Novo Colaborador/ New Author: Pe. Hernán Vergara

O P. Hermán Vergara foi um sacerdote da Sociedad de Trento, uma organização sacerdotal sedevacantista. Ele abandonou a dita Sociedade voluntariamente.
Ele lida com temas politicamente incorretos e estuda os movimentos católicos tradicionalistas/sedevacantistas,
para expor os infiltrados e idiotas úteis. Este é um esforço importante e interessante.
Ele não faz parte da administração deste blogue, e suas opiniões não são necessariamente
compartilhadas pela administração mencionada. Reservamo-nos o direito à opinião própria. Eu mesmo me comprometo a ser completamente neutro até que se prove que estou errado. Nós não somos os protectores nem os mentores dele. O primeiro trabalho dele que publicamos fornecemos tanto em espanhol quanto em inglês. O que não concordar, pode responder, mas precisamos argumentos, não reacçãoes histéricas e chamada de nomes. Objecções devem ser substanciadas.

Fr. Hermán Vergara was a priest of the Sociedad de Trento, a sedevacantist priestly organization he voluntarily left. He deals with politically incorrect topics and studies the traditionalist/sedevacantist Roman Catholic movements, to expose the infiltrates and useful idiots. This is an important and interesting endeavor. The devil will never leave us alone, obviously.
Disclaimer: he is not part of the administration of this blog, and his opinions are not necessarily shared by the aforementioned administration. We reserve the right to our own opinion. I myself pledge to be completely neutral until proven to be wrong. We are nor his mentors, nor his protectors.
The first work of his we publish we provide both in Spanish and English. Anyone who disagrees is allowed to respond, but responses must be substantiated. We need arguments, not hysterical reactions and name-calling.

03012024104018-4Descarregar

m-pivarunas-ingles-5Descarregar

Against Femi-nazism

As the world is being Americanized, as in unipolar globalization, racists can be only whites, while sexists can be only men. And there are some categories that can claim permanent victimhood: darkies, Muslims, and Jews (quite improperly so-called, as discussed before). If one has a skirmish with either of them, he automatically loses. I have written on most of these issues but haven’t elaborated sufficiently on feminism and emancipated women. Since this is as timely a topic as any other politically incorrect issue that I have addressed in the past, I should get to it.

This article is coming from someone who grew up under the Commies. When I finally came to the West, the last thing I expected was another socialist republic, yet that’s exactly what I ran into. Even Americans recognize that so-called ‘feminism’ (it should be called ‘femism’) is one small aspect of cultural Marxism. This wasn’t what I was looking for when I came to the West.

I mentioned before that nowadays Satan is especially after women, since behind every Adam there is an Eve. Women, just like books, can make or break a man. They have an important role in any society. Modernity offers them more chances than their traditional role used to be, but that’s a trap, and most of them are walking right into it. The devil appeals to their vanity by offering them way too many chances. At first glance, this is unjust for men, but after better scrutiny, one can see that most of these chances are traps. The question most people (of both genders) miss is not  how many chances one gets but how many of them are worth taking. Yet today’s double standards are obvious. Just because some things were dead wrong in the past doesn’t mean that now one should do it in the reverse! Such a hysterical reaction is unwarranted. But explain that to the femi-nazis, or to the successors of the apartheid regime, or to those of Mugabe. What is racist in one sense, it’s not so in reverse! One might say that whatever is sexist in one sense, it’s not sexist in the other. How about this for equality? On a positive note, however, one must say that in the most ignominious socialist republic of our days, on Uncle Sam’s turf, the disgusting fami-nazi Marxist holiday of March 8 is practically unknown. I must give credit wherever credit is due!

In American colleges, there’s a Department of Women’s Studies. Imagine asking one for men’s studies. They offer courses on African American studies; imagine asking about a course on white American studies. There are several women-only gyms. Try to imagine the opposite. Yet there’s some protest against a male-only priesthood, or even masculine football.

