Thursday, February 3, 2022

Let's wake up before it's too late


Storm on the Sea of Galilee.

Abbé Michel Violet is a former Lutheran pastor who converted in 2000 and was ordained a Catholic priest in 2003. He formulated a protest against the motu proprio Traditionis custodes and the ban on administering the sacraments in the traditional form. But he also comments on the situation of the Church in France and political maneuvers aimed at weakening it. We document his statements.


By Abbe Michel Violet


At the beginning of this year, sadness is certainly the feeling that the French share most and undoubtedly they are not the only ones in the world.


As a Catholic priest, I believe in the primacy of prayer and in particular the prayer that we raise to God in the Church when we celebrate the sacred liturgy. But even that sacred practice has turned into a cause of sadness today, and I don't think things are going well in that regard!



Abbe Michel Violet

I have received the motu proprio Traditionis Custodes with childlike obedience because it comes from the successor of Peter, who justifies it with his concern that no parallel Church will arise from the traditional Mass according to the missal of 1962. If some brothers in France could give that impression by refusing to concelebrate with their bishop at the Chrism Mass - an attitude I regret - it does not mean that Catholics who are attached to the traditional liturgy, have even the slightest intention of joining another Church. For everyone I know in my country, there is only one Catholic Church whose Pope is named Francis and there can be no other!

Therefore, it seems to me neither fair nor merciful to restrict the celebration of the Mass of St. John XXIII. to add also the withdrawal of the celebration of the various sacraments of the Church in its ancient form. And the assertion that this religious practice is in contradiction with the Second Vatican Council strikes me as surprising, since I have always been told, and have been for a long time, that this Council is in continuity with the previous Councils. How can there be a contradiction in celebrating a baptism after Vatican II in the form in which it was celebrated after Vatican I and for many centuries before that?


Moreover - and I think I am justified in this criticism, which does not call into question the validity of the sacraments administered according to the modern liturgy - the latter largely abolished the exorcisms, partly because their authors, some of whom I knew well, did not believe in original sin! It seems to me that the survival of this liturgy is of the greatest interest, especially in the interest of Catholic orthodoxy. Therefore, I am sad about the possible abolition or even the ban of the traditional liturgy.


It is also sad for those who die. As a priest, how can I refuse to give the Last Rites to a dying person in the same way that his parents or grandparents received it? Our bishops are our fathers and our superiors. I cannot imagine that they prevent us from bringing a dying man the comfort he rightly asks of us.


It is also sad that we cannot guarantee the funeral mass in the Extraordinary Form. Those who know this liturgy, which has accompanied death for centuries and which today has been, for some, one of the rare occasions to attend Mass, which made them reflect on the Christian doctrine of death and lead them to ask the question asking about the resurrection, can't help but be deeply hurt when they are denied the final testimony they want to give for their lives down here. And I would like to add that for convinced Christians there is everything in this ritual that strengthens their faith in the resurrection. Everything in this traditional form helps when the Requiem Aeternam is sung, the taking over of the terror of separation by singing the Dies Irae, if one has bothered to understand it! Doesn't everything collapse and give the impression of the end of the world and sometimes with deep-seated anger when one learns of the death of the little brother or sister...? At this moment you don't want to be pounded with the hallelujah or hear "Christ is risen" sung to every conceivable tune. [Or worse, the ditties of sex predatory Marty HaugenEverything in its time, with the Libera me and the In Paradisum!


Forgive me if I give a personal example, not to stir but to convince. For medical reasons I experienced the approach of death and the hope of being accompanied by this ancient prayer of the Church on my last visit to a Catholic shrine is of great help to me. I don't want to be forced to withhold it from other Christians who ask me! could I do that I do not know!


