Can y’all read that? Demons playing games with this site.

https://praybenedictus.com/

I stress, “for now.” There are credible rumors of antichurch scheming to implement invalidating formulas, which would not surprise me at all. Perhaps we should even expect it. But for now, if the N.O. is all you have access to, by all means avail yourself. I’m not suggesting the good Bishop is saying as much in the essay that follows, so don’t infer that. But do consider the Eucharistic miracles, the healing miracles, the effective Exorcisms… examine the evidence; the new rites are valid. Hold your nose and ears if you have to. Don’t let a 1958 Sede turn you into a home aloner. (another essay I need to find time to write up) -nvp

“Eleison Comments” by Mgr. Williamson – Issue DCCCXLVI BAD SHEPHERDS? September 30, 2023

As certain questions come back, so there are certain answers which need to be repeated. From the very beginning of the “Traditional movement” soon after Vatican II there arose the question of attending or not the New Mass of Pope Paul VI: If it is not necessarily invalid, if it can be valid, why can I not attend it?” In accordance with Catholic theology of the Mass, the Tradionalists’ answer from the beginning was that even if the celebration of a New Mass with correct Matter, Form and Intention is valid, nevertheless it cannot normally be attended because it is so poisoned by the new humanistic religion of Vatican II that many a Catholic who attends it regularly, risks losing his faith by exposure to a false version of God, of man, of sin and Redemption, no less. The Traditional Mass is centred on God, the New Mass is centred on man.

However, the acceptability of attending the New Mass has been supported in recent years by the allegation that there have been a number of Eucharistic miracles with hosts consecrated at a New Mass celebrated by a priest ordained with the New Ordination Rite by a bishop consecrated with the New Consecration Rite, for instance in Sokulka, Poland, in 2008. Now Traditionalists not only claim, but can argue, that all three New Rites (of Mass, Ordination and Consecration) can be invalid, but in the case of many of these alleged Eucharistic miracles they are up against the (truly) scientific evidence of transubstantiation having really taken place. See for instance the 279-page book recently published by the Sophia Institute Press, A Cardiologist Examines Jesus, in which a professional heart doctor lays out “the stunning science behind Eucharistic miracles.” A sane mind, having examined such “science,” starts out from it. Sokulka features in the book from pages 81 to 95. Two of the book’s 27 photographic plates come from Sokulka.

With such evidence we must assume that at least a number of alleged eucharistic miracles are authentic. The argument for the New Mass then takes the following form: If the New Mass is as offensive to God and as harmful to Catholics as Traditionalists claim, then how could God (who alone can produce the evidence behind such miracles) possibly have worked them at the New Mass? And how can it possibly be wrong for me to attend it? The answer has not changed from above. All that the scientific evidence has done is to prove beyond all possible doubt that transubstantiation really did happen at the Mass where the miracle took place. Then the question becomes, how can a loving God possibly want to poison the faith of His own sheep?

The answer is classic. God does not want evil, but He wants to allow evil in order to bring a greater good from it. The evil is the exposure of Catholic souls to humanistic poison threatening their faith. This evil was wanted by the unfaithful churchmen who changed the Rite of Mass, but it was not wanted by God. What He wanted was to remind His shepherds (bishops) and His sheep (layfolk) that the Mass is the true Sacrifice of His Son, and both of them must stop behaving as though Mass is just like some glorified picnic. In Sokulka for instance, the parish priest at the time of the miracle and for a number of years afterwards, declares that devotion to the Holy Eucharist has notably increased in the whole region of Sokulka itself ever since the miracle. And the miraculous host is now exposed for adoration in a side chapel of the parish church.

Thus Almighty God does not like what a mass of churchmen and layfolk have done to His church down the ages, starting with Judas Iscariot, but He does want to put His infinitely precious Church in the hands of churchmen with free-will to merit for their own Heaven by how well they serve it, at the risk of their choosing to demerit by their dis-serving it, and he does want to allow His sheep to have bad church shepherds if that is what they deserve, so that they will suffer and return to wanting good shepherds. But He will never leave His sheep completely leaderless, if they want to get to Heaven. See how He gave us Archbishop Lefebvre to pioneer the return to Tradition, and now Archbishop Vigano to set an example of courage, in telling Catholic Truth to an apparently overwhelming anti-Catholic power.

