USA: Use of Executive Power to Declare Health Emergency has its Limits – Lawyer

Comment:  

The lawyer in the above video won, impressively, when he represented priests and rabbis in court, challenging the lockdown rules in New York which militated against places of worship…

As for Scotland – do we have any lawyers who are concerned at the way our personal and religious liberty is being eroded?  As we face the continual introduction of fresh rules and regulations, with a further lockdown always hanging over our heads, do we have any legal recourse to challenge the removal of our personal freedom?  Should we simply accept the fact that we cannot invite people into our home or visit the homes of our relatives and friends? Should the Government really be able to issue such orders?  Restrict the number of people who may gather for a chat?

And what about our religious liberty… In the event of another full-blown lockdown, with a repeated ban on attending church, do we have any clergy who might pursue a case to challenge the State’s interference in Church matters?  

The New York case, as Chris Ferrara points out, was not brought by diocesan clergy/bishops, but by traditional priests, so that means, in Scotland, that either the priests of the Society of St Peter (FSSP) or the priests of the Society of St Pius X (FSSPX) are in the frame.  There are not a lot of them, to be fair, so it seems unlikely that either of those groups will be plaintiffs in court any time soon.  And, of course, as we know, the diocesan bishops are very keen to keep the churches under the thumb of the Government.  So, they’re never going to institute a legal challenge.  In any case, is it desirable?  Or should we all just accept our lot, and offer up the injustice?   Share your thoughts…   

Archbishop Viganò: Don’t Leave the Church – Stay and Fight the Modernists! 

This new statement is important, inasmuch as in recent days, both Father Thomas Weinandy, as well as Father Raymond de Souza, spread the suspicion that the Italian prelate might be “schismatic,” thus intending to leave the Catholic Church. This suspicion had arisen because of Viganò’s critique of the Second Vatican Council and its detrimental effects on the life of the faith in the Church. For example, de Souza’s article is entitled: “Is Archbishop Viganò’s Rejection of the Second Vatican Council Promoting Schism?” And Weinandy stated: “My concern is that, in his radical reading of the Council, the archbishop is spawning his own schism.”

In an August 22 article published by the traditional Catholic newspaper Catholic Family News, Kokx had asked Viganò a set of questions with regard to what faithful laity can do in the midst of this Church crisis that is going back to the Council. 

Kokx suggested Viganò needs to give more advice to laity and priests on what to do next: “He’s certainly diagnosed the problem, but what are his solutions, if any? What, in other words, is it that he believes Catholics in the 21st century should do in response to the crisis?”

Archbishop Viganò’s response as published on September 1 by Catholic Family News (see full text below) is clear: it is not the faithful Catholics who oppose the changing of the faith, but those who perpetrate these changes that ought to be questioned. He writes that we need to discuss “the position of those who, declaring themselves Catholic, embrace the heterodox doctrines that have spread over these decades, with the awareness that these represent a rupture with the preceding Magisterium. In this case it is licit to doubt their real adherence to the Catholic Church, in which however they hold official roles that confer authority on them.”

If people who hold heterodox views are in positions of authority in the Church, he continues, “It is an illicitly exercised authority, if its purpose is to force the faithful to accept the revolution imposed since the Council.”

In addition and on a practical level, the Italian prelate gives us advice on how to live and grow in the faith, working on our sanctification and remaining in the state of “sanctifying grace.” But at the same time, we are to assist and “comfort” good priests and bishops, seeking out reverent Masses. 

“Faithful laity have the right and the duty to find priests, communities, and institutes that are faithful to the perennial Magisterium,” Viganò explains. “And may they know how to accompany the laudable celebration of the liturgy in the Ancient Rite with adherence to sound doctrine and morals, without any subsidence on the front of the Council.”

Finally, Archbishop Viganò also praises the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), which has defended the traditional faith for decades now. They “deserve recognition” for their work of preserving the Catholic faith, he says, and adds that he considers Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the founder of this Society, to be a “confessor of the Faith.”

