Shield of Faith Press retweeted
Fr. Reid Hennick, formerly SSPX, explains why he became a sedevacantist after all: youtube.com/watch?v=0S6SgpZu… A brief, serene, non-polemical presentation that simply states the truth without bitterness and without haughtiness.
Part 9 of The Anti-Christian Conspiracy now available: shieldoffaith.press/products…
Shield of Faith Press retweeted
On the feast of St. Pius X, we recall the glorious acts of his pontificate, exactly as the Church records them:
1. He condemned and completely uprooted the pernicious errors of Modernism.
2. He compiled the laws of the Church into a single body.
3. He opened Holy Communion to children and promoted daily reception.
4. He restored Sacred Music to its pristine splendor.
5. He utterly rejected the civil veto in Papal elections.
6. He restored the laws for the catechetical instruction of the faithful.
He governed the Church firmly and made NO compromise with error. May he intercede for the SSPX today, that they finally see the reality of the crisis, abandon the illusion that authority can reside in those who objectively promulgate a false religion, and COMPLETELY reject Vatican II.
Shield of Faith Press retweeted
Solo un recordatorio sobre la destrucción teológica y litúrgica que el Novus Ordo Missae (NOM), también conocido como la Nueva Misa, ha traído sobre la Iglesia Católica.
Ante todo, se debe decir que se asiste a la Misa Tradicional en latín, no solo por una cuestión estética (en este sentido la misa en latín es también infinitamente superior a la Nueva Misa claro está). Tampoco por una cuestión de preferencia o “sensibilidad”. En efecto, las razones para asistir a ella son profundamente teológicas. Veámoslas.
En su libro altamente recomendado Work of Human Hands, el Padre (+) Anthony Cekada argumentó que la Misa Novus Ordo, incluso en latín, está construida sobre una “teología de la asamblea” en lugar de la Misa como sacrificio propiciatorio, y por lo tanto encarna principios luteranos. Por consiguiente, el NOM, incluso en latín, debe ser rechazado y evitado por completo.
Según el libro del Padre Cekada:
1. La Instrucción General de 1969 presenta la Misa como una asamblea que celebra la Cena del Señor, con el sacerdote que preside. Esto proviene de Louis Bouyer y del luterano Yngve Brilioth.
2. El Ofertorio tradicional, que ofrecía la Víctima por los vivos y los difuntos, fue reemplazado por una “Preparación de los Dones”. El Padre Cekada vincula esto con el rechazo de Lutero al lenguaje sacrificial.
3. Solo alrededor del 17 por ciento de las oraciones tradicionales sobreviven sin cambios. Las oraciones sobre el infierno, la propiciación, los santos, la herejía y la unicidad de la Iglesia fueron debilitadas o eliminadas.
4. Otras “presencias reales” en la asamblea, en la Palabra y en quien preside relativizan la transubstanciación.
5. El papel sacrificial único del sacerdote se reduce; el pueblo aparece como co-oferente en un sentido protestante.
6. Múltiples Plegarias Eucarísticas reemplazan el Canon Romano; las palabras de la institución se sitúan en un contexto narrativo de cena memorial.
7. Estos cambios ya están en la edición típica latina. El latín no restaura la teología que fue eliminada.
Conclusión:
La Misa Tradicional en Latín y el NOM no pueden coexistir de ninguna manera porque representan dos teologías opuestas. La TLM es católica y el NOM es solo una reedición de la cena luterana.
León XIV simplemente continúa la devastación litúrgica infligida a la Iglesia Católica por todos los “papas” del Vaticano II.
Shield of Faith Press retweeted
I've addressed this argument before. Marshall seems a tad ignorant of the actual events of the Council, and how the votes were manufactured.
1) Many Council Fathers were not Latinists, shockingly enough. The final 16 documents totaled over 100k words in Latin, some of which were not precise in their meaning. Translations were also ambiguous. Journalist Xavier Rynne noted in his book on the Council's second session that hardly any attendees read the Decree on the Media of Social Communications but it passed with flying colors. First point: many (not all) attendees voted for documents they didn't read or fully understand in their entirety.
2) Oregon Archbishop Robert Dwyer admitted post-Council that the bishops voted for the documents because they were told to by higher ranking clergy. See here: traditioninaction.org/HotTop… This meant that the American bishops supported the documents the American cardinals did, just as the Europeans supported what the Rhine group did. In other words, Cardinals exerted pressure on ordinary bishops to go along with their allies. The problem was that the most influential factions were controlled by dissidents and Modernists (ie the Rhine Alliance). This meant that lower-ranking clergy ended up supporting documents due to politics. This is the 'coup' aspect of the Council.
