lifesitenews--2020-07-03--Archbishop Viganò: I do not think Vatican II was invalid, but it was gravely manipulated

I am hoping to get a clarification from you about your latest texts regarding the second Vatican council .
In your June 9 text you said that “ it is undeniable that from Vatican II onwards a parallel church was built , superimposed over and diametrically opposed to the true Church of Christ.
” In your subsequent interview with Phil Lawler he asked : “ What is the solution ?
Bishop Schneider proposes that a future Pontiff must repudiate errors ; Archbishop Viganò finds that inadequate .
But then how can the errors be corrected , in a way that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
” You replied : “ It will be for one of his Successors , the Vicar of Christ , in the fullness of his apostolic power , to rejoin the thread of Tradition there where it was cut off .
This will not be a defeat but an act of truth , humility , and courage .
The authority and infallibility of the Successor of the Prince of the Apostles will emerge intact and reconfirmed ( bold mine ) .
” From this it is unclear whether you believe Vatican II to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be complete repudiated or if you believe that while a valid council it contained many errors and the faithful would be better served by having it forgotten about and could rather draw on Vatican I and other councils for their sustenance .
I believe this clarification would be helpful .
In Christ and His beloved Mother , I thank you for your letter , with which you give me the opportunity to clarify what I have already expressed about Vatican II .
This delicate argument is involving prominent persons of the ecclesiastical world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I trust that my modest contribution can help to lifting off the blanket of equivocations that weighs on the Council , thus leading to a shared solution .
You begin with my initial observation : “ It is undeniable that from Vatican II onwards a parallel church was built , superimposed over and diametrically opposed to the true Church of Christ , ” and then quote my words about the solution to the impasse in which we find ourselves today : “ It will be for one of his Successors , the Vicar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his apostolic power , to rejoin the thread of Tradition there where it was cut off .
This will not be a defeat but an act of truth , humility , and courage .
The authority and infallibility of the Successor of the Prince of the Apostles will emerge intact and reconfirmed.
” You then state that my position is not clear – “ whether you believe Vatican II to be an invalid council and thus to be complete repudiated , or if you believe that while a valid council it contained many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ served by having it forgotten about.
” I have never thought and even less have I affirmed that Vatican II was an invalid Ecumenical Council : in fact it was convoked by the supreme authority , by the Supreme Pontiff , and all of the Bishops of the world took part in it .
Vatican II is a valid Council , supported by the same authority as Vatican I and Trent .
However , as I have already written , from its origin it was made the object of a grave manipulation by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very heart of the Church that perverted its purposes , as confirmed by the disastrous results that are before everyone ’ s eyes .
Let us remember that in the French Revolution , the fact that the Estates-General were legitimately convoked on May 5 , 1789 , by Louis XVI did not prevent things from escalating into the Revolution and the Terror ( the comparison is not out of place , since Cardinal Suenens called the conciliar event “ the 1789 of the Church ” ) .
In his recent intervention , His @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Council places itself in continuity with the Tradition , and as proof of this he remarks : It is sufficient to glance at the notes of the text .
It can thus be seen that ten previous councils are quoted by the document .
Among these , Vatican I is referred to 12 times , and Trent 16 times .
From this it is already clear that , for example , any idea of “ distancing from Trent ” is absolutely excluded .
The relationship with Tradition appears even closer if we think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pius XII is cited 55 times , Leo XIII on 17 occasions , and Pius XI in 12 passages .
To these are added Benedict XIV , Benedict XV , Pius IX , Pius X , Innocent I and Gelasius .
The most impressive aspect , however , is the presence of the Fathers in the texts of Lumen Gentium .
The council refers to the teaching of the Fathers a full 44 times , including Augustine , Ignatius of Antioch , Cyprian , John Chrysostom and Irenaeus .
Furthermore , the great @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cited : Thomas Aquinas in 12 passages , along with seven other heavyweights .
As I pointed out in the analogous case of the Synod of Pistoia , the presence of orthodox content does not exclude the presence of other heretical propositions nor does it mitigate their gravity , nor can the truth be used to hide even only one single error .
On the contrary , the numerous citations of other Councils , of magisterial acts or of the Fathers of the Church can precisely serve to conceal , with a malicious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this regard , it is useful to recall the words of the Tractatus de Fide orthodoxa contra Arianos , cited by Leo XIII in his encyclical Satis Cognitum : There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine , and yet by one word , as with a drop of poison , infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic Tradition .
The practice of the Church has always been the same , as is shown by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion , and alien to the Church , whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium .
On the pages of L ’ Osservatore Romano , in an article on April 14 , 2013 , Cardinal Kasper admitted that “ in many places [ the Council Fathers ] had to find formulas of compromise , in which often the positions of the majority ( conservatives ) are found alongside those of the minority ( progressives ) , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the conciliar texts themselves have an enormous potential for conflict , opening the door to selective reception in both directions.
” This is the origin of the relevant ambiguities , patent contradictions , and serious doctrinal and pastoral errors .
It could be objected that taking into consideration the presumption of malice in a magisterial act ought to be rejected with disdain , since the Magisterium ought to be aimed at confirming the faithful in the Faith ; but perhaps it is precisely the intentional fraud that makes an act prove to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its nullity .
His Eminence Cardinal Brandmüller concluded his comment with these words : “ It would be appropriate to avoid the ‘ hermeneutic of suspicion ’ that accuses the interlocutor from the beginning of heretical conceptions.
” While I surely share this sentiment in the abstract and in general , I think it appropriate to formulate a distinction to better frame this concrete case .
In order to do this , it is necessary to abandon the approach , that is a bit too legalistic , that considers all doctrinal questions inherent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ principally on the basis of a normative reference : let us not forget that the law is at the service of the Truth , and not vice-versa .
And the same holds for the Authority that is the minister of that law and custodian of that Truth .
On the other hand , when Our Lord faced his Passion , the Synagogue had deserted its proper function as guide of the Chosen People in fidelity to the Covenant , just as part of the Hierarchy has done for sixty years .
This legalistic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deception of the Innovators , those who devised a very simple way to actuate the Revolution : imposing it by virtue of authority with an act that the Ecclesia docens adopted in order to define truths of the Faith with a binding force for the Ecclesia discens , restating that teaching in other equally binding documents , albeit in a different degree .
In short , it was decided to affix the label “ Council ” to an event conceived by some with the aim of demolishing the Church , and in order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ malicious intent and subversive purposes .
Father Edward Schillebeecks op candidly said : « We express it diplomatically , but after the Council we will draw the implicit conclusions » ( De Bazuin , n.16 , 1965 ) .
It is not therefore a question of a “ hermeneutic of suspicion , ” but on the contrary something much more grave than a suspicion , corroborated by a calm evaluation of the facts , as well as by the admission of the protagonists themselves .
In this regard , who among them is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impression grew steadily that nothing was now stable in the Church , that everything was open to revision .
More and more the Council appeared to be like a great Church parliament , that could change everything and reshape everything according to its own desires .
Very clearly resentment was growing against Rome and against the Curia , which appeared to be the real enemy of everything that was new and progressive .
The disputes at the Council were more and more portrayed according to the party model of modern parliamentarism .
When @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the person receiving it saw himself compelled to take sides with one of the parties .
[ ... ] If the bishops in Rome could change the Church , and even the faith itself ( as it appeared they could ) , why only the bishops ?
In any event , the faith could be changed – or so it now appeared , in contrast to everything we previously thought .
The faith no longer seemed exempt from human decision making but rather was now apparently determined by it .
And we knew @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the new things they were now proposing .
For believers , it was a remarkable phenomenon that their bishops seemed to show a different face in Rome from the one they wore at home .
[ J. Ratzinger , Milestones , Ignatius Press , 1997 , pp .
132-133 ] .
At this point it is right to draw attention to a recurring paradox in world affairs : the mainstream calls people “ conspiracy theorists ” if they reveal and denounce the conspiracy that the mainstream itself has devised , in order to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those who denounce it .
Similarly , it seems to me that there is the risk of defining as “ hermeneutic of suspicion ” anyone who reveals and denounces the conciliar fraud , as if they were people who unjustifiably accuse “ the interlocutor from the beginning of heretical conceptions.
” Instead , it is necessary to understand if the action of the protagonists of the Council can justify the suspicion towards them , if not actually prove such suspicion correct ; and if whether the result they obtained legitimizes a negative evaluation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of its parts , or of none of it .
If we persist in thinking that those who conceived Vatican II as a subversive event rivaled Saint Alphonsus in piety and Saint Thomas in doctrine , we demonstrate a naivety that can not be reconciled with the evangelical precept , and indeed borders on , if not connivance , then certainly carelessness .
Obviously , I am not referring to the majority of Council Fathers , who were certainly animated by pious and holy intentions ; I speak instead of the protagonists of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who up until Vatican II were restricted by canonical censures and forbidden from teaching , and who for this very reason were chosen and promoted and helped , so that their credentials of heterodoxy became a cause of merit for them , while the undisputed orthodoxy of Cardinal Ottaviani and his collaborators in the Holy Office were sufficient reason to consign the preparatory schemae of the Council to the flames , with the consent of John XXIII .
I doubt that with regard to Msgr .
Bugnini – to cite only one name @ @ @ @ @ @ @ either censurable or lacking in Charity .
