Subject: Justice Clarence Thomas doesn’t deserve this From: Andrew, State GOP HQ To: rhg1923@gmail.com
Friend, have you heard the news?! It is beyond awful.
The radical Left’s newest attack is to impeach Justice Clarence Thomas, and to make matters worse – they started a petition which already has over 1 MILLION signatures!!
Justice Thomas has consistently served as a voice of reason on the court and has been a PIVOTAL part of our Supreme Court – without him, who knows where our country would be right now!
Please join State GOP HQ and rally around him by signing our card to show our support, Friend:SUPPORT JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS Friend, it is critical that we have all hands on deck to stand against the Democrats’ vicious attacks and to show that we show support for Justice Thomas and ALL Conservative justices.
The radical Left wants to destroy our country’s ideals and rewrite history to align with their agenda, and we cannot let that happen. We must come together and fight for our conservative leaders.SUPPORT JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on SAVE JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS
The results from Georgia’s Senate runoff election show that Senator Raphael Warnock has won reelection, beating GOP challenger Herschel Walker. While Democrats had already secured control of the Senate, Warnock’s reelection marks a crucial win for climate champions, as it marks an outright senate majority with 51 Democratic senators rather than a 50-50 split with Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris casting tie-breaking votes.
350 Action, the electoral wing of 350.org, worked in the lead up to the Georgia run-offs to engage our base to get out the vote efforts on behalf of key climate champions across the US, including Raphael Warnock.
May Boeve, 350 Action executive director made the following statement:
“Raphael Warnock’s win is yet another testament to people power, and to the grassroots community-led efforts that got out the vote in every way possible. Georgia voters showed up in record numbers for this runoff election and ultimately chose to vote for reason and progress. Warnock has a clear track record of supporting renewable energy and climate policy, while Walker is a climate change-denier who wants us to remain dependent on fossil fuels.”
“The crucial senate majority secured by Warnock’s win will help key legislators implement real solutions and ensure that climate legislation like the Inflation Reduction Act protects our communities from further devastating climate impacts. Warnock’s win also better protects climate champions’ ability to block new fossil fuel projects like Senator Manchin’s ‘Dirty Deal,’ which he continues to push.”
“With this final senate race now decided, the midterm results send a clear and decisive message: we can and must move forward the important work of advocating for more bold climate action. While a divided Congress poses some legislative challenges, voters have proven that climate is a priority for them, and we have a clear opportunity to organize for our people and the climate.”
###
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on READ THIS, WEEP, AND RESOLVE TO DO BETTER
MORE BAD NEWS FOR THE UNITED STATES!!! UNDER PRESIDENT JOSEPH BIDEN IT IS ONE DISASTER FOR AMERICA AFTER ANOTHER!!! WE HAVE NOT RECOVERED FROM THE DISASTER OF AFGHANISTAN AN NOW WE ARE ABOUT TO WITNESS THE DISASTROUS FINAL DESTRUCION OF UKRAINE BY VLADAMIR PUTIN.
HOW MANY MORE DISASTERS FOR THE UNITED STATES CAN JOSEPH BIDEN INFLICT ON OUR NATION
Former Advisor to the Secretary of Defense says the Ukraine War will end soon with an Afghanistan-like humiliation for Biden and the United States
Macgregor appears to cite intel sources for his numbers and timetable—and I assume he really does have good sources. He says the offensive will happen “not sooner than 12/10 and not later than 12/19.” It will involve something like 540,000 troops with 1,500 tanks, thousands of other armored vehicles, huge numbers of helicopters, fixed wing aircraft, and bombers. These are numbers he says that have been confirmed by US intel.
– Mark Wauck [https://meaninginhistory.substack.com/p/doug-macgregors-timetable-and-scale?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=473679&post_id=89073832&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email]
Modern Diplomacy reports that “Douglas Macgregor, Col. (ret.), who was the former advisor to the Secretary of Defense in the Trump administration” says that “the next phase of the Ukrainian War will not only destroy the Ukrainian state. It will also demolish the last vestiges of the postwar liberal order”:
The Biden administration repeatedly commits the unpardonable sin in a democratic society of refusing to tell the American people the truth: contrary to the Western media’s popular “Ukrainian victory” narrative, which blocks any information that contradicts it, Ukraine is not winning and will not win this war, notes in his new article Douglas Macgregor, Col. (ret.), who was the former advisor to the Secretary of Defense in the Trump administration.
Months of heavy Ukrainian casualties, resulting from an endless series of pointless attacks against Russian defenses in Southern Ukraine, have dangerously weakened Ukrainian forces.
Predictably, NATO’s European members, which bear the brunt of the war’s impact on their societies and economies, are growing more disenchanted with Washington’s Ukrainian proxy war…
…Biden’s “take no prisoners” conduct of U.S. foreign policy means the outcome of the next phase of the Ukrainian War will not only destroy the Ukrainian state. It will also demolish the last vestiges of the postwar liberal order and produce a dramatic shift in power and influence across Europe, especially in Berlin, away from Washington to Moscow and, to a limited extent, to Beijing, writes Douglas Macgregor.[https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2022/12/05/douglas-macgregor-russia-will-establish-victory-on-its-own-terms/]
Pray an Our Father now in reparation for the sins 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.
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‘”:
Pray an Our Father now for the grace to know God’s Will and to do it.
Pray an Our Father now for America.
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 MarySHARE
Former Advisor to the Secretary of Defense says the Ukraine War will end soon with an Afghanistan-like humiliation for Biden
Macgregor appears to cite intel sources for his numbers and timetable—and I assume he really does have good sources. He says the offensive will happen “not sooner than 12/10 and not later than 12/19.” It will involve something like 540,000 troops with 1,500 tanks, thousands of other armored vehicles, huge numbers of helicopters, fixed wing aircraft, and bombers. These are numbers he says that have been confirmed by US intel.
– Mark Wauck [https://meaninginhistory.substack.com/p/doug-macgregors-timetable-and-scale?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=473679&post_id=89073832&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email]
Modern Diplomacy reports that “Douglas Macgregor, Col. (ret.), who was the former advisor to the Secretary of Defense in the Trump administration” says that “the next phase of the Ukrainian War will not only destroy the Ukrainian state. It will also demolish the last vestiges of the postwar liberal order”:
The Biden administration repeatedly commits the unpardonable sin in a democratic society of refusing to tell the American people the truth: contrary to the Western media’s popular “Ukrainian victory” narrative, which blocks any information that contradicts it, Ukraine is not winning and will not win this war, notes in his new article Douglas Macgregor, Col. (ret.), who was the former advisor to the Secretary of Defense in the Trump administration.
Months of heavy Ukrainian casualties, resulting from an endless series of pointless attacks against Russian defenses in Southern Ukraine, have dangerously weakened Ukrainian forces.
Predictably, NATO’s European members, which bear the brunt of the war’s impact on their societies and economies, are growing more disenchanted with Washington’s Ukrainian proxy war…
…Biden’s “take no prisoners” conduct of U.S. foreign policy means the outcome of the next phase of the Ukrainian War will not only destroy the Ukrainian state. It will also demolish the last vestiges of the postwar liberal order and produce a dramatic shift in power and influence across Europe, especially in Berlin, away from Washington to Moscow and, to a limited extent, to Beijing, writes Douglas Macgregor.[https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2022/12/05/douglas-macgregor-russia-will-establish-victory-on-its-own-terms/]
Pray an Our Father now in reparation for the sins 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.
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‘”:
Pray an Our Father now for the grace to know God’s Will and to do it.
Pray an Our Father now for America.
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 MarySHARE
Home»Sin: More Deadly Than the Coronavirus, part nineteen
Sin: More Deadly Than the Coronavirus, part nineteen
The previous eighteen parts of this series have dealt with many aspects of Wuhan/China//CCP/Red Chinese/Covid-19/SARS Cov-2/Coronavirus. My intention this time is summarize some of the more recent developments by providing readers with access to various sources documenting facts about: (1) how the so-called “vaccines” how produced massive health problems, including thousands of sudden deaths in people of all ages, especially among the young, while not protecting anyone from the virus, which is being spread presently by the spike proteins being shed from the bodies of the vaccinated; (2) how the “vaccines” and the shedding they produce is changing the human genome and affecting the bodies of even the unvaccinaed; (3) Anthony Fauci’s embrace of the Red Chinese model of social repression by mans of lockdowns and efforts to label as “misinformation” all oposition to his schemes of dealing a man-made virus that had escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology as other elites our futures as slaves to be granted access to even basic life-saving treatments and entry to various stores on the basis of the parameters established in their vaccine passports that are portals to our own imprisonment at the hands of the master class; and (4) concluding remarks to remind readers that God Himself is permitting this all to happen for His own greater honor and glory and for our own sanctification and salvation.
I. Sudden Deaths Keep Multiplying
We live in a world where most people are incapable of using basic logic and common sense to draw conclusions from that which is obvious to the rational, logical, and sensible. The masses have been so manipulated by the high priests and priestesses of popular culture into believing that which is obvious is nothing other than “disinformation.” Assurances are given by those priests and priestesses that those who state the obvious as such are the short of people who need to be censored and ostracized and, if possible, stripped of all access to social media platforms. Those among the disseminators of “disinformation” who are physicians, including those who are degreed and published academicians, or scientists must be stripped of their professional credentials and denied the right to make a living in their chosen fields despite decades of unquestioned excellence in patient care and/or genuine scholarship.
Yet it is that the news stories speak for themselves as each proves what Dr. Peter McCullough, the noted cardiologist and epidemiologist who spoke out in 20202 against the failed cookie-cutter “protocols” designed for the treatment of those infected with the coronavirus that were developed by the likes of Drs. Anthony Fauci, Deborah Birx, and Francis Collins and mandated for use by the United States for Disease Control that would up causing untold thousands of patients to die, has stated repeatedly the sudden deaths of otherwise healthy people without any antecedent disease or condition: “It’s the vaccine until proven otherwise.”
Here are six news reports of these stories. The first was reported without any interest in determining any link between the vaccines, especially the mRNA gene therapy treatments whose spike proteins have made the vaccinated sick in all too many instances and have caused others to get the virus by means of vaccine shedding, and the sudden deaths that are happening more and more frequently. The second report, though, was written by those who understand the connection that is denied almost universally by other journalists while the third simply reported a family’s belief about their daughter’s sudden death being caused by the “vaccines.” The fourth is straight-forward reporting about an Irish teen’s death three weeks after getting jabbed, and fifth is a report about a man who says that he has difficulty showering after getting jabbed and thence developing two blood clots in his heart. The final report is about a link between the jabs and the onset of seizures in people who have never had them before:
“He was not only a client, he was a dear friend and just a super nice guy,” Doyal told the outlet. “As you can see from the outpouring on social media, he was loved by everybody.
“I think a lot of it was just that he was a people person, and he had an amazing sense of humor. He made everybody laugh, and he made everybody feel welcome. He was an ambassador for Oklahoma Red Dirt music.”
“We should be going through wedding photos but instead I have to pick out clothes to bury my husband in,” she wrote. “People aren’t meant to feel this much pain. My heart is gone and I just really need him to come back. I can’t take much more. I need him here.”
Musician Mike Hosty, who performed at the wedding, recalled Flint having “a big heart.”
“He was a singer-songwriter, through and through and just a big personality. A big heart, and [he’d] bend over backwards to do anything for you,” Hosty shared with The Oklahoman. “When any musician asks you to play at their wedding, it’s one of those most important days … and it’s always an honor.”
Flint’s former manager and friend, Brenda Cline, also paid tribute to the late singer, noting that she “loved him much like a son.”
“With a broken heart and in deep grief I must announce that Jake Flint has tragically passed away,” she wrote on Facebook alongside a photo of the two. “I’ve tried several times today to make a post, but you can’t comment on what you can’t process. The photo below is when Jake and I excitedly signed our artist management contract.
“That was the beginning of a wonderful friendship and partnership,” she shared. “Jake was even more than that to me, I loved him much like a son. The funniest, most hilarious, hardest working, dedicated artist I have ever worked with in my career. We were just about to embark on some business together after he and Brenda got married- which was yesterday. Yes-yesterday. Jake has a million friends and I’m not sure how everyone will cope with this tragic loss.
“We need prayers- it’s all so surreal. Please please pray for his new wife Brenda, Jake’s precious mother, his sister and the rest of his family and friends. This is going to be incredibly difficult for so many. We love you Jake and in our hearts forever.”
Reports surfaced on Tuesday that a recently hired Envoy Air pilot had collapsed and been pronounced dead shortly after taking off from Chicago O’Hare International Airport en route to Columbus, Ohio.
Captain Patrick Ford of the American Eagle Embraer 175 passed out at the controls at 7:59 p.m. on Saturday, November 19, shortly after the plane had taken off from the runway, Alex Berenson reported.
A recording of the incident shows that Captain Ford was talking to an air traffic controller when his voice suddenly stopped.
ENY3556: Tower, Envoy 3556…
A few seconds later, the controller asked anxiously, “Can I help you?”
“…3556, we need to return, captain is incapacitated,” Ford’s copilot, Captain Brandon Hendrickson, told air traffic control about 30 minutes after take-off from the airport.
Captain Hendrickson took control of the plane and managed to land safely.
Ford was taken to a hospital, where he was pronounced dead. His cause of death was not immediately released.
The vice president of flight operations at Envoy Air released a statement following the incident.
“Despite heroic efforts to revive him, Captain in training, Patrick Ford, passed away,” Ric Wilson, the Vice President of Flight Operations at Envoy Air, said in a message to fellow pilots. “We are deeply saddened by this loss.”
“Sincere thanks to Line Check Airman, Captain Brandon Hendrickson, for his leadership and professionalism in the safe handling of his aircraft, passengers, and crew,” Wilson continued.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has opened an investigation regarding the incident.
The number of pilots who have passed out or fainted while flying, or who have died as a result, has increased in recent months.
A Boeing flight commander died suddenly during a flight from Novokuznetsk to St Petersburg in Russia in September, according to a report from a Russian news outlet.
The co-pilot had to make an emergency landing at Omsk airport, but the commander died before he could receive medical assistance.
“The resuscitation ambulance team arrived at the airport ten minutes before the plane landed. The team stated the death of the pilot before providing medical assistance,” the Ministry of Health of the Omsk Region said.
Another pilot reportedly “fainted” at 30,000 feet, prompting the plane to make an emergency landing in Greece last August.
“One fuming passenger claimed the ordeal had delayed the start of their holiday by eight hours. They said their family of four was given a €15 euro voucher each which covered a “basic meal,” the outlet reported. According to passengers, Jet2 does not compensate for delays due to medical emergencies.
The flight was rerouted as a “precautionary measure,” according to a representative from Jet2.
Commercial aviation news site Aviation Herald reported that two pilots on a flight from Sudan to Ethiopia last August had apparently fallen asleep and missed their landing.
“The incident took place on board an Ethiopian Airlines Boeing 737-800 en route from Khartoum to Addis Ababa, the report said, “when the pilots fell asleep” and “the aircraft continued past the top of descent,” according to CNN.
A reader reached out to Gateway Pundit last June 2022, saying that an air traffic controller who worked in the management in Madrid, Spain, anonymously tipped his wife that there were 28 unscheduled emergency landings in May 2022 due to medical issues associated with people losing consciousness compared to only one or two in a normal year. However, the Gateway Pundit was unable to verify this information.
“Our source and her colleagues at work had discretely discussed the total numbers of un-scheduled, emergency landings due to medical issues that involved un-consciousness as having been ~25-30+ per month since the beginning of 2022 vs. a total normal figure of ~1-2 per YEAR across all Spanish airports during pre-vax roll-out years.” (Pilot Dies Suddenly After Collapsing Shortly After Takeoff from Chicago Airport.)
Doctors who treated an elderly Longford woman who died following an unexplained series of seizures last year told an inquest it was possible that her death was linked to an adverse reaction to a COVID-19 vaccine.
However, two hospital consultants who treated the patient, Bridget Kerr (86), also stressed it was not in their area of expertise to state definitively that a reaction to the Pfizer vaccine was an explanation for her death.
An inquest at Dublin District Coroner’s Court heard a postmortem on the body of Ms. Kerr, a mother of seven from Cooleeney, Dublin Road, Longford, was inconclusive in establishing the cause of her death. Evidence was heard that several other possible explanations including stroke, brain tumor and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) had been ruled out.
Ms. Kerr died at the Mater Misericordiae Hospital in Dublin on April 27, 2021, after being transferred there from the Midlands Regional Hospital in Mullingar after suffering a number of seizures. Her family claims their mother only became unwell after receiving the COVID vaccine from her local GP two months earlier. (Family of Woman Who Died From Seizures Believes Death Linked to COVID Vaccine.)
The death last year of a 14-year-old Irish teen three weeks after he received Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine has sparked an investigation that could take years, officials involved in an inquest into the teen’s death said this week.
As part of the “considerable investigation,” authorities said they will request safety information about the vaccine from Pfizer.
Joseph McGinty, a secondary school student from Achill Island, Ireland, received the Pfizer vaccine on Aug. 20, 2021. On Sept. 1, 2021, he was hospitalized overnight at Mayo University Hospital and discharged the following day.
On Sept. 8, 2021, McGinty revisited the hospital for review. He died at home on Sept. 13, 2021.
Patricia McGinty formally identified her son’s remains on the day of his death but “has very little recollection of the morning in question,” the family’s attorney, Rita Kilroy, told the court.
“The circumstances of Joseph McGinty’s death is that COVID vaccination was administered to him [and] that there appears to have been either a reaction or a significant change in his medical circumstances following the administration of the vaccine and that subsequently, unfortunately, Master McGinty died,” O’Connor said in Monday’s hearing.
Kilroy told the court this week, “We would perceive there to be a concern for public health and safety and potential for recurrence in two circumstances.”
An inquest is a formal investigation conducted by a coroner in order to determine how someone died. The purpose of an inquest is limited to establishing the identity of the deceased individual as well as where, when and how they died.
At the request of Kilroy, O’Connor agreed to make a request for legal aid and legal advice for the McGinty family under Section 60 of the Coroners Act, 1962.
The inquest into McGinty’s death will resume on Dec. 20.
In June 2021, The Defender reported on the death of 13-year-old Jacob Clynick just three days after he received the second dose of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention declined to investigate Clynick’s death, even though the death was reported to the agency’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
Between Dec. 14, 2020, and Nov. 11, 2022, there have been nine deaths reported to VAERS following COVID-19 vaccines among children ages 6 months to 5 years, 31 deaths reported among children 5 to 12 years old and 133 deaths among teens 12 to 18 years old.
This is all much more than merely “circumstantial” or anecdotal evidence as there comes a point when one has to admit that the “smoke” is caused by actual fires.
The public, though, has been conditioned not even to suspect that the gene therapy jabs have any connection with these deaths although there is much empirical evidence being amassed to prove it to those who have a modicum of intellectual curiosity and honesty to accept:
While we will be discussing the most unwelcome news of increased death rates, I am happy to report that a leading British Member of Parliament, Andrew Bridgen brought up, in the UK parliament no less, the relationship between vaccination and excess deaths.
(After this speech, Andrew was suspended from Parliament for 7 days for a supposedly “unrelated offense.”)
Where did Andrew Bridgen get his (correct) idea? I am not sure, but I posted an original analysis statistically tying “excess mortality” to vaccination rate by country on August 30, 2022.
Obviously not claiming that he somehow got it through me — I hope that many other people performed similar analyses, and one of them was noticed by Mr. Bridgen. The more people analyze this data, the better. I am happy.
New Data Looks Even Worse.
I decided to re-do the calculation of excess mortality vs. vaccine, or booster uptake, using two more months’ worth of mortality data.
I use the same exact methodology as in my “proven relationship” article. Please read it if you are interested in details or want to replicate the results. Instead of weeks 10 to 35, I now analyze “excess mortality” in weeks 20 to 44 (to be precise, the max week available up to week 44 in the short-term mortality database – the data has a lag). Everything else stayed the same.
A few notes on the data above:
The least vaccinated country Bulgaria has NEGATIVE excess mortality (lowest of all).
Chile really had more boosters given out than it has people due to multiple boosters per person, and is experiencing the HIGHEST excess mortality.
Sweden, sadly, moved into positive excess mortality territory, although I am glad to say that it is still low.
The questions I want to explore is: Is there an association between vaccine or booster uptake and excess mortality in Weeks 20-44? Did the association get weaker or stronger compared to weeks 10-35?
We can see that both vaccination rates (number of fully vaccinated people per 100), as well as booster doses administered per 100 persons, are VERY STRONGLY ASSOCIATED WITH EXCESS MORTALITY. Both have very low P-values, which suggests that this association is highly unlikely to have happened by random chance.
Here’s the worst part: During weeks 10-35, the vaccination rate explained only 27% of the variation in excess mortality, and the booster rate explained only 40% of excess mortality. (the so-called R-Squared). (see the previous article on this topic for regressions)
During weeks 20-44, both vaccination and booster rates explain NEARLY HALF or excess mortality variation (49% for both). That’s a lot greater explanatory power!
The death last year of a 14-year-old Irish teen three weeks after he received Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine has sparked an investigation that could take years, officials involved in an inquest into the teen’s death said this week.
As part of the “considerable investigation,” authorities said they will request safety information about the vaccine from Pfizer.
Joseph McGinty, a secondary school student from Achill Island, Ireland, received the Pfizer vaccine on Aug. 20, 2021. On Sept. 1, 2021, he was hospitalized overnight at Mayo University Hospital and discharged the following day.
On Sept. 8, 2021, McGinty revisited the hospital for review. He died at home on Sept. 13, 2021.
Patricia McGinty formally identified her son’s remains on the day of his death but “has very little recollection of the morning in question,” the family’s attorney, Rita Kilroy, told the court.
“The circumstances of Joseph McGinty’s death is that COVID vaccination was administered to him [and] that there appears to have been either a reaction or a significant change in his medical circumstances following the administration of the vaccine and that subsequently, unfortunately, Master McGinty died,” O’Connor said in Monday’s hearing.
Kilroy told the court this week, “We would perceive there to be a concern for public health and safety and potential for recurrence in two circumstances.”
An inquest is a formal investigation conducted by a coroner in order to determine how someone died. The purpose of an inquest is limited to establishing the identity of the deceased individual as well as where, when and how they died.
At the request of Kilroy, O’Connor agreed to make a request for legal aid and legal advice for the McGinty family under Section 60 of the Coroners Act, 1962.
The inquest into McGinty’s death will resume on Dec. 20.
In June 2021, The Defender reported on the death of 13-year-old Jacob Clynick just three days after he received the second dose of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention declined to investigate Clynick’s death, even though the death was reported to the agency’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
Between Dec. 14, 2020, and Nov. 11, 2022, there have been nine deaths reported to VAERS following COVID-19 vaccines among children ages 6 months to 5 years, 31 deaths reported among children 5 to 12 years old and 133 deaths among teens 12 to 18 years old.
In April 2021, Jake Holliday, a single father of two from Indiana, was set to begin a new job as a home caretaker, having left his previous position of 10 years as a veterinary assistant.
That same month Holliday also received his first — and only — dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine.
In an exclusive interview with The Defender, Holliday, now 37, recounted the serious adverse reactions that followed his vaccination and the difficulties he has since faced. He provided The Defender with documentation corroborating his account.
‘There were two blood clots inside my heart’
Holliday’s first symptoms appeared seven days after vaccination. He told The Defender:
“I started to feel slight chest pains, fatigue, shortness of breath and a rise of [my] heart rate that progressively got worse each day until the tenth day, when I had the worst chest pain of my life and had to call 911.”
What began as “slight chest pains” was actually far more serious.
“I learned I was having a ‘widowmaker’ type of heart attack due to two large blood clots inside my heart that required a heart catheter and two stents.
The damage Holliday sustained to his health continues to adversely affect his life today. He explained:
“Because of the damage done to my heart I’m now in congestive heart failure with an ejection fraction of 10-25%, and I ended up having to get a subcutaneous ICD [implantable cardioverter-defibrillator] implant in the beginning of June 2022.
“I’m no longer able to work and have a hard time with anything that requires energy or exertion. Even something as minor as taking a shower can be difficult, which is why I have a shower chair now.”
Holliday continues to feel “real weak and fatigued” despite the many prescription drugs he’s taking.
Like other vaccine injury victims interviewed by The Defender, Holliday said some of his doctors have been “reluctant” to connect his symptoms to the COVID-19 vaccine.
“My electrophysiologist is reluctant to admit the vaccine has anything to do with it … But my cardiologist does think it has something to do with it, and we are in the process of [filing] a VAERS [Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System] report.”
Support from family, friends and the online community — but challenges, too
Holliday told The Defender he is fortunate to be supported by family and friends, but he has faced obstacles in some relationships.
“My family and friends have been real supportive, but it has caused major issues within my romantic life, due to erectile dysfunction from the heart damage and medications.”
Holliday has taken to Twitter to share his story and provide additional visibility to the stories shared by others like him. On Oct. 26, Holliday tweeted:
He explained that he is raising awareness because legal action against the vaccine manufacturers is “not an option”:
“I can’t work now and I’m having problems being approved for disability because approving me would mean they have to admit a reason for my disability.
“Filing a lawsuit for compensation is also not an option due to the immunity these vaccine companies have.”
Platforms such as Twitter are a means for him to get some measure of justice, Holliday said.
“I would like to tell my story as much as possible and participate in as many studies as I can because this isn’t right,” he said. “I want to do anything and everything I can to get my story out there in order to bring awareness to this issue.” (‘Even Taking a Shower Can Be Difficult’ Says Man Injured by Pfizer Vaccine.)
A 56-year-old roofing contractor and friend of the family had his first-ever seizure while working on the rooftop of a hotel building.
His coworker used all his might in a harrowing rescue maneuver to keep the helpless seizing man from falling further over the edge to his death many stories below.
As a result of this neurological event, the contractor had a prolonged severe concussion, broken ribs and underwent countless x-rays and scans during a hospitalization and follow-up clinic visits.
He went on temporary disability and his small business was shut down. Months later he had difficulty controlling high blood pressure and felt weak and dizzy.
After an exhaustive diagnostic evaluation, there was no explanation for the seizure.
He reached out to ask, “could this have been caused by my COVID-19 vaccine?”
Earlier this year, in a case study published in the National Library of Medicine, researchers from Taiwan reported a 22-year-old man who had his first seizure six days after the second Moderna shot.
Comprehensive testing including repeated spinal taps demonstrated indirect evidence of the spike protein produced by the mRNA vaccine within the brain.
They found IgG directed against the receptor binding domain of the spike protein in cerebral spinal fluid and over time, the concentrations of this antibody were discordant with serum levels, suggesting the spike protein was indeed within the brain where it would be expected to cause inflammation and trigger a seizure.
Dr. Shitiz Sriwastava and colleagues, from the Department of Neurology, Rockefeller Neuroscience Institute, West Virginia University, in a review article, felt seizures were well within the realm of neurologic side effects from the COVID-19 vaccines.
Christian Kaculini et al, from the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, wrote in a 2021 historical review:
“Epilepsy is an ancient disease, which has fascinated and frightened scientists and laymen alike. Before the working knowledge of the central nervous system, seizures were shrouded in mystery. In antiquity, this disease was accredited to gods and demonic possession, causing those with epilepsy to be feared and isolated.
“Epilepsy patients continued to face discrimination through the mid-20th century. This discrimination ranged from lack of access to health insurance, jobs and marriage equality to forced sterilizations. Despite the strides that have been made, there are still many misconceptions globally regarding epilepsy.
“Studies show that patients with epilepsy in communities that understand the pathology and cause of seizures are generally more successful in social and educational environments.”
So, if someone in your circles has been diagnosed with epilepsy or new-onset seizures in the past few years with no obvious source (head trauma, neurosurgery, radiation, meningitis, etc.) ask if they took one of the COVID-19 vaccines.
Vaccination can be quickly ruled out if the answer is “no.”
However, if COVID-19 vaccination is in the medical record, consider this possible etiology for seizures and take appropriate action.
Emergency room physicians and neurologists should be alerted to COVID-19 vaccine-induced seizures at initial presentation.
While the prognosis is unknown given the novelty of these genetic products, provided no more injections are taken, I would expect that seizures would be progressively less frequent, better controlled and potentially resolve with enough time.
Let this be a lesson learned, genetic material loaded on lipid nanoparticles is a terrible concept for a vaccine since it will go everywhere in the body including the brain where there can be inflammatory injury, disability and sadly in some victims — death. (COVID Vaccines and First-Time Seizures: Is There a Link?.)