Kyrie eleison

Across the transom. I know this priest personally, and can vouch for his credibility, seriousness, and holiness. Take it to the bank. His personal situation requires him to remain anon, but can I beg you an Ave for Father Anonymous, please? The best part is, Father gets every point correct in this essay. Read it all, and share with confused or scandalized faithful. The synod next month will be another disaster. Bergoglio is not the pope. Warn people. Blessed Michaelmas, everyone.-nvp

Open Letter from a Priest in Exile

Upon his presentation to the waiting world on March 13th, 2013, Pope Francis struck me with a disquieting impression. Seeing the man in white on the loggia of St. Peter’s that night hit me like an unexpected punch to the gut. Dear God, I whispered, a diabolical horror mocking Holy Church has just been thrown defiantly into the Face of Christ.

For more than ten years, I have sought to understand why I experienced such an unusual reaction that night, especially since I am not inclined to be shocked by the depth and breadth of human depravity and malice. There was something different here. I could not shake off the sense that Satan was attempting a decisive assault to mortally wound the Church and sweep more souls to eternal damnation.

Deserving mention for aiding my efforts to understand what has happened in the Church are priests and bishops, as well as intrepid and tenacious laity. Special mention goes to Miss Ann Barnhardt, Mr. Mark Docherty, and Dr. Edmund Mazza.

Endowed with all the means to fulfill her mission, the Catholic Church is able, with the divine assistance promised by Jesus Christ, to extricate herself from her current woes. Men steeled by faith, sustained by hope, and moved by charity for God and souls, need only heed what St. Joan of Arc commanded: “Act, and God will act!”

Of all the ills burdening the Church today, perhaps none is more damaging than the perversion of authority by its apparent possessors, who often divorce it from the service of goodness and divinely revealed truth. Without authority—an authority licitly wielded for the good of souls and the building up of the Church—the Church, in her living members, descends into chaos and confusion. Unless the authority vested by Christ in the Sovereign Pontiff and the bishops is exercised, and exercised as Christ intends, it is replaced by a fraudulent version parading as the real thing, at worst a vicious deceiver and destroyer of the flock of Christ, a cruel and tyrannical cudgel to beat down the faithful striving to be good sons and daughters of the Church. Christ is not to be found where true authority is absent or where it is put to perverted use.

Today we witness and are all too often subjected to this perversion of authority. This abuse of authority renders null and void whatever is proposed or commanded. Yes, null and void, not worthy of our assent, cooperation, or obedience, but deserving our fitting rebuke and opposition.

I state my deep conviction regarding the problem of authority in the Church today fully aware that I am fallible. I am nonetheless grieved to see that many serious Catholics, who want to understand why their leaders are so deviant and delinquent, avoid what appears to be the proverbial elephant in the room. Notwithstanding whatever virtue and learning they might otherwise possess, they are unable to admit the possibility, let alone the reality, that Francis is not the Successor of Peter and never has been. Perhaps such an evil is too blinding to gaze upon with eyes wide open.

It is my considered opinion that Francis cannot be the reigning Sovereign Pontiff. Why not? Canon law. According to the law of the Church regarding the validity of juridical acts—a law from which the pope himself is not exempt—Pope Benedict XVI never validly resigned the papacy. Hence, no conclave could lawfully convene and elect his successor until his death.

The issue with Francis which concerns me here is not his apparent lack of the Catholic Faith. I agree with others that he is ostensibly not Catholic by any reasonable measure. However, Pope Francis is firstly a problem for the Church because he was never elected in a lawful conclave. Let me express it this way: the conclave of 2013 was a chimera and an unlawful exercise by the cardinals because Benedict XVI, failing to validly resign the papacy, remained the reigning Supreme Pontiff until his death on December 31st, 2022. The conclave of March 2013 was unlawful, and the man then elected is no pope at all. These are the indisputable conclusions drawn from the crystal-clear provisions of canon law.

