|
Today’s Martyrology
Home ...
the One, True, Holy, Catholic Church
|
“That
understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually
retained, which Holy
Mother Church
|
Looking for Catholic Prayers in Latin and English?
“Know you not that the friendship
of this world is the enemy of God?
Whosoever therefore will be a friend of this world, becomes an enemy
of God.”
Mary, Conceived without Sin,
pray for us who have recourse to Thee
“Pope Francis invites the whole Church to question itself ...
on [far more than]
synodality”
https://www.synod.va/en.html
Heresy and Schism Coming to a Church near you!
The Equivocal “vision” of Vatican II unfolds
with this final dissolution of the apocryphal “Post-Conciliar-catholic-church”
“Father Congar, of blessed memory*, once said: “There is no need to create another Church, but to create a different Church” That is the challenge. For a “different Church”
ADDRESS OF HIS
HOLINESS POPE FRANCIS
FOR THE OPENING OF THE SYNOD
New Synod Hall
Saturday, 9 October 2021)
Yves Congar, O.P. was “of blessed memory” only to Bergoglio and his fellow liberal and anti-Catholic clerics of the 60’s for whom unbridled ecumenism (a universal religion with or without universal (and logically conflicting) gods and doctrines — was the ultimate schema, design, and objective of all things pertaining to an indistinct and indistinguishable deity, that may also be a logically irreconcilable conflation of deities ( that exist, presumably, in what fellow madman and Jesuit Teilhard de Chardin neologized the “noosphere” (“the highest stage of biospheric development” — whatever that may mean to a sane person — “or the sphere of thought encircling the earth that has emerged through evolution”). Right.
What
they also vigorously sought, as we see above, was a
“different church” other than the
Roman Catholic Church of 2000 years — while
retaining the name as a misnomer.
SCHISM
Francis may yet get it — but at the cost of schism.
His counterfeit “Post-Conciliar-catholic-church” has long since ceased to resemble the authentic Roman Catholic Church prior to Vatican II. When the charade utterly fails, and the pews empty (together with the seminaries), the “Post-Conciliar-catholic-church” will be unsustainable, since it will be bereft of the contributions of the Faithful with which it is swollen, and which it has much abused.
Awoken from the illusion of a spurious continuity with the 2000 year old Church of their forefathers — now preempted and dispossessed — the truly Faithful will recognize that Catholicism and Paganism — that Christ and Pachamama — are absolutely distinct and irreconcilable, and totally inimical to each other — that they must choose Christ and His One, True, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, of which HE alone is the Head and we the members, to the exclusion of all else (and every imposter), especially the World and its “friendship”* for which Bergoglio and the Episcopacy lusts ...
... or the increasingly distinct possibility of Schism.
Christ admonishes us that “No man can serve two masters.” (Saint Matthew 6.24) — neither can we worship Christ and Pachama (and every other false god), nor God and the World,
Understanding this clearly, the prospect of Schism increasingly appears likely. Indeed, Saint Paul Paul warns us:
Bear not the yoke with unbelievers. For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever? (2 Corinthians 6.14-15)
The hour soon approaches when sides must be chosen — and at great cost.
What made
you think for a moment that a Kingdom could be had
for less?
Geoffrey K. Mondello
Editor
Boston Catholic Journal
Comments? Write us: editor@boston-catholic-journal.com
_________________________________
* “
For all that is in the world, is the concupiscence of the flesh, and the concupiscence of the eyes, and the pride of life, which is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the concupiscence thereof: but he that doth the will of God, abideth for ever.” (1 Saint John 2.16-17)
The Despotism
of Francis
|
We do not argue that the Seat
of Saint Peter is empty — which is to say that
we are not Sedevacantists (from the Latin
“sede vacante”, “the chair being vacant”)
Indeed, we maintain that the Chair is, in fact, occupied.
