[Note: This is a personal health record for my own use. I have been asked to supply details about both diseases especially being rare and occurring simultaneously so this diary will suffice, however please do not share to a third party without permission. Details of dermatomyositis will be compiled and sent as an addendum. This will also serve as feedback on the treatment services and logistics of the hospital which will be found at the conclusion and will be sent under separate cover].
INTRODUCTION
After multiple tests and consultations and biopsies from Aug 6 to Nov 23, I was given a diagnosis and prognosis by Dr. Rod [Wormald?] and team at ENT Outpatients on Nov 30. I have chondrosarcoma on the cartilage below the larynx. He offered two alternative approaches. First an immediate laryngectomy. Second, a wait and see approach to check on growth and metastases followed by possible surgical reduction. I have chosen the latter option. [Details of tests and consultations, with details and dates, can be seen in footnotes].
Research so far has led me to believe this may be hereditary because my mother was diagnosed with a cancer on the hip initially - and this could well have been a chondrosarcoma - which spread to the lungs.
Research too has led me to believe that my condition was always high risk since such cancers are most common when exostoses [unusual bone growth] also exists - and this has been the case in my right ear either at birth or in early childhood which caused regular ear infections throughout life.
Questions not answered by Rod, or not asked, and other matters since realised since the prognosis.....
1. Growth rate: Unable to answer was my question of the difference in size from the CT scan of Oct 18 to the MRI of Nov 20, aprox. 5 weeks.
2. Are there any other pharma or therapeutic treatments that the team researched? [I am quite sure that the Team has not dealt with a patient with my condition before, and that their diagnosis and prognosis derives from research [limited?], since I was not given any details by any oncologist present].
3. What is the 5 years survival rate comparison between alternative suggested treatments, i.e. laryngectomy and surgical reduction?
4. If surgical reduction is being considered and offered in the future, then why not offer it immediately?
5. Is it possible to remove the affected cartilage entirely without a laryngectomy?
6. The speech therapist [Charlotte] wanted a live action X-ray done of my swallowing but nothing was arranged.
7. I am taking Prednisolone for Dermatomyositis [which I had to research and suggest to my G.P.] I have seen articles claiming it reduces cancer. Does the team know anything about this? [I doubt they would as nobody at the hospital seems to know what it is].
Links to medical articles follow.
There may be possible treatments besides the choices given to me by the ENT Team. Links to such treatments which I find will be given following other references.
MY DOCTOR, ROD WORMALD
Links to various articles follow. Some of these are rather technical. These are only examples since anyone is able to do their own search for articles on the subject. I will add to these if article is different and/or significant.
Chondrosarcoma is a malignant bone tumor arising from cartilaginous tissue, most frequently occuring at the ends of the femur and tibia, the proximal end of the humerus and the pelvis; and presenting with a palpable mass and progressive pain. Chondrosarcoma is usually slow growing at low histological grades and can be well managed by intralesional curettage or en-block wide resection.
The exact cause of chondrosarcoma is not known. There may be a genetic or chromosomal component that makes certain individuals more open to this type of malignancy. Chondrosarcomas have been observed as a late consequence of radiation therapy for other cancers
.Recurrence augurs a poor prognosis, as conventional chondrosarcomas are both radiation and chemotherapy resistant. Recent discoveries in the biology, genetics, and epigenetics of conventional chondrosarcomas have significantly advanced our understanding of the pathobiology of these tumors and offer insight into potential therapeutic targets.
My voice may have begun to change as much as 2 years ago. I did not want to consult the GP before Christmas 2019 and be incapacitated so decided I would do so in the new year. Early 2020 the Covid scare happened with discouragement to seek medical treatments for elective matters so I put it off. By late July my swallowing became problematic so in early August I attended the GP, Dr, Ali Shah who said he would arrange referral to ENT at Fiona Stanley Hospital. I later discovered they set mid-December for the initial appt. At the GP consultation I also believed I had scratched maybe scabies and contracted an infection. He agreed and I had treatment for scabies and anti-bios for Cellulitis - that treatment continued until Oct 16. On or about Aug 17/18 I had X-Rays and blood tests
On Oct 16 I experienced severe pain which I thought may be an allergic reaction to a change in anti-bios so I called an ambulance. At Emergency Dept a blood test was done and Dr. Fahrina [?] who told me that I did not have Cellulitis but a rare and incurable disease called Dermatomyositis. She gave me a referral for CT scan I was given several tablets which I think were anti-histamines and Ibuprofen. Next day, Sun. Oct 17 on waking up, the pain and itch had decreased by 90% and the rash faded quickly. I decided to leave further treatment unless it flared up again.
