TUCKER CARLSON’S MONOLOGUE

Tucker Carlson: We were lied to about coronavirus and the mass lockdowns. Here’s the proof

 By Tucker Carlson | Fox News

• Facebook
• Twitter
• Flipboard
• Comments
• Print
• Email

Tucker: Our leaders used a health emergency to subvert democracy

Millions of Americans remain subjected to unprecedented restrictions on their personal lives, their daily lives, their family’s lives.

The coronavirus lockdowns continue in many places. You may not know that because it gets no publicity, but it’s true. And if you’re living under it, you definitely know.

As a result of this, tens of millions of people are now unemployed. A huge number of them have no prospects of working again. Many thousands of small businesses are closed and will never reopen. More Americans have become dependent on drugs and alcohol, seeing their marriages dissolve, and become clinically depressed.

Some of them delayed their weddings. Others were banned by the government from burying their loved ones in funerals. Some Americans will die of cancer because they couldn’t get cancer screenings, some unknown number have taken their own lives in despair. Others have flooded the streets to riot because bottled up rage and frustration take many forms.

The cost of shutting down the United States and denying our citizens desperately needed contact with one another is hard to calculate. But the cost has been staggering.

The people responsible for doing all of this,say they have no regrets about it. We faced a global calamity, they say. COVID-19 was the worst pandemic since the Spanish flu. That flu killed 50 million people.

We had no choice. We did the right thing. That’s what they’re telling us. Is it true?

The answer to that question matters, not just because the truth always matters, but because the credibility of our leaders is at stake here. This is the biggest decision they have made in our lifetimes. They were able to make it. They rule because we let them. Their power comes from us.

As a matter of public health, we can say conclusively the lockdowns were not necessary.

So the question, now and always is, are they worthy of that power? That’s not a conversation they want to have. And right now, they don’t have to have that conversation because all of us are distracted and mesmerized by the woke revolution underway outside.

They just created a separate country in Seattle. Huh? We’ll bring you the latest on that. But we do think it’s worth four minutes taking a pause to assess whether or not they were in fact lying to us about the coronavirus and our response to it.

And the short answer is this: Yes, they were definitely lying.

As a matter of public health, we can say conclusively the lockdowns were not necessary. In fact, we can prove that. And here’s the most powerful evidence: States that never locked down at all — states where people were allowed to live like Americans and not cower indoors alone — in the end turned out no worse than states that had mandatory quarantines. The state you probably live in.

The states that locked down at first but were quick to reopen have not seen explosions of coronavirus cases. All of this is the opposite of what they said would happen with great confidence.

The media predicted mass death at places like Lake of the Ozarks and Ocean City, Md. — places where the middle class dares to vacation. But those deaths never happened. In the end, the Wuhan coronavirus turned out to be a dangerous disease, but a manageable disease, like so many others. Far more dangerous were the lockdowns themselves.

For example, in New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Massachusetts, panicked and incompetent governors forced nursing homes to accept infected coronavirus patients, and as a result, many thousands died, and they died needlessly.

This is all a remarkable story, but it’s going almost entirely uncovered. The media would rather tell you why you need to hate your neighbor for the color of his skin. The media definitely don’t want to revisit what they were saying just a few weeks ago, when they were acting as press agents for power-drunk Democratic politicians.

We were all played. Corrupt politicians scared us into giving up control over the most basic questions in our lives. At the same time, they gave more power to their obedient followers, like Antifa, while keeping the rest of us trapped at home and censored online.

Back then, news anchors were ordering you to stop asking questions and obey.

Chris Cuomo, CNN anchor: All right, so while most Americans are staying inside — or should be, right, if they’re not out protesting like fools — they’re not happy about being told to stay home. Staying home saves lives.

And the rest of us should be staying at home for our mothers and the people that we love, and to keep us farther apart, will ultimately bring us closer together in this cause.

Our collective conscientious actions — staying home.

Oh, if you love your mother, you will do what I say. It turns out cable news anchors don’t make very subtle propagandists.

And then Memorial Day arrived in May, and some states started to reopen. Millions of grateful Americans headed outdoors for the first time in months, and the media attacked them for doing that. They called them killers.

Swimming with your kids, they told us, was tantamount to mass murder.

Claire McCaskill, MSNBC political analyst: Frankly, a lot of the people in those crowds —  they thought they were, you know, standing up for what the president believes in and that is not to care about the public safety part of this.

Robyn Curnow, CNN host: Look at this. I mean, this is kind of crazy, considering we’re in the middle of a global pandemic.

I mean, as one person quipped, you know, that’s curving the curve. That’s not flattening it.

Don Lemon, CNN anchor: Massive crowd of people crammed together, as if it were just an ordinary holiday weekend despite the risks of a virus that has killed more than 98,000 people.

Boy that montage was the opposite of a MENSA meeting. Has that much dumbness been captured on tape ever?

The last clip you saw was from May 25th. That was just over two weeks ago. “Ninety eight thousand people are dead. How dare you leave your house? You don’t work in the media. You’re not essential.”

But it didn’t take long for that message to change completely. In fact, it took precisely five days.

Here’s the same brain dead news anchor you just saw less than a week later. He is no longer angry, you’ll notice, about Americans going outside. As long as they are rioting and burning and not doing something sinful, like swimming with their children, he is delighted by it.

Lemon: And let’s not forget, if anyone is judging this — I’m not judging this, I’m just wondering what is going on. Because we were supposed to figure out this experiment a long time ago. Our country was started because — this is how: the Boston Tea Party. Rioting.

So don’t — do not get it twisted and think that, oh, this is something that has never happened before. And then this is so terrible, and where are we in these savages and all of that. This is how this country was start.

Yes, don’t judge. This is how this country was started — by looting CVS and setting fire to Wendy’s. Of course, you took American History. You knew that.

Andrew Cuomo‘s brother must have been in the same history class because he had the same reaction.

Chris Cuomo: America’s major cities are filled with people demanding this country be more fair, more just.

And please, show me where it says that protests are supposed to be polite and peaceful. Because I can show you that outraged citizens are the ones who have made America what she is and led to any major milestones.

They are here to yell, criticize, blame, and shame.

Citizens have no duty to check their outrage.

Wow. So, one minute they were mass murderers for going outside. Now, they’re Sam Adams. They’re patriots. They’re American heroes.

If all of this seems like a pretty abrupt pivot, fret not. Rioting is not a health risk as long as it helps the Democratic Party’s prospects in the November election. Rioting will not spread the coronavirus.

Sounds implausible, but we can be certain of that, because last week, hundreds of self-described public health officials signed a letter saying so. They announced that the Black Lives Matter riots are a vital contribution to public health. In effect, they’re an essential medical procedure.

But that doesn’t mean you get to go outside. You don’t. Thanks to coronavirus, you do not have the right to resume your life, and if you complain about that, it’s “white nationalism.” That was their professional conclusion.

Does a single American believe any of that? No, of course not. It is too stupid even for CNN to repeat, so they mostly ignored it. That’s an ominous sign if you think about it. It means these people are done trying to convince you, even to fool you.

They’re not making arguments, they’re issuing decrees. They think they can. They no longer believe they need your consent to make big decisions to run the country. Once the authority stops trying to change your mind, even by deceit, it means they’ve decided to use force — and they have.Video

During the lockdowns, people whose loved ones died were not allowed to have funerals for them. Think about that. It’s hard to think of anything crueler, but it happened to a lot of people. They claimed it was necessary. It was not necessary. And we know that because now that a man has died whose death is politically useful to the Democratic Party, the authorities have given him three funerals and not a word about a health risk.

Or consider King County, Wash — that’s where Seattle is. Restaurants in King County are operating at just 25 percent capacity. That’s the law now. Nonessential businesses are allowed just 15 percent capacity. The effect of that is economic disaster. Most small businesses run on very small margins. They can’t survive for long, and in fact, many have failed.

What should they do? They should join Antifa, obviously, because in King County, Wash., Antifa can do whatever Antifa wants to do. They have taken over an entire six-block section of downtown Seattle, and that’s fine with health authorities. There is no social distancing required. They’re essential.

Are you getting the picture? Is it adding up to a message? Yes, the message is we were played. We were all played. Corrupt politicians scared us into giving up control over the most basic questions in our lives. At the same time, they gave more power to their obedient followers, like Antifa, while keeping the rest of us trapped at home and censored online.

In other words, they used a public health emergency to subvert democracy and install themselves as monarchs. How were they able to do this? The sad truth is, they did it because we let them do it. We believed them, therefore, we obeyed them.

If there’s anything good to come out of this disaster, it’s that none of us will ever make that mistake again.