On the contrary : the dishonesty of the author of the Novus Ordo in pursuing his purposes , his adherence to Masonry and his own admissions in his diaries given to the Press show that the measures taken by Paul VI toward him were all too lenient and ineffective , since everything he did in the Conciliar Commissions and at the Congregation of Rites remained intact and , despite this , became an integral part of the Acta Concilii and the related reforms .
Thus the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it serves to demonstrate that there are valid reasons for the suspicion and that these suspicions often materialize in the certainty of intentional fraud .
Let us now return to Vatican II , to demonstrate the trap into which the good Pastors fell , misled into error along with their flock by a most astute work of deception by people notoriously infected by Modernism and not rarely also misled in their own moral conduct .
As I wrote above , the fraud lies in having recourse to a Council as a container for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ utilization of the authority of the Church to impose the doctrinal , moral , liturgical , and spiritual revolution that is ontologically contrary to the purpose for which the Council was called and its magisterial authority was exercised .
I repeat : the label “ Council ” affixed to the packaging does not reflect its content .
We have witnessed a new and different way of understanding the same words of the Catholic lexicon : the expression “ ecumenical council ” given to the Council of Trent does not coincide with the meaning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , for whom the term “ council ” alludes to “ conciliation ” and the term “ ecumenical ” to inter-religious dialogue .
The “ spirit of the council ” is the “ spirit of conciliation , of compromise , ” just as the assembly was a solemn and public attestation of conciliatory dialogue with the world , for the first time in the history of the Church .
Bugnini wrote : “ We must take out of our Catholic prayers and the Catholic liturgy everything which could be the shadow of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Protestants ” [ cf .
L ’ Osservatore Romano , 19 March 1965 ] .
From these words we understand that the intent of the reform that was the fruit of the conciliar mens was to reduce the proclamation of Catholic Truth in order not to offend the heretics : and this is exactly what was done , not only in the Holy Mass – horribly disfigured in the name of ecumenism – but also in the exposition of dogma in the documents of doctrinal content ; the use of subsistit in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it will be possible to debate the motives that may have led to this unique event , so fraught with consequences for the Church ; but we can no longer deny the evidence and pretend that Vatican II was not something qualitatively different from Vatican I , despite the numerous heroic and documented efforts , even by the highest authority , to interpret it by force as a normal Ecumenical Council .
Anyone with common sense can see that it is an absurdity to want to interpret a Council , since it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unequivocal norm of Faith and Morals .
Secondarily , if a magisterial act raises serious and reasoned arguments that it may be lacking in doctrinal coherence with magisterial acts that have preceded it , it is evident that the condemnation of a single heterodox point in any case discredits the entire document .
If we add to this the fact that the errors formulated or left obliquely to be understood between the lines are not limited to one or two cases , and that the errors affirmed correspond conversely to an enormous mass @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we can ask ourselves whether it may be right to expunge the last assembly from the catalog of canonical Councils .
The sentence will be issued by history and by the sensus fidei of the Christian people even before it is given by an official document .
The tree is judged by its fruits , and it is not enough to speak of a conciliar springtime to hide the harsh winter that grips the Church ; nor to invent married priests and deaconesses in order to remedy the collapse of vocations ; nor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mentality in order to gain more consensus .
The Christian life is a militia , not a nice outing in the country , and this is all the more true for priestly life .
I conclude with a request to those who are profitably intervening in the debate about the Council : I would like us first and foremost to seek to proclaim salvific Truth to all men , because their and our eternal salvation depends on it ; and that we only secondarily concern ourselves with the canonical and juridical implications raised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ damnatio memoriae , it changes little .
If the Council truly did not change anything of our Faith , then let us pick up the Catechism of Saint Pius X , return to the Missal of Saint Pius V , remain before the Tabernacle , not desert the Confessional , and practice penance and mortification with a spirit of reparation .
This is whence the eternal youthfulness of the Spirit springs .
And above all : let us do so in such a way that our works give solid and coherent witness to @ @ @ @

(Editor’s note: The following exchange with former USA nuncio Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò is offered in the hopes of clarifying his position on this important matter of consideration in the Church.)
Dear Archbishop Viganò,
I am hoping to get a clarification from you about your latest texts regarding the second Vatican council.
In your June 9 text you said that “it is undeniable that from Vatican II onwards a parallel church was built, superimposed over and diametrically opposed to the true Church of Christ.”
In your subsequent interview with Phil Lawler he asked: “What is the solution? Bishop Schneider proposes that a future Pontiff must repudiate errors; Archbishop Viganò finds that inadequate. But then how can the errors be corrected, in a way that maintains the authority of the teaching magisterium?”
You replied: “It will be for one of his Successors, the Vicar of Christ, in the fullness of his apostolic power, to rejoin the thread of Tradition there where it was cut off. This will not be a defeat but an act of truth, humility, and courage. The authority and infallibility of the Successor of the Prince of the Apostles will emerge intact and reconfirmed (bold mine).”
From this it is unclear whether you believe Vatican II to be an invalid council and thus to be complete repudiated or if you believe that while a valid council it contained many errors and the faithful would be better served by having it forgotten about and could rather draw on Vatican I and other councils for their sustenance.
I believe this clarification would be helpful.
In Christ and His beloved Mother,
JH
1 July 2020
In festo Pretiosissimi Sanguinis
Domini Nostri Iesu Christi
Dear John-Henry,
I thank you for your letter, with which you give me the opportunity to clarify what I have already expressed about Vatican II. This delicate argument is involving prominent persons of the ecclesiastical world and not a few erudite laity: I trust that my modest contribution can help to lifting off the blanket of equivocations that weighs on the Council, thus leading to a shared solution.
You begin with my initial observation: “It is undeniable that from Vatican II onwards a parallel church was built, superimposed over and diametrically opposed to the true Church of Christ,” and then quote my words about the solution to the impasse in which we find ourselves today: “It will be for one of his Successors, the Vicar of Christ, in the fullness of his apostolic power, to rejoin the thread of Tradition there where it was cut off. This will not be a defeat but an act of truth, humility, and courage. The authority and infallibility of the Successor of the Prince of the Apostles will emerge intact and reconfirmed.”
You then state that my position is not clear – “whether you believe Vatican II to be an invalid council and thus to be complete repudiated, or if you believe that while a valid council it contained many errors and the faithful would be better served by having it forgotten about.” I have never thought and even less have I affirmed that Vatican II was an invalid Ecumenical Council: in fact it was convoked by the supreme authority, by the Supreme Pontiff, and all of the Bishops of the world took part in it. Vatican II is a valid Council, supported by the same authority as Vatican I and Trent. However, as I have already written, from its origin it was made the object of a grave manipulation by a fifth column that penetrated into the very heart of the Church that perverted its purposes, as confirmed by the disastrous results that are before everyone’s eyes. Let us remember that in the French Revolution, the fact that the Estates-General were legitimately convoked on May 5, 1789, by Louis XVI did not prevent things from escalating into the Revolution and the Terror (the comparison is not out of place, since Cardinal Suenens called the conciliar event “the 1789 of the Church”).
In his recent intervention, His Eminence Cardinal Walter Brandmüller maintains that the Council places itself in continuity with the Tradition, and as proof of this he remarks:
It is sufficient to glance at the notes of the text. It can thus be seen that ten previous councils are quoted by the document. Among these, Vatican I is referred to 12 times, and Trent 16 times. From this it is already clear that, for example, any idea of “distancing from Trent” is absolutely excluded. The relationship with Tradition appears even closer if we think of how, among the popes, Pius XII is cited 55 times, Leo XIII on 17 occasions, and Pius XI in 12 passages. To these are added Benedict XIV, Benedict XV, Pius IX, Pius X, Innocent I and Gelasius. The most impressive aspect, however, is the presence of the Fathers in the texts of Lumen Gentium. The council refers to the teaching of the Fathers a full 44 times, including Augustine, Ignatius of Antioch, Cyprian, John Chrysostom and Irenaeus. Furthermore, the great theologians and doctors of the Church are cited: Thomas Aquinas in 12 passages, along with seven other heavyweights.
As I pointed out in the analogous case of the Synod of Pistoia, the presence of orthodox content does not exclude the presence of other heretical propositions nor does it mitigate their gravity, nor can the truth be used to hide even only one single error. On the contrary, the numerous citations of other Councils, of magisterial acts or of the Fathers of the Church can precisely serve to conceal, with a malicious intent, the controversial points. In this regard, it is useful to recall the words of the Tractatus de Fide orthodoxa contra Arianos, cited by Leo XIII in his encyclical Satis Cognitum:
There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic Tradition.
Leo XIII then comments:
The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.
On the pages of L’Osservatore Romano, in an article on April 14, 2013, Cardinal Kasper admitted that “in many places [the Council Fathers] had to find formulas of compromise, in which often the positions of the majority (conservatives) are found alongside those of the minority (progressives), designed to delimit them. Therefore, the conciliar texts themselves have an enormous potential for conflict, opening the door to selective reception in both directions.” This is the origin of the relevant ambiguities, patent contradictions, and serious doctrinal and pastoral errors.