I had to attend a follow-up consult at the Acute Medical Ambulatory Clinic for why I called an ambulance [rash & pain], however the doctor started the process to have my throat seen to [and nothing was mentioned about the dermatomyositis]!!
For the Derma, I have been mixing my own concoctions and trying multiple remedies, pills and ointments for 3 months before the pain left on Oct 17. No pain killers worked [but later after surgical biop, I discovered that Tramadol worked], while Tee tree ointment gave a little relief from pain & itch, as did insect surface spray [permethrin]. I currently use Prendisolone ointment [side effects - numb cold toes, mild headache, earache, nausea, indigestion, depression. But increased appetite]. Had 5 day [50mg daily] Prendisolone tabs, Nov 19 -23, and yet to establish a regular regimen.
For the throat, being quite sore [and it may be infected] following the biopsies, am using Tramadol, Codeine, anti-histamines, Ibuprofen, Strepsils, Taking VitD, Iodine, VitC, Zinc, Thiamine. Weight loss - Reg Wt up to 2015 was 94kg, Wt on Aug 6 was 84kg. Wt on Nov 30 was 77kg.
DATES;
Aug 4 Ali first consult. Diagnosed with neoplagia and disphagia.
Aug 10 Ali, Circulation test, Results - low Vit D, High cholesterol, XRay showed lesion & COPD
Aug 17 Dr Win repeat. Suggested Zinc oxide & bandage - didn't work.
Sep 4 Ali, change anti-bio
Sep - Oct Ali repeats
Oct 16 Ambulance, Dr Fahrina re-diagnosed Drmatomyositis, Referred for CT scan
Oct 18 CT scan,
Oct 19 Dr Win, results -cyst on kidney, lung lesion, gall stones, tumour scotum? Referred to ENT for throat biopsy. Stopped anti-bios.
Oct 20 Radiologist rang to say Win cancelled biopsy - will do at FSH
Oct 24 Sharon from FSH rang with appt at AMAC Mo
Oct 26 AMAC appt triage, will arrange ENT consult asap
Oct 30 received bill from St John's - filled out exemption
Nov 9 ENT outpatients, Dr. Kate - tried to pass off as a consult but should have been cancelled
Nov 12 Surgical biopsy, Dr Sarah, waited from 6.15am to 1.30 op. stayed overnight
Nov 14 Catherine rang to cancel Mon 16 appoint.
Nov 15 Sunday, Dr Sarah rang -will organise needle biop
Nov 16 Appoint by SMS for Wed 18 US & needle biop
Nov 16 Sandy rang to attend MDT meeting Mon 23. I received results from Qscan PET
Nov 18 USound and needle biop
Nov 19 Dr Ali finally to establish treatment for rash [now on back & chest] - got prednisolone
Nov 20 9.30 Catherine rang - go now for MRI [10.30 - 2pm]
Nov 23 9.30 MDT team meeting - no result determined but come back today for another surg biop overnight & saw Sarah dietitian & Charlotte speech therapy.
Nov 24 At home got SMS to attend MDT meet Wed Dec 2
Nov 27 Catherine rang, cancel Dec 2, attend Mon 30 for MDT prognosis
[Same Org. Basis mixture is...... Based on the poor prognosis of chondrosarcoma, we investigated effects
of a phytonutrient mixture (PB) containing quercetin, CruciferexTM, curcumin, resveratrol and green tea extract on several parameters associated with the development of this type of cancer.]
SARS-CoV-2 Is an Unrestricted Bioweapon: A Truth Revealed through Uncovering a Large-Scale, Organized Scientific Fraud
Yan, Li-Meng;
Kang, Shu;
Guan, Jie;
Hu, Shanchang
Two possibilities should be considered for the origin of
SARS-CoV-2: natural evolution or laboratory creation. In our earlier
report titled “Unusual Features of the SARS-CoV-2 Genome Suggesting
Sophisticated Laboratory Modification Rather Than Natural Evolution and
Delineation of Its Probable Synthetic Route”, we disproved the
possibility of SARS-CoV-2 arising naturally through evolution and
instead proved that SARS-CoV-2 must have been a product of laboratory
modification. Despite this and similar efforts, the laboratory creation
theory continues to be downplayed or even diminished. This is
fundamentally because the natural origin theory remains supported by
several novel coronaviruses published after the start of the outbreak.
