Death From Covid Preferable to Tyranny? 

The day after Governor Tim Walz announced new lockdowns in the state of Minnesota, Michael Matt address the “Stuff Your Mandate” rally outside of the governor’s mansion. Michael touches on the questions of the Great Reset and the long term plan behind the lockdowns and ongoing war on civil liberties in America and around the world. (Taken from The Remnant – click here for source).

Comment: 

Today, the mainstream media is interpreting President Trump’s tweet announcing that he has recommended General Services Administration head Emily Murphy to move forward with transition, as an acceptance of defeat. Click  here to read more.  Is the media jumping to conclusions – is this  the end of the Trump presidency and if so is the world now is at the mercy of the globalists’ drive to totally control us? 

We’re already living under totalitarian rule in the UK – Donald Trump is the only leader fighting this tyranny.  If he is unjustly thrown out of the White House, what next for the world?   Joe Biden is already using the globalist slogan “Build Back Better” which means better for him, for them, for the elite behind The Great Reset. Another slogan being spread abroad is “You’ll own nothing and you’ll be happy about it…” And Michael Matt is correct when he says this is not a conspiracy theory, they’re shouting it from the rooftops:  here’s the World Economic Forum spelling it out as clearly as possible, so that we are all prepared for The Great Reset of God’s world to conform to tyrannical rule…

Marxist Pope Francis is part of it all – so, as we witness the Fatima prophecies unfolding before our very eyes, we must pray, pray, pray, and when we’ve done that, pray again. And alongside our prayer, we must act; as Michael Matt says, we must resist this tyranny in every way possible. 

Yet, incredibly, it seems that many – if not most – people will disagree with the assertion that death from Covid is preferable to tyranny.  Are you one of those people – or would you prefer to risk dying from “the virus” rather than  lose your personal and religious freedoms;  rather than live under totalitarian rule forever?  Here’s another glimpse into life in the future – certainly for those of you hoping to travel the world… already one airline has said it will require proof of vaccination for international travel – click here to read more

Who will fight to save us from this tyranny if Donald Trump is forced out of office by the demonic forces which have been working against his presidency since before even he took office. Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!   

Excommunication: Archbishop Lefebvre & Bishop Pat Buckley… Spot the Difference!

As promised in our July Newsletter – which you can download from our website here –  we are launching a brief discussion on the matter of two prominent 20th century excommunications: that of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Founder of the Society of St Pius X (SSPX) and Bishop Pat Buckley…  A brief overview of each situation follows: 

Archbishop Lefebvre…

From the SSPX website…

Following the repeated requests of several young men seeking a traditional priestly formation, Archbishop Lefebvre opened a new seminary in Econe, Switzerland. The local ordinary, Bishop Francois Charriere, gave his blessing for this work, and on November 1, 1970 the Priestly Society of St. Pius X was born with the approval of the Church.

A brief account of the history of the SSPX can be read here. One detail, however, should be added to that general account, as it pertains primarily to Archbishop Lefebvre’s involvement in the Coetus Internationalis Patrum. During the Second Vatican Council, an important friendship developed between Marcel Lefebvre and Antonio de Castro Mayer, bishop of Campos (Brazil). These two shared ideas at the various Coetus functions and kept in contact long after the close of the council. They both refused to implement the modernist teachings of Vatican II and in 1983 jointly authored an open letter to the pope lamenting the numerous errors which seemed to infect Rome. When Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated four new bishops in 1988, Bishop de Castro Mayer assisted as co-consecrator.  To read more, click here

From The Remnant website…

Sadly, in the current catastrophe that is the Post-Conciliar Church, some blinded men, instead of joining the fight against the heresy, apostasy, and de facto schism around us, insist on melodramatically condemning, with the most condescending and arrogant invective, the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. Although any excommunication that was previously levied against the living bishops of the SSPX has long since been remitted, some hardened Neo-Catholics insist that Abp. Lefebvre himself remains perpetually excommunicated, one Neo-Catholic priest even going so far as to presume his damnation. Thus the same Neo-Catholics who tell us that the Church’s perennial teachings on religious liberty, ecumenism, and collegiality are confined to past times and changeable, treat a 1988 letter from a pope as if its infallibility ranked somewhere between Dogma and Holy Writ.