The public is becoming increasingly disturbed with reports of death among the vaccinated. It is natural to ask “was the death caused by vaccination?” The most definitive way of answering that question is with autopsy. Schwab et al reported on deaths after vaccination with detailed autopsies in Heidelberg, Germany.[i] Of 35 fatalities within 20 days of injection, 10 were ruled out as clearly not due to the vaccine (eg drug overdose). The remaining 25 (71%) had final diagnoses consistent with a vaccine injury syndrome including myocardial infarction, worsening heart failure, vascular aneurysm, pulmonary embolism, fatal stroke, and vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia. Interestingly, 5 cases had acute myocarditis as the cause of death with the histopathology in the heart muscle showing patchy inflammation very similar to what was seen in the deltoid muscle were the mRNA vaccine was injected.
o the report has told us: 1) 71% of deaths that occur within 20 days of taking vaccine appear to be due to conditions well known to occur with COVID-19 vaccination, 2) inflammation in the heart was coincident with the same pattern of inflammation in the arm. Thus we can conclude death within a few days of vaccination is most likely due to the genetic product and that inflammation in the arm may be a surrogate for a similar process in the heart. The very high yield of post-vaccination autopsy should spur families and physicians to push for post-mortem exams so we can learn more on how this medical procedure is leading to such a large loss of human life. (Dr. Peter A. McCullough, “Courageous Discourse” email newsletter, December 4, 2022.)
This is all much more than merely “circumstantial” or anecdotal evidence as there comes a point when one has to admit that the “smoke” is caused by actual fires.
The public, though, has been conditioned not even to suspect that the gene therapy jabs have any connection with these deaths although there is much empirical evidence being amassed to prove it to those who have a modicum of intellectual curiosity and honesty to accept:
While we will be discussing the most unwelcome news of increased death rates, I am happy to report that a leading British Member of Parliament, Andrew Bridgen brought up, in the UK parliament no less, the relationship between vaccination and excess deaths.
(After this speech, Andrew was suspended from Parliament for 7 days for a supposedly “unrelated offense.”)
Where did Andrew Bridgen get his (correct) idea? I am not sure, but I posted an original analysis statistically tying “excess mortality” to vaccination rate by country on August 30, 2022.
Obviously not claiming that he somehow got it through me — I hope that many other people performed similar analyses, and one of them was noticed by Mr. Bridgen. The more people analyze this data, the better. I am happy.
New Data Looks Even Worse.
I decided to re-do the calculation of excess mortality vs. vaccine, or booster uptake, using two more months’ worth of mortality data.
I use the same exact methodology as in my “proven relationship” article. Please read it if you are interested in details or want to replicate the results. Instead of weeks 10 to 35, I now analyze “excess mortality” in weeks 20 to 44 (to be precise, the max week available up to week 44 in the short-term mortality database – the data has a lag). Everything else stayed the same.
A few notes on the data above:
The least vaccinated country Bulgaria has NEGATIVE excess mortality (lowest of all).
Chile really had more boosters given out than it has people due to multiple boosters per person, and is experiencing the HIGHEST excess mortality.
Sweden, sadly, moved into positive excess mortality territory, although I am glad to say that it is still low.
The questions I want to explore is: Is there an association between vaccine or booster uptake and excess mortality in Weeks 20-44? Did the association get weaker or stronger compared to weeks 10-35?
We can see that both vaccination rates (number of fully vaccinated people per 100), as well as booster doses administered per 100 persons, are VERY STRONGLY ASSOCIATED WITH EXCESS MORTALITY. Both have very low P-values, which suggests that this association is highly unlikely to have happened by random chance.
Here’s the worst part: During weeks 10-35, the vaccination rate explained only 27% of the variation in excess mortality, and the booster rate explained only 40% of excess mortality. (the so-called R-Squared). (see the previous article on this topic for regressions)
During weeks 20-44, both vaccination and booster rates explain NEARLY HALF or excess mortality variation (49% for both). That’s a lot greater explanatory power!
All this having been noted, there was a National Broadcasting Company (NBC) news report that did at least discuss the connection between Big Pharma’s “vaccines” to “prevent” a disease that is not a life-endangering threat in most cases to those without underlying conditions and if treated properly by the use of protocols relying upon massive doses of Vitamins C, D, and Zinc in addition to certain pharmaceutical products and myocarditis. This applies to the Pfizer BioNTech vaccines as well as the mRNA jabs equally:
(LifeSiteNews) — In a sign of a potential shift in the mainstream media’s coverage of the issue, NBC News has published a report acknowledging a possible link between COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis.
NBC’s November 12 report opens with an anecdote about Detroit resident Da’Vion Miller, who at age 22 passed out at his home and was later hospitalized and diagnosed with myocarditis and pericarditis one week after receiving his first dose of Pfizer’s mRNA-based COVID shot and was subsequently advised by doctors not to receive his second.
“Myocarditis is a condition that has long been linked to a number of viral infections, including influenza, coxsackieviruses, as well as Covid,” the report says. “It has also been observed as an infrequent but worrisome side effect of the mRNA Covid vaccines.”
It then goes on to say “there have been around 1,000 reports of vaccine-related myocarditis or pericarditis in children under age 18, primarily young males, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.” The U.S. government’s federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) gives a much higher number for overall myocarditis and pericarditis cases, 53,836 as of November 4. An April study out of Israel indicates that COVID infection alone cannot account for such cases, despite claims to the contrary.
Reports submitted to VAERS about possible cases are not yet confirmed, as anyone can submit a report, but CDC researchers have acknowledged “high verification rate of reports of myocarditis to VAERS after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination,” leading to the conclusion that “under-reporting is more likely” than over-reporting.
The report also reveals that Moderna and Pfizer, the creators of the two mRNA-based jabs, are conducting “the first research in the U.S.” into potential heart problems associated with their products. Two Moderna trials are currently underway; a Pfizer trial is set to begin in coming months.
Early findings required by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration could be published starting early next year, but in the meantime the FDA continues to claim “there is no evidence of increased risk of deaths following mRNA vaccines compared to individuals who did not get vaccinated,” and that “evidence from well-conducted, peer-reviewed, published studies suggests that the risk of death is higher for unvaccinated individuals for nearly every age group.”
Still, the report represents a significant departure from the mainstream media’s treatment of the issue over the past two years, during which any affirmation of the shots’ harms was treated as dangerous medical misinformation.
Despite such discouragement of discussing the subject, many harbor moral and practical reservations about the COVID-19 vaccines, given the use of aborted fetal cells in their development, the superiority of natural immunity, COVID’s low risk to most otherwise-healthy individuals, the vaccines’ failure to prevent infection, their accelerateddevelopment under former President Donald Trump’s Operation Warp Speed initiative giving them only a fraction of the evaluation and development time vaccines normally take, the lack of transparency from their manufacturers, and mounting evidence of serious adverse effects.
VAERS is not the only data source indicating cause for concern. Data from the Pentagon’s Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED) has been similarly alarming, showing that 2021 saw drastic spikes in a variety of diagnoses for serious medical issues over the previous five-year average, including hypertension (2,181%), neurological disorders (1,048%), multiple sclerosis (680%), Guillain-Barre syndrome (551%), breast cancer, (487%), female infertility (472%), pulmonary embolism (468%), migraines (452%), ovarian dysfunction (437%), testicular cancer (369%), and tachycardia (302%)
In September, the Japanese Society for Vaccinology published a peer-reviewed study conducted by researchers from Stanford, UCLA, and the University of Maryland, which found that the “Pfizer trial exhibited a 36% higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group” while the “Moderna trial exhibited a 6% higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group,” for a combined “16% higher risk of serious adverse events in mRNA vaccine recipients.” (NBC acknowledges myocarditis link to COVID-19 vaccines after sudden deaths of young adults.)
Dr. Peter McCullough and author John Leake published an article on November 20, 2022, about the myocarditis link with the infamous jabs, focusing on how a professional football coach, a man named Bruce Arians, had boasted of his team being one hundred percent vaccinated before he developed myocarditis after having gotten the jab without admitting any connection between the two:
It is ironic that some of the most vigorous promoters and strongest voices for COVID-19 vaccination in public view have also felt the bite of viscous side effects such as heart inflammation. Former NFL coach Bruce Arians has been known for his slogan “No risk-it, no biscuit,” which encourages aggressive play calling. When he was asserting in the press that all of the Tampa Bay Bucs and staff were fully vaccinated in 2021, little did he know he was going to risk is cardiac biscuit with probable COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis a year later.
Arians, age 70, is a prostate cancer survivor and was hospitalized twice for chest pain in 2017 while coaching the Arizona Cardinals. So he knew he was taking risks with COVID-19 vaccination tagged with FDA warnings for heart damage that can lead to heart failure and sudden death. What he may not have known is that myocarditis can strike in his age group as shown by Rose and McCullough and when it occurs in his age group, it may compound a common problem of atherosclerotic coronary heart disease.
Fortunately, Arians is out of the hospital now and recovering but yet faces an uncertain prognosis which can only worsen with more shots. Coach Arians should rethink how he conceptualizes risks for his players and staff. Arians’ coaching philosophy has been summed up with one phrase: “No risk it, no biscuit. You can’t live scared.” His former quarterback in Arizona, Carson Palmer, says, “You play for him, you see he just has guts. He will let it rip, let it fly no matter what.”[i] Time for players, coaches, staff and owners to take the responsible track and inform the public of their mounting cases of COVID-19 vaccine induced myocarditis, express regret, and warn others of this serious and completely avoidable problem. No need to take risks here coach, keep them for the field. (From Dr. Peter McCullough and John Leake’s “Courageous Discourse” email newsletter, November 20, 2022.)
A cardiologist in the United Kingdom has come to the same conclusions independently of the work being done in the United States of America by Dr. McCullough:Until the British cardiologist, Dr. Aseem Malhotra, expressed grave concern about the safety of Covid mRNA vaccines, he was one of the most celebrated doctors in Britain. In 2016 he was named in the Sunday Times Debrett’s list as one of the most influential people in science and medicine in the UK in a list that included Professor Stephen Hawking. His total Altmetric score (measure of impact and reach) of his medical journal publications since 2013 is over 10,000 making it one of the highest in the World for a clinical doctor during this period.Courageous Discourse™ with Dr. Peter McCullough & John Leake is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.In the early days of the COVID-19 vaccine rollout in Britain, he advocated the injections for the general public. However, in July of 2021, he experienced a terrible personal loss that caused him to reevaluate the shots—namely, the sudden and unexpected death of his 73-year-old father. His father’s death made no sense to him because he knew from his own examination that his father’s general and cardiac health were excellent. As he put it in a recent interview:His postmortem findings really shocked me. There were two severe blockages in his coronary arteries, which didn’t really make any sense with everything I know, both as a cardiologist—someone who has expertise in this particular area—but also intimately knowing my dad’s lifestyle and his health. Not long after that, data started to emerge that suggested a possible link between the mRNA vaccine and increased risk of heart attacks from a mechanism of increasing inflammation around the coronary arteries. But on top of that, I was contacted by a whistleblower at a very prestigious university in the UK, a cardiologist himself, who explained to me that there was a similar research finding in his department, and that those researchers had decided to essentially cover that up because they were worried about losing funding from the pharmaceutical industry. But it doesn’t stop there. I then started looking at data in the UK to see if there had been any increase in cardiac arrest. My dad suffered a cardiac arrest and sudden cardiac death at home. Had there been any change in the UK since the vaccine rollout? And again those findings were very clear. There’s been an extra 14,000 out of hospital cardiac arrests in 2021 vs 2020.The more Dr. Malhotra looked into it, the more he felt the same concern about the safety of the mRNA vaccines that Dr. Peter McCullough had felt since the spring of 2021. The alarming incidence of sudden, unexpected deaths during the latter half of 2021 and the first eight months of 2022—especially among the young and fit—strengthened his grave concern and suspicion.In September of 2022,—after a thorough investigation of the growing volume of data—he came to his conclusion:The Covid mRNA vaccine has likely played a significant role or been a primary cause of unexpected cardiac arrests, heart attacks, strokes, cardiac arrhythmias, and heart failure since 2021 until proven otherwise.
Until the British cardiologist, Dr. Aseem Malhotra, expressed grave concern about the safety of Covid mRNA vaccines, he was one of the most celebrated doctors in Britain. In 2016 he was named in the Sunday Times Debrett’s list as one of the most influential people in science and medicine in the UK in a list that included Professor Stephen Hawking. His total Altmetric score (measure of impact and reach) of his medical journal publications since 2013 is over 10,000 making it one of the highest in the World for a clinical doctor during this period.In the early days of the COVID-19 vaccine rollout in Britain, he advocated the injections for the general public. However, in July of 2021, he experienced a terrible personal loss that caused him to reevaluate the shots—namely, the sudden and unexpected death of his 73-year-old father. His father’s death made no sense to him because he knew from his own examination that his father’s general and cardiac health were excellent. As he put it in a recent interview:His postmortem findings really shocked me. There were two severe blockages in his coronary arteries, which didn’t really make any sense with everything I know, both as a cardiologist—someone who has expertise in this particular area—but also intimately knowing my dad’s lifestyle and his health. Not long after that, data started to emerge that suggested a possible link between the mRNA vaccine and increased risk of heart attacks from a mechanism of increasing inflammation around the coronary arteries. But on top of that, I was contacted by a whistleblower at a very prestigious university in the UK, a cardiologist himself, who explained to me that there was a similar research finding in his department, and that those researchers had decided to essentially cover that up because they were worried about losing funding from the pharmaceutical industry. But it doesn’t stop there. I then started looking at data in the UK to see if there had been any increase in cardiac arrest. My dad suffered a cardiac arrest and sudden cardiac death at home. Had there been any change in the UK since the vaccine rollout? And again those findings were very clear. There’s been an extra 14,000 out of hospital cardiac arrests in 2021 vs 2020.The more Dr. Malhotra looked into it, the more he felt the same concern about the safety of the mRNA vaccines that Dr. Peter McCullough had felt since the spring of 2021. The alarming incidence of sudden, unexpected deaths during the latter half of 2021 and the first eight months of 2022—especially among the young and fit—strengthened his grave concern and suspicion.In September of 2022,—after a thorough investigation of the growing volume of data—he came to his conclusion:The Covid mRNA vaccine has likely played a significant role or been a primary cause of unexpected cardiac arrests, heart attacks, strokes, cardiac arrhythmias, and heart failure since 2021 until proven otherwise.His conclusion, including his precise verbal formulation of it, was identical to the conclusion drawn by Dr. Peter McCullough. Though the two doctors ultimately established contact to compare notes, they reached their conclusions based on their own, independent inquiries, before they spoke with each other.Recently the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation produced Until Proven Otherwise— a short video documentary about the corroborating findings of these two leading cardiologists. I believe it is no exaggeration to say that the gripping, four-minute video is a MUST SEE for everyone. Please share it with your family and friends. (John Leake, “Courageous Discourse” email newsletter, November 16, 2022.)
Dr. Malhotra was honest enough to admit he made a mistake in promoting the vaccines and then was courageous enough to publicize his findings about what happened with his own father. Such honesty is very rare in the medical or scientific communities today.
Dr. McCullough has noted the spike protein’s capacity to taint pure blood and thus to become the cause of vaccine shedding that has been the reason that some of the unvaccinated, including this author, to become sickened by the virus:
One of the most common questions I am asked from the unvaccinated stems from concerns over “shedding.” Because the mRNA vaccines have been in development by the US Department of Defense DARPA since 2011, one would have expected that all of the necessary preclinical testing would have been completed before Operation Warp Speed was announced. The 2015 FDA guidance on Gene Product Shedding Studies with gene therapies, which are defined as “all products that exert their effects by transcription and/or translation of transferred genetic material and/or by integration into the host genome and that are administered in the form of nucleic acids, viruses or genetically modified microorganisms”.[i] By this statement mRNA vaccines are indeed gene therapy products and should have been submitted to these excretion studies by DARPA funded researchers long ago.[ii] Sadly, these careful development steps were skipped from the beginning in our military-style vaccine development program, and now the public is grappling with the issue of nucleic acid and Spike protein as a potential concern among those who have worked so hard to remain healthy and free of COVID-19 vaccination. In the most comprehensive paper on shedding thus far, former Inserm researcher Dr. Helene Banoun has published the basis for which there is great likelihood that mRNA either on lipid nanoparticles or within exosomes is circulatory in blood and is secreted in every body secretion that would naturally expect to contain particles of this size.[iii] (Dr. Peter McCullough, “Courageous Discourse” email newsletter, November 22, 2022.)
Additionally, Dr. McCullough has discussed how a sportscaster who wanted the “freedom” of movement that comes with the poisoned jabs is now suffering from blood clots that are limiting such freedom:
rkstreit has been loaded with the Spike protein at least three times and may still be taking on more thrombogenic protein every six months if boosting. I would not be surprised if in addition, he has an inherited genetic trait that predisposes to blood clots. I am concerned that in my practice large blood clots like the one he has are not going away quickly with conventional blood thinners. Additionally, undertakers are reporting tubular rubbery blood clots in the form of a casts of the major blood vessels obstructing the flow of injected embalming fluid. Thus, the quality and the size of the clot are worrisome. Reports indicate the Spike protein is within the clots and is amyloidogenic, meaning the Spike protein folds and encourages complexes of clotting material to organize into a solid form that is resistant to the natural thrombolytic system of the body.[iv] We hope for Kirkstreit that his clot is not permanent. His doctors should recognize the connection and fully exempt him from more ill-advised vaccinations. (Dr. Peter McCullough, “Courageous Discourse” email newsletter, November 1, 2022.)
Other researchers have reached the same conclusions:
There are over 1000 peer-reviewed papers in the preprint server system and or in the National Library of Medicine (PUBMED) describing side effects after mRNA or adenoviral DNA COVID-19 vaccination. One of the most dreaded complications is vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT). Because the Spike protein produced in response to the vaccine genetic code causes hemagglutination and micro blood clotting, there is excessive antigenic presentation of platelets to the spleen and reticuloendothelial system. As a result, the body produces auto-antibodies directed against a platelet receptor (PF4) which has homology with an endothelial protein. This causes autoantibody “pinning” of platelets to the lining of blood vessel cells resulting in consumption of platelets, blood clotting and bleeding at the same time. Unfortunate victims are fine for a few weeks after vaccination. Then bleeding from the oral and nasal mucosa associated with bruising under the skin occurs commonly with serious blood clotting within the brain and elsewhere in the body. Most patients are hospitalized in critical condition as doctors try a variety of medical and interventional maneuvers to combat simultaneous clotting and bleeding. As you can imagine, in some individuals the process is overwhelming and no matter how much critical care support is given, the patient dies.[i] The obituary of Mrs. Jessica Berg, age 37, a previously healthy vibrant mother is given in the figure.[ii] It indicates she died as a result of VITT.
To her left is a paper by Tsilingiris et al, titled “Vaccine induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia: The shady side of a success story.[iii]” The authors never state what “success” meant in the title but it is clear that schools, employers, and the military are “shady” when they don’t fairly warn people what can happen when forcing mass vaccination. Television commercials, internet promotions, and consent forms do not describe VITT. Ms. Berg and her family had no way of getting an informed consent. To her right is a treatment pathway described that doctors commonly take to treat patients in the hospital. As in her case, many patients (~39%) succumb to this premature and bloody death which leaves more questions than answers. How could this have been anticipated? Is VITT associated with prior heparin induced thrombocytopenia (a similar syndrome)? What is the best initial blood thinner? Why aren’t patients with prior blood disorders given prompt exemption from such a horrific threat? Ask your doctor next time about VITT and how would they advise to avoid it. If you get a blank look or a queasy uncomfortable expression, show a copy of Ms. Berg’s obituary and start a critical conversation. (COVID-19 Vaccine Induced Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia.)
Indeed, the facts are available to those who want to access them as each week the Children’s Health Defense organization publishes the latest figures released by United States Centers for Disease Control’s Vaccine Adverse Effects Reporting System (VAERS). Here are the latest available figures:
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) today released new data showing a total of 1,458,322 reports of adverse events following COVID-19 vaccines were submitted between Dec. 14, 2020, and Nov. 4, 2022, to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
VAERS is the primary government-funded system for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S.
As of Nov. 10, 31.4 million people have received the updated bivalent booster dose.
Of the 31,961 reported deaths, 20,381 cases are attributed to Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, 8,696 cases to Moderna, 2,773 cases to Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and no cases yet reported for Novavax.
Foreign reports are reports foreign subsidiaries send to U.S. vaccine manufacturers. Under U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations, if a manufacturer is notified of a foreign case report that describes an event that is both serious and does not appear on the product’s labeling, the manufacturer is required to submit the report to VAERS.
Of the 15,096 deaths reported as of Nov. 4, 7% occurred within 24 hours of vaccination and 15% occurred within 48 hours of vaccination.
In the U.S., 640 million COVID-19 vaccine doses had been administered as of Nov. 2, including 381 million doses of Pfizer, 241 million doses of Moderna and 19 million doses of J&J.
Every Friday, VAERS publishes vaccine injury reports received as of a specified date. Reports submitted to VAERS require further investigation before a causal relationship can be confirmed. Historically, VAERS has been shown to report only 1% of actual vaccine adverse events.
VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to Nov. 4, 2022, for 6-month-olds to 5-year-olds show:
5 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis (heart inflammation).
The CDC uses a narrowed case definition of “myocarditis,” which excludes cases of cardiac arrest, ischemic strokes and deaths due to heart problems that occur before one has the chance to go to the emergency department.
The latest death reported in this age group was that of a 10-year-old boy who died suddenly six days after receiving a third dose of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine. According to the report, “It is unknown if an autopsy was performed.”
According to the company (Moderna) comment included in the report, “Cause of death was reported as cardiorespiratory arrest. Information regarding clinical evaluation, diagnostic tests, treatment provided, or autopsy reports has not been disclosed.”
VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to Nov. 4, 2022, for 12- to 17-year-olds show:
According to the CDC, “VAERS data available to the public include only the initial report data to VAERS. Updated data which contains data from medical records and corrections reported during follow up are used by the government for analysis. However, for numerous reasons including data consistency, these amended data are not available to the public.”
269 reports of anaphylaxis among 12- to 17-year-olds where the reaction was life-threatening, required treatment or resulted in death.
Pfizer, Moderna developing combined mRNA Omicron-flu vaccine
Pfizer and Moderna are developing a combination COVID-19 and flu injection utilizing mRNA coding for the BA4/BA5 Omicron subvariant and new mRNA coding for antigens contained in the influenza virus.
Because the COVID-19 component, which is under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), has failed in animal studies and no human trials have been reported, that component should be off the table from the start, according to Dr. Peter A. McCullough.
Combining the genetic code for both the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and conserved proteins of influenza A and B would mean installation of the long-lasting genetic code for multiple foreign proteins in the human body.
Production of these proteins will induce an ongoing multi-pronged immune response that could create amplified side effects. mRNA coding for influenza would be a new biological product not under EUA and should have to go through the full five-year regulatory development cycle for genetic biologicals.
However, it looks like vaccine companies are trying the shortcut this development cycle by combining the non-emergency flu shot with the EUA COVID-19 vaccine.
Pfizer press release on new bivalent booster raises questions
In a press release, Pfizer summarized the updated data from its phase 2/3 clinical trial on the Pfizer-BioNTech Omicron BA.4/BA.5-adapted bivalent COVID-19 vaccine.
In simplest terms, the bivalent booster increased antibodies to the Omicron sublineages by a factor of 13.2, whereas the original booster increased them by a factor of only 2.9. The increase was seen only in people over age 55.
Although the new booster produced a more modest increase (9.5 fold) in antibodies in the younger age group (18-55), Pfizer chose not to report what the response was in the age-matched group who received the original booster.
Pfizer provided no comparative results in the 18-55 group and no clinical outcome differences in terms of COVID-19 infections — either in the Nov. 4 press release or in a previous Pfizer press release summarizing preliminary data.
At what point does an “increase in the neutralizing antibody response” confer “stronger protection?”
Neither BioNTech, who co-produced the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, nor the FDA knows — despite insisting the agency has enough grounds to cajole/compel/coerce those who acquired SARS-CoV-2 antibodies from a previous bout with COVID-19 to get jabbed anyway.
Rutgers announces COVID vaccine trial with Pfizer, as CHD lawsuit against Rutgers advances
The attorney representing CHD and 13 Rutgers University students in the lawsuit said the District Court of New Jersey didn’t follow the legal standard when it dismissed CHD’s case.
In an interview this week with The Defender, Julio C. Gomez of Gomez LLC, lead counsel in the case, said U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi’s argument for granting the university’s motion to dismiss “failed to accept the facts as alleged in the plaintiffs’ complaint as true,” as required under the legal standard on a motion to dismiss.
Gomez also spoke with The Defender about Rutgers’ Nov. 4 announcement that it is partnering with Pfizer on a new clinical trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the bivalent COVID-19 vaccine in children under age 5.
These are only the reported statistics, which is highly inaccurate given the fact that most medical personnel and especially hospital and medical practice administrators who simply ignore any causal link between the vaccines and the illnesses, including many that cause chronic conditions from which they may never recover and thus will be lifelong in nature, and deaths that have been occurring with regularity. The situation is so bad that there is only laboratory in the nation where a trained pathologist/epidemiologist examines tissue samples from people who are suspected to have died from the coronavirus to make a definitive determination declaring the vaccine to be the cause of death.
There are a few places, however, where pathologists are being honest enough to admit a causal link between the SARS Cov2 “vaccines” and the deaths occur therefrom. One of them, remarkably enough, is in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, notorious for being the only state that United States Senator George S. McGovern (D-South Dakota) won against President Richard Milhous Nixon in 1972, and, of course, for being the state where voters kept sending Edward Moore Kennedy and John Frederick Kerry back to the United States Senate time and time and time again:
In this article, I highlight the work of independent investigator John Beaudoin, Sr., who analyzed nearly seven years of Massachusetts death certificates he obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.
Beaudoin’s findings demonstrate that the COVID-19 death toll in Massachusetts was largely confined to a short window of time in 2020, and that COVID-19 deaths in 2020 resulted from pulmonary causes — in contrast to COVID-19 deaths in 2021, which were more closely linked to illnesses of the heart and blood.
There is no reasonable way to explain how SARS-CoV-2 dramatically changed the way it attacks and kills human beings and why it did so at precisely the time the experimental mRNA inoculations were deployed.
Beaudoin’s analysis also suggests that medical fraud and negligence may have been in play on a scale yet to be definitively determined.
Massachusetts: a center of COVID controversy
Beaudoin is a fellow resident of Massachusetts. Just down the road from us sit some of the most renowned hospitals and centers for medical research. None seem interested in validating or refuting the devastating implications of Beaudoin’s findings.
Boston was home to the infamous Biogen conference held in March 2020. The event was considered to be one of the first “super spreader events” in the country.
In the summer of 2021, an outbreak of COVID-19 in Massachusetts’ Barnstable County forced the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to acknowledge that the injectable mRNA therapies were worthless.
When all was said and done, the vaccinated comprised a larger percentage of those who contracted COVID-19 than you would expect from a random sample of the county’s residents.
Of those who were hospitalized in this outbreak, 80% were fully vaccinated. The “vaccines” offered no protection against severe disease.
In other words, there was no evidence that the vaccine offered any protection against infection.
Furthermore, vaccination status had no bearing on the viral load of those who got sick. Because viral load is correlated with infectiousness, the vaccine did not offer any reduction in transmissibility.
In one of its first real-world tests, the rapidly developed, tested and deployed therapy failed completely on all counts.
Massachusetts researchers can’t seem to move on from mask mandates
Earlier this month, a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) found there was an increase in COVID-19 cases in Massachusetts school districts that lifted their mask mandates.
The authors of the study were researchers from the Boston Public Health Commission and venerated, local academic institutions in Boston (Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Boston University, the Division of Infectious Diseases, Massachusetts General Hospital and Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School).
According to the authors, school districts with mask mandates had 39.9 fewer cases per 1,000 students over a 15-week period.
I wish to pose a simple question to the dutiful scientists down the road: so what?
Although districts that continued to enforce mask mandates after the statewide mandate was dropped had a lower COVID-19 incidence rate, mask mandates did not eliminate the transmission of the disease. Those districts still had 60 cases per 1,000 students.
The NEJM authors also proved that COVID-19 is transmissible whether or not masking precautions are implemented.
Children are going to get COVID-19 whether they are forced to wear a mask or not. There is no longer a need to “flatten the curve” until a miracle “vaccine” can be developed at “warp speed.”
COVID-19 is a disease that will be with us for the foreseeable future. What is the point of such a study? To convince Massachusetts residents that a modest decrease in school days missed is worth the imposition of perpetual mask mandates upon their children?
The ‘Big Story’ in Massachusetts
While the NEJM researchers were busy tabulating COVID-19 infection rates in different school districts during the first part of 2022, a far more important story was unfolding in Massachusetts.
Through a FOIA request made to the state’s department of public records, Beaudoin, an electrical engineer, obtained access to every death certificate in the state of Massachusetts between 2015 and September 2022.
His investigation into these records paints a disquieting picture of how the COVID-19 “vaccine” likely devastated the health of Massachusetts residents.
Beaudoin’s analysis is detailed and rigorous and stands as an example of why a medical degree or an academic appointment is not required to uncover explosive evidence.