Benedict’s desires, subjective state of mind, or his fanciful Teutonic theology of the Petrine primacy in no way validate so as to make operative the renunciation he announced on February 11th, 2013, and supposedly executed seventeen days later. His juridical act of resignation was invalid according to canon law itself, to whose particular relevant provisions he was bound, since he had not changed them, although he had the power to do so.

Benedict did not resign the papal office (munus), but renounced only its active exercise (ministerium). He did not give up being pope, but merely relinquished “doingpope,” if you will pardon the expression. Keep in mind that Benedict also retained the external signs, comportment and some actions proper to the pope alone until his death. He believed he could remain a pope still possessing his office (munus) and exalted station, while the active governance of the Church (ministerium) could at the same time pass to another man elected in conclave as a genuine pope. In short, he wrongly believed that the papacy could be shared and exercised by two popes at once. This is contrary to the divine constitution of the Church and the nature of the papacy established by Christ.

Given this grave and substantial error regarding the nature of the papal office, Benedict posited an act of resignation that was invalid, as canon law stipulates. He was attempting to commit himself to doing something impossible, thus rendering his act of resignation invalid. His act effected no resignation from office at all. His unique dignity as Supreme Pontiff remained as it had been before: the status quo ante held until his death.

Suppose for the sake of argument that Francis were overtly Catholic and even a saint. He would still not be pope nor could he be, unless he were elected in a lawful conclave following the valid resignation or death of Benedict.

The near-universal acceptance of Francis as pope for ten-plus years by the members of the Church is not sufficient to validate his supposed claim to the papacy. Such an argument presupposes that he was elected in a lawful conclave, and he was not. This makes him since March 13th, 2013, until the present a usurper of the papal throne, an anti-pope.

To suggest that we have no way to solve the problem of Francis but must endure him until the Church in the future judges his status and relationship to the Church Militant is an implicit denial of the Church’s ability as a perfect society to recognize the ills that afflict her and to remedy them for the good of souls. It is to deny her ability in our present circumstances to recognize in real time what I have just expounded above about Benedict and Francis.

Many observers of our current crisis in the Church would object to my assessment of Francis as the anti-pope and usurper of the Roman See that he is as a violation of the principle that “[t]he first see is judged by no one.” In other words, the Roman See, precisely the Roman Pontiff, is to be judged by no one. This is to say that no one may lawfully render a juridical judgment against a reigning pope. I agree. I am not handing down a juridical judgment at all. Not one of us, myself included, can render a legal judgment against a reigning pope. None of us has the authority to do so; we are all subject to him. I am not hereby judging Francis in the strict juridical sense. I am judging him according to the common, broader meaning of that term, that is, to evaluate, assess or discriminate. I am recognizing that the man, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, is no pope at all. I arrive at this reasonable and logical conclusion based on observable facts and common sense in light of canon law.

Furthermore, those are not to be considered schismatic who reject Francis for the reasons I have laid out above. Theologians make this clear. For example, the Spanish Jesuit theologian Francisco de Lugo (1580-1652) states: “Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded [‘probabiliter’] doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power [refers to Sanchez and Palao].” (Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-8). (Tip of the hat to Miss Ann Barnhardt.)

How can the problem of Francis and his anti-papacy be solved on the practical level? It would seem necessary and reasonable for members of the hierarchy, especially the cardinals, to expose and explain to the Church the ecclesial reality since February 11, 2013, and to make clear the cardinals’ duty and intention to proceed to the election of a worthy successor to Pope Benedict by lawful conclave. While this appears utterly impossible and ridiculous at first glance given the current state of the hierarchy, we cannot forget how God and men have moved in concert in the past. Remember, it only takes one man to stand up and declare the truth to shake the foundations of a lying and tyrannical regime. Recall also Hans Christian Andersen’s tale, The Emperor’s New Clothes. One boy from the crowd declared the truth: “The Emperor is not wearing anything at all.” At this, the crowd abandoned its collective fear and delusion, embracing the reality that the emperor was naked indeed. The Bergoglian house of cards cannot abide the full force of truth, no matter how few proclaim it. Nor can it survive if the ranks of the truth-tellers swell.

