origin. It is therefore unity which takes precedence over authority, and not authority over unity. 4) Collective responsibility. Indicating the motives of your decision, Holy Father, you make various and grave allegations against those who exercise the faculties recognised by Pope Benedict XVI. It is not specified, however, who perpetrates these abuses, or where, or in what number. There are only the words “often” and “many.” We do not even know whether it is a majority. Probably not. Yet not a majority, but all those who make use of the above-mentioned faculties have been affected by a draconian penal sanction. They have been deprived of their spiritual path, either immediately or at some unspecified future time. There are certainly people who misuse knives. Should the production and distribution of knives therefore be banned? Your decision, Holy Father, is far more grievous than would be the hypothetical absurdity of a universal prohibition against making knives. Holy Father: why are you doing this? Why have you attacked the holy practice of the ancient form of celebrating the Most Holy Sacrifice of Our Lord? The abuses committed in other forms, widespread or universal though they are, lead to nothing beyond words, to declarations expressed in general terms. But how can one teach with authority that “the disappearance of a culture can be just as serious, or even more serious, than the disappearance of a species of plant or animal” (Laudato si 145), and then a few years later, with a single act, destine a great part of the Church’s own spiritual and cultural heritage to extinction? Why do the rules of “deep ecology” formulated by you fail to apply in this case? Why did you not instead ask whether the constantly growing number of the faithful assisting at the traditional liturgy could be a sign from the Holy Spirit? You did not follow the advice of Gamaliel (Acts 5). Instead, you struck them with a ban that had not even a vacatio legis. The Lord God, the model for earthly rulers and, in the first place, for Church authorities, does not use His power in this way. Holy Scripture speaks thus to God: “For thy power is the beginning of justice: and because thou art Lord to all, thou makest thyself gracious to all (…) But thou being master of power, judgest, and with great favour disposest of us: for thy power is at hand when thy wilt” (Wis 12, 16-18). Real power does not need to prove itself by harshness. And harshness is not an attribute of any authority which follows the divine model. Our Saviour Himself left us a precise and reliable teaching on this (Mt 20, 24-28). Not only has the carpet been pulled, so to speak, from beneath the feet of people who were walking towards God; an attempt has been made to deprive them of the very ground they walk on. This attempt will not succeed. Nothing which is in conflict with Catholicism will be accepted in God’s Church. Holy Father, it is impossible to experience the ground under one’s feet for 12 years and suddenly assert that it is no longer there. It is impossible to conclude that my own Mother, found after many long years, is not my Mother. Papal authority is immense. But even this authority cannot make my Mother cease to be my Mother! A single life cannot bear two mutually exclusive ruptures, one of which opens a treasure, whilst the other claims that this treasure must be abandoned because its value has expired. If I were to accept these contradictions I should no longer be able to have any intellectual life, nor, therefore, any spiritual life either. From two contradictory statements, any affirmation, true or false, may be made to follow. This means the end of rational thinking, the end of any notion of reality, the end of effective communication of anything to anyone. But all these things are basic components of human life in general, and of Dominican life in particular. *** I have no doubts about my vocation. I am firmly resolved to continue my life and service within the Order of St Dominic. But to do so I must be able to reason correctly and logically. After the 16th of July 2021 this is no longer possible for me within the existing structures. I see with complete clarity that the treasure of the holy rites of the Church, the ground under the feet of those who practice them, and the mother of their piety, continues to exist. It has become equally clear to me that I must bear witness to it. I have been left no choice now but to turn to those who from the very beginning of the radical changes (changes, let it be noted, that go far beyond the will of the Second Vatican Council) have defended the Tradition of the Church, together with the Church’s respect for the requirements of reason, and who continue to pass on the unchangeable deposit of Catholic faith to the faithful: the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X. The SSPX has shown a readiness to accept me, whilst fully respecting my Dominican identity. It is providing me not only with a life of service to God and the Church, a service not impeded by contradictions, but also with an opportunity to oppose those contradictions which are an enemy to Truth, and which have attacked the Church so vigorously. There is a state of controversy between the SSPX and the official structures of the Church. It is an internal dispute within the Church, and it concerns matters of great importance. The documents and the decisions of the 16th of July have caused my position on this subject to converge with that of the SSPX. As in the case of any important dispute, this one too must be resolved. I am determined to devote my efforts towards this end. I intend this letter to be part of this effort. The means used can only be a humble respect for Truth, and gentleness, both springing from a supernatural source. Thus we can hope for the solution of the controversy and the rebuilding of a unity that will embrace not only those living now but also all generations, both past and future. I thank you for the attention you have granted to my words and beg, Most Holy Father, for your apostolic blessing. With filial devotion in Christ, Fr. Wojciech Gołaski, O.P.