That it is presently occupied by a
heretic, pantheist and madman, in no way invalidates
the statement that the papacy is indeed occupied.
Some popes have been saints. Some have been scoundrels. Jorge Bergoglio, regrettably, is certainly and most notoriously among the latter.
The “Cathedra
Petri” is not and has never been empty (apart, of
course, from the interregnum between the death of a
pope and the nomination of his successor — the longest
of which was 3 years (1268-1271) With Francis occupying
the Cathedra Petri since 2013 however, this position
has become increasingly untenable. At what point does
a man — including a pope — cease to be in communion
with the Church? At what point does he cease to be Catholic?
If he does not hold what the Church teaches, what Sacred
Scripture teaches, what Sacred Tradition teaches, what
the authentic Magisterium of the Church has taught for
2000 years — in what sense do we hold him to be in
communion with what he has openly repudiated
— even suppressed?
Is the Pope Catholic?
Many Catholics and non-Catholics have, for some time now, nevertheless asked themselves what was once an amusing question intended to be a litmus test for the faithfulness of a Catholic. “How can you possibly question her fidelity to the Church? She’s as Catholic as the pope!” This, of course, presupposes that the pope is the paradigmatic Catholic entrusted with preserving and promoting Catholic teaching, dogma, the Sacred Deposit of Faith, the authentic and unbroken Catholic Magisterium, and millennia of Catholic Tradition.
This question can legitimately be asked — but without anticipating a positive response. Indeed, under the papacy of Francis, to be “as Catholic as the pope” is to be an uncertain, uncommitted Catholic, unsure of the credentials of the Catholic Church and uncertain of the morality historically predicated of Her and derived from Sacred Scripture. A non-creedal Unitarian Universalist would be more in keeping with the mind of Francis than Catholicism as it has been historically understood.
Before we attempt to make sense of this apparent paradox, there are a few things that we must be clear about; harsh as they may appear, they are quite nearly incontrovertible:
Francis is not a proponent of Catholicism , but an ideologue whose primary concern is an elusive and esoteric notion of “encounter” with all that is alien to Catholicism and most often antagonistic toward it — a program of assimilating other cultures by repudiating Catholic dogma and identity. For Francis there is nothing specific in the way of identity — essentially there is no differentiation—nothing is unique, nothing idiomatic: it is only sameness expressed in other terms that can never be incongruent. Uniqueness is anathema — even if that means sacrificing millennia old Catholic beliefs inseparable from the unique identity of Catholicism. Catholicism is an obstacle and if it is not consonant with every other belief system, it is Catholicism that must yield. Remember the absurd “Encounter Groups” which proliferated in the 60’s? (not coincidentally the era of Vatican II) These were even more flexible than Francis’s obscure — and rigid vision of the notion of Encounter. Yes, “rigid!” — the very epithet that Francis solely reserves for Traditional Catholics.
“Faced with cultural, ethnic, political and religious differences, we can close ourselves in a rigid defense of our so-called identity or open ourselves to the encounter with the other and cultivate together the dream of a fraternal society”, Francis pleaded.”
https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/francis-orban-trade-jibes-at-historic-meet
A “so-called” Catholic identity?
Why “so-called”? It appears that for Francis there is no unique “Catholic identity” that is distinguishable from every and any other social and religious identity. Each is simply a culturally inflected iteration of the other.
A
“fraternal society”
(much as Masons envision) rather than a
Communion of Saints
binding every Catholic to every other Catholic in the Church Militant, the Church Suffering, and the
Church Triumphant in Heaven with the singular goal
of reaching Heaven, rather than “perfecting society
on earth” as the Communists envision? Every member
of a “fraternal society” will eventually perish. But not
so for those who cleave to the Body of Christ (His Church)
— and not the World — and who will not perish, but
have everlasting life. (Saint John 3.15)
The Most Compelling Question is this: Given Francis’s Malfeasance, Why does God Allow it?