It could be objected that taking into consideration the presumption of malice in a magisterial act ought to be rejected with disdain, since the Magisterium ought to be aimed at confirming the faithful in the Faith; but perhaps it is precisely the intentional fraud that makes an act prove to be non-magisterial and authorizes its condemnation or decrees its nullity. His Eminence Cardinal Brandmüller concluded his comment with these words: “It would be appropriate to avoid the ‘hermeneutic of suspicion’ that accuses the interlocutor from the beginning of heretical conceptions.” While I surely share this sentiment in the abstract and in general, I think it appropriate to formulate a distinction to better frame this concrete case. In order to do this, it is necessary to abandon the approach, that is a bit too legalistic, that considers all doctrinal questions inherent in the Church as reducible and resolvable principally on the basis of a normative reference: let us not forget that the law is at the service of the Truth, and not vice-versa. And the same holds for the Authority that is the minister of that law and custodian of that Truth. On the other hand, when Our Lord faced his Passion, the Synagogue had deserted its proper function as guide of the Chosen People in fidelity to the Covenant, just as part of the Hierarchy has done for sixty years.
This legalistic attitude is at the foundation of the deception of the Innovators, those who devised a very simple way to actuate the Revolution: imposing it by virtue of authority with an act that the Ecclesia docens adopted in order to define truths of the Faith with a binding force for the Ecclesia discens, restating that teaching in other equally binding documents, albeit in a different degree. In short, it was decided to affix the label “Council” to an event conceived by some with the aim of demolishing the Church, and in order to do this the conspirators acted with malicious intent and subversive purposes. Father Edward Schillebeecks op candidly said: «We express it diplomatically, but after the Council we will draw the implicit conclusions» (De Bazuin, n.16, 1965).
It is not therefore a question of a “hermeneutic of suspicion,” but on the contrary something much more grave than a suspicion, corroborated by a calm evaluation of the facts, as well as by the admission of the protagonists themselves. In this regard, who among them is more authoritative than then-Cardinal Ratzinger?
The impression grew steadily that nothing was now stable in the Church, that everything was open to revision. More and more the Council appeared to be like a great Church parliament, that could change everything and reshape everything according to its own desires. Very clearly resentment was growing against Rome and against the Curia, which appeared to be the real enemy of everything that was new and progressive. The disputes at the Council were more and more portrayed according to the party model of modern parliamentarism. When information was presented in this way, the person receiving it saw himself compelled to take sides with one of the parties. […] If the bishops in Rome could change the Church, and even the faith itself (as it appeared they could), why only the bishops? In any event, the faith could be changed – or so it now appeared, in contrast to everything we previously thought. The faith no longer seemed exempt from human decision making but rather was now apparently determined by it. And we knew that the bishops had learned from theologians the new things they were now proposing. For believers, it was a remarkable phenomenon that their bishops seemed to show a different face in Rome from the one they wore at home. [J. Ratzinger, Milestones, Ignatius Press, 1997, pp. 132-133].
At this point it is right to draw attention to a recurring paradox in world affairs: the mainstream calls people “conspiracy theorists” if they reveal and denounce the conspiracy that the mainstream itself has devised, in order to divert attention from the conspiracy and delegitimize those who denounce it. Similarly, it seems to me that there is the risk of defining as “hermeneutic of suspicion” anyone who reveals and denounces the conciliar fraud, as if they were people who unjustifiably accuse “the interlocutor from the beginning of heretical conceptions.” Instead, it is necessary to understand if the action of the protagonists of the Council can justify the suspicion towards them, if not actually prove such suspicion correct; and if whether the result they obtained legitimizes a negative evaluation of the entire Council, of some of its parts, or of none of it. If we persist in thinking that those who conceived Vatican II as a subversive event rivaled Saint Alphonsus in piety and Saint Thomas in doctrine, we demonstrate a naivety that cannot be reconciled with the evangelical precept, and indeed borders on, if not connivance, then certainly carelessness. Obviously, I am not referring to the majority of Council Fathers, who were certainly animated by pious and holy intentions; I speak instead of the protagonists of the Council-event, of the so-called theologians who up until Vatican II were restricted by canonical censures and forbidden from teaching, and who for this very reason were chosen and promoted and helped, so that their credentials of heterodoxy became a cause of merit for them, while the undisputed orthodoxy of Cardinal Ottaviani and his collaborators in the Holy Office were sufficient reason to consign the preparatory schemae of the Council to the flames, with the consent of John XXIII.
I doubt that with regard to Msgr. Bugnini – to cite only one name – an attitude of prudent suspicion is either censurable or lacking in Charity. On the contrary: the dishonesty of the author of the Novus Ordo in pursuing his purposes, his adherence to Masonry and his own admissions in his diaries given to the Press show that the measures taken by Paul VI toward him were all too lenient and ineffective, since everything he did in the Conciliar Commissions and at the Congregation of Rites remained intact and, despite this, became an integral part of the Acta Concilii and the related reforms. Thus the hermeneutic of suspicion is quite welcome if it serves to demonstrate that there are valid reasons for the suspicion and that these suspicions often materialize in the certainty of intentional fraud.
Let us now return to Vatican II, to demonstrate the trap into which the good Pastors fell, misled into error along with their flock by a most astute work of deception by people notoriously infected by Modernism and not rarely also misled in their own moral conduct. As I wrote above, the fraud lies in having recourse to a Council as a container for a subversive maneuver, and in the utilization of the authority of the Church to impose the doctrinal, moral, liturgical, and spiritual revolution that is ontologically contrary to the purpose for which the Council was called and its magisterial authority was exercised. I repeat: the label “Council” affixed to the packaging does not reflect its content.
We have witnessed a new and different way of understanding the same words of the Catholic lexicon: the expression “ecumenical council” given to the Council of Trent does not coincide with the meaning given by the proponents of Vatican II, for whom the term “council” alludes to “conciliation” and the term “ecumenical” to inter-religious dialogue. The “spirit of the council” is the “spirit of conciliation, of compromise,” just as the assembly was a solemn and public attestation of conciliatory dialogue with the world, for the first time in the history of the Church.
Bugnini wrote: “We must take out of our Catholic prayers and the Catholic liturgy everything which could be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, the Protestants” [cf. L’Osservatore Romano, 19 March 1965]. From these words we understand that the intent of the reform that was the fruit of the conciliar mens was to reduce the proclamation of Catholic Truth in order not to offend the heretics: and this is exactly what was done, not only in the Holy Mass – horribly disfigured in the name of ecumenism – but also in the exposition of dogma in the documents of doctrinal content; the use of subsistit in is a very clear example.
Perhaps it will be possible to debate the motives that may have led to this unique event, so fraught with consequences for the Church; but we can no longer deny the evidence and pretend that Vatican II was not something qualitatively different from Vatican I, despite the numerous heroic and documented efforts, even by the highest authority, to interpret it by force as a normal Ecumenical Council. Anyone with common sense can see that it is an absurdity to want to interpret a Council, since it is and ought to be a clear and unequivocal norm of Faith and Morals. Secondarily, if a magisterial act raises serious and reasoned arguments that it may be lacking in doctrinal coherence with magisterial acts that have preceded it, it is evident that the condemnation of a single heterodox point in any case discredits the entire document. If we add to this the fact that the errors formulated or left obliquely to be understood between the lines are not limited to one or two cases, and that the errors affirmed correspond conversely to an enormous mass of truths that are not confirmed, we can ask ourselves whether it may be right to expunge the last assembly from the catalog of canonical Councils. The sentence will be issued by history and by the sensus fidei of the Christian people even before it is given by an official document. The tree is judged by its fruits, and it is not enough to speak of a conciliar springtime to hide the harsh winter that grips the Church; nor to invent married priests and deaconesses in order to remedy the collapse of vocations; nor to adapt the Gospel to the modern mentality in order to gain more consensus. The Christian life is a militia, not a nice outing in the country, and this is all the more true for priestly life.
I conclude with a request to those who are profitably intervening in the debate about the Council: I would like us first and foremost to seek to proclaim salvific Truth to all men, because their and our eternal salvation depends on it; and that we only secondarily concern ourselves with the canonical and juridical implications raised by Vatican II: anathema sit or damnatio memoriae, it changes little. If the Council truly did not change anything of our Faith, then let us pick up the Catechism of Saint Pius X, return to the Missal of Saint Pius V, remain before the Tabernacle, not desert the Confessional, and practice penance and mortification with a spirit of reparation. This is whence the eternal youthfulness of the Spirit springs. And above all: let us do so in such a way that our works give solid and coherent witness to what we preach.
+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop
Official translation by Giuseppe Pellegrino


lifesitenews--2020-07-03--The devil is at work in this time of pandemic, but still the grace of God abounds

The devil doesn ’ t sleep .
He is always at work ; and sometimes we forget that his intelligent and covert actions aim to make us forget our souls .
And in this particularly strange phase of our lives where we are coming out of the so-called lockdown , with the possibility of returning to church and finally receiving the sacraments , albeit with all the bureaucracy that we have to comply with , we realise that there is something that isn ’ t right , something that threatens our existence as Christians .
There is something that makes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the devil and his very astute and intelligent actions that , in a covert way , try to prevent us from reaching the critical objective which is our eternal salvation , by means of the reception of the sacraments .
I wish to start this reflection with the first letter of St Peter in which he writes : “ Be sober and watch because your adversary , the devil , is prowling around like a roaring lion , looking for anyone he can devour ” ( 1Pt 5:8 ) .
In this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the devil and his astuteness , as the one who tries to devour us like a prowling lion , who tries to divert us from the faith and above all to lead us to ruin .
But St Peter tells us to resist strongly in faith against this evil action of the devil .
This is the Word of God in which we have a clear reference to the evil and to his destabilizing action .
If we want to see a concrete application of this action of the devil , of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without us even realising it , we can refer to the current moment .
Why ?
Because clearly something unusual has happened .
