V. Regina caeli, laetare, alleluia. Queen of heaven, rejoice, alleluia.
R. Quia quem meruisti portare, alleluia, For he whom you did merit to bear, alleluia,
V. Resurrexit, sicut dixit, alleluia. Has risen as he said, alleluia.
R. Ora pro nobis Deum, alleluia. Pray for us to God, alleluia.
V. Rejoice and be glad, O Virgin Mary, alleluia. R. For the Lord has truly risen, alleluia.
Let us pray. O God, who gave joy to the world through the resurrection of Thy Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, grant we beseech Thee, that through the intercession of the Virgin Mary, His Mother, we may obtain the joys of everlasting life.
Through the same Christ our Lord. Amen.
Our Blogger, Margaret USA, asked me to post this commentary of Bishop Schneider about the fire at Notre Dame – I’d just placed a headline in our forthcoming May newsletter about the fire at Notre Dame being a metaphor for the destruction (humanly speaking) of the Church when it arrived in my inbox, so it was well timed. Those of our newsletter readers who are not online will draw some comfort from it, no doubt. What about you?
The Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei Suppressed by Pope Francis January 19, 2019 By fsspx.news
On January 17, 2019, Pope Francis suppressed the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, which had been created in 1988 by his predecessor Pope John Paul II.
The Apostolic Letter in the form of the Pope’s motu proprio was published at noon on January 19 by the Holy See Press Office and inserted in L’Osservatore Romano. From now on, the Commission’s responsibilities will be placed entirely in the hands of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which will designate a special section to take over its activities. This transfer, explains the Sovereign Pontiff, comes in response to a need expressed during a meeting of this dicastery on November 15, 2017, approved by him on November 24, and validated in a plenary session in January 2018.
The pope recalls how, over thirty years ago, the day after the episcopal consecrations in 1988, John Paul II wished to facilitate the “full ecclesial communion of priests, seminarians, religious communities or individuals until now linked in various ways to the Fraternity founded by Archbishop Lefebvre”. The goal was to help them “remain united to the Successor of Peter in the Catholic Church while preserving their own spiritual and liturgical traditions”. This preservation of the spiritual and liturgical traditions was ensured in 2007 by Pope Benedict XVI’s motu proprio Summorum Pontificum.
This historical reminder of Pope Francis has the merit of showing how this Pontifical Commission was originally founded on the condemnation of Archbishop Lefebvre and his work. In its thirty years of existence, it mostly limited itself to liturgical questions, with the intention of responding to the “sensitivity” of conservative priests and faithful, and of countering the Society of St. Pius X’s growth throughout the world…
But after the supposed excommunications of the bishops of Tradition were lifted in 2009, Benedict XVI believed that the ongoing doctrinal issues were a good reason to attach the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The goal was to begin doctrinal discussions with the Society of St. Pius X.
The Primacy of the Doctrine of the Faith
Today, Pope Francis writes that the religious communities that belong to the Pontifical Commission have acquired stability both in their numbers and their activities; they ensure the celebration of the Mass in its “extraordinary form”. But, he points out, “the questions dealt with by the same Pontifical Commission were of a primarily doctrinal nature.” These objections and questions are clearly irrelevant to these communities. It is indeed with the Society of St. Pius X that they continue to be an issue.
This is what the cardinals pointed out on November 15, 2017, when they “formulated the request that dialogue between the Holy See and the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X be conducted directly by the aforementioned Congregation [for the Doctrine of the Faith], as the questions being dealt with are of a doctrinal nature.”
One conclusion is evident: as the so-called Ecclesia Dei communities have preserved “their spiritual and liturgical traditions”, they clearly do not count in this discussion. If they remain attached to a section of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, it is incidental. They can have the Mass, the “spiritual and liturgical traditions”, but not the whole doctrine that goes along with them.
That has always been the Society of St. Pius X’s great reproach against Dom Gérard [founder of the Benedictine monastery at Le Barroux who worked with Archbishop Lefebvre until 1988] and all those who thought they should break the unity of Tradition in order to negotiate a purely practical agreement. The crisis of the Church cannot be reduced to a spiritual or liturgical question alone. It is deeper, for it touches the very heart of the Faith and the doctrine of Revelation, Christ the King’s right to reign here below over men and over societies.