Here we might remember that just recently, a cardinal stated that Lefebvre will one day be declared a “Doctor of the Church” and that he was “prophetic.”

Let us close with Viganò’s last words of his response to Kokx’s questions:

“The cure for rebellion is obedience. The cure for heresy is faithfulness to the teaching of Tradition. The cure for schism is filial devotion for the Sacred Pastors. The cure for apostasy is love for God and His Most Holy Mother. The cure for vice is the humble practice of virtue. The cure for the corruption of morals is to live constantly in the presence of God. But obedience cannot be perverted into stolid servility; respect for authority cannot be perverted into the obeisance of the court. And let’s not forget that if it is the duty of the laity to obey their Pastors, it is even a more grave duty of the Pastors to obey God, usque ad effusionem sanguinis.”

Below is the full statement by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, reprinted with permission:

Disclaimer: The following positions adopted and advice offered by Archbishop Viganò do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews and are presented only for your information.

Dear Mr. Kokx,

I read with lively interest your article “Questions for Viganò: His Excellency is Right about Vatican II, But What Does He Think Catholic Should Do Now?” which was published by Catholic Family News on August 22 (here). I am happy to respond to your questions, which address matters that are very important for the faithful.

You ask: “What would ‘separating’ from the Conciliar Church look like in Archbishop Viganò’s opinion?” I respond to you with another question: “What does it mean to separate from the Catholic Church according to the supporters of the Council?” While it is clear that no admixture is possible with those who propose adulterated doctrines of the conciliar ideological manifesto, it should be noted that the simple fact of being baptized and of being living members of the Church of Christ does not imply adherence to the conciliar team; this is true above all for the simple faithful and also for secular and regular clerics who, for various reasons, sincerely consider themselves Catholics and recognize the Hierarchy.

Instead, what needs to be clarified is the position of those who, declaring themselves Catholic, embrace the heterodox doctrines that have spread over these decades, with the awareness that these represent a rupture with the preceding Magisterium. In this case it is licit to doubt their real adherence to the Catholic Church, in which however they hold official roles that confer authority on them. It is an illicitly exercised authority, if its purpose is to force the faithful to accept the revolution imposed since the Council.

Once this point has been clarified, it is evident that it is not the traditional faithful – that is, true Catholics, in the words of Saint Pius X – that must abandon the Church in which they have the full right to remain and from which it would be unfortunate to separate; but rather the Modernists who usurp the Catholic name, precisely because it is only the bureaucratic element that permits them not to be considered on a par with any heretical sect. This claim of theirs serves in fact to prevent them from ending up among the hundreds of heretical movements that over the course of the centuries have believed to be able to reform the Church at their own pleasure, placing their pride ahead of humbly guarding the teaching of Our Lord. But just as it is not possible to claim citizenship in a homeland in which one does not know its language, law, faith and tradition; so it is impossible that those who do not share the faith, morals, liturgy, and discipline of the Catholic Church can arrogate to themselves the right to remain within her and even to ascend the levels of the hierarchy.

The situation is certainly more complex for clerics, who depend hierarchically on their bishop or religious superior, but who at the same time have the right to remain Catholic and be able to celebrate according to the Catholic Rite. On the one hand laity have more freedom of movement in choosing the community to which they turn for Mass, the Sacraments, and religious instruction, but less autonomy because of the fact that they still have to depend on a priest; on the other hand, clerics have less freedom of movement, since they are incardinated in a diocese or order and are subject to ecclesiastical authority, but they have more autonomy because of the fact that they can legitimately decide to celebrate the Mass and administer the Sacraments in the Tridentine Rite and to preach in conformity with sound doctrine. The Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum reaffirmed that faithful and priests have the inalienable right – which cannot be denied – to avail themselves of the liturgy that more perfectly expresses their Catholic Faith. But this right must be used today not only and not so much to preserve the extraordinary form of the rite, but to testify to adherence to the depositum fidei that finds perfect correspondence only in the Ancient Rite.