We see now where this is going. Immediately following the release of Traditionis Custodes in July, 2021, a few bishops canceled Latin Masses in their dioceses. Many, however, are still “prayerfully considering” how best to implement the Pope’s executive order. Now the vicar general for the Diocese of Rome has given the bishops of the world a template for acceptable implementation of Traditionis Custodes.
According to the letter of the vicar general dated October 7, 2021 (translated by Peter Kwasniewski), one parish church in the Diocese of Rome may offer the Traditional Latin Mass every day, except during the Easter Triduum. Four other parish churches in the Diocese of Rome may also offer the Traditional Latin Mass from time to time “and possibly also on Sundays and feast days of obligation,” if proper permissions have been obtained, but also not during the Easter Triduum. Finally, nothing else from the Roman Missal of 1962 is permitted. “…[I]t is no longer possible to use the Roman Ritual and the other liturgical books of the ‘ancient rite’ for the celebration of sacraments and sacramentals (e.g., not even the Ritual for the Reconciliation of Penitents according to the ancient form.)”Advertisement – Continue Reading Below
Now there is a safe haven for those bishops who want to comply with the Pope’s executive order, but who also wish to “accompany” those parishioners who stubbornly cling to — or are newly drawn to — the “ancient rites.”
This Rome template, giving the illusion that the Traditional Latin Mass has been allowed to continue in Rome, after the Pope had said that there is only one expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite, could not have been hatched in Rome without the Pope’s knowledge and consent. It is, therefore, an admission that Traditionis Custodes has proven to be unworkable. No, the Traditional Latin Mass cannot be killed with a blunt instrument. It will have to be strangled and smothered slowly and incrementally.
Perhaps the author(s) did not notice that the Rome template gives the lie to the argument that Traditionis Custodes was about unity. Because the Rome template now creates a Mass that is good and sufficient for the Sunday obligation but not good enough nor sufficient enough for Easter or Baptism. So we still have two expressions of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite, one for 361 days of the year and one for the other 4. No matter; the unity argument was already being discredited by Diane Montagna’s investigative reporting on the actual results of the survey of bishops that led up to the Pope’s executive order.
The essence of the unity argument was that the Roman Rite cannot have two different forms of the liturgy; the rite must be united in one form. We now know that the bishops of the world told the Pope that the two forms of the liturgy were working just fine and there was no disunity among parishioners who were drawn to one form or the other.Advertisement – Continue Reading Below
The Roman template now holds that there can be two forms of the Roman Rite, but what used to be called the extraordinary form, that is, the Traditional Latin Mass, is inferior to the ordinary form and is insufficient for celebration of the Church’s highest holy days, from Holy Thursday through Easter Sunday. So the Traditional Latin Mass can still be celebrated in the Diocese of Rome, subject to limitations and regulations that do not apply to the Novus Ordo Mass and with the understanding that it contains certain (unstated) flaws and shortcomings that disqualify it from use during the Triduum.
The flaws and shortcomings of the ancient Roman Rite are apparently so bad that only the rite of the Mass can be permitted to continue; no other sacraments or blessings may be permitted.
The Rome template is not a concession to bishops who refused to immediately implement Traditionis Custodes. It is a cynical acknowledgement that the Traditional Latin Mass cannot be erased with the stroke of a pen. No, those who are drawn to the Traditional Latin Mass must be made to doubt their devotion to it. The Traditional Latin Mass cannot be taken from them; rather, they must abandon it. The Rome template is the document that the Pope would have written in the first place if he had given it more thought.
Which is worse? Outlawing the Traditional Latin Mass and driving it into the catacombs, where it would continue to be celebrated? Or permitting the Traditional Latin Mass openly to be celebrated in a few churches, but branding it as second-class worship that will eventually wither and be abandoned? I pray the bishops of the world see this for what it is: a safe haven for them, perhaps, but a source of unending torture for many in their care.
Raymond Kowalski is from Rochester, New York. He is a product of parochial elementary schools and The Aquinas Institute. He holds a bachelor’s degree from St. Bonaventure University and a law degree from The George Washington University. After a forty-year career in communications law, he is retired and living with his wife in Gainesville, Virginia. They are the parents of three and grandparents of five.