3) Dissident figures like Hans Kung, John Courtney Murray, and others were given massive exposure by TIME Magazine and other media outlets. Traditionalists like Cardinal Ottaviani, meanwhile, were dragged through the mud by the press. The praise that liberals received from the media and the smear campaign orthodox clergy were on the receiving end of had the effect of making some Council Fathers re-think their views on the documents. This was a psy-op concocted, in part, by the US Deep State that had the effect of deceiving/influence attendees into thinking the dissidents and the documents they prepared weren't so bad after all.
4) There are sentences and phrases that the conservative clergy secured in the documents. These clearly reiterate Traditional Church teaching. Other phrases in the documents were inserted by the Modernists, and these often had a double meaning or clearly contradicted past teaching on ecclesiology, etc. Michael Davies called these 'time bombs.' The conservatives voted for the documents because they felt they did the best they could to include enough traditional language in the documents to salvage them from being used for nefarious purposes later on. Of course, they ended up being wrong on that calculation.
5) After all of the original documents were thrown out (all but Sacrosanctum Concilium) the conservatives were on the defensive for the entirety of the Council. Almost every document the Council Fathers eventually approved went through dozens of re-writes over a period of several years. This had the effect of exhausting the conservatives and caused others to simply throw up their hands and look with excitement to the end of the Council so they could go home. Fr. Fenton noted in his diary how 'defeated' Ottaviani was at one point. He simply couldn't continue the fight.
6) Many Council Fathers didn't want to oppose Paul VI, win the ire of their colleagues, or show the world that the Church was divided so they voted in favor of the documents to show unanimity. They simply went along with the 'zeitgeist' of the moment and caved to peer pressure and human respect, mistakenly thinking that the Holy Spirit had protected the gathering when in reality it was the work of human hands concocted by Modernists whose ideas were already condemned by multiple popes.
Shield of Faith Press retweeted
Just a reminder about the theological and liturgical destruction the Novus Ordo Missae (NOM) also known as the New Mass, brought upon the Catholic Church.
In his highly recommended book Work of Human Hands, Father (+)Anthony Cekada argued that the Novus Ordo Mass, even in Latin, is built on “assembly theology” rather than the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice, and thus it embodies Lutheran principles. Therefore the NOM, even in Latin, should be rejected and avoided altogether.
Based on Father Cekada’s book:
1. The 1969 General Instruction presents the Mass as an assembly celebrating the Lord’s Supper, with the priest as presider. This comes from Louis Bouyer and the Lutheran Yngve Brilioth.
2. The traditional Offertory, which offered the Victim for the living and dead, was replaced by a “Preparation of the Gifts.” Father Cekada links this to Luther’s rejection of sacrificial language.
3. Only about 17 percent of the traditional orations survive unchanged. Prayers on hell, propitiation, the saints, heresy, and the uniqueness of the Church were weakened or dropped.
4. “Other real presences” in the assembly, the Word, and the presider relativize transubstantiation.
5. The priest’s unique sacrificial role is reduced; the people appear as co-offerers in a Protestant sense.
6. Multiple Eucharistic Prayers replace the Roman Canon; the words of institution sit in a narrative, memorial-supper context.
7. These changes are already in the Latin typical edition. Latin does not restore the theology that was removed.
Conclusion:
The Traditional Latin Mass and the NOM cannot possibly coexist together because they represent two opposing theologies. The TLM is Catholic and the NOM is just a re-edition of the Lutheran supper.
Leo XIV is just continuing the liturgical devastation brought upon the Catholic Church by all Vatican II “popes”.
Shield of Faith Press retweeted
Who will you believe? Father Lavery or a learned Cardinal having specifically addressed the issue?
I will definitely go with traditional theologians, and not Fr Lavery.
thethesis.us/chapter-xii/#_f…
I intended to clip it with commentary but haven't gotten to it. I think this link should open up directly to that timestamp in the recent live stream:
youtu.be/vaF0IFNeyoI?t=4782
Notice that Bp. Sanborn specifically says such "bishop" would receive his office upon the bishop's own conversion, not upon conversion of Prevost. Aside from other questions this raises, it is totally inconsistent with the Thesis argument that public heretics do not lose their office. Therefore it is inconsistent for him to argue that any conversion is necessary in the first place. By Thesis arguments, the Novus Ordo "bishops" would truly hold their office even if they are public heretics.
Shield of Faith Press retweeted
🚨🇺🇸TONIGHT: I will be interviewing Bishop Donald Sanborn from @MHTSeminary to discuss the heresy of Americanism, the US Founding, Liberal Catholicism, and more. Stay tuned.
Shield of Faith Press retweeted
“I pray for it daily.”
This was the response that Paul Scofield’s St Thomas More made to Orson Welles’ Cardinal Wolsey when asked what he was doing to help the King achieve an heir.