I daily receive heartfelt letters from priests and religious who are marginalized or transferred or ostracized because of their fidelity to the Church: the temptation to find an ubi consistam [a place to stand] far from the clamor of the Innovators is strong, but we ought to take an example from the persecutions that many saints have undergone, including Saint Athanasius, who offers us a model of how to behave in the face of widespread heresy and persecuting fury. As my venerable brother Bishop Athanasius Schneider has many times recalled, the Arianism that afflicted the Church at the time of the Holy Doctor of Alexandria in Egypt was so widespread among the bishops that it leaves one almost to believe that Catholic orthodoxy had completely disappeared. But it was thanks to the fidelity and heroic testimony of the few bishops who remained faithful that the Church knew how to get back up again. Without this testimony, Arianism would not have been defeated; without our testimony today, Modernism and the globalist apostasy of this pontificate will not be defeated.

It is therefore not a question of working from within the Church or outside it: the winemakers are called to work in the Lord’s Vineyard, and it is there that they must remain even at the cost of their lives; the pastors are called to pastor the Lord’s Flock, to keep the ravenous wolves at bay and to drive away the mercenaries who are not concerned with the salvation of the sheep and lambs.

This hidden and often silent work has been carried out by the Society of Saint Pius X, which deserves recognition for not having allowed the flame of Tradition to be extinguished at a moment in which celebrating the ancient Mass was considered subversive and a reason for excommunication. Its priests have been a healthy thorn in the side for a hierarchy that has seen in them an unacceptable point of comparison for the faithful, a constant reproach for the betrayal committed against the people of God, an inadmissible alternative to the new conciliar path. And if their fidelity made disobedience to the pope inevitable with the episcopal consecrations, thanks to them the Society was able to protect herself from the furious attack of the Innovators and by its very existence it allowed the possibility of the liberalization of the Ancient Rite, which until then was prohibited. Its presence also allowed the contradictions and errors of the conciliar sect to emerge, always winking at heretics and idolaters but implacably rigid and intolerant towards Catholic Truth.

I consider Archbishop Lefebvre an exemplary confessor of the Faith, and I think that by now it is obvious that his denunciation of the Council and the modernist apostasy is more relevant than ever. It should not be forgotten that the persecution to which Archbishop Lefebvre was subjected by the Holy See and the world episcopate served above all as a deterrent for Catholics who were refractory toward the conciliar revolution.

I also agree with the observation of His Excellency Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais about the co-presence of two entities in Rome: the Church of Christ has been occupied and eclipsed by the modernist conciliar structure, which has established itself in the same hierarchy and uses the authority of its ministers to prevail over the Spouse of Christ and our Mother.

The Church of Christ – which not only subsists in the Catholic Church, but is exclusively the Catholic Church – is only obscured and eclipsed by a strange extravagant Church established in Rome, according to the vision of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich. It coexists, like wheat with the tare, in the Roman Curia, in dioceses, in parishes. We cannot judge our pastors for their intentions, nor suppose that all of them are corrupt in faith and morals; on the contrary, we can hope that many of them, hitherto intimidated and silent, will understand, as confusion and apostasy continue to spread, the deception to which they have been subjected and will finally shake off their slumber. There are many laity who are raising their voice; others will necessarily follow, together with good priests, certainly present in every diocese. This awakening of the Church militant – I would dare to call it almost a resurrection – is necessary, urgent and inevitable: no son tolerates his mother being outraged by the servants, or his father being tyrannized by the administrators of his goods. The Lord offers us, in these painful situations, the possibility of being His allies in fighting this holy battle under His banner: the King Who is victorious over error and death permits us to share the honor of triumphal victory and the eternal reward that derives from it, after having endured and suffered with Him.