The 1988 letter I am referring to, of course, is John Paul II’s Ecclesia Dei adflictaTwenty-six years later, Neo-Catholics cling to this letter as it represents, in their minds anyway, the one infallible document that ensures Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre can never be rehabilitated or declared a Saint in the future. As usual, the irony of the Neo-Catholics, on the one hand preaching the Mass of Pius V is changeable at the whim of future popes, while on the other hand preaching John Paul II’s excommunication is certainly valid and binding for all time, escapes them entirely.  To read the entire article on The Remnant website, click here

Bishop Pat Buckley…

Google Father or Bishop Pat Buckley and the description “rebel priest” comes up… Here, in his own words, is why he was dismissed from his parish

 

Later, Fr Buckley was consecrated a bishop, as reported in the Irish Times: 

“The rebel cleric, Bishop Pat Buckley, has excommunicated himself from the Catholic Church by being consecrated as a bishop, a Hierarchy spokesman has said.

The church spokesman said the ordination of Bishop Buckley by the Tridentine bishop, Dr Michael Cox, was “valid but unlawful” (under Canon law).”  To read rest of this report click  here

Comment: 

The adjective often used to describe both bishops is “rebel”.  Archbishop Lefebvre is well known for his work to preserve Catholic Tradition against the innovations following Vatican II, while Bishop Buckley is well known for his dissent from Catholic teachings, such as the prohibition on divorce and remarriage.  Archbishop Lefebvre fought to keep the Church within Catholic Tradition, while Bishop Buckley seeks to achieve changes in the Church which will meet the perceived needs of contemporary Catholics living in a “liberal” society.  

So, check out the headline – IS there any difference between the two excommunications?   

Traditional Conference: “Porn Priest” & Bishop Fellay To Share Platform… 

“Angelus Press is the publishing house of the Society of Saint Pius X. It has defended the Catholic Faith for over 40 years and now reaches the four corners of the globe with its numerous publications and products. Through these last 40 years Angelus Press has maintained an uncompromising adherence to Tradition and unflinchingly continues the work started by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre…” Source 

Given the close association between the SSPX and Angelus Press, therefore, it is not difficult, to imagine the horror of one of our readers who emailed earlier today with the shocking news that a priest of the Diocese of Lincoln, USA, regarded as something of an expert in pornography and who promotes an entirely new approach to how to deal with impure thoughts, has been invited to address the Angelus Press Conference, 4-6 October:  “Defense of the Family: Fortifying Catholic Marriage.” With Guest Speaker: Bishop Bernard Fellay – Source

Below, the biographical note about Fr Sean Kilcawley, taken from the diocesan website: 

About Fr Sean Kilcawley, Director of the Office of Family Life

Fr. Sean Kilcawley is a nationally recognized speaker on Theology of the Body, Human Love and pornography addiction. He was ordained a priest in 2005 for the Diocese of Lincoln. He served as assistant pastor at St. Joseph and North American Martyrs and taught Theology of the body at Pius X High School from 2005-2009. In 2013 Fr. Kilcawley completed a License in Sacred Theology at the John Paul II institute for marriage and family studies in Rome and returned to the Diocese of Lincoln as director of Religious Education. Fr. Kilcawley currently serves as the Director of the Office of Family Life and theological advisor for Integrity Restored.com--a non-profit organization that seeks to restore the integrity of families affected by pornography by providing education and resources to individuals, spouses, parents and clergy; to both heal and prevent wounds inflicted by the sexualized culture.

My correspondent provided me with plenty of written evidence to demonstrate that this priest is most definitely not a suitable speaker for ANY Catholic event, let alone a supposedly traditional – SSPX – event.  However, I’ve already written too much, so I’ll now let  Fr Kilcawley speak for himself in the short video clip below.  His advice on dealing with impurity contradicts, outright, the advice of saints down the centuries, so would YOU want your teenage children listening to this man?  Are you happy to think that priests and parents, not to mention a traditional Catholic Bishop,  will be listening to this man at a Conference ostensibly designed to defend  the family and to strengthen Catholic marriage?  No?  Well,  what should happen now, then?   Should the invitation be withdrawn?  We had to do this ourselves a few years ago, when we invited an American author to address one of our Conferences but, on uncovering some doubt about some of her claims, we felt we had no choice but to disinvite her.  So…  should Angelus Press withdraw its invitation to Fr Kilcawley? 

The devil is always discovering something novel against the truth.
                                                Pope St. Leo the Great   

Sin No Laughing Matter… But Is THIS How To Teach Cleverly About Purity?

 

Comment: 

It’s nearly impossible not to see the funny side of much of Jason’s talk.  Easy to see why teenagers would thoroughly enjoy his lectures. Still,  certain “givens” cause concern; should Catholics be accepting of, for example, “dating” in High School?  That’s just one of many reservations which I have about the above speaker but, hey, I can be something of a prude compared to what most people think is normal and harmless these days. And Jason is very likeable – we have to give him that.  Students will love him.  No question about it. 