We have had to face this problem of the pandemic , this unexpected virus , waiting for it to break out , to explode and then acting with the right vigilance , the right precautions to prevent it spreading like wildfire .
This is all fine .
But what doesn ’ t add up , what has caused so many of us to suffer is the reality of having to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , so to speak , the reception of the sacraments by the faithful because this would be a sanitary problem .
So the health problem , the necessity of safeguarding physical health is taking precedence over the necessity to feed the soul , to care for the soul , with eternal salvation in mind above all else .
Public masses and the sacraments have been suspended .
After centuries and since the foundation of the Church , churches have suddenly become places of contagion , places that need to be closed .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ steps to assure that there is no contact , that people don ’ t come to church in order to avoid any type of social contact , any type of possible infection by Coronavirus .
But this is a big problem because , in doing so , we have endured more than three months without the possibility of receiving the sacraments while simultaneously facing a set of increasing rules in order for the churches to be able to re-open .
After long and often annoying discussions – this is the case in Italy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ gradual ” solution to enable churches to re-open – we are thinking back on receiving the Sacraments .
With regard to Italy , after long and extenuating discussions , they have finally arrived at a sort of agreement with a protocol which is completely strange and unusual in all aspects , telling the Church , telling the priests , how to celebrate Mass , how to distribute the Eucharist ; an agreement that finally allows the possibility to celebrate Mass and give the Eucharist , but completely unbelievable in terms of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , concerning the way in which we can distribute the Eucharist , while ignoring the fact that the Eucharist is the most Holy Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ .
For instance , it says that the Holy Eucharist has to be distributed with single use gloves , normally thrown into the bin after use .
This then gives rise to a sort of obligation to receive Communion in the hand , and then another thing we have seen is that in many churches , the kneelers have disappeared .
There are a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been cordoned off .
Why ?
Because they “ could be causes of contagion ” .
But where is the link between the Coronavirus which could still be present in our churches and the kneelers ?
Also holy water that chases the devil away has disappeared .
In some church right in the font there is now the hand sanitizer gel !
If we open the churches with social distancing in place , if we allow people into church , why make the kneelers out of bounds ?
And could holy water @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mode ” ?
This makes us reflect on the evil and clever actions of the devil who in this way keeps us apart from the most important things .
He has kept us from the sacraments , from the necessity to receive the Lord in order to have eternal life ; now it seems that we can receive the Holy Eucharist with all these precautions ( most of them contrary to the dignity of the Most Holy Sacrament ) , but we still face a sort of imposition on the way we can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ receive the Holy Communion .
But why all this ?
Where has all this come from ?
Why all this ferocity against Jesus in the Eucharist and against a Christian celebrating his own faith according to the Catholic Church ?
How can we explain this reality that we are living if not by reference to an intelligent machination of the enemy who like a prowling lion looks for souls to devour ?
But in addition to this seduction , to this machination of the devil , we can identify something visible yet imperceptible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not right , that the intelligent and astute cunning of the devil is there to try to distract us from the most important things .
All the red tape required to be able to open the churches is an example of this , after they were closed without any real need to do so .
In fact , churches could have remained open if all the necessary precautions had been taken ; they could have remained open for devotion , so as to permit the faithful to receive the Sacraments with all the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the churches were closed , then after long and exhausting negotiations , they were re-opened , and now we have new rules to advise us how we should pray in church , and evidently this is by rigidly being standing .
In some cases , chairs have replaced pews and kneelers .
Does all this not respond to a liturgical logic , which , although already imposed on us to some degree , now seems to use the excuse of the Coronavirus to be considered reasonable ?
Beside all this , we see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ action of the devil .
In this whole situation , in this pandemic , be it over or under estimated ( now isn ’ t the time to discuss the topic of the pandemic itself ) , we have found ourselves in an unexpected situation in which a virus has upset all our lives .
It seems that , in our efforts to react calmly , to keep an intelligent understanding of the situation , we may have allowed ourselves to be overcome with all this anxiety , in a sort of Coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have put aside the most important things in order to give space almost uniquely to the physical element , that of protecting our physical health .
But it seems that in all this Covid-19 process and procedures what is absent is faith and the capability to respond fully to this reality in faith .
Instead what seems more important , what occupies us more in these times isn ’ t the necessity and duty to teach the faith so that the faithful can understand and return in grace with an open heart , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adhere to all this bureaucracy and paperwork , which multiplies day by day .
It is by now evident that in order to comply with all this bureaucracy , with all the social distancing and security rules , to prevent the transmission of the virus , we have missed the true object of our faith .
We are socially distancing from Christ and from the source of salvation .
Is this not a cunning initiative of the devil who keeps us occupied now with many things especially with certificates , procedures , rules @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supreme rule , the rule par excellence which is the eternal salvation of our souls ?
And surely this action can be described as an evil action by an angelic person , the devil , who pulls the strings from behind the stage , so that eventually we forget about God , busying ourselves with other things which , albeit necessary and important for the protection of our physical health , nevertheless restrict us to thinking only about these things .
Isn ’ t this an astuteness of the devil , a hoax @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really think so .
And we really see the malice of the devil at work when we see that in ecclesiastical circles we don ’ t hear people talking of important things , rather they ’ re taken up with social and humanitarian issues .
So here we need to pay attention because the devil is cunning , he is the one who , as St Peter says , is the prowling lion who seeks souls to devour .
It seems that his most destructive action is clearly to convince us that we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the faithful while making us forget about our spiritual health .
The devil ( from the Greek word dia-ballo ) is in fact the one who tries to separate us from God .
Still in this context of the malice of the devil , I want to reflect on the most essential factor of our faith , our eternal salvation .
There may be some who roll their eyes and say that discussions on the salvation of the soul are passé , old fashioned theology , which focusses on the individual – the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be , when we should be talking more about the “ interior ” of the person .
We prefer to abandon the reference to our soul and to the salvation of our souls because we think that in this way we pave the way for individualism to kick in and therefore for ideologies such as Marxism and Communism to arise in order to vindicate the importance of the community .
In truth , while it ’ s collectivism and globalization that were brought about with the claim of the alienation of man , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saving one ’ s soul lead to such devastating social effects .
When we talk about the salvation of the soul , however , at the centre of our discussions there is man in relation to God .
When man thinks of God , when he lives for God , he never lives only for himself , and when he thinks about being with God forever , he thinks of the salvation of others as well .
Salvation is open to everyone and we see it beautifully in the sanctity of man for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Christian is not egotistical .
There isn ’ t an egotistical thought in individual salvation .
Personal holiness is the salvation of many because a saint never saves himself alone .
Therefore , the salvation of the soul is central to our faith and this seems to have been buried underneath so much bureaucracy and compliance to the point where it seems we can no longer speak about this because we are busy with more urgent matters .
It ’ s the most important thing and yet the most neglected .
Taking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Communion while kneeling and on the tongue as the Church has always taught .
For reasons of hygiene and health Communion must be received in the hand , being not guaranteed as the safest way , and even though this contravenes the teaching of the Church .
Communion in the hand remains an indult – a permission given that can never be imposed against the universal law of the Church .
In all this horizontal and human view , we have of the Church , there is no room for the concept of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here that we see the malice of the devil , the snare of the devil .
Hence , is salvation something important , still current or is it something to do away with along with many other things that are important but secondary ?
We have lost sight of the centre of our faith – Jesus in the Holy Eucharist and our eternal salvation .
We must return to this central focus and try to brush up on the advice of St Peter who wrote to the Christians exhorting them to remain strong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ detect an absence of faith , because none of this would be conceivable , there could not be this type of revolution in which the health of the body is more important than the health of the immortal soul , were it not for a lack of faith .
When we bury the faith , the devil wades in .
He carries on his seduction of souls , completely undisturbed so that he can do what he wants without us even realising it .
It seems to me that we need to reflect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have an idea of the devil , either that we ignore him because we are too materialistic or we see him everywhere blaming everything on him .
These two opposite ways of undermining the evil action of satan are beautifully described in the book by CS Lewis entitled The Screwtape Letters .
These are a series of letters from a senior devil to an apprentice devil on how to learn the art of seduction , the art of ruining the souls .
In this insightful work , Lewis tells us this : In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to refer once again to the Screwtape Letters of Lewis by quoting a small section which is very appropriate in our current times , reflecting on these actions of the devil and how to conquer his subversive action .
In a passage in the book , the senior devil named Screwtape is speaking to his young apprentice colleague Wormwood and says : This is a very significant passage .
God wants us for eternity , but in order to think about eternity we need to treasure the present moment .
In the Gospel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brings its own sorrows ( cf .
Mt 6:34 ) .
We need to focus on the present , as the past has gone , the future hasn ’ t yet arrived .
We have to live in the present moment with a view to eternity .
And it ’ s actually this present moment that resembles eternity , because eternity is a present that doesn ’ t end – a present that remains .
If we want to save our soul and understand the cunning intelligence of the devil , we should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ live in the present moment and so live fully in such a way as to give consent to our soul to set out each day with the grace of God and to be able to make our way slowly to eternity .
We have to think of , we have to understand the present to be able to not lose eternity .
Let ’ s open our eyes and live the present with the grace of God in a way to interpret the present .
The present that we are living right now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ however a very special present in which the devil wades in but it is also a moment of grace .
We need to recognise the diabolical dimensions of today and the stubbornness that unfortunately characterises it , so as to understand how urgent it is to open our minds to the things of God , to believe in Him in order to see Him in eternity .
If we waste time , i.e.