It appears that Black Live Matter (BLM) and one of its top supporters, Barack Obama, may be as much about Trans power as about Black poweras shown in this NBC News website post:
… the co-founders of Black Lives Matter, Patrisse Cullors and Alicia Garza,have helped shape and organize some of the most effective strategies and movements for the equality…… Transphobia and sexism are part of white supremacy, and so it all must go. Trans voices cannot be silenced in this moment.
This current civil rights movement has engulfed all 50 states and some 18 countries so far; the heartbreaking, death of George Floyd on May 25 while in the custody of Minneapolis police pushed an already fragile global society over the proverbial edge. It’s easy to understand why. [https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/when-black-lives-matter-black-trans-people-must-be-freed-ncna1228316]
Is BLM also about being one with the “white establishment”?
The Los Angeles Times seemed worried about the above question:
Black Lives Matter was once shunned by the white establishment. But now, it’s chic. And that’s a problem.
BLM banners fly from homes in Silver Lake. BLM posters are taped to the windows of Portland coffee shops. BLM hashtags fill users’ bios on Twitter and Tinder. Institutions including Uber, Airbnb and the National Football League have embraced Black Lives Matter.[https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-09-04/black-lives-matter-white-people-portland-protests-nfl]
Are Black Lives Matter, Obama and their “white establishment” media allies promoting racism against Latinos, all non-blacks and even non-Muslim blacks?
The Black Lives Matter Karenism has reached a new level of insanity and may be targeting non-black minorities, non-Muslims as well as whites. A Latino man was recently fired for “cracking his knuckles” according to the Western Journal:
The sound of a person cracking his knuckles is almost universally annoying, but for Emmanuel Cafferty, the habit cost him his job.
Cafferty worked for San Diego Gas and Electric and was driving in his company truck near a Black Lives Matter protest in Poway, California, earlier this month, according to KNSD-TV.
He had his arm dangling from the truck window and was reportedly cracking his knuckles, unaware that a man who had been following him snapped a picture and shared it to social media in a since-deleted tweet, accusing Cafferty of making a “white power” gesture with his hand.
The organization’s website stresses caution in that interpretation, however, as the gesture is “entirely innocuous and harmless” in most contexts.
Moreover, it appears that Sacramento King basketball white announcer Grant Napear was forced to resign for Twitting “All Lives Matters.”
Does this means that the phrase “Black Lives Matter” to the Black Lives Matter organization and to the leftist politically correct powers that be that only black lives matter and that Latino, Jewish, Asian, white, all non-black and all non-Islamic persons lives don’t matter?
If this is true then the leftist politically correct powers that be that promote Black Lives Matter appear to be pushing a type of Black Nazism that is apparently racist and anti-Semitic.
The Nazis ideological narrative was that since the German race suffered after World War I that only German lives mattered so they were justified in killing Jews, Slavs and other races. It appears that the Black Lives Matter (BLM) ideological narrative is because blacks suffered in the past that only black lives matter so riots are justified against other races.
According to the research of The Last Refuge, Black Lives Matters (BLM) is influenced by black supremacist Louis “Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam [who] do not like Latinos”:
“The internal racism within the “people of color” coalition was always the inherent problem for Barack Obama, Eric Holder and Tom Perez (Team BLM), because the Nation of Islam and New Black Panther Party absolutely dislike Latinos.” “When Barack Obama attempted outreach to the Latino community he even changed the language. Gaining Latino support was the reason the DNC sent out guidance to use the phrase “people of color” instead of ‘black’ during media coverage.
Additionally, Obama’s attempted outreach to the Latino community was always through the illegal alien angle, the ‘dreamers’; but Obama never delivered on his fake promises and the PoC lingo could not help.”
“Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam do not like Latinos and/or Hispanics. The New Black Panthers do not like Latinos and/or Hispanics. These groups are always in constant conflict. The friendly political relationship between La Raza and the radical Democrats doesn’t compensate for this massive divide amid Blacks and Latinos.”