But in order to deserve the immortal glory of Heaven we are called to rediscover – in an emasculated age devoid of values such as honor, faithfulness to one’s word, and heroism – a fundamental aspect of the faith of every baptized person: the Christian life is a militia, and with the Sacrament of Confirmation we are called to be soldiers of Christ, under whose insignia we must fight. Of course, in most cases it is essentially a spiritual battle, but over the course of history we have seen how often, faced with the violation of the sovereign rights of God and the liberty of the Church, it was also necessary to take up arms: we are taught this by the strenuous resistance to repel the Islamic invasions in Lepanto and on the outskirts of Vienna, the persecution of the Cristeros in Mexico, of the Catholics in Spain, and even today by the cruel war against Christians throughout the world. Never as today can we understand the theological hatred coming from the enemies of God, inspired by Satan. The attack on everything that recalls the Cross of Christ – on Virtue, on the Good and the Beautiful, on purity – must spur us to get up, in a leap of pride, in order to claim our right not only not to be persecuted by our external enemies but also and above all to have strong and courageous pastors, holy and God-fearing, who will do exactly what their predecessors have done for centuries: preach the Gospel of Christ, convert individuals and nations, and expand the Kingdom of the living and true God throughout the world.

We are all called to make an act of Fortitude – a forgotten cardinal virtue, which not by chance in Greek recalls virile strength, ἀνδρεία – in knowing how to resist the Modernists: a resistance that is rooted in Charity and Truth, which are attributes of God.

If you only celebrate the Tridentine Mass and preach sound doctrine without ever mentioning the Council, what can they ever do to you? Throw you out of your churches, perhaps, and then what? No one can ever prevent you from renewing the Holy Sacrifice, even if it is on a makeshift altar in a cellar or an attic, as the refractory priests did during the French Revolution, or as happens still today in China. And if they try to distance you, resist: canon law serves to guarantee the government of the Church in the pursuit of its primary purposes, not to demolish it. Let’s stop fearing that the fault of the schism lies with those who denounce it, and not, instead, with those who carry it out: the ones who are schismatics and heretics are those who wound and crucify the Mystical Body of Christ, not those who defend it by denouncing the executioners!

The laity can expect their ministers to behave as such, preferring those who prove that they are not contaminated by present errors. If a Mass becomes an occasion of torture for the faithful, if they are forced to assist at sacrileges or to support heresies and ramblings unworthy of the House of the Lord, it is a thousand times preferable to go to a church where the priest celebrates the Holy Sacrifice worthily, in the rite given to us by Tradition, with preaching in conformity with sound doctrine. When parish priests and bishops realize that the Christian people demand the Bread of Faith, and not the stones and scorpions of the neo-church, they will lay aside their fears and comply with the legitimate requests of the faithful. The others, true mercenaries, will show themselves for what they are and will be able to gather around them only those who share their errors and perversions. They will be extinguished by themselves: the Lord dries up the swamp and makes the land on which brambles grow arid; he extinguishes vocations in corrupt seminaries and in convents rebellious to the Rule.

The lay faithful today have a sacred task: to comfort good priests and good bishops, gathering like sheep around their shepherds. Give them hospitality, help them, console them in their trials. Create community in which murmuring and division do not predominate, but rather fraternal charity in the bond of Faith. And since in the order established by God – κόσμος – subjects owe obedience to authority and cannot do otherwise than resist it when it abuses its power, no fault will be attributed to them for the infidelity of their leaders, on whom rests the very serious responsibility for the way in which they exercise the vicarious power which has been given to them. We must not rebel, but oppose; we must not be pleased with the errors of our pastors, but pray for them and admonish them respectfully; we must not question their authority but the way in which they use it.

I am certain, with a certainty that comes to me from Faith, that the Lord will not fail to reward our fidelity, after having punished us for the faults of the men of the Church, granting us holy priests, holy bishops, holy cardinals, and above all a holy Pope. But these saints will arise from our families, from our communities, from our churches: families, communities, and churches in which the grace of God must be cultivated with constant prayer, with the frequenting of Holy Mass and the Sacraments, with the offering of sacrifices and penances that the Communion of Saints permits us to offer to the Divine Majesty in order to expiate our sins and those of our brethren, including those who exercise authority. The laity have a fundamental role in this, guarding the Faith within their families, in such a way that our young people who are educated in love and in the fear of God may one day be responsible fathers and mothers, but also worthy ministers of the Lord, His heralds in the male and female religious orders, and His apostles in civil society.