These viruses (the RaTG13 bat coronavirus, a series of pangolin
coronaviruses, and the RmYN02 bat coronavirus) reportedly share high
sequence homology with SARS-CoV-2 and have altogether constructed a
seemingly plausible pathway for the natural evolution of SARS-CoV-2.
Here, however, we use in-depth analyses of the available data and
literature to prove that these novel animal coronaviruses do not exist
in nature and their sequences have been fabricated. In addition, we also
offer our insights on the hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 may have
originated naturally from a coronavirus that infected the Mojiang
miners.
Revelation of these virus fabrications renders the natural origin
theory unfounded. It also strengthens our earlier assertion that
SARS-CoV-2 is a product of laboratory modification, which can be created
in approximately six months using a template virus owned by a
laboratory of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). The fact that data
fabrications were used to cover up the true origin of SARS-CoV-2 further
implicates that the laboratory modification here is beyond simple
gain-of-function research.
The scale and the coordinated nature of this scientific fraud
signifies the degree of corruption in the fields of academic research
and public health. As a result of such corruption, damages have been
made both to the reputation of the scientific community and to the
well-being of the global community.
Importantly, while SARS-CoV-2 meets the criteria of a bioweapon
specified by the PLA, its impact is well beyond what is conceived for a
typical bioweapon. In addition, records indicate that the unleashing of
this weaponized pathogen should have been intentional rather than
accidental. We therefore define SARS-CoV-2 as an Unrestricted Bioweapon and the current pandemic a result of Unrestricted Biowarfare.
We further suggest that investigations should be carried out on the
suspected government and individuals and the responsible ones be held
accountable for this brutal attack on the global community.
[The 33 page Report is available by clicking link[s] below, or on the source url at the top]
Opinions about the Covid pandemic vary greatly. This post relates to the line of thought that the Covid-19 virus does not exist. Among those claiming this is Jon Rappoport who has scores of blog posts on his web site. This, below, is merely his latest, and I post it since it is not merely supposition but refers to the CDC official site itself. First, there is a video on what Jon has picked up [click on the facebook link shown]. Second, there is Jon's own post.
ANOTHER key architect of the COVID PCR test had no coronavirus; the whole fake COVID house is falling down.
“We know exactly what we’re doing, but we have no virus available.”
by Jon Rappoport
October 13, 2020
I’ve been exposing the fact that the CDC, in July of this year, admitted, in a document, that…
They didn’t have the SARS-CoV-2 virus. It wasn’t “available.”
This means they couldn’t obtain an isolated specimen of the virus. There is only one reason why.
The virus hasn’t been isolated. And THAT means no one has proved it exists.
And now, I’ve discovered ANOTHER key document. This one apparently
formed the basis for the first PCR test aimed at detecting the COVID
virus all over the world.
READ WHAT THIS STUDY SAYS. These quotes should be engraved in stone
above the entrance to a museum dedicated to the history of medical
fraud.
“We aimed to develop and deploy robust diagnostic methodology for use
in public health laboratory settings without having virus material
available.”
TRANSLATION: We want to develop a test to detect the new COVID virus without having the virus.
“Here we present a validated diagnostic workflow for 2019-nCoV, its
design relying on close genetic relatedness of 2019-nCoV with SARS
coronavirus, making use of synthetic nucleic acid technology.”
TRANSLATION: We HAVE developed a diagnostic test to detect the new
COVID virus. We ASSUME this new virus is closely related to an older
coronavirus. We ASSUME we know HOW it is related. We ASSUME, because
we don’t have the new COVID virus. Therefore, all our assumptions are
made out of nothing. Actually, we have no proof there is a new
coronavirus.
“The workflow reliably detects 2019-nCoV, and further discriminates 2019-nCoV from SARS-CoV.”
TRANSLATION: Our new test to detect the new virus? We don’t have the
new virus. We’ve never observed it. We can’t study it directly.
There is no proof it exists. But we will use the test to detect it.
Those quotes from the study are astounding. A diagnostic test for
the virus, but there is no virus. No standard against which to compare
the reliability of the test.
The authors blithely assume they can somehow infer that the virus
exists in the first place, without having an isolated specimen.
Then they assume they can understand the structure of the virus that isn’t there.