There is a lot of ranting about the wage gap, but that’s a lie. Even if it were not, society is unjust towards men because they are discriminated against on the job market. For example, if I walk into a shop, coffee house, bar, grocery store, or restaurant seeking a job, I’m told they want women. What do they care if I starve to death? So the dear reader can see that there are double standards everywhere. Feminism claims that it wants equality. So why don’t they complain about that? And how about those times when military service was mandatory for men? Where were the femi-nazis then to scream about equality? To the credit of the Swedish femi-nazis, one can say that they are an exception. Sweden has mandatory military service for women, just like Israel and Finland. Well done! I must give credit where credit is due, even to the most disgusting femi-nazis! One must see all sides of the issue. So one can easily see that femi-nazis only seek equality if they find it convenient. And in cases of so-called domestic violence, they almost always win, and this is not right. I know more cases when the woman is the aggressor and the villain than when it is the other way around. Some would object that there was not a single case when the man died under these circumstances. This is not true; I have seen examples of that too, and who knows how many cases have been swept under the rug?

Potential objectors might accuse me of endorsing and even encouraging domestic violence against women. Some might twist my words American style and read into them something I never said. I respond to them that unlike them, I live in a free country, so if I wanted to state such a thing, I would’ve done it already. The reader who never lived on Uncle Sam’s turf might not know that there is zero freedom of speech there, only a semblance thereof. One is afraid to say out loud what he thinks. One has to insinuate things. That society analyzes everything one says for weeks to come up with the most sinister interpretation and takes that for granted. But I’m free from that, so I refuse to issue disclaimers in American style. Still want to twist my words? Please. Be my guest. Knock yourselves up.

So do I advocate for wife beating? Not quite; I merely protest against the fact that in today’s society, the opposite is permitted. In the past, the objections against physical violence against women were the following: 1) Men’s physical superiority 2) The past societies were favoring men. Nowadays, the situation is quite the opposite: society favors women, and many of them are physically stronger than men. Many of them are weightlifters, making them physically stronger. Many women practice martial arts; some of them are doctors at it. So the old arguments are out. Does it mean that I advocate physical violence? Not necessarily, since it is obsolete. Does it mean that I advocate violence in marriage? Not quite, because that’s not a marriage. There shouldn’t be a place for that in a marriage. That should’ve happened during their infancy. It’s way too late for corrective and punitive measures in a marriage. The wisest course is to avoid toxic women, not to merry them. Whatever I protest against is the double standard: if she beats him, society laughs at him. But if he lifts up a finger, that’s sacrilege. Some who objected to my former article might have had violent men in their family. I respond that I’ve had the opposite, so what? Vehement protest in one case, silence in the other, and all this in the name of equality? And this mentality is present even among sedevacantists?

Even Bp. Williamson, in one of his lucid moments (which, btw, are getting less and less frequent by the day), had to admit that things got this bad because of men. Men got weak in today’s society, so here are the consequences. So while it looks like I’m trashing women in this article, actually the opposite is true. We had it all and we lost it, and it’s our fault, nobody else’s. We created these monsters. I ask the dear reader not to set me off. Don’t make me write some articles where I’m really trashing the opposite sex! So it’s all our fault. Especially in Portugal, where men tolerate anything for sex! They do not exclude materialist women, those who merry their status, or, in simpler cases, just their house. Just as an aside, do we love God for What He is or for what we get from Him? Likewise, most women today marry a socio-economic startus, marry for stability, etc. Some object that this is part of the traditional role of men. I ask in return: Where is the traditional role of women? That’s obsolete, of course. And some men boast that they caught their ‘lady’ with their assets! Hello, Doofus, she loves your assets, your social status, or your career, not you! And you consider yourself a winner? This accusation is especially true in the case of muscular men: their partners twist them around their fingers, and they are proud of it! Losers! Apropo traditional role of men: why did the mother of St. Theresa the Little Flower marry a relatively poor guy? Why did holy women ignore their socio-economic status? There have been many poor and saintly families before, but today the father thereof would not stand a chance!