The cure for rebellion is obedience. The cure for heresy is faithfulness to the teaching of Tradition. The cure for schism is filial devotion for the Sacred Pastors. The cure for apostasy is love for God and His Most Holy Mother.

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!

The cure for vice is the humble practice of virtue. The cure for the corruption of morals is to live constantly in the presence of God. But obedience cannot be perverted into stolid servility; respect for authority cannot be perverted into the obeisance of the court. And let’s not forget that if it is the duty of the laity to obey their Pastors, it is even a more grave duty of the Pastors to obey God, usque ad effusionem sanguinis.

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop
September 1, 2020               

Source               

Comments invited…                                    

3 September: Feast of St Pius X: Greatest Pope of 20 Century – “Miracle Saint”…

The light that shone in the Church during eleven years of pontificate was extinguished on August 20, 1914. Pope Pius X fell sick on the Feast of the Assumption of Our Lady (Aug. 15) and received extreme unction and Holy Viaticum before dying. He was buried August 23, and his tomb immediately became the object of a popular devotion. 

Santo Subito

Pope Pius X’s reputation of sanctity was immediate. This was undoubtedly due to his qualities as a “miracle-saint” but also on account of the respect he inspired by his supernatural bearing. A number of cardinals, archbishops, bishops, vicars and prefects apostolic, pious societies, groups of Catholic Action, Catholic universities, and many of the faithful quickly wrote expressing their desire to see Pius X proclaimed a saint without delay. Thus in a letter dated September 24, 1916, Msgr. Leo, Bishop of Nicotera and Tropea, speaks of “a great saint and a great pope.”

The flood of pilgrims was such that the Vatican crypt could no longer contain them all. As a result, Cardinal Merry del Val, archpriest of St. Peter’s Basilica, had a small metal cross set into the floor of the basilica so that the faithful might kneel down directly above the tomb. The cross bore the inscription Pius Papa X.

Cardinal Merry del Val, the former Secretary of State of Pope Pius X celebrated Holy Mass near the tomb on the 20th of every month, until February 20, 1930, when he did so for the last time–six days before his own death.   Click here to read more…

Comment: 

Do you agree with the Pope’s claim about weak Catholics?   Can there be any doubt?  Is there anything, in particular, in the above article which provides insights into the greatness of Pius X?  Share your thoughts…

Too Many Polish Masses In The UK? 

Comment: 

Some time ago, one of our English readers emailed to ask if I would consider posting a discussion thread on the fact that there are a lot of Masses in the Polish language in parishes across the UK:  this irks him, somewhat, because it seems to contradict the Vatican II concept of Mass in the vernacular, meaning the language of each country.  If there are to be Masses in Polish everywhere, where Polish is not the everyday language of a nation, why not other languages as well?  Should there be Masses in French, in German, in Gaelic – you’ll get the idea.  OR should those who move to the UK to live and work, simply “do what the Romans do” (so to speak) and attend Mass in the vernacular here – which is English?  Is it right to “exclude” those who do not speak Polish?   

It does seem to be the Polish community, uniquely, which requires Masses in their national language. Yet,  I’ve met quite a few Poles – all of whom speak fluent English, so why is it that they seek Masses in their native tongue?  And why do the clergy accommodate them?   

Being a regular attendee at the traditional Latin Mass, this is not an issue which affects me personally in any way, although I can see the contradictions inherent in the arguments for abandoning the Church’s official language (Latin) in order to make Mass available in the vernacular, only to find that parishes are providing Masses for the Polish community – in Polish.  IS there a contradiction? If so, does it matter?  

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?   

