“Our once great western Christian civilization is dying. If this matters to followers of Jesus Christ, then we must set aside our denominational differences and work together to strengthen the things that remain and reclaim what has been lost. Evangelicals and Catholics must stand together to re-establish that former Christian culture and moral consensus. We have the numbers and the organization but the question is this: Do we have the will to win this present spiritual battle for Jesus Christ against secularism? Will we prayerfully and cooperatively work toward a new Christian spiritual revival ― or will we choose to hunker down in our churches and denominationalisms and watch everything sink into the spiritual and moral abyss of a New Dark Age?” - Mark Davis Pickup

Friday, June 26, 2020

LOVE WILL ULTIMATELY PREVAIL

Have you ever wondered why God put His precious gift of life in such frail packaging? If life is so precious and sacred—as the Scriptures proclaim—then why did God place it in bodies of flesh and bone? Skin and flesh tear and bleed; bones and hearts break.

Why didn't God encase His precious gift of life in bodies as tough as granite and the human psyche safely guarded as though behind some mighty fortress? Such thoughts occasionally rise within me from a desire to protect loved-ones from life's pains and sorrows.

After all, there would be no need to wipe away tears if none are shed. But then, consider that humans encased in bodies like granite, and hearts like stone, would be of no use to God or man. Granite is impenetrable. Hearts of stone would never ache, break or melt.

After more than 36 years of chronic illness (multiple sclerosis) I have come to the conclusion that our time on earth is for spiritual growth, not mere survival.  The Scriptures tell us that God is love (1John 4.8). A God of love must have something to give his love to and humanity is the object of his love. We know this because, as far as we can tell, humanity is the only thing in creation to bear the indelible image of God (Genesis 1.26-27). A God of love must surely want to be loved in return. A central part of genuine love is that it is given freely to the loved. 

Love is a choice
Real love is a choice, an act of the will. That is what makes love such a high ask proposition. As soon as there are choices, there's a risk of the loved making the wrong choice. The risks of love are horribly high for both God and humanity. But the prospect of living in a loveless world is unthinkable!

When God created human free will, He knew his love might not be returned. People may choose to love the world rather than the Creator of it. When our Lord said, "For where your treasure is, there also will be your heart" He was challenging human priorities and loyalties (Matthew 6.21). Christ was laying out a stark choice for humanity: Either love God and the permanent things of heaven (yet unseen) or the temporary things of earth. Our first love and priority can be to seek "treasures on earth" (to use Christ's words) or "treasures in heaven."  Jesus spoke of them as two mutually exclusive masters of the heart. "No-one can serve two masters. Either he will hate one and love the other, or be devoted to one and despise the other. You can not serve God and mammon." (verse 24.)

Mammon is an Aramaic word meaning wealth or property. But it can also symbolize anything temporal and fleeting such as youth, beauty, health or social status.

To choose anything over God is to rebuff his love. Love spurned is a terrible thing. To love without reciprocation is bitter. Divine overtures rejected, despised or mocked must be unbearably painful to the heart of God.  I suppose He could have made us without the capacity to decide and programmed us like robots to drone his praises. But that would hardly be love returned, it would hardly be a love worth having.

Jesus said He would rather have people who are hot or cold toward Him, not lukewarm (Revelation 3.14-16). A heart animated with love or hate is still human; a heart dead with indifference may as well be made of granite. Indifference to the love of God is worse than cursing him!

Love is vulnerable
God made himself vulnerable for the sake of loving and being loved. Why should we expect anything else? To love is to be vulnerable. It goes both ways. Hearts of stone and souls in fortresses would not be protected from risks and buffeting of life, they would be prevented from truly living! Is that what I should want for my loved-ones in order to save them from pain or sorrow?

Vulnerable people give, accept and radiate love best.

I wrote earlier that I have come to the conclusion that the purpose of our time on earth is spiritual growth, not mere survival. This is what I meant: We only have a short time to learn and grow in reciprocal love (both human and divine). God's model for love encourages interdependence not independence.  We were designed to live in communities not fortresses. At the very beginning of creation, the Creator said, "It is not good for man to live alone." (Genesis 2.18).

Made for relationships
We are designed for relationships. Granted, you may find the odd recluse who prefers life as a hermit, but they are the exceptions to the rule. No! They are the exceptions that prove the rule! Fortresses separate and isolate. Granite is cold and hard. 