In fact, those kinds of credentials can often be impediments rather than assets. There is no excuse why the Massachusetts Department of Public Health has not done the analysis Beaudoin chose to do himself.
For the purposes of this article, I will focus on the summary points. A deeper dive can be found on Mathew Crawford’s “Rounding The Earth” podcast or in Beaudoin’s own Substack, which he writes under the name “Coquin de Chien.”
The takeaway is impossible to miss. The rise and fall of daily deaths over a 10-week period in the early-to-late spring of 2020 is representative of a non-immune population encountering an infectious and virulent pathogen for the first time. This bump in the black line was from the casualties of the first wave of SARS-CoV-2 infections in Massachusetts.
Whether or not the state was still in the throes of a pandemic emergency beyond the first few weeks of June 2020 is debatable because it is quite clear that daily deaths quickly returned to baseline and stayed there until the autumn — when a far less lethal second wave hit the state. Recall that Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) stipulates that a public emergency is required before any mitigating therapy can obtain EUA.
The majority of the casualties were confined to the elderly (65 and older) over a 10-week period. This is represented by the deep red cells in ages over 65 starting April 1.
Contrary to the endless deluge of news reports that suggested otherwise, official death certificates indicate the pandemic in Massachusetts was short-lived and affected only the most vulnerable.
The distribution of deaths in 2021 is remarkably different than in 2020:
The short-lived and profound increase in deaths in the elderly in the spring of 2020 is not present in 2021. As mentioned above, the pandemic emergency was arguably over by the summer of 2020.
There is a substantial and sustained (present throughout the year) increase in deaths in people ages 60 to 80 that is not present in 2020. What is causing or contributing to the excess deaths in this younger age group in 2021 that was not present in 2020?
There is a substantial decrease in deaths in the eldest age group (85+).
The paradoxical drop in deaths in the most elderly (85+) is best explained by the substantial jump in deaths from the previous year in that age group. SARS-CoV-2 took the lives of the most elderly leaving a hardier group of octogenarians.
The increase in deaths throughout 2021 implicates the COVID-19 “vaccines” as a contributing factor (among others) for two reasons.
First, the pattern of deaths is not representative of an infectious agent that takes the lives of the vulnerable while leaving behind a population that is more robust and that is attaining natural immunity through exposure, i.e., what was seen in 2020.
Second — and most obvious — is that the “vaccines” were present in 2021 and not in 2020.
What is actually killing people in 2021?
The increase in all-cause mortality in 2021 in Massachusetts is reflected in other parts of the world. This concerning trend is often explained as solely the result of pandemic restrictions that prevented people from obtaining basic healthcare, cancer screenings, chemotherapy, etc.
This is where Beaudoin’s Massachusetts findings go further. Here are some key points from his detailed analysis:
Average age of all-cause deaths in 2021 was 75, which is significantly lower than the average for the years 2015-2019 (75.6) and even more so than in 2020 (76.2).
2021 saw an 8% jump in deaths from all causes compared to the average for the years 2015-2019, yet there was a substantial decrease in deaths attributed to COVID-19 compared to 2020. This could be explained by a vaccine that is partially effective in preventing COVID-19 deaths. However …
2021 saw the biggest jump in deaths from cardiac arrest compared to the previous year. Deaths from cardiac arrest in 2020 made up 16.62% of all deaths that year. In 2021, it was 18.63% of all deaths — or a 12.1% increase from 2020, which already had the greatest percentage of the previous five years.
A similar jump in deaths from pulmonary emboli occurred in 2021 as well. Moreover, COVID-19 deaths that involved pulmonary emboli doubled in 2021 compared to 2020 and more than tripled in 2022.
The proportion of COVID-19 deaths that involved cardiac arrest increased by 47.5% in 2021 compared to 2020 and 63.3% in 2022. Recall that Pfizer’s six-month results demonstrated a four times greater risk of cardiac arrest in vaccinated participants than in those who received the placebo (Table S4).
According to information extracted from actual death certificates, COVID-19 apparently changed its way of killing people in 2021. Beaudoin accurately summarizes:
“Viruses do not simply change how they kill from one year to the next. Something happened in C19-involved deaths after 2020 that changed how C19 purportedly kills people. Pneumonia and respiratory issues dominated 2020, the year of C19, but something insidious has doubled and tripled relative numbers of circulatory system deaths after 2020. The Massachusetts DPH cannot hide from this. Either there is massive fraud in coding of deaths or some intervention in 2021 and 2022 caused deaths or both are true at the same time.”
Evidence of medical fraud?
In his dive into the 400,000 or so death certificates he obtained, Beaudoin showed there is also a high likelihood that some deaths are being inappropriately attributed to COVID-19 while others are linked to the vaccine but no mention of this appears on the certificate.
One such example involves the death of a 7-year-old girl in a town near my own. As Beaudoin has respectfully declined to mention the name of the child in his Substack, I will follow his example. Multiple news outlets covered this tragedy. All reported that she died from COVID-19.
Beaudoin was able to find her death certificate, which indeed states that she died from “Complications from COVID-19 viral infection.”
But was her death certificate accurate?
He also found a report in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS, of a complication from a second dose of the Pfizer formulation that was administered to a 7-year-old girl in Massachusetts.
Personal identification information does not appear on VAERS reports. However, the report indicates that this vaccine complication occurred just three days prior to the day of the death of the child who died of COVID-19:
Note that this VAERS report indicates the child previously experienced severe nausea and vomiting for 8-10 hours immediately following her first dose. After her second dose, for which this report was filed, her fever spiked to 103, she developed a severe stomachache and had not had a bowel movement for three days.
Is this the same child who purportedly died from COVID-19? If so, attributing the death to COVID-19 with no mention of the vaccine on her death certificate would constitute medical fraud — or at the very least, negligence on the part of the medical examiner.
Conspicuously missing from news reports covering this child’s death was her vaccination status. Was this an oversight? If this young person who died from COVID-19 had not received the COVID-19 “vaccine” would this have been mentioned?
Notably, a different 7-year-old girl who died from COVID-19 made the news around the same time this year. This child was from Tennessee. People magazine covered her story, taking care to mention that she had not been inoculated.
People printed a quote from her doctor, a pediatric infectious disease expert, who told Good Morning America:
“This is not something to mess around with. The takeaway for parents is this is a virus that we have got to take very seriously and one we have a safe and effective vaccine for.”
Media coverage rarely misses an opportunity to laud the vaccines’ benefits and warn of the danger of remaining unvaccinated. Simultaneously, any information that may implicate the COVID-19 “vaccines” when harm has occurred is categorically omitted.
Of course, without proof of this child’s vaccination status, we can only speculate. This information exists on the Massachusetts Immunization Information System, which Beaudoin hopes he will eventually be able to access.
Questions for the medical establishment
How many deaths have occurred where the COVID-19 “vaccine” likely played a role but was not mentioned in official records?
How many deaths have been falsely attributed to COVID-19?
In March, health officials in Massachusetts eliminated nearly 4,000 (approximately 15%) COVID-19 deaths from their tally. Dr. Catherine Brown, a Massachusetts Department of Public Health epidemiologist said:
“After a deep dive into our data and reviewing thousands of death certificates we recognize that this updated definition gives us a truer picture of mortality associated with COVID-19.”
What prompted this “deep dive?” Was it news of Beaudoin’s FOIA request and his investigation that was being picked up around the same time?
While researchers at prestigious institutions are trying to retrospectively determine whether face coverings may have prevented absenteeism in a handful of school districts, Massachusetts health officials continue to ignore enormous vaccine safety signals and evidence of medical fraud in their own state.
Official death certificates indicate that thousands of deaths in 2021 may have been linked to the COVID-19 vaccines. If they weren’t linked to these products, why and how has the SARS-CoV-2 virus found a different way to kill people in 2021 and 2022?
Do these same signals appear in other states as well? How long will state departments of public health sit on their data before telling the public what that data show?
Moreover, one of the principal reasons that the “vaccines,” several of which are tainted by the use of the stem cell lines derived from butchered babies while the others are the life-altering mRNA therapy jabs that permanently change the recipients’ genetic code, thus predisposing them to a variety of diseases and conditions thereafter, have ben ineffective even on a merely biochemical level is the fact that the profiteers who manufacture and market had been fighting the virus as it existed once it had escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology without bothering to factor in the gazillions of times that that old virus had mutated and adapted:
A principle of infectious diseases is “antimicrobial stewardship” which involves choosing the right antibiotic for the right patient and never over-prescribing or blanket covering patients who don’t need treatment. Another principle is “narrowing the spectrum” of a drug once the organism is identified by culture or other methods. These fundamental approaches to the use of antibiotics work to limit the problem of bacterial resistance and the development of “superbugs.” Every year hospitals each produce their antibiogram or report of their common infections encountered and what antibiotics either are effective (organism is sensitive) or ineffective (organism is resistant). In the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic these principles have been applied to the use of monoclonal antibodies and the process explains why various EUA products (e.g., bamlanivimab) were pulled from the market when they were understood to be no longer effective at neutralizing SARS-CoV-2. This entire thought process has been thrown out the window for COVID-19 vaccines. For 18 months the ancestral strain Wuhan Institute of Virology Spike protein was the featured antigen for Pfizer, Moderna, Janssen, AstraZeneca, and Novavax vaccines. Within a few months, there was mounting evidence that SARS-CoV-2 easily mutated to escape the reach of antibodies generated by the vaccines which would apply to serious invasive illness (IgG and IgM). Because the COVID-19 vaccines have never been demonstrated to neutralize SARS-CoV-2 in the nasopharynx, the only theoretical benefit would be for systemic disease. It has now become apparent that nature has the upper hand over the vaccine manufacturers as SARS-CoV-2 has far greater alacrity. Because replication can allow changes in genetic code that rapidly allow continued survival, SARS-CoV-2 enjoys a library of ~28k mutations of which ~4.5K are in the receptor binding domain of the Spike protein or the tip of the spear.
Wang and colleagues using detailed modeling techniques of the mutations prevalent in the more intensely vaccinated countries has shown indeed mass vaccination is backfiring and fueling more viral resistance to the limited antibody library that could be generated by the vaccines.[i] Wang’s analysis suggests that future vaccine development against SARS-CoV-2 is hopeless. The virus is simply too nimble and can manipulate the “binding free energy” between the RBD and its human target the ACE2 receptor. This means the more vaccinations are delivered the greater the number of mutant stains and the longer the virus will propagate and extend the pandemic. Thus, a key step in ending the pandemic will be termination of mass vaccination. The virus doesn’t stop until mankind stops. (Dr. Peter McCullough, “Courageous Discourse” newsletter, Friday, December 2, 2022.)
Although most Americans are willfully blind to the truth of the matter, a clinic in Italy has opened to treat those who have been injured by the Covid-19 jabs:
LUCCA, Italy (LifeSiteNews) — A private medical clinic has opened in Lucca, Italy that is devoted to caring for patients who have been injured by the experimental COVID-19 vaccines.
The clinic was opened by a group of doctors and health workers who were recently reinstated to their positions after newly-elected Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s government removed discriminatory legislation that barred vaccine-free Italians from working in healthcare.
An Italian medical rights group celebrated the clinic as “helpful” and “welcoming,” but a left-wing political party from Tuscany has attempted to pressure the mayor of Lucca to publicly disavow the clinic seeking to help heal those suffering from COVID vaccine injuries.
The local Partito Democratico (Democratic Party) released a statement saying “we believe the mayor needs to take a position, and distance himself from what is happening on this front in our city.”
The statement was made even after the party admitted that the group who started the clinic did so with the intention of helping the vaccine-injured, and that the group also wanted doctors to have freedom of conscience protections when practicing medicine.
Italy has flipped the script on COVID restrictions since the election of Meloni, who has admitted that Italy had the “most restrictive anti-COVID measures in the entire Western world,” but was still “among the countries with the highest numbers of deaths and infections.”
She vowed that her government “will not replicate that pattern in any way,” promising to never “limit fundamental freedoms.”
Under previous Prime Minister Mario Draghi, the then left-wing government had enacted severe measures against Italians who chose not to take the COVID jab, restricting them from many aspects of public life under the guise of the “Super Green Pass.”
Under the restrictions, all Italians were required to be jabbed or provide proof that they had previously recovered from COVID in order to work, and all those over 50 years old had to be vaccinated or they would be fined by the government on a monthly basis. (Medical clinic treating people injured by COVID shot opens in Italy.)
Italian voters, having some residual concept of Catholicism perhaps, voted in Giorgia Meloni’s party to power in large measure because they were fed up with the draconian restrictions that the previous government had put in place in complete lockstep with the quasi-totalitarians at the World Health Organization, which is nothing other than a storefront operation to indemnify Red China’s policies at every turn and works in complete cooperation with the World Economic Forum that is headed by Klaus Schwab, a believer in the “great global reset.” As of yet, though, there is no sign that there enough Americans even on the natural level to fight back as the Italians have done.
We will never know until eternity the exact number of people killed or injured in the ongoing plot by Big Pharma to make billions upon billions of dollars in the production of more and more poisons that have proved themselves not only to be ineffective in preventing one from catching Covid-19 but wind up causing even the vaccination. However, we must recognize that this is all a chastisement four our sins and those of the whole world as the vaccinators will keep vaccinating and their stooges in public and global health agencies will continue to “recommend” and/or mandate that people keep “update,” something that so many will do quite dutifully, and the more people get the jabs will be more that the spike proteins will continue to spread the virus and thus give the global lockdown elite more excuses to impose more controls upon the masses as their gloat in their own mockery of God’s Omnipotence and Omniscience. There is no end to this vicious cycle in sight, which is why we, as Catholics, must rely ever much on Our Lady’s graces.
II. Genetic Engineering and Social Utilitarianism
This is not an overstatement as Dr. Peter A. McCullough is noting that there is now evidence proving that the mRNA vaccines are changing the human genome in even the unvaccinated as a result of the vaccine shedding about which those of us currently suffering the effects of the virus from that shedding can nothing except to embrace the crosses that have been visited upon us in reparation for our sins:
(LifeSiteNews) — In a recent interview, distinguished internist, cardiologist, and epidemiologist Dr. Peter McCullough shared how studies have indicated that synthetic mRNA from the Pfizer and Moderna experimental COVID vaccines may last permanently in the body, can also transfer to the unvaccinated, and is “changing the human genome.”
“It looks like the messenger RNA is transferring from the vaccinated to the unvaccinated now,” McCullough told Tanya Gaw from Action4Canada on November 24 (beginning at 39:24).
The Dallas-based physician has had a renowned career in the medical field, including authoring 677 articles in scientific peer-reviewed journals, and remains the most published individual in his field in history.
McCullough referenced an article of his where he cited a study by Helene Banoun showing that lipid nanoparticles that carry the mRNA spread throughout the body and “have been shown to be able to be excreted through body fluids (sweat, sputum, breast milk) and to pass the transplacental barrier.”
“And in a paper by Fertig and Colleagues, the messenger RNA is found circulating in blood for at least two weeks” (here), the physician told Gaw. “And the curves were not going down. That’s as long as they looked.”
He stated another paper “found messenger RNA in the vaccinated in lymph nodes for months. It looks like the body’s not clearing it out.”
Finally, another study “from Hanna and colleagues in JAMA showed that the messenger RNA is in the breast milk of ill-advised women who took the vaccine during pregnancy or afterwards,” he said.
Summarizing these thoughts, McCullough proposed the rhetorical question: “Could you actually take a vaccine inadvertently by close contact, kissing, sexual contact, [or] breastfeeding? It looks like the answer is ‘yes.’”
Furthermore, he explained that the mRNA has “never been demonstrated to actually leave the body. They look like they’re permanent, as well as the spike protein that’s produced after them. This is very disturbing.”
“This messenger RNA, it looks like it’s for keeps. Every shot is accumulating in the body with no ability for the body to get rid of it,” the former president of the Cardiorenal Society of America explained.
Discussing the ramifications of this, McCullough explained providing advice for his patients was very difficult. Having first advised his unvaccinated patients to “refrain from kissing and sexual contact with a vaccinated person” for 30 days, he extended it “to at least 90 days” and was considering extending it from that point forward.
“I know there’s married couples and all kinds of personal implications there,” he commented.
The cardiologist related that he had also been told these realities were impacting dating apps where now “one of the most important checkboxes is if someone’s unvaccinated. People really don’t want to date vaccinated people right now.”
Citing two more studies, McCullough conveyed another alarming finding, that since the mRNA remain in the body for an extended period of time, “it looks like they do permanently install into the human genome through what we call reverse transcription.”
“So, this is disturbing that not only does the vaccine not get out of the body, but now they’re changing the human genome. This is shown in the human hepatoma cell line. And so it’s conceivable that two vaccinated people could actually pass the code for Pfizer or Moderna into the baby permanently,” he said. “So, this is very, very disturbing.”
“The government, as they developed these vaccines, they kind of rushed it through the final stages. There was no assurances that these were safe. There was no genotoxicity, no teratogenicity studies. And in autopsy studies, the spike protein produced from the genetic material is found in the heart … [and in] the brain,” the physician explained.
“So, I can tell you everyone who has taken the vaccine has this material in their brain, their heart, their adrenal glands, [and] reproductive organs. It’s really a terrible thought. My heart goes out to people who have taken the vaccine,” he lamented.
McCullough has been a most competent and compelling critic of the draconian COVID-19 restrictions, lockdowns, and mandates imposed over the 2 1/2 years. As an alternative, he has persuasively advocated for the cultivation of natural immunity and early treatment through effective therapeutics.
The prominent doctor, who has also provided significant expert commentary on Fox News, NewsMax, and Real America, told LifeSiteNews editor-in-chief John-Henry Westen in August 2021 that “the vaccines at this point in time have amounted to record mortality and injury and should be considered unsafe and unfit for human use.”
In addition, McCullough described COVID-19 in September as a “biological weapon.” “It was a government operation that created SARS-CoV-2 and the spike protein,” he declared. “It’s the U.S. government that did it. And they were working on the threat and working on the response … This was all planned … SARS-CoV-2 is a biological weapon.”
Furthermore, during a late October conference, the internist explained why the experimental COVID-19 gene-based injections should be the presumed cause of unusually high excess death rates around the world.
He added in a later interview that “the vaccine accelerates death from other causes. So, if someone has cancer, the vaccine accelerates that. If someone has heart disease, one is more likely to have fatal heart attacks and strokes … The vaccines cause blood clotting … The vaccine is incredibly risky, and basically, it’s achieving its goal. If the goal was to reduce the world’s population, it’s working.” (Dr. McCullough: mRNA from COVID vax transfers from jabbed to unjabbed, ‘changing human genome.)
Yes, this biological warfare launched by the government of the United States of America upon its own people, and if anyone doubts that this is the case then it would be advisable for them to recognize that the production of the “vaccines” is being supervised by the United States Department of Defense:
(LifeSiteNews) — A recent analysis of documents obtained by freedom of information lawsuits reveal COVID “vaccine” manufacturers such as Pfizer, Moderna, and Janssen are only “figureheads” in the production of experimental injections that are actually produced, fully controlled and distributed by the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD).
Research conducted by retired pharmaceutical industry executive Alexandra Latypova discovered that “kind of like an iceberg” these biological products are “made by a consortium of companies” that are “traditional and nontraditional suppliers to the Department of Defense.”
Though the public sees Pfizer, Moderna and Janssen being represented everywhere as the products’ manufacturers, in reality they “are involved [only] somewhat in some pieces of [the production process],” Latypova told Dr. Peter McCullough in an America Out Loudinterview released November 8.
In addition, “possession [of the product] is never taken by anybody other than [the] U.S. federal government,” she said, resulting in a situation where the methods of production and contents of these products “cannot be traced.”
Furthermore, not only are these biologicals produced in this “opaque black box,” but they remain the property of the U.S. government “until they are injected into the person,” which means any American who obtains the vials in order to study the contents can be prosecuted for “stealing government property” or the like. And it remains a contractual violation for governments outside the U.S. to test these products.
DOD ‘not a licensed pharmacy distributor,’ and thus do not ‘need to comply with any laws’
Additionally, since the organizational structure of the project explicitly names the DOD as “the chief operating officer of the entire enterprise” and they are “not a licensed pharmacy distributor,” Latypova said “they don’t need to comply with any laws” that govern that industry.
Therefore, though these products are not “vaccines,” or, according to Latypova, even medicines, the public naturally has presumed standard industry safeguards for such products to be in place, when this has not been the case.
For example, the distribution of these products “is not going through the licensed pharmacy distributors who are bound by a set of regulations called ‘good distribution practices,’” the scientist said.
Hence, though hospitals do not know, or can they verify, the contents or manufacturing process of these products, they just “essentially get the black box shipment and then they are supposed to inject it into people. As a doctor, you understand how illegal this is,” she told McCullough.
Severe variability in serious adverse reactions among batches points to grave violation of the law
We were warned about the power of military-industrial complex nearly sixty-two years ago when President Dwight David Eisenhower delivered his farewell address before on January 17, 1961, three days before his second and final term expired at noon on January 20, 1961:
Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small,there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defense; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research-these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.
But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs-balance between the private and the public economy, balance between cost and hoped for advantage-balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between action of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.
The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well, in the face of stress and threat. But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. I mention two only.
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.
Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peace time, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence-economic, political, even spiritual-is felt in every city, every state house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together. (Dwight D. Eisenhower — Farewell Address.)
Although Eisenhower did not understand that the authentic security of one’s nation is premised upon its subordination to the Social Reign of Christ the King as it must be exercised by the Catholic Church, placing him in concert with today’s conciliar officials in the counterfeit conciliar church, the late president and former five star General of the United States Army did have a keen insight into the dangers posed by the rise of what he termed so accurately as the military-industrial complex, which thrives on the constant warfare that former President George Walker Bush and his team of Trotskyite advisers envisioned as “necessary” to “secure” this country and “liberate” other peoples. We can see also, of course, that the military-industrial complex has “evolved” to the point where it is involved in Big Pharma-Big Tech-Deep State complex to mandate we must accept whatever arbitrary plan in the name of “national security” and “public health” at the present time. As if this is not bad enough, humanly speaking, it appears that, despite all the denials to the contrary, the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine line contains microchips and other self-assembling units after all:
An Australian doctor has gone public with microscopic images of unidentified objects that appear to be “self-assembling” from the contents of Pfizer’s COVID injection.
Family physician Dr. David Nixon recently shared dark field microscopy photos of “concerning” structures that appeared in Pfizer jab fluid over time and that seem to be the product of “intelligent design” in a Sunday episode of the International Crimes Investigative Committee (ICIC) co-hosted by the group’s founder, Dr. Reiner Fuellmich and ex-Pfizer executive Dr. Michael Yeadon.
Nixon showed how boxy, dark structures, similar in shape to crystals but with “internal structures that appear to be different from … a naturally occurring crystal,” appeared on the periphery of the slide’s jab contents after he left it out overnight.
Remarkably, the formation of the crystalline structures appeared to depend on their exposure to electromagnetic frequencies (EMFs), according to Nixon. When he put the slide “inside a faraday bag” blocking EMFs he said came from his wireless router, he only saw black, round “dots.”
However, when he “didn’t shield the site,” only the angular, crystal-like formations “would appear the next morning.”
While discussing Nixon’s findings, Dr. Yeadon advised that further experiments were needed to ascertain if it was indeed the presence of EMFs, as opposed to other variables such as “temperature or air currents,” that affected the structures’ formation.
Other reports have been made that EMFs affect the formation of structures within the COVID jabs. Ecuador-based electrical engineer Matt Taylor testified on the Stew Peters show that when he put a drop of the COVID jab on a microscope slide and placed that slide on an internet router, he observed the self-assembly of what he believes “look like integrated circuits.”
According to Taylor, when he turned the router off, the objects “immediately” began to break apart. He repeated the experiment three times and “begg[ed]” people to reproduce his investigation to see if his findings can be replicated. In fact, Nixon indicated that Taylor had inspired his own test with the faraday bag.
Electrical engineer Shimon Yanowitz added during the ICIC discussion that he believes Nixon and Taylor’s work are “in corroboration with each other,” and that Nixon has observed “the exact same phenomena found by Matt Taylor,” except with the distinct appearance yielded by dark field microscopy.
Nixon went on to show that after leaving the injection fluid out on the slide for 10 weeks, the crystalline formations seemed to have morphed to take on the “appearance of a much more concerning nature.”
The structures Nixon showed maintained angular shapes, but now appeared to contain one or more bright light-reflecting points, in addition to other interior formations. The close-ups of these objects were photographed at 200x magnification, Nixon told LifeSiteNews.
The structures, which Nixon at this point describes as “chips,” were now present not only on the periphery of the slide’s jab contents but all throughout it.
Nixon shared with LifeSiteNews a video running at 200x speed that highlighted both relatively small and large lights that seemed to suddenly appear in the “chip.”
The chips were also “often associated with” new ribbon-like objects that Nixon now describes as “wires” — that is, they often appeared alongside the “wires.”
Nixon said on Friday that he has seen similar “wire” formations in the blood of the vaccinated and shared with LifeSiteNews a picture in which one can see clumping blood cells surrounding the “wire” with the “frayed edges” Nixon said are often present.
Another of Nixon’s remarkable findings was that he had “discovered all of these structures disappeared overnight,” “except for a couple.” He said that these remaining structures also “slowly disappeared” over time, and he showed a time-lapse video he captured of one of the crystalline objects in which it appeared to shrink until it disappeared.
He has shared video footage of this phenomenon on his website, noting that chips “literally melt away.”
While it is unclear to Nixon what the structures are and what their purpose is, he believes “it seems to be acting in a way that would suggest it’s electronic.”
Nixon told LifeSiteNews he has “spent hours” looking at his video footage “with IT and engineering colleagues,” and that they have drawn “comparisons with the electronic components that they are familiar with.”
Alexandra Latypova remarked in a prior statement to LifeSiteNews that while she cannot discern what Nixon’s findings are, “we know size alone is problematic since these are observable under standard optical microscope, so these are very large structures.”
Dr. Ana Maria Mihalcea pointed out during the ICIC group discussion that corroboration of Nixon’s findings is not easy to come by, since in the United States, for example, “it is a criminal offense to look at the Pfizer vials.”
“And so the people who are asking for rigorousness, which would be [a] university-setting type of scientific elaboration, we cannot provide this … It should be the pharmaceutical companies, the FDA and the CDC who prove or disprove us and really show that they are doing the studies to say, ‘What is this?’”
“Because we … don’t even have the means to be able to do this with a scientific rigor that would be acceptable to the scientists who are denying this possibility,” Mihalcea remarked.
Interestingly, at least two electrical engineers — Yanowitz and Taylor — believe that what they have seen in the COVID injections under a microscope looks like electronic “circuits,” and they and others have also described findings of “self-assembling” jab structures.
Yanowitz, who cited “a lot of background in microscopy and microelectronic fabrication,” asserted regarding Nixon’s findings that “when you look at this thing from the point of view of an electrical engineer, you have nothing but to assume that this is an electronic circuit that is self-assembling right before your eyes.”
“I also have to say that on my side, I found in addition to what seems like electronics, I found other structures self-assembling,” Yanowitz said.
“So this is not just the materials and the excipients that are in those vials. It’s this amazingly advanced technology that seems to make new things out of these materials and excipients,” he added.
Among other unidentified objects from the COVID jab that he said “could be ribbons, filaments, [and] tubes” of some kind, Yanowitz captured images of what he called “electronic circuitry,” which he again emphasized was not visible in the vial itself but appeared from the contents of the vial over time after what he asserted was a “self-assembly” process.
Yanowitz said he had placed the vial contents in an “actual incubator of body temperature,” which “did speed up the self-assembly by quite a bit.”
Dr. Carrie Madej, who examined the contents of different COVID jabs under the microscope from different manufacturers, has also observed what she referred to as the “self-assembling” of unidentified objects from the Moderna injection.
In the Pfizer jab, Madej saw “something that looks similar to teslaphoresis,” which is “when these little graphite-like black, metallic particles start to coalesce into strings, like a spider web. They do that through any external force — it could be light, it could be a magnetic force, it could be an impulse, like a frequency.”
Karen Kingston, who used to do marketing work for Pfizer, pointed out Sunday that “80 percent” of the “ingredients, the manufacturing process, and the toxicity” of the COVID jabs was “redacted under the FDA law since it was approved.”
“We have the right under FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) to know what those ingredients are. These are not biologics,” Kingston said.
“So any expert who’s saying they’re 100 percent confident there’s no nanotec ingredients are redacted?” she added.
Dr. Fuellmich highlighted Kingston’s point and the legal importance of the uncertainty of what exactly these COVID jab structures are.
“What we do know is that this stuff doesn’t belong in there,” said Fuellmich, going on to point out that informed consent to the injections is impossible without knowledge of their full contents.
“You cannot consent to something that you don’t know anything about. Information is everything,” Fuellmich went on.