Adapted from Tucker Carlson’s monologue from “Tucker Carlson Tonight” on June 10, 2020.

Settimo Cielodi Sandro Magister 08 giu 

From the Synod of Germany To the Monastery of Bose. Anatomy of the Catholic Revolutions

> Italiano
> English
> Español
> Français

> All the articles of Settimo Cielo in English

*

Nothing seems to break the stride of the “synodal journey” undertaken by the Catholic Church of Germany. Neither the criticisms nor the defections of the rare dissenting bishops. Nor the serious concerns of Rome:

> Francis and the Schism of Germany. History of a Nightmare

Cardinal Reinhard Marx has been succeeded, as head of the episcopal conference, by Limburg bishop Georg Bätzing (pictured). But without any course correction. No less talkative than his predecessor, the new president immediately strung together a series of reckless statements on the most burning issues of the synod’s agenda, from the female priesthood to same-sex couples, along with the presumption of giving marching orders to to the universal Church:

> Bätzing: “Die Zeit läuft uns weg”
> Bischof Bätzing für Segnung gleichgeschlechtlicher Paare
> German bishop calls for Rome synod to discuss German synod

The aims of the German Church’s advancing flank are plain to see in the texts produced by the synod so far:

> Sex, Women, Power. The Three Challenges Germany Is Issuing To the Church

But at the basis of the undertaking is the evident intention of subverting the original structure of the Church, not only German but universal, in the name of a democratization in step with the times.

This push brought a response on Settimo Cielo in mid-May from Professor Pietro De Marco, philosopher and historian by training, former professor of the sociology of religion at the University of Florence and on the theological faculty of central Italy:

> The Synod of the German Church Under the Analyst’s Lens. A Revolution That Self-destructs

But the statements of the new president of the German episcopal conference have induced De Marco to add new elements to his criticism of the “Synodale Weg,” in which he sees at work the rash revolutionary approach typical of a certain Catholic “intelligencija” not only in Germany but as seen for example in Italy with the community of Bose and its founder Enzo Bianchi, punished in recent days by Pope Francis with exile from the monastery.

*

German synod. On the new president of the episcopal conference and other misadventures

by Pietro De Marco

In revolutionary adventures, the formulations of the “critical” culture see the alternation – depending on the interlocutors and situations – of radical statements with great subversive objectives and of circumscribed statements with reduced targets, at first glance trivial. This ideological bilingualism also belongs to Catholic critical public opinion, insofar as it also belongs to the category of the revolutionary “sociétés de pensée” analyzed by Augustin Cochin.

In Italy, the recent disciplinary measures that have affected the community of Bose and the person of its founder Enzo Bianchi concern, in fact, an important node of a network of “sociétés de pensée,” Catholic and Reformed, in which the communicative oscillation between theological moderation and radicalism is widespread practice. Hard to say how much of this is sincere and how much is feigned. Bianchi was sensitive to the criticisms of orthodoxy; years ago he complained about an evaluation by Sandro Magister and myself. But many critics, including the late Antonio Livi (to whom we are indebted for a decisive book against the neo-modernist collapse of theological language, “True and false theology,” Rome, 2012), had shown the faultiness of the dogmatic system of the prior of Bose, a faultiness invisible to most and therefore made to be assimilated and reproduced without caution.

In many Catholic subcultures there is on the one hand the critic-destroyer, generally a cleric or theologian, male or female, of recent generation, with a smattering of biblical scholarship and without dogmatic formation, in short an ideologue, and on the other a majority of clerics and lay people who use radical slogans but aim for more accessible results. Many bishops also take part in this pragmatic oscillation rather than in the radicalism of the subversive leadership. In Germany they seem almost the totality.

Well then, what is the stance of the German episcopal conference’s new president, Limburg bishop Georg Bätzing?

Just after taking his post, Bätzing immediately confirmed the reforming projects of the “Synodale Weg,” the synodal journey underway in Germany. Answering the question: “What is your vision of the near future of your Church?” he ruled out being “the visionary sort”; the essential message of the synod to men will be that life is stronger than death, as a result transforming the meaning of being and calling oneself Catholic, in which sense he too can accept being counted among the visionaries. The manner of expression appears cautious, but the “konkrete Vision” is not.

The “Synodale Weg” – Bätzing said – continues to ask for a “blessing” for the divorced and remarried (a difficult matter but one that can perhaps be dealt with case by case according to canon law, while not theologically vacating the sacrament) and Eucharistic intercommunion between Catholics and Christians of other confessions, which Rome has also granted in the past, for sufficient reason and by way of exception. So nothing dramatic in itself. Except that, as always in the “Synodale Weg,” it is the erroneous and presumptuous motives that cause dismay. “There is now quite a bit of agreement on the meaning of what we believe and celebrate,” Bätzing assured. Here is the symptomatic oscillation.

It is in fact fact widely believed in Germany that the conception of the Holy Supper is now the same between Protestants and Catholics. This consensus can only have come about through a genuine protestantization of the Catholic theology of the sacraments. While no news has come forth that German Protestants have significantly recovered the common Eucharistic theology of the universal Church, from which they exclude themselves. So for Bätzing to say, as he has, that against this objective background Christians may “decide with good arguments and according to their conscience” on issues like intercommunion is a careless statement, all the more condemnable from the mouth of a bishop called to be a teacher, not an instigator of convenient opinions. What is really at stake here is the very concept of Eucharistic practice, in the sense of the classic “knowing and thinking about what one is going to receive”; and the Catholic meaning of the sacrament must also be jealously protected by discerning the differences with the other confessions.

Bätzing still maintains that the synod’s decisions will find subjects, or rather “alliances” (Koalitionen) capable of implementing them; an assumption that in itself is trivial but threatening, because instead there is nothing trivial, except in the mind of the German episcopal conference, about the kind of subjects who would see to the “realization” of demands all theologically on the razor’s edge. Just as the idea of ​​demanding from the pope a universal synod based in Rome for extending to the whole Church the examination of the results of Germany’s “Synodale Weg” is arrogant, even if without a future. Isn’t the congregation for the doctrine of the faith enough?

Then when Bätzing defines as “no longer accepted” the “arguments against” the female priesthood (which are actually binding doctrinal statements), he shows that the episcopal ‘magisterium’ and the average theological culture have formed in Germany not a Christian people, but a public opinion now so distorted as to pursue nonsense: that of babelically remaking the Church. A Catholic secularism has in fact been generated, to then exhibit this recent and intentional mentality as an argument against the tradition of “lex credendi,” of the canon of belief (Glaubensregeln).

I believe that the German Catholics, the majority, who are being subjected to the initiative of their bishops and of supposed representatives of the laity such as the “Zentralkomitee der deutschen Katholiken,” a real power bloc present in force in the assembly, should be urged to oppose the uncontrolled course of the “Synodale Weg.”

May they react as clergy and laity where they live, parishes, religious orders, press. May the Catholic intellectuals regain strength. May the canonical way be employed as well. The corruption of doctrine and an absolutely abnormal practice of “reform” are plain for all to see. May German Catholicism not bow down out of a sort of deference, completely misplaced and certainly not owed today, to a hierarchy that is dissolving itself.

,Condividi:

	Tue, Jun 9, 1:31 PM (2 days ago)

Subject: Fw: The 2020 Election | Armstrong Economics

The future of America and by extension, the future of the world is at stake,

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/politics/the-2020-election/

Settimo Cielodi Sandro Magister 11 giu 

Vatican Affairs. Pell’s Payback At the Secretariat of State

*

There was a stir on June 5 over the arrest and jailing, at the Vatican, of Gianluigi Torzi, the financier accused of extorting 15 million euros at the secretariat of state, in the tawdry dénouement of the purchase of a pricey building in London, backed in 2014 by the secretariat of state itself with money taken to a large extent from Peter’s Pence.

The investigations are in the preliminary phase and the trial has not yet been set. But at the top of the Vatican curia the war is already on. Substitute secretary of state Edgar Peña Parra is in the sights of one of the suspects, Mauro Carlino, who in turn was the secretary of the previous substitute, Giovanni Angelo Becciu, now cardinal prefect of the congregation for the causes of the saints. And Becciu, who gave the go-ahead on the operation in 2014, has been made a target of criticisms by his direct superior at the time, cardinal secretary of state Pietro Parolin, while Angelo Perlasca, another top-ranking suspect, accuses Parolin of having approved the operation as well.

Everything suggests that the trial will spare no one. And likely in order to prevent other such disasters in the future, produced by out-of-control operations and by incompetent and unreliable executors, on June 1 at the Vatican a severe tightening of the rules was passed regarding public contracts stipulated by the Holy See, including those of “real estate,” a clear reference to the London operation.