A teacher friend responded to my concerns by emailing: I stand by the Jason Evert material because he gets through to the pupils in their idiom while remaining faithful to Christ.  His personal struggle with lust and his conversion are a good example to them.

I tend to think that clear teaching about Original Sin, which has caused us to have a particular weakness or inclination to commit sexual sin, ought to cancel the need for explicit personal examples, but, as I say, I  may be out on a limb with this one.

So, let’s have YOUR opinion, as parents, teachers, or simply Joe & Josephine Bloggs.  Key question:  would you be happy if your children – early teenagers or university students – were present at this kind of talk/lesson?

And remember to give reason(s) for your answer 😀   

Ad Tuendam Fidem, Ad Tuendam Fidem… Wherefore Art Thou ? 

JOHN PAUL II
Apostolic Letter Motu Proprio
AD TUENDAM FIDEM,
by which certain norms are inserted
into the Code of Canon Law
and into the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches

PROTECT THE FAITH of the Catholic Church against errors arising from certain members of the Christian faithful, especially from among those dedicated to the various disciplines of sacred theology, we, whose principal duty is to confirm the brethren in the faith (Lk 22:32), consider it absolutely necessary to add to the existing texts of the Code of Canon Law and the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, new norms which expressly impose the obligation of upholding truths proposed in a definitive way by the Magisterium of the Church, and which also establish related canonical sanctions.

1.From the first centuries to the present day, the Church has professed the truths of her faith in Christ and the mystery of his redemption. These truths were subsequently gathered into the Symbols of the faith, today known and proclaimed in common by the faithful in the solemn and festive celebration of Mass as the Apostles’ Creed or the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.

This same Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed is contained in the Profession of faith developed by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,(1) which must be made by specific members of the faithful when they receive an office, that is directly or indirectly related to deeper investigation into the truths of faith and morals, or is united to a particular power in the governance of the Church.(2)

2. The Profession of faith, which appropriately begins with the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, contains three propositions or paragraphs intended to describe the truths of the Catholic faith, which the Church, in the course of time and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit “who will teach the whole truth” (Jn 16:13), has ever more deeply explored and will continue to explore.(3)

The first paragraph states: “With firm faith, I also believe everything contained in the word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church either by a solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed.”(4) This paragraph appropriately confirms and is provided for in the Church’s universal legislation, in canon 750 of the Code of Canon Law(5) and canon 598 of the Code of the Canons of the Eastern Churches.(6)

The third paragraph states: “Moreover I adhere with submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.”(7) This paragraph has its corresponding legislative expression in canon 752 of the Code of Canon Law(8) and canon 599 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches.(9)

3. The second paragraph, however, which states “I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals,”(10) has no corresponding canon in the Codes of the Catholic Church. This second paragraph of the Profession of faith is of utmost importance since it refers to truths that are necessarily connected to divine revelation. These truths, in the investigation of Catholic doctrine, illustrate the Divine Spirit’s particular inspiration for the Church’s deeper understanding of a truth concerning faith and morals, with which they are connected either for historical reasons or by a logical relationship.

4. Moved therefore by this need, and after careful deliberation, we have decided to overcome this lacuna in the universal law in the following way:

A) Canon 750 of the Code of Canon Law will now consist of two paragraphs; the first will present the text of the existing canon; the second will contain a new text. Thus, canon 750, in its complete form, will read:

Canon 750 – § 1. Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal Magisterium, which in fact is manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. All are therefore bound to avoid any contrary doctrines.
§ 2. Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely, those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Canon 1371, n. 1 of the Code of Canon Law, consequently, will receive an appropriate reference to canon 750 § 2, so that it will now read:

Canon 1371 – The following are to be punished with a just penalty:

a person who, apart from the case mentioned in canon 1364 § 1, teaches a doctrine condemned by the Roman Pontiff, or by an Ecumenical Council, or obstinately rejects the teachings mentioned in canon 750 § 2 or in canon 752 and, when warned by the Apostolic See or by the Ordinary, does not retract;

a person who in any other way does not obey the lawful command or prohibition of the Apostolic See or the Ordinary or Superior and, after being warned, persists in disobedience.

B) Canon 598 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches will now have two paragraphs: the first will present the text of the existing canon and the second will contain a new text. Thus canon 598, in its complete form, will read as follows:

Canon 598 – § 1. Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal Magisterium, which in fact is manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. All Christian faithful are therefore bound to avoid any contrary doctrines.