To clearly understand the predicament into which Francis’s papacy has placed us, we must first come to terms with what are called:I. God’s Active Will and
II. God’s Permissive Will
Let us look at paradigms of each.
God’s Active Will is always, in and of itself, absolutely good, for it is integral with God Himself Who is all-Good.
God does not actively will “relative” goods — that is to say, goods limited by other considerations and apportioned only as possibility allows.
• In Himself pure actuality (there is no potentiality in God: He cannot potentially be “more” than what He actually is), there is nothing that can constrain His active willing, as though He were compelled to will lesser goods within a spectrum of possible goods to which He is confined.
• God is absolutely free — without limitation or confinement; for these concepts are impossible to predicate of God as omnipotent. Each and every expression of God’s active will is ordered to the unmitigated good. “God is light, and in Him there is no darkness.” (1 Saint John 1.5).
• Our first paradigm would actually be two-fold: the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments: Exodus 20:2–17 and Deuteronomy 5:6–21) and the Sermon on the Mount (Saint Matthew, chapters 5- 7) in which we find the Active Will of God: “This is what I want you to do and to refrain from doing.” This is God’s express will.
The Permissive Will of God
The most succinct definition of the next paradigm — the Permissive Will of God — is as follows:
In light of God’s conferring Free Will on man (God’s creation of man without this perfection would consequently be an imperfect creation by an all-good and all-powerful God, for freedom of will is an incontestable good — the privation of which results in an amoral world in which there is nothing meritorious and nothing blameworthy — much as we understand the operations of a machine that cannot do otherwise than its designer intended — a mere automaton to which we cannot ascribe any moral predicates.
As a consequence, man, possessing the perfection of free will, is free to choose what he wills, good or evil, and not what God wills. The same freedom may align man to God’s Express Will (he chooses to do what he knows God commands him to do — rather than that which he may otherwise be inclined to do — which is to say that his own will is freely aligned with the perfect will of God — before which he can plead no ignorance). What is more, God cannot revoke this perfect gift of free will without simultaneously abrogating that singular perfection with which He endowed man — and then re-create man as imperfect (without a free will).
Even a Pope is Given the Free Will to do what he wills — rather than What God wills
intensionally 2 (not “intentionally”) tautologous. 3
This is the great mystery of the power of free will. So indefeasible and necessary to man’s created perfection (as noted above), God even permits man’s repudiation of God Himself! It is absolutely autonomous, uncoerced, andIn a word, it is completely independent, self-referent, and completely free. However faithfully or unfaithfully a pope executes his Petrine Office is largely determined by the man. He may be good or he may be evil. In either case — even given the exalted office conferred upon him — he is withal and necessarily exercising his own free will. Even a pope is free to do what he wills, rather than what God wills. He can incorporate and exercise the legitimate responsibilities of his office, or he can be despotic and utterly ignore them, and with them, God. It is up to the man.
When the free will is consonant with God’s will it is holy, for God is holy. When the free will not consonant with God’s will it is evil (for there is nothing good apart from God.4) It is quite simple, really.
WHY?
That God may actively or permissively will the Petrine Office to be occupied by the feckless despot Jorge Bergoglio as a scourge to a perverse and faithless generation, a generation which, unable to make God in their image, contrived to make His Vicar in their image instead — is altogether and increasingly likely.We must equally remember two episodes, one from the Old Testament, and one from the New Testament in which we find God bringing good even out of evil:
In Genesis 15.18-20 we find the Patriarch Joseph thrown into a dry well to die by his eleven brothers, to whom he said when they were reunited,“You thought evil against me: but God turned it into good, that he might exalt me, as at present you see, and might save many people.”