The cornerstones of this reform of the Vatican codes are the centralization of contracts, from now on under the sole jurisdiction of the APSA, the Administration of the Patrimony of the Apostolic See, or of the governorate of Vatican City, and the restriction of access to a single register of professionals whose absolute correctness must be certified. All under the supervision of the secretariat for the economy and the auditor general.

This reorganization and centralization of powers, in the face of an administrative disorder whose wreckage has long been plain for all to see, was welcomed at the Vatican with a general chorus of approval, although it is not known how sincere this was.

What has happened has in fact been the implementation of that same reform which had been courageously initiated at the beginning of the current pontificate by Cardinal George Pell, appointed in 2014 by Pope Francis as prefect of the newly created secretariat for the economy, but which had been opposed immediately and then completely reversed, to a large extent precisely by the secretariat of state and by its leaders and officials who have now ended up under investigation.

Pell left Rome in 2017 for his home country of Australia, where he was hammered with allegations of sexual abuse that led to a six-year prison sentence, confirmed on appeal but finally overturned completely by the Australian supreme court, which last April 7, Tuesday of Holy Week, set the innocent cardinal free.

But in that year of 2017 the reforms initiated by Pell at the Vatican had already been mostly demolished. Not only that. In June of that same year auditor general Libero Milone was also driven out with brutal methods. Who three months later – in a joint interview with Corriere della Sera, The Wall Street Journal, Reuters, and Sky TV – singled out none other than Becciu as the executive at the secretariat of state who most of all had wanted his expulsion, and also did not fail to complain about the silence of the pope, who already as of the spring of the previous year was refusing to receive him and even to respond to any request of his for a meeting.

In effect, it was no mystery that Francis had made an about-face shortly after calling Pell to put the Vatican’s finances in order.

The pope had initially entrusted the Australian cardinal with the centralization of the assets of all the offices of the curia, including the large sums, never shown on the public balance sheets of the Holy See, administered by an almighty office of the secretariat of state that was even obeyed by the APSA, the strongbox of the Vatican’s resources and real estate.

And Pell hadn’t pulled any punches. Right away he publicly disclosed the amount of the unaccounted-for funds in the possession of the secretariat of state and other Vatican offices, 1.4 billion dollars, obviously claiming control of them, and presented as imminent the absorption of the APSA into his own secretariat.

He never got that far. Without making any noise, the power centers Pell had put under siege circled the wagons and then counterattacked. With the pope listening to and siding with them more and more, instead of the Australian cardinal. And with secretary of state Parolin, whom Francis had in the meantime added to his eight cardinal advisers on the government of the curia and of the Church, pulling the strings of the counter-offensive.

Now, however, the fortunes have reversed. Cardinal Pell, restored to freedom in Australia during the days of Easter, has also had his Pentecost, with the publication on the eve of this holiday of the new Vatican codes on contracts, all finally in line with his much-opposed reforms.

While the secretariat of state is now in the vortex of an investigation that has already toppled a few midranking officials but that tomorrow could also hit its top executives of today and yesterday, after having already dimmed their fame, partly in view of a future conclave.

As for Francis, he has gotten into step with the times, even anticipating on his own initiative – during the press conference on the return flight from Japan – the conviction for corruption of the men of the secretariat of state embroiled in the purchase of the London building.

But if one just goes back to December 26 of 2018, at the height of the Christmas celebrations, one discovers that the pope’s guest at Santa Marta, along with his family, was none other than that Gianluigi Torzi who is now behind bars in a cell of the papal gendarmerie.

.Condividi:

•  11 giugno 2020
•  English

Settimo Cielodi Sandro Magister 11 giu 

Vatican Affairs. Pell’s Payback At the Secretariat of State

> Italiano
> English
> Español
> Français

> All the articles of Settimo Cielo in English

*

There was a stir on June 5 over the arrest and jailing, at the Vatican, of Gianluigi Torzi, the financier accused of extorting 15 million euros at the secretariat of state, in the tawdry dénouement of the purchase of a pricey building in London, backed in 2014 by the secretariat of state itself with money taken to a large extent from Peter’s Pence.

The investigations are in the preliminary phase and the trial has not yet been set. But at the top of the Vatican curia the war is already on. Substitute secretary of state Edgar Peña Parra is in the sights of one of the suspects, Mauro Carlino, who in turn was the secretary of the previous substitute, Giovanni Angelo Becciu, now cardinal prefect of the congregation for the causes of the saints. And Becciu, who gave the go-ahead on the operation in 2014, has been made a target of criticisms by his direct superior at the time, cardinal secretary of state Pietro Parolin, while Angelo Perlasca, another top-ranking suspect, accuses Parolin of having approved the operation as well.

Everything suggests that the trial will spare no one. And likely in order to prevent other such disasters in the future, produced by out-of-control operations and by incompetent and unreliable executors, on June 1 at the Vatican a severe tightening of the rules was passed regarding public contracts stipulated by the Holy See, including those of “real estate,” a clear reference to the London operation.

The cornerstones of this reform of the Vatican codes are the centralization of contracts, from now on under the sole jurisdiction of the APSA, the Administration of the Patrimony of the Apostolic See, or of the governorate of Vatican City, and the restriction of access to a single register of professionals whose absolute correctness must be certified. All under the supervision of the secretariat for the economy and the auditor general.

This reorganization and centralization of powers, in the face of an administrative disorder whose wreckage has long been plain for all to see, was welcomed at the Vatican with a general chorus of approval, although it is not known how sincere this was.

What has happened has in fact been the implementation of that same reform which had been courageously initiated at the beginning of the current pontificate by Cardinal George Pell, appointed in 2014 by Pope Francis as prefect of the newly created secretariat for the economy, but which had been opposed immediately and then completely reversed, to a large extent precisely by the secretariat of state and by its leaders and officials who have now ended up under investigation.

Pell left Rome in 2017 for his home country of Australia, where he was hammered with allegations of sexual abuse that led to a six-year prison sentence, confirmed on appeal but finally overturned completely by the Australian supreme court, which last April 7, Tuesday of Holy Week, set the innocent cardinal free.

But in that year of 2017 the reforms initiated by Pell at the Vatican had already been mostly demolished. Not only that. In June of that same year auditor general Libero Milone was also driven out with brutal methods. Who three months later – in a joint interview with Corriere della Sera, The Wall Street Journal, Reuters, and Sky TV – singled out none other than Becciu as the executive at the secretariat of state who most of all had wanted his expulsion, and also did not fail to complain about the silence of the pope, who already as of the spring of the previous year was refusing to receive him and even to respond to any request of his for a meeting.

In effect, it was no mystery that Francis had made an about-face shortly after calling Pell to put the Vatican’s finances in order.

The pope had initially entrusted the Australian cardinal with the centralization of the assets of all the offices of the curia, including the large sums, never shown on the public balance sheets of the Holy See, administered by an almighty office of the secretariat of state that was even obeyed by the APSA, the strongbox of the Vatican’s resources and real estate.

And Pell hadn’t pulled any punches. Right away he publicly disclosed the amount of the unaccounted-for funds in the possession of the secretariat of state and other Vatican offices, 1.4 billion dollars, obviously claiming control of them, and presented as imminent the absorption of the APSA into his own secretariat.

He never got that far. Without making any noise, the power centers Pell had put under siege circled the wagons and then counterattacked. With the pope listening to and siding with them more and more, instead of the Australian cardinal. And with secretary of state Parolin, whom Francis had in the meantime added to his eight cardinal advisers on the government of the curia and of the Church, pulling the strings of the counter-offensive.

Now, however, the fortunes have reversed. Cardinal Pell, restored to freedom in Australia during the days of Easter, has also had his Pentecost, with the publication on the eve of this holiday of the new Vatican codes on contracts, all finally in line with his much-opposed reforms.

While the secretariat of state is now in the vortex of an investigation that has already toppled a few midranking officials but that tomorrow could also hit its top executives of today and yesterday, after having already dimmed their fame, partly in view of a future conclave.

As for Francis, he has gotten into step with the times, even anticipating on his own initiative – during the press conference on the return flight from Japan – the conviction for corruption of the men of the secretariat of state embroiled in the purchase of the London building.

But if one just goes back to December 26 of 2018, at the height of the Christmas celebrations, one discovers that the pope’s guest at Santa Marta, along with his family, was none other than that Gianluigi Torzi who is now behind bars in a cell of the papal gendarmerie.