Wolsey scoffed, citing possible infertility problems with Queen Katherine, but St Thomas stayed firm, reminding the Cardinal of Scripture concerning natural difficulties around pregnancy: “There are precedents.”
Wolsey has to concede the point, but adds that “in addition to prayer there is effort.”
With his words, Wolsey was articulating a position said beautifully elsewhere: “Pray as if everything depended upon God, work as if everything depended upon you.”
But Wolsey was an activist. He was not going to wait for God. He was going to make things happen on his own. This turned out very poorly.
We see the same activist spirit now in some who, after decades of apparent slumber, have awoken to cry, “don’t just sit there, do something!” Some even imply that in the age of the Internet, without sending postal mail to cardinals and bishops every year, one can be accused of “doing nothing.”
Yet the activist thinking that animated Wolsey and his disciples of today, the “do somethings” that consider prayer and waiting on God as insufficient, would have been the first people to wake up Our Lord in the boat during the storm. “Don’t you see what’s happening? We need to hold an imperfect council to end this storm!”
But Our Lord never thanked those who woke Him. He only reminded them of what he would promise at His Ascension: He will be with us always, until the end of the world.
Indeed, we have an illustrative example for what happens when people (of good will and with best intentions, surely) tried to “save the Church” on their own steam: the Great Western Schism. The “we are going to have a meeting of bishops to discuss the crisis in the Church” crowd elected a 3rd pope at Pisa and made the problem worse.
The Church has all she needs to extract herself from this crisis. She has always had what she needs. Those who have seen one possible solution to this present crisis are at prayerful peace with that solution and carry out the apostolate, waiting on God and His Providence.
Others, often anonymous, hold aloft as encouragement lists of anonymous clergy, shrilly accusing others of heresy and schism and similar crimes, while they themselves presume to have the authority to call a meeting to “talk” as if telephones do not exist in our era. No purposeful meeting in Church history has been called to “just talk.”
Who is showing the peace of the Holy Ghost in this liturgical season in which we specially observe His Person and role? And who is screaming loudly on the Internet, insisting that we must “do something,” not admitting their direction of travel towards conclavism, a truly absurd, unserious “remedy"?
Those who have ears hear, and can hear tinkling cymbals when they hear them.
#catholicism
"Lucifer’s fault, the crime of his pride, was precisely to reject the supernatural; and the temptation he subjected the angels below him to, after succumbing to it himself, can therefore be called, in all strictness of terms, the temptation of Naturalism." (1/2)
Read Part 8 of The Anti-Christian Conspiracy for more insights about the supernatural nature of the current fight between secularist forces and the Catholic Church: shieldoffaith.press/products…
"we will see this same temptation reappear in the Garden of Eden...it is also to this temptation that Christianity has been subjected since the fifteenth century, by Freemasonry" (2/2)
Shield of Faith Press retweeted
Books in Review #14: The Anti-Christian Conspiracy Part 7 by Msgr Delassus, published by @shieldoffaithpr
Livestreams on YT, Facebook, and X at 6pm US Eastern time
youtube.com/watch?v=NNf8HtYE…
facebook.com/events/17396037…
xitter.cf/MHTSeminary
#catholicism #mhtseminary
Shield of Faith Press retweeted
Decoding Leo XIV: exclusive interviews before becoming 'Pope' - youtube.com/watch?v=i1oWdoPk…
Shield of Faith Press retweeted
Completely revamped and massively updated: Check out our Resource Page on 'Pope' Leo XIV - novusordowatch.org/leo-xiv/
Shield of Faith Press retweeted
How long can the Holy See be vacant? Fr Louis Coache (and context)
What can the concept of a 'moral person' do to shed light on the question of an extended vacancy?
wmreview.org/p/how-long-can-…
Shield of Faith Press retweeted
Obviously the divine institution of the papacy and the pope as visible Head of the Church is compatible with an interregnum, i.e., with there not being a pope at this moment.
Shield of Faith Press retweeted
What the bloody French Revolution couldn't get done, Vatican II was happy to finish.
The Carmelite convent that gave us the 16 Martyrs of the French Revolution will close: "The Carmel of the Annunciation, founded in Compiègne in 1641 and following the Rule of St. Teresa of Avila, was the 53rd foundation in France at the time. It had a unique impact, giving the Church 16 holy martyrs. These 16 nuns were expelled from their monastery during the French Revolution and guillotined in Paris on July 17, 1794, out of hatred for the faith."
aleteia.org/2026/04/28/sad-n…
Shield of Faith Press retweeted
The Framework of a Christian State: "It is especially unnatural and anomalous that a predominately Catholic State should allow the true religion of Christ to be placed on a par with Methodism, Judaism, Theosophism or Christian Scientism."
eocbookstore.com/products/th…
New translation released: The Blessed Carmelite Martyrs of Compiègne
shieldoffaith.press/products…