EXCLUSIVE – VAERS data shows 100% of reported Covid-19 Vaccine Deaths were caused by just 5% of batches produced and the majority were sent to red Republican States across the USA
On October 31st we exclusively revealed how an investigation of the USA’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) found extremely high numbers of adverse reactions and deaths have been reported against specific lot numbers of the Covid-19 vaccines numerous times, meaning deadly batches of the experimental injections have now been identified.
That investigationalso led to the discovery that 130 different lot numbers of Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine distributed to more than 13 states, harmed on average 639 times more people, hospitalised on average 109 times more people, and killed on average 22 times more people than the 4,289 different lt number of Pfizer vaccine distributed to 12 states or less.
However, the most shocking finding of the investigation was that 100% of Covid-19 vaccine deaths reported to VAERS with identified lot numbers had been caused by just 5% of the batches produced. But the deeply troubling findings don’t end there, because we decided to conduct further analysis of the VAERS data on the Covid-19 vaccines, and we’ve discovered that the majority of the deadliest batches were clearly sent to Republican controlled red states across the USA.
Top 26 most harmful lot numbers sent to 13 or more States
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on TEXAS SHOULD SUE PFIZER
True Witnesses of Jesus Christ’s Resurrection: “Disciples of Christ Despise Death… Instead of Fearing it” November 03, 2021 Introit
Has the Covid hysteria proven that there are very few bishops who are “disciples of Christ” in the Catholic Church?
I know for a fact that there are still a few priests and bishops who are “disciples of Christ” who are the true witnesses of Jesus Christ’s resurrection.
They are the true witnesses of Easter and Jesus Christ’s resurrection in that they “despise death” as St. Athanasius despised it.
Athanasius tells us the meaning of Easter in his great book “On the Incarnation”:
“All the disciples of Christ despise death; they take the offensive against it and, instead of fearing it, by the sign of the cross and by faith in Christ trample on it as on something dead… all those who believe in Christ tread it underfoot as nothing, and prefer to die rather than to deny their faith in Christ, knowing full well that when they die they do not perish, but live indeed, and become incorruptible through the resurrection… There is proof of this too; for men who, before they believe in Christ, think death horrible and are afraid of it, once they are converted despise it so completely that they go eagerly to meet it, and themselves become witnesses of the Saviour’s resurrection from it. Even children hasten thus to die.”
Yesterday’s All Souls’ Day Mass was all about “despise death”:
ALL SOULS’ DAY
COMMEMORATION OF ALL THE FAITHFUL DEPARTED
DOUBLE / BLACK “Unto Your faithful, O Lord, life is changed, not taken away.” The shared divine life that makes all the faithful one Mystical Body of Christ is not broken by death. Those who are born into eternal life remain our brothers and sisters in Christ. They have a debt of punishment to pay for sin, and God permits us to help them pay it. By personal sacrifices, by any personal prayer, by indulgenced prayers and good works, and especially by having Mass offered, everyone can help shorten Purgatory for relatives and friends, for unmourned derelicts, and for the persecuted of all nations who must die without the Sacraments.
FIRST MASS
INTROIT Ps. 64:2-3 Grant them eternal rest, O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon them. Ps. It is fitting to praise You in Sion, O God, and to fulfill our vow to You in Jerusalem. Hear my prayer: all flesh must come to You. Grant them . . .
COLLECT O God, Creator and Redeemer of all the faithful, grant the souls of Your departed servants forgiveness of all their sins. May our devout prayers obtain for them the pardon that they have always desired; who lives and rules with God, . . .
LESSON I Cor. 15: 51-57 Brethren: Behold, I tell you a mystery. We shall all indeed rise again: but we shall not all be changed. In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet: for the trumpet shall sound and the dead shall rise again incorruptible. And we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption: and this mortal must put on immortality. And when this mortal hath put on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory! O death, where is thy victory? O death, where is thy sting?” Now the sting of death is sin: and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who hath given us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
GRADUAL IV Esdr. 2:34 Grant them eternal rest, O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon them. Ps. 111:7. The just man shall be in everlasting remembrance; he shall not fear an evil report.
TRACT Release the souls of all the faithful departed from every bond of sin, O Lord. V. Enable them by the help of Your grace to escape the avenging judgment. V. That they may enjoy the happiness of eternal light.
SEQUENCE
That day of wrath, that dreadful day When heaven and earth shall pass away, Both David and the Sibyl say.
What terror then to us shall fall When lo, the Judge’s steps appall, About to weigh the deeds of all.
The mighty trumpet’s dolorous tone Shall pierce through each sepulchral stone And summon men before the throne.
Now death and nature in amaze Behold the Lord His creatures raise To meet the Judge’s awful gaze.
The book is opened, that the dead May hear their doom from what is read, The record of our conscience dread.
The Lord of judgment on His throne Shall every secret thing make known, No sin escapes that once was sown.
Ah, how shall I that day endure? What patron’s aid can make secure, When scarce the just themselves are sure?
O King of dreadful majesty Who grants us grace and mercy free Grant mercy now and grace to me.
Good Lord, who for my sinful sake Man’s suffering flesh Yourself did take, Please do not now my soul forsake.
In weariness my soul was sought; Upon the cross its life was bought; Alas, if all in vain were wrought.
O just avenging Judge, I pray Have pity, take my sins away Before the great accounting day.
I groan beneath crimes’ guilty pain; My flush of shame reveals the stain Of, sins, my God, that still remain.
All Mary’s sins You did unbind, And mercy for the robber find; Now fill with hope my anxious mind.
My feeble prayers can make no claim; Yet, gracious Lord, for Your great Name Redeem me from the quenchless flame.
At Your right hand, give me a place, Among Your sheep, a child of grace Far from the goats’ accursed race.
And when Your justly kindled ire Lets sinners fall to ceaseless fire Oh, call me to Your chosen choir.
In suppliant prayer I humbly bend, My contrite heart like ashes rend; Regard, O Lord, my final end.
Oh, on that day, that tearful day, When man to judgment wakes from clay, Do You the sinner’s sentence stay O spare him, God, we humbly pray.
And grant to all, O Saviour blest, Who die in You, the saints’ sweet rest. Amen.
GOSPEL St. John 5:25-29 At that time, Jesus said to the multitudes of the Jews:”Amen, amen, I say unto you, that the hour cometh, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. For as the Father hath life in himself, so he hath given to the Son also to have life in himself. And he hath given him power to do judgment, because he is the Son of man. Wonder not at this: for the hour cometh wherein all that are in the graves shall hear the voice of the Son of God. And they that have done good things shall come forth unto the resurrection of life: but they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment.”