Young Catholics in Scotland Talk About The Faith: Well… Sort of… Not Really… 

Comment:

The young people in the above video (published in November, 2018) are just lovely.  Each and every one of them is transparently pleasant and sincere.  They are obviously proud to be Catholics, God bless their tartan socks 😀  

Yet, there is no way to gauge the level of their knowledge and understanding of the Faith.  Their assessment of what it’s like to be a young Catholic in Scotland today is generic; there’s no substance to any of their comments.  There can’t be substance, really, because  they’ve not been properly taught the Faith themselves. We know this is the case because the Faith hasn’t been taught faithfully in Catholic schools in Scotland for (literally) generations now. 

Is it likely that these very pleasant and sincere youngsters would be qualified to discuss and debate key Catholic dogma and morals?  And if not, how can they really know what it is like to be a young Catholic in Scotland today?   Is it not more accurate to claim that they have experienced what it is like to be a religious young person in Scotland today, albeit from a Catholic background?    

Why Question Only Vatican II And Not Trent Or Vatican I? Archbishop Viganò…

Below, extracts from a June 2020 interview about Vatican II with Archbishop Vigano – From Catholic Culture

Archbishop Vigano: I do not think that it is necessary to demonstrate that the Council represents a problem: the simple fact that we are raising this question about Vatican II and not about Trent or Vatican I seems to me to confirm a fact that is obvious and recognized by everyone. In reality, even those who defend the Council with swords drawn find themselves doing so apart from all the other previous ecumenical councils, of which not even one was ever said to be a pastoral council. And note that they call it “the Council” par excellence, as if it was the one and only council in the entire history of the Church, or at least considering it as an unicum whether because of the formulation of its doctrine or for the authority of its magisterium. It is a council that, differently from all those that preceded it, called itself a pastoral council, declaring that it did not want to propose any new doctrine, but which in fact created a distinction between before and after, between a dogmatic council and a pastoral council, between unequivocal canons and empty talk, between anathema sit and winking at the world…

Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò

You ask me: “How were all the Council fathers deceived?” I reply by drawing on my experience of those years and the words of my brothers with whom I engaged in discussion at that time. No one could have imagined that right in the heart of the ecclesial body there were hostile forces so powerful and organized that they could succeed in rejecting the perfectly orthodox preparatory schemas that had been prepared by Cardinals and Prelates with a reliable fidelity to the Church, replacing them with a bundle of cleverly disguised errors behind long-winded and deliberately equivocal speeches.

No one could have believed that, right under the vaults of the Vatican Basilica, the estates-general could be convoked that would decree the abdication of the Catholic Church and the inauguration of the Revolution…

The Council Fathers were the object of a sensational deception, of a fraud that was cleverly perpetrated by having recourse to the most subtle means: they found themselves in the minority in the linguistic groups, excluded from meetings convened at the last moment, pressured into giving their placet by making them believe that the Holy Father wanted it. And what the innovators did not succeed in obtaining in the Conciliar Aula, they achieved in the Commissions and Committees, thanks also to the activism of theologians and periti who were accredited and acclaimed by a powerful media machine. There is a vast array of studies and documents that testify to this systematic malicious mens [mentality] of some of the Council Fathers on the one hand, and the naïve optimism or carelessness of other well-intentioned Council Fathers on the other. The activity of the Coetus Internationalis Patrum [opposing the innovators] could do little or nothing, when the violations of the rules by the progressives were ratified at the Sacred Table itself [by the Pope].  Click here to read entire interview

Comments invited…   

June: O Take me to Thy Sacred Heart… 

The two young teenage friends of Catholic Truth singing in the above video, asked to do so because they want to honour Our Lord’s Sacred Heart, to mark this Month of June – the month traditionally dedicated to paying tribute to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. They assure me of their motivation, insisting that it’s not because I was threatening to sing this myself!   It is one of my favourite hymns and since I’m keen to add it to our small collection of video hymns,  I decided to take them at their word.  The two lads (who are 14 and 17 respectively) deserve our warmest appreciation  because they’re not students of music, or in any way professionally qualified, yet they gave generously of their time to learn the hymn and record it for us, so… Enjoy! 