, if lose this present , we lose eternity .

The devil at work pulling humanitarian strings
The devil doesn’t sleep. He is always at work; and sometimes we forget that his intelligent and covert actions aim to make us forget our souls.
And in this particularly strange phase of our lives where we are coming out of the so-called lockdown, with the possibility of returning to church and finally receiving the sacraments, albeit with all the bureaucracy that we have to comply with, we realise that there is something that isn’t right, something that threatens our existence as Christians. There is something that makes us understand the truth of the existence of the devil and his very astute and intelligent actions that, in a covert way, try to prevent us from reaching the critical objective which is our eternal salvation, by means of the reception of the sacraments.
I wish to start this reflection with the first letter of St Peter in which he writes: “Be sober and watch because your adversary, the devil, is prowling around like a roaring lion, looking for anyone he can devour” (1Pt 5:8). In this letter, St Peter explains the existence of the devil and his astuteness, as the one who tries to devour us like a prowling lion, who tries to divert us from the faith and above all to lead us to ruin. But St Peter tells us to resist strongly in faith against this evil action of the devil.
This is the Word of God in which we have a clear reference to the evil and to his destabilizing action. If we want to see a concrete application of this action of the devil, of his skill of devouring souls, but without us even realising it, we can refer to the current moment. Why? Because clearly something unusual has happened. We have had to face this problem of the pandemic, this unexpected virus, waiting for it to break out, to explode and then acting with the right vigilance, the right precautions to prevent it spreading like wildfire.
This is all fine. But what doesn’t add up, what has caused so many of us to suffer is the reality of having to close the churches, having to block, so to speak, the reception of the sacraments by the faithful because this would be a sanitary problem. So the health problem, the necessity of safeguarding physical health is taking precedence over the necessity to feed the soul, to care for the soul, with eternal salvation in mind above all else.
Public masses and the sacraments have been suspended. After centuries and since the foundation of the Church, churches have suddenly become places of contagion, places that need to be closed. As a result, we had to take steps to assure that there is no contact, that people don’t come to church in order to avoid any type of social contact, any type of possible infection by Coronavirus.
But this is a big problem because, in doing so, we have endured more than three months without the possibility of receiving the sacraments while simultaneously facing a set of increasing rules in order for the churches to be able to re-open. After long and often annoying discussions – this is the case in Italy whereas in England they found a more “gradual” solution to enable churches to re-open – we are thinking back on receiving the Sacraments.
With regard to Italy, after long and extenuating discussions, they have finally arrived at a sort of agreement with a protocol which is completely strange and unusual in all aspects, telling the Church, telling the priests, how to celebrate Mass, how to distribute the Eucharist; an agreement that finally allows the possibility to celebrate Mass and give the Eucharist, but completely unbelievable in terms of the details, right down to specific particulars, concerning the way in which we can distribute the Eucharist, while ignoring the fact that the Eucharist is the most Holy Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ. For instance, it says that the Holy Eucharist has to be distributed with single use gloves, normally thrown into the bin after use.
This then gives rise to a sort of obligation to receive Communion in the hand, and then another thing we have seen is that in many churches, the kneelers have disappeared. There are a few photos going round showing that kneelers have been cordoned off. Why? Because they “could be causes of contagion”. But where is the link between the Coronavirus which could still be present in our churches and the kneelers? Also holy water that chases the devil away has disappeared. In some church right in the font there is now the hand sanitizer gel!
If we open the churches with social distancing in place, if we allow people into church, why make the kneelers out of bounds? And could holy water be still in use in “safe mode”? This makes us reflect on the evil and clever actions of the devil who in this way keeps us apart from the most important things. He has kept us from the sacraments, from the necessity to receive the Lord in order to have eternal life; now it seems that we can receive the Holy Eucharist with all these precautions (most of them contrary to the dignity of the Most Holy Sacrament), but we still face a sort of imposition on the way we can pray and on the manner we can receive the Holy Communion.
But why all this? Where has all this come from? Why all this ferocity against Jesus in the Eucharist and against a Christian celebrating his own faith according to the Catholic Church? How can we explain this reality that we are living if not by reference to an intelligent machination of the enemy who like a prowling lion looks for souls to devour? But in addition to this seduction, to this machination of the devil, we can identify something visible yet imperceptible that makes us realise that something is not right, that the intelligent and astute cunning of the devil is there to try to distract us from the most important things. All the red tape required to be able to open the churches is an example of this, after they were closed without any real need to do so. In fact, churches could have remained open if all the necessary precautions had been taken; they could have remained open for devotion, so as to permit the faithful to receive the Sacraments with all the social distancing measures in place. But the churches were closed, then after long and exhausting negotiations, they were re-opened, and now we have new rules to advise us how we should pray in church, and evidently this is by rigidly being standing. In some cases, chairs have replaced pews and kneelers. Does all this not respond to a liturgical logic, which, although already imposed on us to some degree, now seems to use the excuse of the Coronavirus to be considered reasonable?
Beside all this, we see another subtle, hidden, but current action of the devil. In this whole situation, in this pandemic, be it over or under estimated (now isn’t the time to discuss the topic of the pandemic itself), we have found ourselves in an unexpected situation in which a virus has upset all our lives. It seems that, in our efforts to react calmly, to keep an intelligent understanding of the situation, we may have allowed ourselves to be overcome with all this anxiety, in a sort of Coronavirus psychosis, and in the end we have put aside the most important things in order to give space almost uniquely to the physical element, that of protecting our physical health. But it seems that in all this Covid-19 process and procedures what is absent is faith and the capability to respond fully to this reality in faith. Instead what seems more important, what occupies us more in these times isn’t the necessity and duty to teach the faith so that the faithful can understand and return in grace with an open heart, rather it’s the need to adhere to all this bureaucracy and paperwork, which multiplies day by day.
It is by now evident that in order to comply with all this bureaucracy, with all the social distancing and security rules, to prevent the transmission of the virus, we have missed the true object of our faith. We are socially distancing from Christ and from the source of salvation. Is this not a cunning initiative of the devil who keeps us occupied now with many things especially with certificates, procedures, rules and regulations so that we forget the supreme rule, the rule par excellence which is the eternal salvation of our souls? And surely this action can be described as an evil action by an angelic person, the devil, who pulls the strings from behind the stage, so that eventually we forget about God, busying ourselves with other things which, albeit necessary and important for the protection of our physical health, nevertheless restrict us to thinking only about these things. Isn’t this an astuteness of the devil, a hoax on the part of satan? I really think so.
And we really see the malice of the devil at work when we see that in ecclesiastical circles we don’t hear people talking of important things, rather they’re taken up with social and humanitarian issues. So here we need to pay attention because the devil is cunning, he is the one who, as St Peter says, is the prowling lion who seeks souls to devour. It seems that his most destructive action is clearly to convince us that we need to safeguard the physical health of the faithful while making us forget about our spiritual health. The devil (from the Greek word dia-ballo) is in fact the one who tries to separate us from God.
Does eternal salvation still matter?
Still in this context of the malice of the devil, I want to reflect on the most essential factor of our faith, our eternal salvation. There may be some who roll their eyes and say that discussions on the salvation of the soul are passé, old fashioned theology, which focusses on the individual – the soul or on what the soul might be, when we should be talking more about the “interior” of the person.
We prefer to abandon the reference to our soul and to the salvation of our souls because we think that in this way we pave the way for individualism to kick in and therefore for ideologies such as Marxism and Communism to arise in order to vindicate the importance of the community. In truth, while it’s collectivism and globalization that were brought about with the claim of the alienation of man, in no way does the idea of saving one’s soul lead to such devastating social effects.
When we talk about the salvation of the soul, however, at the centre of our discussions there is man in relation to God. When man thinks of God, when he lives for God, he never lives only for himself, and when he thinks about being with God forever, he thinks of the salvation of others as well. Salvation is open to everyone and we see it beautifully in the sanctity of man for a holy man is never egotistical, a Christian is not egotistical. There isn’t an egotistical thought in individual salvation. Personal holiness is the salvation of many because a saint never saves himself alone.
Therefore, the salvation of the soul is central to our faith and this seems to have been buried underneath so much bureaucracy and compliance to the point where it seems we can no longer speak about this because we are busy with more urgent matters. It’s the most important thing and yet the most neglected. Taking away kneelers is more important than receiving Communion while kneeling and on the tongue as the Church has always taught. For reasons of hygiene and health Communion must be received in the hand, being not guaranteed as the safest way, and even though this contravenes the teaching of the Church. Communion in the hand remains an indult – a permission given that can never be imposed against the universal law of the Church.
In all this horizontal and human view, we have of the Church, there is no room for the concept of eternal salvation. And it’s here that we see the malice of the devil, the snare of the devil. Hence, is salvation something important, still current or is it something to do away with along with many other things that are important but secondary? We have lost sight of the centre of our faith – Jesus in the Holy Eucharist and our eternal salvation. We must return to this central focus and try to brush up on the advice of St Peter who wrote to the Christians exhorting them to remain strong in the faith.
We can clearly detect an absence of faith, because none of this would be conceivable, there could not be this type of revolution in which the health of the body is more important than the health of the immortal soul, were it not for a lack of faith. When we bury the faith, the devil wades in. He carries on his seduction of souls, completely undisturbed so that he can do what he wants without us even realising it.