“In one way it is still a generational problem. Latinos lean heavily Christian; while the radical NoI and NBPP elements who agreed to align within the BLM movement are heavily influenced by Islam. This is why there are two internal black coalitions. BLM is influenced by Islam, while the AME coalition is Christian.”The BLM network is the center of activist operations and that means Islam is favored. [Keep your ‘people of color’, because the BLM prefers ‘black. [The previous remark in this brackets is from The Last Refuge post] ] Hence, Minneapolis is a good fit for BLM activation because Minneapolis leans Muslim thanks to the decades long influx of Somali refugees imported by Bush and Obama.” [https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/06/04/anger-games-night-9-blm-window-of-opportunity-starts-to-close/ ]
Jamaican-American Jason D. Hill, who is a professor of philosophy at DePaul University, wrote an article “My ‘Black Lives Matter’ Problem” for Commentary Magazine with the subheading “June 2018 Anti-Semitism ” in which he stated:
“The leaders of Black Lives Matter have written a profoundly anti-Israel (and anti-American) manifesto in which they accuse Israel of “genocide” and “apartheid.” The manifesto endorses the “Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions” (BDS) movement and takes the view that the United States justifies and advances the global war on terror via its alliances with Israel. This, according to Black Lives Matter, makes the U.S. complicit in a supposedly genocidal massacre of the Palestinian people… “
“… Israel is the only country I know of that grants citizenship and land rights to its avowed enemies. What’s more, Israel offered a Palestinian state to both Yassir Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas and was not only repeatedly turned down but repaid with the second intifada and the indiscriminate murder of Israeli citizens. Palestinian intransigence is forged in the conviction that no deal will be made so long as Jews—any Jews—occupy the land of Israel. In 2005, Israel unilaterally handed over its territory in Gaza to the terrorist government Hamas and was, and still is, rewarded by a daily showering of rockets into Israeli land.”
“With its accusations against Israeli Jews, Black Lives Matter suggests that in their support of Israel, such Jews are complicit in the unproven crimes of genocide and apartheid. We must remember that even amid the daily onslaughts of war and terror that Palestinians inflict on Jews, the Israelis, in a spirit of almost irrational altruism, take great pains to limit civilian casualties and to ensure that those caught in a war they did not personally initiate are spared as much harm as possible… “
“… There is another morally irresponsible claim made by the Black Lives Matter movement—a claim that should offend any self-respecting black American citizen. I refer to the movement’s demand that the United States provide free college education to blacks. On what grounds is this organization making such a demand? Why free college education for blacks but not for poor whites or for Latino, Asian, or Native-American college students? What special sociopolitical conditions exist for blacks that do not hold for other ethnic or racial groups such that blacks deserve to be exempt from paying college tuition?” [https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/jason-hill/black-lives-matter-problem/]
If the above is true then the leftist corporate powers and the media that promote Black Lives Matter appear to be pushing a type of Black Islamic Nazism that is apparently racist, anti-Semitic and even pro-slavery for non-Muslim blacks according to the Geller Report News:
Black slavery is rampant in these Muslim-dominated African countries, but no one is talking about it.
By: Dr. Charles Jacobs Today, an estimated 529,000 to 869,000 black men, women and children are still slaves. They are bought, owned, sold, and traded by Arab and Muslim masters in five African countries. This statistic estimates those enslaved in Algeria, Libya, Mauritania, and Sudan. It excludes Nigeria, for which there are no tangible estimates.Western human rights organizations and the mainstream media are practically and painfully silent on this matter. It does not fit with their focus on Western white sin. Here is a brief survey of this quasi-taboo topic.[https://gellerreport.com/2020/06/black-slavery-exists-today-in-muslim-nations.html/]
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.
Is the Catholic Media a “PC Culture… Relying on Communist Propaganda Tricks” or is there a “Tipping Point” when it “Decide[s]” its “Credibility” will be Lost in Covering-up for Francis?