.Condividi:

•  11 giugno 2020
•  English

NESSUN COM

Byzantine Catholic Patriarchate e-mail address: byzcathpatriarchate@gmail.com

http://vkpatriarhat.org/

Open letter to US Catholics and Washington Archbishop

Dear US Catholics,

we are writing to you and we are aware that among you are those who in the past came from us, from Europe, to America. About 100 years ago, our relatives came there too and now their descendants live there. For this and other reasons, Americans are not indifferent to us. We remember you in our prayers, especially in more than one hour’s prayer for the spiritual resurrection of the United States according to the prophetic words of Ezekiel 37 which we have already prayed for five years (http://vkpatriarhat.org/en/?p=18244). As monks and bishops, we have at heart above all the salvation of your immortal souls.

In these days of quarantine and coronapsychosis, riots have been artificially provoked against your President, even though he has taken bold steps to save Christianity and human society. The Archbishop of Washington, Wilton D. Gregory, shocks not only us with his incomprehensible and brazen reaction. He thus takes the side of anti-Christian elites who seek to destroy Christianity and humanity. Unfortunately, by this attitude of his he is in unity with the invalid Pope Francis Bergoglio. The positions of both of these church leaders are in total opposition to God’s interests. Both grossly abuse their authority and obedience of Catholics towards self-destruction of the Church and apostasy from our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Why did Francis Bergoglio influence public opinion before the 2016 presidential election by defaming the current President and thus consciously promoting a person who favors the privileging of sodomy, child stealing, immorality, satanism, chipping and reduction, i.e. the genocide of humanity?

Francis Bergoglio defames the President who on the day he took office repealed the gender tendency of American politics and later the Obamacare law (chipping). He pursues a policy of comprehensive protection of life and advocates persecuted Christians. Thanks to him, the compulsory vaccination has been abolished. Among other things, according to experts, he has thus saved several million Americans from death. In these hard times, he has stood up for the reopening of churches. For all this, he should receive recognition from the highest Christian authorities.

Nevertheless, a coup has been staged against him with the moral support of two Judases – pseudo Pope Bergoglio and Washington Archbishop. The whole coup is a farce based on a scenario of color revolutions. When the President justly tries to suppress the coup to protect the American nation, they exploit it to slander him. However, the mainstream mass media and the Judases among the prelates conceal the fact that the behind-the-scenes initiators of the coup pursue the genocide of six billion people and humanity crimes.

The pseudo Pope with treacherous prelates lead you to hell. They rob you of your true faith without which no one will be saved! These prelates, such as Washington DC Gregory, who are united with the apostate Pope, oppose not only Christ and His teachings, but even the President who protects the moral principles which America was built on.

Dear Catholics, you are obliged to obey God, and if someone, even if it is a Pope, opposes God, the Gospel and the commandments of Jesus Christ, you must no longer obey him as he is an apostate. If you submit to him, God’s curse which is upon him falls on you as well.

Whoever now appeals to the authority of the Pachamama demon worshiper has betrayed Christ and is an apostate. One must know that Bergoglio is not a valid Pope. He is neither the successor of the Apostle Peter nor the Vicar of Christ on earth.

As for Archbishop Gregory and other like-minded prelates who have betrayed Christ and preach a false gospel which brings down a curse (Gal 1:8), it is necessary to separate from them, not to submit to them, and to have nothing to do with them as heretics, as the Apostle John urges us: “It is the last hour … many antichrists have come… They went out from us, but they were not of us…” (1Jn 2:18-19) “Therefore come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord.” (2Cor 6:17)

Dear Catholics, call on the treacherous prelates in personal letters or, if need be, through demonstrations to publicly repent, to profess the orthodox faith of the Church and to separate themselves from the false Pope, the worshiper of the Pachamama demon. If they refuse to repent, they must leave office and be replaced by orthodox and moral bishops who will lead you to salvation and not to eternal destruction.

Bergoglio kisses the feet of transsexuals and approves of this perversion. He promotes sodomy, invites homosexuals and transsexuals to the Vatican, pays for their journeys and devotes a lot of time to them. He promotes sexual education for children, which, as you know, is the most serious crime against children because it is based on the UN Kinsey programs which mean the systematic demoralization of children and their mental devastation. In Ireland, Bergoglio urged parents not to prevent children manipulated by sexual education from choosing their orientation and becoming homosexuals or transsexuals. He also systematically organizes the Islamization of the Christian world. He attacks politicians who protect the Christian integrity of Italy and other European nations. He promotes paganism, thereby breaking God’s first commandment. He leads the Church to autogenocide. In 2018, at the request of American bishops, he was to deal with homosexual and pedophile crimes and thus put an end to this epidemic, but he hypocritically maneuvered promising to deal with it globally, and in fact he did the exact opposite. In addition, he supported sodomy with official church documents. He introduces satanic rituals into the liturgy (see Amazon Synod documents). He committed public idolatry in the Vatican Gardens and enthroned the Pachamama demon in the Basilica of St. Peter. These are the most serious crimes against Christ, against the Gospel and against the saving faith. For this reason, he incurs the most severe punishment – expulsion from the Church – and holds the papal office unlawfully. How is it possible that US bishops are unable to unite, radically oppose these crimes of an apostate, and defend Christ and the Church!? If he refuses to accept the admonition, they are obliged in their conscience to separate themselves from this spiritual murderer and criminal against humanity. The US bishops are faced with this duty. The President will certainly not impose any sanctions on them for trying to purify the Church. If EU bishops wanted to take this step, they would be severely persecuted.

Here is also your task, dear believers: Write letters persistently and tirelessly, submit petitions against treacherous bishops who are in unity with the apostate Bergoglio. If you are passive, he will expel or paralyze the very last orthodox Catholic bishops and appoint villains and criminals in their place. The curse which is on them will then be passed on to you, to the whole of the United States and to the whole Church. Threatening people that it will cause a schism and therefore all Catholics must remain under the rule of Judases in the Church who have stood against God and the Gospel just to keep them in obedience to the apostate Pope is a sick view and blasphemy against God and the truth. If apostates want to worship the Pachamama demon instead of the true Savior and to promote sodomy, immorality and introduce anti- sacraments instead of the Ten Commandments, as it is done by Bergoglio and the German heretics, let them separate themselves. It will not be a schism but necessary purification of the Church of Christ. It is a crime to remain on the way to hell under the banner of false unity. God wants to purify the Church but He needs bold men and women of faith who will stand up for God and God’s laws even at the cost of being persecuted by Judases or other traitors of Christ. Therefore, we call on one of them in particular – Archbishop Gregory who supports sodomy – to show public repentance, renounce heresies and subordination to the Pachamama worshiper, and to publicly apologize to the President. If he is unable to take these steps, let US priests and believers publicly condemn him as a traitor of Christ and the Church and force him to leave office. May this set a precedent for the purification of the entire US Church. What penance or punishments were imposed on the Church hierarchs for the crimes of abuse of seminarians and for pedophilia? None but shame, $ 2 billion and a worldwide scandal. Bergoglio did not allow just punishments or correction, whereby he de facto approved those crimes. That is why contamination of the Church progresses and grows in strength. Now, under the guise of a new anti- COVID-19 drug, Bergoglio promotes vaccination, de facto chipping. This is a crime against God and against humanity.

With a bleeding heart, we encourage you, American bishops, priests and believers to work towards the spiritual restoration of the Church in the United States. If you do so, it will have a positive impact not only on the American people, but on the Church as a whole. Make a promise to God to devote one hour daily to prayer and to keep the fast on Wednesdays and Fridays without food until supper. This kind of demons which now occupies the Church cannot go out, as Jesus says, except by prayer and fasting (Mt 17:21).