People live best in the warmth and welcome of interdependent communities that encourage reciprocal love. Love makes human beings vulnerable and fragile—it also gives meaning to life.

Despite the present violence we see each night on television, I still believe that God's divine love will prevail. That's the treasure in heaven about which Jesus spoke. 

MDP

Wednesday, June 24, 2020

THE FALSE PARALLEL CHURCH?

I am posting the following text in its entirety from an email I received this morning. It is critically important for all who love the universal Mother Catholic Church. — MDP

One Peter Five
June 10, 2020
Intro by Steve Skojec

Viganò: Vatican II Marked The Beginning of a False, Parallel Church 
Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò
I feel the need to offer a preface to the following text, the latest essay from Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, because I have recently been accused of being an opponent of his. This is not true, but the misperception is a consequence of public comments I have made to the effect that he now speaks so frequently that he has degraded himself from prophet to pundit and that he has consequently lost some of his force.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with punditry — after all, I would likely be considered a part of that class myself. But what Viganò brought us in the moment of that initial groundbreaking testimony in August of 2018 was something totally unique: the unvarnished perspective of an insider who understood how deep the corruption in the Church had really become, and who knew where all the bodies were buried. I disliked seeing the potency of his witness diluted through what seemed like too frequent commentary on various and sundry topics, often with a political edge.
And I have become very cynical about the amount of talk the few prelates willing to speak out have offered about our unprecedented crisis. Letters and essays and petitions abound, but nothing changes.
When I saw this morning that Viganò had released yet another statement, just a few days after his letter to President Trump, my first reaction was a sort of amused incredulity. Wasn’t he just proving my point?
But then I received the text from Giuseppe Pellegrino, who translated it for publication on Marco Tosatti’s website. I was given the gracious permission to publish it myself, and so I set about the task of reading.
And I have to apologize. Because Viganò the prophet is the author of this document.
This may be the most important thing he’s written. It’s hard to compare it, because it’s so different, to his original testimony. Each accomplishes something quite different. Perhaps neither is more or less important than the other, but both are vital in different ways.
In today’s text, we see the calmest, most succinct, most direct acknowledgment of what the Second Vatican Council has wrought that I have ever read from a member of the episcopacy. Traditionalists have often lamented that even our “heroes” within the Church are conciliar apologists, almost to a man. Here, in one serene and carefully considered text, Viganò shrugs that off and makes clear that in order for us to address what we are facing, we must all do the same:
There comes a moment in our life when, through the disposition of Providence, we are faced with a decisive choice for the future of the Church and for our eternal salvation. I speak of the choice between understanding the error into which practically all of us have fallen, almost always without evil intentions, and wanting to continue to look the other way or justify ourselves.
In only 4,000 words, Viganò addresses ecumenism, the Assisi events, Pachamama, the liturgy, the Abu Dhabi statement, the attempted change to the death penalty teaching, Bergoglio’s election as a triumph of revolution, the failed dubia attempt, and even the long-disputed question of subsistit in!
In one of the most powerful paragraphs of the text, he lays the origins of the problems we face at the feet of the Council itself:
[I]t is surprising that people persist in not wanting to investigate the root causes of the present crisis, limiting themselves to deploring the present excesses as if they were not the logical and inevitable consequence of a plan orchestrated decades ago. If the pachamama could be adored in a church, we owe it to Dignitatis Humanae. If we have a liturgy that is Protestantized and at times even paganized, we owe it to the revolutionary action of Msgr. Annibale Bugnini and to the post-conciliar reforms. If the Abu Dhabi Declaration was signed, we owe it to Nostra Aetate. If we have come to the point of delegating decisions to the Bishops’ Conferences – even in grave violation of the Concordat, as happened in Italy – we owe it to collegiality, and to its updated version, synodality. Thanks to synodality, we found ourselves with Amoris Laetitia having to look for a way to prevent what was obvious to everyone from appearing: that this document, prepared by an impressive organizational machine, intended to legitimize Communion for the divorced and cohabiting, just as Querida Amazonia will be used to legitimize women priests (as in the recent case of an “episcopal vicaress” in Freiburg) and the abolition of Sacred Celibacy. The Prelates who sent the Dubia to Francis, in my opinion, demonstrated the same pious ingenuousness: thinking that Bergoglio, when confronted with the reasonably argued contestation of the error, would understand, correct the heterodox points, and ask for forgiveness.