Is this, as some commentators fear, anticipating this suppression, the beginning of the end for Summorum Pontificum? Is the Pope about to attempt to suppress the ancient Mass?
As the homosexual priest scandal once again erupts around the world (including therevelation that fully half of the cardinals and bishops of the Netherlands are implicated in the cover-up of sexual abuse), the ex-President of the Italian Senate, Marcello Pera, was interviewed by La Fede Quotidiana concerning Pope Francis’ continuing silence in the face of Archbishop Viganò’s historic indictment of the Pope’s own role in the cover-up of homosexual corruption at the highest levels of the Church.
“It seems to me that the Pope does not intend to give a response, or perhaps thinks that others will respond, a dilatory tactic that, instead of promoting serenity and clarity contributes to general disconcert and confusion,” said Pera. “[I]t seems to be the same thing that happened with the Dubia of the cardinals,” Pera continued.
Respecting the attempts to demonize Viganò, Pera observes that he has “the sensation that the Pope trusts in that wing of the press that is always and everywhere favorable. He knew that he would be defended a priori by certain important journalists” who would be willing to shoot the messenger by way of character assassination. But, Pera rightly observes, “I am not interested in the motives that have driven Viganò but only in whether his allegations are true or not.”
Pera is also a renowned philosopher whose work focuses on the problems of cultural relativism, the post-modern denial of objective reality and “deconstructionism,” which reduces all truth claims to mere interpretations rather than statements of objective fact. Hence Pera knows whereof he speaks when he says that in his view Francis is symptomatic of the crisis of a “tragic and alarming diminution of the Christian conscience in Europe. Bergoglio substitutes for catholicity a secular humanism. From this step a schism can arise.”
Asked whether he knows the “Pope Emeritus” well, Pera replied that he does but that “I have not spoken to him in a long time.” As to whether he thinks Benedict is worried about the state of the Church under this pontificate, Pera answered simply: “I imagine so.”
Last July, Pera voiced even stronger criticism of the current occupant of the Chair of Peter. Concerning Francis’ insistence on “welcoming” unlimited numbers of Muslim immigrants into Italy, most of them military age males not helpless “refugees,” Pera told Il Mattino: “I do not understand this Pope. What he says is beyond all rational comprehension. Why does he insist on total acceptance? The Pope does it because he detests the West, aspires to destroy it and does everything to achieve this end…” What Francis preaches, says Pera, “is not the Gospel but only politics. Francis is little or not at all interested in Christianity as a doctrine, on the theological aspect. […] His statements seem based on Scripture, in reality they are strongly secularist.” It is hard to dispute that opinion given the many indications that we have a Pope who doesn’t “do” Catholicism. As for example his recent refusal to give an Apostolic Benediction to a crowd of young people in Palermo because their number included “other Christians and religious traditions and even some agnostics.” Instead, the Vicar of Christ, refusing to mention Christ, invoked a generic “Lord God” for the intention of “blessing the seeds of disquiet in their souls” because “they want to make a better world” as “searchers for goodness and happiness” and travelers on “the road to dialogue and encounter with the other.”
A Vicar of Christ who studiously refrains from mentioning the light of Christ to those in need of it for their salvation, lest anyone in the audience be offended. What sort of Pope is this? One the likes of which the Church has never seen before, not even in the midst of the ecclesial tumult of the past 50 years. Source
“The pedophile scandal in the Catholic Church is not a pedophile scandal. The vast majority of victims are post-pubescent teens and young men. The real problem in the Church that everyone sees and few will say out loud: gay priests.” (Matt Walsh, Twitter)
I’m taking some heat on Twitter today because I said that the real problem in the Catholic Church isn’t pedophilia but gay priests. As the statistics clearly show, the vast majority of predators in the clergy were homosexual and the vast majority were not pedophiles. The same study that reported those figures did try to absolve gay priests by claiming that their homosexuality had nothing to do with anything. But this is an assumption — I think a plainly absurd and unprovable assumption — that is not born out by their own statistics.