+ Elijah
Patriarch of the Byzantine Catholic Patriarchate

+ Methodius OSBMr + Timothy OSBMr Secretary Bishops

June 8, 2020

Letter #11, June 10, 2020: The Root of the Problem

Inbox

x

Dr. Robert Moynihan via icontactmail4.com	11:39 AM (2 hours ago)
to me

Letter #11, Wednesday, June 10, 2020: The Root of the Problem     Dear Friends,    Today I am sending another letter by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, 79. We are going on a live Zoom program in a few minutes, so I do not have time to comment at length on the letter. (If you would like to join the Zoom program, which is free, go to this link to register and sign in — it is quite easy to do.)    I did telephone to the archbishop and asked him to summarize why he wrote this piece.     ”I tried to go further down to understand why we have reached this situation,” the archbishop said. “I am just trying to follow my conscience.”    The archbishop was at pains to stress that he himself has evolved in his thinking on these matters.    What the archbishop is saying, essentially, is that one important “root” of the present crisis in the Church may be found in part in the “seeding” within the documents of the Second Vatican Council of certain ambiguous teachings which, after the Council, were interpreted in the most radical way.    Sometimes that interpretation was not keeping with the perennial tradition of the Church.     In arguing this, Vigano is agreeing with the work of another bishop, Athanasius Schneider of Kazakhstan, who has been presenting this thesis on a number of occasions in recent years. “Schneider was before me in realizing this,” Vigano said. “I have come to agree with him.”==============9 June 2020Saint EphremBy Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò    I read with great interest the essay of His Excellency Athanasius Schneider published on LifeSiteNews on June 1, subsequently translated into Italian by Chiesa e post concilio, entitled There is no divine positive will or natural right to the diversity of religions. His Excellency’s study summarizes, with the clarity that distinguishes the words of those who speak according to Christ, the objections against the presumed legitimacy of the exercise of religious freedom that the Second Vatican Council theorized, contradicting the testimony of Sacred Scripture and the voice of Tradition, as well as the Catholic Magisterium which is the faithful guardian of both.     The merit of His Excellency’s essay lies first of all in its grasp of the causal link between the principles enunciated or implied by Vatican II and their logical consequent effect in the doctrinal, moral, liturgical, and disciplinary deviations that have arisen and progressively developed to the present day. The monstrum generated in modernist circles could have at first been misleading, but it has grown and strengthened, so that today it shows itself for what it really is in its subversive and rebellious nature. The creature that was conceived at that time is always the same, and it would be naive to think that its perverse nature could change. Attempts to correct the conciliar excesses – invoking the hermeneutic of continuity – have proven unsuccessful: Naturam expellas furca, tamen usque recurret [Drive nature out with a pitchfork; she will come right back] (Horace, Epist. I,10,24). The Abu Dhabi Declaration – and, as Bishop Schneider rightly observes, its first symptoms in the pantheon of Assisi – “was conceived in the spirit of the Second Vatican Council” as Bergoglio proudly confirms.     This “spirit of the Council” is the license of legitimacy that the innovators oppose to their critics, without realizing that it is precisely confessing that legacy that confirms not only the erroneousness of the present declarations but also the heretical matrix that supposedly justifies them. On closer inspection, never in the history of the Church has a Council presented itself as such a historic event that it was different from any other council: there was never talk of a “spirit of the Council of Nicea” or the “spirit of the Council of Ferrara-Florence,” even less the “spirit of the Council of Trent,” just as we never had a “post-conciliar” era after Lateran IV or Vatican I.     The reason is obvious: those Councils were all, indiscriminately, the expression in unison of the voice of Holy Mother Church, and for this very reason the voice of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Significantly, those who maintain the novelty of Vatican II also adhere to the heretical doctrine that places the God of the Old Testament in opposition to the God of the New Testament, as if there could be contradiction between the Divine Persons of the Most Holy Trinity. Evidently this opposition that is almost gnostic or cabbalistic is functional to the legitimization of a new subject that is voluntarily different and opposed to the Catholic Church. Doctrinal errors almost always betray some sort of Trinitarian heresy, and thus it is by returning to the proclamation of Trinitarian dogma that the doctrines that oppose it can be defeated: ut in confessione veræ sempiternæque deitatis, et in Personis proprietas, et in essentia unitas, et in majestate adoretur æqualitas: Professing the true and eternal Divinity, we adore what is proper to each Person, their unity in substance, and their equality in majesty.    Bishop Schneider cites several canons of the Ecumenical Councils that propose, in his opinion, doctrines that today are difficult to accept, such as for example the obligation to distinguish Jews by their clothing, or the ban on Christians serving Muslim or Jewish masters. Among these examples there is also the requirement of the traditio instrumentorum declared by the Council of Florence, which was later corrected by Pius XII’s Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis. Bishop Athanasius comments: “One may rightly hope and believe that a future Pope or Ecumenical Council will correct the erroneous statement made” by Vatican II. This appears to me to be an argument that, although made with the best of intentions, undermines the Catholic edifice from its foundation. If in fact we admit that there may be Magisterial acts that, due to a changed sensitivity, are susceptible to abrogation, modification, or different interpretation with the passage of time, we inevitably fall under the condemnation of the Decree Lamentabili, and we end up offering justification to those who, recently, precisely on the basis of that erroneous assumption, declared that the death penalty “does not conform to the Gospel,” and thus amended the Catechism of the Catholic Church. And, by the same principle, in a certain way we could maintain that the words of Blessed Pius IX in Quanta Cura were in some manner corrected by Vatican II, just as His Excellency hopes could happen for Dignitatis Humanae. Among the examples he presents, none of them is in itself gravely erroneous or heretical: the fact that the Council of Florence declared that the traditio instrumentorum was necessary for the validity of Orders did not in any way compromise priestly ministry in the Church, leading her to confer Orders invalidly. Nor does it seem to me that one can affirm that this aspect, however important, led to doctrinal errors on the part of the faithful, something which instead has occurred only with the most recent Council. And when in the course of history various heresies spread, the Church always intervened promptly to condemn them, as happened at the time of the Synod of Pistoia in 1786, which was in some way anticipatory of Vatican II, especially where it abolished Communion outside of Mass, introduced the vernacular tongue, and abolished the prayers of the Canon said submissa voce; but even more so when it theorized about the basis of episcopal collegiality, reducing the primacy of the pope to a mere ministerial function. Re-reading the acts of that Synod leaves us amazed at the literal formulation of the same errors that we find later, in increased form, in the Council presided over by John XXIII and Paul VI. On the other hand, just as the Truth comes from God, so error is fed by and feeds on the Adversary, who hates the Church of Christ and her heart: the Holy Mass and the Most Holy Eucharist.    There comes a moment in our life when, through the disposition of Providence, we are faced with a decisive choice for the future of the Church and for our eternal salvation. I speak of the choice between understanding the error into which practically all of us have fallen, almost always without evil intentions, and wanting to continue to look the other way or justify ourselves.     We have also committed the error, among others, of considering our interlocutors as people who, despite the difference of their ideas and their faith, were still motivated by good intentions and who would be willing to correct their errors if they could open up to our Faith. Together with numerous Council Fathers, we thought of ecumenism as a process, an invitation that calls dissidents to the one Church of Christ, idolaters and pagans to the one True God, and the Jewish people to the promised Messiah. But from the moment it was theorized in the conciliar commissions, ecumenism was configured in a way that was in direct opposition to the doctrine previously expressed by the Magisterium.     We have thought that certain excesses were only an exaggeration of those who allowed themselves to be swept up in enthusiasm for novelty; we sincerely believed that seeing John Paul II surrounded by charmers-healers , buddhist monks, imams, rabbis, protestant pastors and other heretics gave proof of the Church’s ability to summon people together in order to ask God for peace, while the authoritative example of this action initiated a deviant succession of pantheons that were more or less official, even to the point of seeing Bishops carrying the unclean idol of the pachamama on their shoulders, sacrilegiously concealed under the pretext of being a representation of sacred motherhood.    But if the image of an infernal divinity was able to enter into Saint Peter’s, this is part of a cresecendo which the other side foresaw from the beginning. Numerous practicing Catholics, and perhaps also a majority of Catholic clergy, are today convinced that the Catholic Faith is no longer necessary for eternal salvation; they believe that the One and Triune God revealed to our fathers is the same as the god of Mohammed. Already twenty years ago we heard this repeated from pulpits and episcopal cathedrae, but recently we hear it being affirmed with emphasis even from the highest Throne.    We know well that, invoking the saying in Scripture Littera enim occidit, spiritus autem vivificat [The letter brings death, but the spirit gives life (2 Cor 3:6)], the progressives and modernists astutely knew how to hide equivocal expressions in the conciliar texts, which at the time appeared harmless to most but that today are revealed in their subversive value. It is the method employed in the use of the phrase subsistit in: saying a half-truth not so much as not to offend the interlocutor (assuming that is licit to silence the truth of God out of respect for His creature), but with the intention of being able to use the half-error that would be instantly dispelled if the entire truth were proclaimed. Thus “Ecclesia Christi subsistit in Ecclesia Catholica” does not specify the identity of the two, but the subsistence of one in the other and, for consistency, also in other churches: here is the opening to interconfessional celebrations, ecumenical prayers, and the inevitable end of any need for the Church in the order of salvation, in her unicity, and in her missionary nature.     Some may remember that the first ecumenical gatherings were held with the schismatics of the East, and very prudently with other Protestant sects. Apart from Germany, Holland, and Switzerland, in the beginning the countries of Catholic tradition did not welcome mixed celebrations with Protestant pastors and Catholic priests together. I recall that at the time there was talk of removing the penultimate doxology from the Veni Creator so as not to offend the Orthodox, who do not accept the Filioque. Today we hear the surahs of the Koran recited from the pulpits of our churches, we see an idol of wood adored by religious sisters and brothers, we hear Bishops disavow what up until yesterday seemed to us to be the most plausible excuses of so many extremisms. What the world wants, at the instigation of Masonry and its infernal tentacles, is to create a universal religion that is humanitarian and ecumenical, from which the jealous God whom we adore is banished. And if this is what the world wants, any step in the same direction by the Church is an unfortunate choice which will turn against those who believe that they can jeer at God. The hopes of the Tower of Babel cannot be brought back to life by a globalist plan that has as its goal the cancellation of the Catholic Church, in order to replace it with a confederation of idolaters and heretics united by environmentalism and universal brotherhood. There can be no brotherhood except in Christ, and only in Christ: qui non est mecum, contra me est.     