The virus isn’t there. It has NOT been isolated. It has NOT been
separated out from other material. Therefore, it has not been observed
and its existence has not been proved.
And yet, the test which these authors have developed is launched, all
over the world, to detect that virus; to promote the unproven notion
that there is a pandemic; to form the basis for counting COVID case
numbers; and ultimately to justify all the lockdowns which have crashed
the global economy and destroyed millions upon millions of lives.
A great deal of confusion has been created, because scientists are
now talking about the “new virus” as if they understand its structure
and sequence. No. They’ve INTERPRETED that genetic structure. And
once they’ve made their interpretations, they gibber about what it
means.
It’s like this. A man has a very thick steel vault. He clams there
is a pile of treasure inside. But no one can open the door to the
vault. People show up with all sorts of fancy instruments, and they
make indirect measurements. They then issue very authoritative-sounding
statements about what is inside the vault.
But no one can get in there. This is a magic vault, you see. You
can’t drill into it. You can’t blow it up. But in its vicinity, all
sorts of hustlers are gathered. And they PONTIFICATE. They BLOVIATE.
They wave their credentials. Reporters interview them. Governments
follow their recommendations.
And that’s all it is. It’s that kind of party.
There is also confusion about what the word “isolate” means, when it
comes to viruses. SAYING you have isolated a virus doesn’t mean you
have.
It may mean you THINK you have the virus inside a mess of material
which contains many different genetic sequences and all manner of
cellular debris and who knows what.
Some scientists will claim “a lesser amount of mess” entitles them to state they’ve “isolated” the virus.
Other scientists will claim that because they can grow, in a dish,
what they BELIEVE to be the virus, this is “proof” that the virus
exists.
They’re wrong.
Still other scientists will say that, in a dish in a lab, they “have
the virus growing”, and they know it, because the virus is destroying
certain cells in the soup in the dish. But in this soup, there are
various added chemicals, and those chemicals could easily be doing the
cell-killing.
So they are wrong, too.
As the late independent researcher David Crowe has written: “And the
word ‘isolation’ has been so debased by virologists it means nothing
(e.g. adding impure materials to a cell culture and seeing cell death is
[as] ‘isolation’).”
This is why something called real-world experiments were introduced
into science. Experiments that were forced out of the lab into the
arena where actual humans live.
In my last article,
I described exactly the kind of experiment that should have been
initiated five minutes after scientists claimed there was an “outbreak
in China.” It’s a large scale study involving humans who were diagnosed
with the “epidemic illness.” Tissue samples would be taken from 500 of
these patients and correctly analyzed via electron microscope
photography.
But studies of that dimension and precision don’t interest scientists
who live in the lab. Such studies are too dangerous. There is every
chance that, in the harsh glare of sunlight, all their warnings about a
vast pandemic will be shown to be false. False and ridiculous. Absurd.
And insane.
These “experts” don’t want to take that chance.
So they fiddle and diddle in their labs, and they make wild claims based on nothing, on NO VIRUS.
For them, there is no such thing as NO VIRUS. There must always be a
virus. They will build strings of thought that circle around and meet
up and shake hands and justify themselves, BY DEFINITION.
When all is said and done, that is what they are playing at. “We
make all the definitions, and therefore we can conclude anything we want
to conclude. And call it science.”
That’s what’s going on.
I see the con and I’m pointing out the con.
I’m telling scientists who are honest to call it a con, too.
Empty out the house of modern virology; open the windows and let the
fresh air in; and then we’ll be living in a far better world.
And, oh yes, prosecute these researchers who devised a test for the
virus they never found. Prosecute them for crimes against humanity, and
send them to prison.
"They Are Trying to Establish a 'Neo-Church'" -- New Interview of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò
In a new interview, Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano criticizes the fact that a connubium of modernists and Freemasonry wants to create a "neo-church".
(Rome) Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano has been one of the most internationally renowned Church representatives since his sharp criticism of Pope Francis in the McCarrick case.In an interview published yesterday, he spoke about the attempt to replace the Church of Jesus Christ with a "neo-church" and about the Third Mystery of Fatima.
Cardinal McCarrick had risen to become the most influential cardinal in the United States under Pope Francis. Although in June 2013, in his capacity as Apostolic Nuncio to the United States, Archbishop Vigano had informed the Pope in detail about Cardinal McCarrick's homosexual double life and his corruption of priests and seminarians, Francis remained inactive.