Viganò acknowledges, in clear and unequivocal language, how “disconcerting” it is that we are in a “race towards the abyss” in which those at “the highest levels of the Church” have responsibility for “supporting these anti-Christian ideologies.”
This is, I believe, an historic text. I had the sense as I was reading it that it could signal a turning point — a lifting of the veil. We all know — we can all feel — that the pre- and post-conciliar variants of Catholicism are not the same religion. Viganò, rather than admonishing us to attempt to rationalize and reconcile these differences, gives us permission to call a spade a spade (emphasis added):
It is no accident: what these men affirm with impunity, scandalizing moderates, is what Catholics also believe, namely: that despite all the efforts of the hermeneutic of continuity which shipwrecked miserably at the first confrontation with the reality of the present crisis, it is undeniable that from Vatican II onwards a parallel church was built, superimposed over and diametrically opposed to the true Church of Christ.
The full text of Viganò’s essay is below. I offer my profound gratitude to Marco Tosatti and Giuseppe Pellegrino for allowing us to reprint it here, and to His Excellency for having the courage and clarity to write it. May it open a great many eyes.
[VIGANO:]
9 June 2020
Saint Ephrem
             I read with great interest the essay of His Excellency Athanasius Schneider published on LifeSiteNews on June 1, subsequently translated into Italian by Chiesa e post concilio, entitled There is no divine positive will or natural right to the diversity of religions. His Excellency’s study summarizes, with the clarity that distinguishes the words of those who speak according to Christ, the objections against the presumed legitimacy of the exercise of religious freedom that the Second Vatican Council theorized, contradicting the testimony of Sacred Scripture and the voice of Tradition, as well as the Catholic Magisterium which is the faithful guardian of both.
             The merit of His Excellency’s essay lies first of all in its grasp of the causal link between the principles enunciated or implied by Vatican II and their logical consequent effect in the doctrinal, moral, liturgical, and disciplinary deviations that have arisen and progressively developed to the present day.
The monstrum generated in modernist circles could have at first been misleading, but it has grown and strengthened, so that today it shows itself for what it really is in its subversive and rebellious nature. The creature that was conceived at that time is always the same, and it would be naive to think that its perverse nature could change. Attempts to correct the conciliar excesses – invoking the hermeneutic of continuity – have proven unsuccessful: Naturam expellas furca, tamen usque recurret [Drive nature out with a pitchfork; she will come right back] (Horace, Epist. I,10,24). The Abu Dhabi Declaration – and, as Bishop Schneider rightly observes, its first symptoms in the pantheon of Assisi – “was conceived in the spirit of the Second Vatican Council” as Bergoglio proudly confirms. 
            This “spirit of the Council” is the license of legitimacy that the innovators oppose to their critics, without realizing that it is precisely confessing that legacy that confirms not only the erroneousness of the present declarations but also the heretical matrix that supposedly justifies them. On closer inspection, never in the history of the Church has a Council presented itself as such a historic event that it was different from any other council: there was never talk of a “spirit of the Council of Nicea” or the “spirit of the Council of Ferrara-Florence,” even less the “spirit of the Council of Trent,” just as we never had a “post-conciliar” era after Lateran IV or Vatican I. 
            The reason is obvious: those Councils were all, indiscriminately, the expression in unison of the voice of Holy Mother Church, and for this very reason the voice of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Significantly, those who maintain the novelty of Vatican II also adhere to the heretical doctrine that places the God of the Old Testament in opposition to the God of the New Testament, as if there could be contradiction between the Divine Persons of the Most Holy Trinity. Evidently this opposition that is almost gnostic or cabbalistic is functional to the legitimization of a new subject that is voluntarily different and opposed to the Catholic Church. Doctrinal errors almost always betray some sort of Trinitarian heresy, and thus it is by returning to the proclamation of Trinitarian dogma that the doctrines that oppose it can be defeated: ut in confessione veræ sempiternæque deitatis, et in Personis proprietas, et in essentia unitas, et in majestate adoretur æqualitas: Professing the true and eternal Divinity, we adore what is proper to each Person, their unity in substance, and their equality in majesty. 