Women claim to be the permanent victims. The femi-nazis would say yes because men are always stronger. but as we have seen, this is not always true. And men are not always the aggressors. If a man gets beaten, and there are documented cases of that, it’s not a big deal. There were even some murder cases. Nothing really happened. But imagine the opposite, and tell me how differently it would be perceived. I had to repeat this because in the Iberian Peninsula, especially in Portugal, men are prone to this propaganda. This propaganda must simply be refuted. I must repeat that physical violence is not the most efficient, even in those countries where it’s legal. Nowadays, it’s completely obsolete.

The issue is pertinent, especially in Portugal, where the new generation of women was never corrected, not even verbally. As children, they were allowed to scream when they had something to say. For boys, on the other hand, it’s completely different. You may not spank your children, remember? So says Uncle Sam! Starting at the young age of four years, practically everything is allowed for girls. Tell me if this is not a recipe for a complete disaster or a way to create a complete monster. (And I have seen quite a handful of those.) No wonder most women have the emotional IQ of a four-year-old at the biological age of twenty-six. In the tutoring ‘industry’, I lost several young girls since I dared to set them straight. One may not even issue a verbal correction unless she’s a woman too. And imagine that such a girl becomes somebody’s wife in the future. She will have no clue about what’s right or wrong, what she can afford to do or what she can’t, or what she can reasonably expect. They don’t even accept verbal corrections or protests. By ignoring the husband’s input, they practically cause trouble! But if they get a slap, which, btw, should’ve happened in the house of her parents when she was four to six years of age, it’s an outrage! What a sacrilege! What a coward he is who does that! What a scum of the earth! The opposite, however, is A-OK, and there are several examples of that too. It happens in Portugal, but it’s more common in the US. Yet the most evil women are those who use verbal violence, the cold or silent treatment, etc.

Men today have to compete against each other to get into such a slavery, a mockery of marriage where all duties are on his side and all rights and choices on her side. Try to say this out loud, and they will say that you are against women’s rights. Especially in America, since there they give rights to a few, but the majority pays the price. As an aside, men must be really stupid to compete for such slavery! And in the eyes of society, the accomplished ones are those who win such stupid competitions. Remember that there’s fewer of us, so practically the other part is the one that should compete, especially if they give us the status of everybody’s underdog.

Even my female colleagues at work, who more or less agree with the idea of women’s liberation movements, say that this emancipation happened too quickly. The situation changed, and while their mentality is still the old one, that’s why they didn’t figure out their new place in society. Imagine such a person as a leader!

So, everything is resumed as such: rights on one side and duties on the other. One makes the choices, and the other pays the consequences. Everything is allowed to one, but not to the other. And the other is the one that should compete for this. And they justify this by claiming equality. This is truly Orwellian! It’s really sick.

One can see that today’s society is very sick and makes no sense. This nonsense is possible because the majority of people don’t think. And we wonder that there are many called but a few chosen. Or do we?

Here’s the origin of the movement: Feminism’s core beliefs were first articulated by the English poet Percy Bysshe Shelley (1792–1822). While his wife, Mary Shelley, was writing Frankenstein, Percy Shelley was conjuring up his own creature—the first woman, whom he called Cythna, to be entirely detached from her husband or children. Cythna’s only relationship, not accidentally, was with the devil. Many of today’s leading feminist celebrities delve into the occult. It is rumored that Hilary Clinton has offered the aborted babies to the devil. Is this satanism right for a traditional Catholic?

Let me provide some literature too.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0011392120964910?journalCode=csia
Here are some quotes: ‘One of the prominent tenets of classic feminism has been its disparaging view of motherhood as being the bastion of women’s subordination in a patriarchal society, the corollary being that the emancipation of women could happen only through opposition to or, at best, despite motherhood.’
“Mothering posited by feminism actually legitimizes ARTs’ continuing transformation of women’s bodies into ‘open access flesh’.” That’s what you want, ladies?
Another source proves that all this emancipation is of a Marxist origin, and need I remind you that Marxism has proven to be a major disaster?
https://www.cpusa.org/article/how-can-marxism-contribute-to-womens-equality/
Here comes a quote:
“Marxists were the first to fight for women’s inclusion in labor unions, recognizing the strategic importance of their role in class and democratic battles. Marxists today are advancing on questions like LGBTQ equality and how capitalism, patriarchy, and misogyny have led to the persecution of queer and trans people.”
Need I say more, sedevacantist ladies? Don’t be the useful idiots to the reds!