It is disconcerting that few people are aware of this race towards the abyss, and that few realize the responsibility of the highest levels of the Church in supporting these anti-Christian ideologies, as if the Church’s leaders want to guarantee that they have a place and a role on the bandwagon of aligned thought. And it is surprising that people persist in not wanting to investigate the root causes of the present crisis, limiting themselves to deploring the present excesses as if they were not the logical and inevitable consequence of a plan orchestrated decades ago. If the pachamama could be adored in a church, we owe it to Dignitatis Humanae. If we have a liturgy that is Protestantized and at times even paganized, we owe it to the revolutionary action of Msgr. Annibale Bugnini and to the post-conciliar reforms. If the Abu Dhabi Declaration was signed, we owe it to Nostra Aetate. If we have come to the point of delegating decisions to the Bishops’ Conferences – even in grave violation of the Concordat, as happened in Italy – we owe it to collegiality, and to its updated version, synodality. Thanks to synodality, we found ourselves with Amoris Laetitia having to look for a way to prevent what was obvious to everyone from appearing: that this document, prepared by an impressive organizational machine, intended to legitimize Communion for the divorced and cohabiting, just as Querida Amazonia will be used to legitimize women priests (as in the recent case of an “episcopal vicaress” in Freiburg) and the abolition of Sacred Celibacy. The Prelates who sent the Dubia to Francis, in my opinion, demonstrated the same pious ingenuousness: thinking that Bergoglio, when confronted with the reasonably argued contestation of the error, would understand, correct the heterodox points, and ask for forgiveness.     The Council was used to legitimize the most aberrant doctrinal deviations, the most daring liturgical innovations, and the most unscrupulous abuses, all while Authority remained silent. This Council was so exalted that it was presented as the only legitimate reference for Catholics, clergy, and bishops, obscuring and connoting with a sense of contempt the doctrine that the Church had always authoritatively taught, and prohibiting the perennial liturgy that for millennia had nourished the faith of an uninterrupted line of faithful, martyrs, and saints. Among other things, this Council has proven to be the only one that has caused so many interpretative problems and so many contradictions with respect to the preceding Magisterium, while there is not one other council – from the Council of Jerusalem to Vatican I – that does not harmonize perfectly with the entire Magisterium or that needs so much interpretation.     I confess it with serenity and without controversy: I was one of the many people who, despite many perplexities and fears which today have proven to be absolutely legitimate, trusted the authority of the Hierarchy with unconditional obedience. In reality, I think that many people, including myself, did not initially consider the possibility that there could be a conflict between obedience to an order of the Hierarchy and fidelity to the Church herself. What made tangible this unnatural, indeed I would even say perverse, separation between the Hierarchy and the Church, between obedience and fidelity, was certainly this most recent Pontificate.     In the Room of Tears adjacent to the Sistine Chapel, while Msgr. Guido Marini prepared the white rocchetto, mozzetta, and stole for the first appearance of the “newly elected” Pope, Bergoglio exclaimed: “Sono finite le carnevalate! [The carnivals are over!],” scornfully refusing the insignia that all the Popes up until then had humbly accepted as the distinguishing garb of the Vicar of Christ. But those words contained truth, even if it was spoken involuntarily: on March 13, 2013, the mask fell from the conspirators, who were finally free of the inconvenient presence of Benedict XVI and brazenly proud of having finally succeeded in promoting a Cardinal who embodied their ideals, their way of revolutionizing the Church, of making doctrine malleable, morals adaptable, liturgy adulterable, and discipline disposable. And all this was considered, by the protagonists of the conspiracy themselves, the logical consequence and obvious application of Vatican II, which according to them had been weakened by the critiques expressed by Benedict XVI. The greatest affront of that Pontificate was the liberally permitting the celebration of the venerated Tridentine Liturgy, the legitimacy of which was finally recognized, disproving fifty years of its illegitimate ostracization. It is no accident that Bergoglio’s supporters are the same people who saw the Council as the first event of a new church, prior to which there was an old religion with an old liturgy.     It is no accident: what these men affirm with impunity, scandalizing moderates, is what Catholics also believe, namely: that despite all the efforts of the hermeneutic of continuity which shipwrecked miserably at the first confrontation with the reality of the present crisis, it is undeniable that from Vatican II onwards a parallel church was built, superimposed over and diametrically opposed to the true Church of Christ. This parallel church progressively obscured the divine institution founded by Our Lord in order to replace it with a spurious entity, corresponding to the desired universal religion that was first theorized by Masonry. Expressions like new humanism, universal fraternity, dignity of man, are the watchwords of philanthropic humanitarianism which denies the true God, of horizontal solidarity of vague spiritualist inspiration and of ecumenical irenism that the Church unequivocally condemns. “Nam et loquela tua manifestum te facit [Even your speech gives you away]” (Mt 26, 73): this very frequent, even obsessive recourse to the same vocabulary of the enemy betrays adherence to the ideology he inspires; while on the other hand the systematic renunciation of the clear, unequivocal and crystalline language of the Church confirms the desire to detach itself not only from the Catholic form but even from its substance.    What we have for years heard enunciated, vaguely and without clear connotations, from the highest Throne, we then find elaborated in a true and proper manifesto in the supporters of the present Pontificate: the democratization of the Church, no longer through the collegiality invented by Vatican II but by the synodal path inaugurated by the Synod on the Family; the demolition of the ministerial priesthood through its weakening with exceptions to ecclesiastical celibacy and the introduction of feminine figures with quasi-sacerdotal duties; the silent passage from ecumenism directed towards separated brethren to a form of pan-ecumenism that reduces the Truth of the One Triune God to the level of idolatries and the most infernal superstitions; the acceptance of an interreligious dialogue that presupposes religious relativism and excludes missionary proclamation; the demythologization of the Papacy, pursued by Bergoglio as a theme of his pontificate; the progressive legitimization of all that is politically correct: gender theory, sodomy, homosexual marriage, Malthusian doctrines, ecologism, immigrationism… If we do not recognize that the roots of these deviations are found in the principles laid down by the Council, it will be impossible to find a cure: if our diagnosis persists, against all the evidence, in excluding the initial pathology, we cannot prescribe a suitable therapy.      This operation of intellectual honesty requires a great humility, first of all in recognizing that for decades we have been led into error, in good faith, by people who, established in authority, have not known how to watch over and guard the flock of Christ: some for the sake of living quietly, some because of having too many commitments, some out of convenience, and finally some in bad faith or even malicious intent. These last ones who have betrayed the Church must be identified, taken aside, invited to amend and, if they do not repent they must be expelled from the sacred enclosure. This is how a true Shepherd acts, who has the well-being of the sheep at heart and who gives his life for them; we have had and still have far too many mercenaries, for whom the consent of the enemies of Christ is more important than fidelity to his Spouse.     Just as I honestly and serenely obeyed questionable orders sixty years ago, believing that they represented the loving voice of the Church, so today with equal serenity and honesty I recognize that I have been deceived. Being coherent today by persevering in error would represent a wretched choice and would make me an accomplice in this fraud. Claiming a clarity of judgment from the beginning would not be honest: we all knew that the Council would be more or less a revolution, but we could not have imagined that it would prove to be so devastating, even for the work of those who should have prevented it. And if up until Benedict XVI we could still imagine that the coup d’état of Vatican II (which Cardinal Suenens called “the 1789 of the Church”) had experienced a slowdown, in these last few years even the most ingenuous among us have understood that silence for fear of causing a schism, the effort to repair papal documents in a Catholic sense in order to remedy their intended ambiguity, the appeals and dubia made to Francis that remained eloquently unanswered, are all a confirmation of the situation of the most serious apostasy to which the highest levels of the Hierarchy are exposed, while the Christian people and the clergy feel hopelessly abandoned and that they are regarded by the bishops almost with annoyance.    The Abu Dhabi Declaration is the ideological manifesto of an idea of peace and cooperation between religions that could have some possibility of being tolerated if it came from pagans who are deprived of the light of Faith and the fire of Charity. But whoever has the grace of being a Child of God in virtue of Holy Baptism should be horrified at the idea of being able to construct a blasphemous modern version of the Tower of Babel, seeking to bring together the one true Church of Christ, heir to the promises made to the Chosen People, with those who deny the Messiah and with those who consider the very idea of a Triune God to be blasphemous. The love of God knows no measure and does not tolerate compromises, otherwise it simply is not Charity, without which it is not possible to remain in Him: qui manet in caritate, in Deo manet, et Deus in eo [whoever remains in love remains in God and God in him] (1 Jn 4:16). It matters little whether it is a declaration or a Magisterial document: we know well that the subversive mens of the innovators plays games with these sort of quibbles in order to spread error. And we know well that the purpose of these ecumenical and interreligious initiatives is not to convert those who are far from the one Church to Christ, but to divert and corrupt those who still hold the Catholic Faith, leading them to believe that it is desirable to have a great universal religion that brings together the three great Abrahamic religions “in a single house”: this is the triumph of the Masonic plan in preparation for the kingdom of the Antichrist! Whether this materializes through a dogmatic Bull, a declaration, or an interview with Scalfari in La Repubblica matters little, because Bergoglio’s supporters wait for his words as a signal to which they respond with a series of initiatives that have already been prepared and organized for some time. And if Bergoglio does not follow the directions he has received, ranks of theologians and clergy are ready to lament over the “solitude of Pope Francis” as a premise for his resignation (I think for example of Massimo Faggioli in one of his recent essays). On the other hand, it would not be the first time that they use the Pope when he goes along with their plans and get rid of him or attack him as soon as he does not.     Last Sunday, the Church celebrated the Most Holy Trinity, and in the Breviary it offers us the recitation of the Symbolum Athanasianum, now outlawed by the conciliar liturgy and already reduced to only two occasions in the liturgical reform of 1962. The first words of that now-disappeared Symbolum remain inscribed in letters of gold: “Quicumque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est ut teneat Catholicam fidem; quam nisi quisque integram inviolatamque servaverit, absque dubio in aeternum peribit – Whosoever wishes to be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith; For unless a person shall have kept this faith whole and inviolate, without doubt he shall eternally perish.”+ Carlo Maria ViganòTranslated by Giuseppe Pellegrino

