Welcome, Guest
You have to register before you can post on our site.

Username
  

Password
  





Search Forums

(Advanced Search)

Forum Statistics
» Members: 299
» Latest member: zaalexisgoglet6979
» Forum threads: 6,914
» Forum posts: 12,876

Full Statistics

Online Users
There are currently 325 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 322 Guest(s)
Applebot, Bing, Google

Latest Threads
Where Compromise Ends and...
Forum: The Catholic Trumpet
Last Post: Stone
7 hours ago
» Replies: 0
» Views: 45
Fr. Hewko's Sermons: Seco...
Forum: May 2025
Last Post: Stone
7 hours ago
» Replies: 0
» Views: 62
Fr. Hewko's Sermons: Firs...
Forum: May 2025
Last Post: Deus Vult
Yesterday, 11:01 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 60
Fr. Hewko's Sermons: Firs...
Forum: May 2025
Last Post: Deus Vult
Yesterday, 08:17 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 98
The Symbolism of the Lamb...
Forum: Church Doctrine & Teaching
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 07:35 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 53
May 3rd - Finding of the ...
Forum: May
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 06:38 AM
» Replies: 4
» Views: 10,743
Fr. Hewko's Sermons: Sts...
Forum: May 2025
Last Post: Deus Vult
05-02-2025, 08:18 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 100
The Catholic Trumpet: Rev...
Forum: The Catholic Trumpet
Last Post: Stone
05-02-2025, 09:35 AM
» Replies: 6
» Views: 1,211
Saint Athanasius The True...
Forum: Church Doctrine & Teaching
Last Post: Stone
05-02-2025, 08:09 AM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 767
Bishop Graber: Athanasius...
Forum: Resources Online
Last Post: Stone
05-02-2025, 08:07 AM
» Replies: 4
» Views: 8,643

 
  Fr. Hewko's Sermons: Second Sunday after Epiphany - January 19, 2025
Posted by: Stone - 01-17-2025, 03:53 PM - Forum: January 2025 - No Replies

Second Sunday after Epiphany - January 19, 2025
“The Mother of Jesus Was There” (NH)






Audio

Print this item

  Fr. Hewko's Sermons: Feast of St. Peter's Chair in Rome - January 18, 2025
Posted by: Stone - 01-17-2025, 03:51 PM - Forum: January 2025 - No Replies

Feast of St. Peter's Chair in Rome - January 18, 2025
“Upon This Rock” (NH)




Audio

Print this item

  Francis’s Autobiography of Faithless Hope
Posted by: Stone - 01-17-2025, 02:48 PM - Forum: Articles by Catholic authors - No Replies

Francis’s Autobiography of Faithless Hope

[Image: f0bed76020ad9eed1eeaffe8b2afff2f_L.jpg]


By:  Robert Morrison, Remnant Columnist [Red font emphasis mine, italics as in the original] | January 15, 2025

The new autobiography of Pope Francis is ultimately an oppressively annoying apologia for anti-Catholic globalism. That said, it is worth exploring the ways in which the new book highlights Francis’s vision of hope without faith.

“The theological virtue of hope can exist without charity, not however, without faith.” (Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma)

Rorate Caeli’s brief commentary on Francis’s recently released book, Hope: The Autobiography, concluded with what may turn out to be the wisest reaction to it:

“How would anyone pay one penny for the endless self-righteous bile spoken by the man?…”

As interesting as the book may be in places — such as the description of the 2013 conclave — it is ultimately an oppressively annoying apologia for anti-Catholic globalism. That said, it is worth exploring the ways in which the new book highlights Francis’s vision of hope without faith.


LGBTQ Outreach

Francis’s defense of his promotion of the LGBTQ agenda paints the picture of a man who is receptive to essentially any approach to practicing Christianity, no matter how contrary to Biblical morality it is:
Quote:“Receptiveness, and certainly not relativism, nor any change of doctrine, is the spirit and heart of Fiducia supplicans, the declaration of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith on the blessing of couples who live in irregular situations, which I signed in December 2023. It is the people who are blessed, not the relationships. It arises from the wish not to ascribe one situation or one condition to the entire life of those who seek to be illuminated and accompanied with a blessing. Everyone in the Church is invited, including people who are divorced, including people who are homosexual, including people who are transgender. The first time that a group of transgender people came to the Vatican, they left in tears, moved because I had taken their hands, had kissed them . . . As if I had done something exceptional for them. But they are daughters of God! They can receive baptism on the same conditions as other believers and can perform the responsibilities of godparents on the same conditions as others, and likewise be witnesses to a marriage. No provision of canonical law forbids it.”

Although serious Catholics reject this vile nonsense, we can view Francis’s embrace of blessings for same-sex unions, and endorsement of transgender godparents, as an indication of how open he should be to those who sincerely try to practice Catholicism. In other words, if he is willing to bless “couples who live in irregular situations,” surely he should be willing to bless those who ardently seek to practice the Catholic Faith as it had been taught for many centuries leading up to Vatican II.


Evils of Traditional Catholicism

However, as we have known from long experience, Francis is willing to tolerate almost everything other than actual Catholicism. Other than his sympathies for those who are marginalized, perhaps the most dominant theme in his autobiography is his marginalization of those who believe what the Church had always taught prior to Vatican II. We can see this in three passages:

Quote:“From a sociological point of view, it is interesting to consider the phenomenon of traditionalism, this ‘backwardism’ that regularly returns each century, this reference to a supposed perfect age that each time is another age. With the liturgy, for example. It has now been ruled that the possibility of celebrating Mass in Latin, following the missal prior to the Second Vatican Council, must be expressly authorized by the Dicastery for Divine Worship, who will allow it only in special cases. For the reason that it is unhealthy for the liturgy to become ideology. It is curious to see this fascination for what is not understood, for what appears somewhat hidden, and seems also at times to interest the younger generations. This rigidity is often accompanied by elegant and costly tailoring, lace, fancy trimmings, rochets. Not a taste for tradition but clerical ostentation, which then is none other than an ecclesiastic version of individualism. Not a return to the sacred but to quite the opposite, to sectarian worldliness. These ways of dressing up sometimes conceal mental imbalance, emotional deviation, behavioral difficulties, a personal problem that may be exploited.”

“The Spirit is the paraclete, the one that supports and gives company, that is a breath of life, not an anesthetizing gas. One day, as I was teaching two hundred young children at San Miguel, one of them confused it with paralytic and made me smile… but that is precisely the Church that we mustn’t be, a Church that is fixed, frozen. Our task certainly is to discern, to understand what today is asking of us, but in the knowledge that rigidity is not Christian, because it denies this movement of the Spirit. Rigidity is sectarian. Rigidity is self-referential. Rigidity is a daily heresy. It mistakes the Church for a fortress, for a castle standing high up, which looks down distantly and self-importantly on the world and on life, rather than living inside it.”

“Christians are not those who go backward. The flow of history and grace go up and down like the sap of a tree that bears fruit. Without this flow there is fossilization, and going backward is not conducive to life, ever. There is no progress, there is no movement. Life, whether vegetal or animal or human, dies. Progress means change, dealing with new situations, accepting new challenges. Vincent of Lérins, the fifth-century saint venerated by Catholics as well as members of the Orthodox Church, wrote in his Commonitórium primum that the dogma of the Christian religion follows these laws: It progresses, solidifying with years, growing with time, deepening with age. Human understanding changes over time, and the way that people perceive and express themselves changes—it is one thing for a man who expresses himself by carving the Winged Victory of Samothrace, another thing for Caravaggio, yet another for Chagall and then Dalí. And so too does human conscience deepen. . . Our responsibility is to journey in our own time, to continue growing in the art of meeting needs and providing for them with creativity of Spirit, which is always discernment in action. The Church is certainly not an orchestra in which everyone plays the same note but one in which each person follows their own score, and it is precisely this that must create harmony. It is wonderful that brothers and sisters have the courage to form their own ideas, to discuss them, to say what they think: Aspiring to unity does not mean uniformity. But then, we must still sit around the same table. In many respects, it can be said that the last ecumenical council has not yet been fully understood, lived, and applied. We are on the way and need to make up for lost time. When anyone asks me whether the time is right for a new council, for a Vatican III, I reply not just that the answer is no but that we still need to fully implement Vatican II. And need to sweep away even more the culture of courtliness, in the papal court and everywhere else. The Church is not a court, it is not a place for coteries, favoritism, machination, nor is it the last European court of an absolute monarchy. With Vatican II, the Church became a sign and instrument for the unity of the whole human race.”

Much of this is blasphemously offensive, but the final passage is especially evil because he misrepresents St. Vincent of Lérins. As discussed in a previous article, Francis has repeatedly cited St. Vincent of Lérins without including the passage from the saint that actually contradicts the argument he is attempting to support. We can see this by considering the following passage from Vatican I, which cites St. Vincent, to defend the exact opposite position of the one that Francis endorses:
Quote:“For, the doctrine of faith which God revealed has not been handed down as a philosophic invention to the human mind to be perfected, but has been entrusted as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ, to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding ‘Therefore […] let the understanding, the knowledge, and wisdom of individuals as of all, of one man as of the whole Church, grow and progress strongly with the passage of the ages and the centuries; but let it be solely in its own genus, namely in the same dogma, with the same sense and the same understanding.’ (Vincent of Lérins, Commonitorium, 23, 3).”

Whether Francis is making his mistake through ignorance or malice, it is quite telling that his vitriol for those who follow what the Church has always taught involves a gross misrepresentation of St. Vincent of Lérins. It is arguably the most profound sign of diabolical disorientation possible that the reputed pope endorses essentially every religious belief in the world other than Catholicism.


Need for Emasculation

Although both men and women who love the Church appreciate the reasoning of St. Vincent of Lérins and other defenders of Tradition, it is men who typically have the greatest passion, and responsibility, for expounding and defending the logical foundations of the Catholic Faith. As such, it should come as little surprise that Francis’s attacks on Traditional Catholicism are accompanied by attacks on masculinity:
Quote:“If we clerics don’t understand what a woman is and what a woman’s theology is, we will never understand what the Church is. One of the great sins we have committed has been to ‘masculinize’ it. The Church therefore needs to be ‘demasculinized’—while knowing, at the same time, that to ‘masculinize’ women would be neither human nor Christian, since the other great sin is certainly clericalism. It is therefore not a question of co-opting all women into the clergy, of making everyone become deacons in holy order, but of enhancing the Marian principle, so that it is even more important in the Church than the Petrine principle: Mary is more important than Peter, and the mystical nature of the woman is greater than the ministry. As has been stated in the concluding document of the Synod on Synodality in October 2024, at which I chose for the first time not to make my apostolic exhortation, considering it to be immediately operative, there are no reasons to prevent women from assuming guiding roles in the Church: That which comes from the Holy Spirit cannot be stopped. The question of access by women to diaconal ministry, with regard to which it is necessary to act with discernment, remains open to study. Whereas it is necessary to favor in every way the presence of women in the training of new priests: Seminarians will certainly obtain great benefit from it. It is true that women already provide a brilliant contribution to theological research and are present in positions of responsibility in ecclesiastical institutions or as community leaders, but it is necessary to give immediate and full concreteness to all opportunities provided, particularly where they remain unimplemented.”

One cannot criticize Francis for neglecting to practice what he preaches in this regard: by his words and deeds, we can see that he has gone to great lengths to demasculinize himself in the way that he advocates for the Church. The actual Catholic Church can never be “demasculinized,” but Francis’s Synodal Church has completed the process of demasculinization that Vatican II promoted in numerous ways. This process goes hand-in-hand with Francis’s attacks on Traditional Catholicism and promotion of the LGBTQ agenda.


Hope Without Faith

Francis’s discussion of the theological virtue of hope helps us synthesize his support of the LGBTQ agenda, distaste for Traditional Catholicism, and desire to demasculinize the Church. Throughout his autobiography, he displays a genuine desire to help those in need. He wants them to have peace and hope, but he apparently believes that the “rigid” faith of Traditional Catholics presents an insurmountable obstacle for these people in need. He is, of course, mistaken in this belief, but he appears to hold firmly to this misconception.

With this mindset, he would naturally see Traditional Catholicism (which is simply “Catholicism”) as a roadblock that he must remove. He seeks to remove it through a process of demasculinization, and Vatican II provided him with the tools to do that.

When we consider the following statement related to those who have “answers to all the questions,” we can sense Francis’s deep antipathy for those who adhere to the immutable teachings of the Church:
Quote:“It is no good a person saying with total certainty that they have met God. If someone has answers to all the questions, this is proof that God is not with them. It means that they are a false prophet, someone who exploits religion, who uses it for themselves. The great guides of God’s people, like Moses, always left space for doubt.”

He does not use the word “faith” in this passage, but it is the true object of his contempt. While it is certainly true that we cannot know everything about our religion with perfect understanding, Francis’s viewpoint suggests that we should all have doubts about what the Church teaches.

As we read in Bishop Morrow’s My Catholic Faith, though, our faith must be firm and complete:

“Our faith must be firm and complete; that is, both certain and all-encompassing. If we are doubtful on any matters of faith, considering opposite viewpoints as possibly true, then we deny God’s authority. If we accept some truths, and deny others, then that is denying God altogether.”

So, by all indications, Francis and his collaborators lack the theological virtue of faith. However, we cannot have the theological virtue of hope without faith:

“The theological virtue of hope can exist without charity, not however, without faith.” (Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma)

And yet Francis suggests that “Christian hope is invincible” and cannot be lost:
Quote:“But Christian hope is infinitely more than this: It is the certainty that we are born no longer to die, that we are born for the pinnacles, to enjoy happiness. It is the awareness that God has always loved us, and will always love us, and never leaves us alone. The apostle Paul says: ‘What will separate us from the love of Christ? Will anguish, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or the sword? […] No, in all these things we conquer overwhelmingly through him who loved us’ (Romans 8: 35–37). Christian hope is invincible because it is not a desire. It is the certainty that we are all traveling, not toward something that we want to be there, but something that is already there. . . . Hope never disappoints. Optimism is a valuable asset, an attitude of the mind, a quality of character that makes us lean toward a more positive view of things. But all the same, it is something that can be betrayed. Hope cannot. God cannot deprive us of hope, because He cannot deny Himself.”

All of this sounds close enough to being true that it can deceive the unwary. Thus, whether he really believes this or not, the threat that Francis and his collaborators pose is that they will convince others that they should have invincible Christian hope even though they do not have the true Catholic Faith.

Interestingly, one of the few worthwhile passages in Francis’s autobiography is a condemnation of the way in which he seeks to deceive others into having this unfounded hope:
Quote:“Lanza del Vasto, a polymath writer, philosopher, Christian thinker, and nonviolent campaigner against war and nuclear armament, an artisan of peace, noted that the worst lie, the greatest and most dangerous lie, is ‘truth minus one.’ Not truth, but its contrived appearance, its comic or dramatic distortion: an attitude that makes falsity credible, error acceptable, that makes the inept arrogant, the ignorant wise, the incompetent powerful. Judas is the master of the plausible, the master of gossip. And gossip and plausibility are the most treacherous opponents of the truth of things. There is always something devilish in gossip and in false accusation.”

Like all of the most dangerous liars in history, Francis is a master of making error plausible and acceptable for the unwary. We can pray for Francis’s conversion, but our Catholic Faith does not permit us to follow him or lead others to do so.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us!

Print this item

  Holy Mass in New Hampshire - January 19, 2025
Posted by: Stone - 01-16-2025, 06:38 PM - Forum: January 2025 - No Replies

Holy Sacrifice of the Mass - Second Sunday after Epiphany

[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse2.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3...ipo=images]



Date: Sunday, January 19, 2025


Time: Confessions - 10:00 AM
              Holy Mass - 10:30 AM


Location: The Oratory of the Sorrowful Heart of Mary
                      66 Gove's Lane
                      Wentworth, NH 03282


Contact: 315-391-7575                   
                  sorrowfulheartofmaryoratory@gmail.com

Print this item

  Vatican cracks down on illegal entry into its territory
Posted by: Stone - 01-16-2025, 11:51 AM - Forum: Pope Francis - No Replies

Vatican cracks down on illegal entry into its territory

[Image: vaticancitystatebuilding011425.jpg?w=670&h=447]

The Vatican City’s Governor’s Palace (Palazzo del Governatorato in Vaticano), the building that is the seat of the Pontifical Commission for Vatican City State in the Vatican Gardens. | Credit: Some pictures here/Shutterstock


CNA | Jan 15, 2025

The Vatican City State has toughened sanctions for those who try to illegally enter its territory in areas where free access is not allowed.

In a decree issued last month by the Holy See, the monetary sanctions and prison sentences for those who violate the strict security regulations of Vatican City have been considerably increased.

The document, signed by Cardinal Fernando Vérguez Alzaga, president of the Pontifical Commission for Vatican City State, provides for monetary fines ranging from 10,000 to 25,000 euros (about $10,200 to $25,700) and prison sentences ranging from one to four years.

These fines will apply especially to those who enter by means of violence, threats, or deception, bypassing border controls or security systems. In addition, those who enter with expired permits or do not meet the established requirements will receive administrative sanctions ranging from 2,000 to 5,000 euros (about $2,060 to $5,145).

The decree emphasizes that the penalties can be increased if the crime is committed with firearms, corrosive substances, by a person in disguise, or by several people together. Likewise, if illegal access is made in a vehicle, the penalty can increase by up to two-thirds.

The document also stipulates that unauthorized overflight of Vatican airspace, including through the use of drones, may be punished with prison sentences from six months to three years in addition to a fine that could reach 25,000 euros (about $26,000).

Anyone convicted of illegal entry will be banned from entering Vatican territory for a period of up to 15 years. If this sanction is breached, the offender may be punished with a prison sentence of one to five years.

In addition, the Vatican’s promoter of justice may summon any person who has committed an offense to appear before the court the day after receiving the complaint or immediately after questioning him.

Vatican City is the smallest state in the world and currently has a population of just over 800 inhabitants. The city-state covers 0.17 square miles. If it were perfectly square, the Vatican would be less than a half mile by a half mile.

The Vatican City State includes areas with free access, such as St. Peter’s Basilica or the Vatican Museums, which require prior security checks.

However, there are other entrances flanked by high walls, such as Porta Santa Ana, Piazza del Sant’Uffizio, or Porta Perugino, reserved for authorized personnel or visitors with special permits.

Print this item

  Fr. Ruiz Sermons: Feast of the Holy Family, 1/12/25 - "What the Catholic Family is and is Not"
Posted by: Deus Vult - 01-14-2025, 11:55 PM - Forum: Fr. Ruiz's Sermons January 2025 - No Replies

LO QUE ES Y LO QUE NO ES LA FAMILIA CATÓLICA
 Fiesta de la Sagrada Familia - Jan. 12, 2025  

Print this item

  Fr Ruiz Sermons: 1/3/25 "THE INFANT JESUS' TEACHING OF HUMILITY" [English]
Posted by: Deus Vult - 01-13-2025, 08:28 PM - Forum: Fr. Ruiz's Sermons January 2025 - No Replies

"THE INFANT JESUS' TEACHING OF HUMILITY"
 1/3/25   (Houston)

Print this item

  Fr. Ruiz Sermons: 1/5/25 2025 "HOW TO INVOKE THE NAME OF JESUS" [English]
Posted by: Deus Vult - 01-13-2025, 08:21 PM - Forum: Fr. Ruiz's Sermons January 2025 - No Replies

1/5/25 2025  [b][English]  (GA)[/b]
"HOW TO INVOKE THE NAME OF JESUS"


Print this item

  The Catholic Trumpet: The Fight for God’s Cosmos
Posted by: Stone - 01-13-2025, 08:31 AM - Forum: The Catholic Trumpet - No Replies

Geocentrism, Masonry, and the Fight for God’s Cosmos


The Catholic Trumpet [slightly adapted] | January 9, 2025


The Catholic Cosmos: A Call to Rediscover Truth

For centuries, the Catholic Church upheld a God-ordained vision of the cosmos, rooted in Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the unanimous teaching of the Fathers. This geocentric understanding reflected the divine order, with the earth at the center of creation and humanity as its steward under God. It was not merely a scientific position but a theological truth, safeguarded by the Magisterium as part of the deposit of faith.

Yet, modernity rejected this truth, embracing heliocentrism, the Big Bang, and Darwinian evolution—philosophies rooted not in empirical evidence but in rebellion against God. These errors, shaped by Kabbalistic mysticism and Judeo-Masonic subversion, sought to dethrone God and obscure His providence.

This article uncovers the spiritual battle for the cosmos, exposing the roots of modern cosmology in anti-Catholic ideology. By rediscovering the Catholic vision of creation, we prepare to defend the immutable truths that modernity has abandoned.


The Spiritual Battle for the Cosmos

The Kabbalistic Foundation

Jewish mystical texts like the Zohar reinterpret creation as emanations—divine sparks scattered in an infinite void—rejecting the ordered cosmos revealed in Genesis. This Kabbalistic cosmology denies the finite, hierarchical creation that places man at its center under God. Instead, it promotes an infinite, purposeless universe, aligning with modern cosmological theories like the Big Bang and evolution.

In the beginning God created heaven and earth” (Genesis 1:1) affirms creation’s order and God’s sovereignty, directly contradicting the chaotic, impersonal cosmos envisioned by Kabbalistic mysticism.


Isaac Newton’s Mechanistic Cosmos

Isaac Newton, celebrated for his "scientific contributions", was deeply influenced by alchemy and esotericism. His theory of gravity—introduced in 1666—proposed hidden forces governing the universe, replacing God’s direct governance with mechanistic laws.

Newton’s mechanistic worldview reflects Gnostic principles, reducing creation to a self-operating machine. His documented engagement with alchemy underscores his departure from Catholic cosmology, which holds that:

“In Him we live, and move, and have our being” (Acts 17:28).


Freemasonry’s Role in Spreading Error

Freemasonry, condemned repeatedly by the Church, served as a vehicle for the Synagogue of Satan (Rev. 2:9, 3:9), promoting cosmologies hostile to the Catholic Faith. Pope Leo XIII warned in Humanum Genus:

“Their ultimate aim is to drive God out of society, replacing His authority with human autonomy.”

By advancing heliocentrism and infinite space, Freemasons undermined Scripture and Tradition, enthroning human pride over divine revelation. This subversion culminated in the cultural and spiritual errors of modernity.


The Church’s Response: Geocentrism as De Fide

The Testimony of Scripture and the Fathers

The immovability of the earth is affirmed throughout Sacred Scripture:

• “The earth standeth forever” (Ecclesiastes 1:4).

• “The sun riseth, and goeth down, and returneth to his place” (Ecclesiastes 1:5).

• “Thou hast founded the earth upon its own bases: it shall not be moved forever and ever” (Psalm 103:5).

The Church Fathers unanimously interpreted these passages literally. St. Basil the Great taught:

“Scripture describes the universe in a way that places the earth as the center of God’s creation.”


Papal Condemnations of Heliocentrism

The Magisterium explicitly condemned heliocentrism as contrary to faith:

• In 1616, Pope Paul V approved the Congregation of the Index’s decree declaring the proposition that “the sun is the center of the world and entirely immovable” as “philosophically false and at least erroneous in faith.”

• In 1633, Pope Urban VIII reaffirmed this condemnation during Galileo’s trial, stating:

“The doctrine that the earth is not the center of the universe… is heretical, because it contradicts Sacred Scripture.”

• In 1664, Pope Alexander VII codified these decrees in the Index of Forbidden Books, emphasizing their binding authority.

St. Robert Bellarmine: Defender of Scripture and Tradition

St. Robert Bellarmine, a Doctor of the Church, provided one of the most authoritative defenses of geocentrism in his 1615 letter to Paolo Antonio Foscarini. He argued that the literal interpretation of Scripture regarding the immobility of the earth and the motion of the sun is unanimously supported by the Church Fathers, modern commentators, and Sacred Tradition. Bellarmine writes:

“The Council [of Trent] prohibits interpreting Scripture contrary to the common consensus of the Holy Fathers; and if Your Paternity wants to read not only the Holy Fathers, but also the modern commentaries on Genesis, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Joshua, you will find all agreeing in the literal interpretation that the sun is in heaven and turns around the earth with great speed, and that the earth… sits motionless at the center of the world.”

Bellarmine emphasized the profound importance of adhering to the Fathers’ consensus, writing:

“Consider now, with your sense of prudence, whether the Church can tolerate giving Scripture a meaning contrary to the Holy Fathers and to all the Greek and Latin commentators. Nor can one answer that this is not a matter of faith, since… it is a matter of faith ‘as regards the speaker.’ And so it would be heretical to say that Abraham did not have two children and Jacob twelve, as well as to say that Christ was not born of a virgin, because both are said by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of the prophets and the apostles.”

Bellarmine also warned against abandoning Scripture even in the face of supposed scientific “proofs.” He stated:

“If there were a true demonstration that the sun is at the center of the world and the earth in the third heaven, and that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun, then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary, and say rather that we do not understand them than that what is demonstrated is false.”

Yet he remained firm in his conviction:

“I will not believe that there is such a demonstration, until it is shown me. And in case of doubt one must not abandon the Holy Scripture as interpreted by the Holy Fathers.”

Bellarmine’s letter reflects the Church’s unshakable commitment to fidelity to Scripture and Tradition. It stands as a timeless testament to the theological, not merely scientific, truth of geocentrism.


Why This Matters Today

The acceptance of heliocentrism marked the beginning of a philosophical and theological rebellion against God’s order, paving the way for modern errors like Darwinism and the Big Bang. These theories deny divine providence, reduce humanity to an accident of nature, and enthrone atheistic materialism.

Pope St. Pius X warned:

“Modernism leads men to destroy the very foundations of faith under the guise of scientific progress.”

The spiritual consequences of heliocentrism are evident in the errors of Vatican II, which embraced religious liberty, ecumenism, and collegiality—principles condemned by prior popes. +Archbishop Lefebvre recognized this trajectory of compromise, proclaiming:

“We want to remain faithful to Our Lord King, Prince, and Ruler of the world.”


Rediscovering Geocentrism

The Catholic vision of the cosmos is not a relic of the past but a cornerstone of faith. By reclaiming geocentrism, we honor God’s design and resist the errors of modernity. The abandonment of geocentrism marked the beginning of the trajectory that culminated in the errors and heresies of Vatican II, which enshrined principles of religious liberty, ecumenism, and collegiality—compromises condemned by the preconciliar Magisterium. Worse still, the subsequent compromises of the new SSPX and the false resistance have perpetuated these errors under the guise of fidelity to Tradition.

Next week, we will explore geocentrism in greater depth, demonstrating how Scripture, Tradition, and the saints affirm this doctrine as a reflection of God’s perfect order. Trusting in the Immaculate Heart of Mary, let us prepare for the restoration of all things in Christ by standing firm against the ongoing eclipse of the Church.

No Compromise. No Retreat.

-The☩Trumpet

Print this item

  Pope Francis appoints first woman to lead a Vatican dicastery
Posted by: Stone - 01-13-2025, 08:18 AM - Forum: Pope Francis - Replies (1)

Pope Francis appoints first woman to lead a Vatican dicastery
In a historic move, Pope Francis has appointed a nun, Sister Simona Brambilla, as prefect of the Dicastery for Institutes of Consecrated Life, highlighting his ongoing push to increase female leadership in the Vatican.

[Image: brambilla.jpg]

Sr. Simona Brambilla
Vatican News/ file photo

Jan 6, 2025
VATICAN CITY (LifeSiteNews - slightly adapted, not all hyperlinks included from the original) –– In a groundbreaking move, Pope Francis appointed a nun as head of a Vatican dicastery today, making Sister Simona Brambilla the first woman to lead an office in the Roman Curia.

Announced via the Holy See press bulletin on the feast of the Epiphany, the Pope’s leadership choice for the Dicastery for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life was made public.

Sr. Brambilla of the Consolata Missionaries will now become prefect of the Dicastery, thus taking over from the notoriously anti-traditional Cardinal João Braz de Aviz. With the new position, she will be able to continue her outspoken push for increasing leadership positions held by women in the Church.

Brambilla, 59, has served as secretary of the dicastery since October 2023, being the first woman to hold the role. Indeed, she was one of seven women appointed to the dicastery as consulters – which was itself a groundbreaking move.

Brambilla served two terms as superior general of the Consolata Missionaries between 2011 and 2023, having been a general councillor for six years prior to that.

Also announced today was the appointment of Cardinal Ángel Fernández Artime as pro-prefect of the same dicastery. Artime, 64, was created a cardinal in September 2023 and was former head of the the Salesians between 2014 and 2024. The Spaniard had been without a notable position since leaving his role as head of the Salesians last year, prompting much speculation as to where he might be moved, with many assuming Artime would be named as prefect of the Dicastery for Institutes of Consecrated Life.

With a cardinal now subordinate to a religious woman, Francis’ pick is one which will be noted as a key event by those eager to see the achievement of goals such as female ordination.

Brambilla is the first woman to lead a dicastery in the Roman Curia, although women – such as Barbara Jatta, director of the Vatican Museums, and Sister Raffaella Petrini, secretary general of the Governorate of the Vatican City State – already serve in notably high-ranking positions in the Vatican, thanks to Francis.

Since the 2022 publication of Francis’ much-anticipated reforms of the Roman Curia in his apostolic constitution Praedicate Evangelium, the placement of women in positions of power has continued to grow. So also has the structure and operation of the Curia been changed to be more in line with Francis’ style of “synodal” governance, which crucially relies on curial figures who will work in accordance with his wishes.

READ: Pope Francis reforms Roman Curia, says any layperson can hold ‘governance’ positions in Vatican

The Dicastery for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life (DICLSAL) has competency over religious and secular institutes, orders, congregations, and societies of men and women in the Catholic Church, and as such Brambilla’s role carries significant power.

The office of pro-prefect is a new one to the dicastery as of today, although it is not new to the Roman Curia. Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle has served as pro-prefect of the Dicastery for Evangelization since June 2022.

In recent years, under the leadership of Braz de Aviz, DICLSAL has become infamous for its implementation of Francis’ Cor Orans document, which has issued in tighter Vatican control over religious life and been widely – though often quietly – used against convents and religious orders noted for being too traditional for the liking of Roman officials.

In addition to restricting already existing groups, a 2022 Rescript via the dicastery prevented diocesan bishops from autonomously establishing any groups of the faithful looking to become religious institutes or societies, in a move which was described as an attempt to prevent any new traditional communities from being formed.

Traditional and contemplative religious communities have been under increasing pressure from the Vatican, particularly since the publication of Cor Orans and the 2016 document Vultum Dei quaerere. Father Maximilian Mary Dean, a former Franciscan Friar of the Immaculate and the chaplain to the discalced Carmelite nuns of Fairfield, Pennsylvania, warned that under Braz de Aviz the dicastery was “just going to destroy the vocations and the way of life.”

Since the 2021 promulgation of Traditionis Custodes, traditional Mass groups like the Fraternity of St. Peter, the Institute of Christ the King, and the Institute of the Good Shepherd have now fallen under the purview of DICLSAL.

With the past summer awash with rumors about a new document set to restrict the traditional Mass, Brambilla’s new role could see her liaise much more closely with Francis in the future of the traditional orders. In early 2023, reports suggested that it was Brambilla’s own dicastery – at that time led by Braz de Aviz – which would publish new restrictions on the traditional Mass, but such rumors never came to fruition.

As Francis forges ahead with a “new-look” curia, involving female governance positions, while still allowing the open discussion on the topic of female deacons, Brambilla is unlikely to remain the only woman appointed to such a leading role while Francis is alive.

Print this item

  Fr. Hewko's Sermons: Holy Family, Jesus, Mary, & Joseph 1/12/25 “The First Purpose of Families”
Posted by: Deus Vult - 01-12-2025, 11:41 PM - Forum: January 2025 - No Replies

Holy Family, Jesus, Mary, & Joseph 1/12/25 
“The First Purpose of Families” (NH)






Audio

Print this item

  Italian Bishops to Admit Homosexuals to Priesthood 'Ad Experimentum"
Posted by: Stone - 01-11-2025, 10:12 AM - Forum: Vatican II and the Fruits of Modernism - No Replies

Italian Bishops Admit Homosexuals Official[ly] to Priesthood


gloria.tv | January 10, 2025

The Italian Bishops' Conference has decided that homosexuals can be ordained to the priesthood.

New guidelines on priestly seminaries, published on January 9, state: "When homosexual inclinations are mentioned in the formation process, it is also appropriate not to limit the distinction to this aspect alone, but to consider its significance in the overall context of the young person's personality, as is the case with every candidate."

Homosexual seminarians are asked to live a celibate life, which is according to homosexuals themselves an unrealistic view for their mental state.

The Italian guidelines are published "ad experimentum for three years" and have been approved by the Congregation for the Clergy.

Previous guidelines, issued by the Vatican in 2016, stated that "practising homosexuals" and men who "have deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support a so-called homosexual culture" are generally excluded from priestly formation.

In May, Francis advised the Italian bishops NOT to open their seminaries to homosexuals, adding that there is already enough “faggotry” (frociaggine) in priestly seminaries.

The Catholic Catechism calls homosexual acts an abomination in God's eyes.

Print this item

  Opinion: How Do We Address the Fact that Francis is Only One Heretical Bishop Among Many?
Posted by: Stone - 01-09-2025, 09:22 AM - Forum: General Commentary - No Replies

While the topic of this terrible pontificate of Pope Francis continues to cause consternation and questions, it is perhaps important to remember that the most wicked high priest, Caiphas, was never denied his office. As far as I am aware, Our Lord never denied Caiphas his office, the Apostles never denied his office, the early Church Fathers never denied his office, etc., despite his great, public sin of deicide.

As St. Vincent of Lerin's Commonitorium reminds us:

Quote:It behooves us, then, to give heed to these instances from Church History, so many and so great, and others of the same description, and to understand distinctly, in accordance with the rule laid down in Deuteronomy, that if at any time a Doctor in the Church have erred from the faith, Divine Providence permits it in order to make trial of us, whether or not we love God with all our heart and with all our mind.

While I do not agree with every point in the article below, it's concluding admonition of "fighting for the Mystical Body of Christ with the charity and fortitude of Archbishop Lefebvre" bears repeating.



How Do We Address the Fact that Francis is Only One Heretical Bishop Among Many?

[Image: 7439697918fc232a7d32be45aa5c90fc_L.jpg]

Robert Morrison, Remnant Columnist [slightly adapted - emphasis mine] | January 2, 2025

For understandable reasons, there is growing debate about whether Francis is the pope. One common argument that he has either lost the papacy, or never had it, posits that a non-Catholic cannot possibly be the pope, and Francis is not Catholic — as such, Francis cannot possibly be the pope. As interesting as that line of reasoning may be, it raises another question that receives far less attention: how do we address the fact that Francis is only one heretical bishop among many?

To begin to answer this latter question, we should first consider who belongs to the Catholic Church. In his 1946 encyclical on the Mystical Body of Christ, Mystici Corporis, Pope Pius XII affirmed that the Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, and that membership in the Church requires profession of the true faith:
Quote:“Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.”

Those who do not profess the true faith are not members of the Catholic Church and, as such, are not Catholic.

Our “Francis problem” would not be so challenging if he was not merely one heretic among so many others identifying as Catholic bishops.

To better understand what it means to “profess the true faith,” we can look to Pope Leo XIII’s 1896 encyclical on the unity of the Church, Satis Cognitum:
Quote:“For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others. Faith, as the Church teaches, is ‘that supernatural virtue by which, through the help of God and through the assistance of His grace, we believe what He has revealed to be true, not on account of the intrinsic truth perceived by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God Himself, the Revealer, who can neither deceive nor be deceived’ (Conc. Vat., Sess. iii., cap. 3). If then it be certain that anything is revealed by God, and this is not believed, then nothing whatever is believed by divine Faith: for what the Apostle St. James judges to be the effect of a moral deliquency, the same is to be said of an erroneous opinion in the matter of faith. ‘Whosoever shall offend in one point, is become guilty of all’ (Ep. James ii., 10). Nay, it applies with greater force to an erroneous opinion. For it can be said with less truth that every law is violated by one who commits a single sin, since it may be that he only virtually despises the majesty of God the Legislator. But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honour God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith.”

Anyone who rejects a single point of divinely revealed truth rejects the entire Catholic Faith. As such, we cannot “profess the true faith” unless we accept every point of divinely revealed truth.

We get to the crux of the question, then, if we consider those points of divinely revealed truth that are most commonly rejected by many of those who identify as Catholic. As we have good reason to believe based on observation, most bishops, priests, and laity appear to reject one or more of the following infallible (De fide.) truths, among others, from Dr. Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:
  • “The Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are truly, really and substantially present in the Eucharist.”
  • “Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision.”
  • “Without the special help of God the justified cannot persevere to the end in justification.”
  • “God gives all the just sufficient grace for the observation of the Divine Commandments.”
  • “The Human Will remains free under the influence of efficacious grace, which is not irresistible.”
  • “There is a grace which is truly sufficient and yet remains inefficacious.”
  • “The justification of an adult is not possible without Faith.”
  • “Without special Divine Revelation no one can know with the certainty of faith if he be in the state of grace.”
  • “The grace by which we are justified may be lost, and is lost by every grievous sin.”
  • “Membership of the Church is necessary for all men for salvation.”
Because this latter truth has been so thoroughly attacked by false ecumenism, it is worth considering the additional detail provided by Dr. Ludwig Ott:
Quote:“As against modern religious indifferentism, Pius IX declared: ‘By Faith it is to be firmly held that outside the Apostolic Roman Church none can achieve salvation. This is the only ark of salvation. He who does not enter into it, will perish in the flood. Nevertheless equally certain is it to be held that those who suffer from invincible ignorance of the true religion are not for this reason guilty in the eyes of the Lord.’ This last proposition holds out the possibility that people who in point of fact do not belong to the Church can achieve salvation.”

Those who suffer from “invincible ignorance” are not saved by their ignorance, as though invincible ignorance was some mystical shield from damnation. To save their souls, everyone (including the ignorant) must die in the state of sanctifying grace, and sanctifying grace is lost by every mortal sin. Accordingly, the possibility that those who “suffer from invincible ignorance of the true religion” can achieve salvation is far from an assurance that many people in such a condition actually do. And, yet, the entire false ecumenical movement teaches us otherwise.

Some sincere Catholics may fail to accept one or more of these truths through inculpable ignorance rather than any deliberate rejection of dogma. However, this excuse does not work for the bishops and priests. By their formation — as bad as it may be — and the fact that they have taken upon themselves the formal responsibility of forming souls in the true Catholic Faith, they cannot legitimately claim ignorance if they teach errors contrary to the infallible truths of the Church.

Going back to the considerations from Popes Leo XIII and Pius XII above, it seems that we can reasonably conclude that Francis and a large percentage of his fellow clerics do not “profess the true faith,” and therefore are not members of the Catholic Church. Moreover, this has almost surely been the case for several decades.

Some may dismiss all of this as far less important than the fact that Francis so egregiously rejects the Faith. But Francis’s ostentatious offenses against Catholicism are, paradoxically, less dangerous than the comparatively subtle and persuasive attacks on the Faith that have prevailed since Vatican II. This is the case because we are more inclined to reject ideas that are clearly wrong, whereas most Catholics are more easily misled by less obvious errors.

Our “Francis problem” would not be so challenging if he was not merely one heretic among so many others identifying as Catholic bishops. As discussed in previous articles, the possibility of an imperfect council to remove and replace Francis exists, but this would require bishops (and perhaps only Cardinals) with the unadulterated Faith to take action. In lieu of that, are we to hope that heretical Cardinals will elect a somewhat less heretical pope next time?

While we have little real hope that the problem of the papacy will be solved without God’s direct intervention, all of us can work toward addressing the more foundational problem of rampant heresy. It is easier to convert sincere but misled souls than it is to convert the pope. And if enough nominal Catholics can return to the true Faith, then we will have more spiritual weapons directed to solving the crisis in the papacy.

To combat the rampant heresy plaguing the Mystical Body of Christ, though, we must part ways with the disastrous approach of “conservative Catholics” who have defended the Vatican II revolution for the past sixty years. Bishop Joseph Strickland’s recent letter praising Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre included the archbishop’s famous 1974 Declaration, which shows us the way to fight:
Quote:“We hold fast, with all our heart and with all our soul, to Catholic Rome, Guardian of the Catholic Faith and of the traditions necessary to preserve this faith, to Eternal Rome, Mistress of wisdom and truth. We refuse, on the other hand, and have always refused to follow the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies which were clearly evident in the Second Vatican Council and, after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it. All these reforms, indeed, have contributed and are still contributing to the destruction of the Church, to the ruin of the priesthood, to the abolition of the Sacrifice of the Mass and of the sacraments, to the disappearance of religious life, to a naturalist and Teilhardian teaching in universities, seminaries and catechectics; a teaching derived from Liberalism and Protestantism, many times condemned by the solemn Magisterium of the Church. No authority, not even the highest in the hierarchy, can force us to abandon or diminish our Catholic Faith, so clearly expressed and professed by the Church’s Magisterium for nineteen centuries. ‘But though we,’ says St. Paul, ‘or an angel from heaven preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema’ (Gal. 1:8). Is it not this that the Holy Father is repeating to us today? And if we can discern a certain contradiction in his words and deeds, as well as in those of the dicasteries, well we choose what was always taught and we turn a deaf ear to the novelties destroying the Church. It is impossible to modify profoundly the lex orandi without modifying the lex credendi. To the Novus Ordo Missae correspond a new catechism, a new priesthood, new seminaries, a charismatic Pentecostal Church—all things opposed to orthodoxy and the perennial teaching of the Church. This Reformation, born of Liberalism and Modernism, is poisoned through and through; it derives from heresy and ends in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical. It is therefore impossible for any conscientious and faithful Catholic to espouse this Reformation or to submit to it in any way whatsoever. The only attitude of faithfulness to the Church and Catholic doctrine, in view of our salvation, is a categorical refusal to accept this Reformation. That is why, without any spirit of rebellion, bitterness or resentment, we pursue our work of forming priests, with the timeless Magisterium as our guide. We are persuaded that we can render no greater service to the Holy Catholic Church, to the Sovereign Pontiff and to posterity. That is why we hold fast to all that has been believed and practiced in the faith, morals, liturgy, teaching of the catechism, formation of the priest and institution of the Church, by the Church of all time; to all these things as codified in those books which saw day before the Modernist influence of the Council. This we shall do until such time that the true light of Tradition dissipates the darkness obscuring the sky of Eternal Rome.

By doing this, with the grace of God and the help of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and that of St. Joseph and St. Pius X, we are assured of remaining faithful to the Roman Catholic Church and to all the successors of Peter, and of being the fideles dispensatores mysteriorum Domini Nostri Jesu Christi in Spiritu Sancto. Amen.”

For fifty years, this has been the best approach to combatting the evils afflicting the Church. And for fifty years, so-called conservative Catholics have attacked Archbishop Lefebvre and his ideas, while defending the Vatican II revolution. These same so-called conservative Catholics who wonder today how we have ended up with Francis occupying the papacy should follow Bishop Strickland’s example in taking a prayerful look at the 1974 Declaration. If more sincere Catholics had accepted it fifty years ago, we would not have the problems we face today.

If we are looking for a resolution to make for 2025, fighting for the Mystical Body of Christ with the charity and fortitude of Archbishop Lefebvre is among those that would be most profitable to the Church, and our own souls. If we refuse to do that, then we have no right to complain about Francis.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us!

Print this item

  Defending +Archbishop Lefebvre: Against TIA’s Errors
Posted by: Stone - 01-08-2025, 04:17 PM - Forum: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre - No Replies

The Catacombs has in the past shared articles from TIA whenever it has published traditional Catholic teaching. But on this topic, which is their opinion, we echo this defense by the The Catholic Trumpet and strenuously disagree with TIA's position:



Defending +Archbishop Lefebvre: Against TIA’s Errors

[Image: rs=w:1280]


The Catholic Trumpet [slightly adapted]  | January 7, 2025


It is with deep disappointment that we address an article published by Tradition in Action (TIA), titled “Lefebvre Mason Polemic VI: Objection ‘Arch. Léfèbvre Was Not a Mason’” (accessible here). While TIA has made valuable contributions to the traditional Catholic cause, this piece profoundly misrepresents +Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, spreading unverified accusations and conflating his legacy with unrelated controversies.

As Pope St. Pius X warned in his encyclical Notre Charge Apostolique: “The true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries nor innovators, but traditionalists.” It is with this fidelity to Tradition that we undertake the task of exposing the falsehoods in TIA’s accusations while upholding the truth of +Archbishop Lefebvre’s heroic mission to preserve the Faith.


Editor’s Note:

The Catholic Trumpet seeks to uphold the truth of the Faith as handed down through the Church and preserved by +Archbishop Lefebvre. In this article, we address Tradition in Action’s (TIA) misrepresentation of +Archbishop Lefebvre and their unjust accusations. While TIA claims to have separated from Tradition, Family, and Property (TFP) due to internal disagreements, it is evident that they still rely on principles rooted in Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira’s teachings, which +Bishop Antônio de Castro Mayer rightly condemned as anti-Catholic and heretical.

Our critique is not made out of hostility but arises from the necessity of correcting errors that obscure the truth and create unnecessary divisions among faithful Catholics. As +Archbishop Lefebvre taught, fidelity to the Church’s perennial teaching admits no compromise. It is in this spirit of total fidelity that we challenge the errors and misrepresentations propagated by TIA.


1. +Archbishop Lefebvre: Defender of Tradition and Opponent of Freemasonry

A Legacy of Resistance

+Archbishop Lefebvre’s unwavering opposition to Freemasonry and modernism is well-documented. He consistently denounced Freemasonry as “the tool of Satan,” warning of its infiltration into the Church to bring about its destruction. Pope Leo XIII, in his encyclical Humanum Genus (1884), emphasized the grave danger posed by Freemasonry: “Let us never forget that Christianity and Freemasonry are essentially incompatible, so that to enroll in one means deserting the other.”


Bishop de Castro Mayer’s Collaboration

+Archbishop Lefebvre worked closely with +Bishop Antônio de Castro Mayer, another stalwart defender of Tradition, to oppose the novelties of Vatican II. In 1984, +Bishop de Castro Mayer issued a scathing condemnation of TFP (Tradition, Family, and Property)  the ideological predecessor of TIA, describing it as an “anti-Catholic, anti-clerical heretical sect.”

To provide complete clarity and transparency, +Bishop de Castro Mayer’s full letter of condemnation is included below this article for readers to evaluate directly. This historical evidence exposes the deep-rooted errors within the movement that now seeks to malign the legacy of +Archbishop Lefebvre.


2. Addressing TIA’s Claims

Freemasonry Allegations

TIA’s claim that Lefebvre had ties to Freemasonry is based on circumstantial and unverified evidence. Key points refuting this:

• No Evidence of Masonic Affiliation: Lefebvre’s public condemnations of Freemasonry contradict any suggestion of his involvement.

• False Claims of Masonic Associations: Allegations regarding Lefebvre’s association with the “Order of Our Lady of Sion” conflate it with other unrelated organizations.

• Baseless Accusations of Masonic Bands: TIA’s claims about a Masonic band in an SSPX procession lack any credible substantiation.


Signing of Vatican II Documents

Critics often point to +Archbishop Lefebvre’s signing of certain Vatican II documents as evidence of his supposed compromise. However:

• Historical Context: Lefebvre signed some documents under obedience and in the spirit of collegiality. He later condemned the Council’s novelties, stating: “The Council has turned its back on Tradition and broken with the Church of the past. It is a schismatic council.”

• Development of Opposition: His signing was not an endorsement but a procedural action. He spent the next 25+ years opposing the Council’s errors.

• Typology: Like St. Peter, who repented after denying Christ, Lefebvre’s clarity and opposition to Vatican II only grew over time, leading him to heroically defend the Faith against modernist Rome.


Celebration of the Novus Ordo

• Firm Rejection: +Archbishop Lefebvre consistently rejected the Novus Ordo Missae, referring to it as “a Protestantized liturgy.” This is consistent with the Critical Study of the New Order of Mass (Ottaviani Intervention), which observed: “The reform… represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent.”

• Even If He Had: Hypothetically, if he had celebrated the Novus Ordo early on (a claim for which no proof exists), this would only emphasize his later repentance and complete rejection of the New Mass. His actions in preserving the Traditional Latin Mass are undeniable proof of his fidelity.


Conflation of SSPX and Neo-SSPX

TIA fails to distinguish between the original SSPX founded by +Archbishop Lefebvre and the Neo-SSPX, which compromised with modernist Rome in 2012. This conflation misleads readers and unfairly tarnishes Lefebvre’s legacy.


3. TFP and TIA: A Cultic Legacy

Cult Practices of TFP

Documented evidence reveals that TFP engaged in cultic practices, including the veneration of its founder, Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira. This included “slave” ceremonies and prayers elevating Plinio to a semi-divine status.


Átila Sinke Guimarães’ Involvement

Átila Sinke Guimarães, the founder of TIA, was deeply involved in TFP, even serving as Slave #11. His defense of TFP’s practices undermines his credibility in critiquing Archbishop Lefebvre.


Bishop de Castro Mayer’s Condemnation

+Bishop de Castro Mayer condemned TFP for its esoteric character, religious fanaticism, and cultic veneration of Plinio. This raises serious concerns about the ideological foundations of TIA.


4. Recognizing the True Enemy

It is essential to recognize the true enemy: the Synagogue of Satan, as referenced in Revelation 2:9 and 3:9. This is rabbinical Judaism, which opposes Christ and operates through its agents, such as Freemasonry. Freemasonry has infiltrated the Church, including the Neo-SSPX, where it continues to operate, spreading confusion and division.

As Pope St. Pius X wrote in Pascendi Dominici Gregis: “One cannot excise the poison of modernism without going to its root, for its tentacles touch every aspect of Catholic life.” Let us remain steadfast in identifying these errors while refusing to adopt the Kabbalistic or Talmudic mentality that denies the law of non-contradiction. Truth is singular, and +Archbishop Lefebvre’s consistent witness to Tradition exemplifies this fidelity.


5. A Call for Unity and Fidelity

+Archbishop Lefebvre’s legacy is one of unwavering fidelity to the Faith during the Church’s darkest hour. TIA’s unfounded accusations against him are not only misleading but also harmful to the cause of Tradition.

We urge faithful Catholics to:

1. Uphold the truth about +Archbishop Lefebvre’s mission and legacy.

2. Pray for unity in the fight against modernism, secularism and Judeo-Freemasonry.

As Our Lord said: “By their fruits you shall know them” (Matt. 7:16). Lefebvre’s fruits are evident in the preservation of the Traditional Faith, the formation of valid priests, and the defense of Catholic doctrine.

May this article contribute to a clearer understanding of +Archbishop Lefebvre’s legacy and inspire unity among faithful Catholics in the ongoing effort to preserve and restore the Church in fidelity to Tradition.

Below, we include Bishop de Castro Mayer’s letter condemning TFP, as historical evidence of the errors underlying the attacks on +Archbishop Lefebvre.


No Compromise. No Retreat.


-The☩Trumpet



Appendix: Bishop de Castro Mayer’s Letter on TFP
The full text of +Bishop Antônio de Castro Mayer’s 1984 letter condemning TFP is provided below for readers’ reference.

(The following letter was written in 1984 and later published in the Brazilian newspaper Folha da Manhã in 1991. It was also reprinted in Le Sel de la Terre, no. 28, Spring 1999, in an article titled “Documents sur la TFP.”)


Dear N.,

I owe you an answer to your painful letter of September 24, 1984, that, as the postmark indicates, you sent me on September 25th.

In this case, I can only give you one piece of advice: pray, pray a lot, above all the [15-decade] Rosary or at least the [5-decade] Rosary, asking the Virgin Mother, Mediatrix of all graces, to enlighten her son and make him see that the TFP is a heretical sect. For, in fact, although they do not say or write it, the TFP lives and behaves in accord with a principle that fundamentally undermines the truth of Christendom, that is, of the Catholic Church.

Indeed, it is de fide that Jesus Christ founded His Church—destined to maintain on earth the true worship of God and to lead souls toward eternal salvation—as an unequal society composed of two classes: one that governs, teaches, and sanctifies, composed of members of the clergy, and another—the faithful—who receive the teaching, are governed, and are sanctified. This is a dogma de fide.

St. Pius X affirmed this clearly when he wrote:

“The Church is, in its very nature, an unequal society, meaning that it comprises two orders of persons: shepherds and flock, those who belong to the various ranks of the Hierarchy and the faithful multitude. These two orders are so completely distinct that the Hierarchy alone has the right and authority to guide and govern the members for the purposes of the Church, while the duty of the faithful is to let themselves be governed and to obediently follow the given path by the ruling class.” (Encyclical Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906)

The whole history of the Church, as recorded in the New Testament, attests to this truth as a fundamental dogma of her constitution. It was only to the Apostles that Jesus said, “Go and teach all nations.” The Acts of the Apostles also show us the life of the Church in the times after Jesus Christ.

Because of this, it is a heretical subversion to habitually follow a layman—therefore a non-member of the Hierarchy—as a spokesman for orthodoxy. These individuals disregard what the Church says or what the bishops teach, instead choosing to follow this or that layman. This attitude—even if not openly stated—effectively positions the lay “leader” as an arbiter of orthodoxy. It is accompanied by a sudden but real mistrust of the hierarchy and clergy in general.

There is a visceral anti-clericalism in the TFP: everything that comes from the clergy is received with bias. Essentially, all priests are deemed ignorant, lacking zeal, self-interested, or otherwise defective. Such a position, when considered in light of the divine constitution of the Church, makes this habitual anti-clericalism heretical.

Thus, as I said, the TFP is animated by a principle contrary to the dogma established by Jesus Christ in the constitution of His Church.


The History of TFP’s Deviation

The TFP had a healthy beginning. It evolved from the apostolate of the biweekly newspaper of the Marian Congregation of St. Cecilia, titled The Legionary.

As a serious and well-intentioned movement, it sought to strengthen the intellectual and religious formation of the members of the Congregation and, consequently, of the biweekly readers. It was influential throughout Brazil. This was the era of obedience to Monsignors Duarte and Leme.

I followed and approved of its apostolate during this time, even as it began to drift into an anti-clerical spirit. Eventually, this spirit consolidated its positions and inverted them, putting the clergy in tow behind a charismatic layman who monopolized orthodoxy. Perhaps I gave them support beyond a licit point. I withdrew my support only when it became clear that my warnings were being ignored.


Charismatic Fervor and Fanaticism

The deceptions of certain members of the hierarchy partially explain the scandal of the “TFPists,” but this does not justify their positions—even less so for their leader, Plinio.

As I noted earlier, charismatic fervor produces a certain fanaticism. Individuals become incapable of seeing objective reality or perceiving even fundamental errors. This blindness stems from an inversion: they follow a layman instead of the legitimate pastors of the Holy Church.

I must emphasize that prayer is the only remedy. Without prayer, nothing is achieved. Our Lord said, “Ask, and you shall receive.”

I ask Our Lord to grant you and your family a Holy and Merry Christmas and many years filled with His grace.

I also ask that you pray for me, a servant in Christ Jesus.



- Antônio de Castro Mayer

Bishop Emeritus of Campos

Print this item

  Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre - Volume I
Posted by: Stone - 01-07-2025, 12:07 PM - Forum: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre - Replies (22)

Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre
by Michael Davies
Volume I

Taken from the SSPX Asia website

[Image: Apologia_cover_b.jpg]



Author’s Introduction

I must begin my introduction with an explanation of the title of this book. Many of those who read it will know little or nothing about Archbishop Lefebvre when they begin. If they are Catholics they will have gathered from the official Catholic press that he is a French bishop who refuses to use the new rite of Mass and has a seminary in Switzerland where he trains priests in defiance of the Vatican. He will have been presented to them as an anachronism, a man completely out of step with the mainstream of contemporary Catholic thought, a man who is unable to adapt, to update himself. He is portrayed as little more than an historical curiosity, of no significance in the post-conciliar Church, a man whose views do not merit consideration. The Archbishop is often subjected to serious misrepresentation; he is alleged to have totally rejected the Second Vatican Council or to be linked with extreme right-wing political movements. A sad example of this form of misrepresentation is a pamphlet published by the Catholic Truth Society of England and Wales in 1976. It is entitled Light on Archbishop Lefebvre and the author is Monsignor George Leonard, at that time Chief Information Officer of the Catholic Information Office of England and Wales. I wrote to Mgr. Leonard pointing out that he had seriously misrepresented the Archbishop and suggested that he should either substantiate or withdraw his allegations. He answered in strident and emotive terms refusing to do either. I replied to Mgr. Leonard's attack on the Archbishop in a pamphlet entitled Archbishop Lefebvre - The Truth. This evoked such interest that several reprints were necessary to cope with the demand and it gained the Archbishop much new support. In this pamphlet I explained that the only way to refute the type of attack made by Mgr. Leonard was to present the entire truth - to write an apologia. The early Christian apologists wrote their "apologies" to gain a fair hearing for Christianity and dispel popular myths and slanders. It is in this sense that the word "apologia" is used in my title, i. e. as "a reasoned explanation" and not an "apology" in the sense of contemporary usage.

The classic apologia of modern times is the Apologia Pro Vita Sua of Cardinal Newman. Newman had been seriously misrepresented by Charles Kingsley who refused to provide the unqualified public apology which was requested. Newman's reply proved to be one of the greatest autobiographies in the English language and almost certainly the greatest prose work outside the realm of fiction to appear in English during the nineteenth century - and ironically our thanks for it must be directed to an implacable opponent of Newman and Catholicism.

My own Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre may be devoid of literary merit but it is certainly not without historic interest and those who appreciate its publication must direct their thanks to Mgr. Leonard without whom it would never have been written.

Incidentally, my pamphlet replying to Mgr. Leonard proved so popular that the publisher followed it up with others and thus began the Augustine Pamphlet Series which now has sales running into tens of thousands and includes works by theologians of international repute.

Although this book certainly would not have been written had it not been for Mgr. Leonard it could not have been written had it not been for Jean Madiran, the Editor of Itinéraires. Itinéraires is certainly the most valuable Catholic review appearing in the world today. It contains documentation that would not otherwise be published together with commentaries and articles by some of France's most outstanding Catholic intellectuals; men, alas, who have no counterpart in the English-speaking world. The debt my book owes to Itinéraires is incalculable. It provides the source for most of the original documents included together with the articles by Jean Madiran and Louis Salleron which I have had translated. Some of the material in my commentaries on the documents also originates with Itinéraires. A detailed list of sources for all the material in the Apologia will be provided in Volume II.

The scope of the Apologia is limited. It deals principally with the relations between the Archbishop and the Vatican. It does not deal with the activities of the Society of Saint Pius X in any individual country. I am certainly not committed to the view that every action and every opinion of the Archbishop, still less of every priest in the Society, #4, rue Garanciere, 75006, Paris, France is necessarily wise and prudent. I mention this because the reader who is not familiar with the "Écône affair" may consider that my attitude to the Archbishop and the Society is too uncritical and therefore unobjective. My book is objective but it is not impartial. It is objective because I have presented all the relevant documents both for and against Mgr. Lefebvre, something his opponents have never done. It is partial because I believe the evidence proves him to be right and I state this. However, the reader is quite at liberty to ignore my commentary and use the documentation to reach a different conclusion. Clearly, the value of the book derives from the documentation and not the commentary.

I am convinced that the Apologia will be of enduring historical value because I am convinced that the Archbishop will occupy a major position in the history of post-conciliar Catholicism. The most evident trend in mainstream Christianity since the Second World War has been the tendency to replace the religion of God made Man with the religion of man made God. Although Christians still profess theoretical concern for the life to come their efforts are increasingly taken up with building a paradise on earth. The logical outcome of this attitude will be the discarding of the supernatural element of Christianity as irrelevant. Since the Second Vatican Council this movement has gained considerable momentum within the Catholic Church, both officially and unofficially, and, during the pontificate of Pope Paul VI, appeared to be sweeping all before it. No one was more aware of this than Pope Paul VI himself who made frequent pronouncements condemning this tendency and stressing the primacy of the spiritual. But in practice, Pope Paul VI did little or nothing to halt the erosion of the traditional faith. He reprimanded Modernists but permitted them to use official Church structures to destroy the faith, yet took the most drastic steps to stamp out the Society of St. Pius X. At the time this introduction is being written, June 1979, there are signs of hope that Pope John Paul II will be prepared not simply to speak but to act in defense of the faith. This is something we should pray for daily. It hardly needs stating that the criticism of the Holy See contained in this first volume of the Apologia applies only to the pontificate of Pope Paul VI. Not one word in the book should be construed as reflecting unfavorably upon the present Holy Father. It is my hope that in the second volume I will be able to give the details of an agreement between the Pope and the Archbishop. This is also something for which we should pray.

The reason I believe that Archbishop Lefebvre will occupy a major position in the history of the post-conciliar Church is that he had the courage and foresight to take practical steps to preserve the traditional faith. Unlike many conservative Catholics he saw that it was impossible to wage an effective battle for orthodoxy within the context of the official reforms as these reforms were themselves oriented towards the cult of man. The Archbishop appreciated that the liturgical reform in particular must inevitably compromise Catholic teaching on the priesthood and the Mass, the twin pillars upon which our faith is built.1 The sixteenth-century Protestant Reformers had also realized that if they could undermine the priesthood there would be no Mass and the Church would be destroyed. The Archbishop founded the Society of St. Pius X with its seminary at Écône not as an act of rebellion but to perpetuate the Catholic priesthood, and for no other purpose. Indeed, as my book will show, the Society at first enjoyed the approbation of the Holy See but the success of the seminary soon aroused the animosity of powerful Liberal forces within the Church, particularly in France. They saw it as a serious threat to their plans for replacing the traditional faith with a new ecumenical and humanistically oriented religion. This is the reason they brought such pressure to bear upon Pope Paul VI. There is no doubt that the demands for the destruction of Écône emanated principally from the French Hierarchy which, through Cardinal Villot, the Secretary of State, was ideally placed to pressurize the Pope.

A number of those who have reviewed my previous books have been kind enough to say that they are very readable. Unfortunately, the format of Apologia is not conducive to easy reading. My principal objective has been to provide a comprehensive fund of source material which will be useful to those wishing to study the controversy between the Archbishop and the Vatican. After various experiments I concluded that the most satisfactory method was to observe strict chronological order as far as possible. This meant that I could not assemble the material in a manner that was always the most effective for maintaining interest. The fact that I had to quote so many documents in full also impedes the flow of the narrative. However, if the reader bears in mind the fact that the events described in the book represent not simply a confrontation of historic dimensions but a very moving human drama, then it should never appear too dull. Mgr Lefebvre's inner conflict must have been more dramatic than his conflict with Pope Paul VI. No great novelist could have a more challenging theme than that of a man whose life had been dedicated to upholding the authority of the papacy faced with the alternative of disobeying the Pope or complying with an order to destroy an apostolate which he honestly believed was vital for the future of the Church. Let no one imagine that the decision the Archbishop took was taken lightly or was easy to make.

The reader will find frequent suggestions that he should refer to an event in its correct chronological sequence and to facilitate this a chronological index has been provided. If this page is marked it will enable the reader to refer to any event mentioned in the book without difficulty.

As the reader will appreciate, I could never have written a book of this extent without considerable help - particularly as I was working on two other books simultaneously. Some of those who gave their help unstintingly have expressed a wish to remain anonymous, including the individual to whom I am most indebted for help with the translations. I must also thank Simone Macklow-Smith and my son Adrian for assistance in this respect. I must make special mention of Norah Haines without whose help the typescript would still be nowhere near completion. I am indebted to David Gardner and Mary Buckalew whose competent proof-reading will be evident to the discerning reader. Above all I must thank Carlita Brown who set the book up single-handed and had it ready for publication within three months. She would certainly wish me to mention all the members of the Angelus Press who have contributed to the publication of the Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre.

Despite all our efforts, a book of this size is certain to contain at least a few errors and I would appreciate it if they could be brought to my attention for correction in any future printing or for mention in Volume II. I can make no promise regarding the publication of the second volume of Apologia beyond an assurance that it will appear eventually. It will almost certainly be preceded by a book on the treatment of the question of religious liberty in the documents of Vatican II. The Archbishop's stand on the question of religious liberty is less familiar to English-speaking traditionalists than his stand on the Mass but it is no less important as it involves the very nature of the Church. He refused to sign Dignitatis Humanae, the Council's Declaration on Religious Liberty, because he considered it incompatible with previous authoritative and possibly infallible papal teaching. My book will provide all the necessary documentation to evaluate this very serious charge which is also examined briefly in Appendix IV to the present work.

Finally, I would like to assure the reader that although I have written much that is critical of the Holy See and Pope Paul VI in this book this does not imply any lack of loyalty to the Church and the Pope. When a subordinate is honestly convinced that his superior is pursuing a mistaken policy he shows true loyalty by speaking out. This is what prompted St. Paul to withstand St. Peter "to his face because he was to be blamed" (Galatians 2:11). The first duty of a Catholic is to uphold the faith and save his own soul. As I show in Appendices I and II, there is ample precedent in the history of the Church to show that conflict with the Holy See has sometimes been necessary to achieve these ends. Archbishop Lefebvre has stated on many occasions that all he is doing is to uphold the faith as he received it. Those who condemn him condemn the Faith of their Fathers.

Michael Davies

20 June 1979
St. Silverius, Pope and Martyr.

Si diligis me, Simon Petre.
pasce agnos meos,
Pasce oves meas.
Introit.

_________

1. Let anyone who doubts this compare the new and old rites of ordination. A detailed comparison has been made in my book The Order of Melchisedech.

Print this item