Why is even discussing the possibility of a imperfect council and/or a cardinal and bishop investigation into the Francis conclave and Pope Benedict XVI resignation beyond the “Rope Limit”? Who and/or what has made Cardinal Burke and the faithful Catholic media into George P. Dog with a rope leash and a “Rope Limit.” Who or what controls them? Why are they forbidden to even give reasoned arguments, instead of straw man agruments that don’t counter our stated dissertations or name calling, against Bishop Rene Gracida and Latin language expert Br. Alexis Bugnolo who put forward serious reasoned dissertations from canon law and Pope John Paul II’s conclave constitution? If they really think those who follow Bishop Gracida and Br. Bugnolo are wrong and headed to hell for being in schism from Francis then out of simple charity for our souls they should counter our dissertations and arguments. If they really believe we are wrong and headed to hell for calling for a formal correction, a St. Francis de Sales/St. Bellarmine imperfect council, a canonical trial and cardinal investigation of the Francis’ conclave and refuse to give us real arguments then they apparently have lost the supernatural virtue of charity. If they really believe what they say then for charity’s sake they should attempt to save us from hell for being in “schism” from Francis: But, all we hear are straw man agruments that don’t counter our stated dissertations, name calling propaganda, silence or the noise of them running away as fast as they can from serious reasoned back and forth argumentation. – The Catholic Monitor [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2020/05/formal-correction-why-are-cd-burke.html]
The Intellectual Takeout website said “The PC Culture is Relying on Communist Propaganda Tricks”:
The PC culture that now dominates American schools is often over-the-top… according to author Theodore Dalrymple, that’s exactly the point.
In a 2005 interview he made the following comparison between communist propaganda and the new politically correct culture:
“Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.” [https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/pc-culture-relying-communist-propaganda-tricks/]
My question is:
Is the Catholic media a “PC Culture… Relying on Communist Propaganda Tricks” or is there a “tipping point” when it “decide[s]” its “credibility” will be lost in covering-up for Francis like with the so-called mainstream media on Mario Cuomo?
In August, The Epoch Times put up a post on “Governor Cuomo’s Sex Scandal and the Media’s Corruption” which said “there must have come a tipping point where the media collectively decided that such credibility with the public as they still retained would be lost unless they abandoned their initial attempts to ignore or kill the story”:
In most such cases, the media’s protection of their favorites is a simple matter of insisting that the charges of wrong-doing against them are politically motivated—the work of “right wing hatchet men” or a “vast right-wing conspiracy”—which is richly ironic in view of the undisguised political motivations behind their own cries of scandal against Republican targets.
The crowning achievement of such deflective tactics came during last year’s election campaign when the media quickly rounded up 50 current or former “intelligence officials” to sign on to a statement claiming that the Hunter Biden laptop story in the right-wing New York Post sounded to them like “Russian disinformation.”
But when, as in the Clinton and Cuomo cases, the allegations are of sexual misbehavior against a white male Democrat—a black male Democrat like Lt Governor Justin Fairfax of Virginia, still in office in spite of allegations of rape against him, may be a different matter—this approach runs the risk of offending the important Democratic constituency of educated women, who are often ideologically committed to the view that women never lie about such things.
The $64,000 question for the media is this: Are these female Democrats equally committed to the view that charges of sexual misconduct are equally serious no matter which party the alleged offender belongs to?
There were few protests on the left—almost none that I am aware of—when the media successfully buried the story of Tara Reid’s allegations of sexual assault against Joe Biden last year. But Ms. Reid was an isolated case and could be portrayed, as at first Monica Lewinsky was, as a bitter and perhaps mentally unbalanced woman with a grudge.
Besides, Joe Biden was by that time the presumptive Democrat standard-bearer against the hated man in the White House and had to be protected at all costs.
Biden is obviously demented, but the pedophilia is intrinsic to him – he was sexually into children, including his own, according to his daughter, long before any brain injuries or dementia. So The Powers That Be placed a pedophile with rapidly fading self-censoring capability as the “president” of the “united states”.
I think at this point, this is a trolling operation. I think they are positively luxuriating in the utter refusal of the unwashed masses to do a damn thing to resist them in any way.
Miss Barnhardt in another post showed how people like Biden, Andrew Cuomo, Bill Crosby and Francis gets away with their shenanigans:
In this episode we discuss Bill Cosby and his effeminate supporting caste of beta narcissists — including his wife — who allowed and empowered him to act as sexual predator for DECADES. Also, Ann wonders: “If I learn to read bad poetry really slowly, can I be a Wise Woman of Color(tm) too?” And we discuss a listener’s email and how it applies to another group of beta narcissists, Professional Catholics, and why they don’t enunciate the full truth.
The secular and Catholic media are their supporting “caste of beta narcissists” that “empowered” them.
The feminist Crusader Newspaper Group gave an overview of some of those “empowered” by the media “caste of beta narcissists”:
Once again, a high profile male is in the spotlight due to allegations of inappropriate sexual behavior. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has been called upon to resign from office due to sexual harassment claims leveled by former employees…
… Cuomo’s situation is one of the latest of the accusations made by women regarding improper sexual behavior. Other accusations of inappropriate sexual conduct have been leveled at the R & B singer R. Kelly, who is currently in jail, and former comedian and sitcom star Bill Cosby, who is currently serving time in prison for allegedly drugging and raping a woman.