Settimo Cielodi Sandro Magister 08 giu 

From the Synod of Germany To the Monastery of Bose. Anatomy of the Catholic Revolutions

> Italiano
> English
> Español
> Français

> All the articles of Settimo Cielo in English

*

Nothing seems to break the stride of the “synodal journey” undertaken by the Catholic Church of Germany. Neither the criticisms nor the defections of the rare dissenting bishops. Nor the serious concerns of Rome:

> Francis and the Schism of Germany. History of a Nightmare

Cardinal Reinhard Marx has been succeeded, as head of the episcopal conference, by Limburg bishop Georg Bätzing (pictured). But without any course correction. No less talkative than his predecessor, the new president immediately strung together a series of reckless statements on the most burning issues of the synod’s agenda, from the female priesthood to same-sex couples, along with the presumption of giving marching orders to to the universal Church:

> Bätzing: “Die Zeit läuft uns weg”
> Bischof Bätzing für Segnung gleichgeschlechtlicher Paare
> German bishop calls for Rome synod to discuss German synod

The aims of the German Church’s advancing flank are plain to see in the texts produced by the synod so far:

> Sex, Women, Power. The Three Challenges Germany Is Issuing To the Church

But at the basis of the undertaking is the evident intention of subverting the original structure of the Church, not only German but universal, in the name of a democratization in step with the times.

This push brought a response on Settimo Cielo in mid-May from Professor Pietro De Marco, philosopher and historian by training, former professor of the sociology of religion at the University of Florence and on the theological faculty of central Italy:

> The Synod of the German Church Under the Analyst’s Lens. A Revolution That Self-destructs

But the statements of the new president of the German episcopal conference have induced De Marco to add new elements to his criticism of the “Synodale Weg,” in which he sees at work the rash revolutionary approach typical of a certain Catholic “intelligencija” not only in Germany but as seen for example in Italy with the community of Bose and its founder Enzo Bianchi, punished in recent days by Pope Francis with exile from the monastery.

*

German synod. On the new president of the episcopal conference and other misadventures

by Pietro De Marco

In revolutionary adventures, the formulations of the “critical” culture see the alternation – depending on the interlocutors and situations – of radical statements with great subversive objectives and of circumscribed statements with reduced targets, at first glance trivial. This ideological bilingualism also belongs to Catholic critical public opinion, insofar as it also belongs to the category of the revolutionary “sociétés de pensée” analyzed by Augustin Cochin.

In Italy, the recent disciplinary measures that have affected the community of Bose and the person of its founder Enzo Bianchi concern, in fact, an important node of a network of “sociétés de pensée,” Catholic and Reformed, in which the communicative oscillation between theological moderation and radicalism is widespread practice. Hard to say how much of this is sincere and how much is feigned. Bianchi was sensitive to the criticisms of orthodoxy; years ago he complained about an evaluation by Sandro Magister and myself. But many critics, including the late Antonio Livi (to whom we are indebted for a decisive book against the neo-modernist collapse of theological language, “True and false theology,” Rome, 2012), had shown the faultiness of the dogmatic system of the prior of Bose, a faultiness invisible to most and therefore made to be assimilated and reproduced without caution.

In many Catholic subcultures there is on the one hand the critic-destroyer, generally a cleric or theologian, male or female, of recent generation, with a smattering of biblical scholarship and without dogmatic formation, in short an ideologue, and on the other a majority of clerics and lay people who use radical slogans but aim for more accessible results. Many bishops also take part in this pragmatic oscillation rather than in the radicalism of the subversive leadership. In Germany they seem almost the totality.

Well then, what is the stance of the German episcopal conference’s new president, Limburg bishop Georg Bätzing?

Just after taking his post, Bätzing immediately confirmed the reforming projects of the “Synodale Weg,” the synodal journey underway in Germany. Answering the question: “What is your vision of the near future of your Church?” he ruled out being “the visionary sort”; the essential message of the synod to men will be that life is stronger than death, as a result transforming the meaning of being and calling oneself Catholic, in which sense he too can accept being counted among the visionaries. The manner of expression appears cautious, but the “konkrete Vision” is not.

The “Synodale Weg” – Bätzing said – continues to ask for a “blessing” for the divorced and remarried (a difficult matter but one that can perhaps be dealt with case by case according to canon law, while not theologically vacating the sacrament) and Eucharistic intercommunion between Catholics and Christians of other confessions, which Rome has also granted in the past, for sufficient reason and by way of exception. So nothing dramatic in itself. Except that, as always in the “Synodale Weg,” it is the erroneous and presumptuous motives that cause dismay. “There is now quite a bit of agreement on the meaning of what we believe and celebrate,” Bätzing assured. Here is the symptomatic oscillation.

It is in fact fact widely believed in Germany that the conception of the Holy Supper is now the same between Protestants and Catholics. This consensus can only have come about through a genuine protestantization of the Catholic theology of the sacraments. While no news has come forth that German Protestants have significantly recovered the common Eucharistic theology of the universal Church, from which they exclude themselves. So for Bätzing to say, as he has, that against this objective background Christians may “decide with good arguments and according to their conscience” on issues like intercommunion is a careless statement, all the more condemnable from the mouth of a bishop called to be a teacher, not an instigator of convenient opinions. What is really at stake here is the very concept of Eucharistic practice, in the sense of the classic “knowing and thinking about what one is going to receive”; and the Catholic meaning of the sacrament must also be jealously protected by discerning the differences with the other confessions.

Bätzing still maintains that the synod’s decisions will find subjects, or rather “alliances” (Koalitionen) capable of implementing them; an assumption that in itself is trivial but threatening, because instead there is nothing trivial, except in the mind of the German episcopal conference, about the kind of subjects who would see to the “realization” of demands all theologically on the razor’s edge. Just as the idea of ​​demanding from the pope a universal synod based in Rome for extending to the whole Church the examination of the results of Germany’s “Synodale Weg” is arrogant, even if without a future. Isn’t the congregation for the doctrine of the faith enough?

Then when Bätzing defines as “no longer accepted” the “arguments against” the female priesthood (which are actually binding doctrinal statements), he shows that the episcopal ‘magisterium’ and the average theological culture have formed in Germany not a Christian people, but a public opinion now so distorted as to pursue nonsense: that of babelically remaking the Church. A Catholic secularism has in fact been generated, to then exhibit this recent and intentional mentality as an argument against the tradition of “lex credendi,” of the canon of belief (Glaubensregeln).