Uma nova missão

Em Maio de 2023 começou uma Missão Catolica Non Una Cum na Galiza, em A Guarda.

Esta Missão é organizada por um paroquiano Galego, chamado Gabriel e por um Seminarista Esoanhol do MHT do Mons. Sanborn, Jose Santos Casas. O grupo do Bispo Sanborn segue as rúbricas do São Pio X.

O Padre que atende os sacramentos ao pequeno grupo de Fiéis é o Sr. Pe. Damien Dutertre. Ele fala também Inglês.

Thread: Feeneyism is destroyed by the Church’s tradition.

This a thread for our American friends who might be tempted by the heresy of feeneyism.

There is reason why feeneyism is practically inexistent and unheard of in France: a long Catholic Tradition.

— Abbé Damien Dutertre (@AbbeDutertre) May 24, 2023

Este é o perfil do Grupo na rede social X:

https://twitter.com/Sedevacante_Esp?t=OQrDCo4bkQMQBOb4itrB1A&s=09

O Sr. Pe adere à Tese de Cassiciacum, mas os fiéis são livres da sua interpretação, desde que esta não incorra contra a fé ou a doutrina da Igreja. A missão não tem como propósito disputas de opiniões e é aberta a todos os católicos que não estejam em comunhão com o falso papa e a religião modernista.

Linguagens litúrgicas: latim

Anteriormente, discutimos a importância de uma linguagem litúrgica. Vamos recapitular alguns aspectos disso. O latim e o grego bíblico têm as seguintes vantagens:
1) Precisão filosófica: filosofia está para a teologia como a matemática está para a física, por isso é importante não só na teologia, mas também na liturgia. Lembre-se, lex credendi legem statuit supplicandi, aut lex orandi lex est tamen credendi, de modo que a liturgia está intimamente relacionada com a teologia.
2) Como línguas mortas, não evoluem; portanto, podem-se manter os mesmos textos praticamente para sempre. Considerando que as línguas vivas evoluem, se se mantiver os textos inalterados, algumas palavras mudam de significado. Eventualmente, os textos antigos tornam-se incompreensíveis.
Assim, nas línguas vivas, os textos litúrgicos devem ser constantemente actualizados e, a cada actualização, alguma mudança no significado pode ocorrer. Aqui menciono um exemplo interessante de fundamentalismo “bíblico”: os fundamentalistas americanos apegaram-se à versão de 1611 da “Bíblia” King James. O inglês, como língua, evoluiu desde então, e os textos são cada vez mais difíceis de entender. A dado momento, o inglês da KJB tornou-se uma língua morta como o latim. Alguns semifundamentalistas estão a actualizar o inglês da sua “bíblia”, mas, nesse caso, as mudanças de significado eventualmente podem entrar sorrateiramente. Por isso, a ‘reforma’ deu um tiro no próprio pé.
Se eles não actualizarem a versão, o inglês dela torna-se uma língua morta, como o latim. Se o fizerem, as mudanças de significado infiltram-se, e isso contradiz o seu suposto respeito para com as Escrituras. Portanto, as línguas vivas são problemáticas, e esta é uma das muitas razões pelas quais a “reforma” é uma piada doentia. Pergunto-me como é que não conseguiram ver isto, mas esta não é a nossa questão neste momento.
3) As línguas litúrgicas são meios de unidade: hebraico para o judaísmo, árabe para o islamismo, sânscrito para o hinduísmo e muitos ramos do budismo. Outros ramos do budismo também têm suas próprias línguas sagradas: o balinês é o da Theravada (Tailândia), etc.
Devemos ser inferiores a todas essas religiões por não termos uma língua sagrada?