And the problem goes beyond sex abuse of minors. As Rod Dreher has been reporting, and liberal publications agree, homosexuality runs rampant in the modern priesthood. Sexual activity between priests, and between priests and seminarians, is not uncommon. I think it is rather difficult to separate these facts from the fact that teen boys were so often sexually victimized. Is it just a coincidence that gay priests exist in such large numbers, protected by gay cabals within the Church, and at the same time there happen to be a bunch of priests molesting pubescent boys? Are these two realities entirely separate from one another?
Take the case of the scummy Cardinal McCarrick. He has been accused of preying upon young boys. But most of the stories that have come out about him revolve around his sexual exploits with seminarians. Grown men, in other words. Yet we are told that the fact of his homosexuality is irrelevant. How could it be? If he were not a homosexual, he would not have molested boys. Who could dispute this? I’m not claiming that all homosexuals molest boys. I am claiming that only homosexuals molest boys. A non-homosexual, by definition, is not attracted to males.
I will be told that sex abuse is about “power” not sex, but of course this is ridiculous. It is about both. If all you seek is power over someone, there are other ways to achieve that aim without sexually assaulting them. If you choose sex as your means, then it would follow that you are sexually attracted to your victim.
80% of the victims in the Church have been males. Is it difficult to see how thousands of boys may have been spared this experience if there had not been so many homosexuals in the priesthood? Or are we going to pretend that even a heterosexual may attempt to get his thrills by molesting a 15 year old boy? If so, I have no idea what the words heterosexual and homosexual mean anymore.
I have been accused of focusing on this issue because it implicates gays while ignoring abuse perpetrated by heterosexuals. That couldn’t be further from the truth. I have written extensively about the epidemic of (mostly heterosexual) abuse in the public school system. There is very little public interest in this problem, and I have not been able to generate much through my own efforts, but not for lack of trying. As I have observed, it is probably not a great idea to have women in their 20’s teaching teenaged boys, just as it is not ideal to have men in their 20’s teaching teenaged girls. We may not always have much of a choice, but the problems inherent in such an arrangement are apparent.
In a similar way, it is not a good idea to have homosexual men living together in rectories and seminaries, and working closely with teen boys. This is not a homophobic theory I am positing. It is an observation I am making based on 50 years worth of data. It is nothing but moral cowardice to refuse to face the facts. Source – The Daily Wire
Given the above facts, the criteria already set out by the Vatican document Careful Selection And Training Of Candidates For The States Of Perfection And Sacred Orders (S. C. Rel., 2 Feb., 1961) which contains the following warning, is worth noting: Advancement to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and the priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers.
This prohibition on ordaining homosexuals is repeated in 2005 here so, there can be no possible justification for seminaries to continue accepting and ordaining homosexual men,: “… the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called “gay culture”. Source
Or, must we ignore the facts, and opt for political correctness to “move with the [ever-changing] – and ever-more sexually permissive – times”?
A: It is a ceremony by which a person, group of persons, or thing is set apart as sacred and dedicated to the service of God or another sacred purpose.
2. What is meant by “the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary”? A: At Fatima, on July 13, 1917, Our Lady told Sister Lucy that “God is about to punish the world for its crimes, by means of war, famine, and persecutions of the Church and of the Holy Father. To prevent this, I shall come to ask for the Communions of reparation and for the consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart … In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to Me, which will be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world.”
Our Lady’s request is very simple: Russia—the fount of so much evil in the 20th Century—must be set apart and made sacred by its consecration to the Mother of God.
3. Why is it necessary to consecrate Russia in particular? A: Because God wills it. As Our Lady told Sister Lucy at Fatima: “Russia will be the instrument of chastisement chosen by Heaven to punish the whole world if we do not beforehand obtain the conversion of that poor nation …”
And as Sister Lucy disclosed in her published memoirs and letters, Our Lord Himself confided to her that He would not convert Russia unless the consecration were done, “Because I want My whole Church to recognize that consecration as a triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, so that it may extend its cult later on, and put the devotion to this Immaculate Heart beside the devotion to My Sacred Heart.”
Sister Lucy has explained that because Russia is a well-defined territory, the conversion of Russia after its consecration to the Immaculate Heart would be undeniable proof that the conversion resulted from the consecration and nothing else. The establishment in the world of devotion to the Immaculate Heart would thus be confirmed by God Himself in the most dramatic manner. Read rest of the Frequently Asked Questions about the Consecration of Russia here