Tags

, , , , , ,

“We must not allow for the Godless to take away our faith.”

IRA-girl-gun

Woman fighter of the IRA defends her faith

I found Pontifex Maximus over at Western Rifle Shooters. I followed it to its original source the new betrayal by Father Federico Lombardi.  In this new betrayal by the Progressivist Church of liberty-loving Catholics Father Lombardi says;

The initiatives announced by the United States government in view of limiting and controlling the diffusion and use of arms are certainly a step in the right direction. It is estimated that Americans today possess about 300 million firearms. No one can be under the illusion that limiting their number and use would be enough to impede horrendous massacres in the future, such as the one in Newtown, which shook the conscience of Americans and of the world, of children and adults alike. But it would be much worse if we were to satisfy ourselves with only words. And if the massacres are carried out by people with mental illness or distorted by hate, there is no doubt that they are carried out with arms. Forty-seven religious leaders of various confessions and religions have issued a call to American politicians to limit firearms, which “are making society pay an unacceptable price in terms of massacres and senseless deaths”. I’m with them.

He does throw Liberty-loving Catholics a Bone by saying “…we cannot but widen our gaze to recall that arms, throughout the world, are also instruments for legitimate defense…”

Real-IRA-006
I fear I must respectfully disagree with Father Federico Lombardi.   I also disagree with David Codrea of the Gun Rights Examiner when he basically says the Catholic faith endorses Obama and defenselessness.  The Gun Rights Examiner says While some Catholics have been quick in past columns to point out when anti-gun endorsements have been issued through Church-owned media that such proclamations are not official doctrine, and that they fly in the face of the Pontifical Council of Justice and peace, which declared “[I]n a world marked by evil and sin, the right of legitimate defense by armed means exists,” the fact remains they are being issued under the ultimate “buck stops here” authority of the VaticanThis is not true, this Priest does not speak with the authority of the Holy See.  Here are the facts.

cristero1




I, as a practicing Catholic must obey official Catholic teaching.  Primarily this teaching is represented in first The Bible, and then in the CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (CCC).  That teaching is expressed through the the Bible first, the Holy Father, the Magisterium as well as the written teaching of the Church.   The Roman Pontiff and the Bishops are servants of Christ and of His Holy Word.  Like the First Pope, Peter, the Pope cannot teach anything that goes against the teaching of Christ.   The Magisterium “teaches only what has been handed on to it.” That is it.   Just because a random Priest, even a highly placed random Priest says something ignorant and dangerous doesn’t mean it is binding to me or anyone else.  It is extremely sad that some Bishops, Priest and laity fall so far from the Bible.  Michael Vorris talks all the time about how certain liberal progressive Church leader’s who put politics and lust for power before biblical teaching,  fail us again and again.  Below I will share with you how such Bishops Leopoldo Ruiz y Flores and Pascual Diaz de Tabasco betrayed the faithful and order them to lay down their arms which directly lead to thousands of Catholics being murdered and their families savaged by militant secular Progressives.  First the teachings of the Church.

OfficialIRA1972The ordinary magisterium includes the potentially fallible teachings of the pope and ecumenical Councils (i.e., not given ex cathedra) and, more commonly, of individual Bishops or groups of Bishops as taken separately from the whole College. Such teachings are fallible and could possibly contain errors; they are subject to revisions or even, rarely, revocation. In the case of the teachings of individual bishops to their diocese, there can of course even be disagreement among the individual bishops on such issues.

If Gun Rights Examiner wants to quote Priest on Second Amendment, find the thousands who understand they are servants of Christ first, for example please quote Father Z.  He states;

Did Jesus really support concealed carry? Absolutely he did.  Look no further than the Bible. All four gospels report the violent episode that takes place when Judas and the soldiers come to seize Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane. Jesus of course is prepared to go along peacefully. Peter, meaning well but unclear on the concept, draws his sword and cuts off the ear of the high priest’s slave…As a matter of fact, as I pointed out elsewhere, as the Last Supper concluded Jesus told the Apostles to buy swords, even if they had to sell their clothing.  When he saw that they already had a couple, He didn’t say that he was kidding, He didn’t then rebuke them and explain a parable.  He said “It is enough.”  So, apparently, Jesus wanted his disciples to be armed with swords.  So you see, if Jesus was opposed to Peter having a sword, or keeping it on his person, there a several things he could have said. But he didn’t. Scriptures opened, case closed.