History proves that the Church can set things aright regarding her internal affairs, even though solutions have not been spelled out in detail by popes, theologians, canon lawyers, scholars or saints for all the various problems that can arise. We need only look at the actions of St. Bernard in the 12th century. He supported the lawful pope, Innocent II, against the anti-pope Anacletus II. The Roman population supported the anti-pope, but the saint eventually convinced them to give their allegiance to the rightful pope. The saint had no qualms about assessing the situation and taking action against the popular acceptance of an anti-pope. We can also note the unconventional healing of the Great Western Schism at the Council of Constance nearly 300 years later. In each case, we see that bold action was both possible and necessary on the part of human agents.

Perhaps the appeal to divine intervention as the only way out of our present impasse is but a shameful excuse for a kind of paralyzing despair or quietism that leaves the Bride of Christ naked to her enemies, scorned and humiliated, abandoned even by those who should be her friends and defenders. I would propose in response to such bystanders that divine intervention did occur in the resolution of past crises, but not independent of human cooperation. God intervened by moving generous and bold souls to action, and He was with them in all their efforts for the advancement of His kingdom. “Act, and God will act!”

Some voices now publicly proclaim that Francis is not pope because he is a heretic and has excommunicated himself from the Mystical Body of Christ. Some of them assert that he may very well have never been fit for the Petrine office, believing he was a heretic at the time of his supposed election.

Others dispute this claim of automatic excommunication in light of the various distinctions that must be made between the internal dispositions of the man and his juridical status as pope. They presume, of course, that he had been participating as a rightful cardinal-elector in a lawful conclave. They say we must consider Francis as pope until the Church formally judges the matter and declares the invalidity of his reign. By then, Francis and the rest of us may be long dead. There is nothing to do while Francis lives but to suffer and wait for some future official judgment from the Church.

Still others insist that it would be impossible to ever have a true pope who was at the same time a formal heretic. In other words, a formal heretic, manifest, public and pertinacious in his heresy, has never occupied the throne of Peter, nor could he. Otherwise, Christ’s promise to Peter to make him the “rock” upon which the Church is built and by whom his brethren are strengthened would be a lie. Impossible and blasphemous!

You see what a mess we are in today. We are attempting to slog through it while maintaining, please God, our sanity, our Catholic Faith, and the state of grace. We should all agree that we must at a minimum resist the evils of Francis and distance ourselves from the harm he is inflicting on the Church. Beyond this, you may not agree with my conclusions, nor would I impose them on you. Do your own investigation of the matter. You may be surprised by what you find. Sadly, many refuse to investigate at all, even though they know something is foul and amiss with Francis. Perhaps they prefer a comfortable and dishonest ignorance. I do not know their motives, but I deplore their failure.

Each of us must do his best to understand and navigate the current crisis in order to please God and save his soul in the Barque of Peter. That requires a solid Catholic life, a commitment to prudence coupled with magnanimity and an unwavering trust in God. It requires a lively charity that seeks God above all and desires to draw all men, even the most ignorant, sinful and despicable, to a participation in the divine life here below and in the world to come.

Still something more is asked of us. It seems to me that until we seriously and thoroughly address Benedict’s actions and the Bergoglian terror unleashed in the Church, we will continue to be burdened by chaos, confusion, and division. Francis’ usurpation and attempted destruction of the papacy must be recognized and denounced, as the man himself must be for his daring sacrilege. We must admit that Benedict remained pope until his death on December 31st, 2022.

My hope is that we may awaken fellow Catholics, most importantly members of the hierarchy who still possess the Catholic Faith, to help lift the Bride of Christ from the depths of her public humiliation and to relieve the misery of her bitter captivity. She is suffering at the hands of those who hate and despise her. Her enemies are no less Christ’s enemies. May we, with His help, expose and defeat them, so that His reign may advance in the minds and hearts of men and in the world presently ensnared in a mesh of monstrous lies. Let us accomplish what God asks of us, for His greater glory, for the triumph of His Church, and for the salvation of souls.