It is also sad to think of the young seminarians of Institutes who live to the rhythm of the traditional Mass and to force them to abandon the ancient liturgy of Holy Orders. We would deny those who give their lives to the Church this liturgical form that unites them to Christ the Head, that has shaped them since their youth, that has enabled them to hear the Lord's call and follow their studies in the seminary! It is for their respective authorities to inform them that, exceptionally, they must later celebrate in a different manner, due to exigencies of service, according to the orders of their bishop. They will accept this as an act of brotherly charity rather than a prohibition


Sadness also reigns over the spectacle of division among Catholics! At this time of prayer for Christian unity, so precious that it makes more sense than ever to preserve it, I regret that some people have so little regard for Catholic unity that they to defame Our Holy Father, the servant of unity par excellenceAnd I go so far as to rejoice, to my great shame, that the various political governments no longer attach great importance to Catholicism, avoiding the drama of the fourteenth century, the Great Western Schism (1378), in which two popes ruled at the same time, then even three who mutually excommunicated each other!  I hope I'm not giving the wrong idea to our elected Republican presidents, to elect a Pope by an independent commission of cardinals, also open to women and laypeople, and Presided over – why not –  Mr. Jean-Marc Sauvé. [Sauvé, a senior state official and deputy chairman of the French Supreme Administrative Court until 2018, is President of the Independent Commission on Sexual Abuse in the Church ( CIASE). See the CIASE or Suavé report: Not 330,000, but "only" up to 28,000 victims of abuse? ]


Imagine what an advantage that would be for tourism, which would have an additional attraction! And this kind of adventure would have the additional advantage that many ecclesiastical ambitions would be satisfied by the propagation of mitres and birettas! Purple and crimson dreams would come true!

I shall have occasion to return to it in a different context and in detail, as other Catholics have done. I am only now addressing this issue because what I suspected is happening. The CIASE report, with its inflated figures, is now beginning to show its true colors as a pretext to significantly transform the Catholic Church.

For example, there is no hesitation in making public the allegations of abuse made by a priest who died in 1994 and was a renowned artist in the field of stained glass that decorates many of our churches. I'm not familiar with this case, but I've seen these stained glass windows and think they're great! It seems that they are even protected by the Monuments Office. I learn that not only are they exhuming this dossier against a dead man, but that they also intend to remove all of his glass windows! [They should get rid of Eric Gill's garbage, tbh.What consequences the horror of 897 had for Church and society! It was the loss of confidence in the papacy that enabled its domination by the great Roman families, the predecessors of our left-wing bobos, who placed their descendants on the throne of Peter.


In fact, women (then Theodora and Marozia) were given an important role, as recommended by CIASE. They influenced the election of several popes, whose abilities they came to appreciate very intimately, but had little to do with theology! This drifting away of the Church lasted from 904 to 963.

I consider it a dangerous path to make disappear the works of art of a man who has not lived according to Catholic morality. If we continue on it, there will soon be great gaps in our museums and churches. It will be necessary, and this will only be the beginning, to remove the works of Caravaggio and whitewash the Sistine Chapel!


Above all, it encourages those nostalgic for the Inquisition to continue their work of purification. They have their sights on none other than our Pope Emeritus, suspected of knowingly covering up reprehensible acts by priests during his tenure as Archbishop of Munich (1977-1982), and Le Point newspaper, which focuses on the dismantling of bishops, do not hesitate to share this message with a photo of Benedict XVI. to illustrate how he is very old and looks desperately at the sky with folded hands as if asking for forgiveness. Shame on the person responsible for this article and presentation, that of a Dr. Goebbels is worthy, responsible!


He presided over the writing of a new Deuteronomy. It was precisely under these conditions that Robespierre, in good faith, created terror and declared himself the leader of the party of good because of virtue! Do we want a Church of terror in the name of that same virtue?


And this at a time when our country is sinking into the materialistic mediocrity of economic globalism, when the lack of freedom prevents us from speaking about real, legitimate fears by propagating false fears.

So there is also sadness about the decline of our country, in which a Catholic elite is complicit!

I confess that I do not understand how, after the comedy played for us Catholics by the President of the Republic during his visit to the Collège des Bernardins and after the bioethics laws he passed, our religious authorities can now say that they will not make any voting recommendations in the next presidential elections. It is true that they were not heard when the abortion period was extended to fourteen weeks. As a result of the Sauvé report, the Church is now ashamed to speak about moral issues!