These cases are just a drop in the proverbial bucket of a huge number of them. In fact, these accusations are so pervasive that almost every man in a position of power can become suspect. Even our current President, Joe Biden, has had fingers pointed at him based on his “affectionate” behavior.
One of the things that all of these cases have in common is that there is often a great deal of time, usually multiple years, between the alleged incidents and the victims’ reporting of the events. [https://chicagocrusader.com/male-sexist-culture-on-trial/]
Finally, we return to 2018, when faithful Catholics thought that Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano had single-handedly destroyed Francis and his sex abuse cover-up and heretical legacy. The LifeSiteNews headline was “Pope Francis covered up McCarrick abuse, former US nuncio.”
But, the media “caste of beta narcissists” then also stepped in.
The Catholic and mainstream media, for the most part, has protected Francis and the Vatican gay lobby for a long time from the following being known by most people:
Taylor Marshall on YouTube in “Dr. Taylor Marshall ties together Vatican financial scandal with homosexual activity” summarized what lead to Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation and Francis:
If Archbishop Carlo Marie Vigano is telling the truth then it appears that the Vatican gay lobby apparently forced Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation and it appears that Francis has “reinstated and promoted” all those who brought about the resignation.
Marshall stated:
“First of, Vigano blew the whistle on money laundering.”
“Two, the accusations of money laundering leads to the Vatileaks scandal.”
“Three, the Vatileaks scandal leads Benedict to form a secret investigation with three cardinals.”
“Four, those three cardinals expose moral rot, sexual deviancy, that is paired up with financial irregularity.”
“This is what moves the Pope to resignation. And just to make sure there is enough pressure on him to do it and do it quick something funny goes on with the Vatican Bank beginning on January 1, 2013.”
“And it seems the powerful cardinals within Vatican City wanted it to happen fast because they don’t want the 300 page dossier released to the public because there is moral scandal in those pages.”
“That binder was left with Pope Francis, but nothing has been done. And what we see is that those who were oppose to Benedict XVI theologically, but also on administration, have been reinvolved, reinstated and promoted.”
On February 22, 2013, The Sydney Morning Herald verified Marshall’s explanation of why Pope Benedict XVI resigned:
“Pope Benedict XVI resigned after an internal investigation informed him about a web of blackmail, corruption and gay sex in the Vatican, Italian media reports say.”
“Three cardinals were asked by Benedict to verify allegations of financial impropriety, cronyism and corruption exposed in the so-called VatiLeaks affair.”
“On December 17, 2012, they handed the pontiff two red-leather bound volumes, almost 300 pages long, containing “an exact map of the mischief and the bad fish” inside the Holy See, La Repubblicasaid.”
“‘It was on that day, with those papers on his desk, that Benedict XVI took the decision he had mulled over for so long,’ said the centre-left newspaper.”
“… La Repubblica quoted a man described as “very close” to the authors as saying the information it contained was “all about the breach of the sixth and seven commandments” – which say “thou shalt not commit adultery” and ‘thou shalt not steal.'”
“The cardinals were said to have uncovered an underground gay network, whose members organise sexual meetings in several venues in Rome and Vatican City, leaving them prone to blackmail.”
“The secret report also delves into suspect dealings at the Institute for Religious Works (IOR), the Vatican’s bank.” (The Sydney Morning Herald, “Vatican scandal cited in Pope resignation,” February 22, 2013)
On January 26, 2012, the Business Insider verified Marshall’s narrative showing that the Vatican insiders removed Vigano for attempting to clean up those involved with “financial irregularity” who were the gay lobby:
“The show “The Untouchables”, on private television network La 7 Wednesday night showed several letters that Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, the erstwhile deputy-governor of Vatican City, sent to superiors, including Pope Benedict, in 2011 about the corruption.”
“… As deputy-governor of the Vatican City from 2009 to 2011, Vigano was the No. 2 official in a department responsible for maintaining the city-state’s infrastructure.”
“Soon after his appointment, Vigano discovered corruption, nepotism and cronyism, especially in the awarding of contracts to outside companies at inflated prices, which he sought to remedy.”