            Bishop Schneider cites several canons of the Ecumenical Councils that propose, in his opinion, doctrines that today are difficult to accept, such as for example the obligation to distinguish Jews by their clothing, or the ban on Christians serving Muslim or Jewish masters. Among these examples there is also the requirement of the traditio instrumentorum declared by the Council of Florence, which was later corrected by Pius XII’s Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis. Bishop Athanasius comments: “One may rightly hope and believe that a future Pope or Ecumenical Council will correct the erroneous statement made” by Vatican II. This appears to me to be an argument that, although made with the best of intentions, undermines the Catholic edifice from its foundation. If in fact we admit that there may be Magisterial acts that, due to a changed sensitivity, are susceptible to abrogation, modification, or different interpretation with the passage of time, we inevitably fall under the condemnation of the Decree Lamentabili, and we end up offering justification to those who, recently, precisely on the basis of that erroneous assumption, declared that the death penalty “does not conform to the Gospel,” and thus amended the Catechism of the Catholic Church. And, by the same principle, in a certain way we could maintain that the words of Blessed Pius IX in Quanta Cura were in some manner corrected by Vatican II, just as His Excellency hopes could happen for Dignitatis Humanae. Among the examples he presents, none of them is in itself gravely erroneous or heretical: the fact that the Council of Florence declared that the traditio instrumentorum was necessary for the validity of Orders did not in any way compromise priestly ministry in the Church, leading her to confer Orders invalidly. Nor does it seem to me that one can affirm that this aspect, however important, led to doctrinal errors on the part of the faithful, something which instead has occurred only with the most recent Council. And when in the course of history various heresies spread, the Church always intervened promptly to condemn them, as happened at the time of the Synod of Pistoia in 1786, which was in some way anticipatory of Vatican II, especially where it abolished Communion outside of Mass, introduced the vernacular tongue, and abolished the prayers of the Canon said submissa voce; but even more so when it theorized about the basis of episcopal collegiality, reducing the primacy of the pope to a mere ministerial function. Re-reading the acts of that Synod leaves us amazed at the literal formulation of the same errors that we find later, in increased form, in the Council presided over by John XXIII and Paul VI. On the other hand, just as the Truth comes from God, so error is fed by and feeds on the Adversary, who hates the Church of Christ and her heart: the Holy Mass and the Most Holy Eucharist. 
There comes a moment in our life when, through the disposition of Providence, we are faced with a decisive choice for the future of the Church and for our eternal salvation. I speak of the choice between understanding the error into which practically all of us have fallen, almost always without evil intentions, and wanting to continue to look the other way or justify ourselves. 
            We have also committed the error, among others, of considering our interlocutors as people who, despite the difference of their ideas and their faith, were still motivated by good intentions and who would be willing to correct their errors if they could open up to our Faith. Together with numerous Council Fathers, we thought of ecumenism as a process, an invitation that calls dissidents to the one Church of Christ, idolaters and pagans to the one True God, and the Jewish people to the promised Messiah. But from the moment it was theorized in the conciliar commissions, ecumenism was configured in a way that was in direct opposition to the doctrine previously expressed by the Magisterium. 
            We have thought that certain excesses were only an exaggeration of those who allowed themselves to be swept up in enthusiasm for novelty; we sincerely believed that seeing John Paul II surrounded by charmers-healers , buddhist monks, imams, rabbis, protestant pastors and other heretics gave proof of the Church’s ability to summon people together in order to ask God for peace, while the authoritative example of this action initiated a deviant succession of pantheons that were more or less official, even to the point of seeing Bishops carrying the unclean idol of the pachamama on their shoulders, sacrilegiously concealed under the pretext of being a representation of sacred motherhood. 
But if the image of an infernal divinity was able to enter into Saint Peter’s, this is part of a crescendo which the other side foresaw from the beginning. Numerous practicing Catholics, and perhaps also a majority of Catholic clergy, are today convinced that the Catholic Faith is no longer necessary for eternal salvation; they believe that the One and Triune God revealed to our fathers is the same as the god of Mohammed. Already twenty years ago we heard this repeated from pulpits and episcopal cathedrae, but recently we hear it being affirmed with emphasis even from the highest Throne.