Pilate surely believed that it was in his power to crucify Christ or to free Him — but Jesus responds:“Thou shouldst not have any power against Me, unless it were given thee from above.” (Saint John 19.11)
These are two striking examples of God’s Permissive Will — not simply respecting the free will He conferred upon man, but of His power to bring a seemingly impossible good out of the evil devices of men. Most often we do not see the end to which his benevolent, Permissive Will, is directed — and may not in this life at all. We are left with the assurance by Saint Paul:“And we know that to them that love God, all things work together unto good, to such as, according to His purpose, are called to be saints.” (Romans 8.28)
It is true that Jorge has uttered some things good and true — but because one utters some things that are true and good, we cannot infer that the one saying them is himself good ... or true.
An Apposite and Frightening Paradigm
Here our paradigm is no one less than Satan, who himself quoted Scripture in the Temptations of Christ (Saint Matthew 4.1-11) What he said was true in his unsuccessful attempts to seduce Christ from redeeming the souls of men, but because he quoted directly from Holy Scripture itself in no way mitigates his evil.
Some things that Bergoglio (Francis) says are both good and true (when comprehensible — but far too many are arrogant, evil and unjust) — and just as Lucifer can take the form of an angel of light *, so Francis can take the form of an apostle of Christ!
Like Satan, Francis can quote Scripture, too …
______________________________
*“For such false apostles are
deceitful workmen, transforming themselves into the apostles
of Christ. And no wonder: for Satan himself transformeth
himself into an angel of light.” (2 Corinthians 13-14)
1
https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/francis-orban-trade-jibes-at-historic-meet
2 An intensional definition gives the meaning of a term by specifying necessary and sufficient conditions for when the term should be used by denoting the properties that an object requires in order to be understood as a referent of the term. For example, an intensional definition of the word “bachelor” is an “unmarried man”.
3 a tautology is the uttering of the same thing twice in different words.
4
“Every
best gift, and every perfect gift, is from above, coming
down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no change,
nor shadow of alteration.”
(Saint James 1.17)
Geoffrey K. Mondello
Editor
Boston Catholic Journal
Comments? Write us: editor@boston-catholic-journal.com
The Demonic Perversion of the Confessional
and the Perpetuation of
Homosexuality in the Priesthood
“Archbishop Carlo Viganò claimed that Pope Francis “continued to cover” for McCarrick, and not only did he repeal the sanctions imposed by Benedict, but also made McCarrick “his trusted counselor.” He claimed that McCarrick, the former archbishop of Washington, advised the pope to appoint a number of bishops in the United States , including Cardinal Blaise Cupich of Chicago, Cardinal Joseph Tobin of Newark, and Bishop Robert McElroy of San Diego.” [all homosexual advocates — ed.]
Francis’ Response?
“I Will Not Say a Single Word”
“Pope Francis said [Aboard the papal plane, Aug 26, 2018 / 15:30 pm] that he will not comment on claims by a former Vatican ambassador to the U.S. that the pope knew about allegations against Archbishop Theodore McCarrick and reinstated him in ministry. The pope said people should make up their own minds about the claims. Asked whether it was true that Archbishop Carlo Viganò, the statement’s author, had informed him in 2013 about McCarrick’s alleged sexual misconduct with priests and seminarians, and if it was true Benedict XVI had previously imposed sanctions on the former cardinal, the pope said he was distracted by the previous question and would have preferred to talk about the trip. ... “I read the statement this morning, and I must tell you sincerely that, I must say this, to you ... I will not say a single word on this.” *
How was this possible?
Why ... why did Francis refuse to reply to the shocking accusations brought about by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò with these infamous words? Twice he claims that he “must” say nothing about the accusations. “Must”. He does not say “I choose not to ...”, or “I would prefer not to ...” — but that he “MUST not”. Francis chose his words very carefully.
Why?