And no doubt they will continue to do so after President Emmanuel Macron, President of the Council of the European Union and undeclared candidate for the upcoming presidential elections, expressed his desire to see women's abortion rights enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.


Many Catholics are waiting for a response from their pastors, if only to emphasize that abortion cannot be made a women's right in a European charter of rights. If so, it would be, to quote Pope Francis, acknowledging the usefulness of abortionists as hit men. And how can one ignore the fact that euthanasia and outright murder are being proposed by his supporters to the outgoing president as issues for the next election campaign. President Macron would thus add two more serious sins to the apostasy from his baptism and the promotion of abortion, which the Church condemns with excommunication latae sententiae, leading to the intensification of the culture of death.


Our French Bishops' Conference could hardly remain silent unless it hoped the stones would cry out! But I don't know if the believers will understand that because at the same time it is to be feared that many believers will lose interest in donating money!


Only if the Church admits this will it live the correct neutrality it strives for! Because at this time the Christian people are waiting for coherent words and deeds, for signs of mobilization and not of renunciation, especially in the face of increasingly anti-Catholic political forces!


From what I've said, someone might ask if it's still possible to hope? My answer, without hesitation, is “yes” if we manage to show courage quickly. People believe they are masters of their own destiny and plans. They easily forget the omnipotence of God. It is God who, with our indispensable witness, will reveal Himself and make His righteousness visible when the time comes. He will help the defenders of the Catholic faith to victory and put the impostors in their place.


Translation: Giuseppe Nardi
Image : Wikicommons

Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com

AMDG

Saturday, January 29, 2022

Saint Elizabeth Orthodox Church is Woke —- “I Can’t Breeve!!”

Saint Elizabeth of Saint Paul Icon



George Floyd Icon between two decorative benches. 
Not gay at all!

Edit: it usually takes a pretty progressive faith community, or the really effeminate busy-body Vox Cantoris, to virtue signal for a felonious drug addict like George Floyd, but this Saint Paul, Minnesota, Orthodox Church just loves putting its neck on the chopping block in this act of pure cringe. I’ll bet the priests’s wife’s kids love this!


AMDG

Thursday, January 27, 2022

Enmities Are Also of Long Duration


Joseph Ratzinger, Archbishop of Munich and Freising for a few months, at his cardinal creation by Paul VI. 
in St. Peter's Basilica in 1977.

(Rome) Enmities also last a long time. That's what Benedict XVI is getting to feel. An orchestrated media campaign is once again attempting to dismantle his reputation. And once again, things are not as claimed.

Benedict XVI will, God willing, celebrate his 94th cradle festival in a few weeks. As of September 2, 2020, he is the oldest pope in history. Leo XIII had this primacy so far. who, however, died in office at the age of 93. Benedict XVI renounced it, not for the benefit of the Church. For almost nine years he has been the first “pope emeritus” in Church history. And although since then he has no longer taken part in the leadership of the church and lives in seclusion in the Vatican Gardens in the Mater Ecclesiae monastery, the hostility of certain circles against him has not broken.


In recent days, in an orchestrated media campaign, he has been accused of having entrusted pastoral duties to two convicted pederasts as Archbishop of Munich and Freising, a post Joseph Ratzinger held from 1977 to 1982. The media outcry was triggered by a report by a law firm on sexual abuse in the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising, which the media  insists "severely burdened" the former archbishop. In reality, the expert opinion is characterized primarily by morality and not by evidence. DieTagespost wrote on January 20: "The Westphal law firm is attempting the media execution of the emeritus pope". They can be certain of  support by a specific mainstream.


The report on Benedict XVI. was submitted last Thursday. His secretary, Curial Archbishop Georg Gänswein, published a press release yesterday in which Benedict XVI. corrected himself. Not necessarily a smart move, but one that honors him. 