§ 2. Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely, those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Canon 1436 § 2 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, consequently, will receive an appropriate reference to canon 598 § 2, so that it will now read:

Canon 1436 – § 1. Whoever denies a truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or who calls into doubt, or who totally repudiates the Christian faith, and does not retract after having been legitimately warned, is to be punished as a heretic or an apostate with a major excommunication; a cleric moreover can be punished with other penalties, not excluding deposition.
§ 2. In addition to these cases, whoever obstinately rejects a teaching that the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising the authentic Magisterium, have set forth to be held definitively, or who affirms what they have condemned as erroneous, and does not retract after having been legitimately warned, is to be punished with an appropriate penalty.

5. We order that everything decreed by us in this Apostolic Letter, given motu proprio, be established and ratified, and we prescribe that the insertions listed above be introduced into the universal legislation of the Catholic Church, that is, into the Code of Canon Law and into the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, all things to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

Given in Rome, at St Peter’s, on 18 May, in the year 1998, the twentieth of our Pontificate.
JOHN PAUL II

Read document at source here, including footnotes. 

 

 

Comment:

Here we have a clear sign that Pope John Paul II wished Canon Law to be enforced against dissenters, heretics and apostates.  The above Motu Proprio spells it out clearly:  reject Catholic truths and you set yourself against the teaching of the Catholic Church – we are, one and all, to avoid any contrary doctrines.  Yet, Pope John Paul II himself did not apply it.  Odd. 

So, what happened?  Why was it never invoked?  Or, did I miss it?  Whatever, is there any offender (or a million) at the present time, to whom, one might think, the penalties might be applied, which Pope John Paul II inserted to strengthen Canon Law against dissenters, heretics and apostates?  Only asking, not least because Ad tuendam fidem seems to have disappeared into thin air, which is why we ask:  Ad tuendam fidem, Ad tuendam fidem… wherefore art thou, Romeo, Ad tuendam fidem ?   

Pope Francis: is it spiritual blindness or sheer idiocy that prevents him from seeing the need to ACT… NOW?! 

Comment invited…    

13 May: Feast of Our Lady of Fatima!

“The Message of Fatima
imposes an obligation on the Church”.… Pope John Paul II

FAQ…  from the Fatima Center website

1. What is a “consecration”?

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

Click here to view all the Catholic Truth videos on our website

Member of European Parliament: Alfie Evans Case “Institutional Arrogance”

Little Alfie died at 2.30.a.m. this morning and, as a baptised Catholic, we know he is in Heaven. So we need not pray for him, but pray for the consolation of his parents.

Comment:

The MEP in the above video, describes the attitude of the medical and legal establishment in the UK as “institutional arrogance” for their intransigent refusal to allow Alfie to be taken abroad for a “second opinion” /  treatment in an Italian hospital. 

Given that the opponents of Brexit persistently tell us how the NHS depends on staff, doctors and nurses, from EU countries to keep it up and running, there can’t be any question mark over the qualifications, skills or ability of the medical staff in the Italian hospital which was prepared to accept Alfie.  There was a fully equipped air ambulance provided by the Italian Government on stand-by ready to take Alfie to Italy.  So what on earth was the problem? Should any doctor or medical team have the right to keep a child prisoner, against the wishes of his/her parents, especially in the face of the provisions in place by other equally well qualified medics? 

It was Pope John Paul II who coined the term “culture of death” – is this what we are witnessing in the UK and if so, isn’t it time we campaigned for a new law which affirms the right of parents in such cases to over-ride the wishes of doctors?  Is there a need for “Alfie’s Law” to protect the rights of parents in similar situations? 

Pope Francis’ Exhortation on Holiness Pushes Ecumenical Holy Spirit…

Holiness is the most attractive face of the Church. But even outside the Catholic Church and in very different contexts, the Holy Spirit raises up “signs of his presence which help Christ’s followers”.[7] Saint John Paul II reminded us that “the witness to Christ borne even to the shedding of blood has become a common inheritance of Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans and Protestants”.[8] In the moving ecumenical commemoration held in the Colosseum during the Great Jubilee of the Year 2000, he stated that the martyrs are “a heritage which speaks more powerfully than all the causes of division”. (#9) Source

 

Comment:

Pope Francis persists in giving the impression that salvation is a “done deal” , as long as people are kind and caring to the less fortunate.  While it is true that souls may be saved who are not within the visible bounds of the Catholic Church, it is not true to claim that they are thus saved in their false (or no) religion.  Souls are saved ONLY through Christ’s Passion and Death, through the operations of grace within His Church.  Why won’t the Pope say this?  Why give the impression that the Holy Spirit is “ecumenical”? 

And there’s plenty more to shock in this encyclical – so feel free to identify the part(s) that had you choking on your post-Easter chocolate…