OFFERTORY ANTIPHON O Lord, Jesus Christ, glorious King, spare the souls of the faithful departed from the pains of hell and from the deep pit; free them from the jaws of the lion, and let them not descend into hell to be swallowed up in darkness. May Saint Michael, Your standard This shows The Virgin and The Child being pres…Image via Wikipedia bearer, lead them into the holy light which You promised of old to Abraham and his posterity. V. Receive the sacrifices and prayers of praise, O Lord, which we offer for the souls of those whom we would remember this day. Grant, O Lord, that they may pass from death to life, which You promised of old to Abraham and his posterity.
SECRET O Lord, look with favor upon the gifts we offer You in behalf of the souls of Your faithful departed. Grant them the reward of Christian faith, just as You bestowed upon them the merit of their belief. Through Our Lord . . .
COMMUNION ANTIPHON IV Esdr 2:35, 34 May eternal light shine upon them, O Lord, with Your saints forever, for You are merciful. V. Grant them eternal rest, O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon them, with Your saints forever, for You are merciful.
POSTCOMMUNION May the prayers of Your suppliant people help the souls of Your servants, O Lord. Free them of all their sins and grant that they may share in the redemption You won for all men, who lives and rules with God . . . [https://tridentine-mass.blogspot.com/2021/11/all-souls-day-commemoration-of-all.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)
Saint Robert Bellarmine, also, said “the Pope heretic is not deposed ipso facto, but must be declared deposed by the Church.”
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.
Election Notes:
Intel Cryptanalyst-Mathematician on Biden Steal: “212Million Registered Voters & 66.2% Voting,140.344 M Voted…Trump got 74 M, that leaves only 66.344 M for Biden” [http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/intel-cryptanalyst-mathematician-on.html?m=1]
What is needed right now to save America from those who would destroy our God given rights is to pray at home or in church and if called to even go to outdoor prayer rallies in every town and city across the United States for God to pour out His grace on our country to save us from those who would use a Reichstag Fire-like incident to destroy our civil liberties. [Is the DC Capitol Incident Comparable to the Nazi Reichstag Fire Incident where the German People Lost their Civil Liberties?: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/is-dc-capital-incident-comparable-to.html?m=1 and Epoch Times Show Crossroads on Capitol Incident: “Anitfa ‘Agent Provocateurs'”: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/epoch-times-show-crossroads-on-capital.html?m=1%5D
Pray an Our Father now for the grace to know God’s Will and to do it.
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.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on Men who, before they believe in Christ, think death horrible and are afraid of it, once they are converted despise it so completely that they go eagerly to meet it, and themselves become witnesses of the Saviour’s resurrection from it. Even children hasten thus to die.”
Biden is now planning to give $450,000 in taxpayer dollars to illegal immigrants who got caught breaking our nation’s immigration and border laws.
His plan could total $1 billion in free money paid for by your taxes!
My wife is a LEGAL immigrant who escaped war-torn Lebanon to seek a better life in America. Because she respects and obeys the law, she had to wait 16 years to be granted legal status as an American citizen!
Yet, those who break our immigration laws are rewarded?
Biden’s plan is an insult to our nation’s laws, to hard-working taxpayers, and to legal immigrants like my wife who patiently wait their turn and suffer through our broken immigration system to realize the American Dream.
I’m Shawn Collins – a black conservative Republican, Afghanistan combat veteran, and active Navy reservist – and I’m running for Congress because we have a lack of leadership in America, and its time someone does something about it.
JOIN SHAWN TODAY ›› Not only is Biden rewarding those who cross our borders illegally, but he’s refusing to secure the border and is responsible for the humanitarian and national security crisis this has caused.
After Biden botched the military withdrawal from Afghanistan, leaving the Taliban in control and in possession of our supplies and weaponry, America became far less safe.
An insecure border means anyone could cross unimpeded and unnoticed… and YES, that includes Taliban terrorists.
As long as our borders are not secure, Americans are not safe and taxpayer dollars will continue to be spent on those who break our laws.
I need your help to fight for a secure border, a safe America, the enforcement of our nation’s laws, and responsible & accountable use of taxpayer dollars.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on BIDEN IS NOW PLANNING TO GIVE $450.000 IN TAXPAYER DOLLAS TO INDIVIDUAL ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS WHO GOT CAUGHT BREAKING INTO OUR COUNTRY
Over the weekend the news broke that a prominent member of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter was arrested for apparent heinous crimes against the moral law. Since the investigation is still under way, I see no need to dwell on the particulars of this case here. Similar accusations have been made against clergy of the Society of St. Pius X. Sometimes such accusations have been proven false, but at other times they are true and cannot (and must not) be denied or swept under the rug.
I have no doubt that there will always be such guilt among us, as long as men are frail and fallen, and capable of sinning. I say this not to belittle the evil (God forbid!) but to ask “What is its real significance? What should we be learning from these evils?” As I will show, their significance is not that traditionalism is discredited; their significance is rather to show us how much more we need the resources of traditional Catholicism, at the heart of which is the message—not exactly a popular post-Vatican II message: You and I are broken sinners in desperate need of God’s grace, and every possible means and method for obtaining His help will come in handy.Advertisement – Continue Reading Below
There’s a kind of journalism and social commentary that could be summed up with the word “Gotcha!” It’s ever on the lookout for people in positions of authority—people who should be paragons of virtue and who even seem to have advantages over others in the pursuit of virtue—who have been caught sinning, even notoriously sinning. “Gotcha!” Once the incriminating evidence is obtained, it is turned against the entire movement or group or belief-system to which that criminal belonged. Surely (it is said), if that group can produce such a person, then all that they stand for is empty, and they must be either hypocrites or enablers.
The problem is, all of us are supposed to be paragons of virtue, and all baptized Christians (and certainly all Catholics) do have objective advantages over others in the pursuit of virtue—and yet we fall short again, and again, and again. It is not about whether or not we have advantages. It’s about how humbly and perseveringly we make use of the resources placed at our disposal. It’s about conversion of heart.
Traditionalists rightly claim that the Church, until some dodgy recent decades, has always cherished and handed on her traditions of belief and prayer, and that this inheritance is an inexhaustible treasury of wisdom and of means of sanctification. That is all true, and the fact that someone who is a traditionalist has gotten to be super-familiar with the contents of the treasury does not guarantee he will not fall away, or not lead a double life just as Judas did (remember, Judas—who lived under the same roof with Our Lord practically every day for several years—was stealing from the common purse long before the other apostles knew about it: he’s the patron non-saint of the double life).
It is always useful to remember the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas that knowing the truth is one thing, and living by it is another. That’s why we’ve had great religious artists whose private lives were a riot of crimes—Caravaggio being perhaps the most outstanding example. That’s why we can have “evil geniuses.”[1] There are (alas) lots of examples of brilliant people—including brilliant theologians and, as we have seen to our shame, prominent figures in the Church—who are wicked. The intellect’s perfection stands on one level, and the will’s perfection by charity on another. They are related, but not conflated; they affect one another, but do not effect one another. And that’s why it’s possible for someone to have written a beautiful book about traditional liturgy while nurturing hidden vices. These things can coexist, even though they are objectively incompatible.Advertisement – Continue Reading Below
“What good, then, is traditionalism if it can allow such a thing to happen? Isn’t it all a fraud? Trads are no better than any other Catholics, and probably worse, since they claim to be better.”