As always, with Feast Day or dedicated “month” threads, feel free to post your own favourite hymns, prayers, novenas, stories etc.  Here’s one short prayer that I’m sure we all learned at school (well, those of us in a certain age group, at least!)…

O Sacred Heart of Jesus, I place all my trust in Thee…  

Pentecost: Doctrine not absolute, does not replace the Holy Spirit – Jesuit Chief

As we mark the Feast of Pentecost, 31 May, we need to pray extremely hard for the Pope and entire Hierarchy at this time of huge crisis in the Church. Evidence of this crisis abounds. Scandalously, for example, a Lifesitenews report dated February 22, 2017 quoted the Head of the Jesuit Order questioning the truth of the Gospel itself, claiming that we may put our own interpretation on the words of Christ – always, of course, with the “discernment” of the Holy Spirit: Doctrine is a word that I don’t like very much.

Things have not improved since 2017, but have become steadily worse. The protestantising of the faithful through the new Mass succeeded to the point where, as the Jesuit Superior reveals, the Protestant belief that we may interpret Christ’s words for ourselves is all but “settled science” in the minds of contemporary Catholics.

So, let’s pray for the Pope and Bishops today, in a special way, as we mark the coming of the Holy Spirit to give courage to the infant Church – but not, as many preachers will mistakenly claim, to mark “the birthday of the Church“.    Some perfectly sound priests use that phrase or sentiment to mark Pentecost, but it is misleading and can lead to the Protestant claim that the Church only began at Pentecost – the rest is down to human beings, misinterpretation of Scripture and the rest.  That’s false.  Our Lord established His Church on earth, when He gave the keys to Peter and set up His hierarchical community (cf Mk 3:14-15 / Matt 16:18). It was at Pentecost, however, that the Church was openly revealed: When the work which the Father gave the Son to do on earth was accomplished, the Holy Spirit was sent on the day of Pentecost in order that he might continually sanctify the Church…and so that the Church can fulfil her mission endowed with the gifts of her Founder (cf Catechism of the Catholic Church, #765 ff). 

Below, the hymn in honour of the  Holy Spirit, popular especially at Pentecost.  As ever on any devotional thread, feel free to post your own favourite hymns and prayers, and to discuss any relevant issues relating to the Feast. 

Finally, note:  31st May is traditionally the Feast of the Queenship of Our Lady, so, given that she was present at that first Pentecost with the apostles, let us renew our pleas to her to intercede for us, to obtain special graces for Pope Francis and the entire Hierarchy on the occasion of the Feast of Pentecost, 2020.  Our Lady, Queen of the Apostles, pray for us. 

Priest on Scandal of Denying The One True Religion: Outstanding Interview

Comment: 

Fr David Sherry is an Irish priest of the Society of St Pius X (SSPX) who served in Scotland for a year before he was re-assigned to Canada.  We have very happy memories of him in Glasgow – indeed, one of my Great-Nephews received his First Holy Communion from Fr Sherry, with a photograph on their fridge as a permanent reminder! 

Topics for discussion in the above lengthy interview with Fr Sherry of the SSPX, include: 

1. What is the SSPX
2. Who was [Archbishop] Lefebvre
3. Was he guilty of a schismatic act when he ordained 4 bishops or was it necessary due to a state of emergency?
4. Does the Vatican allow Catholics to attend SSPX masses to fulfil their Sunday obligation?
5. Is the status of the SSPX currently canonically irregular or schismatic?
6. Will there be an agreement with the Vatican soon, in your estimation?
7. What are some of the problems with Vatican II?
8. What are your thoughts on the Pachamama ceremony in the Vatican Gardens?
9. Is the Novus Ordo valid?
10. What should a Catholic do if an SSPX chapel is not available near them?

Share your thoughts on Father’s very clear explanation of the work of the Society in the context of the current unprecedented crisis in the Church.  What possible reason can anyone offer for continuing to avoid the SSPX Masses/Sacraments in this worsening time of trial within the Church? 

For more conferences, visit the St Peter’s Hamburg blog