I believe that the German Catholics, the majority, who are being subjected to the initiative of their bishops and of supposed representatives of the laity such as the “Zentralkomitee der deutschen Katholiken,” a real power bloc present in force in the assembly, should be urged to oppose the uncontrolled course of the “Synodale Weg.”

May they react as clergy and laity where they live, parishes, religious orders, press. May the Catholic intellectuals regain strength. May the canonical way be employed as well. The corruption of doctrine and an absolutely abnormal practice of “reform” are plain for all to see. May German Catholicism not bow down out of a sort of deference, completely misplaced and certainly not owed today, to a hierarchy that is dissolving itself.

,Condividi:

•  08 giugno 2020
•  English

Black Pro-Lifers Arrested for Praying at Planned Parenthood While Hundreds of Rioters Go Free

STATE   MICAIAH BILGER   JUN 5, 2020   |   12:21PM    NEW YORK,

In the midst of violent riots and looting in New York City, police in the city chose to arrest two black women who were peacefully counseling women outside a Planned Parenthood abortion facility instead.

Church Militant reports pro-life advocates Bevelyn Beatty and Edmee Chavannes were arrested May 30 on the sidewalk outside the Margaret Sanger Planned Parenthood Center in Manhattan.

The women were arrested after allegedly violating city social distancing guidelines because of the coronavirus. Beatty and Chavannes said they were social distancing.

“Let me tell you something, Christians get it the worst,” Beatty said of their pro-life outreach. “I have not been so harassed by the police until I started doing this! Christians get it the worst!”

She said they were not protesting at the abortion facility, they went there to offer women information and resources for themselves and their babies, as they often do.

“We’ve been at that clinic for a while standing for children’s lives and bringing the gospel to these women because they need help just as well as the babies,” Beatty said. “And we feel COVID has been used strategically to push a bias against abolitionists. We’re pro-life but we’re abolitionists.”

On May 30, police asked the pro-life women to leave the area, supposedly because they were not complying with Mayor Bill de Blasio’s executive order requiring masks, according to the report.

When Beatty and Chavannes asked to see the order, they said the police did not show it to them. Instead, they said the police told them to leave. They refused and were arrested, the report continues.

Beatty said de Blasio and Gov. Andrew Cuomo are just pushing an agenda; they do not really care about saving lives.

“How is abortion essential? How are stores closing and we can’t have Red Lobster and we can’t go to church or fellowship but you can still go and kill a baby?” she asked.

Here’s more from the report:

Beatty called it ironic that while the country has been publicly protesting non-stop for the past several days, she and Chavannes were arrested for illegally protesting. Apparently it’s not okay to protest unless the killing is politically incorrect killing. “We have the right to be here,” she shouted at the police. “Come on! They’re killing Floyds in here right now!”

“Arrest the abortionists, they’re in the building!” Chavannes is heard shouting in the background. Mentioning that she has been unable to find a public restroom, she said, “I can’t find a bathroom in all of New York City … but I can go here to kill my baby? Sick!”

On social media, Beatty thanked people for praying for them after they were arrested.

“It’s good to know we have loyal people when we’re going through a hard time. We have been released from jail and now I have a court date in September. Keep us in prayer and again thank you for all your support!” she wrote.

In the past several months, dozens of pro-life advocates have been arrested or cited while peacefully praying and reaching out to moms in need outside abortion facilities across the U.S. Many were accused of violating coronavirus health restrictions.

Pro-life sidewalk counselors also were arrested or fined in San Francisco, California; Greensboro, North Carolina; Charlotte, North Carolina; Detroit, Michigan, Columbus, Ohio and Baton Rouge, Louisiana while trying to save unborn babies from abortions. Fortunately, some saw their charges dropped after filing lawsuits.

Vaccination: how the West invades the worldcc: to Bill Gates(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)“A great wave of missionaries brings a fairy tale to the Third World.  These outsiders are the priests in white coats.  They offer medical treatments for problems they can’t possibly solve.  The self-generated delusions of the doctors about their ‘success’ are stupendous.”  (The Underground, Jon Rappoport) Vaccination is the prow, the leading edge of the invasion. Convincing nations that vaccines are absolutely essential opens the way for all the other practices of Western medicine. Especially mass drugging. In recent years (think Swine Flu, SARS and other fake epidemics — including COVID-19), the World Health Organization has played a major role in insisting—with threats of sanctions and quarantines and travel advisories—that nations vaccinate their citizens to the hilt, in order to protect the world against “the deadly spread of viruses.” The WHO wields significant power in this regard.  It is a pharmaceutical enforcer. There is a hidden aspect of the vaccination-invasion: the local political leaders of “backward” nations stand to gain from the vaccine ruse. Instead of having to admit they are causing widespread death and devastation by maintaining poverty, hunger, starvation, unsanitary overcrowded living conditions, and contaminated water supplies—all of this on purpose, in order to keep their populations weak and under control—the leaders in those countries can say: “Our people are suffering from specific diseases, over which we have no control.  We are afflicted with viruses.  We must take steps.  We must upgrade our medical care programs.  The first step is instituting widespread vaccination against viruses.” This con lets them off the hook.  This con is a cover story that obscures what these leaders are actually doing to their own people.  This con obscures the fact that, when living conditions are execrable and miserable, disease arises independent of what particular germs are circulating.  The imposed conditions of life destroy immune systems, period. Vaccination, as a “bonus” for repressive leaders, actually makes things much worse for populations.  It pushes already weakened immune systems (and healthy systems, too) over the edge. Consider also how mega-corporations benefit. After making deals with local dictators to set up shop, hire workers for pennies a day, steal land and resources—keeping populations weak, sick, debilitated, and therefore less able to rebel against the outright theft of their countries—these corporations also have a built-in cover story: “It’s shame what’s happening to the people here, all this disease.  Therefore, we wholly support bringing in medical aid, to stem the tide…” As if doctors and drugs and vaccines could cure the destruction wrought by abject poverty and starvation. The degree of brainwashing propaganda about the miracle of medicine is extraordinary. People watch/read news stories about doctors and medical supplies going to impoverished countries, and casually assume there is some connection between that and bringing health to millions of people. Nothing could be further from the truth. “Yes, I see you’ve been hungry for 20 years.  Here is a drug.  And roll up your tattered sleeve for 10 vaccines.” Any doctor worth his salt understands these things.  He knows.  He knows he is being used as a prop in a fantasy stage production of The Cure: A Great Deception. The man in the white coat comes to dinner, but there is no dinner. “Hello.  I represent a few mega-corporations who, in conjunction with your leaders, have stolen your country from you, taken the best farm land, the richest minerals, and put you to work at starvation wages.  Therefore, you’re sick.  So now I’m going to help you with a shot in the arm that will do nothing to raise your level of health.  But I’ll pretend it will.” Many years ago, in my college bulletin, a young doctor wrote a piece about his experiences in Africa.  He grasped a fraction of the truth.  He mentioned that severe dehydration/diarrhea was a leading cause of death there, but the medical people refused to give out simple packs that would at least, for the moment, rehydrate the sufferers.  Instead, they insisted on administering antibiotics—which of course made the problem worse by killing off beneficial gut bacteria. Thirty years later, while I was writing my first book, AIDS INC., I got a call from a doctor who had set up a small AIDS clinic in Uganda.  He simply gave his patients clean rooms and nutritious food, and helped them start a little farm, where they grew beans and sold them.  That’s all. He said to me, “All their AIDS symptoms went away.  What do I do now?” The first thing he could do was realize that HIV was a stupendous cover story to explain “why so many people in Africa were sick.” He was something close to a healer, and he had done his job well.  But because of his indoctrination, he didn’t know it. When experts rattle on about how vaccination has wiped out many diseases in the Third World, what they really mean is: vaccines have suppressed the visible symptoms that lead to the diagnosis of these diseases.  But new symptoms will arise, and they will be called other disease-names.  It’s a shell game. I challenge anyone to show me large, correctly done studies that track people in the Third World who have received the usual batches of vaccines.  Show me that the overall health level of these people has improved over time. In other words, show me that people who are chronically affected by hunger, starvation, contaminated water, and unsanitary overcrowded living conditions are somehow enjoying improved health because they were given shots in the arm. “Well, when you put it that way…” I do put it that way.  Because that’s the way it is. All the laudatory verbiage about the unparalleled success of vaccines in the Third World is just more illusion, more cover story, more diversion. The invasion is ongoing. The invaders are the same people and the same groups who are going to try to inject every human on Earth with a COVID-19 vaccine. So you trust them, right?  And you won’t resist them, right? RIGHT? Use this link to order Jon’s Matrix Collections. Jon RappoportThe author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.