I am not sure that many trads would actually claim to be morallysuperior to non-trads. Instead, they might claim (and the more immature among them might boast) that they have been given access to certain aids to living the Christian life that are good, holy, and true. These things would benefit whoever made use of them—and they are intended for everyone. I’ve never met a trad who wants to hoard these aids for himself like a squirrel hoarding acorns, rather than seeing the happy day when the broader Church will take them up again with childlike fervor.
Just knowing about these providential aids won’t, in and of itself, benefit you as a person unless you embrace them seriously and consistently, and are prepared to make whatever sacrifice is necessary to exclude anything contrary to them. All of us are sinners, and that, in fact, is the main argument in favor of tradition: we need this extra help. Perhaps a Catholic who was already perfectly virtuous (let me know when you meet one) could make do without the Church’s patrimony, but the weak and needy among us cannot. Once again, knowing stuff is one thing, and living by it is another. As the saying goes: “You can’t blame a medicine for not curing someone who did not take it.”
We need to go one step further. The logic of the argument against traditionalism turns out to be a more effective argument against the post-Vatican II “updated” form of Catholicism, which has a vastly more abysmal track record in terms of retaining believers who are making the attempt to live according to the divine commandments. The updated version of Catholicism has been shedding off believers, religious, clergy, and parishes almost continually since it was first imposed, and those who remain make no secret of the fact that they dispute or deny the “difficult teachings” officially taught by the Church. Put it this way: traditional Catholics show small numbers who are really striving to live the full teaching of the Church, while postconciliar Catholics show large numbers who are either fallen away or picking and choosing what Catholicism “means to them.” When it comes to prominent figures, modern Catholicism has not fared well: one need only think of Marcial Maciel, Marie-Dominique Philippe, and Jean Vanier.[2]Advertisement – Continue Reading Below
Let’s go one step further. The argument against traditionalism really is, at root, the argument made by nihilists against Christianity itself. “If this religion were true, why are so many of its followers evil?” It sounds plausible until you consider that people who accept the basic teachings of the Bible are, on the whole, morally better than those who don’t—indeed, the notions of human nature, dignity, rights, and freedom come from there, and when the biblical foundations are taken away, these notions quickly perish as “all hell breaks loose.” Within this group that acknowledges the Ten Commandments, the people who strive to make God first and to fulfill well the duties of their state in life will be better still, and on the road to becoming saints; and that the people within this group who have persevered courageously have become saints. The saints are the evidence that Catholicism “works” for those who give it not notional but real assent.[3]
Here’s a snapshot, then, of the arguments. The negative version runs like this:
If there’s evil in the world (moral and physical), Christianity cannot be true.
If there’s evil in the world, Catholicism cannot be effective.
If there’s evil in the world, God cannot exist.
Welcome to nihilistic atheism! You now get to design your own personal plan for saving yourself and the world—or you may commit suicide.
The positive version would run something like this:
If there is evil in the world, moral and physical, we and the world are fallen, and need salvation.
Because God is love, He sent us our salvation in the Person of Jesus Christ.
Because Jesus Christ alone is our salvation, He gave us the means to be united with Him: the true faith (Creed), access to His grace (liturgy and sacraments), and the friendship of charity with Him and with one another.
Advertisement – Continue Reading Below
Welcome to the one and only way out of self-absorption, misery, and despair! The way to follow it is already shown to you in the life of Christ and His saints. Now’s the time to get working. As Our Lord said, “I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work” (Jn 9:4).
Imagine someone saying: “You know, we failed to put out that big fire last week with our firetruck and water hoses. So let’s forget about this vain enterprise of firefighting, retire the trucks, and throw out the hoses.” Or imagine someone saying: “We lost the battle last week even though we had heavy artillery and an ideal position. So for the next battle, forget about the artillery and position, and just send in the troops randomly with rifles.”
We smile at such irrational statements because we see that a particular failure does not mean the system is broken; a particular defeat does not mean the weapons are useless. Of course, these metaphors limp, too. If not every physical fire can be put out, every moral or spiritual evil can be conquered by grace, but the grace has to be petitioned, and its preservation will often come at the cost of great suffering. If not every military battle can be won, every moral or spiritual battle can be won—on the same conditions.
The devil knows, better than anyone, how good and powerful traditional Catholicism is. That’s why his master plan was getting rid of as much of it as possible. For the same reason, he targets especially those who are still holding on to it, who are its representatives, its ambassadors, its transmitters, and whose fall from grace will definitely play into his hands, especially in a world dominated by the self-righteous and often hypocritical “Gotcha!” mentality.Advertisement – Continue Reading Below
I recall a story from the desert fathers about a vision of hordes of demons going off to the remote places of the hermits while the city had only one lazy demon sitting on its ramparts. The explanation was simple. In the city most of the people were enslaved to vices, so demons had little work to do there. The hermits, on the other hand, presented a genuine obstacle to the powers of hell, and they were accordingly targeted and assaulted. The traditionalists are like the hermits because what they hold fast to and keep alive is a much more formidable obstacle to Satan’s plans than the compromised, diluted, and dying Catholicism of the mainstream Church in the West. As a result, infernal attacks will be far more concentrated on traditional clergy, religious, and laity.
The devil knows that whenever a traditional Catholic falls badly and publicly, it will bring discredit on the movement, even as any Catholic scandal brings discredit on Catholicism itself, and any Christian scandal on Christianity. Yet rational people do not write off an entire sport because some of its players take drugs; they do not write off a political party because some of its members are womanizers; they do not write off the sincerity and virtue of all the brothers and sisters of a religious community because its founder is exposed as a serial abuser; they do not assume that a good law is responsible for the existence of criminals who violate it, or that a good regimen of diet and exercise is to blame for the sickness and death of a mortal creature. These different kinds of examples point to the need for discerning causes and effects, and for making distinctions instead of slothfully settling for guilt by association.
Nothing but the grace of God is a solution to evil, as Andrew Petersen reminded us.[4] If traditional Catholic practices can lead us better to care about that grace and seek it out over the course of our life—and there are many reasons to think that they can and do—then they are good and should be kept. That would explain the mentality we see in the entire history of the Church, namely that we love and hand on our tradition. Tradidi quod et accepi: “I handed on that which I received,” as St. Paul says (1 Cor 11:23), giving the principle and template for all times. But there is no “magic formula” apart from conversion of heart, and no serious Christian has ever believed otherwise. As Chris Jackson, a columnist for The Remnant, pointed out:
What reputable person on our side has ever made such a stupid argument as to say the Latin Mass takes away free will, concupiscence, and temptation? John XXIII, Paul VI, Abp. Bugnini, Hans Küng, Yves Congar, Karl Rahner, Teilhard de Chardin, Martin Luther, and Thomas Cranmer all said the Latin Mass and all were responsible for tearing down the Church.