In contrast to his statement to the commission of inquiry at the time, he now confirmed his presence at a meeting in 1980. As was to be expected, this correction caused a second wave of scandalous headlines, this time even more hypocritical than before: “Benedict XVI. gave false testimony,” headlined Die Welt. A word that is as strong as it is disproportionate. However, this indicates the direction of impact. It's about discrediting, discrediting the reputation of Benedict XVI. and of course the Church. The latter is apparently accepted with approval by certain ecclesiastical circles in order to advance their agenda. The correction that Benedict XVI. made, which is simply the correction of a footnote, is presented by the media cartel as if the (lack of) evidence had been provided that the allegations of the abuse report were correct. But in reality it is a classic media misrepresentation.


Benedict XVI had said in his statement at the time that he had not been present at a particular meeting in 1980. The events happened decades ago. The point, however, is that the said session was not about what is being insinuated. The Daily Mail therefore headlined: “No lie, one mistake”.


Archbishop Gänswein writes in the declaration for Benedict XVI:


"Even if he tries to read it quickly, he asks for your understanding that the complete review still needs time in view of his age and his health, but also because of the large volume. There will be a statement on the report.”

 

And further:


"But he would like to make it clear now that, contrary to what was said during the hearing, he took part in the Ordinariate meeting on January 15, 1980."


For this it is executed:


“So the statement to the contrary was objectively wrong. He would like to emphasize that this was not done out of bad faith, but was the result of an error in the editing of his statement. He will explain how this came about in the pending statement. He is very sorry for this mistake and he apologizes for this mistake.

However, what remains objectively correct, as documented by the documents, is the statement that no decision was made at this meeting about the pastoral assignment of the priest in question. Rather, the request was only granted to provide him with accommodation during his therapeutic treatment in Munich."


One could also speak of hypercorrectness, since the correction of a marginal event that has nothing to do with the actual question is tantamount to media "suicide" in the heated atmosphere. The prompt relentlessness of the media cartel provides evidence that every little thing is used to discredit.


Finally, Msgr. Gänswein writes in the statement:


"Benedict XVI. is close to his former archdiocese and home diocese these days and is very connected to it in his efforts to clarify. He thinks especially of the victims who have experienced sexual abuse and indifference.” 


So it "fits in time" that yesterday 125 church employees, professors of theology, some priests and other employees "denounced the 'discriminatory' policy of the Church" and confessed to be homosexual, for which they also presented their own website called OutInChurch. AFP, one of the world's three most influential press agencies, also dedicated its own report to the "outing".


The denunciation of the sexual abuse scandal by clerics, which is above all a homosexual abuse scandal, does not primarily serve the victims or the cleansing of the Church, but Her dismantling. The first goal is to demand changes in Her sexual morals, particularly through the recognition of homosexuality. A contradiction? Not at all. The 1968 scene had a slogan for this: "Destroy what destroys you". An abstruse motto that was developed in the anarchist, neo-Marxist milieu, but has been widely used ever since. The homo movement received its decisive impetus from the 1968 riots: the "liberation of sexuality in a liberated society".


Text: Giuseppe Nardi

Image: MiL

Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com

AMDG

Wednesday, January 26, 2022

UAL's Scott Kirby is a Cross-dressing Freak!

Scott Kirby

John Scott Kirby is an American executive currently serving as CEO of United Airlines. He previously served as President of US Airways and American Airlines, as well as President of United Airlines from 2016 to 2020, when he was promoted as CEO.





Do you believe this freak when he says that they had 10 employees dying every week before he mandated the jab?


You Can't Patent the Holocaust

EMJ has been busy...

Tuesday, January 25, 2022

The Devil's Waves of Attack


 Desecration of Hosts: The body of Christ picked up from the ground.

(Paris) A man received Holy Communion at Sunday Mass, crushed it and threw it on the ground. The sacrilege happened on January 17 in Paris. The priest's exemplary response and what is not said.


The serious incident took place in the Saint-Esprit parish church in the 12th ArrondissementBuilt between 1928 and 1935, the Church of the Holy Spirit is called the "Byzantium of Paris" because it is modeled on the famous Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, now Istanbul. Nothing of this can be seen from the outside, as the church is integrated into a row of houses.



The Parish Church of Saint-Esprit, the "Byzantium of Paris"

When Parish Vicar Simon Fornier de Violet, the youngest of the four priests serving in the parish, was administering Communion that Sunday at 11 a.m. Mass, a man also came who received the Body of Christ through Communion in the hand. Instead of putting it in his mouth, he raised it in front of his face, demonstratively crumbled it and dropped it on the floor.