Concern over the safety of the COVID jabs has been increasing not only as reports of death and injury directly in response to the injections are being made via the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) but also as excess deaths have spiked considerably since the rollout of the COVID injections in 2021.
Last January, Scott Davison, the president of OneAmerica insurance in Indianapolis, highlighted the industry’s astonishing 40% increase in 2021 third-quarter death rates, which were the highest the company has “seen in the history of the business.”
“Just to give you an idea of how bad that is, a three-sigma or a one-in-200-year catastrophe would be 10% increase over pre-pandemic,” he said. “So, 40% is just unheard of.”
Dr. McCullough has been in the forefront of the fight to treat those suffering from the virus with the proper protocols that are suitable to each patient’s condition and medical ¸Yes, the goal has been and continues to be the reduction of the world’s population, which has been the goal of British eugenicists in the late Nineteenth Century and that of Margaret Sanger and the population controllers that have followed her in the past century. Contraception, the surgical execution of the innocent preborn, euthanasia, suicide, assisted suicide, physician-assisted suicide, “brain death”/human organ vivisection, the starvation and dehydration of innocent human beings, and the whole “quality of life” standard of global “health care” have always been about reducing the world’s population, a goal that has been a paramount one for the ideologues obsessing about “global climate control.” The modern pantheists are now out in the open and have begun to advocate for human extinction, something that the likes of Drs. Peter Singer and Paul Ehrlich only approached obliquely by means of their ceaseless work against God’s command to Adam and Eve to “multiply and increase” so that He could have adorers here on here as members of the Church Militant and in Heaven thereafter as members of the Church Triumphant.
The latest in the long line of utilitarians to advocate for human extinction is championing the “feed, don’t breed slogan as a means of eliminating pollution from the earth even though they are supreme polluters of truth and blasphemers of the very first order:
An advocate of human extinction Tuesday called on everyone to voluntarily stop having children for humanity to die out and give the biosphere a “chance to recover.”
Tuesday’s Dr. Phil episode focused on the ethics of procreation and the debate over overpopulation where Voluntary Human Extinction Movement founder Les Knight delivered a variety of shocking statements.
“You’re involved with an extinction movement who basically say we just need to live long and die out, we just need to ‘feed, not breed,’ is that what you say?” Dr Phil asked Knight.
“’Feed ‘em don’t breed ‘em,’ yes, that’s right, we’re not taking care of the people who are already here,” Knight responded.
Knight went on to illustrate his proposition, “My plan is for everyone to think before they procreate, and if people really think about it, think it all the way through, and have the wherewithal not to procreate – which is a really big problem all over the planet – and if people think about it as you mentioned, 44% of young people are saying ‘no I don’t think I wanna do that,’ just because they’ve thought about it.”
He then laid out his ideology’s optimal conclusion, “And if we all stopped procreating we’ll go extinct, slowly, we’ll clean up our messes as we go, and the biosphere – what’s left of it, will have a chance to recover.”
He later suggested that “reproductive freedom” is “the most important thing we need today,” claiming that “hundreds of millions of couples are denied their right to not procreate.”
Knight elaborated that many do not have the “contraceptive services – reproductive health services that they need. Those are not provided, and maybe people should supply their own, but they can’t afford it because they’re having more offspring that they can’t feed.”
He gave one example of the difficulties people face trying to avoid procreation: “Try to get a sterilization here in America when you haven’t had kids and you’re only 22.” He later added, “We’re not allowing people to not breed.”
When a panelist who was an expert on fertility suggested that copper IUD’s are widely used for contraception, another guest suggested many cannot be trusted to be that responsible.
Content creator Anton Daniels said these irresponsible people end up having to be taken care of “whether it be the prisons that we built for them, or the social services that we have to create for them, and they do not become more educated and do things differently. They breed more, that’s what happens.
Knight, despite advocating the extinction of the human race, last week received an adoring profile in The New York Times, even being compared to the late “Mr. Rogers” of television fame.
“Tall and gentle, Mr. Knight comes across as clear-eyed and thoughtful, like a mash-up of Bill Nye and Fred Rogers. While Mr. Knight may be against the creation of more humans, he shows great compassion for the ones that already exist,” the profile read. (Extinction activist wants humans to voluntarily die out: ‘Feed ‘em, don’t breed ‘em’.)
Utopians such as Les Knight have no regard for these plain words of Sacred Scripture about the fact that God created the earth for human beings, not human beings for the earth:
In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. [2] And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters. [3] And God said: Be light made. And light was made. [4] And God saw the light that it was good; and he divided the light from the darkness. [5] And he called the light Day, and the darkness Night; and there was evening and morning one day.
[6] And God said: Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters. [7] And God made a firmament, and divided the waters that were under the firmament, from those that were above the firmament, and it was so. [8] And God called the firmament, Heaven; and the evening and morning were the second day. [9] God also said: Let the waters that are under the heaven, be gathered together into one place: and let the dry land appear. And it was so done. [10] And God called the dry land, Earth; and the gathering together of the waters, he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
[11] And he said: Let the earth bring forth the green herb, and such as may seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after its kind, which may have seed in itself upon the earth. And it was so done. [12] And the earth brought forth the green herb, and such as yieldeth seed according to its kind, and the tree that beareth fruit, having seed each one according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. [13] And the evening and the morning were the third day. [14] And God said: Let there be lights made in the firmament of heaven, to divide the day and the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years: [15] To shine in the firmament of heaven, and to give light upon the earth. And it was so done.
[16] And God made two great lights: a greater light to rule the day; and a lesser light to rule the night: and the stars. [17] And he set them in the firmament of heaven to shine upon the earth. [18] And to rule the day and the night, and to divide the light and the darkness. And God saw that it was good. [19] And the evening and morning were the fourth day. [20] God also said: Let the waters bring forth the creeping creature having life, and the fowl that may fly over the earth under the firmament of heaven.
[16] “Two great lights”: God created on the first day, light, which being moved from east to west, by its rising and setting, made morning and evening. But on the fourth day he ordered and distributed this light, and made the sun, moon, and stars. The moon, though much less than the stars, is here called a great light, from its giving a far greater light to the earth than any of them.
[21] And God created the great whales, and every living and moving creature, which the waters brought forth, according to their kinds, and every winged fowl according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. [22] And he blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the waters of the sea: and let the birds be multiplied upon the earth. [23] And the evening and morning were the fifth day. [24] And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done. [25] And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle, and every thing that creepeth on the earth after its kind. And God saw that it was good.
[26] And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth. [27] And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them. [28] And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth. [29] And God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to be your meat: [30] And to all beasts of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to all that move upon the earth, and wherein there is life, that they may have to feed upon. And it was so done.
[31] And God saw all the things that he had made, and they were very good. And the evening and morning were the sixth day. (Genesis 1: 1-31.)
Pantheistic utopians such as Les Knight and others reject all this. They do not believe in the true God of Divine Revelation, the Most Blessed Trinity, as they believe in no “god” as their evolutionists who deny Special Creation and who are utterly ignorant of the fact that the whole order of the created world is not going to last forever, that it will end in God’s good time when His Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, comes to judge the living and the dead the General Judgment on the Last Day.
Moreover, even the physical universe is permanent scarred by the effects of man’s rebellion against God by means of Original Sin and its further scarred and rent into disorder by the effects of our Actual Sins. These pantheists thus do not understand that even without their impossible dream of a world without human beings, which cannot exist as the world will end when the last true priest dies or is killed and the world is deprived of that which makes its existence possible, Actual Graces, which flow forth from the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, lightning strikes would produce fires, the earth would still quake, animals would still pollute streams and rivers all on their very own. Their dream of a world unspoiled by humans is a fantasy as it cannot exist. There can be so such thing. They are fools who are literally hellbent on their own eternal destruction even though they lack the supernatural ability to see that this is so.
III. All About Complete Red Chinese-Style Social Control, Not Public Health
One of the first points that I made in this ongoing series, which began on March 25, 2020, the Feast of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, was that the entire plandemic narrative was about social control and had nothing to do with genuine public health. Social engineers in the government and academe teamed up with Big Pharma and with the globalists in the World Health Organization and World Economic Forum, international bankers, leaders of nonprofit organizations such as the Soros Foundation, and executives from the commerce and social media industries to use the outbreak of the SARS Cov2 virus in late-2019/early-2020 to use the Red Chinese Model of lockdowns against which, remarkably, some in that prison nation have been rebelling recently after their being reimposed following outbreaks of the virus caused by the spike proteins being spready by the vaccines, as the means to “stop” the virus when what they wanted to accomplish was the entire restructuring of human life.
These sociopaths—and there is no other word that describes them—are so amoral as to believe that Red China’s forced repression of dissenting views is the model to use in the “civilized” West and they did not care how many private businesses foundered, how many people without Our Lady’s graces to carry the crosses of the moment committed suicide, how many people simply gave up on life and became wards of the civil state. They did not care how many people lost their life’s savings or how much everyone was hurt by “social distancing” and their mask mandates that dehumanized individuals and then divided families, friends, neighbors, parishioners, coworkers, and other acquaintances on the basis of conformity to the high priests and priestesses of “public health,” chief among them, of course, being the utter reprobate named Dr. Anthony Fauci.
Although even high-ranking officials in the administration of President Donald John Trump such as Dr. Peter Navarro, have sought to downplay the Wuhan Institute of Virology as the source of a man-made virus, funded, of course, with monies provided by Fauci’s own National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the truth remains as it was asserted by Dr. Francis Boyle in an interview that was republished in Christian Order in February of 2022, namely, that the virus originated in that “biosafety” laboratory. More and more people are speaking out about this truth now, especially in light of the murderous Xi Jinping’s efforts to impose more lockdowns in Red China to fight new outbreaks of the virus caused by vaccine shedding:
A scientist who worked at a controversial research lab in China has claimed that COVID was a man-made virus that leaked from the facility, according to a report.
Andrew Huff said COVID leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China two years ago and blamed authorities for the “biggest US intelligence failure since 9/11,” Britain’s The Sun reported Saturday.
The lab has been at the center of fierce debates about the origins of COVID, with both Chinese government officials and lab personnel denying that the virus leaked from the facility.
Huff, an epidemiologist said in his new book, The Truth About Wuhan, that the pandemic was the result of the US government’s funding of coronaviruses in China.
He said that China’s gain-of-function experiments, which were carried out with lax security, led to a lab leak at the Wuhan lab.
“Foreign laboratories did not have the adequate control measures in place for ensuring proper biosafety, biosecurity, and risk management, ultimately resulting in the lab leak at the Wuhan Institute of Virology,” he said in his book, which was exclusively excerpted in the newspaper.
Over the last two years, increasing evidence has suggested that the virus was leaked from the lab.
The Wuhan Institute of Virology, a state-run and funded research facility home to China’s riskiest coronavirus research, has been under immense pressure by the ruling Chinese Communist Party to produce scientific breakthroughs to raise China’s global status despite lacking resources, according to a recent investigation published by ProPublica/Vanity Fair. (Scientist who worked at Wuhan lab says COVID man-made virus.)
The evidence about this was available in early-2020. However, Dr. Anthony Fauci, Dr. Francis Collins of the National Institutes of Health, the leaders of the World Health Organization and the World Economic Forum not only buried this truth but used Red China’s brutal approach to fight a virus created by means of gain-of-function studies in one of its own laboratories as the model for locking down Western countries and then spending a great deal of their time suppressing all dissent from their cookie-cutter, one size fits all protocols that produced most of the disease’s victims as the entirety of social fabric was corrupted by falsehoods upon falsehoods.
Fauci, who is retiring soon from his position as the director of the United States Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, is so arrogant as to believe he can flaunt his disregard for the truth, including the truth of his bare-knuckle efforts to repress anyone, no matter how well qualified or credentialed, who dared to criticize him, the murderous protocols advanced by the United States Centers for Disease Control, the vaccines, lockdowns, mask and social distancing mandates. Fauci alone represented the demigod of science, and he did not brook any opposition, which is why he has such admiration for the Red Chinese model of repression. He is tyrant and a thug.
Even several secular sources recognize that this is so:
There’s no ambiguity about hegemon USA’s angel of death and human misery, its modern-day Joseph Mengele.
Since the early 1980s, more monster than man Fauci’s anti-public health history has been pockmarked by crimes against humanity.
He transformed US public health regulation “into an incubator for” Pharma profiteering and his own self-enrichment, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. explained — at the expense of healthcare as it should be.
Throughout the US/West, sickness is prioritized over wellness because the latter is unprofitable.
In response to his announced December retirement as NIAID head and chief Biden regime medical fraudster, GOP Rep. Steve Scalise said the following:
“Congressional (Dems) refused to hold a single hearing on (all things flu/covid or (the Biden regime) financial involvement in gain-of-function research.”
“That will change when House Republicans take the majority next year.”
Fauci will be subpoenaed to testify “before Congress under oath (to explain) wrongful mandates (he was involved in) impos(ing) on Americans.”
During his time in government, the US became one of the developed world’s least healthy societies.
Americans have shorter lifespans, more illnesses and injuries — despite around double the per capita amount spent on healthcare compared to other developed countries.
In cahoots with Pharma, large hospital chains, and insurers, US ruling regimes — especially Dem-controlled ones — prioritize profits at the expense of health.
Pre-Thanksgiving weekend, Missouri and Louisiana AGs, Eric Schmitt and Jeff Landry respectively, deposed Fauci at length.
While his testimony is sealed at this time, Gateway Pundit’s Jim Hoft and attorney John Burns were present to witness his deposition first hand.
They watched him “squirm, stall and lie for seven hours,” GT reported, adding:
“(T)he sheer volume of things (he) ‘couldn’t recall,’ along with his obvious attempts at providing misleading and deceptive responses damned his testimony.”
His public life has been pockmarked by Big Lies and mass deception about all things public health with intent to harm it over the other way around.
He admitted that China’s January 2020 (health and freedom-destroying) lockdown got him to push the same thing on mind-manipulated Americans.
He admitted privately that masks don’t work but pushed their use anyway.
Earlier he infamously claimed to “represent science.”
During his deposition, he falsely claimed that failure to follow the (fabricated) official narrative on all things flu/covid “encourages people to avoid lifesaving interventions (that) result in the unnecessary death of people whose lives would have been saved” — a bald-faced Big Lie.
He argued against use of known safe and effective protocols to push health-destroying kill shots.
In response to his deposition, AG Landry — now LA senator-elect — said the following:
“It was amazing to spend 7 hours (with the) man who single-handedly wrecked the US economy (and lives of millions of Americans) based on (what he falsely called) science.”
Then while under oath, he couldn’t “recall practically anything dealing with his (flu/covid) response.”
And this from AG Schmitt:
The only 2020 science was politicized to dump Trump.
According to Fauci’s perversion of reality:
“The rest of us ‘don’t have the ability’ to determine what’s best for ourselves.”
“This is the…guy who locked our country down and ruined countless lives and livelihoods.”
Schmitt called him a “tinpot tyrant,” a medical fraudster.
And as NIAIA head, he’s the highest paid US official — $480,654 his most recent salary, his pension to be $375,211.
And he’s profited hugely from books, payments for public appearances and other compensation, including from Pharma for services rendered.
A doctor who never treated a patient — who for nearly 40 years operated in cahoots with genocidist Bill Gates, US dark forces and Pharma profiteers — benefitted hugely at the expense of public health.
RFK, Jr. earlier called him “a mix between (con man) Bernie Madoff, (defender of powerful interests at the expense of ordinary people) J. Edgar Hoover,” and a mafia crime boss — instead of defender of public health.
Time and again on national television, he willfully lied to viewers in pursuit of his diabolical health-destroying aims.
On multiple Sunday propaganda TV shows, he once again showed up to lie and mass deceive about all things flu/covid — perhaps for the last time as NIAID head.
Since flu/covid mass-jabbing began, never once did he explain that no emergency existed earlier or now.
Nothing justifies emergency use authorization for rushed-to-market, inadequately tested, hazardous-to-health kill shots.
Based on science — the real thing — nothing justifies everything mandated or recommended on all things flu/covid.
No pandemic exists, not earlier or now, just an invented one to push what’s destroying public health, not protecting and preserving it.
On Sunday, Fauci once again recited his customary litany of bald-faced Big Lies.
Throughout his public life, he’s lied and mass deceived repeatedly, once again to Sunday viewers of propaganda TV.
He lied claiming that “we certainly are still in” a pandemic when nothing of the sort exists.
He lied saying that daily flu/covid deaths are “between 300 and 400.”
The vast majority of hospitalizations and deaths attributed to the viral illness were willfully misdiagnosed — a fear-mongering scheme to mind-manipulate maximum numbers of people to unwittingly self-inflict harm from kill shots.
Fauci has been in the vanguard of what’s all about mass-extermination of unwanted millions and billions of people, along with eliminating what little remains of greatly eroded freedoms.
Claiming what he recommended has been “based on good public health principles” is worlds apart from his health-destroying agenda.
Why has he escaped accountability for the mother of all health-destroying scams?
Why hasn’t he been prosecuted, convicted, sentenced and confined behind bars where he belongs?
Separately, London-based Oncology Professor, Dr. Angus George Dalgleish, said the following by open letter to the British Medical Journal’s editor-in-chief on flu/covid mass-jabbing:
“The link with clots, myocarditis, heart attacks and strokes is now well accepted, as is the link with myelitis and neuropathy.”
Calling for a halt to mass-jabbing, he stressed the following:
“As a practicizing oncologist, I am seeing people with stable disease rapidly progress after being forced to have a booster, usually so they can travel.”
“I am seeing B cell-based disease after the boosters.”
“This must be aired and debated immediately.”
Results of a study by researchers at Boston’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital found “that the incidence of early onset cancers — including breast, colon, esophagus, kidney, liver, and pancreas — dramatically increased around the world” after mass-jabbing began.
There’s no ambiguity about the link between flu/covid jabs and dramatic increase in numbers of individuals becoming ill from cancer, heart disease and other major health-destroying illnesses.
The CDC, FDA, NIH, NIAID and Fauci personally lied about all things flu/covid related, especially about kill shots.
An explosion of serious illnesses followed their introduction.
Everyone jabbed was irreparably harmed, their life span shortened — the more jabs gotten, the greater the harm to health.
Unjabbed individuals are profoundly safer than their jabbed counterparts.
As long as the mother of all state-sponsored scams goes on, millions more people will suffer, become disabled and die prematurely from kill shots designed to destroy public health.
Instead of exposing and denouncing what’s going on, MSM and hospitals were bribed with big bucks to support the most diabolical state-sponsored scheme of all time — with no end of it in prospect.
Dr. Anthony Fauci announced this summer that he’d be stepping down from various government positions in December, in order to pursue the “next chapter” of his life and career. With his protracted farewell tour underway, I’d argue that his departure can’t come soon enough. In an interview with CBS News over the weekend, Fauci tried to blame the Trump administration for the Chinese Communist Party’s flagrant cover-up on COVID’s origins. As others have noted, his timeline here is wrong — and his view of how matters should have been investigated and settled is embarrassingly naive:
The ‘horse out of the barn,’ to borrow his phrase, was COVID itself, and it was out of the proverbial barn for months prior to Fauci’s designated antagonist — Donald Trump — began criticizing Beijing over its scandalous handling of the pandemic’s emergence. Also, the notion that the issue of COVID’s origins could have been settled among scientists, with ‘politics’ left out of it, is preposterous. The CCP reflexivelypunished medical professionals and scientists, among others, who spoke out in those early days. They run a closed, authoritarian government; the idea that they’d have permitted their scientists to operate with a free hand to pursue the truth is laughable. They interfered at every single step, determined to obscure and bury what happened. They’re still doing things like roughing up and arresting western journalists. Let’s also recall that Fauci himself also had a hand in diminishing the viable-to-probable ‘lab leak’ theory early on, receiving personal thanks for doing so from a man who (like the CCP) was heavily invested in the suppression of that important line of inquiry. And it was actively suppressed for quite some time. I won’t assert that Fauci is willfully spreading Chinese propaganda, but I can’t imagine Chairman Xi and his henchmen are too disappointed to see the American media’s favorite doctor pointing the finger at the “accusatory” Trump administration for supposedly causing the Chinese government’s “flinch back” posture on COVID origins. Meanwhile, here is how things have been going in China, where the regime’s truly insane ‘zero COVID’ approach (bizarrely cheered on by a neurotic quasi-journalist at the Washington Post) is facing remarkable and deserved backlash from a population not accustomed to resisting any of its government’s decrees.
or seven hours, Fauci was bombarded with questions from now-Missouri Sen.-elect Schmitt, Missouri Solicitor General John Sauer, and Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry, who ostentatiously displayed two books on his desk to rattle the star witness: Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s excoriating “The Real Anthony Fauci,” and John M. Barry’s pandemic classic about the 1918 Spanish flu: “The Great Influenza: The Story of the Deadliest Plague in History.”
While the transcript of the deposition is a day or two from being published, various participants have described Fauci’s demeanor as cocky, deceitful and quick-witted, despite his 81 years.
There was no humility or admission of fallibility, no reflection that the lockdowns may have done more harm than good, especially to children’s schooling, or that vaccine mandates were pointlessly divisive.
Fauci exhibited stress when he was asked why he dismissed the “Wuhan lab leak” theory of the origins of COVID in favor of the less plausible “natural” hypothesis, and denied knowing about the proxy funding of dangerous gain-of-function research on viruses by the National Institutes of Health, where he is director of infectious diseases.
He also was prickly when asked why he dismissed the advice of eminent medicos from the most prestigious universities in the US and the UK, who penned the Great Barrington Declaration in October 2020, urging a less extreme, more scientifically orthodox way of dealing with the virus, by focusing on protecting the old and infirm while letting young and healthy people live normally.
Instead, Fauci insisted on following the “China lockdown” model, not that he allowed himself to say “lockdown” during his deposition, since news reports out of China have rather tarnished the word, with protests erupting after COVID-infected citizens were burned alive in their apartments after being welded in.
No, Fauci preferred the vague term “social distancing,” says Jenin Younes, litigation lawyer with the New Civil Liberties Alliance, who was representing plaintiffs at the deposition, including two authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a Stanford University professor of medicine and a health economist, and Dr. Martin Kulldorff, a Harvard University professor of medicine and infectious-disease epidemiologist.
Their claim is that the Biden administration and Big Tech colluded to suppress, censor and smear them and to silence legitimate scientific views that opposed Fauci’s.
Fauci denied being part of a propaganda campaign with his boss at the time, Francis Collins, to discredit the Great Barrington authors, despite emails between the pair planning a “swift and devastating takedown” of what Collins called “fringe epidemiologists.”
Fauci was similarly forgetful about any role he played in social-media censorship of dissenting views.
But Schmitt is confident the facts will emerge.
“What’s become clear in this lawsuit and in Dr. Fauci’s deposition,” he said Wednesday, “is that when Fauci speaks, Big Tech censors.”
Anthony Fauci’s exit, though, will do nothing to change the narrative that is still being spun by the ideologues within the administration of the Chief Grifter, Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., which features another smug academician who, without having treated a single patient infected with the SARS Cov2 virus, has had the audacity to disparage the protocols used by Dr. Peter McCullough and others for the early treatment of the virus with hydroxychloroquine:
I wasn’t surprised when the Biden Administration appointed Dr. Jha to serve as its Covid Czar. As we recount in our book, Dr. Jha was the minority witness at Senator Ron Johnson’s Senate November 19, 2020 hearing on Early Outpatient Treatment. This hearing began with testimony from Drs. Peter McCullough, Harvey Risch, and George Fareed on the safety and efficacy of repurposed, FDA-approved drugs for treating COVID-19—especially in the disease’s early stage—to prevent hospitalization and death.
Following their testimony, Dr. Jha testified that their observations and findings were erroneous. In fact, he claimed, there were no effective early treatments for COVID-19, and that our best and only hope was the vaccine that was then in development.
An especially dramatic and somewhat comical moment in the hearing occurred when Dr. George Fareed said, “I wonder if Dr. Jha actually treats patients by the way he talks.” Senator Johnson took this remark as a cue for querying Dr. Jha.
“Have you treated any Covid patients,” Senator Johnson asked.
“I have not, sir,” Dr. Jha replied. As we relate this scene in our book:
Dr. Jha had splendid academic credentials to match his splendid manners, but at this moment he lost a lot of credibility. It was perhaps the equivalent of an aeronautical engineer admitting that he’d never flown in a plane, or a marital counselor admitting he’d never been married.
He implied that Professor Risch—a distinguished epidemiologist twenty years his senior—was categorically wrong in his interpretation of the data. Then he implied that Dr. Fareed’s observations as a treating physician were an illusion—that the high-risk patients who received the Zelenko Protocol would have recovered in the same dramatic way without the intervention.
This was probably the most notable moment in the hearing. Since graduating from medical school in 1970, Dr. Fareed had logged fifty years as a medical researcher and treating physician. It would be hard to find a doctor in the entire country with more clinical experience. He testified to the U.S. Senate that he’d successfully treated 1,000 high-risk COVID-19 patients. A few minutes later, a doctor 25 years his junior—one who’d never treated a single COVID-19 patient—asserted that “there is now clear consensus in the medical and scientific community” that a key ingredient of Dr. Fareed’s treatment protocol doesn’t work. In effect, Dr. Jha told Dr. Fareed to reject the evidence of his own eyes and ears.
Shortly after the hearing, Dr. Jha published an opinion piece for the November 24, 2020, edition of the New York Times titled “The Snake-Oil Salesman of the Senate.” He opened with likening the event to a contagion.
There was a super-spreader event last week in the United States Senate. It wasn’t the coronavirus, however, that was spreading, but misinformation. … The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee held a hearing about early treatment for COVID-19. Yet instead of a robust discussion about promising emerging therapies or what Congress might do to accelerate such treatments, the conversation was all about the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine. … Neither Ron Johnson, the Wisconsin Republican senator nor his chosen witnesses—three doctors who have pushed hydroxychloroquine—displayed more than a passing interest in evidence. Intuition and personal experiences of individual doctors were acclaimed as guiding principles.[i]
Dr. Jha didn’t mention that he himself had focused his Senate remarks on hydroxychloroquine and hadn’t mentioned any “promising emerging therapies” apart from vaccines. He also didn’t state the names or credentials of the hearing’s witnesses or a summary of their findings or experiences. He compared them to the snake oil salesmen from the frontier past with their advocacy of the drug that President Trump had touted in the spring, implying they were equally lacking in medical sophistication.
“I was called reckless because I pointed to facts that could prevent people from getting the treatment,” he wrote, but he didn’t state these facts. The online version of his essay hyperlinked the word “reckless” to a similar hatchet job report on the hearing in the Washington Post. He claimed the witnesses had expressed a distrust of science and had even “suggested that scientists were part of a ‘deep state’ conspiracy to deny Americans access to lifesaving therapies.” This was, he asserted, “a powerful reminder that not even Congress is immune to toxic conspiracy theories…”
Dr. Jha’s New York Times opinion was, itself, evidence that early treatment of COVID-19 was the subject of a well-orchestrated smear campaign. Why else would such a distinguished academic pen such rank propaganda against his colleagues and their work? That he was personally stung by the revelation that he’d never treated a single COVID-19 patient could only partly account for it.
A possible answer to this question may be gleaned from Dr. Jha’s remarks at a January 10, 2017, Georgetown University conference titled “Pandemic Preparedness in the Next Administration.” Like the participants at the October 2019 Pandemic Simulation Exercise at Johns Hopkins, Dr. Jha predicted that a devastating pandemic “is going to come at some point.” Dr. Fauci, the keynote speaker, made a more precise prediction.
“There is no question that there will be a challenge to the coming administration in the arena of infectious diseases,” he proclaimed. “The thing we’re extraordinarily confident about is that we’re going to see this in the next few years.”[ii]
As psychiatrist and author Peter Breggin, MD, remarked in his extraordinary book COVID-19 and the Global Predators: We Are the Prey, Dr Jha did not speak in a somber tone about the coming devastation. On the contrary, he emphasized that he was excited about the ambitious project of helping the U.S. and other governments, and equally excited about the many pandemic preparation events in Georgetown and Cambridge that lay ahead. The conference was, he said, the “beginning of a journey.”[iii]
Dr. Jha and his colleagues were animated with the same excitement that denizens of the military-industrial complex would feel at the prospect of a coming war in which they would assume leadership positions. At last, they would be able to deploy all of their forces. With the recognition that the coming war was inevitable, they could call upon the government to allocate far more resources for new technologies, weapons systems, bases, and military organizations. In an atmosphere of such heady excitement, the suggestion of defusing the coming war with diplomacy wouldn’t be received with much enthusiasm.
The irony of Dr. Jha’s excitement is that, when the pandemic he predicted arrived three years later, he didn’t attempt to treat patients or scramble to find consultants to intervene against the disease before it wrecked bodies and imprisoned people in hospitals. Instead, he penned propaganda against hydroxychloroquine and against Drs. McCullough, Risch, and Fareed. Why was the New York Times Editorial Board compelled to publish his misleading account of the Senate hearing? Did the editors even watch the C-SPAN recording of it?