The graces of the Latin Mass have always been there and always will be. The graces will be given as much or as little to those who assist as their dispositions will allow. The value of the Latin Mass, Traditional sacraments, and Traditional Catholic morality and theology is that they provide you with everything you need to live a holy life. They are ordinarily the standard minimum one should expect from the Catholic Church in order to save and sanctify one’s soul. If you are given all of these things and you still screw it up, the fault lies with you, not the perfect means you were given to work with.[5]
“There is no crime of which I do not deem myself capable,” said Goethe. Or, in the more Catholic version: “There but for the grace of God go I.” Let us remember this; let us take it to heart, take it to prayer, take it to Confession, take it to our grave. Let us pray for purity of heart, patience in tribulation, and fidelity to the end. Christ never promised us an easy path, even as He never said that the gates of hell would not put up a most formidable opposition. He promised us His presence; He promised us His help; and He promised us heaven, if we follow the straight and narrow path.Advertisement – Continue Reading Below
Whenever a priest falls, be he a traditionalist or not, we are thrown again to our knees as we realize the frailty and woundedness of our fallen nature and the high stakes of the spiritual battle. This is a battle for your soul, for my soul, for real. We should not want to give the devil any more (partial) victories by succumbing to despair; by doubting the efficacy of the food and drink,[6] medicines and weapons, that Christ has given us in Catholic tradition; or by turning against a frail and wounded Church, as schismatics of every age have done in their vain search for an illusory utopia.
Photo: Fr. Carlo’s first Mass, provided by the author.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on Over the weekend the news broke that a prominent member of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter was arrested for apparent heinous crimes against the moral law. Since the investigation is still under way, I see no need to dwell on the particulars of this case here. Similar accusations have been made against clergy of the Society of St. Pius X. Sometimes such accusations have been proven false, but at other times they are true and cannot (and must not) be denied or swept under the rug. I see no need to dwell on the particulars of this case here. Similar accusations have been made against clergy of the Society of St. Pius X. Sometimes such accusations have been proven false, but at other times they are true and cannot (and must not) be denied or swept under the rug.
To Father Spiridon: Do you actually have anything convincing to say about the connection between the “heretical” Filioque and the things describe, phenomenon parenthetically which Traditional Catholics do a far better job in describing than you do. Considering that the largest by far Orthodox country, Russia, in company with a host of other Orthodox countries, fell internally to Bolshevism while, Catholic Poland and Hungary, for example, needed to be defeated by foreign invading armies to bring this about, might cause Orthodox clergy to reflect with greater humility on what deficiencies within Big O Orthodoxy brought this about! Clearly the Jews were not manning all of the Bolshevik machine guns. There are very convincing Catholic explanations for the orthodoxy of the double procession of the Holy Spirit. Exceptionally active on these questions, I have NEVER encountered a convincing Big O Orthodox counter explanation, though often enough I have heard moronic attempts which left me embarrassed for the speaker. But maybe you are the man to change all this.
David Owen Corson. P.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on WHEN WILL WE SUCCEED IN BURYING THE FILIOQUE CONTROVERSY, HOPEFULLY NOT THE END OF TIME
American Values Survey Is Hyper-Political November 4, 2021 Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on a new survey that is seriously flawed: The pollsters were mostly wrong again on Election Day—in some cases by a huge margin—thus making a mockery of psephology, the statistical study of elections. It doesn’t have to be this way: statistical models are not the problem; the problem is poor sampling. Unfortunately, much of the survey research done these days is not much better, often allowing the political bent of those conducting it to color the outcomes. One of the most glaringly hyper-political surveys ever done was just released by the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI), in partnership with the Brookings Institution. “Competing Visions of American: An Evolving Identity or a Culture Under Attack?” is the title of this year’s American Values Survey. PRRI has a partisan record, so it is not surprising that it would conduct a flawed survey, though this one is by far its worst undertaking. On the other hand, the Brookings Institution has a good reputation, making this co-venture regrettable. To be sure, there is much about this survey that is quite good, and helpful to sociologists like myself. But there are several aspects to it that are so indefensible as to discredit it. The report was written in part by the CEO of PRRI, Robert P. Jones. He is not a sociologist; his Ph.D. is in religion. He is most well known for promoting the idea that white Christian men pose an existential threat to American democracy, feeding the left-wing trope that white supremacists are one of the nation’s most pressing problems. It is not until the latter part of the report that there is a segment on this subject—Trump supporters are singled out for rebuke—but it is front- and-center in the marketing of the survey. Indeed, the first subject in the press release is titled, “Anti-Democratic Beliefs and Support for Political Violence on the Right.” We just came off a year when left-wing violence almost destroyed Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis and other cities. The spike in crime that affected most big cities is at least partly the result of left-wing mayors and district attorneys taking a hands-off approach to crime, ordering cops to stand down. Meanwhile Antifa and Black Lives Matter killed dozens of innocent people, and trashed so many stores in cities like New York that it turned them into a ghost town for much of the year. The report, however, has nothing to say about this issue. It is only concerned about right-wing violence, which was miniscule compared to the degree of violence carried out by the left. Has God granted America a special role in human history? In 2013, 64% said yes, but today the figure has dropped to 44%. That is surely worth exploring. The report simply offers the findings, without drawing any conclusions. Fine. But the press release tells a different story. It says that those who answered affirmatively evince “Christian nationalist sympathies,” citing Republicans as an example (68% of whom agree with the statement). This is cruel and dishonest. Simply because someone believes that God granted our nation a special role in history does not make him a Christian nationalist, a term employed by Jones as roughly analogous to white supremacists. He’s wrong. In fact, his own survey undercuts his narrative. What was not said in the press release, but is said in the report, is that 67% of Black Protestants agree with the statement. Are they also white supremacists? The report’s coverage of critical race theory also smacks of politics. It offers data on what Americans think about this subject, and then says, “Despite some high-profile flare-ups over this issue in the media,” most Americans believe that students should be taught about the nation’s “best achievements and worst mistakes.” This is a lousy segue. The latter has nothing to do with the former. Critical race theory teaches students that there are oppressors, namely white people, and the oppressed, namely black people. It makes judgments about people based on their skin pigmentation, not their individual attributes. In short, it is a racist ideology, designed to drive a wedge between whites and blacks. Many other examples could be given, but what really shows the left-wing bent to this report is the way it treats media sources. Throughout the report it scores respondents who get their news from “Fox News” (cited 28 times) or “far-right” media outlets (asked 31 times). It never defines the latter. Nor does it ask about “left-wing” news sources. The term “far-right” suggests fascist or Nazi-leaning. In the press release, we learn that the authors of this research believe that Newsmax and One America News are “far-right” sources! On p. 25 of the report, in footnote #10, it defines CNN, MSNBC and public television as examples of “mainstream news.” Only someone living in a left-wing bubble thinks this way. This isn’t professional research—it’s a left-wing hack job. If CNN, MSNBC and PBS were labeled “far-left” in a survey, it would be written off as a right-wing study. Finally, in keeping with the game plan, “mainstream” CNN hosted a show on the report. Pity the viewers who believe they were listening to objective social scientists.