Thus before Father Federico Lombardi talks to me about putting my life and society at the mercy of the American militant secular progressives , please talk to me about Bishops Leopoldo Ruiz y Flores and Pascual Diaz de Tabasco who betrayed the Cristeros by ordering them to lay down their arms and then watching as the Mexican socialist government slaughter them and gang rape their families.  Their names go down in  everlasting infamy.   Please tell me about how “valid” that orders were?   One wonders if the American Bishops, the Mexican Bishops Leopoldo Ruiz y Flores and Pascual Diaz de Tabasco and the American Knights of Columbus who refused to send much needed arms and ammunition to the Cristeros would not have betrayed these warriors of Christ, if we would have as a neighbor a functioning Catholic Mexican Republic, instead of a quasi-socialist Mexican basket case.

If a highly placed Priest said that all blacks should go back into slavery, it would be no more correct and binding, then for a highly placed Priest to say we should all disarm ourselves before the militant secular progressive war machine that threatens all of us with culture extinction.   Why, because Priest, and all of the Magisterium  “teaches only what has been handed on to it.”  They do not have the power to “override” the bible, Christ or the traditions of the Church.   They only have the power to teach the bible.  This is the entire controversy with the SSPX and FSSP.  And the Bible itself gives us the right to adequate self-defense which has been reaffirmed time and time again by Popes of the past.  Modern liberal progressive priest, even highly placed liberal progressive priest can’t unmake this.  The Catechism of The Catholic Church is very clear.

CCC 2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not.

CCC 2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

CCC 2264 If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.

CCC 2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

My Priest insist that I, as the man (father) that God gave the souls of my children to care for is primarily responsible for them.  This is taught again and again.  If I am unable to protect my children than it falls to my wife.  If she is unable to protect our children, then it falls to each of them to protect the other.  And they shall have the means to accomplish this. 

CCC 2204 “The Christian family constitutes a specific revelation and realization of ecclesial communion, and for this reason it can and should be called a domestic church.”9 It is a community of faith, hope, and charity; it assumes singular importance in the Church, as is evident in the New Testament.

The Popes of our past have spoken; Pope Innocent IV declared, “It is lawful for every man to move war in defense of himself and his goods.”Cardinal with rifle

Dive law (what others call Natural Law) has spoken.  Gratian’s Decretum relied heavily on natural law, which Gratian argued was universally applicable. “Natural law is common to all nations because it exists everywhere through natural instinct, not because of any enactment.”68 Examples of natural law including “the union of men and women, the succession and rearing of children,…the identical liberty of all,…the return of a thing deposited or of money entrusted, and the repelling of violence by force. This, and anything similar, is never regarded as unjust but is held to be natural and equitable.”

So let me tell all who would hear very clearly.  I believe that the bible itself has given us the right of adequate self-defense.  Christ himself used a hand weapon to beat the money-changers, and his first Bishop Peter cut off the ear with a sword of the Jewish Temple Guards who came to arrest Christ the King.  Christ himself did not disarm Peter.  If Christ did not disarm Peter, then you may not disarm me.  Many Popes down through the ages have reaffirmed the Christian Right of Self-Defense.  The primary responsibility for my family is me, not the government or the Church.  I will not be disarmed peacefully including on orders from any Catholic Priest or Bishop.  I will not comply.  I will be highly annoyed if any try.  If any of the Magisterium wants me or any other liberty-loving traditional Catholic to disarm, the Holy Father would need to speak infallibly or ex cathedra and order me, and mine to disarm.  Other than that, being defenseless is not even an option.

Catholics must not allow themselves to be disarmed.  You must also be prepared for progressive Priest to tell you too.  Remember the betrayal of their Excellencies Bishops Ruiz y Flores and  Diaz de Tabaasco leading to the death of thousands of Catholics and their families be raped by the militant secular Mexican police state while the Bishops wined and dined with the “elite.”

We remember the history of the betrayal of warriors of Christ the King, specifically  Bishops Ruiz y Flores and  Diaz de Tabaasco.  Here is that history various websites including here, and here.

Mexican prelates

Mexican Prelates smile, content to be subordinate to the Masonic State

When the agreement between the Mexican government and the Church was made known, only a minority of the rebels went home, mainly those who felt their battle had been won. On the other hand, since the rebels themselves were not consulted in the talks, many felt betrayed and some continued to fight. The church threatened those rebels with excommunication, and gradually the rebellion died out. The officers, fearing that they would be tried as traitors, tried to keep the rebellion alive. This attempt failed and many were captured and shot.