It’s not plausible that their motive was a concern about hydroxychloroquine’s safety. Dr. Jha himself conceded in his testimony that he wasn’t particularly concerned about safety, so why the vast and ceaseless quibbling about whether its efficacy for outpatients had been proven? As Senator Johnson had said in the hearing, this makes no sense. (John Leake, “Courageous Discourse” newsletter, November 28, 2022.)
Ideologues must create their own alternative realities, which is what the homosexual collective’s leading acolytes have done by pushing and pushing and pushing the insanity that has infected and corrupted even ordinary discourse as it denies basic biological truths to force everyone to anesthetize their guilty consciences and make those who understand reality and call it as such feel the guilt that motivates them to be ceaseless in their efforts at gaining universal acceptance and acquiescence.
The globalist ideologues masquerading as “scientists,” academicians, lawyers, “journalists,” hospital administrators, corporate executives have done the exact same thing as they seek to gain universal acceptance to and acquiescence about their claims to infallibility on whatever contradictory statement or pronouncement du jour they assert demands our assent. This why the courageous Dr. Peter McCullough is under attack to the point where his entire professional career of unparalleled distinction in his field is in jeopardy of being yanked away from him:
Eminent COVID-19 expert, prolific researcher, and physician Dr. Peter McCullough is being systematically stripped of his medical credentials including, most recently, his board certification to practice internal medicine and cardiology.
McCullough is an internist, cardiologist, and epidemiologist who has 677 articles published in scientific peer-reviewed journals and remains the most published individual in his field. He was also, until recently, an editor of two major medical journals and President of the Cardiorenal Society of America.
“He’s sacrificed everything so he can speak the truth about the COVID polices,” wrote entrepreneur-turned-journalist Steve Kirsch in an October 29 Substack article.
“He’s one of the most respected cardiologists in the world. He’s been right about everything throughout the pandemic,” Kirsch added. “If there was one COVID advisor that the government should be listening to, Dr. Peter McCullough would be at the top of every list.”
Yet, without due process, McCullough was stripped of his duties as Editor-In-Chief of two medical journals and even of his board certifications in internal medicine and cardiology, Kirsch reported.
In a correspondence to Kirsch, McCullough wrote:
I was terminated as the Editor-In-Chief of Cardiorenal Medicine and Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine after years of service and rising impact factors. There was no phone call, no board meeting, no due process. Just e-mails or certified letters. Powerful dark forces are working in academic medicine to expunge any resistance to the vax.
Yesterday I was stripped of my board certifications in Internal Medicine and Cardiology after decades of perfect clinical performance, board scores, and hundreds of peer reviewed publications.
None of this will stop until there is a ‘needle in every arm.’
The announcement of McCullough’s departure from Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine acknowledged that under his guidance as Editor-in-Chief the publication became “truly international” and elevated its impact factor from 0.4 to 2.93 with ranked growth of “even higher than 3” anticipated to be reported at a later date. “The journal could not achieve such a great success without [McCullough’s] help,” the statement reads.
In August, McCullough told LifeSiteNews that he had received notice of potential disciplinary action from the American Board of Internal Medicine because of his stance on the COVID-19 response.
Having testified before a US Senate Committee, and legislative bodies in Texas, Colorado, New Hampshire and South Carolina, along with many other forums, McCullough has been a most competent and compelling critic of the draconian COVID-19 restrictions, lockdowns, and mandates imposed over the past two and a half years. As an alternative, he has persuasively advocated for the cultivation of natural immunity and early treatment through effective therapeutics.
The prominent doctor, who has also provided significant expert commentary on Fox News, NewsMax, and Real America, told LifeSiteNews’ editor-in-chief John-Henry Westen in August 2021 that “the vaccines at this point in time have amounted to record mortality and injury and should be considered unsafe and unfit for human use.”
On October 7, Twitter suspended McCullough’s account as the cardiologist explained in an announcement on the Gab platform: “With no warning they stripped all my followers to zero, then they executed their kill machine–SUSPENDED!” he wrote.
n addition, McCullough recently described COVID-19 as a “biological weapon.” “It was a government operation that created SARS-CoV-2 and the spike protein,” McCullough declared. “It’s the U.S. government that did it. And they were working on the threat and working on the response … This was all planned … SARS-CoV-2 is a biological weapon.”
Furthermore, during a late October conference, the internist explained why the experimental COVID-19 gene-based injections should be the presumed cause of unusually high excess death rates around the world.
He added in a later interview that “the vaccine accelerates death from other causes. So, if someone has cancer, the vaccine accelerates that. If someone has heart disease, one is more likely to have fatal heart attacks and strokes… The vaccines cause blood clotting… The vaccine is incredibly risky, and basically, it’s achieving its goal. If the goal was to reduce the world’s population, it’s working.” (Dr. Peter McCullough is being systematically canceled for his resistance to the COVID jabs)
Dr. McCullough has been in the forefront of the fight to treat those suffering from the virus with the proper protocols that are suitable to each patient’s condition and medical ¸Yes, the goal has been and continues to be the reduction of the world’s population, which has been the goal of British eugenicists in the late Nineteenth Century and that of Margaret Sanger and the population controllers that have followed her in the past century. Contraception, the surgical execution of the innocent preborn, euthanasia, suicide, assisted suicide, physician-assisted suicide, “brain death”/human organ vivisection, the starvation and dehydration of innocent human beings, and the whole “quality of life” standard of global “health care” have always been about reducing the world’s population, a goal that has been a paramount one for the ideologues obsessing about “global climate control.” As noted earlier in this commentary, the modern pantheists are now out in the open and have begun to advocate for human extinction, something that the likes of Drs. Peter Singer and Paul Ehrlich only approached obliquely by means of their ceaseless work against God’s command to Adam and Eve to “multiply and increase” so that He could have adorers here on here as members of the Church Militant and in Heaven thereafter as members of the Church Triumphant.
In the meantime, however, it is enough for the vaccinators and the globalist master class to do what they can to sicken, sterilize and eliminate as many people as possible, and to mock divine omnipotence by using a global vaccine passport to fight a virus that is not fatal to those without preexisting comorbidities but is really designed to suppress dissent by denying access to those of us who refuse to obey them, our self-anointed master class of high priests and priestesses:
As noted by former U.S. Rep. Dr. Ron Paul in the video above, World Economic Forum (WEF) founder Klaus Schwab and other globalist leaders substitute truth with their own opinions. They decide what’s right and wrong; they decide what’s right for everyone. They dictate what’s “true” on any given day.
Anyone who disagrees with them is an “enemy of the state” — they being “the state” or, more accurately, the Deep State, the hidden power behind the apparent power of official government. Who are the members of this cabal? There’s no official membership list, but over time many of the individual players have become discernible.
The globalist cabal includes but is not limited to government heads, bankers and members of nongovernmental organizations (NGO’s) and liberal think tanks around the world.
One way in which the cabal hides its undemocratic influence is by having its members in dozens of different organizations. When several organizations agree on an issue, it makes it appear as though there’s a majority view, a consensus. But in reality, it’s the same small group of individuals asserting their agenda.
G20 Green-Light International Vaccine Passports
The G20, a group of 19 nations — including the U.S. — plus the European Union, recently held their annual business meeting (B20) in Bali, Indonesia, where they declared that digital vaccine passports, standardized by the World Health Organization, will be part of international pandemic prevention and response moving forward.1
Part of the policy declaration3 reads:4
“We support continued international dialogue and collaboration on the establishment of trusted global digital health networks as part of the efforts to strengthen prevention and response to future pandemics, that should capitalize and build on the success of the existing standards and digital COVID-19 certificates.”
The rule for standardized international vaccine passports will reportedly be introduced as a revision to the international health regulations during the next World Health Assembly in Geneva.5
What this means is that when the next pandemic is declared, only those who have this digital health certificate will be allowed to move about freely and travel internationally. And, of course, only those who have been appropriately tested and/or vaccinated will have a valid passport.
In addition to adopting an international digital vaccine passport, the G20 recommendations also include the creation of guidelines for a globally coordinated response to crises, “enhanced by a technology-enabled ‘always-on’ global health infrastructure,” and a mutual recognition of COVID-19 vaccines made by G20 members.
Schwab Tells Us What the G20 Are All About
Aside from key government leaders, high-profile globalists such as Schwab were also in attendance at the G20 meetings. In his B20 keynote address, Schwab highlighted the cabal’s agenda and goals:6
“What we have to confront is a deep, systemic and structural re-structuring of our world … [The] world will look differently after we have gone through this transition process.”
Part of that worldwide restructuring of society that the WEF, the G20 and many other organizations are working in lockstep to achieve is the implementation of a global vaccine passport, which all of the G20 members have now agreed to. In the case of the U.S., President Biden signed the declaration despite the promises made by his White House COVID-19 Response Team leader, Jeff Zients, who in April 2021 stated:7
“Let me be clear that the government is not now, nor will we be supporting a system that requires Americans to carry a credential. There’ll be no federal vaccination database, no federal mandate requiring everyone to obtain a single vaccination credential.”
Basis for Vaccine Passports No Longer Exist
If you’re a rational person, you’re probably thinking, “But wait, the COVID jabs don’t prevent infection or spread, so there’s no basis for vaccine passports anymore.” Indeed, this fact has now been established many times over. This alone proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that COVID vaccine passports have nothing to do with public health or safety.
An international vaccine passport is the gateway to complete totalitarian control, because the entire control grid around a person gets tied together by it.
Their purpose is not to prevent or contain pandemics. They’re a control mechanism,8 and a really important one. Vaccine passports are THE gateway to complete, totalitarian control of the populations of the world. The globalist cabal desperately needs everyone to have this passport, because the entire control grid around a person gets tied together by it. This is why fighting for informed consent is so crucial.
But how is the G20 getting around the obvious fact that the COVID passports are useless for their stated purpose? They ignore it, and instead stress that everyone also needs a digital identity, and this digital COVID certificate does both.
Outside their own circle, this rationale makes no sense whatsoever, but as noted by Dutch legal philosopher Eva Vlaardingerbroek, the fact that vaccine passports are sold based on a fraudulent premise is now “so obvious that they’ve thrown logic out the window.”9
Their decisions make no sense, and they have no intention of making them sensible. They’re banking on being able to entrap us in their control system, at which point they’ll be able to tell you the moon is made of cheese and you’ll have no way of correcting them without losing everything.
Digital Identity Is Total Surveillance to Control You
As reported by Sociable:10
“In August, 2021, the World Health Organization (WHO) published a 99-page guide book11 on the implementation of digital documentation of COVID-19 certificates, aka vaccine passports, stating that ‘a health pass based solely on individual vaccination status may increase the risk of disease spread.’
This is because the COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ were never proven to prevent transmission nor infection, and it recently came to light in the European Parliament that Pfizer never even tested its product for stopping transmission. Despite this knowledge being publicly available, the B20 is still recommending proof of vaccination as a means to travel …
Vaccine passports, by their very nature, serve as a form of digital identity, according to the World Economic Forum (WEF). A digital identity encompasses everything that makes you unique in the digital realm, and it is a system that can consolidate all of your most personal intimate data, including which websites you visit, your online purchases, health records, financial accounts, and who you’re friends with on social media …
[D]igital identity schemes can give governments and corporations the power to incentivize, coerce, or otherwise manipulate human behavior under a system of social credit. Digital identities can be used to determine what products, services, and information are available to us, and they can certainly be used by public and private entities to deny us that access.”
In March 2021, Naomi Wolf, author of “The End Of America,” warned that accepting digital ID will be the end of all freedom:13,14
“I cannot say this forcefully enough: This is literally the end of human liberty in the West if this plan unfolds as planned … Vaccine passports sound like a fine thing if you don’t know what those platforms can do.
I’m CEO of a tech company, I understand what this platform does. It’s not about the vaccine, it’s not about the virus, it’s about data. And once this rolls out you don’t have a choice about being part of the system. What people have to understand is that any other functionality can be loaded onto that platform with no problem at all.”
Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver has also issued a warning, saying:15
Vaccine Passports Are Gateway for Complete Financial Control
When vaccine passports first became a topic of international discussions, many of us saw the writing on the wall and warned that such an implementation would become a tool for complete financial and physical control, and would automatically eliminate basic human rights and freedoms.
At the time, we were labeled crazy conspiracy theorists, but it didn’t take long before our worst fears were confirmed. Your vaccine passport will be your digital identity (as confirmed by the WEF), and to that digital identity they plan to add a programmable central bank digital currency (CBDC) and a social credit score. These plans are not a conspiracy theory. They’re out in the open.
When you add all of those ingredients together — vaccine requirements for maintaining a valid passport, a digital identity, a social credit score and programmable CBDCs — you end up with a control grid that will eliminate your freedom to live life according to your own desires.
Even your diet can then be dictated by these megalomaniacs. They’re hell-bent on eliminating your ability to eat meat, for example. The whole world, especially the Western world, must transition to insect protein, they say. Meanwhile, you will not find meal worms and crickets on the menus at their globalist gatherings.16 No, insect protein is for the expendables.
COVID Is Used as a Path to Global Financial Surveillance
Once vaccine passports/digital identity and CBDCs are in place, the global cabal will be able to control your physical movements, behaviors and purchases based on how well you conform to their ideals, no matter how irrational, immoral, unethical, unfair or dangerous those may be. As reported by The Daily Sceptic:17
“It’s seemed evident for a while that the current fiat monetary system is, at best, unstable. At worst, it’s a Ponzi scheme whose time has expired. If that’s the case, I suspect the central bankers and 0.1% know this and might be prepared to usher in the new system before the old one collapses on itself — even as they loot it on the way down with the most significant wealth transfer in human history.
To anyone who pays attention to these trends, it seems evident that Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) will be that new system. Every indication is that CBDC’s arrival is imminent. [November 15, 2022], several global banks announced a partnership with the New York Federal Reserve to pilot digital dollars18,19 …
From my vantage point, it’s impossible to overstate the risk presented by CBDC. Whether it’s a utopian vision based on good intentions or a sinister plot to crush our sovereignty, the result may be the same: control. A Central Bank Digital Currency has all the downsides of fiat money, plus the added layers of surveillance and programmability overseen by the state.
So many people on Team Reality have likely felt like dissidents over the last few years simply for challenging anything beyond the herd mentality … Imagine a monetary system with features baked-in to socially engineer how we live. For example:
•Health: ‘You didn’t take your booster … you’re not allowed in public spaces.’
•Energy: ‘You used your energy allotment this month … your electric car won’t start.’
•Food: ‘You ate too much meat this week … your money is only good for plants (or bugs).’
•Savings: ‘If you don’t take your rations soon … your money will expire at the end of the month.’
•Free Speech: ‘You shared info that we disagree with … our algorithm is fining you.’ (PayPal has already started doing this) …
As we saw with the lockdowns, China is the model emulated in the west. Like the creep towards health-related authoritarian measures, unelected globalists with financial interests lurk in the background …
If you have yet to notice, a primary theme of the last three-plus years (at least) is ‘freedom vs. control’, so it’s not hyperbole to suggest that the future must be decentralized if we want to ensure our children grow up in a free world.”
If there’s a silver lining in all of this, it’s that the globalist cabal — the “deep state” that pulls the strings of governments around the world, the hidden power that is making decisions that are devastating for the entire world — overplayed their hand during COVID, exposing their heinous ideologies and plans for all the world to see. As noted by Maajid Nawaz in an interview this past summer (video above):
“When dogma defines your behavior you’re no longer looking at reality … so you’re going to be less pragmatic … That leaves serious blind spots. You end up not seeing reality for what it is, and that is why they ended up overplaying their hand. They’re not looking to reality, they’re looking to their dream, their ideal, which is actually a nightmare.
One great thing that happened during COVID is they overplayed their hand. They exposed themselves … There’s now very little doubt, among those who have heard of the World Economic Forum, that it’s attempting to influence how we do government and politics …
Why do we have an unelected bureaucrat, and a foreign one at that, telling us how to live our lives …? It doesn’t make sense. But then we go further. Why do they all seem to be beholden to this unelected foreign bureaucrat? Why do they all appear to be doing this man’s bidding? … Why can’t they just say no?”
As noted by Nawaz, the government leaders who are not saying no to Schwab for some reason cannot say no, likely because they’ve been compromised. Compromising and blackmailing officials on behalf of the globalist cabal was Jeffrey Epstein’s specialty, and there’s no reason to assume their secrets died with him.
Those with cleaner records may have been threatened into compliance. I would add a third possibility, and that is that they’re in on it because they share the globalists ideals, which include not only top-down authoritarianism but also transhumanism and eugenics. A fourth possibility is self-preservation. They may simply want to secure their own position within the ruling echelon in the new world of “have it alls” and “have nothings.”
We Now Know What They’re Capable Of
Whatever the incentive, the problem they now all face is the fact that they’ve prematurely exposed themselves and their plans. They’ve also exposed how far they’re willing to go. For example, we know they’re willing to seize your bank account and close down your ability to transact over something as minor as making a donation to a cause they don’t like or posting “wrong”-think on social media — and that’s without the benefit of CBDCs!
So, they’ve already shown us what they WILL do once CBDCs are in place. The only difference is that penalties can then be automated. Is this a world you want to live in? Is this what you want for your children and grandchildren? If not, it’s your duty to be the resistance.
Adults today are the last generation that will be able to prevent this global tyranny. If we do nothing, our children will be ensconced in a digital prison they won’t be able to break free from. So, we cannot leave it to them. It’s up to us. So, when CBDCs are rolled out, we must reject them, no matter how inconvenient that might be. When vaccine passports are rolled out, we must reject them, despite the limitations that might bring.
In 2021, countless people were coerced into taking the jabs because they wanted to travel, fearing travel bans for the unvaccinated would be permanent. Well, they weren’t, because enough people pushed back.
We may have to endure limitations if we refuse the coming international vaccine passport, but if enough people around the world refuse, the system won’t work, and those limitations will prove to be temporary. The only way any of the globalists’ plans can become permanent is if we do as we’re told and go along with them. (G20 Signs Declaration for International Vaccine Passport.)
This is all very useful information about the horrific plans that are being made to subject us to the whims of mere mortals who have no concept of either supernatural or natural truth after having made themselves masters of the universe. The most we can do in merely human terms is to refuse to do what these masters of the universe tell us to do as we resist any and all temptations to live as complacent dupes who are expected to surrender their own legitimate liberties to smug elitists who never live by the rules the impose upon the rest of us mortal souls.
Additionally, there are signs that the cabalistic schemes that have been used to manipulate voters, suppress actual truth as it is labeled as “misinformation” to be censored on “social media” will be exposed more and more over time by Elon Musk, who is not a friend of supernatural truth by any stretch of the imagination, now that he has taken over something called “Twitter.”
Apart from releasing some of the company’s internal emails concerning how the 2020 New York Post story about the contents of Hunter Biden’slaptop computer’s hard drivethat show he was collecting millions of dollars from Red Chinese and Ukrainian oligarchs with ten percent held in reserve for the “Big Guy” (Don Cordileone Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr.), Musk has also discontinued Twitter’s ban on “Covid-19 misinformation.” I remain a cynic about how much the public truly cares about the Hunter Biden stories or about social media’s effort to suppress the truth about the injuries and deaths caused by the vaccines. However, there are surely some people who will come to see the truth about both of these stories and have their eyes opened.
However, we are called to see everything in the world through the supernatural eyes of the Holy Faith as we remember that Catholicism and Catholicism alone is the only bulwark against the evils of our treacherous times. One cannot fight naturalism with naturalism. One can only fight and defeat naturalism with Catholicism, especially by means of a tender reliance upon the Mother of God through her Most Holy Rosary.
IV. Concluding Remarks: To Remember That God Alone is Omnipotent and He Alone Will Put an End to the Madness of the Moment in His Good Time
As Catholics, though, we must always remember that God is still God, that He is permitting these events to unfold within His Divine Providence for His own greater honor and glory and for our own sanctification salvation. Christ the King will permit His enemies and the enemies of Holy Mother Church’s children to go only so far before He intervenes, and, although things look bleak in merely human terms, we must remember that it is because of the prayers and loving protection of Our Lady that our situation is not worse than it is and that more people have not been killed or injured by the globalists and their stooges in the medical industry and Big Pharma, who are simple more refined and seemingly “cultured” versions of the caricature named Jack Kevorkian (see Meeting God In The Face After Playing Him In Life.)
Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ will never ask us to bear any cross that is beyond our capacity to carry and then to embrace in a spirit of loving generosity. He sends us all the graces necessary through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is Mediatrix of All Graces to prosper under our own individual crosses and those we carry collectively in the midst of the conspiracy of dark forces to be found within the mutually symbiotic relationship that exists between the lords of Modernity in the world and the lords of Modernism within the counterfeit church of conciliarism, which has been headed for nearly one hundred nineteen excruciatingly long months by Jorge Mario Bergoglio, aka the Argentine Apostate.
We must remember that we are sinners who are in constant need of making reparation for our sins as the consecrated slave of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary. Every sickness, every bit of pain, every bit of misunderstanding, ostracism, ridicule, and material sacrifice is all meant to give honor and glory to the Most Blessed Trinity as we surrender whatever merit that we might earn by enduring an infinitesimally minute amount of the humiliation and pain that our own sins imposed upon Our Lord’s Sacred Humanity during His fearful Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday.
Our Lord’s Bloody Sacrifice of Himself His Co-Equal, Co-Eternal, Co-Divine God the Father in atonement for our sins on the wood of the Holy Cross, which is re-presented or perpetuated in an unbloody manner every day by our true bishops and priests on altars of sacrifice, makes it possible for us to co-redeemers with Him in the work of the sanctification and salvation of the world. This is the time in which God has ordained from all eternity for us to live, meaning that there is work for us to accomplish, work in behalf of the Sacred Deposit of the Holy Faith and also in behalf truth on the merely natural level as serve the Chief Priest and Victim of every Holy Mass, Christ the King, and not the chief priests and priestesses of Big Pharma, Big Tech, Big Medicine, Faux Science, Deep State, Globalism and Modernism.
This season of Advent is a season of hope. We must never also pray to Our Lady, our Seat of Wisdom, every day for an increase in the Supernatural Virtue of Hope within our immortal souls so that we do not fall into a morass of bitterness or hopelessness in these perilous time, and Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., highlighted the hopeful nature of Advent in his reflection on the Second Sunday of Advent:
The Office of this Sunday is filled, from beginning to end, with the sentiments of hope and joy, with which the soul should be animated at the glad tidings of the speedy coming of Him who is her Savior and Spouse. The interior coming, that which is effected in the soul, is the almost exclusive object of the Church’s prayers for this day: let us therefore open our hearts, let us prepare our lamps, and wait in gladness that cry which will be heard in the midnight: Glory be to God! Peace unto men!
The Roman Church makes the Station today in the Basilica of Holy Cross-in-Jerusalem. It was in this venerable church that Constantine deposited a large piece of the True Cross, together with the Title which was fastened to it by Pilate’s order, and which proclaimed the Kingly character of the Savior of the world. These precious relics are still kept there; and, thus enriched with such a treasure, the Basilica of Holy Cross in Jerusalem is looked upon, in the Roman Liturgy, as Jerusalem itself, as is evident from the allusions made in the several Masses of the Stations held in that Basilica. In the language of the sacred Scriptures and of the Church, Jerusalem is the image of the faithful soul; and the Office and Mass of this Sunday have been drawn up on this idea, as the one of the day. We regret not to be able here to develop the sublime beauty of this figure; and must proceed at once to the passage which the Church has selected from the Prophet Isaias. There she tells her children how well-founded are her hopes in the merciful and peaceful reign of the Messias. But first let us adore this divine Messias:
And there shall come forth a rod out of the root of Jesse, and a flower shall rise up out of his root. And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him: the spirit of wisdom, and of understanding, the spirit of counsel, and of fortitude, the spirit of knowledge, and of godliness. And he shall be filled with the spirit of the fear of the Lord. He shall not judge according to the sight of the eyes, nor reprove according to the hearing of the ears. But he shall judge the poor with justice, and shall reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: land he shall strike the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall slay the wicked. And justice shall be the girdle of his loins: and faith the girdle of his reins. The wolf shall dwell with the lamb: and the leopard shall lie down with the kid: the calf and the lion, and the sheep shall abide together, and a little child shall lead them. The calf and the bear shall feed: their young ones shall rest together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp: and the weaned child shall thrust his hand into the den of the basilisk. They shall not hurt, nor shall they kill in all my holy mountain, for the earth is filled with the knowledge of the Lord, as the covering waters of the sea. In that day the root of Jesse, who standeth for an ensign of the people, him the Gentiles shall beseech, and his sepulchre shall be glorious. (Isaias 11.)
How much is contained in these magnificent words of the Prophet! The Branch; the Flower that is to come from it; the Spirit which rests on this flower; the seven Gifts of this Spirit; peace and confidence established on the earth; and, throughout the world, one brotherhood in the kingdom of the Messias! St. Jerome, whose words are read by the Church in the lessons of the Second Nocturn of this Sunday, says:”That the Branch which cometh forth from the root of Jesse, is the Blessed Virgin Mary, who had contact with no shrub or plant; and that the Flower is the Lord Jesus, who says in the Canticle of Canticles: I am the Flower of the field, and the Lily of the valley.” In every age of the Christian Church, this wonderful Branch and its divine Flower have been objects of enthusiastic veneration. In the Middle Ages, the Tree of Jesse, with its prophetic branches, was carved on the cathedral porches, was painted on the windows, was embroidered on the hangings of the sanctuary, and the melodious voice of the priests sang its praises in the beautiful Responsory composed by Fulbert of Chartres, and put to music by the devout King Robert.
R. The root of Jesse gave out a Branch, and the Branch a Flower; * and on the Flower resteth the Holy Spirit.
V. The Virgin Mother of God is the Branch, her Son the flower. * And on the flower resteth the holy Spirit.
The devout St. Bernard, commenting upon this responsory in his second Advent homily, says: “The Virgin’s Son is the flower, a flower white and ruddy, chosen out of thousands; a flower on whom the angels love to look; a flower whose fragrance restores the dead; a flower, as himself assures us, of the field, not of a garden: for the flowers of the field bloom without man’s care, no man has sown their seed, no man has cultivated them. Just so the Virgin’s womb, a meadow verdant in an endless spring, has brought forth a flower, whose beauty will never droop, whose freshness will never fade. O Virgin, branch sublime, to what a height art thou grown! Even up to Him that sitteth on the throne, even to the Lord of majesty. It was sure to be so, for thou castest deep down the roots of humility. O plant of heaven indeed! precious above all, holier than all. O tree of life indeed! alone worthy to bear the fruit of salvation.”
And of the holy Spirit and His gifts, what shall we say? They rest and are poured out on the Messias only to the end that they may flow from Him upon us. He needs them not; but we alone need wisdom and understanding, counsel and fortitude, knowledge and godliness, and fear of the Lord. Let us ask with instance for this divine Spirit, by whose operation Jesus was conceived and born in Mary’s womb, and let us beg of him to form Jesus within our hearts. But let us not forget to rejoice ad those other glorious things which are told us by the prophet of the happiness, and peace, and delights, which are to be on the holy mountain. The world has been looking so many ages for peace; it is now coming. Sin had caused enmity and division everywhere; grace will bring unity. A little Child will be the pledge of an alliance between all nations. The prophets have foretold it, the sibyl has announced it, and in Rome itself, buried as it is in paganism, the prince of Latin poets has sung the celebrated poem, which, after all, is but the voice of the old tradition: “The last age foretold by the Cumean Sibyl, is at hand; a new race is being sent down to earth from high heaven. The flock shall no more fear the fierce lions. The serpent shall be no more; the treacherous plant, which yielded poison, shall grow no more.”
Come, then, O Messias, and restore to the world its primitive peace; but remember, we beseech Thee, that it is in the heart of man that harmony has been broken more than elsewhere in Thy creation: cure this heart, enter into possession of this Jerusalem, which Thou lovest, though so unworthy: she has been too long captive in Babylon; lead her out of this strange land. Build up her temple again, and make the glory of this second temple to be greater than that of the first, by having Thee to dwell in it, not in figure, but in the reality of Thy adorable Person. The angel said to Mary: “The Lord God shall give unto thy Son the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.” What can we do, O Jesus, but say with Thy beloved disciple, at the close of his prophecy: Amen. Come, Lord Jesus! (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Second Sunday of Advent.)
Our Lord will come in His good time to judge the living and the dead on the Last Day.
However, He comes down to us every day when a true Holy Mass is offered by a true priest, and His Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament abides with us even when the only thing a Catholic might be able to do when that Real Presence cannot be found in the churches that are help captive to the sacramental barrenness of conciliarism’s invalid liturgical rites is to make a Spiritual Communion. Our Lord is here. He abides among us yet, and as yet He remains a stumbling block even to make who understand truth on the natural level but who are baffled as to why it is necessary to proclaim its Lord, Christ the King, in its defense.