Phone: 212-371-3191
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on One of the most glaringly hyper-political surveys ever done was just released by the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI), in partnership with the Brookings Institution. “Competing Visions of American: An Evolving Identity or a Culture Under Attack?” is the title of this year’s American Values Survey.
The Texas Heartbeat Act has as thorough and comprehensive a severability provision as you are ever likely to encounter. Due respect for that severability provision poses yet another obstacle to any effort by the Supreme Court to rule for the abortion providers or for the Department of Justice in their cases against enforcement of the Act.
(a) … [I]t is the intent of the legislature that every provision, section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word in this chapter, and every application of the provisions in this chapter, are severable from each other.
(b) If any application of any provision in this chapter to any person, group of persons, or circumstances is found by a court to be invalid or unconstitutional, the remaining applications of that provision to all other persons and circumstances shall be severed and may not be affected. All constitutionally valid applications of this chapter shall be severed from any applications that a court finds to be invalid, leaving the valid applications in force, because it is the legislature’s intent and priority that the valid applications be allowed to stand alone.
(c) The legislature further declares that it would have enacted this chapter, and each provision, section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word, and all constitutional applications of this chapter, irrespective of the fact that any provision, section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word, or applications of this chapter, were to be declared unconstitutional or to represent an undue burden.
It is indisputable that the Act has constitutionally permissible applications even under the terribly misguided regime of Roe and Casey. The simplest example concerns post-viability abortions that are not necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother. Other examples that intervenors supporting Texas present include lawsuits against those who provide financial coverage for post-heartbeat abortions and lawsuits against non-physicians who perform such abortions. (And if you think that either of these other examples is disputable, you’re just reinforcing my point below.)
Under the severability provision, if the Court were somehow to block enforcement of the Act against physicians performing pre-viability abortions, it would still have to allow the Act to operate in applications that the Roe/Casey regime allows.
Consider what this means for, say, the crazy option in which the Court would dictate that court clerks could be enjoined from docketing complaints by private parties to enforce the Act. By carving out, as it must, an exception for the Act’s constitutionally permissible applications, the Court would place a burden on court clerks of carefully examining every complaint before docketing it and of making sophisticated legal judgments as to whether the private party is suing over an application that the Roe/Casey regime allows—all at the risk of being held in contempt by a federal district judge.
Just a reminder that the abortion providers did not file their complaint against the Texas Heartbeat Act until nearly two months (55 days) after the Act’s enactment, and it wasn’t until 80 days after enactment (on August 7) that they filed their motion for a preliminary injunction.
The Supreme Court granted extraordinary expedition of the briefing and oral argument in the two cases (abortion providers and DOJ) involving the Act, and it is unsurprising that the expedition seems to have affected some justices’ consideration of the issues.
The resolution of the recondite issues of federal-court jurisdiction, standing, and so on could well have enduring and unanticipated consequences. It would be a profound folly for the Court to race to rule. It’s far more important for it to get the cases right.
1986—What do actual citizens think of liberal judicial activists? By large margins, the people of California unseat state chief justice Rose Bird (66% no) and justices Cruz Reynoso (60% no) and Joseph Grodin (57% no). All three justices had been appointed by Jerry (“Moonbeam”) Brown, California’s governor from 1975 to 1983. Bird had voted to overturn death sentences in all 61 capital cases that had come before her, and all three were widely regarded as activists who imposed their own liberal policy preferences, particularly on crime and business issues.
2008—In reaction against the California supreme court’s May 2008 decision inventing a state constitutional right to same-sex marriage, California voters adopt Proposition 8, which adds to the state constitution a provision expressly declaring that “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
But Proposition 8 will itself soon become the victim of egregious acts of liberal judicial activism.
2016—In defiance of governing Third Circuit precedent holding that Title VII’s bar on sex discrimination in employment does not encompass a bar on sexual-orientation discrimination, federal district judge Cathy Bissoon (in EEOC v. Scott Medical Health Center) denies an employer’s motion to dismiss the EEOC’s claim of sexual-orientation discrimination under Title VII.
M. Edward Whelan III Distinguished Senior Fellow and
Antonin Scalia Chair in Constitutional Studies Ethics and Public Policy Center 1730 M Street N.W., Suite 910 Washington, D.C. 20036 202-682-1200 www.EPPC.org
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on The Texas Heartbeat Act has as thorough and comprehensive a severability provision as you are ever likely to encounter. Due respect for that severability provision poses yet another obstacle to any effort by the Supreme Court to rule for the abortion providers or for the Department of Justice in their cases against enforcement of the Act.
Latinist Fr. Z and Dr. Mazza: “Words have Meanings. It is Not Right simply to Conflate Munus and Ministerium as if they are Interchangeable… They Are Not Synonyms. Not Even Close”
“Canon law, as it is generally understood is pretty simple. It says Canon 332 part 2, says “If it happens that the Roman Pontiff renounces his office… “In the original Latin, of the 1983 code of Canon law, the word is munus. If it happens that the Roman Pontiff renounces his munus, it is required for validity that the renunciation is made freely, and be properly manifested.” You know, which is why he gave a declartio on February 11th 2013, but not that it be accepted by anyone at all. It’s not like the pope has to turn in his resignation to a superior. He has no superior. The key thing here is, again he has to renounce his munus, his office.” – Renowned Catholic historian Dr. Edmund Mazza
In June, the Latinist Fr. John Zuhlsdorf (Fr. Z) summarized some important points made in October and before that time by Catholic scholar Dr. Edmund Mazza:
Let’s play the mind exercise out a little more and hack through some of the issues which I have heard raised by, for example, Ann Barnhardt, who is without question of the mind that Benedict is still Pope and Francis is a usurper antipope. Along with Ann is a smart fellow with well-articulated arguments, Edward Mazza…
… It seems that… in their view…
Benedict did NOT legitimately resign, because the language he used at the time he announced his resignation is confused. The confused language suggests that Benedict intended to resign the activedimension of his role, his ministerium (for example, doing stuff as Bishop of Rome and doing stuff as Pope to the larger world). However, he did not intend to resign his munus as Vicar of Christ. Much turns on the technical term munus.