This question has baffled countless Catholics, journalists, and reporters concerning the widespread Abuse Scandal of Predatory Homosexual Priests. There is an answer — an answer that is at once conspicuously cogent, compelling, and credible. In fact, it may be the answer to the most salient question surrounding the worst scandal that has ever plagued the Roman Catholic Church in the 2000 years of Her history:
Dr. Taylor Marshall, philosopher and director of the New Saint Thomas Institute, has provided us with a uniquely insightful answer which, when fully explicated, answers not only this vexing question concerning Francis, but the vicious mechanism by which homosexual predation within the clergy flourished and continues to be perpetuated.The Answer is Breathtaking! The Sacrament of Penance — the Confessional — the very means established by Christ to renounce and repudiate sin and re-establish the soul to a state of grace consonant with God — has been perverted to become both the means and the end of perpetuating sin! Imagine, the devil has spuriously co-opted a Sacrament! The object is to perpetuate homosexuality in the the priesthood — and to destroy it — and with it, Christ’s Holy Catholic Church! How was this possible?
Manipulating the Seal of the Confessional!
NON HABEMUS PAPAM
1958 —the Year of the Last
Authentic Catholic Pope
It is typically the prerogative of the Protodeacon of the College of Cardinals who ceremoniously proclaims the election of a new pope with the words “Habemus Papam!”, or “We have a Pope” — following a conclave of Cardinal Electors who nominated him.
With something far more profound and painful than “regret”, we have come to acknowledge what had become increasingly obvious — and which found its clearest expression, its culmination, in the neo-pagan “papacy” of Jorge Bergoglio (“Francis”).
The See of Rome is no longer Catholic, as Catholicism had been understood and practiced for the 2000 years preceding Vatican II
That is to say, it had ceased to be identifiably and authentically Catholic following that calamitous consistory known to us as “Vatican II” which occurred between October 11, 1962 until December 8, 1965. Since that initial and unprecedented defection of Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli — “John XXIII” — together with what appear to have been at least latently apostate cardinals who nominated him to implement a Modernist agenda replete with the heretical ideologies that define it — and which Saint Pope Pius X had clearly enumerated in his encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis in 1907, stating that Modernism is the “synthesis of all heresies”, and therefore unequivocally antithetical to the One, True, Holy Catholic Church of the preceding 2000 years.
As a matter of public record and verifiable assertions, Jorge Bergoglio is merely the de facto “pope” of what is, in every aspect, a new religion altogether; a secularized religion that superficially resembles the authentic Catholic Church as it existed prior to 1962 — which it definitively renounced — while choosing to retain a simulacrum of it.
the Salvation of Souls
Whatever became of this most
Fundamental
Imperative
that is nothing less than the
very reason
CHRIST ESTABLISHED HIS CHURCH?
It is unlikely that the vast, indeed, the overwhelming majority of today’s Catholics have not so much as heard of this phrase as old as the Church itself; certainty, not in English — and with greater certainty still, not from the pulpit.
The
very concept of “the salvation of the soul” appears to
have been non grata in homiletics for quite nearly 60
years (corresponding, unsurprisingly, to the implementation
of Vatican II) — despite the fact that the imperative itself
is clearly and unambiguously codified as the supremus lex
(the supreme law) of the Roman Catholic Church in (Canon
Law 1752):
“Salus animarum supremus lex esto” — “the salvation of souls … must be the supreme law in the Church.”
It is nothing less than the sole reason for the Incarnation … the Suffering, Crucifixion, Death, and Resurrection … of Christ: the salvation of souls!
Christ as Savior, Christ as Redeemer, cannot be understood apart from this most fundamental and utterly simple concept: He came to save souls — not to heal bodies (although He did), not to rectify injustices, not to rehabilitate politics, not to instruct us on economics, and certainly not “save the Environment” — which, sadly, appear to be the principal if not the sole concerns of the present pontiff, who, sadly, is more an emissary of the United Nations and Globalist Ideology than the Vicar of Jesus Christ on Earth. Certainly an indifferentist (every religion is sufficient to salvation) and most definitely a heretic, he is nothing remotely proximate to his putative job description.