Antes mesmo do rito romano existir, as missas eram ditas em aramaico (a língua no tempo de Nosso Senhor e a sua língua nativa), hebraico e grego. Havia alguns ritos apostólicos nessas línguas que foram perdidos devido à invasão bárbara do Oriente. Há ritos válidos, lícitos e até veneráveis em aramaico, hebraico e grego, mas de origem posterior. O Rito Pravoslavo, de autoria de SS. Cirilo e Metódio, está na antiga língua eslava, que é a raiz do russo, ucraniano, sérvio, croata, checo e eslovaco. Os papas da época opuseram-se ao rito pravoslavo, mas Cirilo e Metódio venceram o debate.
Cerca de um século depois, o Rito Pravoslavo entrou em cisma. Aqui vemos outra desvantagem de uma linguagem litúrgica viva para a liturgia. Existem outros ritos orientais praticados em línguas vivas: húngaro, romeno e eslovaco, mas eram e continuam sendo pequenas comunidades. Mesmo nos tempos de Nosso Senhor, o hebraico não era uma língua viva, mas eles usavam-na no templo e nas sinagogas. Até Nosso Senhor cantou os salmos em hebraico. Portanto, usar línguas mortas na liturgia é uma prática muito antiga, e até mesmo Nosso Senhor a aprovou enquanto esteve na terra. Depois vieram os ‘reformadores’ para nos ‘esclarecer’. O que faríamos sem eles? Morreríamos estúpidos!

O único rito apostólico a sobreviver é o romano. O latim era a língua das catacumbas. Os ritos sobreviventes mais antigos estão em latim. É por isso que escrevi este artigo: para motivar o estudo do latim. Então, vamos ao cerne da questão.
A teologia sacramental ensina-nos que, se alguém altera as formas sacramentais, comete um pecado de sacrilégio. Se, no entanto, as mudanças não afectarem o significado, o sacramento ainda é válido. Então vamos dar um exemplo disso. A forma certa para a consagração do pão é esta: Hoc ext enim corpus meum. Como podemos reformular isso em latim correcto, mantendo o significado? “Corpus” significa corpo, e é um neutro. O pronome neutro no singular é ‘istud’, ou pode-se usar ‘id’.
Pode-se até omiti-lo completamente, uma vez que o sujeito em latim, ao contrário do inglês, pode ser compreendido. Em vez de ‘enim’ pode-se usar ‘nam’ ou ‘quóniam’, mas, nesse caso, ele tem que observar a ordem. Em muitos casos, a ordem não conta em latim. Em vez de “corpus” pode-se usar “caro” (que significa carne, um substantivo feminino). O próprio Senhor disse que ‘Caro Mea vere est cibus’ (Meu Corpo é realmente alimento). Então, ‘caro’ às vezes se traduz como ‘corpo’, dependendo do contexto. Por ser ambíguo, pode invalidar a forma sacramental, a menos que se especifique o contexto de forma inequívoca. A fórmula sacramental pode, portanto, ser alterada de várias formas.
Nam corpus meum est istud. Quóniam id est Corpus Meum. Quia Corpus Meum est. Quia id est Corpus Meum. Há várias possibilities.
Pode-se igualmente introduzir algumas formas duvidosas:
Quia haec Caro Mea est. Caro Mea est. Nam Heac Caro Caro Mea est enim.
No entanto, se especificarmos o contexto, a ambiguidade desaparece.
Da mesma forma, poderíamos brincar com o ‘accipite et manducate’. Poderíamos dizer ‘tollite et comedite’.
Mas desencorajamos os sacerdotes a serem tão originais na liturgia. Este é apenas um exercício mental.
Espero bem que conseguimos motivar o estudo de latim, numa medida ou outra.