The fact is that munus and ministerium do not mean the same thing, though they are often bound together. For example, one carries out a certain ministry in the Church because he holds an office, a munus. Canon law says that the Pope has to resign the munus.
Canon 332 §2: Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet, ad validitatem requiritur ut renuntiatio libere fiat et rite manifestetur, non vero ut a quopiam acceptetur. … If it should come to pass that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and that it be properly manifested, but not that it is accepted by anyone.
Quapropter bene conscius ponderis huius actus plena libertate declaro me ministerioEpiscopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri, mihi per manus Cardinalium die 19 aprilis MMV commisso renuntiare ita ut a die 28 februarii MMXIII, hora 20, sedes Romae, sedes Sancti Petri vacet et Conclave ad eligendum novum Summum Pontificem ab his quibus competit convocandum esse.… For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is.
Words have meanings. It is not right simply to conflate munus and ministerium as if they are interchangeable. They are closely tied to each other but they are not synonyms. Not even close.
It is interesting to read the Canon that introduces the figure of the Roman Pontiff, the Pope:
Can. 331 — Ecclesiae Romanae Episcopus, in quo permanet munus a Domino singulariter Petro, primo Apostolorum, concessum et successoribus eius transmittendum, Collegii Episcoporum est caput, Vicarius Christi atque universae Ecclesiae his in terris Pastor; qui ideo vi muneris sui suprema, plena, immediata et universali in Ecclesia gaudet ordinaria potestate, quam semper libere exercere valet. … The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom persists the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.[https://wdtprs.com/2021/06/the-question-of-two-popes-bothers-a-lot-of-people-some-thoughts/]
In an October interview on PCM, renowned Catholic historian Dr. Edmund Mazza, a former full professor of history at Azuza Pacific University agreed with Fr. Z that “Words have meanings. It is not right simply to conflate munus and ministerium as if they are interchangeable. They are closely tied to each other but they are not synonyms”:
Canon law, as it is generally understood is pretty simple. It says Canon 332 part 2, says “If it happens that the Roman Pontiff renounces his office… “In the original Latin, of the 1983 code of Canon law, the word is munus. If it happens that the Roman Pontiff renounces his munus, it is required for validity that the renunciation is made freely, and be properly manifested.” You know, which is why he gave a declartio on February 11th 2013, but not that it be accepted by anyone at all. It’s not like the pope has to turn in his resignation to a superior. He has no superior. The key thing here is, again he has to renounce his munus, his office. But, now we get back to the sacramental ontological munus versus the canonical juridical munus, if you will. Let me introduce a quote from Joseph Ratzinger from Principles of Catholic theology from 1987, available from Ignatius press. Basically he says, “I disagree with those who teach that “The papacy is not a sacrament that it is only a juridical institution, but this juridical institution has set itself above the sacramental order.”
Let me unpack that. Razinger is arguing that what’s important foremost is the sacramental ontological munus not the “office” that perhaps comes and goes. Obviously, Benedict ruffled a number of feathers with his renunciation and his taking on the office of Pope Emeritus, right? For example, Cardinal Walter Brandmuller, one of the dubia fathers, was very upset. Roberto De Matei, Dr. Matei was upset and Dr. Matei went on record saying, “look there is no such thing as a sacramental papacy. It is only a juridical institution.” Yet we have this quote. And, why is that? You could never lose it if it was sacramental, but you can lose it if it is just a juridical office…
… What does Joseph Ratzinger say? He says, “No, no, no. “I disagree with those people who say the papacy is not a sacrament, that it’s only a juridical institution. That juridical institution has set itself above the sacramental order.” Now here is another quote from Ratzinger right after the counsel. This is from his book Theological highlights of Vatican II, Published 1966 by Paulist Press.
Again another money line. “The ministry of the bishop, meaning munus in Latin is not an externally assigned administrative power, but rather, is itself sacramentally-based. The ruling of the church and its spiritual mystery are inseparable.”
Here’s another interesting quote, I’ll try to weave this in. The very month, February 2013, when Pope Benedict makes this renunciation. Gianfranco Ghirlanda, a Jesuit, the former rector of the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, and a very highly respected doctor of law, in of all publications it was Cattolica Civilta, the Jesuit- [La Civilta Cattolica]…
… He says that Ratzinger”s view of the sacramental ontological munus, when applied to the juridical office of the Bishop of Rome, is going to create major problems. Let me give you his exact words. “The greatest difficulty that arises from the affirmation, that the primacial power of the Roman pontiff comes from his Episcopal consecration and not from the acceptance of the election, would be that in the event that the pope resigned from his office, not because of death, he would never lose the power as it is conferred by a sacramental act, which has an indelible character.” Well, this is precisely what Benedict has stated in his interviews with Peter Seewald, why he’s Pope Emeritus, and not simply Bishop Emeritus, or Cardinal. It’s why he still issues apostolic blessings in his own name and why his proper form of address is still His Holiness, but here’s the wrinkle. Ghirlanda and other candidates and theologians not to mention centuries of saints and scholars hold that Ratzinger is just plain wrong and that’s not how it works.
He’s just wrong. Here’s the problem, if Ratzinger had ever been convinced of the real truth of the matter, I argue, he likely, would never have renounced the papacy, seeing as how committed he is to fulfilling his Petrine vow and living only for the Lord and his flock. So what do you call this? This is called substantial error. When your will chooses something based on the fact that your intellect has bad information. This is the theory that I personally hold to, why I think his resignation, or his renunciation was invalid. And I can go into more detail on that.[https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/10/exclusive-transcription-is-benedict-xvi.html and https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/10/part-2-of-exclusive-transcription-is.html%5D
This words of Fr. Z and Dr. Mazza reminded me of a post I wrote in 2019 that asked “Why is LifeSiteNews Afraid to ‘Investigate or Report’ that apparently Canon 17 ‘Requires that Ministerium and Munus [must] be Understood as Referring to Two Different Things’?”:
On December 6, LifeSiteNews co-founder Steve Jalsevac in the comment section claimed that the news site had “indeed reported” on “a growing movement that LifeSiteNews will not investigate or report on… [in which] faithful request an examination of the words of Pope Benedict’s declaration of renunciation in light of Canon Law, esp 332.2, 17, 131.1, 40, and 41”: Islam_Is_IslamPatty • a day ago @Patty: Your testimony is witness to the facts of the matter. Thank you for your faithfulness! There is a growing movement that LifeSiteNews will not investigate or report on. These faithful request an examination of the words of Pope Benedict’s declaration of renunciation in light of Canon Law, esp 332.2, 17, 131.1, 40, and 41. Did you know that in canon law munus is never interchanged with ministerium? The Cdl electors did not proceed with due diligence and maybe don’t want to ‘fess up to their mistake. Steve Jalsevac ModIslam_Is_Islam • a day ago
Unfortunately, this is not exactly true. The news site has never reported on why “in canon law munus is never interchanged with ministerium,” but instead spoke about the two words only referring to the “Latin dictionary (Lewis and Short)” and not in referring to the all important canon 17.