             We know well that, invoking the saying in Scripture Littera enim occidit, spiritus autem vivificat [The letter brings death, but the spirit gives life (2 Cor 3:6)]the progressives and modernists astutely knew how to hide equivocal expressions in the conciliar texts, which at the time appeared harmless to most but that today are revealed in their subversive value. It is the method employed in the use of the phrase subsistit in: saying a half-truth not so much as not to offend the interlocutor (assuming that is licit to silence the truth of God out of respect for His creature), but with the intention of being able to use the half-error that would be instantly dispelled if the entire truth were proclaimed. Thus “Ecclesia Christi subsistit in Ecclesia Catholica” does not specify the identity of the two, but the subsistence of one in the other and, for consistency, also in other churches: here is the opening to interconfessional celebrations, ecumenical prayers, and the inevitable end of any need for the Church in the order of salvation, in her unicity, and in her missionary nature. 
            Some may remember that the first ecumenical gatherings were held with the schismatics of the East, and very prudently with other Protestant sects. Apart from Germany, Holland, and Switzerland, in the beginning the countries of Catholic tradition did not welcome mixed celebrations with Protestant pastors and Catholic priests together. I recall that at the time there was talk of removing the penultimate doxology from the Veni Creator so as not to offend the Orthodox, who do not accept the Filioque. Today we hear the surahs of the Koran recited from the pulpits of our churches, we see an idol of wood adored by religious sisters and brothers, we hear Bishops disavow what up until yesterday seemed to us to be the most plausible excuses of so many extremisms. What the world wants, at the instigation of Masonry and its infernal tentacles, is to create a universal religion that is humanitarian and ecumenical, from which the jealous God whom we adore is banished. And if this is what the world wants, any step in the same direction by the Church is an unfortunate choice which will turn against those who believe that they can jeer at God. The hopes of the Tower of Babel cannot be brought back to life by a globalist plan that has as its goal the cancellation of the Catholic Church, in order to replace it with a confederation of idolaters and heretics united by environmentalism and universal brotherhood. There can be no brotherhood except in Christ, and only in Christ: qui non est mecum, contra me est
            It is disconcerting that few people are aware of this race towards the abyss, and that few realize the responsibility of the highest levels of the Church in supporting these anti-Christian ideologies, as if the Church’s leaders want to guarantee that they have a place and a role on the bandwagon of aligned thought. And it is surprising that people persist in not wanting to investigate the root causes of the present crisis, limiting themselves to deploring the present excesses as if they were not the logical and inevitable consequence of a plan orchestrated decades ago. If the pachamama could be adored in a church, we owe it to Dignitatis Humanae. If we have a liturgy that is Protestantized and at times even paganized, we owe it to the revolutionary action of Msgr. Annibale Bugnini and to the post-conciliar reforms. If the Abu Dhabi Declaration was signed, we owe it to Nostra Aetate. If we have come to the point of delegating decisions to the Bishops’ Conferences – even in grave violation of the Concordat, as happened in Italy – we owe it to collegiality, and to its updated version, synodality. Thanks to synodality, we found ourselves with Amoris Laetitia having to look for a way to prevent what was obvious to everyone from appearing: that this document, prepared by an impressive organizational machine, intended to legitimize Communion for the divorced and cohabiting, just as Querida Amazonia will be used to legitimize women priests (as in the recent case of an “episcopal vicaress” in Freiburg) and the abolition of Sacred Celibacy. The Prelates who sent the Dubia to Francis, in my opinion, demonstrated the same pious ingenuousness: thinking that Bergoglio, when confronted with the reasonably argued contestation of the error, would understand, correct the heterodox points, and ask for forgiveness. 
            The Council was used to legitimize the most aberrant doctrinal deviations, the most daring liturgical innovations, and the most unscrupulous abuses, all while Authority remained silent. This Council was so exalted that it was presented as the only legitimate reference for Catholics, clergy, and bishops, obscuring and connoting with a sense of contempt the doctrine that the Church had always authoritatively taught, and prohibiting the perennial liturgy that for millennia had nourished the faith of an uninterrupted line of faithful, martyrs, and saints. Among other things, this Council has proven to be the only one that has caused so many interpretative problems and so many contradictions with respect to the preceding Magisterium, while there is not one other council – from the Council of Jerusalem to Vatican I – that does not harmonize perfectly with the entire Magisterium or that needs so much interpretation. 