It seems to me that we need to reflect on this a lot because sometimes we have an idea of the devil, either that we ignore him because we are too materialistic or we see him everywhere blaming everything on him. These two opposite ways of undermining the evil action of satan are beautifully described in the book by CS Lewis entitled The Screwtape Letters. These are a series of letters from a senior devil to an apprentice devil on how to learn the art of seduction, the art of ruining the souls. In this insightful work, Lewis tells us this:
There are two ways which please the devil and permit him to follow his malicious activity undisturbed. These two ways are materialism and magic. Materialism because it is man who in fact says that the devil doesn’t exist which allows the devil to carry on his work undisturbed; also those in a sort of magic attribute everything to the devil, every bad thing that happens, so inflating his presence in the world, end up with giving the devil importance in everything and therefore allow him to carry on his work undisturbed.
In wrapping up these thoughts, I wish to refer once again to the Screwtape Letters of Lewis by quoting a small section which is very appropriate in our current times, reflecting on these actions of the devil and how to conquer his subversive action. In a passage in the book, the senior devil named Screwtape is speaking to his young apprentice colleague Wormwood and says:
The humans live in time but our Enemy destines them to eternity. He therefore, I believe, wants them to attend chiefly to two things, to eternity itself and to that point of time which they call the Present. For the Present is the point at which time touches eternity. Of the present moment, and of it only, humans have an experience analogous to the experience which our Enemy has of reality as a whole; in it alone freedom and actuality are offered them.
This is a very significant passage. God wants us for eternity, but in order to think about eternity we need to treasure the present moment. In the Gospel, Jesus teaches us that every day brings its own sorrows (cf. Mt 6:34). We need to focus on the present, as the past has gone, the future hasn’t yet arrived. We have to live in the present moment with a view to eternity. And it’s actually this present moment that resembles eternity, because eternity is a present that doesn’t end – a present that remains. If we want to save our soul and understand the cunning intelligence of the devil, we should look at the present, we should live in the present moment and so live fully in such a way as to give consent to our soul to set out each day with the grace of God and to be able to make our way slowly to eternity. We have to think of, we have to understand the present to be able to not lose eternity.
Let’s open our eyes and live the present with the grace of God in a way to interpret the present. The present that we are living right now, all this story of Coronavirus is however a very special present in which the devil wades in but it is also a moment of grace. We need to recognise the diabolical dimensions of today and the stubbornness that unfortunately characterises it, so as to understand how urgent it is to open our minds to the things of God, to believe in Him in order to see Him in eternity. If we waste time, i.e., if lose this present, we lose eternity.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-07-03--In ‘Integralism,’ authors aim to set foundations for Catholic political thought

July 3 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) ― As we watch mobs set fire to Western Civilization , we are in sore need of an orthodox perspective on what it is that makes a society work and why it is that we need society in the first place .
Father Thomas Crean and Dr. Alan Fimister ’ s Integralism : A Manual of Political Philosophy provides that perspective , but I ’ ll warn you – it ’ s a challenge .
It ’ s a challenge for two reasons .
First , it assumes on the part of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fr .
Crean is an English Dominican who has published previous theological , liturgical and apologetical works .
Dr. Fimister , the author of Robert Schumann : Neo-Scholastic Humanism and the Unification of Europe , is an assistant professor of Church History and Theology at St. John Vianney Theological Seminary in Denver .
Integralism is clearly a textbook for graduate students of theology or political philosophy .
To put it mildly , it ’ s not an easy read .
Second , their book questions many of the assumptions of contemporary social life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that all adults should vote , that wives are no longer subject to their husband ’ s authority , and that spending all one ’ s career working for employers is a desirable state .
The first challenge can be mastered by an attentive review of the helpful list of “ theses ” summarizing every chapter .
I recommend also marking up your ( own ) copy with a pencil to ensure your mind follows the authors ’ arguments as closely as it can .
The second challenge provides an excellent opportunity to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ governed entirely according to perennial Catholic teachings .
The authors note that this would be possible only in a country where the majority of inhabitants were Catholic and had a Catholic government .
( Practical and cautious men , they also discuss the rights and duties of Catholics being governed by non-believers or Protestants . )
But would you be happy to live in a society in which abortion was , of course , illegal , but the practice of polytheistic religions was banned ?
But that ’ s the deal with Integralism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an error has few or fewer rights .
The governance of a fully Catholic state is of necessity Catholic―Catholic and Thomist to boot .
The term Integralism “ is used to denote an uncompromising adherence to the Social Kingship of Christ , ” the authors write .
“ That is , an insistence upon the moral duty of men and societies towards the one Church of Christ.
” “ Secondly it is applied to the tendency to see … Thomism … as a completed and indispensable stage in Catholic thought which must be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own by any authentically ecclesiastical writer of a later age , ” they continue .
This is the first of many concepts to be defined , and the Angelic Doctor is always kept near to hand .
With reference to Thomas and several other Christian authors , notably Pius XI and Leo XIII , Crean and Fimister discuss society , the divine origins of spiritual and temporal governance , the family , servitude ( including wage slavery ) , law , the different forms a Catholic state might take , labor , property @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authors define political philosophy as “ the study of man ’ s life insofar as he is united with his fellow men in a way that extends beyond the family.
” One of the many interesting aspects of the book is its balance of the rights of the family with the duties the family owes to the other families making up the “ temporal commonwealth.
” At the heart of the book , however , is the Catholic idea that a perfect society is the one that aims at , and contains within @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about , man ’ s complete good .
Man ’ s complete good is eternal life with God .
Therefore , only “ the City of God , that is the Catholic Church , is strictly a perfect society , ” the authors write .
“ Christendom is not a distinct perfect society , but the temporal aspect of the City of God.
” Integralism ’ s critics often accuse Catholics who discuss Christendom of weaving theocratic or monarchist fantasies .
However , Integralism clearly delineates the separation of spiritual ( or clerical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lay ) Catholic authority , and illustrates that , far from being a fantasy , majority Christian states governed by confessing lay Christians are historical facts .
The book also includes a comprehensive discussion of all the forms of governance proper to a Catholic nation before recommending a “ mixed polity ” with monarchical , aristocratic and democratic elements .
The theses for this chapter do conclude that “ the witness of mankind suggests the wisdom of including some element of hereditary power within a constitution.
” It is worth noting that both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ constitutional monarchy themselves .
This is as good a time as any to disclose that I have met Fr .
Crean and have known Dr. Fimister for twelve years .
One of the particular enjoyments of the book for me was hearing in my mind ’ s ear Alan ’ s voice rolling out the sonorous cadences of his longer , more ornate sentences .
He has a phenomenal memory and is perfectly capable of quoting from the Council of Florence at length over a beer in a cozy pub before concluding its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Marvellous !
” That enviable talent and exuberant love for the Catholic faith is more than apparent in this book .
Integralism : A Manual of Political Philosophy is available for purchase on Amazon here , or from the publisher here .

As mobs set fire to the West, Catholics are in sore need of an orthodox perspective on the nature and ends of society. 'Integralism' gives us that, but I’ll warn you – it’s a challenge.
July 3, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) ― As we watch mobs set fire to Western Civilization, we are in sore need of an orthodox perspective on what it is that makes a society work and why it is that we need society in the first place.
Father Thomas Crean and Dr. Alan Fimister’s Integralism: A Manual of Political Philosophy provides that perspective, but I’ll warn you – it’s a challenge.
It’s a challenge for two reasons. First, it assumes on the part of the reader a familiarity with philosophical texts. Fr. Crean is an English Dominican who has published previous theological, liturgical and apologetical works. Dr. Fimister, the author of Robert Schumann: Neo-Scholastic Humanism and the Unification of Europe, is an assistant professor of Church History and Theology at St. John Vianney Theological Seminary in Denver. Integralism is clearly a textbook for graduate students of theology or political philosophy. To put it mildly, it’s not an easy read.
Second, their book questions many of the assumptions of contemporary social life in the West: for example, that all adults should vote, that wives are no longer subject to their husband’s authority, and that spending all one’s career working for employers is a desirable state.
The first challenge can be mastered by an attentive review of the helpful list of “theses” summarizing every chapter. I recommend also marking up your (own) copy with a pencil to ensure your mind follows the authors’ arguments as closely as it can.
The second challenge provides an excellent opportunity to grapple with the idea of a society governed entirely according to perennial Catholic teachings. The authors note that this would be possible only in a country where the majority of inhabitants were Catholic and had a Catholic government. (Practical and cautious men, they also discuss the rights and duties of Catholics being governed by non-believers or Protestants.) But would you be happy to live in a society in which abortion was, of course, illegal, but the practice of polytheistic religions was banned?
But that’s the deal with Integralism: depending on what it is, an error has few or fewer rights. The governance of a fully Catholic state is of necessity Catholic―Catholic and Thomist to boot. The term Integralism “is used to denote an uncompromising adherence to the Social Kingship of Christ,” the authors write.
“That is, an insistence upon the moral duty of men and societies towards the one Church of Christ.”
“Secondly it is applied to the tendency to see … Thomism … as a completed and indispensable stage in Catholic thought which must be assimilated and appropriated as one’s own by any authentically ecclesiastical writer of a later age,” they continue.
This is the first of many concepts to be defined, and the Angelic Doctor is always kept near to hand. With reference to Thomas and several other Christian authors, notably Pius XI and Leo XIII, Crean and Fimister discuss society, the divine origins of spiritual and temporal governance, the family, servitude (including wage slavery), law, the different forms a Catholic state might take, labor, property, diplomacy, and war.