Canon lawyer Edward Peters explains canon 17’s importance:
“Canon 17… states ‘if the meaning [of the law, and UDG is a law] remains doubtful and obscure, recourse must be made to parallel places.” (Catholic World Report, “Francis was never pope? Call me unpersuaded,” September 28, 2017)
On February 14, 2019, LifeSiteNews admitted that it is possible according to their quoted theologian that Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation could have been invalid. The LifeSiteNews theologian said the “abdication would be invalid only if he had in his mind the thought: ‘I only want to resign the ministerium if it is in fact distinct from the munus.’”
But, the “theologian who spoke to LifeSiteNews on condition of anonymity” never mentioned canon 17:
“But ‘ministerium’ doesn’t have to mean acts,” he explained. “The first meaning given to it in the Latin dictionary (Lewis and Short) is ‘office.’ I would say that its basic meaning is ‘an office by reason of which one must perform acts to help others.’” The theologian noted further that ‘munus’ doesn’t only mean a state. “According to the Latin dictionary, it can also refer to the performance of a duty,” he said. “It was used in this sense by Cicero and there is no more authoritative writer of Latin prose than him.”
“He said the main difference between the words appears to be simply that ‘munus’ connotes more “the burden which the office puts on its bearer,” and ‘ministerium’ connotes more “the reference to other people which the office establishes.”
“But that doesn’t prevent them from referring to one and the same office or state,” he added. Why then did Pope Benedict say munus at the start of his Latin declaration and ministerium at the end, if he understood them to refer to the same reality? The theologian suggested two possibilities. “One is simply that people who want to write elegant prose often avoid frequent repetitions of the same word,” he said. “Another is that the word ‘ministerium’ has perhaps a more humble sound to it, since it refers more directly to the papacy in its relation to other people, than as a charge placed on oneself. So having begun by using the official word, ‘munus,’ Benedict moved on to the more humble sounding word.”
The theologian went on to note that while Benedict was aware of theological writings from the 1970’s onward that proposed the Petrine munus could be divided, he is ‘not aware of any place where Joseph Ratzinger endorses this thesis.”
He said the lack of clarity about Ratzinger’s position is aggravated by the fact that translators have mistranslated Ratzinger and presented him as endorsing heterodox ideas when in fact he was reporting someone else’s thought rather than expressing his own.
The theologian acknowledged that it is possible that Pope Benedict thought there might be a real distinction between munus and ministerium but was unsure. In that case, he said, Benedict’s abdication would be invalid only if he had in his mind the thought: “I only want to resign the ministerium if it is in fact distinct from the munus.”
But he said it would be equally possible that, being unsure whether there was a distinction, Benedict could have had in mind the thought: “I want to resign the ministerium whether or not it is distinct from the munus.” In that case, the theologian said he believes the resignation would have been valid.” “In any case,” he said, “I don’t think there is convincing evidence that Benedict thought there was a real distinction between the two things.”
Canon law and Latin language expert Br. Alexis Bugnolo says this is not a correct way to canonically and legally approach the resignation because canon law requires an objective reading of what the two words mean using canon 17’s criteria as canon lawyer Peters explained and not a subjective reading of what the two words may possibly have meant in the mind of Benedict or in a Latin dictionary:
“Canon 17 requires that Canon 332 S2 be read in accord with the meaning of canon 145 S1 and canon 41… [which] requires that ministerium and munus be understood as referring to two different things.” (From Rome, “Ganswein, Brandmuller & Burke: Please read Canon 17, February 14, 2019)
Why does it appear that LifeSiteNews refuses or is afraid to “investigate or report on” that “Canon 17 requires that Canon 332 S2 be read in accord with the meaning of canon 145 S1 and canon 41… [which] requires that ministerium and munus be understood as referring to two different things.”?
LifeSiteNews are you seeking the truth?
If you disagree with Br. Bugnolo’s scholarly thesis then counter it with reasonable counter arguments otherwise you have revealed that you are not seeking the truth.
LifeSiteNews, please, refute the following if you’re not afraid:
Br. Bugnolo has explained in overwhelming detail in the following treatise using canon law why canonists and others are wrong in saying ministerium and munus are synonyms that mean the exact same thing or nearly the exact same thing:
Islam_Is_Islam said…Good catch, Mr. Martinez. Here is the rest of the conversation: Avatar Steve Jalsevac Mod Islam_Is_Islam • 24 minutes ago Lifesite has indeed reported on that. Perhaps you are disappointed that we have not taken a firm position on the controversy. As a news agency that is not our role. •Reply•Share ›
@Mr. Jalsevac: No, it is not a matter of what I like or do not like. It is a matter of transparency and full disclosure. I hope to see you address the following in the near future: Where are your reports on Prof Radaelli’s Feb 18, 2013 public request for Pope Benedict to rescind and replace his statement otherwise his chosen words would lead to the election of an anti-pope? Where is your reporting on the facts that there are up to 40 errors in the Declaratio which would indicate a lack of due diligence if at least not negligence on the part of Cdl Sodano when he made his announcement calling for a conclave? Where is your reporting on the fact that munus and ministerium are never used interchangeably in Canon Law? Again, I hope that you will soon and very soon correct this oversight in either investigation and/or thorough reporting. Thank you for the opportunity to bring this information to your attention. There is more, if you’d like to have it. We are unable to post your comment because you have been banned by LifeSiteNews.com. Find out more.8:17 PM
Islam_Is_Islam said…In all fairness to LSN, I had exceeded their guidelines for the suggested number of comments per article, many of which were removed, before the one that apparently put the proverbial nail in the coffin, er plug in the inkwell.
Are we not seekers of Truth anymore or what?8:29 PM
If you disagree with with Br. Bugnolo’s scholarly thesis then counter it with reasonable counter arguments otherwise you have revealed that you are not seeking the truth.9:29 PM
Alexis Bugnolo said…LifeSite is banning commentators permanently, even though they claim they do not take a side. It seems they are only banning those who think the resignation is invalid. That is not being objective.
But my question for LifeSite is?
In the debate between Nazis and Jews whether Jews should be wiped off the face of the planet, does LifeSite think that their professional integrity means that they should take no side?
In the debate over whether women can kill the babies in their own wombs, does LifeSite think that their professional integrity means that they should take no side?
In the debate over who is the true vicar of Christ and who is the Vicar of Satan, does LifeSite really think that the professional thing to do is not to take a side?
LifeSite by banning only one side, is however taking a side. In only reporting one side, is taking a side. They are acking just like Planned Parenthood. 6:27 AM
Justina said…Yesterday, I was somewhat upset to find that I, too, have been banned by Lifesite– which I have long held in great respect.