Pope Saint Gregory the Great, though, explained that we must proclaim Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus as He has revealed Himself us to us through His true Church even though remains a stumbling block to the Jews and a scandal to the Gentiles, which in today’s contexts are those who may have some inchoate sense of the supernatural but are otherwise immersed in the merely natural and who do not want to risk more than the considerable they have already in natural terms for fear of being considered a “religious fanatic”:
The sight of so many signs and so many mighty works should have been a source of wonder, and not a stumbling-block. And yet the unfaithful Jer. xxxi. 5. found these very works a rock of offence, when they afterwards saw Him Who had worked so many miracles dying on the Cross. Hence Paul saith: “We preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling-block and unto the Gentiles foolishness.” 1 Cor. i. 23. It is indeed folly in the eyes of men to say that the Author of life died for men and thus men put as a stumbling-block to hinder them from coming to Jesus, the very thing that doth oblige them the most unto Him. For the more humbling God hath undergone for man’s sake, the more worthy is He that man should worship Him.
And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in Me. Now what is this, but a plain mention of that time, when He afterwards humbled Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the Cross? It is as if He said: I indeed do wonderful works, but the day will come when I shall not refuse to suffer shame and evil treatment. Take heed then, ye who now worship Me for the works’ sake, that when I come to die ye despise Me not for My death’s sake.
And, as the disciples of John departed, what did Jesus say unto the multitudes concerning this same John? Let us hear. What went ye out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken with the wind? Here our Lord teacheth not by assertion, but by negation. Now a reed is a thing so made that as soon as the wind bloweth upon it, it bendeth it over toward the opposite quarter. And the fleshly-minded man is like a human reed. As he is praised or blamed so he bendeth himself in the one direction or the other. (Pope Saint Gregory the Great, Matins, Second Sunday of Advent.)
We must remember that sin is more deadly any virus, including the coronavirus, and a nation where most people are immersed in worldliness, impurity, immodesty and indecency, defy the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage as represented by contraception (whether direct or by “natural” means), blaspheme freely and look to mans merely natural to “solve” problems that have Original Sin as their remote cause and our own Actual Sins as their proximate causes will a nation that will continue to experience chastisements until enough people are converted to the true Catholic Faith and then seek to grow in virtue and sanctity with the help of Our Lady’s graces.
We know the end of the story about all this, don’t we?
Of course, we do.
Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart will triumph in the end, and every Rosary we pray helps to plant the seeds for this triumph.
What are we waiting for?
Isn’t it time to pray a Rosary now?
Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!
Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.
Saint Joseph, pray for us.
Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.
Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.
Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.
Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.
Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.
Saint Peter Chrysologus, pray for us,
Saint Barbara, pray for us.
Saint Sabbas, pray for us.
Support Christ or Chaos
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on YOU CANNOT EVER SAY THAT YOU WERE NOT WARNED!!!
Francis’s Team in Command of the Church. All Jesuits (link) By Sandro Magister (Note: Sandro Magister is a veteran Italian Vaticanist, a long-time colleague and friend, who has followed and interpreted the life of the Holy See for decades. He has become known for writing articles which explain the deeper issues, currents, and protagonists, in the Vatican today. He published this piece on his blog on October 31. We found it instructive because it brings together in one place some important information that has not to my knowledge been, before this article, presented in one place. Here is what Sandro reports…—RM) *** Incredible but true. Just now, when in a few decades it has lost a good half of its forces, the Society of Jesus [the Jesuit Order] has surged to the heights of command of the Catholic Church as never before. Francis’s story is well known. He is the first Jesuit pope in history: he who notwithstanding had more adversaries than friends in the Society and took care not to set foot in its general curia whenever he came to Rome as a cardinal. But the innovation is that in this last phase of his pontificate — declining in age but not in ambitions — Francis has equipped himself with a veteran attack team, all his own and made up entirely of Jesuits. The top man of this team is without a doubt Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich, archbishop of Luxembourg. Top man, in Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s plans, both for today and for tomorrow. For today, the task assigned to him by Francis is to steer, as relator general, the world synod that got underway in 2021 and will last at least until 2024, but in the pope’s mind even beyond, with the task of remodeling the Church under the banner of none other than a permanent “synodality.” While for tomorrow it is no mystery that Hollerich is also Francis’s candidate “in pectore” for his succession, on which the current synod will have decisive influence, effectively obliging the future pope — whoever he may be — to take delivery on and continue the “process,” a bit as happened to Paul VI with the Vatican Council II inherited from John XXIII. The general rehearsal of this world synod is the one underway in Germany, which is already infecting other national Churches without Francis’s opposing any effective restraint, with the inevitable litany of fashionable reforms, ranging from married priests to women priests, from new sexual and homosexual morality to the democratization of Church governance. It is impossible not to recall that some of these were the reforms that another great Jesuit, Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini (1927-2012), had included in the agenda of the future Church in a memorable 1999 speech. Martini is known to have had a negative view of Bergoglio, but the supporters of the current pontificate are having a field day making him the “prophet” of the reforms for which Francis is supposedly paving the way at last and of which Hollerich has already repeatedly said he is in favor. L’Osservatore Romano published last October 24 a comprehensive agenda-setting interview with this cultured Jesuit cardinal [i.e., Cardinal Hollerich] with 27 years of mission in Japan behind him. And in it he once again expressed the hope for “a paradigm change” in the pastoral care and doctrine of the Church on homosexuality, because homosexuals too “are the fruit of creation” and therefore are not “rotten apples” but “something good.” Of course, there is no room — the cardinal added — for a sacramental marriage between persons of the same sex, because the procreative purpose that characterizes a marriage is lacking, “but this does not mean that their affective union has no value.” And to the editor of L’Osservatore Romano who brought up the fact that the bishops of Belgium have spoken out in favor of the blessing of homosexual unions, Hollerich replied: “Frankly, the question does not seem decisive to me. If we keep to the etymology of ‘bene-dire’ [bless, literally ‘well-speak,’ Tr.], do you think that God could ever ‘dire-male’ [‘speak ill,’ Tr.] of two persons who care about each other?” These words of Hollerich’s spontaneously bring up the question: but wasn’t it another high-ranking Jesuit at the Vatican, Cardinal Luis F. Ladaria, in his capacity as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who prohibited the blessing of homosexual unions in a “Responsum” made public on March 15, 2021? And was it not Francis himself who had “given his consent” to the publication of this “Responsum,” after having been “informed” of it, as written at the bottom of the document? Just so. Except, however, to take note that the following Sunday, at the Angelus, the pope had made it clear that he had no liking at all for “theoretical condemnations” or “claims of legalism or clerical moralism” where what are needed instead are “gestures of love.” And “authoritative Vatican sources” had anonymously made it known that with this he was criticizing none other than the “Responsum” that prohibited the blessing of homosexual unions, which he had approved in words. In short, humiliated by his confrere the pope, the hapless Cardinal Ladaria is the exception that confirms the rule. He [Cardinal Ladaria] is the old school Jesuit whom Bergoglio keeps on the bench while waiting to send him into retirement, off his team. Requiring him in the meantime to answer “no” to those cardinals — and there have been some — who have asked him to call Hollerich back to respect for correct doctrine. But in addition to Hollerich, there are two other Jesuits whom Francis has recently made cardinals and has put on the team in important roles. The first is the Canadian Cardinal Michael Czerny, for many years more a competitor than a coworker of the Ghanaian cardinal Peter K. A. Turkson, first at the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace and then at the dicastery for promoting integral human development, of which he has now become prefect. Czerny was also the special secretary of the Synod for the Amazon. From the defense of nature to migrants, to the “popular movements,” he [Cardinal Czerny, link] is the man Bergoglio avails himself of in these fields he favors. The second is the Italian Gianfranco Ghirlanda, former rector of the Pontifical Gregorian University and a seasoned expert in canon law. Among his tasks is that of translating into juridical provisions the imperious acts that Francis carries out with the air of an absolute monarch. From Ghirlanda, for example, came the perfunctory conclusion of the longstanding theological dispute between powers of orders, those derived from episcopal ordination, and powers of jurisdiction, those conferred by a higher authority, opting for the latter in order to place some lay people as well, men or women, at the head of the Vatican curia, with the simple mandate of the pope. Again from Ghirlanda, in his role of juridical “factotum” at the service of Francis, came the dismantling and refounding imposed by the pope on the Order of Malta. But that’s not all. Also among Jesuits who are not cardinals there are some whom the pope has placed in key roles, at his service. In the General Secretariat of the Synod of Bishops there is a consultant who is in fact the associate closest to Cardinal Hollerich. It is Fr. Giacomo Costa, former editor of the magazine Aggiornamenti Sociali of the Milan Jesuits and vice-president of the Fondazione Carlo Maria Martini. Not to mention Fr. Antonio Spadaro, editor of La Civiltà Cattolica and very close to Francis since his election as pope, he too very active and urgent in promoting the world synod on synodality and in particular in involving in the adventure — with important help from his predecessor at La Civiltà Cattolica, Bartolomeo Sorge (1929-2020) — the Italian episcopal conference, initially very distrustful. And then there is the chapter of the Vatican finances, where Francis has appointed the Spanish Jesuit Juan Antonio Guerrero Alves as Prefect of the Secretariat for the Economy, the office that oversees the entire sector. Moreover, for a couple of years there has also been a Jesuit at St. Peter’s Basilica, alongside the cardinal archpriest Mauro Gambetti, the pope’s vicar general for Vatican City. It is Francesco Occhetta, Secretary General of the “Fratelli tutti” foundation and until 2020 political columnist for La Civiltà Cattolica. And there is also a Jesuit among the auxiliary bishops of the diocese of Rome of which the pope is bishop: Daniele Libanori, who is entrusted with the pastoral care of the city center. With the pope, the names listed make nine. And with Sorge and the “prophet” Martini, 11, naturally without counting Cardinal Ladaria. Such a team, entirely of Jesuits, had never been seen in command of the Church. [End, article by Sandro Magister) A list of the nine Jesuits 1. Pope Francis 2. Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich, archbishop of Luxembourg (Magister contends that Francis would like Hollerich to be his successor) 3. Canadian (but born in Czechoslovakia) Carinal Michael Czerny 4. Italian Gianfranco Ghirlanda, a canon lawyer, former Rector of the Pontifical Gregorian University (the university of the Jesuits in Rome) 5. Italian Fr. Giacomo Costa, a member of the General Secretariat of the Synod of Bishops 6. Italian Fr. Antonio Spadaro, editor of “La Civiltà Cattolica” 7. Spanish Jesuit Juan Antonio Guerrero Alves as Prefect of the Secretariat for the Economy 8. Italian Jesuit Francesco Occhetta, Secretary General of the “Fratelli tutti” foundation, who has been working alongside the cardinal who administers St. Peter’s Basilica (where new entrance rules are being considered) 9. Spanish Cardinal Luis F. Ladaria, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (I put Cardinal Ladaria last, because his perspective is different from the others; as Magister explains: “He [Cardinal Ladaria] is the old school Jesuit whom Bergoglio keeps on the bench while waiting to send him into retirement, off his team.”) [End, list of the nine Jesuits in key posts at the Vatican]
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on HOW CAN THE LORD CLEAN THE AEGEAN (VATICAN) STABLES WHEN THE STABLES ARE OCCUPIED ALMOST ENTIRELY BY JESUITS? THE ANSWER: ANOTHER SUPRESSION AS IN THE 18TH CENTURY
First, you would surrender our prior energy independence.
Reduce new gas and oil leases on federal lands to the lowest levels of any president in history. Cut back production at precisely the time the world is emerging from a two-year lockdown with pent-up consumer demand.
Make war on coal and nuclear power. Drain the strategic petroleum reserve to make the pain for consumers more bearable for midterm election advantage.
Cancel the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge oil and gas field. Block pipelines like the Keystone oil pipeline and the Constitution natural gas line.
Overregulate and demonize frackers and horizontal drillers. Ensure there is less investment for their exploration and production.
Make use of internal combustion engines or fossil fuel power generation prohibitively expensive. Achieve a green oil dependency along the lines of contemporary Europe.
Second, print trillions of dollars in new currency as the lockdowns end, demand rises, and consumers are already saturated with COVID-19 subsidies. Keep interest rates low, well below the rate of inflation, as you print more money. Ensure that passbook holders earn no interest at the very time prices skyrocket to the highest per annum level in 40 years.
“Spread the wealth” by sending money to those who already have enough, while making it less valuable for those deemed to have too much. Ensure runaway high prices to wean the middle class off its consumerism and supposedly to inspire them to buy less junk they don’t need. Damn the rich in the open and in the abstract, court them in the concrete and secret of darkness.
Third, end America’s physical boundaries. Render it an amorphous people and anywhere space. End any vestigial difference between a citizen and resident. Up the current nearly 50 million who were not born in the United States —27 percent of California’s population—to 100 million and more by allowing 3 million illegal aliens to enter per year.
Fourth, destroy the public trust in its elections. Render Election Day irrelevant. Make proper auditing of 110 million mail-in/early ballots impossible. Normalize ballot harvesting and curing.
Urge leftist billionaires to infuse their riches to “absorb” the work of state registrars in key precincts to ensure the correct “turn-out.”
Blast as “election denialists,” “insurrectionists,” and“democracy destroyers” anyone who objects to these radical ballot changes, neither passed by the U.S. Congress nor by state legislators. Weaponize the FBI, CIA, and Department of Justice.
Fifth, redefine crime as one rich man’s crime, another poor man’s necessity.
Let those who need “things” exercise their entitlement to them. Rewrite or ignore laws to exempt the oppressed who take, or do, what they want as atonement for past systemic racism and oppression.
Sixth, junk the ossified idea of a melting pot and multiracial society united by common American values and ideals. Instead, identify individuals by their superficial appearance. Seek to be a victim and monetize your claims against perceived victimizers. Call anyone a “racist” who resists.
Encourage each tribe, defined by common race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation affinities, to band together to oppose the monolithic “white privilege” majority. Encourage social and tribal tensions. Racially discriminate to end discrimination.
Greenlight statue toppling, name changing, boycotting, cancel culturing, ostracizing, and Trotskyizing. Erase the past, control the present, and create a new American person for the future.
Seven, render the United States just one of many nations abroad. Abandon Afghanistan in shame. Leave behind thousands of loyal Afghan allies, billions of dollars in equipment, a billion-dollar embassy, and the largest air base in central Asia. Appease the theocracy to reenter the Iran nuclear deal.
Beg enemies like Venezuela, Russia, and Iran to pump more oil when it is politically expedient for us to have abundant supplies—oil that we have in abundance but won’t produce. Discourage friends like Guinea from producing more energy and cancel allies’ energy projects like the EastMed pipeline.
Trash but then beg Saudi Arabia to pump more oil right before the midterms for domestic political advantage.
Eight, neuter the First Amendment. Enlist Silicon Valley monopolies to silence unwanted free speech while using Big Tech’s mega profits to warp elections. Declare free expression “hate speech.” Criminalize contrarian social media.
Nine, demonize half the country as semi-fascists, un-Americans, insurrectionists, and even potential domestic terrorists. Try to change inconvenient ancient rules: seek to pack the court, end the filibuster, junk the Electoral College, and bring in two more states.
Twice impeach a president who tried to stand in your way. Try him when he is an emeritus president and private citizen. Raid his home. Seek to indict a future rival to the current president.
Ten, never mention the origins of the COVID virus. Never blame China for the release of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Exempt investigations of U.S. health officials who subsidized Chinese gain-of-function research. Ignore the Bill of Rights to mandate vaccinations, mask-wearing, and quarantines.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on IT IS HARD TO BELIEVE THAT LIBERAL DEMOCRATS REALLY WANT TO DESTROY THE UNITED STATES BUT THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION IS CONVINCING US THAT THEY UNINTENTIONALLY ARE DESTROYING THE UNITED STATES
Power Without Grace in a Foetid Termitary of Power:
Insights from E. Waugh’s Saint Helena and Saint Edmund Campion
Epigraphs
Evelyn Waugh on Saint Edmund Campion (1946, 1948): “It [my own novelist-narrative presentation] should be read as a simple, perfectly true story of heroism and holiness….The martyrdom of Father Pro in Mexico re-enacted Campion’s. In fragments and whispers we get news of other saints in the prison camps of Eastern and South Eastern Europe, of cruelty and degradation more frightful than anything in Tudor England and of the same pure light shining in the darkness, uncomprehended. The hunted, trapped, murdered priest is amongst us again, and the voice of Campion comes to us across us the centuries as though he were walking at our side.” (Page x of the two-fold Preface to the 1948 American Edition of EdmundCampion.)
***
Evelyn Waugh on Saint Helena and Her Gradual Development of Her Cultivation and Her Womanhood: “The work of empire prospered, frontiers were everywhere restored and extended, treasure accumulated. But, out of sight on the shores of the Propontis [Sea of Marmara], ….; in the inmost cell of the foetid termitary of power, Diocletian was comsumed by huge boredom and sickly turned towards his childhood’s home.” (Helena—Chapter 5—page 100—my emphasis added.)
***
Evelyn Waugh’s Words of the Emperor Constantine with His Now Christian Mother, Helena:
“I know I am human. I fact I often feel [, mother,] that I am the only real human being in the whole of creation. And that’s not pleasant at all, I can assure you. Do you understand at all, mother?”
“Oh, yes, perfectly.”
“What is it, then?”
“Power without Grace,” said Helena. (Chapter Nine—Recessional—page 183—my emphasis added.)
***
Constantine, now as Emperor, was still not to be considered a Christian, but he nonetheless had a private, sincere, and deeply searching conversation one day with his Mother, Helena. Here is how their ideas developed:
“Now you [Mother] are going to start nagging about baptism again.”
“Sometimes,” Helena continued, “I have a terrible dream of the future. Not now, but presently, people forget their loyalty to their kings and emperors and take power for themselves. Instead of letting one victim bear the frightful curse they will take it all on themselves, each one of them. Think of the misery of a whole world possessed of Power without Grace.” (Helena, page 186—my emphasis added.
Moreover, Helena reminded her son: if he was still “determined to rule,” he must do it, “but not without Grace, Constantine.” (186—my accent added) And thus not without the Sacrament of Baptism!
Later in Waugh’s admirable novel, in its chapter entitled Epiphany, Helena eloquently makes a heartful and mature prayer for her spiritually lax or slothful son, Emperor Constantine. Helena speaks to us on Twelfth Night (or Epiphany) in the Holy Land just before she discovers the True Cross, her Mission.
Passages from pages 222-224 of Epiphany will now be presented, and the whole section be savored and recommended to the reader.
For example:
But by Twelfth Night she [Helena] rallied and on the eve set out by litter along the five rough miles to the shrine of the Nativity. There was no throng of pilgrims. Macarius [the Bishop] and his people kept Epiphany in their own church. Only the little community of Bethlehem greeted her and led her to her room they had prepared. (222)
After a little time, Helena said to herself:
“This is my day,” she thought, “ and these are my kind.”….
“Like me,” she said to them [the late coming, adoring, Three Kings], “you were late in coming. The shepherds were here long before; even the cattle. They [the shepherds] had joined the chorus of angels before you were on your way….How laboriously you came…..where the shepherds had run barefoot!….You came at length to the final stage of your pilgrimage and the great star stood still above you. What did you do? You stopped to call on King Herod. Deadly exchange of compliments in which there began that unended war of mobs and magistrates against the innocent!
“Yet you came, and were not turned away. You found room before the manger. Your gifts were not needed, but they were accepted and put carefully by, for they were brought with love. In that new order of charity that had just come to life, there was room for you, too. You were not lower in the eyes of the holy family than the ox or the ass.
“You are my especial patrons,” said Helena, “and patrons of all late-comers, of all who have a tedious journey to make to the truth, and of all who are confused with knowledge and speculation, of all who through politeness make themselves partners in guilt, of all who stand in danger by reason of their talents.
“Dear cousins, pray for me,” said Helena, “and for my poor overloaded son. May he, too, before the end fine kneeling-space in the straw. Pray for the great, lest they perish utterly. And pray for Lactantius and Marcias and the young poets of Treves and for the souls of my wild, blind ancestors; for their sly foe Odysseus and for the great Longinus.
“For His sake who did not reject your curious gifts, pray always for the learned, the oblique, the delicate. Let them not be quite forgotten at the Throne of God when the simple come into their kingdom.” (pages 222-224 of Chapter Eleven: Epiphany to the 1950 book, Helena—my emphasis added.)
CODA
We have attempted to counterpoint two books by the same author, Evelyn Waugh—one on Edmund Campion and on Saint Helena.
It discussed “Power without Grace” and its contrast, “a Feotid Termitary of Power.” Also a Mother’s prayer for her overloaded son, also an Emperor. With loyal prayers for others, as well, especially for the vivid!
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on THE CURSE OF OUR TIME IS THAT TOO MANY OF THE WORLDS (AND OUR OWN NATION’S) LEADERS ARE EXERCISING POWER WITHOUT GRACE
Catholic League Brief In SCOTUS Case December 5, 2022 Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the league’s amicus brief before the U.S. Supreme Court: The Catholic League has filed an amicus brief in support of the First Amendment rights of web designer Lorie Smith; we will be anxious to see how the Supreme Court Justices react to oral arguments on this case today. At issue is the judicial merits of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. It would compel Smith to design a website that celebrates same-sex marriage. Smith has never refused to service anyone on the basis of sexual orientation, or any other demographic factor. But she draws the line at forcing her to express a message that runs counter to her Christian beliefs. Smith is pointed in her position. “As a Christian who believes that God gave me the creative gifts that are expressed through this business, I have always strived to honor him in how I operate. Because of my faith, however, I am selective about the messages that I create or promote.” The Catholic League amicus brief, prepared by Kathleen A. Gallagher and Russell D. Giancola of Gallagher Giancola LLC, a Pittsburgh-based law firm, argues that “it is clear that the First Amendment provides dual protections for religious expression (or non-expression) in its guarantees of free speech and free religious exercise. This reality compels the conclusion that religious speech enjoys the highest constitutional protection.” Critics of Lorie Smith maintain that the real issue is not the First Amendment. One of the most prominent persons to take this position is Father James Martin. “Let’s call it what it is: homophobia,” Martin says. Now if this were true, Smith would have a record of refusing to serve homosexuals, but this is manifestly not the case. Would Martin also call the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops “homophobes”? The USCCB filed an amicus brief in support of Smith. It would be great to hear from him about this issue. “In the guise of ‘religious liberty,’ Catholic business owners could deny services to Protestants and, more broadly, Christians could deny services to Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, agnostics, and so on,” says Martin. Father Martin is wrong. Indeed, he misses the point completely. There is a profound difference between refusing to serve someone because of his demographic characteristics, and refusing to affirm a message that runs counter to one’s sincerely held religious beliefs. For example, if a Jewish artist refuses to draw a swastika on a picture of a synagogue, is he exercising his First Amendment right to freedom of speech, or does he harbor a phobia about Nazis and should be forced to accede to the request? Again, it would be instructive to hear from Father Martin about this. Those who put religious liberty in quotes are signaling their contempt for it, as if to say so-called religious liberty. Indeed, they may even have a phobia about it.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on FATHER JAMES MARTIN IS WRONG AGAIN, SO WHAT IS NEW!!!
A recent series of articles by three respected Catholic scholars, argued for the superiority of the new rite of the mass over the old. We’re going to talk about that today with liturgical expert about the two rites, how they compare. And basically what we can learn about the liturgy from those articles and from his new book.
I’m Eric Sammons, I’m your host. This is Crisis Point. I’m the editor-in-Chief of Crisis Magazine. And before we get started, I just want to encourage people to hit the like button, to subscribe to the podcast, to let other people know about it. I really appreciate when you do that. Also, we’re on all the different social media channels at Crisis Mag. Oh, and one thing I do want to mention, we are in the midst of one of our two fundraising campaigns. So please go to CrisisMagazine.com/donate to please donate to the project. We make all of our material, all of our podcasts, all our written material for free but we do need your support.
Okay, let’s go ahead and get into it. We have Dr. Peter Kwasniewski with us. A lot of times I like to go through a bio, but I don’t think it’s necessary for you anymore. You’ve been on the program, everybody knows who you are. But I want to emphasize one of your latest books. I don’t even know what your latest book is, because you put them out so quickly. It’s like impossible to say what your latest book is. But The Once and Future Roman Rite, it’s an awesome book from TAN, Returning to the Traditional Latin Liturgy After Seventy Years of Exile. And I feel like I mentioned in the opening that there was a series of articles at the… What was the place? Church Life Journal and Notre Dame by three scholars. And I know this book was long time coming written. But I almost feel like it’s just a take down of those articles in a sense, which I know that wasn’t the intention, but it’s almost like providential.
So what we’re going to talk about today is generically about the liturgy, about the two rites, the Novus Ordo, the Traditional Latin Mass. And by the way, I just know some people that get hung up on the names for these liturgies. I used to use the terminology extraordinary form and ordinary form. But I feel like Pope Francis himself has eliminated those as categories by his own words in Traditionis Custodes. But anyway, we’re going to talk about those two rites, forms, whatever with Dr. Kwasniewski today. And also address those series of articles at the Church Life Journal. So welcome to the program, Peter. I love having you here.
Dr. Peter Kwasniewski:
Thank you so much, Eric. And by the way, this is actually my latest book.
Eric Sammons:
Okay, here we go. What are we up to right now? What’s the number, do you know?
Dr. Peter Kwasniewski:
It’s past 20.
Eric Sammons:
Once you get past 20, you don’t have to keep track anymore.
Dr. Peter Kwasniewski:
As with a really large family, it’s like how many children do you have? Oh, I don’t know. It’s somewhere up there.
Eric Sammons:
Exactly. It’s like when I talk to Scott Hahn, I don’t even bother asking him what number is he on now, because like you said once you’re past 20. I still tell people I have eight because I have a very distinct number. But eventually you get up to your level. So let’s start off the discussion. I want to start off the discussion with some basic principles of the liturgy, and specifically something you address in this book, which is the development of the liturgy. I know there’s long been the analogy of the organic development of the liturgy. What do we mean when we talk about how the liturgy develops in general?
Dr. Peter Kwasniewski:
Right, exactly. No, and in fact that’s a major part of this book. Several chapters devoted to trying to understand what we mean when we say the liturgy develops. Now, first of all, it does develop. That’s a fact. Every once in a while you meet a traditionalist who thinks that Christ instituted the solemn high Tridentine Mass at the last Supper. No, He didn’t. He was transforming the traditional Jewish ceremonies into the core of the Christian mass, the representation of the sacrifice of Calvary. So what He did, He was a traditionalist in that sense. He was taking the Jewish ceremonies but then transforming them from within, fulfilling them. And in a sense planting a seed within the church that was going to grow into a mighty tree. He planted an acorn and it grew into a mighty oak tree. And that’s what we mean when we talk about the development of the liturgy.
Just like doctrine develops, it doesn’t essentially change. But the full expression of it emerges over many centuries and often requires quite a bit of fighting as we see in the ecumenical councils. So similarly with the church’s public worship, that acorn it’s going to grow into a giant trunk and it’s going to put out many branches. What are those many branches? Well, it’s the development of the liturgical chant. It’s the development of which texts are we going to pray when we come together for liturgy. It’s the development of the calendar. And of course the celebration of all the saints which can’t develop until they’re actually our saints to celebrate. So in this way, I think the organic metaphor is helpful because although the liturgy is the work of human beings assisted by the Holy Spirit, nevertheless, it’s the work of thousands of human beings over thousands of years and often without anybody’s name being attached to it. And usually by a process of gradual dissemination, not some kind of top down imposition. So there’s an organic nature to it. It unfolds over long periods of time and with the contributions of thousands of people.
Eric Sammons:
One thing I thought on the development was that basic understanding, I think most people understand that on some level. But one thing your book brought out that I had never thought of that I was like, whoa, this is a new way for me at least to see it. Is that the development is not linear in the sense of just the same level of development over 2000 years. And roughly, it seems to me and correct me if I’m wrong here, seems to me that there are almost like three general phases when it comes to development, up to the time of maybe Pope Gregory the Great around 600 AD. Then from that time to about Trent, post Pius V. And then from Trent to today, or I should say 1960s because obviously… Or 1950s or so, we’ll just say 20th century. But there’s these three phases and the way that liturgy developed isn’t the same.
It seems to me not same rite or something. Can you explain that to us because I felt like that was a major thing for me? I was like, whoa, that makes a lot of sense but I hadn’t thought of it before.
Dr. Peter Kwasniewski:
Yes. No, what you’re saying it’s a crucial point. In other words, at the beginning, the first few centuries there’s the most development. There’s actually quite a bit of fermentation you might say, that’s now taking a different metaphor than with a tree growing. But there’s a lot of the apostles go out and preach the gospel around the world. And wherever they plant churches, all of those nascent Christian communities are worshiping in an accord with what they were taught by the apostles. St. Paul is very clear about this. There’s already a paradosis, a traditio, a handing on, going on in those early centuries. But there isn’t a fully developed public formal official worship of the church. It’s under development, it’s under construction you might say, although that’s not the best phrase perhaps. But the church has always also been fiercely conservative. In other words, we want to hold onto what has been given to us by our God fearing forefathers.