Vatican II:
the Great
Apostasy
and
The Myth called Ecumenism
Martyrology for Today
PV2 = Enrolled prior to Vatican II and deleted after Vatican II
ROMAN MARTYROLOGY
Tuesday October 19th in
the Year of Grace 2021
Time after
Pentecost
P2V: In Egypt, St. Varus, a soldier,
who under the Emperor Maximian, visited and refreshed seven holy monks
who were kept in prison. When one of them died, he wished to be accepted
in his place, and after suffering with them most cruel torments, he
obtained the palm of martyrdom. Response: Thanks be to God.
|
Roman Martyrology by Month
| January | February | March | April | May | June |
| July | August | September | October | November | December |
New: the Roman Martyrology can now be downloaded entirely as either a PDF file or as a Microsoft Word File
Why the Martyrs Matter
Each day we bring you
a calendar, a list really, of the holy Martyrs who had suffered
and died for Christ, for His Bride the Church, and for our holy
Catholic Faith; men and women for whom — and well they knew — their
Profession of Faith would cost them their lives.
They could have repudiated all three (Christ, Church, and Catholic
Faith) and kept their lives for a short time longer (even the
lapsi only postponed their death — and at so great a cost!)
What would motivate men, women, even children and entire families
to willingly undergo the most evil and painfully devised tortures;
to suffer death rather than denial?
Why did they not renounce their Catholic Faith when the first flame
licked at their feet, after the first eye was plucked out, or after
they were “baptized” in mockery by boiling water or molten lead
poured over their heads? Why did they not flee to offer incense
to the pagan gods since such a ritual concession would be merely
perfunctory, having been done, after all, under duress, exacted
by the compulsion of the state? What is a little burned incense
and a few words uttered without conviction, compared to your own
life and the lives of those you love? Surely God knows that you
are merely placating the state with empty gestures …
Did they love their wives, husbands, children — their mothers, fathers
and friends less than we do? Did they value their own lives less?
Were they less sensitive to pain than we are? In a word, what did
they possess that we do not?
Nothing. They possessed what we ourselves are given in the Sacrament
of Confirmation — but cleaved to it in far greater measure than
we do: Faith and faithfulness; fortitude and valor, uncompromising
belief in the invincible reality of God, of life eternal in Him
for the faithful, of damnation everlasting apart from Him for the
unfaithful; of the ephemerality of this passing world and all within
it, and lives lived in total accord with that adamant belief.
We are the Martyrs to come. What made them so will make us so.
What they suffered we will suffer. What they died for, we will die
for. If only we will! For most us, life will be a bloodless
martyrdom, a suffering for Christ, for the sake of Christ, for the
sake of the Church in a thousand ways outside the arena. The road
to Heaven is lined on both sides with Crosses, and upon the Crosses
people, people who suffered unknown to the world, but known to God.
Catholics living in partibus infidelium, under the scourge
of Islam. Loveless marriages. Injustices on all sides. Poverty.
Illness. Old age. Dependency. They are the cruciform! Those whose
lives became Crosses because they would not flee God, the
Church, the call to, the demand for, holiness in the most ordinary
things of life made extraordinary through the grace of God. The
Martyrology we celebrate each day is just a vignette, a small, immeasurably
small, sampling of the martyrdom that has been the lives of countless
men and women whom Christ and the Angels know, but whom the world
does not know.
“Exemplum enim dedi
vobis”, Christ said to His
Apostles: “I have given you
an example.” And His Martyrs
give one to us — and that is why the Martyrs matter.
Geoffrey K. Mondello
Editor
editor@boston-catholic-journal.com
Boston Catholic Journal
Note:
We suggest that you explore our newly edited and revised
“De SS. Martyrum Cruciatibus — The Torments and Tortures of the
Christian Martyrs” for an in-depth historical account of the
sufferings of the Martyrs.
Totally Faithful to the Sacred
Deposit of Faith entrusted to the Holy See in
Rome
|