The man, the priest later confirmed, was crushing the consecrated Host in his hand. When the priest caught himself, he grabbed the man's jacket. He replied: "For Nadia" and disappeared into the crowd. "So it was planned. It was premeditated," the priest told Aleteia .


The young priest then asked the other believers to stand back and keep their distance. Then he picked up the crumbled body of Christ from the ground.


“The desecration of the body of Christ is far more serious than desecrating a statue or stealing church property. It is the most serious thing that can be celebrated liturgically and sacramentally,” said the priest.

  

The year 2022 began in France with several church desecrations. Père Fornier de Violet speaks of a "wave of attacks from the devil". Such wave movements have repeatedly occurred in history. The priest seems convinced that such a wave is underway today:


“The powers of evil are unleashed, it is a way of testing the church to trust in God and to remember that the devil was defeated by Christ. This man who crushed the host was under the influence of the devil.”


At the end of the Mass, Father Fornier de Violet explained to the faithful gathered in the church what had happened. He did it for those who had not seen the event themselves, but also for the children who were preparing for First Communion and who, in the first pews, could observe everything closely, but perhaps did not understand.


He then carried the gleaned body of Christ with him on the exodus:

 

“We walk among the people of God with the broken body of the Lord. There is something prophetic and dramatic about it.”


In the sacristy, Father Arnaud Duban dissolved the broken communion in water. After the prayer provided for this purpose, “let us mix this water with the earth”.


On January 19, a Mass was celebrated in reparation for the sacrilege. This was also used "to help believers and children to get a proper understanding of the sanctity of the body of Christ."


“Evil must be met face to face. You have to call a spade a spade,” says Père Fornier de Violet.

 The “tragedy” that occurred, the priest said, “should also help us to worship and respect more the body of Christ”.

However, the young vicar did not go into detail about naming those responsible, namely the bishops. In 1969 in France, they introduced .[sacrilegious] hand Communion by means of a dispensation in addition to Communion on the tongue. Paul VI had made such a dispensation possible with the instruction Memoriale Domini of the Congregation for Worship in May of that year . Under the pretext of an alleged pandemic, categorical communion in the hand was imposed on the dioceses by the French Bishops' Conference, including the Archbishop of Paris, although they have neither the right nor the authority to do so.


The Parisian Church of the Holy Spirit is modeled after the famous Hagia Sophia in Constantinople.


Text: Giuseppe Nardi 
Image : Aleteia/Wikicommons 
 Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com 
 AMDG

"My Body Belongs to Me" or "Your Body Belongs to Me" --- Superior of SSPX Unconvincing Opposition to Corona



Father Davide Pagliarani's warning about the Corona crisis, which is not convincing
.

 Thoughts by Giuseppe Nardi

(Menzingen) The Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X (FSSPX), Fr. Davide Pagliarani, spontaneously commented on December 11 at a conference in the USA at the request of participants "also on the subject of Covid-19 and vaccination".  On January 18th, the Society of Saint Pius X published his free speech in a German translation.  Excerpts had already become known and sparked polemics.  Father Pagliarani takes a more detailed and differentiated position than most bishops do.  In the German-speaking area, there is governmental servitude in this regard.  The bishops' conferences and their presidents sound like government mouthpieces.  But P. Pagliarani's "admonition" also calls for a few comments.  So he says:

 "How long will the problem last?  Is this all complicated?  Yes!  Is this all a bit crazy?  Yes!  Is the stress that weighs on all of humanity understandable?  Yes!  Is it permissible to ask questions about all these problems?  Yes!  Is it legitimate to be against mandatory vaccinations?  Yes!  But …!"

The "but" is explained in the following sentence:

“But this major problem is linked to a medical issue.  That is the main reason why the Society does not speak directly on this issue.”