            I confess it with serenity and without controversy: I was one of the many people who, despite many perplexities and fears which today have proven to be absolutely legitimate, trusted the authority of the Hierarchy with unconditional obedience. In reality, I think that many people, including myself, did not initially consider the possibility that there could be a conflict between obedience to an order of the Hierarchy and fidelity to the Church herself. What made tangible this unnatural, indeed I would even say perverse, separation between the Hierarchy and the Church, between obedience and fidelity, was certainly this most recent Pontificate. 
            In the Room of Tears adjacent to the Sistine Chapel, while Msgr. Guido Marini prepared the white rocchetto, mozzetta, and stole for the first appearance of the “newly elected” Pope, Bergoglio exclaimed: “Sono finite le carnevalate! [The carnivals are over!],” scornfully refusing the insignia that all the Popes up until then had humbly accepted as the distinguishing garb of the Vicar of Christ. But those words contained truth, even if it was spoken involuntarily: on March 13, 2013, the mask fell from the conspirators, who were finally free of the inconvenient presence of Benedict XVI and brazenly proud of having finally succeeded in promoting a Cardinal who embodied their ideals, their way of revolutionizing the Church, of making doctrine malleable, morals adaptable, liturgy adulterable, and discipline disposable. And all this was considered, by the protagonists of the conspiracy themselves, the logical consequence and obvious application of Vatican II, which according to them had been weakened by the critiques expressed by Benedict XVI. The greatest affront of that Pontificate was the liberal permission of the celebration of the venerated Tridentine Liturgy, the legitimacy of which was finally recognized, disproving fifty years of its illegitimate ostracization. It is no accident that Bergoglio’s supporters are the same people who saw the Council as the first event of a new church, prior to which there was an old religion with an old liturgy. 
            It is no accident: what these men affirm with impunity, scandalizing moderates, is what Catholics also believe, namely: that despite all the efforts of the hermeneutic of continuity which shipwrecked miserably at the first confrontation with the reality of the present crisis, it is undeniable that from Vatican II onwards a parallel church was built, superimposed over and diametrically opposed to the true Church of Christ. This parallel church progressively obscured the divine institution founded by Our Lord in order to replace it with a spurious entity, corresponding to the desired universal religion that was first theorized by Masonry. Expressions like new humanism, universal fraternity, dignity of man, are the watchwords of philanthropic humanitarianism which denies the true God, of horizontal solidarity of vague spiritualist inspiration and of ecumenical irenism that the Church unequivocally condemns. “Nam et loquela tua manifestum te facit [Even your speech gives you away]” (Mt 26, 73): this very frequent, even obsessive recourse to the same vocabulary of the enemy betrays adherence to the ideology he inspires; while on the other hand the systematic renunciation of the clear, unequivocal and crystalline language of the Church confirms the desire to detach itself not only from the Catholic form but even from its substance. 
            What we have for years heard enunciated, vaguely and without clear connotations, from the highest Throne, we then find elaborated in a true and proper manifesto in the supporters of the present Pontificate: the democratization of the Church, no longer through the collegiality invented by Vatican II but by the synodal path inaugurated by the Synod on the Family; the demolition of the ministerial priesthood through its weakening with exceptions to ecclesiastical celibacy and the introduction of feminine figures with quasi-sacerdotal duties; the silent passage from ecumenism directed towards separated brethren to a form of pan-ecumenism that reduces the Truth of the One Triune God to the level of idolatries and the most infernal superstitions; the acceptance of an interreligious dialogue that presupposes religious relativism and excludes missionary proclamation; the demythologization of the Papacy, pursued by Bergoglio as a theme of his pontificate; the progressive legitimization of all that is politically correct: gender theory, sodomy, homosexual marriage, Malthusian doctrines, ecologism, immigrationism… If we do not recognize that the roots of these deviations are found in the principles laid down by the Council, it will be impossible to find a cure: if our diagnosis persists, against all the evidence, in excluding the initial pathology, we cannot prescribe a suitable therapy.          
            This operation of intellectual honesty requires a great humility, first of all in recognizing that for decades we have been led into error, in good faith, by people who, established in authority, have not known how to watch over and guard the flock of Christ: some for the sake of living quietly, some because of having too many commitments, some out of convenience, and finally some in bad faith or even malicious intent. These last ones who have betrayed the Church must be identified, taken aside, invited to amend and, if they do not repent they must be expelled from the sacred enclosure. This is how a true Shepherd acts, who has the well-being of the sheep at heart and who gives his life for them; we have had and still have far too many mercenaries, for whom the consent of the enemies of Christ is more important than fidelity to his Spouse.
          Just as I honestly and serenely obeyed questionable orders sixty years ago, believing that they represented the loving voice of the Church, so today with equal serenity and honesty I recognize that I have been deceived. Being coherent today by persevering in error would represent a wretched choice and would make me an accomplice in this fraud. Claiming a clarity of judgment from the beginning would not be honest: we all knew that the Council would be more or less a revolution, but we could not have imagined that it would prove to be so devastating, even for the work of those who should have prevented it. And if up until Benedict XVI we could still imagine that the coup d’état of Vatican II (which Cardinal Suenens called “the 1789 of the Church”) had experienced a slowdown, in these last few years even the most ingenuous among us have understood that silence for fear of causing a schism, the effort to repair papal documents in a Catholic sense in order to remedy their intended ambiguity, the appeals and dubia made to Francis that remained eloquently unanswered, are all a confirmation of the situation of the most serious apostasy to which the highest levels of the Hierarchy are exposed, while the Christian people and the clergy feel hopelessly abandoned and that they are regarded by the bishops almost with annoyance.
            The Abu Dhabi Declaration is the ideological manifesto of an idea of peace and cooperation between religions that could have some possibility of being tolerated if it came from pagans who are deprived of the light of Faith and the fire of Charity. But whoever has the grace of being a Child of God in virtue of Holy Baptism should be horrified at the idea of being able to construct a blasphemous modern version of the Tower of Babel, seeking to bring together the one true Church of Christ, heir to the promises made to the Chosen People, with those who deny the Messiah and with those who consider the very idea of a Triune God to be blasphemous. The love of God knows no measure and does not tolerate compromises, otherwise it simply is not Charity, without which it is not possible to remain in Him: qui manet in caritate, in Deo manet, et Deus in eo [whoever remains in love remains in God and God in him] (1 Jn 4:16). It matters little whether it is a declaration or a Magisterial document: we know well that the subversive mens of the innovators plays games with these sort of quibbles in order to spread error. And we know well that the purpose of these ecumenical and interreligious initiatives is not to convert those who are far from the one Church to Christ, but to divert and corrupt those who still hold the Catholic Faith, leading them to believe that it is desirable to have a great universal religion that brings together the three great Abrahamic religions “in a single house”: this is the triumph of the Masonic plan in preparation for the kingdom of the Antichrist! Whether this materializes through a dogmatic Bull, a declaration, or an interview with Scalfari in La Repubblica matters little, because Bergoglio’s supporters wait for his words as a signal to which they respond with a series of initiatives that have already been prepared and organized for some time. And if Bergoglio does not follow the directions he has received, ranks of theologians and clergy are ready to lament over the “solitude of Pope Francis” as a premise for his resignation (I think for example of Massimo Faggioli in one of his recent essays). On the other hand, it would not be the first time that they use the Pope when he goes along with their plans and get rid of him or attack him as soon as he does not. 
            Last Sunday, the Church celebrated the Most Holy Trinity, and in the Breviary it offers us the recitation of the Symbolum Athanasianum, now outlawed by the conciliar liturgy and already reduced to only two occasions in the liturgical reform of 1962. The first words of that now-disappeared Symbolum remain inscribed in letters of gold: “Quicumque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est ut teneat Catholicam fidem; quam nisi quisque integram inviolatamque servaverit, absque dubio in aeternum peribit – Whosoever wishes to be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith; For unless a person shall have kept this faith whole and inviolate, without doubt he shall eternally perish.”
 + Carlo Maria Viganò
Translated by Giuseppe Pellegrino @pellegrino2020
Originally published at Marco Tosatti’s blog