The authors define political philosophy as “the study of man’s life insofar as he is united with his fellow men in a way that extends beyond the family.” One of the many interesting aspects of the book is its balance of the rights of the family with the duties the family owes to the other families making up the “temporal commonwealth.”
At the heart of the book, however, is the Catholic idea that a perfect society is the one that aims at, and contains within itself all the means necessary to bring about, man’s complete good. Man’s complete good is eternal life with God. Therefore, only “the City of God, that is the Catholic Church, is strictly a perfect society,” the authors write.
“Christendom is not a distinct perfect society, but the temporal aspect of the City of God.”
Integralism’s critics often accuse Catholics who discuss Christendom of weaving theocratic or monarchist fantasies. However, Integralism clearly delineates the separation of spiritual (or clerical) Catholic authority from temporal (or lay) Catholic authority, and illustrates that, far from being a fantasy, majority Christian states governed by confessing lay Christians are historical facts.
The book also includes a comprehensive discussion of all the forms of governance proper to a Catholic nation before recommending a “mixed polity” with monarchical, aristocratic and democratic elements. The theses for this chapter do conclude that “the witness of mankind suggests the wisdom of including some element of hereditary power within a constitution.” It is worth noting that both authors were born and raised in a constitutional monarchy themselves.
This is as good a time as any to disclose that I have met Fr. Crean and have known Dr. Fimister for twelve years. One of the particular enjoyments of the book for me was hearing in my mind’s ear Alan’s voice rolling out the sonorous cadences of his longer, more ornate sentences. He has a phenomenal memory and is perfectly capable of quoting from the Council of Florence at length over a beer in a cozy pub before concluding its solemn judgements with the pronouncement: “Marvellous!” That enviable talent and exuberant love for the Catholic faith is more than apparent in this book.
Integralism: A Manual of Political Philosophy is available for purchase on Amazon here, or from the publisher here.
Follow Dorothy Dorothy Cummings McLean is a Canadian journalist, essayist, and novelist. She earned an M.A. in English Literature from the University of Toronto and an M.Div./S.T.B. from Toronto’s Regis College. She was a columnist for the Toronto Catholic Register for nine years and has contributed to Catholic World Report. Her first book, Seraphic Singles, was published by Novalis (2010) in Canada, Liguori in the USA, and Homo Dei in Poland. Her second, Ceremony of Innocence, was published by Ignatius Press (2013). Dorothy lives near Edinburgh, Scotland with her husband.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-07-03--New U.S. Supreme Court decision will protect pro-life Mexico City policy

NEW YORK , July 3 , 2020 ( C-Fam ) – In a decision that may have far-reaching implications for the pro-life cause internationally , the Supreme Court ruled on Monday that foreign organizations don ’ t have free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution .
The Supreme Court may have crushed the hopes of pro-life advocates at home in the June Medical Services ruling , but it left open the door to pro-life advocacy abroad in Alliance for Open Society International .
The decision about U.S. conditions to foreign aid will likely help ward off future legal challenges to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party policy that denies U.S. funding to foreign groups that promote abortion .
The Alliance for Open Society International case involved a challenge to a pledge against prostitution required of foreign organizations as a condition to receiving U.S. grants to combat HIV/AIDS .
According to many organizations working in the HIV/AIDS relief field it is better legally permit “ sex-work ” than criminalizing it .
They say this is necessary to help prostitutes access HIV/AIDS services sand diminish the spread of the virus .
The U.S. organizations whose foreign affiliates were required to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court .
They claimed their speech rights were denied because they were compelled to speak a message inconsistent with their mission .
They argued corporate formalities do not determine the bounds of frees speech rights under the U.S. Constitution .
“ [ I ] t is long settled as a matter of American constitutional law that foreign citizens outside U. S. territory do not possess rights under the U. S. Constitution , ” reads the majority opinion penned by Justice Kavanaugh .
Kavanaugh was joined by five of the nine Supreme Court Justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kagan recused herself , likely because her work with the Justice Department under the Obama administration may have touched upon the anti-prostitution pledge .
The majority of the Court recognized in the opinion that the implications of extending speech rights to foreign NGOs could be far reaching for U.S. foreign policy and national security .
During oral arguments , the Trump administration argued it would make it difficult to require foreign NGOs to take a position against Islamic terrorism as well as invalidate conditions on U.S. funds like the Mexico City Policy .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ group Center for Reproductive Rights challenged the policy as a violation of free speech , along similar lines as the Alliance for Open Society International case .
The Mexico City Policy is often disparagingly called “ Global Gag Rule ” by abortion advocates .
Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor dismissed the challenge in 2003 while she was an appellate judge .
In her opinion she wrote that foreign organizations did not possess free speech rights , based on federal appellate court precedents .
But she wrote in her opinion at the time , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fast forward almost twenty years and Justice Sotomayor had a chance to do just that .
Except , she was on the minority .
Justice Sotomayor joined the dissent authored by Justice Stephen Breyer in Alliance for Open Society International .
Breyer sided in favor of expanding the free speech rights of U.S. organizations to foreign entities .
“ [ I ] n the First Amendment context , the corporate veil is not an iron curtain , ” Justice Breyer wrote , arguing against a formal limitation to free speech rights based on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Alliance for Open Society International briefs he argued , “ Audiences everywhere attribute speech based on whom they perceive to be speaking , not on corporate paperwork they will never see.
” As the Friday Fax reported in May , Sotomayor seemed eager to judicially rescind the Mexico City Policy .
During oral arguments , she mistakenly brought up abortion in an exchange about the anti-prostitution pledge .

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that foreign organizations don’t have free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution.
NEW YORK, July 3, 2020 (C-Fam) – In a decision that may have far-reaching implications for the pro-life cause internationally, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday that foreign organizations don’t have free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution.
The Supreme Court may have crushed the hopes of pro-life advocates at home in the June Medical Services ruling, but it left open the door to pro-life advocacy abroad in Alliance for Open Society International. The decision about U.S. conditions to foreign aid will likely help ward off future legal challenges to the Mexico City Policy, a Republican party policy that denies U.S. funding to foreign groups that promote abortion.
The Alliance for Open Society International case involved a challenge to a pledge against prostitution required of foreign organizations as a condition to receiving U.S. grants to combat HIV/AIDS.
According to many organizations working in the HIV/AIDS relief field it is better legally permit “sex-work” than criminalizing it. They say this is necessary to help prostitutes access HIV/AIDS services sand diminish the spread of the virus.
The U.S. organizations whose foreign affiliates were required to take the pledge challenged the pledge in court. They claimed their speech rights were denied because they were compelled to speak a message inconsistent with their mission. They argued corporate formalities do not determine the bounds of frees speech rights under the U.S. Constitution.
The Supreme Court disagreed, painting a bright legal line.
“[I]t is long settled as a matter of American constitutional law that foreign citizens outside U. S. territory do not possess rights under the U. S. Constitution,” reads the majority opinion penned by Justice Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh was joined by five of the nine Supreme Court Justice along the liberal/conservative divide. Justice Elena Kagan recused herself, likely because her work with the Justice Department under the Obama administration may have touched upon the anti-prostitution pledge.
The majority of the Court recognized in the opinion that the implications of extending speech rights to foreign NGOs could be far reaching for U.S. foreign policy and national security. During oral arguments, the Trump administration argued it would make it difficult to require foreign NGOs to take a position against Islamic terrorism as well as invalidate conditions on U.S. funds like the Mexico City Policy.
Under the Bush administration the pro-abortion legal group Center for Reproductive Rights challenged the policy as a violation of free speech, along similar lines as the Alliance for Open Society International case. The Mexico City Policy is often disparagingly called “Global Gag Rule” by abortion advocates.
Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor dismissed the challenge in 2003 while she was an appellate judge. In her opinion she wrote that foreign organizations did not possess free speech rights, based on federal appellate court precedents. But she wrote in her opinion at the time, that the Supreme Court could change that.
Fast forward almost twenty years and Justice Sotomayor had a chance to do just that. Except, she was on the minority. Justice Sotomayor joined the dissent authored by Justice Stephen Breyer in Alliance for Open Society International. Breyer sided in favor of expanding the free speech rights of U.S. organizations to foreign entities.
“[I]n the First Amendment context, the corporate veil is not an iron curtain,” Justice Breyer wrote, arguing against a formal limitation to free speech rights based on corporate law.
Along the lines of the Alliance for Open Society International briefs he argued, “Audiences everywhere attribute speech based on whom they perceive to be speaking, not on corporate paperwork they will never see.”
As the Friday Fax reported in May, Sotomayor seemed eager to judicially rescind the Mexico City Policy. During oral arguments, she mistakenly brought up abortion in an exchange about the anti-prostitution pledge.
Reprinted with permission from C-Fam.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-07-03--Noted environmentalist apologizes for the ‘climate scare’

WASHINGTON , D.C. , July 3 , 2020 ( C-Fam ) – One of the heroes of the environmental movement has recanted his earlier views that “ climate change ” is an existential threat to human civilization .
He says he is now embarrassed by his previous views , which he expounded for years as an expert in the field .
In a column published at Forbes.com , and subsequently removed by the editors , Michael Shellenberger now says , “ humans are not causing a sixth mass extinction , the Amazon is not the lungs of the world , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worse , ” and denies many other shibboleths of the environmental left .
Within hours of its publication , Shellenberger ’ s piece was removed from the Forbes website .
Shellenberger is a long-time revered member of the environmental movement , the founder of many campaigns , and an author of several books related to environmental issues .