It wasn't until the New York Times published McCarrick's legacy in July 2018 that Francis stripped him of cardinalship. But when the head of the church declared that he knew nothing of all that he had otherwise acted earlier, it was too much for Archbishop Vigano. He accused Francis of in fact covering up McCarrick's machinations for more than five years and making him his adviser. The archbishop accused Francis not only of cover-up and omission, but also of lying, and called on him to resign. Francis declined to comment.
Archbishop Vigano, on the other hand, has been living in secret "for fear of retribution" ever since and only goes public in writing. An exception was the Acies ordinataagainst the "Synodal Way" of the German Episcopal Conference, which took place in Munich last January. Archbishop Vigano surprisingly mingled with the participants.
Yesterday he gave an interview to the Portuguese newspaper Dies Iraein which he also commented on the Third Secret of Fatima.
DIes Irae: Excellency, thank you for giving us this interview. We are in the midst of the COVID-19 epidemic that has affected the lives of millions of people in recent months and has even caused the deaths of many of them. In view of this situation, the Church, through the Episcopal Conferences, has decided to close virtually all churches and to deprive the faithful of access to the sacraments. On March 27, In front of an empty St. Peter's Square, Pope Francis led a hypothetical prayer for humanity in an apparently media-friendly manner. There have been many reactions to the way in which the Pope carried out this moment, one of which tried to link the lonely presence of Francis with the message of Fatima, that is, with the Third Mystery. Do you agree?
Archbishop Vigano: First of all, allow me to say that it is a pleasure for me to give this interview to the faithful of Portugal, to whom the Blessed Virgin has promised to keep it in the Faith even in these times of great trial. You are a people with great responsibility, because you may soon have to preserve the holy fire of religion, while other nations refuse to recognize Christ as their king and the blessed Mary as their queen.
The third part of the message, which Our Lady entrusted to the shepherd children of Fatima so that they may deliver it to the Holy Father, is still secret. Our Lady asked for it to be revealed in 1960, but John XXIII issued a press release on 8 February of that year declaring that the Church "does not want to assume the responsibility of guaranteeing the truthfulness of the words which the shepherd children say the Virgin Mary addressed to them." With this distancing from the message of the Queen of Heaven, a cover-up operation began, apparently because the content of the message would have revealed the terrible conspiracy against the Church of Christ by its enemies. Until a few decades ago, it would have seemed unthinkable that one would go so far as to silence even Our Lady. In recent years, however, we have even experienced attempts to censor the Gospel, the word of her divine Son.
In 2000, during the pontificate of John Paul II, the Secretary of State, Cardinal Sodano [1990–2006], presented his own version as the Third Secret, which, due to some elements, clearly seemed incomplete. It is not surprising that the new Secretary of State, Cardinal Bertone [2006–2013], tried to draw attention to an event from the past, only to make the people of God believe that the words of the Virgin had nothing to do with the Church crisis and with the interaction of modernists and Freemasonry behind the scenes of the Second Vatican Council. Antonio Socci, who has carefully examined the Third Secret, exposed this deliberate behaviour of Cardinal Bertone. At the same time, it was Bertone himself who strongly discredited and censored the tears of Tears of Our Lady of Civitavecchia, whose message perfectly matches what she had said in Fatima.
Let us not forget the unnoticed appeal of Our Lady to the Pope encouraging all bishops to consecrate Russia to her Immaculate Heart in order to defeat Communism and atheist materialism: not to consecrate "the world, not that nation that you want us to consecrate to you ", but "Russia". Did it cost too much to do that?
Today, with a President of the Russian Federation who is certainly a Christian, this request of the Virgin could be fulfilled in order to avert further catastrophes for the Church and the world.
Benedict XVI also confirmed the topicality of the message of the Virgin Mary, although according to the interpretation spread by the Vatican, it is to be regarded as complete. Those who have read the Third Secret said in all clarity that it concerns the apostasy of the Church, which began at the very beginning of the 1960s and has now reached such an obvious stage that it is recognized even by inexperienced observers. This almost compulsive insistence on issues that the Church has always condemned, such as relativism and religious indifferentism, false ecumenism, Malthusian ecology, homoheresy and mass immigration, has found in the Abu Dhabi Declarationthe fulfilment of a plan conceived by secret sects for more than two centuries.
DIes Irae: In the middle of Holy Week and after the Synod of Amazons, the Pope decided to set up a commission to discuss and study the women's diaconate in the Catholic Church. Do you think that this has the purpose of paving the way for the clericalization of women, or, in other words, an attempt to manipulate the priesthood that our Lord Jesus Christ instituted on Holy Thursday?
