CathInfo.com

An interesting thought:

We routinely say that wearing a mask is not a sin.  But if doing so is actually a religious vestment and an active (however reluctant) participation in the State Satanic NWO religion, as +Vigano suggests, then I’m wondering if and whether a moral issue arises for doing so.

I did not get the impression +Vigano was merely making an analogy, but perhaps I’m mistaken?

Shouldn't he be telling people things more along the lines of, "You people of the world are all on the road to tell and you will be tormented forever after your death if you don't repent of your sins and embrace the Catholic religion as it was taught and practiced before the 1960s"? And then tell people what those teachings are in particular?

Instead of commenting on the words of a TV news anchor, American politicians, people in Davos, environmentalism, and similar things. People need the gospel, not politics.

Well said. 

In other, totally unrelated news...

I see Louie has his head up his arse again:


St. Robert Bellarmine:
"It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."  De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29

Suarez:
Now, in the state of necessity, divine natural and positive law imposes a duty of charity under pain of mortal sin upon whoever is able to provide help, and in the state of spiritual necessity it imposes this duty above all on bishops and upon priests (as well as on the pope). The pope, as like any other superior, does not have the power to oppose this duty.  ("deest potestas in legislatore ad obligandum" De Legibus, L. VI, cap. VII, n.ll).

St. Thomas Aquinas:
"the state of necessity carries its own dispensation with it because necessity is not subject to law" (SI; I-II, Q.96, A.6)

Several authorities:
This is not, in fact, the case of authority not being bound to oblige because" summum ius summa iniuria," or one which issues an inopportune command lacking in prudence, but which nevertheless people could be bound to obey all the same in view of the common good. This is, on the other hand, the case of authority that cannot oblige, because its command is opposed to a precept of divine and natural law "more grave and obliging."8 In such a case to obey the law or the legislator would be "evil and a sin" (Suarez, De Legibus, L. VI, c. VII, n.8). St. Thomas calls obedience in such a case "evil" (SI; 11-11, Q120, A.1). Cajetan refers to it as a "vice" (Cajetan in 1.2, q.96, a.6). Hence, refusal to obey becomes a duty (i.e" inoboedientia debita).9
http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm 

Naz:
"...even for the pope the principle holds that, when the application of a law "would be contrary to the common good or to natural law [and in our case even divine-positive law-Ed.]...it is not in the power of the legislator to oblige,"13
Naz, Dictionnaire Droit Canonique under “epikie.”

At least a dozen additional classical authorities are cited in this 2-part study defending the RR position (Among them Gerson, Pallazini, Tito Centi, Noldin, Leo XII, St. Alphonsus, and many others):

Part 1: http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_July/The_1988_Consecrations.htm 
Part 2: http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm