| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 264 online users.
» 1 Member(s) | 261 Guest(s)
Bing, Google
|
| Latest Threads |
Where Compromise Ends and...
Forum: The Catholic Trumpet
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 07:11 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 125
|
Fr. Hewko's Sermons: Seco...
Forum: May 2025
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 06:44 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 114
|
Fr. Hewko's Sermons: Firs...
Forum: May 2025
Last Post: Deus Vult
05-03-2025, 11:01 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 94
|
Fr. Hewko's Sermons: Firs...
Forum: May 2025
Last Post: Deus Vult
05-03-2025, 08:17 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 137
|
The Symbolism of the Lamb...
Forum: Church Doctrine & Teaching
Last Post: Stone
05-03-2025, 07:35 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 73
|
May 3rd - Finding of the ...
Forum: May
Last Post: Stone
05-03-2025, 06:38 AM
» Replies: 4
» Views: 10,768
|
Fr. Hewko's Sermons: Sts...
Forum: May 2025
Last Post: Deus Vult
05-02-2025, 08:18 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 134
|
The Catholic Trumpet: Rev...
Forum: The Catholic Trumpet
Last Post: Stone
05-02-2025, 09:35 AM
» Replies: 6
» Views: 1,282
|
Saint Athanasius The True...
Forum: Church Doctrine & Teaching
Last Post: Stone
05-02-2025, 08:09 AM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 774
|
Bishop Graber: Athanasius...
Forum: Resources Online
Last Post: Stone
05-02-2025, 08:07 AM
» Replies: 4
» Views: 8,657
|
|
|
| Sorrowful Heart of Mary Newsletter - Advent 2024 |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-02-2024, 02:36 PM - Forum: Sorrowful Heart of Mary
- No Replies
|
 |
Advent 2024
WE MUST CHOOSE SIDES
Dear Faithful,
The great Fr. Gomer de Pauw warned in his talks as early as 1967: “We must choose to be either Roman Catholics or Conciliar Catholics, but we cannot be both!”
Archbishop Lefebvre announced the same necessity to choose in his magnificent Doctrinal Declaration of 1974: “We cleave, with all our heart and with all our soul, to Catholic Rome, the guardian of the Catholic Faith and of the traditions necessary for the maintenance of that Faith, and to eternal Rome, mistress of wisdom and truth.
“On the other hand we refuse and have always refused to follow the Rome of the neo-Protestant trend clearly manifested throughout Vatican Council II and, later, in all the reforms born of it.”
Opposing Liberal Catholicism on the battlefield of Truth, the great Spanish Catholic writer of the 19th Century, Juan Donoso Cortes, scripted these prophetic words in: Essays on Catholicism, Liberalism, and Socialism, (chapter III, in 1879):
“There is no man whatsoever, whether he recognizes it or not, who is not enlisted in this furious combat; there is no one who does not take an active part in the responsibility of defeat or victory. All are equally engaged in this combat; the galley slave in his chains, and the king upon his throne, the poor and the rich, the healthy and the sick, the wise and the ignorant, the captive and the free, the old and the young, the civilized and the savage.
“Every word that is pronounced is either inspired by the world or by God, and necessarily proclaims, implicitly or explicitly, but always clearly, the glory of the one or the triumph of the other. In this singular warfare we all fight through forced enlistment; here the system of substitutes or volunteers finds no place. Nor is there any exception for old age. Here, no attention is paid to him who says, ‘I am the son of a poor widow’; nor to the mother of a paralytic, nor to the wife of a cripple. In this warfare all men, born of woman, are soldiers!
“And don’t tell me: ‘I don’t want to fight’; for the moment you tell me that, you are already fighting; nor say: ‘I don’t know which side to join,’ for while you are saying that you have already joined a side; nor say: ‘I wish to remain neutral’; for if you wish to be so, you are so, no longer; nor say: ‘I want to be indifferent’; for by these very words you clearly show which side you are on.
“Don’t tire yourself in seeking a place of security from the dangers of this war, for you tire yourself in vain. This war extends throughout space, and will last to the end of time. Only in eternity, the home of the just, can you find rest, because there alone is the combat over. Do not imagine, however, that the gates of eternity shall be opened for you, unless you first show the wounds you earned; those gates are only opened for those who bravely fought the battles of the Lord here, and, like the Lord, carried the cross and were crucified!”
What powerful words of Donoso Cortes! It is true, Our Divine Lord willed to place all of us in these times when we have no choice but to fight. To fight for Him is the greatest honor. Neutrality is not an option! Compromise is not an option! “Hermeneutics of continuity” is not an option! Accepting Vatican II is not an option! Accepting the New Mass, even as “legitimately promulgated,” is not an option! Accepting any compromise with Vatican II and Novus Ordo sacraments, as expressed in the Doctrinal Declaration of April 15, 2012 of Bp. Fellay, is not an option! The Six Conditions for an Agreement with Modernist Rome is not an option! Accepting to be silenced in return for the “favors” of jurisdiction for confessions and marriages is not an option! Accepting excusing fallacies that the “New Mass can nourish your faith,” or “The New Mass gives grace,” or “The New Mass miracles cannot be questioned,” are not options! Fence-sitting is not an option!
“Either we choose what the Popes have taught for centuries and we therefore choose the Church; or we choose what was said by the Council. But we can not choose both simultaneously, since they are contradictory!” (Abp. Marcel Lefebvre).
Let us never fail to see what an inexpressible honor and grace it is to combat for Christ the King. The battle lines must not be confused and smeared, as Liberals always connive to do. We have received Catholic Tradition from the 20 Councils of the Church, the Ancient Magisterium, from the great Popes of Tradition, from Abp. Lefebvre and priests faithful to Tradition. We are vowed to the riding. We are vowed to the fighting!
O Queen of the Most Holy Rosary, keep us faithful! Keep us from ever wavering in the Faith! Keep us from battle fatigue! Keep us attached to thy Crucified Son by thy Rosary and Scapular and always to live and breath in the burning love of thy Immaculate Heart! Sweet Heart of Mary, be my salvation!
In Christ the King,
Fr. David Hewko
|
|
|
| Archbishop Viganò: The 'Disassembled' Papacy |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-02-2024, 11:58 AM - Forum: Archbishop Viganò
- No Replies
|
|
Archbishop Viganò's summarization of the current state of the papacy, but importantly acknowledging that "in due time, this contradiction will have to be remedied by an authoritative pronouncement..."
November 30, 2024 [Italics in the original, all other emphasis mine]
The never-ending saga of the Resignation of Benedict XVI continues to fuel an increasingly bold and surreal narrative of the events we have witnessed in the last decade. Inconsistent theories not supported by any evidence have taken hold of many of the faithful and even some priests, increasing confusion and disorientation. But if this has been possible, it is also largely due to those who, knowing the truth, nonetheless are afraid to speak about it because of the consequences that the truth, once revealed, could have. In fact, there are those who <<believe it is preferable to shore up a castle of lies and deceit, rather than having to face questions about a past of connivance, silence, and complicity.
The Exchange of Letters
During a meeting at the Renaissance Mediterraneo Hotel in Naples with Catholics from the local Cœtus Fidelium held this past November 22 [2024], Msgr. Nicola Bux mentioned an exchange of letters with “Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI,” dating back to the summer of 2014, which supposedly constitute the definitive denial of the various theories that are out there about the invalidity of Benedict’s Renunciation. The content of these letters – the first, written by Msgr. Bux on July 19, 2014 (three pages), and the second, by Benedict XVI, on August 21, 2014 (two pages) – was not released ten years ago, as would have been more than desirable. Instead, only today has their existence been barely mentioned. It so happens that I am aware of both this exchange of letters as well as their content.
Why did Msgr. Bux decide not to promptly disclose Benedict XVI’s response when Benedict was still alive and able to confirm and corroborate it, and instead to reveal only its existence, without disclosing its content, almost two years after his death? Why would he hide this authoritative and very important declaration from the Church and the world?
The Permanent Revolution
To answer these legitimate questions, we must put aside the fiction given us by the media. We must first understand that the antithetical vision of a “santo subito” [immediate saint] Ratzinger and an “ugly and bad” Bergoglio is convenient for many. This simplistic, artificial, and false approach avoids addressing the heart of the problem, that is, the perfect coherence of action of the “conciliar popes” from John XXIII and Paul VI to the self-styled Francis, including John Paul II and Benedict XVI. The goals are the same, even if pursued with different methods and language. The image of an elderly, elegant, and refined theologian, in a Roman chasuble and red shoes , who granted citizenship to the Tridentine Rite, contrasted with an intemperate globalist heresiarch who does not celebrate Mass and has nullified Summorum Pontificum, while promulgating the Mayan liturgy with thurifying females, is part of that operation of forced polarization that we have also seen adopted in the civil sphere, where a similar subversive project has been carried out by favoring ultra-progressive forces on the one hand and keeping the voices of dissent quiet on the other.
In reality, Ratzinger and Bergoglio – and this is precisely what conservatives do not want to recognize – constitute two moments of a revolutionary process that contemplates alternating phases that are only apparently opposed to one another, following the Hegelian dialectic of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. A process that did not begin with Ratzinger and will not end with Bergoglio, but rather that goes back to Roncalli and seems destined to continue as long as the deep church continues to replace the Catholic Hierarchy by usurping its authority.
In the Ratzingerian vision, the thesis of the Vetus Ordo and the antithesis of the Novus Ordo are combined in the synthesis of Summorum Pontificum, thanks to the subterfuge of “a single rite in two forms.” But this “peaceful coexistence” is the product of German idealism; and it is false because it is based on the denial of the incompatibility between two ways of conceiving the Church, one corresponding to two thousand years of Catholicism, the other imposed by the Second Vatican Council thanks to the work of heretics who until then had been condemned by the Roman Pontiffs.
The “redefinition” of the Papacy
We find the same modus operandi in the intention expressed first by Paul VI, then by John Paul II, and finally by Benedict XVI to “redefine” the Papacy in a collegial and ecumenical way, ad mentem Concilii, where the divine institution of the Church and the Papacy (thesis) and the heretical demands of the neo-modernists and the non-Catholic sects (antithesis) are combined in the synthesis of a redefinition of the Papacy in an ecumenical way, proposed by the encyclical Ut Unum Sint promulgated by John Paul II in 1995 and more recently formulated in the Study Document of the Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity issued this past June 13 [2024]: The Bishop of Rome. Primacy and Synodality in Ecumenical Dialogues and in the Responses to the Encyclical ‘Ut Unum Sint’. It will not be surprising to learn – as Cardinal Walter Brandmüller confided to me in January 2020 in response to a specific question of mine – that Professor Joseph Ratzinger was developing the theory of the Pope Emeritus and a collegial [shared] Papacy with his colleague Karl Rahner in the 1970s when they were both “young theologians.”
During a telephone conversation I had in 2020, a very trusted assistant of Benedict XVI confirmed to me Pope Benedict’s intention – which he reiterated several times to her – to retire to private life in his Bavarian residence, without maintaining either his apostolic name or his papal vestments. But this eventuality was considered inopportune for those who would lose their power in the Vatican, especially those conservatives who had Benedict XVI as their point of reference and had mythologized his figure.
We do not know for sure whether the solution theorized with Rahner by the young Ratzinger was still contemplated by the elderly Pontiff, nor whether the Papacy Emeritus was “resurrected” by those who wanted to keep Benedict in the Vatican, also by making use of external pressure on the Holy See that had materialized with the suspension of the Vatican from the SWIFT system, which, significantly, was restored immediately after the announcement of the Resignation. In fact, the Resignation has created immense confusion in the ecclesial body and has handed over the See of Peter to its destroyer, which in any case is something Joseph Ratzinger has been a part of.
Benedict thus resorted to the invention of the “Papacy Emeritus,” trying, in violation of canonical practice, to keep alive the image of the “fine theologian” and the defensor Traditionis that his entourage had constructed. Moreover, an analysis of the events that concern the epilogue of his Pontificate is extremely complex, both because of the peculiarities of Ratzinger’s intellect and character, and because of the opaqueness of the action both of his collaborators and of the Curia, and finally because of the absolute ἅπαξ of his Renunciation, as carried out by Benedict XVI, a completely new modality never seen before in the history of the Papacy.
On the other hand, this parenthesis of mozzettas and camauros was supposed to have been eclipsed with the handover to the already-selected Archbishop of Buenos Aires, who was nominated by the Saint Gallen Mafia to take Benedict’s place ever since the Conclave of 2005. The role of Benedict XVI as Emeritus had the function of supporting a sort of conservative Papacy (munus) that would keep watch over the progressive Papacy of Bergoglio (ministerium), so as to keep together the moderately conservative Ratzingerian component and the violently progressive Bergoglian component, thereby favoring the public perception of a supposed continuity between the “pope emeritus” and the “reigning pope.”
In essence, a way was found to keep Benedict in the Vatican, so that his presence within the Leonine Walls would appear as a form of approval of Bergoglio and the aberrations of his “pontificate.” For his part, the Argentine saw in this canonical monstrum – because this is what the “Papacy Emeritus” is – an instrument for the destructuring of the Papacy in a conciliar, synodal, and ecumenical way; which, as we know, was a desire shared by Benedict XVI himself.
The Canonical “monstrum” of the Pope Emeritus
It must be said that the institution of the Episcopate emeritus is also a canonical monstrum, because with it the diocesan Bishop sees his jurisdiction “frozen” on the basis of age (upon reaching the age of 75), contrary to the centuries-old practice of the Church. The institution of the category of emeritus, by making the Bishops lose their awareness of being Successors of the Apostles, has also had as an immediate consequence a total de-responsibility, relegating them to the role of mere officials and bureaucrats. The institutionalization of the Episcopal Conferences as organs of government that interfere with and hinder the exercise of the power (potestas) of individual Bishops has certainly constituted an attack on the divine constitution of the Catholic Church and its Apostolicity.
The Episcopate Emeritus, introduced just after the Council in 1966 with the Motu Proprio Ecclesiæ Sanctæ and then adopted by the Code of Canon Law of 1983 (can. 402, § 1), reveals a significant consistency with Ingravescentem Ætatem of 1970, which deprives seventy-five-year-old Cardinals of their Curia functions and eighty-year-old Cardinals of the right to elect the Pope in Conclave. Beyond the juridical formulation of these ecclesiastical laws, their mens [purpose] can only be understood in a perspective of deliberate exclusion of Bishops and senior Cardinals from the life of the Church, aimed at favoring the “generational change” – a real reset of the Catholic Hierarchy – with Prelates ideologically closer to the new requests promoted by Vatican II. This artificial purge of the most senior members of the Episcopate and of the College of Cardinals – and therefore presumably less inclined to innovation – has ended up distorting the internal balance of the Hierarchy, according to a worldly and secular approach already widely adopted in the civil sphere. And when, under the pontificate of John Paul II, the so-called “Montini widows” – that is, the cardinals who had reached the age limit in the 1980s – asked for the revocation of Ingravescentem ætatem so as not to be excluded from the Conclave, it became evident that the progressives of the 1970s were also destined in turn to fall victim to the norm they had invoked for others: Et incidit in foveam quam fecit (Ps 7:16) [he is fallen into the hole he made].
It will not escape notice that, in a perspective of “redefinition” of the Papacy in a synodal key, where the Bishop of Rome is considered primus inter pares [the first among equals], the institution of the Episcopate emeritus and the norms that limit the exercise of the Episcopate and the Cardinalate to the attainment of a certain age, constitute the premise for the institutionalization of the Papacy emeritus and the jubilation of the elderly Pope.
The False Problem of munus and ministerium
From the thesis of the Papacy (I am Pope) in conflict with the antithesis of Renunciation (I am no longer Pope) there emerges a concept in continuous evolution – just as becoming is the absolute for Hegel – that is, the synthesis of the Papacy emeritus (I am still Pope but I do not act as Pope). This philosophical aspect of Joseph Ratzinger’s thought, which is principal and recurrent to him, should not be overlooked: the synthesis is in itself provisional, in view of its mutation into a thesis which will be opposed by a new antithesis that will give rise to a further synthesis, in turn provisional. This incessant becoming is the ideological, philosophical, and doctrinal basis of the permanent revolution inaugurated by the Second Vatican Council on the ecclesial front and by the global Left on the political front.
We have therefore witnessed a sort of artificial separation of the Papacy: on the one hand the Pope renounced the Papacy and on the other the persona Papæ, Joseph Ratzinger, tried to maintain some aspects of it that would guarantee him protection and prestige. Since the removal from the Apostolic See could appear as a form of disapproval of the line of governance of the Church imposed by the Bergoglian deep church, both the Personal Secretary and the Secretary of State put strong pressure on Ratzinger to remain “part-time” so to speak, playing on the fictitious separation between munus and ministerium – which moreover was vigorously denied in the Emeritus’ response to Mons. Bux.
Prof. Enrico Maria Radaelli has highlighted in his in-depth studies that this arbitrary bipartition of the Petrine mandate between munus and ministerium renders the Renunciation invalid. Since the Petrine Primacy cannot be broken down into munus and ministerium, since it is a potestas that Christ the King and High Priest confers on the one who has been elected to be Bishop of Rome and Successor of Peter, Ratzinger’s denial (in the cited letter) stating that he did not want to separate munus and ministerium is in contradiction with Benedict’s own admission that he has based the Papacy emeritus on the model of the Episcopate emeritus, which is precisely based on this artificial and impossible split between being and doing the Pope, between being and doing the Bishop. The absurdum of this division is evident: if it were possible to possess the munus without exercising the ministerium, it would also be possible to exercise the ministerium without possessing the munus, that is, to carry out the functions of Pope without being one: which is an aberration such as to radically invalidate the consent to the assumption of the Papacy itself. And in a certain sense we saw this surreal dichotomy between munus and ministerium realized, when the Emeritus was Pope but did not exercise the Papacy, while Bergoglio acted as Pope without being Pope.
The Desacralization of the Papacy
On the other hand, the process of desacralization of the Papacy that began with Paul VI (think of the scenic deposition of the tiara) continued without interruption even under the pontificate of Benedict XVI (who also removed the tiara from the papal coat of arms). This is to be attributed principally to the new heretical ecclesiology of Vatican II, which made its own the demands of secularized and “democratic” society by welcoming into the bosom of the Church concepts such as collegiality and synodality that are ontologically alien to her, thus distorting the monarchical nature of the Church willed by her divine Founder. It certainly leaves one bewildered and immensely saddened to see how zealously the Conciliar and Synodal Hierarchy has promoted subversion within the Catholic Church. A sequence of reforms, norms, and pastoral practices for over sixty years have systematically demolished what until before Vatican II was considered intangible and unreformable.
It should also be remembered that Benedict XVI’s Resignation was not followed by a normal Conclave, in which the Electors serenely chose the candidate to succeed the Throne of Peter; but by a real coup d’état carried out ex professo by the Saint Gallen Mafia – that is, by the subversive component that has infiltrated the Church during the preceding decades – through the tampering with and violation of the regular elective process and the recourse to blackmail and pressure on the College of Cardinals. Let us not forget that an eminent Prelate confided to acquaintances that what he had personally witnessed in the Conclave could jeopardize the validity of the election of Jorge Mario Bergoglio. Also in this case, incomprehensibly, the good of the Church and the salvation of souls have been set aside, in the name of a pharisaical observance of the pontifical secret, perhaps not entirely free from blackmail and threats.
There is an obvious contradiction between the goal Benedict set for himself (i.e., to renounce the Papacy) and the means he chose to do so (based on the invention of the Papacy Emeritus). This contradiction, in which Benedict subjectively resigned but objectively produced a canonical monstrum, constitutes an act so subversive as to render the Renunciation null and void. In due time, this contradiction will have to be remedied by an authoritative pronouncement, but the inescapable fact remains that the form in which the Renunciation was placed does not remove the subsequent irregularities that led Bergoglio to usurp the Throne of Peter with the complicity of the deep church and the deep state. Nor is it possible to think that the Renunciation should not be read in the light of the subversive plan that aimed to oust Benedict XVI and replace him with an emissary of the globalist élite.
The castle of lies in which lay people, priests, and prelates cooperate, even in good faith, remains a cage in which they have imprisoned themselves. In the media dramatization, the actors Ratzinger and Bergoglio have been presented to us as bearers of antithetical theologies, when in reality they represent two successive stages of the same revolutionary process. But appearance, the simulacrum on which mass communication is based, cannot replace the substance of Truth to which the Catholic Church is indefectibly bound by divine mandate.
Conclusion
To the many scandalized faithful, to the many confused and indignant priests and religious, to the few – at least for now – who raise their voices to denounce the coup perpetrated against the Holy Church by Her own Ministers, I address my encouragement to persevere in fidelity to Our Lord, the Eternal High Priest, the Head of the Mystical Body. Resist strong in faith, the Prince of the Apostles admonishes us (1 Peter 5:9), knowing that your brothers scattered throughout the world are undergoing the same sufferings as you. The sleep in which the Savior seems to ignore us while the Barque of Peter is tossed by the storm, must be for us a spur to invoke His help all the more, because only when we turn to Him, leaving aside human respect, inconsistent theories, and political calculations, will we see Him awaken and command the winds and the sea to calm down. Resisting in faith calls for the struggle to remain faithful to what the Lord has taught and commanded, precisely at the moment in which many, especially at the top of the Hierarchy, abandon Him, deny Him and betray Him. Resisting in faith implies not fainting in the moment of trial, knowing how to draw from Him the strength to overcome it victoriously. Resisting in faith ultimately means knowing how to look straight into the face of the reality of the passio Ecclesiæ and the mysterium iniquitatis, without trying to conceal the deception behind which the enemies of Christ hide. This is the meaning of the words of the Savior: You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free (Jn 8:32).
+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop
November 30, 2024
S.cti Andreæ Apostoli
|
|
|
|
| Heaven Opened by the Practice of the Three Hail Marys |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-29-2024, 06:33 AM - Forum: Our Lady
- No Replies
|
|
HEAVEN OPENED BY THE PRACTICE OF THE THREE HAIL MARYs
![[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2Foriginal...ipo=images]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2Foriginals%2F92%2F96%2F93%2F92969356bd831425c7c03041466f626c.png&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=17a046551aa9e2d01b3cbaecb1022f54426037fb61651a651cd37fee94e30276&ipo=images)
catholictradition.org
One of the greatest means of salvation, and one of the surest signs of predestination, is unquestionably, the devotion to the Most Blessed Virgin Mary. All the holy doctors of the Church are unanimous in saying with St. Alphonsus Liguori: "A devout servant of Mary shall never perish."
The chief thing is to persevere faithfully until death in this devotion.
Can there be an easier or more adaptable practice for all than the recitation each day of three Ave Marias in honor of the privileges conferred by the Adorable Trinity on the Blessed Virgin?
One of the first to say the three Hail Marys and to recommend them to others was the illustrious St. Anthony of Padua. His special aim in this practice was to honor the spotless Virginity of Mary and to preserve a perfect purity of mind, heart and body in the midst of the dangers of the world. Many, like him, have felt its salutary effects.
Later on, St. Leonard of Port-Maurice, the celebrated missionary, had the three Ave Marias recited morning and evening in honor of Mary Immaculate, to obtain the grace of avoiding all mortal sins during the day or and night; moreover, he promised in a special manner eternal salvation to all those who proved constantly faithful to this practice.
After the example of these two great Franciscan Saints, St. Alphonsus Liguori adopted this pious practice and gave it his most ardent and powerful support. He counseled its use and even imposed it as a penance on those who had not adopted this good habit. The holy Doctor exhorts, in particular, parents, and confessors to watch carefully that children be faithful in reciting each day their three Hail Marys, morning and evening and recommended it to all the devout young or old.
It is this Saint who suggested adding the aspiration after each Hail Mary: "By thy Immaculate Conception, O Mary, make my body pure and my soul holy."
This practice has been revealed to St. Melchtilde with the promise of a good death, if she was faithful to it every day.
It is also written in St. Gertrude's revelations:
"While this Saint sang the Hail Mary, at the matins of the Annunciation, she suddenly saw spring out from the Heart of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, three bright flames which penetrated the Heart of the Holy Virgin." Then she heard the following words:
"After the Power of the Father, the Wisdom of the Son, and the
merciful Tenderness of the Holy Spirit, nothing approaches the
Power, the Wisdom and the merciful Tenderness of Mary."
His Holiness, Benedict XV raised the Confraternity of the Three Hail Marys to an Archconfraternity and accorded it indulgences.
Our Lady requested the daily recitation of three Hail Marys, revealing the following to St. Melchtilde:
"The first Hail Mary will be in honor of God the Father, Whose omnipotence raised my soul so high above every other creature that, after God, I have the greatest power in Heaven and on earth. In the hour of your death I will use that power of God the Father to keep any hostile power from you.
"The second Hail Mary will be in honor of God the Son, Who communicated His inscrutable wisdom to me . . . In the hour of your death I will fill your soul with the light of that wisdom so that all the darkness of ignorance and error will be dispelled.
"The third Hail Mary will be in honor of God the Holy Ghost, Who filled my soul with the sweetness of His love and tenderness and mercy . . . In your last hour I will then change the bitterness of death into Divine sweetness and delight."
PROMISE:
During an apparition to St. Gertrude, the Blessed Mother promised, "To any soul who faithfully prays the Three Hail Marys I will appear at the hour of death in a splendor of beauty so extraordinary that it will fill the soul with Heavenly consolation."
ACT OF CONSECRATION TO THE BLESSED TRINITY
With all my heart I praise Thee, Most Holy Virgin
above all Angels and Saints in Paradise, Daughter of
the Eternal Father, and I consecrate to Thee
my soul with all its faculties.
Hail Mary, etc.
With all my heart I praise Thee, Most Holy Virgin
above all Angels and Saints in Paradise, beloved Mother
of the Son of God, and I consecrate to Thee my body
with all its senses.
Hail Mary, etc.
With all my heart I praise Thee, Most Holy Virgin
above all Angels and Saints in Paradise, beloved Spouse
of the Holy Ghost, and I consecrate to Thee my heart
with all its affections, and beseech Thee to obtain for me from
the Most Holy Trinity all the graces necessary for salvation.
Hail Mary, etc.
PRACTICE: Recite morning and evening the Consecration and Three Hail Marys in honor of the three great privileges of Mary, together with this invocation at the end of each Hail Mary:
By thy holy and Immaculate Conception, O Mary,
make my body pure and my soul holy;
preserve me this day [this night] from mortal sin.
Imprimatur: Feb. 7, 1963
Francis Cardinal Spellman, Archbishop of New York
Pope St. Pius X gave his Apostolic Blessing to this practice.
The devotion was raised to an Archconfraternity by Pope Benedict XV.
This devotion in its present form is from St. Leonard of Port Maurice.
|
|
|
|
| The Catholic Trumpet: Bishop Ballini Rejects Bishop Williamson's Errors |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-28-2024, 08:24 AM - Forum: The Catholic Trumpet
- No Replies
|
|
BREAKING: Bishop Ballini Rejects Bishop Williamson's Errors
![[Image: rs=w:1280]](https://img1.wsimg.com/isteam/ip/df55e1a9-c854-4d0b-a2a9-94177954436c/Studio-Project-27.png/:/cr=t:0%25,l:0%25,w:100%25,h:100%25/rs=w:1280)
The Catholic Trumpet | November 27, 2024
Deo gratias! Today, we share an important moment for the Catholic resistance. In his sermon titled “Saving Souls in Wartime,” Father Hewko recounted his recent visit to Derry, Northern Ireland, where he met with Bishop Giacomo Ballini. This meeting, part of Father Hewko’s pastoral travels through England, Ireland, and Wales, yielded significant clarifications on critical issues affecting the faithful. Father Hewko emphasized that Bishop Ballini explicitly granted him permission to share the content of their discussions, as well as excerpts from a detailed 14-page letter addressing doctrinal concerns.
Editors Note: In an ironic twist, while reporting a rejection of errors, we may have committed one ourselves. The title has been revised to "rejects" rather than "condemns" to better reflect Bishop Ballini’s rejection of Bishop Williamson’s errors, as relayed by Father Hewko. This adjustment ensures accuracy while honoring Bishop Ballini’s alignment with Archbishop Lefebvre’s principles. We pray for a formal condemnation of these errors—and for Bishop Williamson to fully return to the uncompromising defense of the faith he once so boldly championed.
This article summarizes Bishop Ballini’s refutations of the key errors propagated by Bishop Williamson. The full sermon can be viewed here. More content from this powerful sermon will be released on The Trumpet blog, along with the full word-for-word transcript to be posted later this week on ☩PRAEDICATIO☩.
Bishop Ballini’s Key Refutations
1. The New Mass is Intrinsically Evil
Bishop Ballini firmly rejected Bishop Williamson’s claims about the New Mass, stating it is intrinsically evil and cannot pass grace. He affirmed Archbishop Lefebvre’s teaching that the New Mass is a doctrinal attack on Christ’s sacrifice and the priesthood.
“If one is not poisoned by the New Mass, this is simply because God performs a miracle by preventing the normal effect of the New Mass to take place, which is to poison the faith.”
– Bishop Ballini
2. Condemnation of Eucharistic Miracles in the New Mass
Bishop Ballini warned against promoting alleged Eucharistic miracles from the Novus Ordo, emphasizing that only the Church, through its lawful authority, can determine if a phenomenon is a true miracle. He criticized reliance on scientific evidence alone, noting the potential for deception and error.
“No doctor or scientist is going to tell a Catholic that this fact or event is a miracle... Only the Church, through its lawful authority, can declare it so.”
– Bishop Ballini
3. Maria Valtorta’s Writings on the Index of Forbidden Books
Bishop Ballini condemned the promotion of Maria Valtorta’s writings, which were placed on the Index of Forbidden Books by the Holy Office in 1948. He noted that Archbishop Lefebvre himself cautioned against such writings due to their overly humanized portrayal of Christ’s life.
“My personal opinion on the matter is that having this book being put on the Index, we should not promote it in any way.”
– Bishop Ballini
4. The Necessity of Structure and Seminaries
Contrary to Bishop Williamson’s assertion that “this is not the time for structure and organization,” Bishop Ballini emphasized the importance of seminaries and priestly formation. He aligned with Archbishop Lefebvre’s understanding that the preservation of the priesthood and Mass requires concrete efforts.
“Everything should be done to continue the holy priesthood and ordain ministers for the celebration of the true Mass.”
– Bishop Ballini
Bishop Ballini’s clarifications demonstrate his agreement with key elements of Archbishop Lefebvre’s stance on the New Mass, the priesthood, and the importance of adhering to Church teaching. His rejection of the errors propagated by Bishop Williamson provides important guidance for traditional Catholics as they navigate the current crisis. While some elements of his approach may differ, his principles align closely with the spirit of Archbishop Lefebvre’s fight for the preservation of tradition.
More content from this sermon will be released on The Trumpet blog this week, along with the full transcript of Father Hewko’s powerful sermon. Stay updated at The Trumpet.
Let us pray for Father Hewko, Bishop Ballini, and Bishop Williamson, that they may remain steadfast in their fight for tradition and the faith.
-The ☩ Trumpet
|
|
|
|
| Pope Francis says Synod’s final doc part of his Magisterium, asks ‘that it be accepted’ |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-26-2024, 05:59 AM - Forum: Pope Francis
- No Replies
|
|
Pope Francis says Synod’s final doc part of his Magisterium, asks ‘that it be accepted’
While saying that the document would need 'several mediations,' Pope Francis stipulated that local 'Churches and groupings of Churches are now called upon to implement, in their different contexts, the authoritative instructions contained in the Document.'
![[Image: GettyImages-2156862948.jpg]](https://www.lifesitenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/GettyImages-2156862948.jpg)
Pope Francis
Christopher Furlong/Getty Images
Nov 25, 2024
(LifeSiteNews) – Pope Francis wants the Synod’s final document to be accepted as part of the Magisterium of the Church
This morning Pope Francis released a formal “Note” to accompany his “Final Document of the 16th Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops,” that is, the final document for the Synod on Synodality, which included a significant number of non-bishops.
In his “Note,” the Pope asked that the content of this “Final Document” be accepted as part of his Magisterium, that is, his authoritative teaching as the Successor of Peter, the earthly head of the Christian Church—or, as Pope Francis described himself, the “Bishop of Rome.”
In the Italian original, Pope Francis praised the years of meetings that took place before the Synod, saying that they included “listening to the People of God and the discernment of the Pastors.” He also stated that the Church was “illuminated by the Holy Spirit” during the process.
“Recognizing the value of the synodal journey completed, I now hand over to the whole Church the directions contained in the Final Document, as a return of what has matured over these years, through listening and discernment, and as authoritative guidance for its life and mission,” he added.
“The Final Document participates in the ordinary Magisterium of the Successor of Peter (cf. EC 18 § 1; CCC 892) and as such I ask that it be accepted. It represents a form of exercising the authentic teaching of the Bishop of Rome that has novel features but in fact corresponds to what I had occasion to point out on October 17, 2015, when I stated that synodality is the proper interpretive framework for understanding hierarchical ministry.”
While saying that the document would need “several mediations,” Francis stipulated that “[l]ocal Churches and groupings of Churches are now called upon to implement, in their different contexts, the authoritative instructions contained in the Document, through the processes of discernment and decision-making envisaged by law and by the Document itself.”
This story is developing ….
|
|
|
|
| If We Want to Promote the Kingship of Christ, We Must Dethrone False Ecumenism |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-26-2024, 05:54 AM - Forum: Articles by Catholic authors
- No Replies
|
|
If We Want to Promote the Kingship of Christ, We Must Dethrone False Ecumenism
![[Image: 6959d1a21bb653d431254834da92e8fd_L.jpg]](https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/media/k2/items/cache/6959d1a21bb653d431254834da92e8fd_L.jpg)
Robert Morrison - Remnant Columnist | November 22, 2024
No rational observer familiar with Vatican II or its implementation can truthfully deny that the Council’s ecumenical movement was condemned by Pius XII and his predecessors.
“If they elect Roncalli, everything would be saved; he would be capable of calling a council and of consecrating ecumenism.” (Dom Lambert Beaudin, quoted in Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s They Have Uncrowned Him, p. 160)
Pope Pius XII’s 1950 encyclical “concerning some false opinions threatening to undermine the foundations of Catholic doctrine,” Humani Generis, was the last forceful condemnation of anti-Catholic errors prior to Vatican II. In it, he specifically denounced errors that have been largely unopposed, and even promoted, by the apparent Catholic hierarchy since the Council. Critically, the entire ecumenical movement propelled by John XXIII and his Council constitutes a direct repudiation of these words from Humani Generis:
“Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing. Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation.”
In the name of achieving Christian unity, John XXIII, Cardinal Augustin Bea, and the Council’s other progressive innovators sought ways to undermine this fundamental truth defended by Pius XII. Whereas the Church has always taught that true Christian unity can occur only through a process of non-Catholics becoming Catholic, Vatican II’s innovators sought to pave the way for the borders between Catholicism and Protestantism to seemingly blur and ultimately vanish. As discussed in a previous article, Francis’s Synod on Synodality has essentially achieved this wicked goal by creating the new “Synodal Church,” which is simply Protestantism in union with a “Bishop of Rome.”
Although the existence of the Synodal Church truly represents a new level of wickedness, it should also lead us to reflect on the evils of false ecumenism upon which it depends. No rational observer familiar with Vatican II or its implementation can truthfully deny that the Council’s ecumenical movement was condemned by Pius XII and his predecessors. Moreover, as we can see so clearly with Francis’s Synodal Church, many of the most important initiatives undertaken by Rome in the past sixty years have had the primary purpose of furthering false ecumenism, including:
- Most obviously, the interreligious prayer gatherings initiated by John Paul II’s Prayer Meeting at Assisi
- The promulgation of the Novus Ordo Mass, which omitted almost everything that makes the Traditional Latin Mass objectionable to Protestants
- Increased roles for the laity, and a corresponding subordination of the clergy, to better reflect Protestant practices
- A diminished role of the papacy, seen most clearly in the recent “Bishop of Rome” document
- A deceptive attempt to water down Catholic teaching so that it no longer presents a serious obstacle to Protestants, although in reality Catholic teaching cannot evolve in that way
In one way or another, almost every unholy development from Rome since the Council has contributed to the advancement of false ecumenism.
Perhaps because false ecumenism has proliferated for the past sixty years, many serious Catholics no longer object to its manifestations. Thus, many Catholics who would argue that Francis is an antipope, or at least the worst pope in history, generally do not complain about the ecumenical prayer gatherings we see from Francis. Likewise, relatively few of Francis’s most vocal opponents appear to have taken issue with the Bishop of Rome document, which clearly highlights the influence of John Paul II in asking non-Catholics to help Catholics reach a new understanding of the papacy:
Quote:“Saint John Paul II not only reaffirmed this ecumenical path but also officially invited other Christians to reflect on the exercise of the ministry of the Bishop of Rome. In his milestone encyclical letter Ut unum sint (1995) he used the biblical notion of ‘episkopein’ (‘keeping watch’) to describe this ministry (UUS 94), whose primacy is defined as a ministry of unity (UUS 89) and a service of love (UUS 95). Assuming his particular ecumenical responsibility, and ‘heeding the request made of [him],’ Pope John Paul II recognized the need ‘to find a way of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission, is nonetheless open to a new situation’ (UUS 95).”
This passage from the Bishop of Rome document helps us understand why those who decry Francis’s heresies can nonetheless remain silent on false ecumenism: they cannot criticize false ecumenism without also calling into question the initiatives of Francis’s predecessors.
Unfortunately, we can have no realistic hope of counteracting those trying to destroy the Catholic Church from within unless we uproot false ecumenism and reassert the Catholic teaching defended by Pius XII and his predecessors. As Fr. Dominique Bourmaud wrote in his One Hundred Years of Modernism, false ecumenism has been the convergence point for the greatest evils afflicting the Church, including Modernism, religious liberty, and the refusal to accept the authority of Jesus Christ and His Church:
Quote:“Of all the topics treated at the Council, that of ecumenism certainly best reveals the affinity and the unity of thought between the Council and the modernists. In fact, the periti who directed the Council are the same men who were targeted and exiled for their modernist ideas fifteen years earlier. It should come as no surprise that the ecumenism advocated and put into practice at the Council should be of modernist inspiration. Ecumenical unity cannot arise from the truth of facts and realities, and so poses a theoretically insoluble problem, to be resolved only in practice. Accordingly, the only solution can be to sacrifice truth and the principle of non-contradiction in the name of an artificial unity maintained by equivocation. To promote ecumenism means signing a treaty of non-aggression, granting all religions citizenship in the great pantheon of creeds. The only commandment is the exclusion of exclusivity: freedom for all in all things, except for those who believe in the truth. The Catholic Church herself is warmly invited to take her place in the assembly, on the condition that she abdicate her pretension to a monopoly of holiness, truth, and unity. The logical consequence of conciliar ecumenism is religious liberty. Religious liberty is the public denial of the distinction between good and evil, between true and false. Religious liberty is the refusal to accept Jesus Christ and His Church as supreme authorities over man. It is the practical affirmation of the egological, modernist conscience, independent of all exterior rule of action or thought. It is the affirmation of liberty as the principle and the sovereign right of man, transcending God and His laws.”
Because the ecumenical innovators refuse to abide by the Church’s teaching that unity can occur through a process of non-Catholics becoming Catholic, they must “sacrifice truth and the principle of non-contradiction in the name of an artificial unity maintained by equivocation.”
The entire ecumenical movement depends upon this assault upon reason and Catholic truth. As such, those who try to oppose Francis and his fellow destroyers, while simultaneously adhering to the principles of false ecumenism, deprive themselves of the only weapon capable of overcoming our enemies: unadulterated Catholic truth. It is, in other words, a futile exercise to insist that Francis must stop promoting heretical nonsense while we turn a blind eye to the heretical nonsense upon which he depends to promote much of his heretical agenda, namely false ecumenism.
To put a finer point on the issue, we can look to some of the infallible teachings of the Catholic Church that are undermined by the false ecumenism that Vatican II promoted (long before most of us had heard of Jorge Bergoglio). Dr. Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma lists the following infallible truths (among others) which are directly opposed to false ecumenism, because that baneful error encourages non-Catholics to remain outside of the Catholic Church and the sacraments (other than Baptism) which it alone can provide, especially Confession:
- Membership of the Church is necessary for all men for salvation. (De fide.)
- The Sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for the salvation of mankind. (De fide.)
- The justified person is not able for his whole life long to avoid all sins, even venial sins, without the special privilege of the grace of God. (De fide.)
- The grace by which we are Justified may be lost, and is lost by every grievous sin. (De fide.)
Any Catholic who seriously attempts to persevere in the state of sanctifying grace knows how absolutely malicious it is for the ostensible authorities of the Catholic Church to even remotely suggest to non-Catholics that they do not need to convert to Catholicism. If we truly love our neighbor, we necessarily want him to have the truths and graces which the Catholic Church offers. If this is not the case, we do not truly love our neighbors.
Turning to the promotion of the Kingship of Christ. Our Lord became man and died for our sins so that we can honor God and save our souls. He also established the Catholic Church, providing it with His truth and the sacraments we need to save our souls and honor God. False ecumenism asserts that men do not need to make use of the Catholic Church — they can remain in their non-Catholic religions that Our Lord did not establish. In this way, false ecumenism constitutes an unmistakable assault on the Kingship of Christ. With false ecumenism, Our Lord becomes merely an advisor, with no real authority to command.
What can be done? We can simply insist on the truths taught by Pope Pius XII and his predecessors in opposition to the false ecumenism that has proliferated since Vatican II. If we insist that false ecumenism is a damnable lie that has only served to lead souls away from the Catholic Church, then we will no longer agree to accept “Christian unity” as the purported justification for essentially all of the disastrous initiatives carried out in the name of the Vatican II revolution. When that happens, we can promote the Kingship of Christ with the full truth that Our Lord has left His Catholic Church, without having to agree to the terms of our enemies who seek only to crown Him with thorns. Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us!
|
|
|
|
| The Simulacrum: The False Choice of Modernism and Sedevacantism |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-25-2024, 06:36 PM - Forum: Sedevacantism
- No Replies
|
|
The Simulacrum: The False Choice of Modernism and Sedevacantism
The Catholic Trumpet | November 25, 2024
In these unparalleled times of crisis, faithful Catholics are faced with two opposing temptations: blind obedience to modernist Rome and the error of sedevacantism. Both distort the truth and undermine the indefectibility of the Church, creating what can only be described as a simulacrum—a counterfeit reality, carefully crafted to lead souls astray.
Recently, The Catholic Trumpet was addressed in a post from a sedevacantist website, Questions for The Catholic Trumpet, which posed critical questions about our stance:
Quote:“Only the Church, through her divine authority, can judge a pope in matters of heresy, and this occurs only after his death.”
The questions raised include:
1. Why can’t a layman judge, in conscience, a putative pope guilty of the sin of (public) heresy before an official judgment of the Church?
2. If a putative pope is suspect of heresy, why does the Church have to wait until after his death to judge him guilty of heresy?
We appreciate the opportunity to clarify our position and to reaffirm the Church’s timeless teachings. These questions, while seemingly simple, expose the confusion born from the two false extremes of modernism and sedevacantism, both of which obscure the perennial truths of the Faith.
The Catholic Church remains the Mystical Body of Christ, guided by the Holy Ghost, and her indefectibility ensures that she will never fail, even amidst the gravest of crises. Our response to these errors is neither a synthesis nor a reaction but a defense of the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church as handed down through Sacred Tradition.
Clarifications on Judging a Pope and the Role of the Faithful
1. Why the Church Alone Can Judge a Pope
The authority to judge a pope resides solely with the Church, as established by Christ in His divine constitution of the hierarchy. Private individuals, while able to observe contradictions in a pope’s actions or teachings, lack the authority to declare him a formal heretic or depose him. This principle protects the Church’s unity and visibility, as declared infallibly at Vatican I.
+Archbishop Lefebvre emphasized this when addressing the complexities of papal authority:
Quote:“The visibility of the Church is too necessary to its existence for it to be possible that God would allow that visibility to disappear for decades.” (The New Mass and the Pope, 1979)
The example of Pope Honorius I reaffirms this principle: though his writings were later condemned, the Church waited until after his death to issue her judgment. This prudence preserved the Church’s hierarchical structure and prevented destabilization.
2. Sedevacantism: A Hegelian Trap
Sedevacantism, while rejecting modernist obedience, falls into the opposite error of denying the visible authority of the Church entirely. It creates a false dialectic: either accept a heretical pope or deny the existence of the papacy altogether. This false dichotomy undermines the promises of Christ, who assured us, “The gates of hell shall not prevail against [the Church]” (Matt. 16:18).
+Archbishop Lefebvre warned against this extreme, calling it "a complete mess":
Quote:“The solution of sedevacantism is not a solution... We must keep a little the solution of common sense... to recognize that there is a successor on the throne of Peter, and that it is necessary to strongly oppose him, because of the errors he spreads.” (Conference, 1989)
While we sympathize with those who have fallen into this error out of zeal for the Faith, we must firmly reject it as incompatible with Catholic teaching. Both modernism and sedevacantism undermine the unity and indefectibility of the Church, albeit in different ways. Modernism distorts doctrine to accommodate novelty, while sedevacantism abandons the Church’s visible structure to safeguard perceived doctrinal purity. Both lead to schism and confusion, contrary to Christ’s design for His Church.
Archbishop Lefebvre exposed this simulacrum when he observed:
Quote:“Either we endorse the revolution in the Church, and participate in the destruction of the Church, or we leave the Church completely and find ourselves where? Who with? What with? How would we be linked to the apostles?”
(Conference, Econe, 1984)
True fidelity lies in adhering to the Faith as handed down by the Apostles, rejecting error without abandoning the visible Church. This is not a middle ground or synthesis but the consistent teaching of Catholic Tradition.
The Simulacrum of the Eclipse Church
The false dichotomy of modernism and sedevacantism forms a simulacrum, a counterfeit Church that exists within the eclipse described by Our Lady of La Salette. This diabolical ring encircles the visible Church, obscuring her from the faithful while ensnaring souls in errors of disobedience and despair.
+Archbishop Lefebvre captured the essence of this counterfeit:
Quote:“We remain as we are now, we want to keep Tradition. But neither do we want to separate ourselves completely from the Pope, saying, ‘There is no longer a pope, there is no longer anything, there is no more authority.’ That solution doesn’t work either.” (Conference, 1984)
The simulacrum thrives on division, presenting Catholics with false choices that lead away from the perennial Faith. Recognizing and rejecting this counterfeit is essential for fidelity to Christ and His Church.
Reject the Counterfeit
To those ensnared by dogmatic sedevacantism, we call you back to the visible Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, which remains indefectible and cannot be eclipsed by error. Reject the false claim that the Chair of Peter has been abandoned, and return to the one true Ark of Salvation.
To those who blindly adhere to modernist Rome, we admonish you to reject the errors and heresies of Vatican II and its counterfeit church, which promotes novelty and compromise under the guise of continuity. Stop perpetuating the eclipse of the true Church by clinging to modernism, which distorts the Faith and undermines Tradition.
Both dogmatic sedevacantism and modernism represent false positions within the simulacrum of the Church’s eclipse. True fidelity requires breaking free from this counterfeit reality, neither denying the visible authority of the Church nor succumbing to heretical novelties. Trust in the promises of Christ, the triumph of the Immaculate Heart, and the divine restoration that will come through the Angelic Pontiff.
Let us reject all errors, resist modernist compromises, and remain faithful to the Church of all ages, confident that Christ will guide His Bride through this time of trial. May the Immaculate Heart of Mary intercede for us, and may her promised triumph restore all things in Christ.
Vive le Christ Roi!
The Catholic Trumpet
|
|
|
|
| The Catholic Trumpet: When the Angelic Pontiff Speaks: Will You Recognize His Voice? |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-23-2024, 07:06 AM - Forum: The Catholic Trumpet
- No Replies
|
|
When the Angelic Pontiff Speaks: Will You Recognize His Voice?
![[Image: rs=w:1280]](https://img1.wsimg.com/isteam/ip/df55e1a9-c854-4d0b-a2a9-94177954436c/Studio-Project-24.png/:/cr=t:0%25,l:0%25,w:100%25,h:100%25/rs=w:1280)
The Catholic☩Trumpet [slightly adapted] | November 22, 2024
How do you think the Angelic Pontiff will sound when he comes to restore the Church in her darkest hour? Will his voice tremble with uncertainty or resound with clarity and power, condemning the errors that have ravaged the Bride of Christ—Vatican II, the Novus Ordo, and the compromises with modernism?
At The Catholic Trumpet, in the most loving spirit and with fidelity to Tradition, we have decided to try. What follows is a reflection on what we believe he may say, drawn from the eternal truths of the Faith and the uncompromising witness of Tradition.
-The☩Trumpet
Apostolic Declaration of Condemnation Against the Errors of Our Time
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
We, Pius XIII, Servant of the Servants of God, by the divine authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ entrusted to the Papal Office, do solemnly and infallibly declare the following:
With the sorrow of a father witnessing the destruction of his household, We condemn the Second Vatican Council, which, through its ambiguities and novel doctrines, represents a rupture with the Sacred Tradition of the Holy Roman Church. Under the guise of "renewal," this Council introduced grave errors, including:
Religious Liberty, which falsely teaches that all religions possess a right to public expression, contrary to the perennial teaching of the Church, which proclaims that only the Catholic Faith is the true religion.
Ecumenism, which denies the uniqueness of the Catholic Church as the sole Ark of Salvation, placing her on equal footing with heretical sects and false religions.
Collegiality, which undermines the divinely instituted primacy of the Roman Pontiff, fostering confusion and division within the Church.
These errors, compounded by deliberate ambiguities, have led to an unprecedented crisis of faith, resulting in indifferentism, apostasy, and a rejection of the Church’s divine mission to convert all nations.
Let no faithful Catholic regard this Council as a legitimate expression of the magisterium. It is a counterfeit council, poisoned by modernism and condemned by its fruits. To remain silent or complicit in its errors is to betray Christ Himself.
II. On the Novus Ordo Missae: The Fabricated Rite
We solemnly and infallibly condemn the Novus Ordo Missae, which constitutes a rupture from the Roman Rite codified by the saints and preserved through the ages. Fabricated by a committee influenced by Protestant observers, it was imposed upon the faithful without precedent in the Church’s history.
This so-called “Ordinary Form” undermines the theology of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, obscuring its sacrificial and propitiatory nature. It has fostered irreverence, sacrilege, and a catastrophic decline in belief in the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Most Blessed Sacrament.
Such a liturgical innovation, alien to the sacred patrimony of the Church, stands as a counterfeit offering unworthy of the One True God. It must be rejected entirely by all who seek to remain faithful to the Catholic Faith handed down from the apostles.
Let no one be deceived: the Novus Ordo Missae is not a development of the Roman Rite but a rupture from it. It undermines the Catholic Faith and must be rejected in its entirety. To those faithful still clinging to this rite out of ignorance or misplaced obedience, We exhort you to return to the Mass of your forefathers—the Holy Sacrifice codified by St. Pius V—which nourished the saints and safeguarded the Faith.
III. On the Heresies of the Conciliar Popes
We condemn, with the fullness of Our Apostolic authority, the errors and heresies propagated by the Conciliar Popes:
John XXIII, who opened the Church to the destructive winds of modernism by calling the Second Vatican Council and promoting a false optimism detached from the reality of sin and error.
Paul VI, who inflicted the Novus Ordo Missae upon the Church, abrogated her sacred rites, and allowed heresies to flourish unchecked.
John Paul II, who scandalized the faithful with his pan-religious gatherings at Assisi, his veneration of false religions, and his ambiguous teachings that undermined the exclusivity of salvation in Christ.
Benedict XVI, who perpetuated the errors of Vatican II by promoting its "hermeneutic of continuity," thus binding the faithful to a false reconciliation with error.
Francis, who has reached the zenith of apostasy by promoting religious relativism, idol worship, synodality, and moral ambiguity, thereby scandalizing the faithful and destroying the Church’s missionary mandate.
Though these men have occupied the throne of Peter, their errors and failures must not lead any faithful Catholic to question the divine institution of the papacy itself. We remind you that their authority, though abused, remains valid. It is not for individual Catholics to judge or declare the See of Peter vacant—a prerogative that belongs solely to the Church.
IV. On Sedevacantism: A Sympathetic Warning
To those who have fallen into the error of sedevacantism, We speak with both sympathy and clarity. We understand the sorrow and confusion that have led many to this position in these dark times. Yet, We must warn you: sedevacantism is a grievous error, denying the legitimacy of the papacy and undermining the visible unity of the Church.
The case of Pope Honorius I, who failed in his duty to defend the Faith, demonstrates that a pope can err in his personal actions without losing his office. Only the Church, through her divine authority, can judge a pope in matters of heresy, and this occurs only after his death.
Christ’s promise to Peter—that the gates of hell shall not prevail against His Church—remains true, even when the human occupants of the papal office fail in their duties. To deny this is to doubt the divine foundation of the Church.