That is the crux of the matter.  The Corona problem that moves people, whether on one side or the other, is not a medical question, but a political one.  Governments have turned a medical issue into a political one.  The entire discussion, the multitude of problems, conflicts, fears, coercion are connected with this political interference.  That could not be said and seen through with certainty in the first few weeks of the ongoing Corona issue.  Some professionals like Prof. Bhakdi and Dr.  Wodarg did it back then and should be right with their assessment.  Since May 2020, however, it can be generally seen through if you want to see.  Since then, numbers have been on the table, and these facts have become more and more important.  This includes the ongoing cover-up and obfuscation by governments and their cronies, which is perhaps even more telling.

 It is appropriate to stay out of the medical question, it belongs to the doctors, at least as far as it does not touch on moral questions.  But it's not about the medical question, it's about the political one.  If politics, if governments, had not interfered, Corona would have passed humanity long ago without attracting any attention.  "If there had been no PCR tests worldwide, I don't think anyone would have noticed," said Prof. Franz Allerberger, head of AGES, the Austrian Robert Koch Institute, in a video interview on June 19, 2021.  Allerberger described the effect of protective masks outside of hospitals and homes as not a medical but a political question.  It's all about this.  As of January 2020, Corona is primarily a psychological war, a war started and waged by someone.  In the meantime, those responsible cannot be fully named, but they can be named to a large extent.

Pagliarani's reference that one does not comment on the matter because it is a question of medicine must therefore come to nothing.  It is about the political question for which a medical question is used as an occasion or pretext.  Nobody expects an opinion on a medical question from bishops, communities or even the Society of Saint Pius X, but they do expect orientation on moral questions, questions of natural law and social teaching.  According to Prof. Allerberger, the Corona crisis, which was triggered or staged without any need, is shaking the entire social fabric, from the state down to the family.  A schism was created according to plan, the artificial genesis of which took place before everyone's eyes and which now runs through almost every community.  There has not been a more devastating situation since the end of the war.  And nothing in this spiral of decomposition has anything to do with the medical question, but everything has to do with the political question.

Why P. Pagliarani cites aspects of "globalism and conspiracy" as the reason why "the Society is holding back" remains incomprehensible on the basis of his further comments on this chapter.  Wouldn't it be more appropriate to take a stand and put the current events into the "big picture" in order to make the connections clear?  So he says:

"The main expression of globalism, namely the destruction of the natural moral law and order that the Church has preserved and protected, is the creation of a new 'world' with new 'laws', with a new authority.  With or without Covid, with or without vaccination.  This globalism didn't just start a year ago.  It's much older."

Doesn't it seem reasonable to assume that Covid and the "vaccination" are not outside of "this globalism", but rather are a genuine expression of it?  Instruments to realize exactly the goals outlined by P. Pagliarani against the natural, the divine order?

In the important chapter on sin, the Superior General, despite the resolution not to comment on a medical question, suddenly dares to go far ahead when he says: "Even traditionists and Catholics who are faithful to tradition are dying of Covid!" Of course, "also traditionalists and  traditional Catholics" must die.  No one should have doubted that.  However, the postulate with the exclamation mark indicates that P. Pagliarani seems to be convinced that the officially counted "corona deaths" actually died of Covid-19".  At least that's daring.  The diagnosis "Covid-19" is, and that too is initially not a question of medicine, but of what government policy wants.  Think of the phrase “deceased from or with” that was unknown until the Corona crisis;  one thinks of the factually exclusive corona diagnosis based on the PCR test, which cannot distinguish corona from influenza, which is why the officially stated numbers say nothing about how many corona intensive care patients are due to Covid-19 or for a completely different reason are in the intensive care unit;  think of the highly dubious way of counting the “corona deaths”.  These are all not medical, but politically desired decisions.

The statements of the Superior General in his last chapter “False Principles” are embarrassing.  Roughly speaking, Father Pagliarani says that because there are also “wrong” people, he calls “leftists” and “extreme leftists”, the Society of St. Pius X can not join a position.  What is the purpose of distancing?  Why so polemical?  The question can only be: Does someone say and do the right thing?  I saw Society members at a rally with their flags walking alongside Che Guevara apologists and Catholics with depictions of the Sacred Heart.  That was what happened on the train and offered the observer an unusually interesting picture.  The named may not otherwise have much in common, but on this issue they are united and walk side by side.  Good this way.