Archbishop Vigano: The Sacrament of Holy Orders can and will never be changed in its nature. The attack on the priesthood has always been at the heart of the actions of the heretics and their inspirer, and it is understandable that attacking the priesthood means destroying Holy Mass and the Most holy Eucharist, as well as the entire sacramental structure. Among the conspiratorial enemies of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, there was, of course, no shortage of modernists who, since the 19th century, have theorized a Church without priests or with priests and priestesses. These delusions, anticipated by some representatives of modernism in France, subtly resurfaced at the Second Vatican Council in an attempt to imply a certain equivalence between the official priesthood resulting from the Sacrament of Holy Orders and the general priesthood of the faithful emerging from baptism. It is significant that it is precisely through the play with this deliberate misunderstanding, the reformed liturgy [Novus Ordo] is also affected by the doctrinal error of Lumen gentium, going so far as to reduce the consecration to mere presiding in a meeting of [general] priests. The priest is in reality an old Christ, not because the people appoint him, but through the ontological alignment with the high priest Jesus Christ, whom he has to imitate in the holiness of life and in the absolute devotion, which is also represented by celibacy.
The next step therefore had to be necessarily followed, if not by the extinguishing of the priesthood, then at least by making it ineffective by extending it to women who cannot be consecrated. It is precisely what has happened in the Protestant and Anglican sects, which today are also experiencing the embarrassing situation of having lesbian bishops in the so-called Church of England. It is obvious that the ecumenical "pretext" – that is, the approach to deviating communities, even by accepting the latest errors – is based on Satan's hatred of the priesthood and would inevitably ruin the Church of Christ. At the same time, ecclesiastical celibacy is also the target of the same attacks, because it belongs unmistakably to the Catholic Church and is a valuable protection for the priesthood, which tradition it has kept vigorously throughout the centuries.
The attempt to introduce a form of consecrated women's ministry in the Church, despite the repeated declarations of the Magisterium, is not new. John Paul II, too, clearly defined, with all the canonical requirements of an infallible ex-Cathedra declaration, that it is absolutely impossible to question the doctrine on this subject. But just as one has put one's hand on the Catechism to declare the death penalty "not in conformity with the Gospel", which is unprecedented and heretical, so today one tries ex novo to invent some form of female diaconate – propaedeutic, of course, for the future introduction of the women's priesthood.
The first Commission set up by Bergoglio years ago issued a negative opinion and confirmed what could not even have been discussed. Because a commission was unwilling to obey Francis' wishes, this does not mean that another commission whose members he chooses could not be more "docile" and more willing to destroy another pillar of the Catholic faith. I have no doubt that Bergoglio has convincing methods and that he can put pressure on the Theological Commission. But I am equally sure that in the unfortunate event that this consultative body should give a favourable opinion, it will not necessarily need an official statement by the Pope to see the introduction of deaconesses in the dioceses of Germany or Holland – while Rome is silent on this. This method is well known and makes it possible, on the one hand, to attack the priesthood and, on the other hand, to provide a pleasant alibi for those within the ecclesial structures who thus claim at all times that "the Pope has not allowed anything new". This is exactly what they have done by authorizing the Episcopal Conferences to allow autonomous hand-Communion, which was enacted by abuse and has now become a worldwide practice.
We should remember that this approach to the dogmas of the Church confirms an undeniable fact: Bergoglio has adopted the so-called situation theology, whose loci theologici, theological places, random facts or themes are: the world, nature, the feminine, young people... This is a theology which does not focus on the immutable and eternal truth of God, but on the contrary starts from observing the imperative urgency of phenomena in order to give answers that correspond to the expectations of today's world.
Dies Irae: According to renowned historians, the Second Vatican Council was a break between the Church and tradition. Hence the appearance of ways of thinking, which they want to transform into a mere humanitarian association that embraces the world and embraces its globalist utopia. How do you see this serious problem?
Archbishop Vigano: A church that presents itself as new in contrast to the Church of Christ is simply not the Church of Christ! The Mosaic religion, that is, the "Church of the Old Law", which was wanted by God to lead His people to the coming of the Messiah, has found its fulfillment and completion in the New Covenant and was finally revoked on Calvary by the sacrifice of Christ. From his open side came the New and Eternal Covenant, which replaced the synagogue. It seems that the post-Conciliar, modernist and Freemason Church also aims to transform, overcome, and replace the Church of Christ with a "neo-church", a disfigured and monstrous creature that does not come from God.