He says he has remained silent about his controversial views for a long time because he was afraid of losing friends and funding .
He points to what happened to climate scientist Roger Pielka , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ movement for the heretical view that increased coastal damage is not caused by more hurricanes but by overbuilding in coastal areas .
Though a climate skeptic for some time , Shellenberger decided only recently to speak up because of the increasingly hysterical statements of climate alarmists .
Last year , U.S. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said the world would end in 12 years due to climate change .
Green journalist Bill McKibben said climate change is the greatest challenge humans have ever faced said that it will wipe out civilization .
And perhaps most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shows half the people surveyed around the world think human extinction is coming .
What ’ s more , one in five British children told pollsters they were having nightmares about climate change .
Shellenberger is publishing a new book called “ Apocalypse Never : Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All ” making the case that “ factories and modern farming are the keys to human liberation and environmental progress , the most important thing for saving the environment is producing more food , particularly meat , on less land.
” He also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for reducing air pollution and carbon emissions is moving from wood to coal to petroleum to natural gas to uranium.
” Shellenberger has become a cheerleader for nuclear energy .
He also says , “ Greenpeace didn ’ t save the whales ; switching from whale oil to petroleum in palm oil did , ” and that “ Greenpeace dogmatism worsened forest fragmentation of the Amazon.
” He asserts that his new beliefs come from “ the best available scientific studies , including those conducted by or excepted by the [ Intergovernmental Panel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and agriculture organization of the UN , International Union for the Conservation of Nature , and other leading scientific bodies.
” Without a doubt , Shellenberger ’ s fears will be realized .
If history is any indicator , climate alarmists will punish him .
He will lose friends and funding .
Fears of climate change have been used at the UN and elsewhere as a rationale for reducing population and for the spread of UN-style family-planning and abortion .
One of the Vatican ’ s guests at the launch of Pope Francis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Schellnhuber , who also serves on the Pontifical Academy of Science , has said the “ carrying capacity of Earth ” is no more than 1 billion people , leaving open speculation what he would propose to do with the remaining 6 billion .

WASHINGTON, D.C., July 3, 2020 (C-Fam) – One of the heroes of the environmental movement has recanted his earlier views that “climate change” is an existential threat to human civilization. He says he is now embarrassed by his previous views, which he expounded for years as an expert in the field.
In a column published at Forbes.com, and subsequently removed by the editors, Michael Shellenberger now says, “humans are not causing a sixth mass extinction, the Amazon is not the lungs of the world, climate change is not making natural disasters worse,” and denies many other shibboleths of the environmental left. Within hours of its publication, Shellenberger’s piece was removed from the Forbes website.
Shellenberger is a long-time revered member of the environmental movement, the founder of many campaigns, and an author of several books related to environmental issues. He says he has remained silent about his controversial views for a long time because he was afraid of losing friends and funding. He points to what happened to climate scientist Roger Pielka, who was chased out of the climate movement for the heretical view that increased coastal damage is not caused by more hurricanes but by overbuilding in coastal areas.
Though a climate skeptic for some time, Shellenberger decided only recently to speak up because of the increasingly hysterical statements of climate alarmists. Last year, U.S. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said the world would end in 12 years due to climate change. Green journalist Bill McKibben said climate change is the greatest challenge humans have ever faced said that it will wipe out civilization. And perhaps most concerning to Shellenberger was recent polling that shows half the people surveyed around the world think human extinction is coming. What’s more, one in five British children told pollsters they were having nightmares about climate change.
Shellenberger is publishing a new book called “Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All” making the case that “factories and modern farming are the keys to human liberation and environmental progress, the most important thing for saving the environment is producing more food, particularly meat, on less land.”
He also argues, “the most important thing for reducing air pollution and carbon emissions is moving from wood to coal to petroleum to natural gas to uranium.” Shellenberger has become a cheerleader for nuclear energy. He also says, “Greenpeace didn’t save the whales; switching from whale oil to petroleum in palm oil did,” and that “Greenpeace dogmatism worsened forest fragmentation of the Amazon.”
He asserts that his new beliefs come from “the best available scientific studies, including those conducted by or excepted by the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], the food and agriculture organization of the UN, International Union for the Conservation of Nature, and other leading scientific bodies.”
Without a doubt, Shellenberger’s fears will be realized. If history is any indicator, climate alarmists will punish him. He will lose friends and funding.
Fears of climate change have been used at the UN and elsewhere as a rationale for reducing population and for the spread of UN-style family-planning and abortion. One of the Vatican’s guests at the launch of Pope Francis’s encyclical Laudato Si, John Schellnhuber, who also serves on the Pontifical Academy of Science, has said the “carrying capacity of Earth” is no more than 1 billion people, leaving open speculation what he would propose to do with the remaining 6 billion.
Reprinted with permission from C-Fam.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-07-03--Join our daily worldwide rosary HERE

Join our daily worldwide rosary HERE

July 3 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – In response to the crisis unfolding in our world and in the Church , LifeSite is offering Catholics throughout the world a chance to be united daily in prayer , in the Our Lady of Fatima Rosary Crusade .
Catholics from all over the world—from Israel , Uganda , Italy , France , Germany , Ireland , Pakistan , Singapore , the Philippines , India , Indonesia , Australia , New Zealand , Thailand , the United Kingdom , the U.S. , Canada , Brazil , and other countries—are gathering daily to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Anthony Pillari , J.C.L.
, an American priest currently studying in Italy .
Our goal is , by means of this daily rosary and by embracing and living out the message given by the Virgin Mary at Fatima , the triumph of Our Lady ’ s Immaculate Heart .
To help obtain that goal , Bishop Athanasius Schneider graciously composed the following prayer for this worldwide rosary crusade : O Immaculate Heart of Mary , you are the holy Mother of God and our tender Mother .
Look upon the distress in which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are living because of the spread of materialism and the persecution of the Church .
In Fatima you warned against these errors , as you spoke about the errors of Russia .
You are the Mediatrix of all graces .
Implore your Divine Son to grant this special grace for the Pope : that he might consecrate Russia to your Immaculate Heart , so that Russia will be converted , a period of peace will be granted to the world , and your Immaculate Heart will triumph , through an authentic renewal of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ purity of the Catholic Faith , of the sacredness of Divine worship and of the holiness of the Christian life .
O Queen of the holy Rosary and our sweet Mother , turn your merciful eyes to us and graciously hear this our trusting prayer .
Amen .
+ Athanasius Schneider , Auxiliary Bishop of the archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana To learn more about the urgency of responding to Our Lady ’ s message at Fatima , and about what you can do , please read Cardinal Burke ’ s 2017 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ https : //voiceofthefamily.com/full-text-cardinal-burkes-historic-call-for-consecration-of-russia/ ) .
As St. Padre Pio once said , “ The rosary is the weapon for these times.
” Through prayer , God can shape history , change the world , and bring about a great time of renewal and peace for the Church and for the world , through the triumph of Our Lady ’ s Immaculate Heart .
Join us today !
Send photos or videos of you and your family praying the rosary with Father Pillari to [ email protected ]

(LifeSiteNews) — In response to the crisis unfolding in our world and in the Church, LifeSite is happy to promote Regina Angelorum Press’s Daily Rosary, which is offering Catholics throughout the world the chance to be united daily in prayer, in the Our Lady of Fatima Rosary Crusade.
Catholics from all over the world — from Israel, Uganda, Italy, France, Germany, Ireland, Pakistan, Singapore, the Philippines, India, Indonesia, Australia, New Zealand, Thailand, the United Kingdom, the U.S., Canada, Brazil, and other countries — are gathering daily to pray the Rosary, led by Father Pillari, JCL, MCL, STL, an American priest currently studying in Italy.
The Daily Rosary is being offered each day at 12noon EST through Regina Angelorum Press’ YouTube Channel to which you can subscribe HERE.
The goal is, by means of this Daily Rosary and by embracing and living out the message given by the Virgin Mary at Fatima, the triumph of Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart.
To help obtain that goal, Bishop Athanasius Schneider graciously composed the following prayer for this worldwide Rosary crusade:
O Immaculate Heart of Mary, you are the holy Mother of God and our tender Mother. Look upon the distress in which the Church and the whole of humanity are living because of the spread of materialism and the persecution of the Church. In Fatima you warned against these errors, as you spoke about the errors of Russia. You are the Mediatrix of all graces. Implore your Divine Son to grant this special grace for the Pope: that he might consecrate Russia to your Immaculate Heart, so that Russia will be converted, a period of peace will be granted to the world, and your Immaculate Heart will triumph, through an authentic renewal of the Church in the splendor of the purity of the Catholic Faith, of the sacredness of Divine worship and of the holiness of the Christian life. O Queen of the holy Rosary and our sweet Mother, turn your merciful eyes to us and graciously hear this our trusting prayer. Amen. + Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of the archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana
To learn more about the urgency of responding to Our Lady’s message at Fatima, and about what you can do, please read Cardinal Burke’s 2017 address at the Rome Life Forum.
As St. Padre Pio once said, “The Rosary is the weapon for these times.” Through prayer, God can shape history, change the world, and bring about a great time of renewal and peace for the Church and for the world, through the triumph of Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart. Join us today!
If you would like to follow along with the prayers said during this Rosary, you can access them HERE. The document also includes a brief F.A.Q. pertaining to the daily Rosary.
You can send your prayer requests to https://reginangelorumpress.com/prayer-intentions/
Share