Liturgical Languages: Latin

In the past, we have discussed the importance of a liturgical language.
Let’s recap some aspects thereof. Latin and Biblical Greek have the following advantages:
1) Philosophical precision: philosophy is for theology the same thing as mathematics for physics, so it is important not not only in theology but also in liturgy. Remember, lex credendi legem statuit supplicandi, aut lex orandi lex est tamen credendi, so liturgy is intimately related to theology.
2) As dead languages, they do not evolve; therefore, one can maintain the same texts practically forever. Whereas living languages do evolve, and if one maintains the texts unaltered, some words change their meaning. Eventually, the ancient texts become incomprehensible. So in living languages, the liturgical texts must be constantly updated, and at each update, some change in the meaning might come in.
Here I mention an interesting example of ‘biblical’ fundamentalism: American fundamentalists stick with the 1611 version of the King James ‘Bible’. English, as a language, has evolved since then, and the texts are harder and harder to understand. In some time, the King James Version English becomes a dead language as Latin. Some semi-fundamentalists are updating the English of their ‘bible’, but in that case, changes in meaning can and eventually do sneak in. So the ‘reformation’ has shot himself in the foot. If they don’t update their version, it becomes a dead language, like Latin. If they do, changes in meaning sneak in, and that contradicts their purported respect of the Scriptures. So living languages are problematic, and this is one of the many reasons that the ‘reformation’ is a sick joke. I wonder how they could not see this, but this is not our issue right now.
3) Liturgical languages are means of unity: Hebrew for Judaism, Arabic for Islam, Sanskrit for Hinduism, and many branches of Buddhism. Other branches of Buddhism have their own sacred languages too: Balinese is the one for Theravada (Thailand), etc. Should we be inferior to all these religions by not having a sacred language? 

Before the Roman rite even existed, Masses were said in Aramaic (the language in the time of Our Lord and it’s His native tongue), Hebrew, and Greek. There were some apostolic rites in these languages that were lost due to the barbaric invasion of the East. There are valid, licit, and even venerable rites in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek, but of a later origin. The Pravoslavic Rite, authored by SS. Cyrill and Methodius, is in the ancient Slavic language, which is the root of Russian, Ukrainian, Serb, Croatian, Czech, and Slovak. The popes of that time objected against the Pravoslavic rite, but Cyrill and Methodius have won the debate. About a century later, the Pravoslavic Rite went into schism. Here we see another disadvantage of a living liturgical language for liturgy. There are some Eastern rites practiced in living languages: Hungarian, Romanian, and Slovak, but they were and remain tiny communities. Even in the times of Our Lord, Hebrew wasn’t a living language, yet they used it in the temple worship and in the synagogues. Even Our Lord has chanted the psalms in Hebrew. So using dead languages in liturgy is a very old practice, and even Our Lord has endorsed it while on earth. Then came the ‘reformers’ to ‘enlighten’ us. What would we do without them? We would die stupid!

The only surviving apostolic rite is the Roman. Latin was the language of the cathacombs. The most ancient surviving rites are in Latin. This is why I wrote this article: to motivate the study of Latin. So let’s get to the heart of the issue.

Sacramental theology teaches us that if one alters the sacramental forms, he commits a sin of sacrilege. If, however, the changes don’t affect the meaning, the Sacrament is still valid. So let’s give an example of this. The right form for the consecration of the bread is this: Hoc ext enim corpus meum. How can we reformulate this in correct Latin while maintaining the meaning?
‘Corpus’ means body, and it’s a neuter. The neuter pronoun in singular is ‘istud’, or one can use ‘id’. One can even omit it entirely since the subject in Latin, unlike in English, can be understood.
Instead of ‘enim’ one could use ‘nam’ or ‘quóniam’, but in that case, he has to watch the order. In many cases, the order doesn’t count in Latin.
Instead of ‘corpus’ one can use ‘caro’ (meaning meat, a feminine noun). Our Lord Himself has said that ‘Caro Mea vere est cibus’ (My Body is indeed food). So ‘caro’ sometimes translates as ‘body’, depending on the context. Since it’s ambiguous, it can invalidate the sacramental form unless one specifies the context unequivocally.
The sacramental formula can therefore be altered in several ways.
Nam corpus meum est istud. Quóniam id est Corpus Meum. Quia Corpus Meum est. Quia id est Corpus Meum. One can see a very large number of possibilities.
One could similarly introduce some doubtful forms:
Quia haec Caro Mea est. Caro Mea est. Nam Heac Caro Mea. Caro Mea est enim.
However, if one specifies the context, the ambiguity disappears.
Likewise, we could play with the ‘accipite et manducate’. We could say ‘tollite et comedite’.
But we discourage priests to be this original in liturgy. This is only a game of the mind.
I hope we managed to motivate somewhat the study of Latin.