We call upon all sedevacantists to return to the Church, acknowledging the authority of the papacy while continuing to resist the errors promoted by modernist popes.
V. On the Indult Mass: A Trojan Horse
We condemn the so-called "Indult Mass," which purports to preserve the Traditional Latin Mass while binding it to the errors of Vatican II and the Novus Ordo. This deceitful concession has ensnared many faithful into recognizing the legitimacy of a counterfeit Church and its false doctrines.
The Mass of All Time cannot coexist with the errors of the modernist revolution. To accept the "Indult Mass" is to compromise the Faith and betray the sacrifice of countless martyrs who died for the integrity of Catholic worship.
VI. On the Pre-1955 Missal and Holy Week
We solemnly decree the restoration of the Roman Missal and Holy Week as they were before the destructive reforms of 1955. These changes, introduced by modernist influences under the guise of "liturgical reform," paved the way for the liturgical revolution that culminated in the Novus Ordo Missae.
The pre-1955 liturgy reflects the unchanging theology of the Church and preserves the sacred symbolism of the Holy Sacrifice. We call upon all clergy to return to this venerable Missal and Holy Week, unaltered by modernist tampering.
VII. On the Condemnation of Masonic Influences
We condemn the [...]Masonic conspiracy, which has infiltrated the Church and the world, spreading the errors of liberalism, indifferentism, and secularism. This pernicious influence has sought to destroy Christendom by undermining the Catholic Church, the moral order, and the sovereignty of Christ the King.
These agents of subversion, operating through secret societies and revolutionary ideologies, were the architects of Vatican II and the Novus Ordo. Their goal is the dissolution of the Catholic Faith and the establishment of a godless, one-world religion.
Let every faithful Catholic reject the lies of this diabolical movement and remain steadfast in proclaiming the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
VIII. An Apostolic Exhortation
We exhort all Catholics to reject the errors of Vatican II, the profane Novus Ordo Missae, the heresies of the Conciliar Popes, the traps of the "Indult Mass," the modernist reforms of 1955, and the lies of the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy.
Return to the faith of your fathers. Hold fast to the Sacred Tradition of the Church, the Mass codified by St. Pius V, the pre-1955 Holy Week, and the immutable teachings of the Popes before Vatican II. Let no modernist deception or compromise lead you astray.
May the Immaculate Heart of Mary, the Vanquisher of Heresies, intercede for the Church and guide the faithful remnant in this time of unparalleled crisis. Let all who remain faithful to Christ rise and proclaim with the Prophet: “Open your hearts to the Lord and serve Him only; and He will free you from the hands of your enemies.”
Given in Rome, at St. Peter’s Basilica, on this solemn day, in the year of Our Lord, __________.
Pius XIII
Pontifex Maximus
Servant of the Servants of God
|
|
|
|
| Bishop appointed by Communist China tells Catholics to study Xi Jinping: report |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-22-2024, 04:57 AM - Forum: Socialism & Communism
- No Replies
|
|
Bishop appointed by Communist China tells Catholics to study Xi Jinping: report
Joseph Shen Bin, a bishop appointed by the Chinese Communist Party, exhorted the Shanghainese clergy to study and preach CCP ideology, including General Secretary Xi Jinping’s thoughts on the sinicization of religion.
![[Image: shutterstock_1872688300-e1714040162431-810x500.jpg]](https://www.lifesitenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/shutterstock_1872688300-e1714040162431-810x500.jpg)
Borka Kiss/Shutterstock
Nov 21, 2024
(LifeSiteNews [slightly adapted - not all hyperlinks included from original]) — During a November seminar about the “Sinicization of Religion in Shanghai,” Joseph Shen Bin, a “bishop” controversially appointed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), exhorted the Shanghainese clergy to study and preach CCP ideology, namely, the documents of “the Third Plenary Session of the 20th CCP Central Committee” and “General Secretary Xi Jinping’s thoughts on the Sinicization of religion,” according to a report by news outlet Bitter Winter.
Catholic participants in the aforementioned seminar testified to Bitter Winter that Shen Bin encouraged members of the audience to concentrate on the “sinicization” of the Catholic religion, a process which Bitter Winter highlighted “does not mean adapting religion to Chinese customs but to the CCP’s ideology.”
Moreover, Shen Bin noted the significance of closer collaboration with the United Front Work Department, which oversees “official” religion in Communist China. The same Bitter Winter report added that “Yin Du, Director of the Ethnic and Religious Affairs Department of the Municipal United Front Work Department, and Gu Weidong, Director of the Catholic Affairs Department of the Municipal Ethnic and Religious Affairs Bureau, attended the whole event.”
When Shen Bin was selected by the CCP as the new Bishop of Shanghai on April 4 last year, the Vatican officially admitted that “the Holy See learned from the media of the installation” only shortly prior to the appointment.
“Bishop Shen Bin, until now Bishop of Haimen, was installed in the Diocese of Shanghai, China, this morning,” Vatican News reported.
“The Holy See had been informed a few days ago of the decision of the Chinese authorities,” Holy See spokesman Matteo Bruni said.
“I have nothing to say about the Holy See’s assessment of the matter for the time being,” Bruni added.
In other words, it was the CCP and not the Vatican that unilaterally appointed Shen Bin to head Shanghai.
During Shen Bin’s inauguration ceremony, he pledged to “adhere to the principle of independence and self-government” that forms the raison d’etre of China’s pro-CCP Patriotic Catholic Church.
In a statement dated April 4 last year, the Shanghai Diocese revealed that around 200 people were present at Shen Bin’s inauguration ceremony.
“Bishop Shen Bin said that he will continue to carry forward the fine tradition of patriotism and love of the Catholic Church in Shanghai, adhere to the principle of independence and self-government, adhere to the direction of Catholicism in China, and better promote the healthy tradition of Catholic evangelism in Shanghai,” the statement read.
Unsurprisingly, many critics regarded Shen Bin’s installation by the CCP as a violation of a contentious and clandestine Sino-Vatican agreement regarding the appointment of bishops signed in September 2018.
According to the 2018 Sino-Vatican agreement, Rome would acknowledge seven bishops appointed by the CCP, as well as admit the establishment of a new Catholic diocese in Chengde, in the northern province of Hebei. While the Vatican would officially appoint new Chinese bishops these men would nevertheless be chosen by the CCP.
Besides, a new report, authored by Nina Shea for the Hudson Institute, has disclosed details about the clampdown of 10 Catholic bishops in China who have resisted the CCP’s efforts to interfere in religious matters since the 2018 Sino-Vatican deal. This Hudson Institute report narrates the traumatic encounters of Vatican-approved bishops who have experienced “detention without due process, surveillance, police investigations, and banishments from their dioceses for refusal to submit to the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association (CPCA), a state-managed group controlled by the CCP’s United Front Work Department,” Catholic News Agency (CNA) reported.
“This report shows that religious repression of the Catholic Church in China has intensified since the 2018 China-Vatican agreement on the appointment of bishops,” Shea stated.
“Beijing targeted these 10 bishops after they opposed the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association, which requires its members to pledge independence from the Holy See,” she elaborated.
Bitter Winter pointed out that in light of several events following the 2018 Sino-Vatican deal, it was evident that the CCP regards the deal as applicable to the Vatican only, which is expected not to decry religious persecution in China. For its part, the CCP can still unilaterally nominate “bishops” as it sees fit.
|
|
|
|
|
![[Image: Screenshot-2024-12-02-110948.png]](https://i.postimg.cc/FsR27kpK/Screenshot-2024-12-02-110948.png)
![[Image: miniatura-241130-eng.jpg]](https://exsurgedomine.it/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/miniatura-241130-eng.jpg)