Miss B. with some logic, to help prepare the faithful for the October sinnod in Rome, and its “results.” -nvp

GOP Senator Ted Cruz has speculated that Joe Biden will not be chosen as the Democratic nominee for 2024 and that the distinction will go to none other than Michelle Obama in a last minute Democratic National Convention decision.

“I think the odds are very significant that next summer at the Democrat national convention that the Democrat party will jettison Joe Biden and will throw him off the ticket, and they will parachute in instead, Michelle Obama to be their candidate,” Cruz told Sean Hannity.

“I think they’re gonna look to Michelle Obama as the savior to come in,” Cruz continued, adding “I think if that happens, that would be very, very dangerous.”

“And every time I see a Democrat or one of their puppets in the press beginning to point out the problems with Joe Biden – every time that happens, the chances of that go up and up and up,” Cruz added.

When Hannity asked if Michelle Obama even wants to run, Cruz reasoned that there are no other candidates that wouldn’t alienate certain Democratic voters.

Referring to Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Gavin Newsom, and Pete Buttigieg, Cruz noted that “If the Democrats pick any of those four, you tick off the other three and risk alienating their supporters.”

He continued, “I think Michelle Obama brings the Obama pedigree. She parachutes in with also the suit of armor of a First Lady with high positives and relatively low negatives. And I think they can justify to everyone who gets snubbed, ‘Well, look, we went with Michelle Obama instead.’”

“I don’t know if she wants it. But I do think it would be much more attractive to her to come in next summer and just campaign a couple of months to the general rather than having to spend two years campaigning vigorously on the ground,” the Senator further suggested…

https://summit.news/2023/09/26/ted-cruz-the-odds-are-very-significant-that-michelle-obama-will-replace-biden/

(I promise to keep cross-posting, but please go over and bookmark nurseclairesays.com for your own good. -nvp)

Flu shot shootdown, Part 2 – how safe are these things?

Troubles for Biden not just his age in reelection campaign: POLL

The president’s job approval rating is 19 points underwater

President Joe Biden’s job approval rating is 19 points underwater, his ratings for handling the economy and immigration are at career lows. A record number of Americans say they’ve become worse off under his presidency, three-quarters say he’s too old for another term and Donald Trump is looking better in retrospect — all severe challenges for Biden in his reelection campaign ahead.

Forty-four percent of Americans in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll say they’ve gotten worse off financially under Biden’s presidency, the most for any president in ABC/Post polls since 1986. Just 37% approve of his job performance, while 56% disapprove. Still fewer approve of Biden’s performance on the economy, 30%.

On handling immigration at the U.S.-Mexico border, Biden’s rating is even lower, with 23% approval. In terms of intensity of sentiment, 20% strongly approve of his work overall, while 45% strongly disapprove. And the 74% who say he’s too old for a second term is up 6 percentage points since May. Views that Trump is too old also are up, but to 50% in this poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates.

Such is down-on-Biden sentiment that if a government shutdown occurs at month’s end, 40% say they’d chiefly blame him and the Democrats in Congress, versus 33% who’d pin it on the Republicans in Congress — even given the GOP infighting behind the budget impasse.

See PDF for full results, charts and tables.

“I’ve been wanting to make this post for quite awhile; I know many readers have questions about the flu vaccine and I also know a certain blogger priest claims the faithful have a duty to get the shot.   Therefore, I will be making this a multi-part series to look at the prevalence of the flu, the efficacy of the flu shot, its ingredients, risks, and side effects, and strategies to maximize your immunity independent of a vaccine.  I also will touch on the means of production, since I know many readers have concerns about the use of aborted fetal cell lines in vaccines.  First, though, let’s answer the questions regarding the prevalence of influenza and the efficacy of vaccination…”

Read and learn: nurseclairesays.com/2023/09/23/flu-shot-shootdown-part-1/

Keep in mind, the following real estate transaction was only about the land value. The existing cottage will be torn down and replaced. -nvp

Sale of tiny Stone Harbor beachfront cottage sets record

COURTESY OF THE VIZZARD GROUP

By Miranda Devine