“The TV program interviewed a member of the bankers’ committee — whose face was blurred and voice changed to protect his identity — who said Vigano had a reputation as a “ballbreaker” among companies that had contracts with the Vatican, because of his emphasis on transparency and fair competition.”
“… While Vigano turned Vatican City’s budget from deficit to surplus during his tenure through cost-cutting, it made him some enemies, who had unsigned articles criticizing him as inefficient published in the Italian newspaper Il Giornale in 2011.”
On June 11, 2013, The Telegraph revealed that even Francis verified Marshall’s report that there was a gay lobby tied to “financial irregularity”:
“The Pontiff supposedly made the claim during an audience last Thursday at the Vatican with a group of Latin American priests and nuns.”
“‘Yes, it is difficult,’ he reportedly said. ‘In the Curia there are holy people, truly holy people. But there is also a current of corruption, also there is, it is true … they speak of a ‘gay lobby’ and that is true, it is there … we will have to see what we can do.'”
Unfortunately, what The Telegraph didn’t reveal or know is that Francis had been surrounded by a gay lobby as a cardinal in Argentina and surrounded himself with the gay lobby in the Vatican and in his “commission of eight [later nine] cardinals… to organise reform of the Curia” which is called the C9.
The Telegraph didn’t know as Marshall put it that Francis “reinvolved, reinstated and promoted” the Vatican gay lobby:
The Catholic Argentinian website the Wanderer on October 23, 2014 posted “Unmasking Bergoglio”:
“Bergoglio always had the “gay agenda” among his plans… It is a question of asking the Buenoairean clergy about the constant protection that he lavished on many homosexual priests.”
“… Cardinal Bergoglio as Primate… of the Argentine Episcopal Conference… “[had a] “star”… of the Argentine Episcopate. The great theologian… of the poor [Archbishop Juan Carlos Maccarone].”
“Until… in March 2005 a video appeared in which the archbishop appeared having sexual games with a young man… Pope Benedict XVI… immediately removed [him from his]… position [as bishop].”
“The reaction of Bergoglio”
“By a letter that Maccarone himself directed in [to] his bother bishops, it can be easily deduced that the entire Argentine episcopal gang knew of his weakness… And, in spite of that, they promoted him to the episcopal office.”
“… Bergoglio… issued a statement in which he expressed his ‘gratitude’ to the former bishop [Maccarone].”
“… The spokesman of the arzobipado porteno went out to say… the [sex] video corresponded to “the private life of Bishop Maccarone.”
Jimmy Burns in his book “Francis, Pope of Good Promise” after referencing that “Maccarone resigned” because of the “videotape showing the bishop having ‘intimate relations'” wrote:
“Bergoglio’s own spokesman, rather than focus on Maccarone’s political links with Kirchner, jumped to the bishop’s defense claiming he had been set up.”
“… Fortunato Millimaci, a Buenos Aires sociologist [said]… ‘This means that the idea of the Catholic Church as a moral reference of a Catholic nation is very strongly in doubt… It shows that a double standard exists within the Church [of Bergoglio] itself.'” (Pages 231-232)
Francis’s Vatican inner circle and C9 was largely composed of the gay lobby and those who covered-up for them:
BusinessStandard, September 19, 2017:
Francis’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith perfect Archbishop Ferrer will go to trail for “complicity in alleged cover-up” of paedophile priest.
The Telegraph, July 19, 2013:
“Pope’s [Francis’s] ‘eyes and ears’ in Vatican bank [allegedly] ‘had string of homosexual affairs’… [Battista] Ricca is a trusted confidante of the Pope”
LifeSiteNews, March 7,2018:
Francis’s closest advisor in the C9 papal inner circle Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga left in charge of his Honduras archdiocese his close confidant Bishop Juan Pineda “accused of ‘abusing seminarians, having a string of male lovers.'”
National Catholic Reporter, April 29, 2014:
Francis’s close advisor in C9 papal inner circle Cardinal “Errazuriz [and his]… successor… [Cardinal] Ezzati” “Chilean cardinals close to pope stained by abuse cover-ups” of priest sex abuser of Juan Carlos Cruz.
The Remnant, September 12, 2017:
Francis’s confidant Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio’s Secretary has homosexual orgy in Vatican:
“Secretary to the powerful Cardinal Francesco ‘Positive Realities of Homosexuals’… [Coccopalmerio’s Secretary] Capozzi was arrested for hosting a raucous drug fueled homosexual orgy.”