Saturday, June 13, 2020

ONLINE ASSISTED SUICIDE

Wesley J. Smith
America's top
bioethical thinker
One of America's top bioethical experts, Wesley J. Smith of recently gave an interview to EWTN's program Pro-Life Weekly. It is an important five minute interview about the creeping casualness of assisted suicide. Everyone of good will should watch this informative and shocking interview.  Click here.

Tuesday, June 9, 2020

WHAT'S IN A NAME?

I presume that soon someone will take offence that I have a blog with the name HumanLifeMatters. They may think (wrongly) that my blog somehow mocks or belittles Black Lives Matter. It does not. I began HumanLifeMatters in 2001 to express my belief in the sanctity and dignity of all human life from conception to natural death—and every state and stage between those two points. The blog was started in 2007. Black Lives Matters was started in 2013. 

Of course black lives matter! ALL human lives matter. I've dedicated my life to espousing the sanctity and worth of every human being. That's why I have the blog and apparently others feel the same way too. As of this date, The HumanLifeMatters blog has 867,000+ page-views from all across North America. But someone may get offended by the blog's name and call me a racist.


I will keep writing on the HumanLifeMatters blog until silenced by Google, some other entity or an individual who takes offence and complains. Is the blog conservative? Yes. I'm a conservative. Is it Christian? Absolutely! I am a Christian. These are things the anti-Christian radical left despise. And they shut down all voices but their own.
Mark
(I'm actually surprised the HumanLifeMatters blog hasn't been shut down earlier.)

Sunday, June 7, 2020

CHURCH MILITANT INTERVIEW WITH STEVE BANNON

Today's HumanLifeMatters post is a link to an important interview Michael Voris of Church Militant had with Steve Bannon at the end of May. They touch upon a number of topics such as the Marxist left having infiltrated the Catholic Church up to and including the Vatican, the Chinese Communist Party, the 2020 Presidential election, and the future of America at this critical juncture in history. I recommend readers of the HumanLifeMatters blog dedicate 33 minutes to watch this important interview (and forward this post to your contact) lists. Click https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6msMNt57oI

MDP

Tuesday, June 2, 2020

AMERICA: A NATION OF LAWS AND ORDER

Law and order. Three words that define a civil and civilized society. A nation must respect and live by its laws or it quickly descends into vigilantism, settling old (or new) scores and injustices (be they real or perceived) through violence & mayhem. When law and order are no longer respected, society soon collapses into anarchy. The killing of George Floyd calls out for justice. But justice is not achieved through violence in the streets, looting, pillaging, riots. It only creates new injustices meted out by frenzied mob rule, and indicate a nation disintegrating. 

The flames of rightful indignation over the killing of George Floyd are being fanned by groups like Antifa and the far-left. Many police sources assert that anarchists are travelling across states to keep the violence and riots going. This must not be tolerated and President Trump must ensure law and order is restored in cities across America. Unthinkable things are happening. When far-left rioters and the likes of Antifa set a home ablaze with a child inside then try to stop firefighters from rescuing that child, things have gone way too far.  The violence and riots MUST stop or be stopped with whatever force is necessary. 

There are inequalities and prejudices within American society, as there are within every nation. They are corrected with dialogue that seeks understanding and agreement within a growing and maturing moral ethos. It moves ever closer to a fuller appreciation of those towering truths found within America’s blazing foundational Declaration. 

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

It is a living document. Its truths continue to unfold with human understanding and progress. Let me ask some questions: Does America still believe there are certain truths that are self-evident and that there are unalienable rights? Are all people still created equal by their Creator (God)? 

Yes they are! 

Lay down the torches and rocks! Turn clenched fists into open hands. Replace shouting and vitriol with thoughtful discussion that seeks something akin to a consensus of how America moves toward a new embrace of racial equality.  Let people of good will, from across the political spectrum and differing social perspectives, set their resentments aside and sit together and work peacefully to set things right that are wrong and strengthen that which is right about American society. 

I am not an American but I love America. You have reached unparalleled heights of achievement and human freedoms—never before achieved in history! Please believe that (with God’s help) a collective change in the nation’s heart and ethos is possible. Move toward racial equality that transcends political affiliation, special agendas, or creeds. 

Support the President’s efforts to bring back order and safety to America’s streets, then begin non-violent, cooperative discussions that seek to resolve what is hurting the nation’s conscience. This has nothing to do with Republican versus Democrat or the November election. It has everything to do with the soul of a nation. God bless America.