And this is the attitude you find in the church fathers in a huge way. Even by the time you get to the fourth century and the Cappadocian Fathers like St. Basil the Great, he just hammers on this point that what we are doing is what we’ve been taught to do, what’s been handed down to us. And yet he is also able to contribute to the liturgy. He can both have that conservative attitude and he can help build up the liturgy. The Greeks even have something they call the liturgy of St. Basil. So he’s contributing to it while also being fiercely conservative of everything that’s already been handed on. And that attitude perdures throughout the centuries so that by the time you get to roughly about the year 1000, the liturgical rights of East and West are already essentially complete. The order of mass, the order of the service, the order of the divine liturgy is essentially complete.
It’s been augmented and enhanced over the centuries, but it’s now received by Christians as a totality, as a body of prayer. And it’s something we wouldn’t dare to change. Why would we change what we’ve inherited from our Holy Fathers, the saints? And so really the Roman liturgy it has various strata of development. That’s part of the reason why this can be confusing to people. The central part of the Roman liturgy, the Roman canon, is already there in the sixth century. It’s very ancient. And by the time Gregory the Great touched it up, we know that he actually worked on it. He did the final edit, the final redaction of it. But it was already a prayer that he himself was familiar with. It wasn’t something he invented whole cloth. But other parts took more centuries, the Gregorian chant took more centuries to develop.
But by the time you get to about the year 1000, you’re dealing with a pretty well articulated body of liturgical prayer that everyone would have recognized as traditional. And therefore good and holy and to be maintained as a rule of faith. Remember, this isn’t just about aesthetics. This is about our faith is confessed in these traditional rights. That’s why we’re not going to dare to modify them in any significant way. By the time you get to the Council of Trent, it’s not as if Pius V… This is a terrible myth, it’s not as if Pius V created the Tridentine rite or something like that. He codified, he canonized, so to speak, the rite that was being used by the Papal court that had been used for many centuries prior to that. Even essentially back to Innocent III at the turn of the first millennium, we’re talking about that Roman rite.
Pius V essentially codified what the Church of Rome was doing for many centuries. And because of the authoritative nature of his stamp of approval… Some people call it his canonization of the Roman rite, as a result for centuries after that the attitude was, we’ve got it. We have our liturgy in full blossom. This is the fully mature oak tree. And oak tree doesn’t keep growing perpetually until it reaches the clouds. It has a natural terminus of development when it’s perfected as the kind of being it is. This is something that Aristotle brings out in the physics, everything grows to the point of its perfection. And so, one of the things you see in liturgical history is that the rate of growth tapers off at a certain point and then what you see is continuity. Almost like a straight line, which the liturgical progressives they call that fossilization or ossification or it’s become frozen.
No, that’s not… It just does perfectly what it’s supposed to do. It confesses the faith in the Trinity and the incarnation in our Lady and the Saints. It celebrates the liturgical year and it professes all the dogmas. It teaches the moral lessons of the Christian life. What more could you want? Why would you change something that has reached this mature and full form? And certainly that’s the attitude in the East. In fact, the attitude in the East they almost go overboard because they talk about the divine liturgy as if it came down from heaven. And it’s eternally the same, it’s never changed. Well, that’s balderdash. Their liturgy developed just the way that the Roman one did. But in the East I think partly because of the schism, but also partly because they seem to have a healthier instinct in this regard, they’re content with keeping things the same for very long periods of time.
And in the West and I think it’s part of the temptation of the Western mentality, it’s what some people call the Faustian mentality, we always want to be tinkering. We always want to be improving. What’s the latest model? What’s the new technology? This is almost like a Western vice. It brings about good things too of course, especially in the realm of technology. But it leaves us feeling sometimes restless with simply what we’ve inherited. Just to give one example, I’ve been singing Gregorian chant now for 30 years and I never get tired of it. It’s the most beautiful music. No one has ever written melodies more beautiful than the Gregorian ones. No one has ever written music that more perfectly suits the texts of the liturgy and of sacred scripture. And they are just infinitely fascinating and subtle and beautiful and satisfying. And so I never get tired of singing chant. And nobody I know who sings chant ever gets tired of singing chant. So in that sense, we don’t need a new form of sacred music. We just need to do well the form that we’ve humbly inherited.
Eric Sammons:
That’s a very anti-modern way of thinking because I think it’s… In fact, I will admit growing up modern, it’s very difficult to not think automatically that things can improve. That we’re going to progress and there’s progressivism, if that’s the term that things will always get better. And I think though that analogy of the oak tree is beautiful because the difference between acorn and a one year old tree is humongous. But the difference between a 100 year old oak tree and 101 year old oak tree is not even noticeable, if any. And so I think that was… And you have a great diagram. I meant to ask you actually to send me a copy so I can put up on the screen, but there’s this great diagram on page 52. You’ll have to buy the book to see it well, where you basically show the Holy Spirit’s action.
There we go. For the first however long that is, there is more development and there’s preservation always of course, but it’s more development. And then as we get closer maybe by a time of Trent for example, there’s not that need because now we are the 100 year oak tree. It’s not going to change that much. And to say that doesn’t mean there’s no change. It’s not like a 100 year oak tree doesn’t get new leaves. When there’s new saints we add them to the calendar, things of that nature obviously. Now, during this time… Let’s stay pre 20th century for now because I know things change them. Before the 20th century, how did the church distinguish between growth and corruption because obviously there is a difference? How did the church say, okay, what’s the difference between those two?
Dr. Peter Kwasniewski:
Exactly. And by the way, I should just mention in connection with that chart, with the lines that go diagonally like that. The point I’m trying to make is, and this is a very important point, the Holy Spirit is equally at work in preserving what God has given as He is at work in bringing new things into existence. See, the whole… I just want to digress for a moment here, the whole synodal process which is constantly invoking the Holy Spirit, whatever spirit it is. As Martin Mosebach says, “It’s a spirit, all right. But it’s not a Holy Spirit.” They keep invoking the spirit to justify novelty and innovation. As if to say the spirit isn’t working unless we have novelties. Well, I’m sorry, but that is completely contrary to the entire mentality of Jewish and Christian religion from the very beginning. In the Jewish religion, God gives the people what they need.
Here’s the law, here’s your worship. Do it faithfully. If you don’t do it, you’re going to go into exile and be destroyed, whatever. So He gives it to them and they have to receive it and they have to keep… And even observant Jews to this day are just doing what they were given. We think they’re mistaken because we think that there was a fulfillment that was already prophesied in the Messiah. But what does the Messiah do? He comes and He gives us a new Moses, He gives a definitive law. This is the new covenant. This is never going to change. The mass, the sacraments, the moral law, our need for grace and so forth is never ever going to change. And in that sense, it’s not surprising that every catechism that exists for the past 1000 years is teaching exactly the same thing in different words. There might be some different wording, sure, of course. But our faith is changeless.
We don’t put a premium on novelty. In fact, if you read the Church Father’s, novelty is like a swear word. And so the when the Holy Spirit preserves what he himself inspired in the church, whether in the form of dogmatic formulations or in the form of the example of the saints, or in the form of the liturgical rites, which I prove in my book. I have many quotations. Everybody in the history of the church attributed the development of the liturgy to the Holy Spirit. This is not my idea. The Holy Spirit is just as much of preserving those things as in bringing things to be when they need to be brought into being. So anyway, but yes, so you were asking-
Eric Sammons:
About the difference between growth and corruption in liturgy.
Dr. Peter Kwasniewski:
Yes, right. Now, this is another key point. The Protestant reformers, the Protestant revolutionaries, rebels, their view was that the church had gone off the rails early on. That the so-called corrupt Medieval church was simply the outgrowth of early errors. For example, having a hierarchical episcopal government which they didn’t think was apostolic in the New Testament. And having sacramental rites and having the body and blood of Christ worshiped, which they said was idolatry and so forth. So for the Protestants in general, obviously with various nuances depending on who you’re talking about, for the Protestants in general the Catholic church had gone off the rails. The original Church of Christ worshiped with this kind of pure, simple, evangelical home style mass. That’s how they conceived of Christian worship, the way the early Christians did it which they had to reconstruct because we don’t have records about these things.
The Catholic church has never had the attitude that only the early Christians were the true Christians. And everything that happened in subsequent centuries was somehow a falling off or a falling away. On the contrary, as we’ve already discussed, the view was what God gave had to be reflected on, had to be meditated on and internalized and extrapolated and augmented. And I mean just something as basic as this. The Christians were being persecuted for the first three centuries. But once you get to the Emperor Constantine, he says, “Okay Christians, you’re free to worship now in public.” What do they do? They come into the basilicas and they celebrate glorious liturgies, almost instantly that happens. Why? Because it was like pent up energy. That’s what they wanted to do all along. And they just couldn’t because they were stuck in the catacombs and people’s houses and living rooms, kind of like traditionalists today sometimes.
And so the Protestant view of corruption is really a view of sort of massive corruption across the history of the church. And curiously enough, maybe not, the modernists in the Catholic church kind of revive that view because they also see the Middle Ages as a time of corruption, of superstition, of abuse, of confusion. People being very confused about what the liturgy is and how it’s supposed to function. They say, for example, that the liturgy used to be more communitarian, more an action of the whole people. But now in the Middle Ages, it became clericalist and sacerdotalist. And focused just on the priest and the people were detached and silent detached spectators who prayed the rosary and whatever. And all of this by the way is so tendentious. All the serious scholarship shows how deeply engaged the laity were in the liturgy, all the way into the Middle Ages and beyond.
Eamon Duffy is a name that comes to my mind. Father Uwe Michael Lang just published a huge scholarly book with Cambridge University Press, proving how much the laity understood and were engaged in the liturgy. But also that it was meant to be focused on the altar and on the sacrifice. And it was meant to be sacerdotalist. In other words, our liturgy is a priestly liturgy. Jesus Christ is the eternal high priest. You can’t escape that. The laity and the clergy are ontologically distinct from one another. So anyway, the view of corruption that you get with the Protestants and the modernists is fundamentally not compatible with the Catholic faith. And that’s why when the liturgical reformers basically said, we have to scrap a whole bunch of stuff from the year 500 to the year 1500 or beyond because it’s just wrongheaded.
They have to be wrong when they say that. That doesn’t make any sense, if you believe that the Catholic Church is governed by the spirit of God. If you believe that Christ never abandons His church and that she’s always offering to him the most pleasing homage. And even the Papal documents also disproved that, Mediator Dei for example.
Eric Sammons:
Yeah, it’s very similar to the Mormon idea, the Great Apostasy, that there’s this falling away completely for… And then all of a sudden the Holy Spirit’s just basically not doing anything for 1000 years or something like that, allowing chaos to reign. Now, one last question about the kind of pre 20th century development of the liturgy because I think this is the foundation for addressing a lot of the confusion today about the liturgy. And what was the role of the Pope when it came to the Roman liturgy before the 20th century?
Dr. Peter Kwasniewski:
Yes, exactly. I really appreciate your questions. You’re really sort of targeting right into the nodes, the main points here. So one of the things I bring out in the book is that popes prior to Pius V had very little role to play in the regulation of the liturgy of Catholics. We have to try to imagine a world in which communication took months or years. And a world in which books were for a long time written by hand, which is extremely laborious and time consuming. And even with the invention of the printing press, books were still expensive and not so easy to acquire. So in a world like that, every local church throughout Europe had its own prized missal which might have been a handwritten copy. And they were not going to change that. They were attached to it. This is the way we prayed, our fathers prayed, our grandfathers prayed, our great, great-great grandfathers prayed this way.
There are some famous examples of missal from the middle ages that have very carefully written in additions. So in other words, they’re taking into account changes, but they’re not going to change the missal. The changes have to be modest enough to be able to pen into the margins, or not changes but certain growth or development. So basically for 1500 years, the Catholic Church East and West is worshiping with handed down rites that a pope has never approved. These don’t have papal approval, the Pope has nothing to do with them. This is just what we’ve always done. Why did Pius V intervene so decisively in 1570 with his bold Quo Primum to… And we’ll talk in a moment about what he actually did. Why did he intervene? Quite simply because on the eve of the reformation in the 15th century and the early 16th century, there was a chaotic liturgical situation. There were already hearses proto Protestant and Protestant hearses that were causing modifications to the public prayer of the church.
Missals were being edited in heretical directions. There were many diversities in local rites, and there were mistakes that had entered in through copyist errors and so forth. Basically, it was a pretty chaotic situation by the time you got to the late middle ages. So I think what that showed is that some kind of centralized action was necessary, was at least justifiable for the sake of unifying the church against the Protestant revolt. That’s really the fundamental motivation in Pius V and in the Council of Trent itself.
Eric Sammons:
So interesting. What does Pius V actually do?
Dr. Peter Kwasniewski:
Right, so what he does in Quo Primum is he doesn’t say, all right, boys and girls, it’s time for a new liturgy. We’ve had a committee. We’ve produced a new liturgy. Here it is. Everybody has to do it. If you don’t like it, suck it up. No, this is not what he says. He says, we have carefully reviewed the manuscripts of the Roman rite as we’ve inherited it. We’ve corrected it of whatever textual problems there might have been. But in other words, we’ve tried to restore it to what the Papal Court has been doing for centuries. So what we’re giving you is utterly traditional and totally reliable. And if your local liturgical rite is not older than 200 years, then you have to adopt the Roman missal that I’m promulgating. Why did he say… But if it’s older than 200 years your local rite, then you may keep it and you can only get rid of it with the unanimous consent of the bishop and his chapter.
Okay, let’s think about this for a second. Everybody knows how difficult it is to get a group of opinionated people like a cathedral canon and a bishop to agree unanimously about something. So Pius V was trying to make it difficult to get rid of older, traditional, local rites. He wasn’t trying to impose the Roman unilaterally on everybody. And why 200 years? Well, for the simple reason that if you go back 200 years from 1570 you get to 1370. And that’s about the time when heretical fermentation, the proto Protestant errors are beginning to arise in Europe. So he’s trying to find a sort of window of safety. Beyond 200 years it must be Catholic because it’s old. This is so contrary to our modern mentality. Catholics nowadays tend to think it must be Catholic because the Pope an hour ago said it was. That doesn’t make any sense. It’s the older it is and the more unanimous and universal it is, the more Catholic it is. That’s St. Vincent of Lerins right there.
Eric Sammons:
And people should realize that the process of reformation was the fulfillment of a lot of problems that were creeping up. And so you’re right, the liturgies and like what the… And so you had these issues of… And with the advent of the printing press and more texts being out there, there’s more opportunities for like you say, corruptions in the text. So I can totally see why Pius V would want to do this, because it’s like, okay, now we’re starting to get chaos here. We need to have something. But I think the fact that he kept the ones that are older than 200 years is very telling to his attitude. Now, let’s jump ahead though. I want to now get to the 20th century. So in the 20th century, we have a lot of…
There is the kind of mistaken notion, that when it comes to the liturgy that all of a sudden in the early 1960s at Vatican II or right after it, now all of a sudden people start talking about the liturgy and let’s change it all up and nothing preceded it. But that as we know isn’t really true. So talk a little bit about the liturgical renewal movement that started really in the 19th century, but really came to a fore in the early 20th century. And how the popes reacted to that, the good, the bad, the ugly of all that.
Dr. Peter Kwasniewski:
Right. Yeah, so there’s of course this gigantic movement that was called the Liturgical Movement, very simple name for it. One can argue about exactly when it began and how it began. But conventionally, and I think justifiably people say that Dom Prosper Gueranger, the founding Abbott of Solesmes monastery was in a sense the grandfather of the Liturgical Movement. Why is that? Because in a post French revolution, France and Europe, Gueranger in the 1830s was saying, we need to go back to the soundest sources of the liturgy. Now, what did he mean by that? He didn’t mean the early Christians as reconstructed by German scholars or something like that. No, he meant the high medieval monastic liturgy. The liturgy with chant, with full splendor of ceremonial, with deacon and sub deacon. This is what he meant, and incense and so forth. So he meant the fully developed traditional Roman liturgy.
That’s what we need to get back to as opposed to lots of regional neo-Gallican liturgical rites of the times. So you have to remember, France was pretty resistant to the reforms of the Council of Trent. And they held tightly onto a bunch of local customs that were of dubious quality. This is a big subject in itself, and we’ll get kind of dull to go into all the history. But Gueranger was looking at a situation where in France, there was some of this disarray and arguably you could say corruption in the liturgy that he sought to remedy by bringing in the solemn Roman Tridentine liturgy. Now anyway, so that’s Gueranger’s aspiration. Other people became excited about this project. There was a flourishing of monastic life and monastic liturgy throughout Europe. And so by the time you get to the early 20th century, you have many Benedictines, not just Benedictines but they were some of the key figures from Belgium, from France, from Germany, all of them gung-ho about liturgical renewal.
But again what they meant, and this is something you can see by reading Schuster, Pius Parsh, Guardini, they meant for the most part a recovery and reclaiming and deeper understanding of the inherited rights of the Catholic church. Not a radical reinvention, or a thorough redaction, or a severe simplification, no. But just bringing the knowledge of the riches of the existing liturgy to the people through workshops, conferences, publications, pamphlets, hand missals primarily. And by improving the beauty and the quality of the liturgical celebration. So encouraging sun mass, high mass, solemn mass, as opposed to always just low mass and things like that. So the Liturgical Movement is mainly a movement of recovery, of reclamation, of renewed understanding of the treasures already there. That’s how I would put it.
Eric Sammons:
And then yeah, I was going to say just in the 20th century then, what did the popes do or the church do but really through the popes, what did they do before Vatican II in response to liturgical renewal? How did they change the liturgy?
Dr. Peter Kwasniewski:
Exactly. So I would say the church was always cautiously enthusiastic about the Liturgical Movement. I put it that way because there were always some oddities in the Liturgical Movement. When you read the authors I mentioned, Schuster, Parsh, Guardini, they have wonderful things to say, very enlightening and illuminating. And they make you really appreciate the traditional Roman liturgy. Their work is almost useless for the Novus Ordo because it doesn’t even match it anymore. But there are always these little oddities. Like Guardini for example, in the 1920s was already experimenting with Versus Populum celebration of mass towards the people. Why? Because all of the Liturgical Movement experts were under the mistaken impression that the early Christians worshiped Versus Populum. Wait, we know that’s not true now. The work of Uwe Michael Lang and Stefan Hyde, among others, has blown that out of the water.
So we know that the vast majority of Christian celebrations in East and West were odd oriented from the beginning, just as the church fathers themselves say St. Basil, St. John Damscene, et cetera. But the 19th and 20th century scholars thought, oh, no, it was Versus Populum from the beginning. And then at some point later on, maybe in the fourth century when we had Basilica liturgies for the first time, that’s when people decided to face East. And so we need to get back to this early practice. There was always that kind of antiquarianism in the Liturgical Movement. That was their temptation that was in a way their fall, you might say. And it’s what they had in common with the Protestants and the modernists as I was saying earlier. The idea that the early Christians had it right, and we started to get it wrong as time went on. Or at least if not wrong, then less perfect over time rather than more perfect over time, which is what I argue as the Catholic point of view.
For example, in the early Christians maybe they had communion in the hand, but then that was universally abandoned because the church developed a better way, a more reverent and a safer way to give communion. That’s an example of growth of perfection, not of deviation. So Pius X responded enthusiastically to the Liturgical Movement through his Motu Proprio Tra Le Sollecitudini in 1903, which tried to bring about a total restoration of Gregorian chant and polyphony in churches. Why? Because he had the same problem we do now after Vatican II, secular music creeping into the church. In his day it was opera. So all of the church music sounded like operatic arias with tenors and sapranos (singing), just kind of all this. And he said, this is ridiculous. We need to go back to the authentic church music. So in a way, yes, it’s looking back but it’s not looking back in this artificial antiquarian way. But rather just looking for the richest sources of the Roman liturgy itself.
So Pius X did that. He also controversially reformed the Breviary. And that is more controversial because in order to address some real problems that had crept in, with for example, so many feast days crowding out the Ferial Psalter, the Psalms of the weekdays. He did a pretty radical reconfiguration of the Roman Psalter that was just before World War I. And that was the first time arguably, that a Pope had so radically changed the inherited rites, in this case the Breviary. So I think Pius X, there’s a reason why Pius XII later, and Paul VI invoke Pius X as an example, because they say, well, look, he completely reconfigured the Breviary so we can do that with other things too. So I think with Pius X there’s an interesting question there of did he go overboard? Was his correction to certain problems an excessive correction?
The next really major change is Pius XII. Pius XII Once again, on the one hand he very sternly rebuked the Liturgical Movement of that time of the 1940s for their false antiquarianism. For thinking that earlier is always better. And that if we somehow got back to the second century Christian mass, that that would be better than the fully developed Tridentine rite. No, he condemned that out of hand. And he also condemned other liturgical movement abuses like they said they didn’t want black vestments, he condemned that. They said they wanted the altar to be a table instead, he condemned that and so on and so forth. On the other hand though, Pius XII instituted a new Holy Week in the 1950s from basically 1954 is when the whole thing was… And that was also quite radical because the Holy Week ceremonies are some of the richest in the church. And he pretty strongly reconfigured those in a way that’s quite odd.
He abbreviated a bunch of things. He moved things around. He introduced things that had never been there before like the priest and the people saying our father together, which was just never part of the Roman tradition. The priest always said our father and everybody always said the response at the end, that’s the way it is in every single missal that we have. Thousands of missiles for thousands of years that’s the way it was. So Pius XII also is this Janus-like figure where in some ways he critiqued the Liturgical Movement. And in other ways he seemed to kind of run with the more extreme side of it. And then by the time you get to Paul VI, then that’s when really the deluge occurs. Because with the earlier change as I mentioned, Pius X, Pius XII, they left almost everything intact except for the things that I mentioned that they modified. But that leaves a lot of other rites and books intact. Paul the sixth changed literally everything, every page, every prayer, every line, it’s all changed.
And so in a way, Paul VI is far more radical than any of these earlier members of the Liturgical Movement, who only sought to rediscover the treasury of the church’s inherited prayer.
Eric Sammons:
Okay, so now we’re at the 1960s Vatican II. We’re not going to detail everything that happened there, you can find at other places. I want to switch now a little bit to these articles at the Church Life Journal. It’s a journal out of the University of Notre Dame. And I think I wasn’t super familiar with them, but I feel like I’ve read some decent articles there before in the past that were solid. And so there’s a series of articles that start back in September, and it’s now December and by three scholars. I’m not familiar with the first one, John Cavadini, he’s a professor at University of Notre Dame. Father Thomas Weinandy, how do you pronounce?
Dr. Peter Kwasniewski:
Weinandy.
Eric Sammons:
Weinandy. I don’t know personally, but I know of him. And he’s done some very good things, and I have a very generally good impression of him. And the third one was Mary Healy, who’s a professor at Sacred Heart Seminary. And my full disclosure, I’ve been friends with Mary Healy for 20 years. I lived very close to her when she was in charge of a Charismatic Catholic Community. I lived right down the street from it, interacted with her a lot. I have a very high respect for Mary. That being said, I don’t want to link these articles. They actually just on December 1st, they published the combination of all five articles into one big article in case people just want to read it straight through. And what they do is they detail through their views of the liturgical renewal, the good and they say the bad. And it essentially becomes a defense of the Novus Ordo, other liturgical changes that happened under Paul VI.
It’s a defense of that and explain the fallacies and the problems, the air, so to speak, in the old liturgy. Now, before I ask you question about… I just want to state, so first of all like I said, I have a high respect for Mary. The other scholars I do think seem to be solid scholars. But I will just be blunt, I found it embarrassing for them to read these articles. I thought there were so many problems with it. And my big thing was I felt like it was an academic paper that was outside of reality. The stereotype of the Ivory Tower scholar seemed to be in effect here because they were repeating the promises of… And I encourage people read what was promised in the 1960s with this liturgical renewal and then compare it to reality. And that’s what I was doing. I was trying to compare it to reality. So first, before we get into details, what was your general impression of these articles?
Dr. Peter Kwasniewski:
I share your opinion that they were embarrassing to the authors and to the journal where they were published, because frankly these authors are completely out of their depth. This is not their wheelhouse, and they seem to have done almost no research. I published a little article a couple of days ago at Rorate Caeli just listing almost in bullet point form all of the ways in which they didn’t do their homework. For example, they don’t seem to have read a great scholar like Michael Fiedrowicz talking about the theology history and form of the Roman liturgy. It’s extremely rich, and they seem to have no understanding of where it came from and why it developed the way it did. They don’t acknowledge how many of the people who participated in Paul VI liturgical reform later had regrets about it. And expressed their regrets either at the time or afterwards, Cardinal Stickler, Louis Bouyer, George Martmore, Cardinal Antonelli, there’s a long list of these people who said this isn’t…
And then of course, all of the evidence that the reform wasn’t what Sacrosanctum Concilium called for, wasn’t what the bishops agreed to. That research is exhaustive at this point. I myself have published articles, Matthew Hazel detailing the speeches of the bishops at Vatican II exactly saying what they wanted and what they didn’t want, which is not at all what happened afterwards. So it just goes on and on. The comparison I used in a Facebook post is like when you read an astrophysicist talking about theology. Like somebody goes and asks Stephen Hawking, who his mind is full of equations about the Big Bang or something. And they say, do you believe in God? And then he starts talking about God, he has no idea what he’s talking about.
He’s like at a third grade level, no, not even that, like a kindergarten level when it comes to God. And I’m sorry, but again, to be blunt, these articles reflect a kindergarten grasp of liturgical history and liturgical theology. And even of the canonical complexities. So for example at one point, this was particularly risible. At one point in this series, they sort of blithely this 1974 document saying, “Everybody has to use the Novus Ordo a missal. There’s no room whatsoever for using the Tridentine mass.” And they don’t mention the Agatha Christie Indult. They don’t mention the fact that the old missal was always being used. That John Paul II convened a commission of nine cardinals in 1986 to investigate, and come once and for all to a determination of whether Paul VI had actually abrogated the Tridentine mass.
They came to the conclusion unanimous, I think eight out of nine said, no, he never did abrogate it canonically or legally speaking. It was always permissible. And that was the basis of Summorum Pontificum. And so there are complexities here, layers upon layers that they just sort of in a cartoon like fashion they just run roughshod over all of that. So it’s deeply painful.
Eric Sammons:
Yeah, not only just hit some of the high points or low points as it were, one of the major arguments they make throughout the articles is the idea of active participation. The idea of the laity participating in the mass. And they give an image of before Vatican II of basically no layperson had any idea what’s going on. They’re not even paying attention. Maybe they’ll look up when the bells ring and that’s about it. But they’re just there. They’re checking in, they’re checking out, they don’t care. And now after the reforms, they kind of make it sound like people are now engaged because they’re saying the responses. They know what’s going on. It’s more tridentarian, all these different things they say. How would you respond to that general idea of active participation, that the new mass is better at it than the old?
Dr. Peter Kwasniewski:
It’s almost difficult to know where to begin with claims of that nature. But the place I would begin is this, the simplest form of active participation is for people to show up for mass. And that’s not been happening since the Second Vatican Council. Granted, the difficulties predate the council, and I’m not blaming everything on the Novus Ordo liturgical reform. But it is a fact that there is a mountain of evidence that the lay people didn’t ask for the radical liturgical reform. And that many of them were displeased by it. The work of sociologists, Mary Douglas and Anthony Archer, the work on rituality of many different anthropologists and sociologists, mountains of evidence and data showing that as the liturgical reform ramped up, more and more people were leaving the church. Now, that could just be a coincidence or a correlation and maybe not causation. But as I say we have evidence of people saying, when the liturgy began to change, I was confused.
I was bewildered. I was scandalized. I stopped going to church. I know personally people who stopped going to church in the ’60s and ’70s because of these things. And who thanks be to God came back later when the Tridentine mass began to be celebrated again, it was always permitted. And so basically what I would say is these scholars or whoever wrote the article, whichever one of them wrote the article, they seem to have a godlike omnipotence to know how all Catholics were praying before the council and how all Catholics are praying now. And they’re wrong on both counts. And so in terms of before the council, there is so much evidence of Catholics loving the liturgy of using their missals. I remember Bishop Robert Reed, the auxiliary bishop of Boston, he put up that wonderful picture of his mother’s missal, where it shows where she kissed the missal at the consecration.
You could see a bit of lipstick on the paper. And he says, this is active participation. That is to say his mother knew what was going on. She was following it. She was following it with love and adoration. So to enter into the sacred mysteries with love, with adoration, with humility, with desire for holiness, that is the heart of active participation. And there is tons of evidence that was present before the council and is present after the council. I’m not trying to say it’s a black and white situation. But to make it seem as if our participation in the liturgy can be measured simply by whether we’re standing, sitting, making responses, singing, holding up our hands, whatever, is totally superficial. And the popes themselves have said that again and again, it’s interesting ironically they cite Mediator Dei of Pius XII in 1947 as if it’s supporting the reformed liturgy.