After reading Brother’s remarks, I am deeply glad.7:20 AM
Anonymous said…”you have been banned”
I got that message from LSN months ago (no stated reason why).9:02 AM
Islam_Is_Islam said…@Cam, Justina, Br. Bugnolo, et al.. You probably know that you can use the disqus features to track down others who you may have been having discussions with at LifeSiteNews and other sites from which you have been banned. Some people are very sympathetic once they hear I’ve been banned and even willing to act as proxy commenters. It is war, is it not? At least Mr Matt from the Remnant said as much on one of his recent videos. lol12:14 PM
Justina said…According to Lifesite, they themselves have been blocked by Twitter, but vow they won’t be stopped.
On having “exceeded their [LSN’s] guidelines”: I realized after the fact that I had too. But if that was the reason for my ban (using comments for discussion?), then I have to wonder why I hadn’t already been banned. Of course, right before the block, I had also been engaging many over there on the evidence that Benedict is still Pope. So I imagine that might have had something to do with it. 9:46 PM
Justina said…Here, in part and with some editing for clarity’s sake, is what I said to Steve Jalsevac that got me banned (and by the way, I have exceded the recommended number of comments before, without triggering any reaction from the Lifesite moderators):
“Did you yourself not say, earlier in this same thread, that as a news agency it is not Lifesite’s role to take a firm position on controversies like whether or not the man attempting to foist heresy after heresy on the one true Church is even the Pope in the first place? (Yet you take other editorial stands–some of them, very strong ones indeed.) In other words, my question to you is, why shy from making a determination in this one area alone? At the very least, why not insist that the Cardinals, specifically empowered by UD Gregis to resolve such doubts, undertake this responsibility on behalf of the entire Church? Your willingness to wash Lifesite’s collective journalistic hands in this way strikes me as rather glib.”
Too harsh? I thought the Liberals were supposed to be the snowflakes, not the conservatives. If Jalsevac wants the site he co-founded to be regarded as a serious news agency, it’s time to pay his dues.
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 DO NOT BE FOOLED BY SIMPLICITY OF THE DICTUM: “WORDS HAVE MEANING.” IN HUMAN DISCOURSE WORDS ARE THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS AND THEIR ORIGIN AND ORIGINAL MEANING MUST BE RESPECTED OR ELSE CONVERSATION BECOMES GIBBERISH
“As the Pelican, I have torn My flesh And given of My blood to feed you. I have allowed My body to be broken That you might be made whole. I was unblemished and without sin, But I consented to come unto fallen man And be made low That I might lift you up.
I have invited you to come unto Me, And I have given you My priests That they might forgive your sins in My name So that you might come unashamed.
But men have come before Me With blood upon their hands, Having shunned the path that I have set That they might be washed clean.
Like the pelican, I have torn My flesh and have offered My blood. But imposters have come forth to be fed, And they will bring damnation upon their souls, For they have come forward to feast on My flesh and My blood Who have no claim to be fed.
Oh I have given My flesh and My blood that you might be fed, But who are these who come forth trailing sin behind them With the blood of infants upon their hands? They are those who have excluded themselves from the supper of the Lamb by their sins. And woe to them if they partake, And woe to My priests who give to any who are unworthy What I have given to the world at so great a price.”
Pope-Biden Meeting Still Unresolved November 2, 2021 Catholic League president Bill Donohue reexamines the meeting last week between the pope and the president: Many Catholics were dismayed, if not furious, with news reports indicating that Pope Francis told President Biden on October 29 that he was “a good Catholic” and “should keep receiving Communion.” The Vatican has neither confirmed nor denied this account. As I said when the news broke, we have good reasons to be skeptical of Biden’s rendition. After taking another look at this issue, examining the exact words used by Biden—not relying on media interpretations of what he said—my skepticism is growing. The president was asked about this matter at two press conferences: one on October 29, and the other on October 31. On October 29, Biden was asked, “Mr. President, did the issue of abortion come up at all?” The first words out of his mouth were, “No, it didn’t.” Then he contradicted himself saying, “It came up.” So which account is true? After Biden said, “It came up,” he then said what the media widely reported. “We just talked about the fact that he was happy I was a good Catholic and I should keep receiving Communion.” If the first version is right—abortion never came up for discussion—then it seems peculiar, to say the least, for the pope to tell him he should “keep receiving Communion.” What would be the context for such a statement, if not abortion? After all, the entire controversy is about Biden’s pro-abortion record, so it is hard to imagine the pope imploring him to “keep receiving Communion” absent any discussion of abortion. Are we to believe he said this out of the blue? If abortion did come up, what did the pope say to him about it? Just recently Pope Francis said that “abortion is murder. Those who carry out abortions kill.” Such an unequivocal remark suggests it is unlikely that the pope would discuss abortion without talking about it in such graphic terms. That would surely have made Biden uneasy, yet he did not appear to be that way when he spoke. At the same press conference, Biden was asked, “Did you discuss the U.S. Conference of Bishops?” He answered, “That’s a private conversation.” This begs the question: Why would a discussion of the bishops’ conference be considered a private matter but not one that affects him personally, namely his suitability to receive Communion? It is entirely possible that Biden is lying. After admitting that abortion never came up, he quickly pivoted. Why? Because he saw an opening, an opportunity to report to the press the most important thing he wanted from the pope—a chance to undercut those U.S. bishops who are deeply troubled about his pro-abortion record (they will be meeting in less than two weeks to discuss this subject). Having been denied the photo-op the White House desperately wanted, he had to come away with something that served his interest. The Communion issue had to be in the forefront of his mind. At the October 31st press conference, Biden was asked, “For these Catholics back home, what did it mean for you to hear Pope Francis, in the wake of this—in the middle of this debate, call you a good Catholic? And what did he tell you—should that put this debate to rest?” “Look, I’m—I’m not going to—a lot of this is just personal,” Biden said. But it wasn’t personal just two day earlier. In fact, he showed no hesitancy in getting the word out that the pope regarded him as such a good Catholic that he allegedly encouraged him to “keep receiving Communion.” What changed? Could it be that the Vatican contacted the Biden team and asked them to quash this issue, knowing that Biden’s account was not accurate? Our incurious media are not asking these questions. That’s because they want to protect the pope and the president, both of whom they like. There are too many unanswered questions to put this matter to rest. The unwillingness of the Vatican to confirm or deny Biden’s account, and Biden’s inconsistent and implausible responses—only adds to the problem. This doesn’t make either side look good.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on WOULD YOU RELY ON JOSEPH BIDEN’S MEMORY???
David Owen
ABYSSUS ABYSSUM INVOCAT / DEEP CALLS TO DEEP 
You must be logged in to post a comment.