Pagliarani's last "reason" why the Society "does not speak directly on this subject" then becomes a real own goal.  Let's hear for ourselves:

 "In one sentence: 'My body belongs to me!' I do what I want with my life.  That's why I decide for myself whether I want to be vaccinated or not.  We find the same slogans of the 1960s and 1970s - 'My belly belongs to me' - in a certain 'women's movement'.”

P. Pagliarani insinuates that the opponents of the Covid injection, which is ineffective against Corona but more deadly than the official figures for the Corona virus show, have the same spirit of the abortion advocates.  Isn't the opposite actually the case?  The pro-abortionists say “my belly is mine” when they really mean “your body is mine”, that of the unborn child they want to kill.  We are now experiencing the same mentality among vaccination fanatics and vaccination advocates.  They also say "Your body belongs to me" to the government, which wants to dispose of it.  A wrongly used slogan, as is done by the abortion lobby, is therefore wrong, neither per se nor in other situations.  In the specific case, the rejection of a fact-free, dangerous, only for BigPharma profitable corona vaccination obligation, the slogan "My body belongs to me" is correctly opposed to the mendacious postulate "Your body belongs to me".  This is what the Society of Saint Pius X might point out, along with the broader categorization that the body ultimately naturally belongs to God.  Personally, I can say that I was delighted when I was finally able to read the unspeakable abortion slogans at rallies against the Corona measures in a justifiable context.  Tactical cleverness can also be cited for the use of this slogan.

This last “reason” also makes Pagliaranis uncomfortable because he does not address the question of unethical Covid substances in his remarks.  The fact that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with the “Note” published on December 21, 2020, waved through the production of all Covid substances previously approved in the EU using aborted children does not change the question of conscience for the individual.  Leaving this unmentioned, as already done by the bishops' conferences and the Ecclesia Dei communities in the German-speaking world, makes the previous polemic even more dubious because of the identical slogans (but not content).  Comprehensive information is required to make a responsible decision in favor of a Covid injection.  In this regard, there is an almost unbelievable gap.  In the vaccination streets is not enlightened, but work on the assembly line.  Even the superior general does not try to close this gap.  Perception remains selective.

In this context, should Pagliarani not blame the multitude of broken promises made by the governments, the many lies they have told, the false figures they have presented, the revealingly one-sided decisions they have made, the hideous discrediting and hostilities,  which they have triggered or approved of, the many hardships into which they have thrown countless people, whether through irresponsible fear-mongering or through threats to their existence?

Finally, it should be remembered that remaining silent about an apparent wrong has morally relevant implications.  P. Pagliarini does not even dare to refuse vaccination.  Even the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith did that when Pope Francis did the opposite in the Vatican and gambled away another piece of his already tarnished credibility.  Silencing an injustice includes the failure of the Church hierarchy, which is plainly evident to all.  Where others do not want to raise their voice or believe that they cannot raise their voice, the Society of Saint Pius X would at least have to make it clear that the Church, with all recognition of the state and its authority, is not a bailiff of the government.  But the Superior General is also silent on this point.  Why?  Who, if not he, is free from the shackles of concordat and episcopal pressure to speak out?

The overall impression?  P. Pagliarani moves in a more differentiated way, but still on the line of the bishops' conferences.  That surprises and leaves a little perplexed.

The medical question seems to be pretend so as not to have to comment on the political one.

The current leaders, who are in office today and in Silicon Valley tomorrow, are treated with kid gloves as if they were a higher authority than the Church.  That sounded different from the mouths of representatives of the Society of Saint Pius X in the past.  Pagliarani also hints at it when he refers to currents and enemies that go back much further in history, but then retreats and, where it becomes concrete today, avoids it.

 Image: fsspx.de (screenshot)

Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com

AMDG

DR. CARRIE MADEJ: FIRST LOOK AT CHILD JAB PLUS EVIL MONOCLONAL ANTIBODY SECRETS EXPOSED

Vaccine Vendetta