BBC, August 29, 2010 & LifeSiteNews, September 16, 2017:
Francis collaborator invited by Pope to be number two representative in family synod “Belgian Cardinal Danneels condoned sex-abuse silence.”
The Week, January 3, 2017:
“Pope Francis and his cardinal allies… known to interfere… on abuse cases… Consider case of [serial sex-abuser] Fr. Mauro Inzoli… Francis returned him to the priestly state.”
Vebuumdei.blogspot, June 23, 2014 & Catholic Monitor, April 18, 2017:
Francis strolled hand in hand down the street with gay activist Fr. Luigi Ciotti at a anti-gangster event.
Chiesa, December 16, 2016:
Vatican expert Sandro Magister said Francis has a “number of homosexual priests in the inner circle of his closest collaborators and confidants.”
Caucus99percent.com, 02/02/2018:
“Pope Francis’ continuous aiding and abetting of sexual predators and his officials who protect them.”
“Although he was personally informed of the accusations against them, Pope Francis protected these sexual predators: Fr. Mauro Inzoli (the pope later defrocked Inzoli but he is still a free man) Luis Fernando Figari, Archbishop Anthony Apuron, Auxiliary Bishop Gabino Miranda Melgarejo, Fr. Don Corradi and Archbishop Josef Wesolowski.”
“After Pope Francis did nothing to stop Corradi, the priest and four others were arrested in November 2016 and charged with raping and molesting at least 22 children. More reports poured in and ‘it’s now thought that as many as 60 children fell victim to abuse.’”
“Wesolowski was put under Vatican house arrest 14 months after the pope judged him to be guilty only after ‘there was a serious risk that [he] would be arrested on Italian territory at the request of the Dominican Republic authorities and then extradited,’ as reported by Corriere della Sera. The archbishop was found with more than 100,000 computer files of child pornography, a “key ingredient” in sex trafficking. Wesolowski continued to possess child pornography even under Vatican house arrest.”
“Kamil Jarzembowski, a former student at the Vatican’s preseminary, wrote a letter about the sexual abuse of minors in the school and handed it directly to Pope Francis. The pope did nothing to stop it.”
“Pope Francis had ordered an investigation of Honduran Bishop Juan José Pineda by an Argentine bishop who was “shocked” by “accounts of sexual abuse perpetrated against priests and seminarians …. So far the only action that has been taken has been to send Bishop Pineda to stay with Jesuits in Madrid on a short retreat,” wrote veteran Vatican reporter Edward Pentin.”
“Pope Francis promoted Archbishop Luis Ladaria Ferrer as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican department that judges cases of clergy sexual abuse. While Ladaria held the second highest position in the CDF, he found Fr. Gianni Trotta guilty of sexually abusing minors in 2012 but failed to inform the Italian authorities. Trotta, already convicted of sexual violence against an 11-year-old and sentenced to eight years in prison by a civil court, is now standing trial for nine other alleged cases of sex abuse against boys that occurred in 2014. Ladaria, himself, will stand trial in April, accused by French authorities of “complicity in the alleged cover-up” of Fr. Bernard Preynat.”
“A month after his election, the pope appointed a Council of Cardinals to help him govern the Church. Three of the eight initial members had protected pedophile priests: George Pell, Francisco Javier Errázuriz Ossa, and Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga who he named as head of the council.”
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.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on IS THE CATHOLIC MEDIA EXEMPT FROM THE OBLIGATION TO BEAR WITNESS TO THE FAITH EVEN TO THE POINT OF SHEDDING ITS ‘BLOOD’
Cardinal Angelo De Donatis (
Above, Pope Paul VI (1963-1978). On the left of the photo, Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, (1890-1979), in the 1960s the head of the Holy Office “Paul VI had some concerns regarding this reform of the Ordo Missae. On three different occasions (October 25, 1965, December 10, 1965, and March 7, 1966), he had his Secretary of State, Cardinal Cicognani, address official letters to Cardinal Lercaro to recommend prudence and reserving to the Holy See any decision involving ‘any possible changes proposed for the rite of celebration of the divine sacrifice.’” —Yves Chiron, July 22, 2021, “How the Novus Ordo Mass was made,” Church Life Journal (
Jamna, August 17, 2021 His Holiness Pope Francis Domus Sanctae Marthae The Holy See Vatican City
ABYSSUS ABYSSUM INVOCAT / DEEP CALLS TO DEEP 
You must be logged in to post a comment.