The purpose of this neo-church is not to get the chosen people to recognize the Messiah, just as it is not the purpose for the synagogue to convert and save all peoples from the second coming of Christ, which is the purpose of the Catholic Church. Its purpose is rather to constitute itself as the spiritual arm of the New World Order and to promote the One World Religion. In this sense, the Council Revolution first had to destroy the heritage of the Church, its thousand-year-old tradition from which it drew its vitality and authority as the mystical body of Christ. Then it was a matter of getting rid of the representative of the old hierarchy, and only recently she began to show herself to be what she wants to be, without pretense or camouflage.
What you call utopia is in fact a dystopia, because it represents the concreteization of the plan of Freemasonry and prepares the appearance of the Antichrist.
I am also convinced that the majority of my confreres, and especially almost all priests and believers, are not fully aware of this hellish plan, and that recent events have opened the eyes of many. Their faith will enable our Lord to gather the pusillus grex, the small flock, before the final confrontation around the true shepherd.
Dies Irae: In order to restore the ancient splendour of the Church, it will be necessary to question many aspects of the Council's teaching. What points of the Second Vatican Council would you question?
Archbishop Vigano: I believe that there is no shortage of important personalities who have already expressed the critical points of the Council better than I have. There are those who believe that it would be less complicated and certainly wiser to follow the practice of the Church and the Popes as it was used in the Synod of Pistoia. It also contained good things, but the errors it claimed were considered sufficient to make them forgotten.
This Irae: Is the current pontificate the culmination of a process that begins with the Second Vatican Council and was longed for in the so-called "Catacomb Pact", or is it still an intermediate phase?
Archbishop Vigano: As with any revolution, the heroes of the first hour often fall victim to their own system, as was the case with Robespierre. Those who were regarded yesterday as the flag bearers of the Council Spirit now appear almost as conservatives: the examples of this are visible before all eyes. There are already those who, in the intellectual circles of progressivism (such as those frequented by a haughty Massimo Faggioli), begin to dispel doubts here and there about Bergoglio's real abilities, to make "courageous decisions" – for example, to abolish celibacy, to allow women to the priesthood, or to legitimize the Communicatio in sacris with heretics – almost as if he were hoping that he would step down in order to elect a pope who was even more obedient to the elites who had their most unscrupulous and determined followers in the Catacomb Pact and in the Mafia of St. Gallen.
This Irae: Our Excellency, we Catholics today often feel isolated from the Church and almost abandoned by our shepherds. What can you say to the hierarchs and believers who, despite the confusion and error that are spreading in the Church, are trying to persevere in this tough struggle to maintain the integrity of our faith?
Archbishop Vigano: My words would certainly be inadequate. I confine myself to repeating the words of our Lord, the eternal word of the Father: "Be sure, I am with you all the days until the end of the world." Of course, we feel isolated: but did the Apostles not feel that way, and all Christians? Didn't even Our Lord feel abandoned in Gethsemane? These are times of trial, perhaps of the last trial: we must drink the bitter cup, and even if it is human emanating from the Lord to let him pass by us, we must repeat with confidence: "But not as I will, but as you will" and remember His words of consolation: "In the world you are in affliction; but have courage: I have conquered the world."
After trial, however hard and painful it may be, the eternal reward will be prepared for us that no one can take away from us. The Church will once again radiate the glory of her Lord after this terrible and long-lasting Easter triduum.
Although prayer is undoubtedly indispensable, we must not relent on fighting the good struggle, but should make everyone witnesses of a courageous spirit of struggle under the banner of the Cross of Christ. Let us not allow the finger to be pointed at us, as the maid did in the court of the high priest with Saint Peter: "You also were one of his disciples," and then he denied Christ. Let us not be intimidated! Let us not allow the gag of tolerance to be applied to those who wish to proclaim the truth! Let us ask the Blessed Virgin and Our Lady Mary that our tongue can courageously proclaim the kingdom of God and Hs righteousness. May the miracle of Lapa be renewed, where the blessed Mary gave back the voice to little Joana, who was born dumb. May she also give us a voice, her children, who have remained silent for too long.
Our Lady of Fatima, Queen of Victories, ora pro nobis.
Introduction/translation: Giuseppe Nardi Picture: Corrispondenza Romana