A negotiated peace without their consent and under threat of excommunication: Cristeros hanging from lampposts in Jalisco.

Ruben Quezada: A key lesson to be learned from this persecution in Mexico’s history is to be ready and to come together as a true sign of solidarity as Catholics and defend religious freedom when it is attacked no matter the price you have to pay.  It is not just the responsibility of those on the front line; it’s the responsibility of every single citizen.

And the reason very few Mexican nationals (living in Mexico and abroad) know very little about this chapter in history is because it was literally obliterated from the minds of the people.  Once it was taken out of its history books, generations would soon forget—and that’s exactly how it occurred.

There is a very powerful quote from the film that I believe everyone must memorize it.  Fr. Vega quotes: “We must not allow for the Godless to take away our faith.”

In the film, we can see how Morrow took advantage of the Catholic Hierarchy’s willingness to compromise.  Bishops Leopoldo Ruiz y Flores and Pascual Diaz de Tabasco returned to Mexico from exile to make a deal for the Church: The churches would re-open on the condition the Church authorities would give orders to the Cristeros to surrender their arms. All the Cristeros, including officers, would receive full amnesty.

In effect, the agreement (Los Arreglos) returned the situation to one similar to what had existed before the Cristeros fight, only this time the Church agreed to be subordinate to the State. The film also implies that Pope Pius XI stood behind the Bishops’ decision, which unfortunately he did.

In 1929 the Cristeros obediently laid down their arms. They did not fear to resist the Masonic Calles government, but, as loyal sons of the Church, they were helpless in the face of an order from the Hierarchy backed by the Holy See.

Screen shot 2013-01-21 at 8.28.02 AM

If the Cristero history is a long succession of miracles in battles and heroic gestures, it is also a woeful series of betrayals.

We have just mentioned the betrayal of the Mexican Catholic Hierarchy. But the Cristeros were also betrayed by the American Bishops, who were reluctant to give any sign of supporting an armed rebellion against a government recognized – and supported – by the United States. When the Cristeros sent a representative, René Capistran Garza, to raise funds for their cause among the American Prelates, he returned to Mexico almost empty-handed.
Mexico_Flag_Cristeros

Even the Knights of Columbus (who, funded For Greater Glory) did not come through with the needed help. Although they raised $1 million, the Knights decided it should be used for refugees and relief work in the U.S., but not for the Cristero fight. Fr. Michael Kenny, a staunch supporter of the Cristero cause, found it ironic that “out of the million dollar fund raised by the Knights of Columbus for the Mexican cause, there was no assignment available to the men who were fighting for it.”

As for the promised “liberty” for the Church, many churches remained closed, and priests practically vanished. Those few who were visible often were forced to compromise to operate “officially.” In some areas teachers were required to take a public oath of atheism and to promise to teach against the Catholic Religion.

The betrayal of the Cristero cause could not have been more complete on the part of the Mexican Hierarchy. Exasperated by the government persecution, thousands of Catholics rose again in a new Cristiada in 1935, But this time the Bishops condemned the new Cristeros, excommunicating any who took up arms. The Church had become a loyal supporter of the government, voicing their motto: “Better to take a little freedom than to resist.”

It seems to us that there is a lesson to be learned from this sad ending for Catholics today who continue the resistance against the Progressivist Church. To lay down the fight for a few meager privileges is to lose the long-term battle. The way of compromise does not end in victory.

And finally a tyrannical government is not just, because it is directed, not to the common good, but to the private good of the ruler (or international too big to fail banks, too big to fail companies), as the Philosopher [Aristotle] states (Polit. iii, 5; Ethic. viii, 10). Consequently there is no sedition in disturbing a government of this kind, unless indeed the tyrant’s rule be disturbed so inordinately, that his subjects suffer greater harm from the consequent disturbance than from the tyrant’s government.

Catholics must not disarm themselves and be ready for progressive Priest to tell them too.  Remember the Priest who ordered this in the past and led to the slaughter of Catholics in the past.  Hold Fast to your primary God-given duty.   Glory to Christ the King!

don't tread on me

If you find this article valuable, please share it, and subscribe.  Also please consider supporting this blog, the traditional Monks in the American Redoubt and poor Christian farmers all over the globe and buy some American Redoubt coffee.  Thank you!