But in fact, everything Pius XII says is supporting the traditional Roman liturgy, which is expounding and defending against the radicals of the Liturgical Movement. And he makes it clear, he has the best discussion of participation. He says, “That we are members of the mystical body of Christ. And when the priest offers the sacrifice in the altar, we unite ourselves in spirit, in mind and heart with that sacrifice and we offer it with ourselves to God. And when we do that, that’s the deepest form of participation.” Well, the simple question then is which form of the mass more accentuates the high priestly offering of the sacrifice of calvary, which is truly the body and blood of Christ. And which one therefore opens up to us the deepest possibility of the deepest participation? The question in a sense answers itself, at least if you have experience. And this is what I’m going to say, when I read those articles one of the things that disturbed me the most is that they read like articles of people who have no experience of what they’re talking about.
That is to say why were traditionalists upset by those articles. I think the main reason is that we couldn’t see ourselves in their descriptions. We don’t know what’s going on. And we are just praying our rosary and daydreaming and oh, the bell rings, something must be happening as if it’s like Pavlov’s dog or something. No, that’s absurd. And then the authors have the cheek to say, well, if traditional Catholics are attending more actively at the traditional mass, that’s because of Vatican II and because of the Nova Ordo. You see they want to have their cake and eat it too. If there’s anything good happening, it’s like George Weigel frankly. His position is this, if anything good is happening in the church today it’s because of Vatican II. And if anything bad is happening it’s because Vatican II hasn’t been implemented. Well, sorry, but that is the most ideological position that’s possible. There’s no way to prove that. It’s like… Anyway, you understand what I’m saying.
Eric Sammons:
Yes, definitely. Now, let me just use one example of active participation and have you addressed that. And that’s the use of vernacular. Now, I will admit publicly and I think people who follow my stuff know this, for somebody who tends to traditional Latin mass, I’m not a big Latin guy. I’m not one. I love the ordinary, for example, and I’m not that big on that. But they make the argument that the vernacular basically increases the active participation. And what they say does make sense on the surface in the sense that, okay, when it’s a vernacular, you can actually respond with your own language. You understand what the priest is saying, then you can respond to what they’re saying. And so they say just by definition, having the liturgy in the vernacular increases active participation. How would you respond to that?
Dr. Peter Kwasniewski:
Yeah, what I would say is this, that the perspective of these three authors is… I don’t know if they really hold this, but the perspective that emerges from their articles is one of pure rationalism. And what I mean by rationalism is the idea that instant, immediate, verbal comprehension is the best or only way to interact with the liturgy or to interact with God for that matter. And again, I would just say experience shows that this isn’t true. And even I would say anthropology shows that it’s not true, because when for example we attend a liturgical rite that is dense with an atmosphere of mystery, when you have people bowing and whispering, and you have incense, and you have the chant, and there’s this intense sense of communion in prayer, in the mystery of what’s going on, this actually is something that can capture the heart and the mind much more powerfully than just somebody blathering on in your own language, which goes in one ear and out the other.
I can just tell you from my experience, I prayed in the Novus Ordo for many years. And there were many times when I would leave mass and I would say, it was as if I wasn’t even there. I can’t remember any of the readings. I don’t remember anything I said. I don’t remember if there was a Gloria or a Creed or anything. It was so absolutely like water off a duck’s back. Now, of course that’s not optimal on my part, but we’re not always our best. We’re not like machines that just go in and just automatically perform at their best functionality. But when I started going to the traditional mass, the very strangeness of it and the challenge of it actually enticed me to learn more. And I was like, why is the priest doing that? I want to find out why he is doing that.
Look at this prayer I just read in the missal. I’ve never seen a prayer like that in the Novus Ordo and that’s because it doesn’t exist. They took out over 50% of the mass. And so there was so much both in the way things were done in the silence, now it’s like, wait a minute, I’m being excluded from something. What’s going on here? And even the paradox then of the exclusion, or the strangeness, or sometimes the barrier that you hit is actually the thing that entices you to find out more and to go deeper. This is not hard to understand. This is just part of human psychology. It’s like the psychology of the Marines. Their strategy is to say, we want a few good men and we’ll find them. Their whole strategy is, we are tough, we’re hard and if you want that, come to us and we’ll make a man out of you, whatever.
And so the way the traditional liturgy works and I think this is true with all traditional liturgies, East and west, is that it presents a certain challenge to us. Not a challenge that we’re incapable of dealing with. Not like the Marines. We don’t have to go to bootcamp, but a challenge where we never get to the end of it. We never get to the bottom of it. So there is something there for the children to watch. The little boys can watch the thurifer and playing with fire and think that’s really cool. And the octogenarians who are in the congregation can still be pondering and meditating on these rich prayers and ceremonies of the mass for decades. And so that’s where the rationalism that drove the liturgical reform… And it did and we can prove that, that’s not just an assertion. The rationalism that drove the reform has created a liturgy that is in a sense immediately comprehensible and you can wrap your mind around it.
And you know what? When you can wrap your mind around something, you get bored of it. You get tired of it. It requires of you a certain kind of virtue that ordinary Catholics are not supposed to have, by which I mean you have to be a like scholar of the new lectionary to really get into it. You know what I’m saying? It’s like the liturgy is supposed to be something that can appeal to a factory worker, not somebody who has to study for 20 years to figure out why this is such a nice three year cycle of readings or something like that. No, you see what I mean? So the old energy speaks powerfully in a language of symbols. And I think Latin is one of those symbols. I like to talk about what I call the sonic iconostasis, Latin silence and chant. These three things present us with a kind of sonic iconostasis that’s equivalent to the Byzantine icon screen. It both reveals and conceals. It shows us something about what we’re doing, but it also hides something from us, from our secular profane gaze.
Eric Sammons:
I think it’s actually interesting because it’s actually one of the frustrations that I’ve experienced and I know a lot of the people experience who attend the traditional Latin Mass, is it’s often actually difficult to explain how we appreciate it and what we think of it because it goes beyond, like you said kind of beyond rationality. It’s not anti rational, but it’s beyond that. I can’t explain in words what the experience is like, and I’m not trying to get emotional experiential here. But the fact is, when I attend I’m not deep in my trying to follow along with every word and knowing exactly what’s happening and all that stuff. I’m just there and as part of the worship. And you can tell right now I’m not even able to explain it. And so what happens is when you talk to a good Catholic who maybe has never attended the traditional mass, and you’re trying to sell him on it but not really.
You’re just trying to explain it and you can’t. And so what you end up doing is… And everybody I know says this, they just them saying, just go for a month or two and I won’t have to explain it to you.
Dr. Peter Kwasniewski:
Right. Well, but basically that’s how it is with anything that’s awesome. So if somebody says, why are you a Catholic? You can think about it for a bit and say, well, I’m a Catholic because I love the saints. And the beauty that the church has produced over the centuries has to come from somewhere supernatural. And the doctors of the faith are really coherent, and they explain the world that we live in. And you can say a bunch of things, but you’re always going to feel totally unsatisfied with what you’ve said because it’s a comprehensive whole. It’s a way of life, it’s something too deep to be fully articulated. And that’s also true about anyone we love. If somebody says, why do you love your wife? Well, you could say, well, she’s beautiful and she cooks well and she loves her children and she’s a great mother.
And you can say all these things, but at the end of the day it’s like, well, she’s who she is. I love the person. The person is like an irreducible, immense mystery. And so think about the liturgy. The liturgy we have, the traditional liturgy is something we’ve inherited from 3000 years of prayer. And I say 3000 years because it goes, the traditional Roman rite has many Jewish elements to it which were purged from the Novus Ordo. And then replaced with fake Jewish things like the Berakah blessing at the offertory. And I mean fake in the sense that they were never there before, they just got shoved in. And so the 3000 years of God’s journey with man and man’s journey with God, this is going to be something massive and dense. And it’s not going to be always rational and logical and coherent. And it’s something you have to grow into. And that’s the way it should be. That’s the way God is. God is somebody we have to have a relationship with for decades, to be ready to die and to meet him.
And so it seems to me that if there were a liturgy that were immediately comprehensible, that wouldn’t be a good liturgy. That wouldn’t be the liturgy of Almighty God.
Eric Sammons:
Right. Now, I want to… We’re going long but I hope you don’t mind. I want to keep going because there’s one more thing I want to talk about because I think it’s related to this. It’s also related to your book, The Once and Future Roman Rite from Tan Publishing. And that is the question of what is the Roman rite? How many Roman rites are there? So first in general, there are different rites in the church. You have of course the Roman, you have the Byzantine Rite, the Ambrosian Rite and things like that. These are different types of liturgies. And today though, there was this idea of forms that are within a right. And so for Benedict actually, Pope Benedict used the idea of ordinary form, extraordinary form. You all say the idea of was the ordinariate, is that a form of the Roman Rite? Is it a different rite, things like that? So why don’t you first just break down briefly the difference between rites and forms and how that all works in the church.
Dr. Peter Kwasniewski:
Okay, so this is a pretty complicated question but is part of the reason I wrote my book. I would say one of the main themes of this book is to argue that there is only one Roman Rite. That it is the traditional form, the usus antiquior, whatever you want to call it, the classical Roman, you can call it 58 different things but we all know what we’re talking about. And so that’s the Roman and the Novus Ordo is not the Roman Rite. It’s the modern rite as Klaus Gamber called it the Ritus Medanos versus the Ritus Romanus. It is the right of Paul VI but it’s not the Roman Rite. Why do I say that? Well, I draw this out extensively, but basically on the broadest level there is more in common between the Tridentine rite and any Eastern rite, or any other rite in the church that was handed down from tradition than there is between the traditional Roman Rite and the Novus Ordo.
Okay, that’s why I say I have this one chapter called Two Brothers and a Stranger, meaning the Tridentine rite and the Byzantine Divine Liturgy are two brothers and the Novus Ordo is a stranger from them. And I show that in regard to 10 principles. I’ll just run through them real quick. I won’t even define them, I’ll just list them. The principle of tradition. The principle of mystery, the principle of elevated mode of discourse, the principle of ritual integrity or stability, the principle of density, the principle of adequate and repeated preparation, the principle of truthfulness, the principle of hierarchy, the principle of parallelism and the principle of separation. And so I go into all those 10 things and just show that the Novus Ordo is the outlier. In all of the liturgical history, a total outlier.
And just to give one concrete example, there is no Christian liturgy in its fully developed form, east or west, that is full of optionitis. That enables the priest to in a sense build your own adventure, to decide which penitential are you going to use, and which readings you’re going to use, and which an anaphora or eucharistic prayer you’re going to use, and which final blessing and so forth. That’s a complete novelty in church history. The church got away from extemporization as quickly as possible. In other words, there was definitely extemporaneous prayer in the early church. But guess what? As soon as they had great prayers already written, they went with those and they didn’t look back. And there was never a time when people said, oh gee wiz, we really miss those days of extemporaneous prayer. Nobody, because they knew that extemporaneous prayer is something you do in a sort of initial ferment of charismatic development.
It’s like, okay, God’s given. He’s dumping out the graces on the church fathers and they’re going to formulate their prayers. And now that we’ve got these prayers of bishop so and so, we’re just going to run with those forever. That’s the way that it’s been. Okay, so that’s the most broad level. But then when you get into the nitty gritty with the Roman rite itself, you can point to aspect after aspect where the Roman rite does one thing or acts one way and the Novus Ordo acts in a different way. I’ll just run through those real quick. Ad Orientum, ancient and fixed Eucharistic prayer, elaborate offertory with a sacrificial nature of the gifts mentioned. The treating of the Eucharist with utmost veneration down to the last detail. The hierarch is structured only male ministerial functions at the altar.
The expressive use of church buildings and their parts, the separation of the sanctuary and the nave, for example. The chanted, fixed liturgical texts. The inclusion of all of Christian doctrine including the hard and difficult truths. The elevated linguistic mode, whether you’re talking about a sacral hieratic language like Latin or just very elaborate and poetic language like the Byzantine liturgy. And then all of these things are required. They’re not optional, none of them are optional. And so when you put all that together you end up with a traditional liturgy such as the Roman rite. And the Novus Ordo either has the opposite or something different or makes it optional.
And so at this point, how can you possibly be talking about the two forms of the same thing, that is totally incoherent. Now why did Benedict do that? I think Benedict was not making a theological statement. He was too smart to make a theological statement. He was trying to come up with a legal fiction. It was a legal mechanism to enable both rites to coexist. I really think because Benedict had this fundamental sense of, it is such a big mess that I can’t fix it unilaterally. He had a humility that Paul VI lacked and that Francis lacks, namely that church men on Earth have created a huge bloody mess. And the only way we can really resolve this with Christian charity and patience and giving enough room for divine providence, is just to let these two rites run side by side. And who knows where that’s going to go.
Some people thought, oh, they’re going to mingle together and influence each other. I don’t really think that’s true. Actually I think the opposite was happening and that’s why Francis cracked down. But he just had the humility to say, let these two things go and in a sense, may the best rite win. It was kind of his attitude. So it’s a canonical structure or fiction that doesn’t hold up to historical or theological examination. And if you try to make it something more than a legal fiction, it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
Eric Sammons:
Right. And that definitely goes against one of the key points that I brought up in the article, is that they’re saying that the Novus Ordo is the modification I guess, the development of the ancient Roman rite. But really it’s hard to say. That was one of the first things I noticed when I went to the traditional mass for the first time. I had already been going to the Eastern liturgy off and on, mostly I was going Novus Ordo. I remember thinking like, wow, this is a lot like the Eastern liturgy. That’s the first thing I thought of was thinking of the Byzantine instead of the Novus Ordo.
Dr. Peter Kwasniewski:
Yeah. Let me just say on this point, it’s extremely important to recognize that what Cavadini, Healy and Weinandy have done in that part that you mentioned, is that they have succumbed completely to nominalism. The nominalism that whatever the Pope calls the Roman rite is the Roman rite. And so if a pope came along, let’s say Pope Annexaglus the first or whatever, and he says, you know what folks, I really love the Byzantine liturgy. And this Roman liturgy is just substandard. And so now the Roman rite is going to be the divine liturgy of St. John Christ system, that’s the Roman rite. Well, according to the logic of Cavadini, Healy, weinandy, then that would be the Roman rite. Wouldn’t it? And at this point you’re in la-la land, you’re with William of Ockham in nominalism and volunteerism. And so, one of the underlying premises of this Church Life Journal series, which is brought out to some extent but not as much as it could be. I think because the authors are fish in water so they don’t see it as clearly as some others do on the outside, is that they are hyper-papalist to…
That is they can’t imagine a Pope ever making a mistake even in regard to a prudential judgment like liturgical reform. And so for them what the pope says must be the truth. And it does become the Mormons or the Moonies or something like that, because it’s like, well, Pope Francis says that traditionalists are abusing their privileges in the church. And therefore he must be right and they must be wrong and so forth. So they don’t seem to have any sense of how that position of hyper-papalism ties them up into knots, because Benedict was right when he was pope. But now Francis who’s saying exactly the opposite is right because he’s the pope. And pretty soon it’s like where does the principle of non-contradiction end up in all of this?
Eric Sammons:
Right. Okay, I think we’re going to wrap it up here. We’re getting long, but a couple of things before we go. First is I just want to encourage people to get the book, The Once and Future Roman Rite from Tan Publishers. I will put a link to that obviously in the show notes along with the Church Life Journal articles as well. Anything else, what are you up to? I’m sure you have 15 books coming out soon. So what else do you want to kind of let us know about?
Dr. Peter Kwasniewski:
So I do want to let readers know about two books, they’re not by me. There’s one book by a French canon lawyer, Father Reginald-Marie Rivoire of the fraternity of St. Vincent Ferrer in France traditional community. Father Rivoire is an expert canon lawyer and he wrote this book called Does Traditionis Custodes Pass the Juridical Rationality Test. It’s a fairly technical canon law study, very accessible, however. And I highly recommend it because what he does is it’s a devastating critique of Traditionis Custodes and of the Responsa ad Dubia, showing that they are canonical nonsense basically. That they’re so illogical and irrational in regards to their premises, that they have no binding force. Now, that doesn’t mean of course that people aren’t going to treat them as if they have binding force. But he’s proved that Canonically speaking, they don’t. So this is a really neat book.
It comes from my publishing house Os Justi Press. You can find it on Amazon or on Os Justi.com. The other book I just want to mention also from Os Justi Press is Dr. John P. Joy’s book, Disputed Questions on Papal Infallibility. Some of you may have seen a number of John Joy’s writings have been published at OnePeterFive, but in a lot of different articles scattered over a long period of time. And this is the definitive version of all of them put between two covers. And I just want to say, this is the single best treatment of papal infallibility I’ve ever read hands down. It is luminous and serene. And he is absolutely in support of Vatican I, but he shows precisely what it means and what it doesn’t mean. And it’s so refreshing. It’s such a refreshing read. So I just wanted to mention those two books.
Eric Sammons:
Yeah, definitely. Send me the links to those and I’ll make sure I put those in the show notes as well so people can get them from you. Okay, well, I think we’re going to wrap it up there then. I really appreciate, Peter, this taking a lot of time here today to discuss that. That was an important topic and I really appreciate that. And hopefully we’ll have you on again soon. You’re a good regular guest here at Crisis Point.
Dr. Peter Kwasniewski:
Thank you so much, Eric.
Eric Sammons:
Okay. Everybody else until next time, God love you.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on ERIC SAMMONS AND DR. PETER KWASNIEWSKI TALK ABOUT THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE NOVUS ORDO MASS AND THE TRADITIONAL LATIN MASS AND OTHER MATTERS LITURGICAL
On September 19, 2022, Church Life Journal published an article co-authored by John Cavadini, Mary Healy, and Thomas Weinandy—the first in a projected five-part series, “The Renewal of the Liturgy: Successes, Failures, and Contemporary Concerns.” In order to bring to the public a more realistic account of the issues at stake, OnePeterFive is pleased to share with readers the following slightly modified excerpt from chapter 2 of Dr. Kwasniewski’s book Reclaiming Our Roman Catholic Birthright. This portion of the book has not been published online before.—TSF
Century after century, Holy Mother Church employed all her care in worshiping the Lord—from hidden gatherings of persecuted Christians to the grand basilicas of Constantine, within the great cathedrals of the Middle Ages and the ornate edifices of the Counter-Reformation, through the upheavals of modern Revolutions down to the eve of the Second Vatican Council. Always and everywhere, the holy mysteries were performed, venerated, and received in a continuum of Catholic faith accompanied by growing theological insight and spiritual devotion that matured into well-established rituals perfectly suited to their content and purpose.
The Fathers of the Second Vatican Council celebrated the Tridentine Mass in all four sessions.[1] They did not vote to retire or abolish this form of Mass, or even to alter its most striking features: Latin as the primary language, Gregorian chant as the primary music, ample silence, the east as a common direction for all worshipers, overlapping hierarchical activity entrusted to male ministers, the temporal cycle in the calendar, Communion received kneeling and on the tongue, and so forth.
Noble patriarchs, wayward grandchildren
How, then, did we end up getting, in the late 1960s, a new Mass so different from the Mass prayed by the Church for so many centuries? The answer to that question is closely bound up with the influential “Liturgical Movement” of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. This movement to rediscover the central place of the Church’s public worship in the Christian life can be described in terms of three distinct phases, although the boundaries from one to the next were somewhat fluid.
The first phase, exemplified by the pioneering figure Dom Prosper Guéranger (1805–1875) and his great work The Liturgical Year,[2] aimed at a better understanding and celebration of the inherited Roman liturgy through popular explanations and clerical-religious education. The leading idea was to take the treasures we already had and get to know and love them intimately. Guéranger often cited ancient sources to flesh out his commentaries, but without implying that the Church had erred in the medieval and post-medieval development of her liturgy, or that she should revert to these primitive models. This phase coincided with a blossoming of renewed monastic life.
The second phase—of which Dom Lambert Beauduin (1873–1960), Ildefonso Cardinal Schuster (1880–1954), Fr. Pius Parsch (1884–1954), and Fr. Romano Guardini (1885–1968) may be taken as representatives—was characterized by outstanding progress in historical, archaeological, linguistic, and theological research. It retained a profound respect for the wealth of tradition but sometimes spoke of medieval and Baroque “deviations” and showed a decided preference for what was (or, at times, was imagined by scholars to be) the most ancient—and therefore, presumably, most “authentic”—practice. This led certain individuals to dabble in experiments that conflicted with ecclesiastical legislation, e.g., celebrating Mass facing the people out of a conviction that this was how the Eucharist was originally celebrated by Christians.[3] The dangerous tendencies of this phase were called out by Pope Pius XII in his 1947 encyclical letter Mediator Dei.
Despite the encyclical that was meant to put the brakes on, the Liturgical Movement entered a more radical third phase in the fifties and sixties, as more of its members indulged in pastoral experiments and crafted paraliturgies intended to “reach people where they’re at” and “get them involved.” Heavy liturgical reform of the general calendar, the rubrics, and the rites of Holy Week prior to the Second Vatican Council already announced that the attitude of respect for longstanding practice had lost its self-evident force. This third phase combined selective antiquarianism with a utilitarianism that sought above all “the people’s benefit,” understood in activist terms.
All three phases of the Liturgical Movement, be it noted, emphasized lay involvement. The first phase saw it primarily in terms of acquiring education: being initiated into a great tradition that one could explore for a lifetime yet never exhaust, and participating in the liturgy through prayerful engagement with the rites. The second phase strongly promoted the use of hand missals, devotional aids for living the Church year, and popular singing of plainchant. The third phase took an ideological turn, as prominent liturgists embraced the conviction that liturgy ought to be clear, comprehensible, accessible, verbal, linear, and group-oriented: modernized for Modern Man.
Paul VI lent his full papal support to the ideals and plans of this radical phase of the Liturgical Movement. When the ink was barely dry on the Council’s first approved document, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium (1963), the pope set up a body called the Consilium. The pope and the Consilium took Vatican II’s call for moderate reform as carte blanche for an unprecedented wholesale reconstruction of the Roman rite in every area—Mass, lectionary, calendar, Divine Office, sacraments, sacramentals, pontifical and papal ceremonies, and so forth. The controversial Vincentian priest and later archbishop Annibale Bugnini (1912–1982), who worked on a succession of schemes of liturgical reform at the Vatican from 1948 to 1975, could be described as the general contractor of this massive project of demolition and reconstruction.[4]
While we can admit that the reformers were responding to certain problems of their time, we see looking back from our present vantage that they were often mistaken in their theories, naïve in their assumptions, and callous in their pastoral approach. The qualities of easy rational accessibility, immediate verbal comprehension, and community-centeredness are surely desirable in some social situations, but there is ample reason to question whether they suit well the religious ceremonies by which man comes before the God who wrapped Himself on Mount Sinai with voices, flames, the sound of the trumpet, and a dark cloud, wrought wind, rent rocks, shook stone, and whispered words, who names Himself “I AM” and “dwells in light inaccessible”;[5] the worship that leads to communion with the God-Man Christ Who baffled His own mother and foster father, who unwithered a man’s hand and withered a fig tree, Who blessed little children, raised the dead, drove out merchants with a whip, and sweated blood;[6] the operation of the Spirit who moved upon the face of the waters, descended as a dove from opened heavens, and entered as a violent rushing wind, to rest on the apostles as tongues of fire.[7]
Indeed, prominent voices in favor of liturgical reform, such as Fr. Louis Bouyer (1913–2004), subsequently expressed their regrets and dismay at much of what was done to and with the liturgy.[8]A close associate and disciple of Pius Parsch, Fr. Petrus Tschinkel of Klosterneuburg, admitted in an interview:
Now I can tell you that Pius Parsch would not at all have agreed with the changes of the post-conciliar era. That’s not what he wanted. Yes—(the liturgy) in the mother tongue. That is all, however. But also, the Mass as mystery, as a reality hic et nunc, here and now…. After the Second Vatican Council these liturgical forms are nothing but idling: only text after text. Not a trace of internal disposition nor of mystery.[9]
Fr. Tschinkel relates that Guardini, when he received the texts of the new liturgy, looked at them for a long time and then said: “Plumbers’ work!” (Klempnerarbeit).[10] Joseph Ratzinger renders a similarly negative judgment, though in more elegiac language:
The Liturgical Movement had in fact been attempting to… teach us to understand the Liturgy as a living network of Tradition that had taken concrete form, that cannot be torn apart into little pieces but has to be seen and experienced as a living whole. Anyone who, like me, was moved by this perception at the time of the Liturgical Movement on the eve of the Second Vatican Council can only stand, deeply sorrowing, before the ruins of the very things they were concerned for.[11]
In any case, we can say that history has moved on and the Church is now in a much different place than it was fifty years ago. If anything, the passage of decades has shown how urgently our traditional Roman liturgy responds to essential and universal human needs as well as needs peculiar to the postmodern era. Although a stubborn Old Guard of Bugninians remains ensconced in many a university chair and chancery office,[12] the energy is with the Ratzingerians, whose banner is Summorum Pontificum and whose motto is “what earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too.” As Dom Alcuin Reid observes:
the reality in the life of the Church at the beginning of the twenty-first century [is] that the usus antiquior is a living liturgical rite in which people—indeed significant and growing numbers of young people—participate fully, actually, consciously and fruitfully in a manner that would have brought great satisfaction to the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council and to the pioneers of the twentieth-century liturgical movement which preceded it.[13]
When Joseph Ratzinger called for a “new liturgical movement,”[14] he seems to have had in mind a new beginning, a movement characterized by the features of the first and healthiest phase, in which filial piety, grateful receptivity, and warm devotion are directed toward a rich heritage developed over twenty centuries of continuous worship—a tradition that should never have been rejected, and, happily, was never entirely forgotten or lost.[15]
[1] The public meetings of the Council began with solemn liturgies, most often in the venerable Roman rite but also on occasion in various Eastern and non-Roman Western rites as well.
[2] Different publishers have kept this masterpiece in print over the years. The most recent edition: Dom Prosper Guéranger, OSB, The Liturgical Year, trans. by Dom Laurence Shepherd, OSB (Fitzwilliam, NH: Loreto Publications, 2017), 15 vols. Some sections may be found online.
[3] We now know that this is not true and that the history is more complicated. For a good overview, see Fiedrowicz, Traditional Mass, ch. 7, “Direction of Prayer,” 141–52.
[4] For an excellent biography that also handily summarizes the liturgical fermentation and change from 1945–1975, see Yves Chiron, Annibale Bugnini: Reformer of the Liturgy, trans. John Pepino (Brooklyn, NY: Angelico Press, 2018). There was a short period during the Second Vatican Council when Bugnini was not working for the Vatican in an official capacity. He nevertheless remained in Rome, in close contact with all the major players, until he was reappointed as secretary of the Consilium.
[8] See The Memoirs of Louis Bouyer: From Youth and Conversion to Vatican II, the Liturgical Reform, and After, trans. John Pepino (Kettering, OH: Angelico Press, 2015), 218–25.
[9] See Wolfram Schrems, “The Council’s Constitution on the Liturgy: Reform or revolution?,” Rorate Caeli, May 3, 2018.
[10] Ibid. The German colloquialism means work done in a hasty, slipshod way, with inadequate care, and botched results. The reference to a hack plumber doing a mechanical job carries the implication that the reform of the liturgy was approached like the fixing, cutting, adapting, or welding of pieces of metal pipe, rather than as a subtle work of skill on a delicate living reality that would require holiness, discretion, and learning. Klempnerarbeit might also convey in this case a lack of aesthetic value in the misnamed “reforms.”
[11] Preface to Alcuin Reid, The Organic Development of the Liturgy: The Principles of Liturgical Reform and Their Relation to the Twentieth-Century Liturgical MovementPrior to the Second Vatican Council, 2nd ed. (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2005), 11.
[12] Notable figures who staunchly support the liturgical reform of Paul VI include Bugnini’s quondam secretary Archbishop Piero Marini (b. 1942), Msgr. Kevin Irwin (b. 1946), Fr. John Baldovin, SJ (b. 1947), Andrea Grillo (b. 1961), Fr. Anthony Ruff, OSB (b. 1963), and Massimo Faggioli (b. 1970).
[13] “The older form of the Roman rite is alive and well,” The Catholic World Report, April 3, 2020.
[15] See Fr. Thomas M. Kocik, Singing His Song: A Short Introduction to the Liturgical Movement, rev. and expanded ed. (Hong Kong: Chorabooks, 2019); cf. “The New Liturgical Movement: Urgent Care for a Sick Church,” in Kwasniewski, Noble Beauty, 89–112.
ABYSSUS ABYSSUM INVOCAT / DEEP CALLS TO DEEP 
You must be logged in to post a comment.